March 26, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call upon the Speaker to send a message to the Brad Gushue

team -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: - who yesterday won the World Championship in Junior

Curling. This is the first time that a world championship has ever been won by

Newfoundland. I know the feeling, most of my children curl and have come up

through the junior ranks. Some of them have actually won the Provincials and

gone to the Nationals and I know the feeling of pride that I felt then, but they

have never been fortunate enough to have accomplished this.

I know also of the work of the volunteers and I speak, in particular, of John

Wheeler who works as a volunteer with the school boy and school girl curling and

has put a lot of time and effort into it. I suggest that without the efforts of

volunteers like this the junior curlers would not have the basis that they need

to go on and reach such accomplishments.

I know also that this team - to those who watched it, it may have looked

easy, but from being involved with the Curling Club I know that at any given

time you can walk into the Curling Club and see the team of Brad Gushue, Mark

Nichols, Jamie Korab, Brent Hamilton and Mark Adam out there practicing shot

after shot, lining up all the shots -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and lining up any possible shot that could be presented

with them. So it did not come that easy. It came with a lot of very hard work.

Once again, I would like to ask the Speaker to send a message of congratulations

on behalf of all the members of the House to the Brad Gushue team; and to their

coach, Jeff Thomas, who is a constituent of mine, who works long and hard with

that team.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a special Corner Brook teenager who is using her

experience with cancer to help other teenagers fight this dreaded disease.

Heidi Randell is an eighteen-year-old who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's

lymphoma some five years ago, and this year she is Newfoundland and Labrador's

representative for Candlelighters Teens, a newly formed Canadian support group

for teens with cancer.

Through the fundraising efforts of Mentor College, a private Ontario college,

Heidi has recently travelled to a retreat in the Carribean where she took

part

in various sporting and networking activities with teens from across Canada who

are also fighting cancer. The concept behind the retreat is to give teenagers

diagnosed with cancer a chance to act as normal teenagers while interacting with

people who can relate to their struggles. She was accompanied on this trip by

Margaret Thomas, Provincial Co-ordinator of adult Candlelighters.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me, in congratulating Heidi

for her efforts in helping others and to wish her well in her plans to enroll in

University this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: She is a shining example of courage in the face of adversity

and an example to us all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, as well, to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador curling

team: Brad Gushue, Mike Adam, Brent Hamilton, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab, and

coach Jeff Thomas, on winning the 2001 World Junior Curling Championship

yesterday in Ogden, Utah.

This is indeed a great achievement for those young curlers on a personal

level and a real life example to everyone of what can be accomplished with

dedication, hard work, and probably more importantly, team work. It is also a

great tribute to their families, for I am sure, without their support and

encouragement their accomplishments would not have been possible. They have made

us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and of course, all Canada, very proud of

them as they established our country's place in world curling.

Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud to say that two of the players, Mark

Nichols and Mike Adam are from Labrador West and came up through the Carol

Curling Club. I am sure all Labrador West and, particularly members of the Carol

Curling Club, were watching very anxiously yesterday and are extremely proud of

the championship title.

I am certain our Province and our country has not heard the last of those

fine young curlers. We certainly wish them continued success in both curling and

their personal lives in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee on the opening of a new

Crime Prevention Centre in the Peninsula Mall in Marystown.

This centre, which opened Thursday, March 15, will provide residents of the

community with a wide range of crime prevention related information. The focus

of the information will be on violence and substance abuse, two main areas of

concern identified at a local crime prevention forum.

The Marystown Crime Prevention Committee, through the financial support of

the VOCM Cares foundation, will be implementing a mural project. Through the

work of Youth Services Canada participant, Sheldon Kilfoy, murals will be

painted in a number of schools to reinforce the drug and violence awareness

campaigns presently focused on by the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee. Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee, the RCMP, the

VOCM Cares Foundation and other community-minded organizations in the Marystown

area for their efforts in promoting safe homes and safe communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we will not be shy today. What a weekend for

the sport of curling. What a weekend for Newfoundland and Labrador! The Gushue

Rink is the World Men's Junior Curling Champions. Brad Gushue, Brent Hamilton,

Mike Adam, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab and coach Jeff Thomas are number one in the

world.

Could a Province and its people, or a nation for that matter. be prouder. For

remember, not only did the achievements of these outstanding athletes give this

Province one of the proudest moments in its history; they have brought home a

world championship to Canada, and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The skill in the sport of curling at their level of competition is

unparalleled. Imagine the degree of determination, the incredibly long hours of

practice to reach a goal that has brought them to this level of athletic

excellence. All the while they have remained successful in striking the fine

balance between athleticism and their responsibilities to high school and

university studies. These are commitments whose scope is difficult for many of

us to comprehend, but there is another part of this remarkable story that

extends beyond the bounds of a curling rink.

Through the arduous journey of competition to get to the World Championship,

Brad, Brent, Mike, Mark and Jamie have presented themselves in a manner of

professionalism and maturity that can only be measured beyond their years. We

could not ask for more suitable ambassadors for our Province to the world.

The members of this championship rink are also members of families; so, to

their families, we extend heartfelt congratulations. We thank them and applaud

them for their dedication and the many sacrifices they have made in support of

their sons' talents and goals. We share in your pride.

To the coach of the winning team, Jeff Thomas, you have the thanks of a proud

Province for your superb coaching and the guidance you have given to this team.

Mr. Speaker, the Brad Gushue Championship Team will arrive home tonight at

midnight. I would encourage everyone to make an effort to greet our World Junior

Mens Curling Champions. I will be there to welcome them home, and look forward

to a celebration of their outstanding accomplishments.

As a Province, we are overjoyed by this unequaled feat of athletic

achievement. As a people, we are very proud of our sons whose performance on the

world stage was done with grace and dignity, and with such superior

sportsmanlike conduct.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people, I

extend our sincere congratulations to the Brad Gushue Rink and remind them that

we are truly proud of them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: All of Canada was cheering yesterday as the Brad Gushue Rink

from Newfoundland and Labrador earned the distinction of becoming the top Junior

Men's Curling team in the world. The game in which they beat Denmark yesterday

7-6 was a real nail biter. The cheers were heard loudest in St. John's Curling

Club, the rink at which they play. This is Newfoundland and Labrador's first

ever world championship in a team sport. I would like the Speaker to send a

message of congratulations on behalf of the members, representing the people of

this Province, to: skip, Brad Gushue; third, Mark Nichols; second, Brent

Hamilton; lead, Mike Adam; fifth, Jamie Korab; and coach, Jeff Thomas.

I would also like the opportunity to recognize the excellent performance in

international sport we have seen from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in recent

with his performance with the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors, a

performance good enough to carry the team into this year's NCAA tournament.

We are also impressed with the performance of diver Adam Morgan of Portugal

Cove, who is now a student at Texas A&M University, who placed fifteenth in

the NCAA Men's Swimming and Diving Championships this weekend in College

Station, Texas.

Our athletes are indeed world class and I trust the government, both

provincially and federally, will invest in the appropriate programs and

infrastructure so that our young people can fulfil this potential -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: - so they indeed can be the best in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed my pleasure to join with the minister and the Member for St.

Barbe in congratulating the Brad Gushue Rink on their tremendous success in the

World Men's Junior Curling Championship. When I heard on Saturday, a quote

from Brad Gushue who talked about the level of confidence that he had, how they

really played well in the clutch and expected that they would win, I sort of had

this feeling that, here is a young man with a lot of confidence in himself and

in his team. Sure enough, they proved that the confidence they had in themselves

was well deserved. It is yet another example of the degree of excellence, of

sportsmanship, of ability, of drive, that we have in young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We have it in this sport, we have it in many other sports, and I

hope that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that this government will look into the possibility of

providing the level of support for athletes who are able to compete on the world

stage and provide some sort of program for training that allows them to reach

their goals, as they surely can do, as the example of the Brad Gushue Rink has

shown - a true Newfoundland and Labrador team.

Thank you ver much, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we have all heard in the Province this morning, an issue has arisen

dealing with the possible takeover of FPI, or changes in the corporate

structure. This was an issue that was hotly debated in the Province not so long

ago, and I have some questions for the Premier regarding it today.

First of all, Premier, I would like to ask you: Have you met with John Ridley

of Clearwater Fine Foods, or other individuals, regarding the future ownership

or change in corporate structure of FPI? If you have, will you inform the House

about the nature of those talks with these proponents about the proposal they

have for Fishery Products International?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague from Twillingate is out of the

House today, and I am his second, I will attempt to answer the hon. gentleman's

question.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that the government, last week,

received a courtesy call from Mr. John Ridley to inform us that he had intended

to put people on the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International. We

thanked him for the information, and he left.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not ask the former Premier; I asked the current Premier.

I understand that you have met with him on two occasions, last week and again

yesterday, so I will ask you again: Could you inform us of: what was the nature

of those talks, what was presented, and what your response was, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting yesterday. There was a

meeting late last week, a courtesy call by Mr. John Risley, among others, to

inform the government that they indeed intended to place people on the Board of

Directors of Fishery Products International.

As I said to the hon. gentleman, they were listened to and promptly went on

their way.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: And promptly went on their way.

What we are talking about is the impact on the Newfoundland fishing industry,

on the future of the Newfoundland fishing industry, upon which many rural

communities have come to depend and survive. The Premier cannot stand on his

feet and tell us today what was the nature of those discussions. This is

unbelievable.

I will ask you another question, Premier. As you know, there are provisions

in the legislation, current legislation, that affect the corporate ownership of

FPI as well as the scope of actions of the corporations of the Board of

Directors. That is

an act that was put in place in this House in the 1980s.

Specifically, the act says that no individual or corporations can own more than

15 per cent of the shares of FPI -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- nor can shareholders act in concert to direct the affairs of the

corporation. I will ask the Premier, does the discussions that this group had

with you, or the representatives of this group have had with you: Does this

proposal conform to the legislative and regulatory regimes that, in this House,

have been enacted and are the law of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman said, in 1987 - he will

recall in 1987, I think it was 1987 when Fishery Products International

legislation was passed - there was the 15 per cent limit that was placed on the

number of shares that any one individual, any one company, or any one

corporation could own. That piece of legislation is still in place. At the

present time what we have here is not a dispute, I wouldn't say, but a

proposed, or reported, takeover by a company. Mr. Vic Young today is in the

paper saying he will oppose that and, of course, FPI will oppose it.

Let me inform the hon. gentleman of one other thing, that any attempt to

circumvent - that piece of legislation stays in place as it did in 1999 when we

were asked by both FPI and a number of other people to take off the cap, so to

speak, on the number of shares that any one company could own. That remains in

place. As far as this government is concerned will remain in place, and any

attempt to hurt Newfoundland's rural communities, as we said in 1999, will

only be allowed when those communities themselves say so. That was the decision

then, and that position still remains the position of this government. I would

say to him: at the present time what we have ongoing here is a dispute between

two companies. When the time comes to protect Newfoundland's rural communities

who depend on the fisheries resource of this Province, this government will do

what is necessary to be done. I have to say to him, that today that position

remains the same as it was in 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for those of us who were in this House during

the Hydro debates on the privatization of Hydro, it became very clear that one

of the issues at stake was that you cannot, in law, accomplish through the back

door what you are unable to accomplish through the front door. That was the

issue.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has the Department of Justice looked at, or

have you instructed the Department of Justice to look at the plan put forward by

Mr. Risley and his colleagues? Does it, in fact, meet the test, not only of the

FPI legislation, but the general principle of law that you cannot do by the back

door what was failed to do by the front door?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that Mr. Risley's plan has

not been laid out in any sort of detail as to what he intends to do. He has made

the statement -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. He already made the statement that he intends to put

people on the Board of FPI's Directors. That was the nature of the call that

he made to the Premier; the nature of the courtesy call he made to him.

Yes, if the hon. gentleman wants an answer to the question: Have we asked the

Department of Justice to see if there is a loophole in that and if you can act

in concert or do through the back door what you can't do through the front

door; if there is a weakness in the legislation? We have asked the Department of

Justice. We don't have a reply from them yet, but we have asked the Department

of Justice to give us a full briefing on just how that might be done because we

regard that as a piece of information that we might, at some point in the

future, need to have at our disposal if there is collusion, or if there is any

danger to Newfoundland's outport and rural communities.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask, I guess, the point guard for the

Premier on this case because he will not give me any straight answers; he will

not give us any answers. I will ask you then Deputy Premier, in terms of: you

have asked the Department of Justice. Does an opinion already exist? Was not an

opinion sought in 1999 when the original takeover already sought - was not an

opinion gotten then from the Department of Justice on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, we have asked the Department of

Justice to review the whole process to see if there were loopholes there. At the

time - if he would recall - in 1999, what the government was asked to do at that

point was to lift the cap. We refused to do it. We were not asked to prove there

was going to be collusion between different people on the Board of Directors, or

different companies that might be on the Board of Directors. He will also recall

- I think it was early in 2000 this year - that four companies; one from

Australia, Iceland, Nova Scotia, and one made up of a number of Newfoundland

processors in this Province, bought up to 53 per cent of the shares in FPI.

We will find out at the appropriate time, we will know at the appropriate

time, whether indeed the Department of Justice considers that there are

loopholes. At this point in time they do not believe there are but we want to

make certain that there are no loopholes, and if there are weaknesses in the

legislation we want to know that as well. In case the Newfoundland fishery

should become - and the Newfoundland communities that are dependent upon the

Newfoundland fishery should in some way be in danger by anything that might

happen in the corporate world.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: In seeking an opinion, I can only assume that another

opinion has been put forward.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier or the Premier - I will continue

asking the Premier, I guess, and he can decide whether he wants you to answer it

or if he wants to stand up himself and answer it. I understand that another

legal opinion has been put forward to government which suggests that the current

- this is what I understand, you can correct me if I am wrong. In terms of the

meetings that have taken place with government by this group, that they believe

a loophole does exist in the legislation and they intend to walk through it. If

that is the case, what assurance can you give to the people of the Province, in

particular rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that this proposal which is about to

take place will not interfere, will not jeopardize the fishery in rural

communities and in fact, will live up to and ensure that the spirit and intent

of the law - which is outlined in the legislation and its regulatory documents

associated with it - will not be infringed upon, will not be broken and will be

lived up to 100 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, I am not aware and I don't

believe that government is aware of any legal opinion that has been put forward

saying: here is where the loopholes are in the legislation. It is for that

reason that we are having our own Department of Justice officials take a look to

see if there are loopholes in the regulations and laws that are in place now.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman: we will, on this side of the House -

and I am sure on that side of the House - do as we did in 1999, see that

Newfoundland rural communities, Newfoundland regions of this Province have

access to the resources they need to ensure that their way of life is carried

out. It can't be any plainer than that to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Two final questions, Mr. Speaker. When was the Department

of Justice asked to do this? Was it last week, the week before last? So the

question is: When was the Department of Justice asked to do this? By whom were

they asked? Were they asked by the department that you were minister of? Were

they instructed or asked by the Premier's office? It is very important to

understand what the chain of command is and where the request came from.

Secondly, is there a timeline associated with the request? In other words,

have you instructed the department? You say you have, so what department was

instructed? Was it the Premier's office? Was it your department? Have you

given them a time when you want an opinion back? Thirdly, when you get that

opinion: Will you make a commitments to table it before the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that it is my

understanding that Executive Council asked the Department of Justice to provide

a legal opinion at the earliest possible moment. To be frank with him, I see no

problem in tabling that opinion in this House because it is something that

everybody in the Province should know.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Did Executive Council instruct the Department of Justice to have that opinion

ready at a certain point in time?

AN HON. MEMBER: At the earliest possible (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay. It is an important point because from what we

understand, if this rearrangement or proposal of FPI's board structure is

going to take place, it is obviously going to take place soon, so the timing of

when the department has to report back is critical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you, in terms of as soon as possible, can you

give us any ballpark figure, without holding you down to it, but can you give us

any sort of time frame? By this Friday, by next Friday? Maybe the Minister of

Justice would be better to answer the question than you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from conversations this

morning that I have had with people in the industry that May 1 is the time when

FPI's Board of Directors will meet and if there is a proposal going to be put

forward, I would think it would probably be put forward - not probably - it

would be put forward at that time. That is their annual meeting on May 1.

As I said to you, at the present time we regard this as a dispute between two

private corporations, and until such time as we see that the Newfoundland

public, Newfoundland communities, Newfoundland outports, are in danger, I think

it is incumbent upon us to let that take place. When that happens, as I said to

you before, whatever happens here, we will hack to see that Newfoundland's

rural communities are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is interesting. I was not going to ask any more, but I

do have one more based upon the response of the minister.

You said this is a corporate dispute; I understand that. The difference here

is that there is legislation governing the structure of this corporation. That

is the difference. In any other corporation, the legislation governing FPI

protects a Newfoundland interest, supposedly.

You said - and I want this clarified - you are going to allow that corporate

dispute to occur. In other words, you are not going to get involved with that,

with a legal opinion on your own, until whatever happens there happens, and

afterward you will deal with it. Is that what you have said? I need

clarification on that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. We will get our legal

opinion at the earliest possible opportunity for ourselves, and presumably for

this Legislature.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that there are two scenarios here,

obviously: that the takeover takes places, and that the Newfoundland fishery may

or may not be in danger. There is also the possibility that the takeover will

not take place, FPI's Board of Directors (inaudible). At that time the two

parties could obviously end up in court, assuming the nature of the takeover and

so on, and it may drag on for some time.

We will hack, at the appropriate time, whenever it is necessary, to see that

Newfoundland's rural communities are - I think that is the key point, that

Newfoundland, as we did in 1999, as legislation did in1987, we will act to see

that Newfoundland and Labrador's rural communities are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The government has

addressed revenue crunch this year though increased borrowing, but that

borrowing is not transparent. The government says the deficit is only about

$30.5 million. What you do not acknowledge is the fact that you are taking $184

million from the Sinking Fund surplus that is needed to retire debt. In other

words, this year's actual deficit is in excess of $200 million. Won't the

minister admit that this Budget provides a distorted picture of our true

deficit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Budget that we prepare is based on the cash we need and the borrowings we

need each year to run our programs and services. We have never said anything

other than that. It is there is the House of Assembly in December, when our

Public Account Committee will receive the audit statements. They know what our

unfunded liabilities are. They know exactly what our situation is. We have not

deviated; we have not hidden it. In fact, we have written it right in the Budget

Speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we know what the Auditor General said: that a $34

million deficit is a $221 million deficit. We are well aware of what the Auditor

General has said.

I want to ask the minister, with reference to our GDP growth, for the past

three years we have led the country. This past year, 5.2 per cent was our GDP

growth. Next year it is projected to be 2 per cent. That is a decrease of 64 per

cent. I ask the minister why she is projecting increases in revenue from many

areas - consumption taxes to a great extent, in tobacco tax, gasoline tax,

corporate income tax, sales tax, even lotteries - when the economy is not

supposed to perform as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,.

I know it is unfortunate for the member opposite, but plus 2 per cent means a

growth of 2 per cent. We are very pleased that the GDP is still supposed to grow

by 2 per cent. We are predicting a strong provincial economy and, unlike the

member opposite, I am not prepared to fear monger and get people to put their

money back into their pockets and not spend. No, the growth is 2 per cent over

and above what we have all seen over the last five years. Mr. Speaker, I know it

is bad news but it has been doing fairly well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I caution the minister not to wear out that word fear monger. She did it in

health; let's not do it in finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister one final question. In 2001-2002,

our Province is budgeted to receive $76 million from Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. I wanted to ask the minister: Will Hydro be going to the Public Utilities

Board this year for an increase in their rates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The revenue that we are receiving from Hydro will not lead to a rate increase

through the Public Utilities Board. If they go to the Public Utilities Board, it

will be for their operation to address fuel cost increases like we all have had

to address, and other related issues.

Our position, as a government here, is that while our Budget may be for one

year, we have to always look beyond one year and try to make sure that we have

enough revenue to avoid the peaks and valleys, and anybody can look on page 4 of

the Budget Speech to see where we have come from. We have borrowed reasonably.

We have no reason and no intention of destabilizing Hydro. We know that they may

need to use that equity they have to borrow. Our recommendation and our revenues

for related revenues are prudent. We have done it in the past, and we will

continue to do it to try to maintain a sound, fiscal, prudent plan for our

Province into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Commentaries in the

public press and indeed some of the written comments in the Budget Speech show

contempt for the collective bargaining processes for workers in the public

sector. I ask the minister why she and her government has taken such a

dictatorial and arrogant take-it-or-leave-it approach to the bargaining with

those public servants who have been treated so poorly and often so disdainfully

by all Liberal Administrations starting in 1989?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government has made it very clear that

they would very much like to give four times the offer that is being requested,

if that was the case; but what we are trying to do is, we are trying to maintain

a sound, fiscal, prudent plan for our Province and one that we do not have to

renege upon. We do not want to go back to the 1990s, when we all know what

happened with the cod moratorium, when we all know what happened in our economy.

While we might think in isolation - at least some of us might want to think in

isolation - we have to think in terms of what is happening in our country and in

the U.S. markets, our major export partners, and we have to be able to focus on

what we are able to afford.

We are in the process of negotiating as we speak. All the teams are down

there. Nobody wants to pre-empt anything, but you have to be able to work with

the money you have and work with the ability you have to achieve a collective

agreement, and we will do our best. We really appreciate the work of the public

sector employees and we want to give them a fair and reasonable wage increase.

We will try our best to deal with all of the other outstanding issues that have

arisen at the table over the last number of days, particularly as we get down to

the deadlines ahead of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Does the minister not realize, and does her government not realize, that

bargaining in the media by announcing what the bottom line is over a three-year

period has the effect of encouraging the members of the bargaining unit to

really vote for a strike action. Madam Minister, your bargaining strategy must

have been thought up somewhere different than what I would have thought would be

the possible actions you have taken. Why did you adopt that strategy which had

the effect of really encouraging NAPE members to vote for strike action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to go out and pretend that

you could do a whole lot of things that you are not able to sustain. One of the

commitments we have made, and one of the things we have looked back over, is not

wanting to go back to where we have come from in the 1990s, not being able to

pay what we would want to pay. Many of us lived through that and it has been

very difficult.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the whole Province has been a part of that

process and we all know what we have come through.

Identifying the money available, in our perspective, was not a matter of

doing anything other than letting people know what we had available to us. There

was certainly an interest that people know the kinds of money we had available

to spend with collective bargaining, and that is what we intended to do with

that allocation.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is to speak about the issues that concern a lot of parents.

Many parents of special needs children in this Province are very anxious about

the safety of their children if student assistants go on strike. The NLTA has

told their members not to do the work of the student assistants. What action has

the minister, or the Minister of Education, taken on behalf of government to

guarantee the safety of these special needs children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about all of the public

sector services that are offered by our employees. Regardless, if they work in

the schools, hospitals, or clearing our roads, we will make every effort over

the next number of days to do our best within our means to achieve a collective

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that is the mission. That is where we are trying to go, and we

will do that at the table as best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Many people in this Province will be

disturbed that the Premier would not rise in his place today and answer

questions about what the Deputy Premier has called a takeover by a company of

one of the most important fishing enterprises in this Province. The former

Premier, Mr. Tobin, as well as his previous Minister of Fisheries, never

hesitated to deal with the NEOS issue in this House. Is it because this

government will not act, prior to May 1, to prevent this takeover, or is it

because he has already given his tacit approval to the takeover, as long as it

is done within the existing legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an issue of considerable importance in Newfoundland and Labrador, as

everyone would recognize. The difficulty is that we have some politicians now in

the Legislature today who are trying to raise an issue well beyond where it has

been raised in the Province.

The fact of the matter is this: Last week, I was visited by Mr. Risley as a

courtesy call to indicate to myself and the Minister of Fisheries that he, with

a group of Newfoundland and Labrador based business people, all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians operating businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, were

planning on trying to take an action at the next annual meeting of Fishery

Products International to have - because one of the things that happens at the

annual meeting is that the Board of Directors for the corporation gets

appointed. They intend to try to have a slate of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians appointed to the Board. That is the only thing they told us. That

is all they did, come as a courtesy to suggest that they are going to try at

that meeting to have a group of Newfoundland and Labrador business people

appointed to the Board of Directors of FPI, and that is the extent of what they

told us at the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, why does the Deputy Premier

call it a takeover by a company? Why does the current CEO call it an attempt to

do indirectly what they could not do directly under the existing legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier spoke about the best interests of the

communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Will this Premier confirm that the

same conditions of the previous government - that it required the approval of

the communities, approval of the employees in those communities, before such a

takeover would be permitted - will those same conditions apply to the takeover,

or the attempted takeover, of the Board of Directors and management of FPI by

this group and its supporters from Iceland and New Zealand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me state again for further clarity that the only information that the

government has is that a particular group, led by Mr. Risley, is going to try to

have a group of individual Newfoundland and Labrador business people voted in as

the shareholders of FPI at their annual meeting. That is all they came to the

government and indicated that they are going to try to do.

The issues that are raised in terms of a possible takeover, collusion and so

on, are issues that I have discussed not with Mr. Risley but with Mr. Vic Young,

who has also been in contact with me, not on one occasion but on several

occasions. I have talked to Mr. Risley once. I have talked to Mr. Young on

several occasions. Mr. Young was in the media today suggesting that this is a

possible takeover and that they are going to resist it; that the current

shareholders of FPI are going to try to make sure that the current board stays

in place. There is another group of shareholders who are going to try to make

sure that a different board goes in place.

In a month's time or so, at their annual meeting, I guess someone will find

out who the Board of Directors are. There is absolutely no request, no

suggestion, no request for action before the government and no suggestion that

we have to take any action; but, because Mr. Young has indicated to us that he

thinks a different Board of Directors might act together in violation of the

spirit and intent of the act, we are having it checked out just in case there

might be some truth to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

Notices of Motion

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can we revert to Presenting Reports by Standing

and Special Committees?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister is asking for leave to revert to

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Public Tender Act, I

table the exemptions to the Public Tender Act for December, January and

February.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, with concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do move that Mr. Wayne Green be appointed as Chief

Electoral Officer under

section 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 and that the

appointment date be effective April 1, 2001.

I further move that Mr. Wayne Green be appointed as the Commissioner of

Members' Interests under

section 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act, effective

also April 1, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, in making these motions, I wish to inform the House that this

proposed appointment has been made, as I indicated, by agreement of all parties.

Mr. Green will replace Mr. Robert Jenkins, who is retiring from the public

service in just another few days. If I could, with leave, I would like to say a

few words with respect to Mr. Jenkins' retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this Legislature certainly knows Bob

Jenkins, as we all know him. I would like to thank, on our behalf, Mr. Jenkins

for his service to this House of Assembly, to the people of the Province, and

more generally for his contribution to the public service over many long,

dedicated, committed years.

Mr. Jenkins has had a very distinguished career, having served as a former

Clerk of the Executive Council and in several senior positions as deputy

minister prior to his appointment as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner

for Members' Interests. He has approached every single one of these positions

with great diligence and performed them extremely well. I am sure that all

Members of this House of Assembly join with me in wishing him well in his future

endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just briefly mention that Mr. Green, who will assume

these duties beginning April 1, has a notable career already in the senior

public service, spanning some twenty-five years. He has served as Assistant

Secretary to Cabinet for Social Policy. He has served as Deputy Minister of

Education and as Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

We look forward to having Mr. Green serve this Legislature and the people of

the Province in his new duties as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of

Members' Interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few moments to talk about Robert Jenkins. There is no

question of the distinguished career that he has had. He came to this place, to

the public service, under Smallwood, and served Premiers Moores, Peckford,

Wells, Tobin, Tulk, Rideout, and now Grimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little bit of everything.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question.

With all respect, I think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to send our

heartfelt congratulations on his career and best wishes for whatever endeavors

he has.

With respect to the appointment of Mr. Wayne Green, certainly he, himself,

has served this Province very well. We look forward, on this side of the House,

to working with him in his arm's length, unbiased capacity as Chief Electoral

Officer and as Commissioner of Members' Interests. We wish him well and we

also wish him to look at the position that he will now be occupying April 1 to

seek, probably, the advice of Mr. Jenkins who, in my view, did a very

commendable and admirable job on behalf of the people of the Province and on

behalf of the members in this Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me put on the record my concurrence with the appointment of

Mr. Wayne Green as the Commissioner for Members' Interests for this House, and

Chief Electoral Officer as well. These are two very important posts which report

to this House, as we expect so will the Ombudsman and the Child Advocate in the

future. Mr. Green, as the Premier has mentioned, is a person who has the

concurrence, based on consultation with myself and the Leader of the Opposition,

so he is considered to be representative of the House and reports to it.

My first encounter with Mr Green was back in 1991 during the Constitutional

Committee of this House, chaired by Ed Roberts. Mr. Green was seconded as

researcher and officer to this committee, and performed an admirable job for all

sides of the committee, who had great interest in the constitutional duties and

issues of the day. We look forward to working with Mr. Green who, based on my

knowledge of him, is a very impartial, competent and experienced individual who

is suited for this job.

May I also say, along with the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition, that Mr. Bob Jenkins deserves the hearty commendations of this House

for his performance of his role in both of these jobs. He was always competent,

available, courteous and efficient in his job, and helpful to members of this

House in meeting their obligations under the act. I would like to join with the

previous speakers in asking the Speaker to offer our congratulations on his

retirement after many years of service to the public of Newfoundland and

Labrador in many senior capacities over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. It is the pleasure of the House

to adopt the said motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present another petition today on behalf of the residents of the Shea

Heights area, who are looking for handicap accessible housing units in the area.

The reason we are asking for the handicap accessible housing units within the

Shea Heights area is simply this: that it is a community unto itself. It is a

very close-knit community. It is a community where just about everybody in Shea

Heights knows everybody else there and it would be shameful to take somebody

from that environment and put them into a community where they are unknown and

they do not know their neighbours. They are unable to rely on the support

network of family and friends. There are quite a number of Newfoundland and

Labrador housing units in the Shea Heights area, and it is only fit and fair

that we have handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

I will read for the House the petition from the residents:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of

Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea

Heights area. We are asking that government consider the fact that people with

disabilities and their families need to be able to utilize the support of family

and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live

in units outside the community it compromises the help and support families so

vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to the

construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families

with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

It is with pleasure that I present this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to this hon. House. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of rural and various

other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's decision to layoff and transfer

Hydro employees in Newfoundland and Labrador and its future plans for layoffs

will have a severe social and economic impact on our communities;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to reverse its decision on layoffs and

transfers of Hydro employees of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because in my own district there is a generating

station between Seal Cove and Holyrood. I do know that at this particular

location we are having people bumped, we are having people laid off, and I

believe we are having people transferred. I do know that we are certainly

transferring work out. We are contracting work out. As a matter of fact, just

last year Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in Holyrood went and bought itself a

new loader which must have cost in the vicinity of $75,000. I understand now

that they have a general contractor which they pay $75 an hour to come in just

to clear snow. Now why we cannot use the machine that we paid so much money for

to clear the snow away at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's plant in Seal Cove

really leaves me wondering.

Also - and I touched on this when I spoke the other day - I have been told by

the members of the union our there that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are now

trying to sell all of its inventory to a company - which shall remain nameless -

all of its inventory which is at that plant in Seal Cove. They want to take all

of their inventory and give it to this company so that when they go for their

rate increase later on this year with the Board of Public Utilities they can

say: Look, we have sold off our inventory and we are really trying to cut down

our costs. The deal is that they are going to sell their inventory with the left

hand and on the right hand, as soon as they are granted the rate increase by the

PUB, they are going to buy all the inventory back from the same contractor at

the same price. I believe this is ridiculous.

I also heard the Minister of Mines and Energy say that he was not going to

get involved in that because this was a separate issue, that this was

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they should be operating on their own. Maybe

they should be operating on their own, but they should not be operating on their

own at the demise of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have worked for these

companies, some of them for a good number of years, who stand the possibility of

being bumped or move out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise these issues today. I

certainly present this petition and wholeheartedly support it on behalf of the

employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, not only in my own district but in

every community where they work throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I would

certainly urge the minister to get involved with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: - and tell these people they cannot do whatever they like.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of issues I want to speak about today. One

was raised in the House of Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition, the FPI

proposal or the proposal takeover of FPI. But before I get to that, one that was

mentioned by a number of members and the Minister of Tourism is on the success

of the Junior Curling Team and the congratulations that was bestowed upon them

by everybody. I was taken back when nobody in the House of Assembly mentioned

the lack of news media or the lack of reporting by our national news media,

again, by the success and I ask the question: Is it because again, it is a

Newfoundland team? I ask the question: If it was a Canadian team or some other

part of Canada would they get the recognition or would they get the support and

congratulations from all over the country? We had a team of young people here

representing Newfoundland and Labrador, who went out and took on the world with

confidence - as everybody said here today - with enthusiasm, with motivation and

with success. I am not a curling fan myself - well I should not say I am not a

curling fan, I have never played curling. I know very little about it, but when

you hear about a young group from Newfoundland going you get interested and turn

on the television. You switch all the channels, in particular the sports

channels, and not once this weekend could I find anything when it came to where

they were playing, what they were playing, what the success was, or was there

any reporting on. So, I just want to make note of that. I was taken back when

nobody mentioned it because I think that as a Province, as a government or as a

Minister of Tourism and sports we should at least send a message, or make note

of the lack of attention that this tremendous young group of athletes preformed,

not only for Newfoundland and Labrador but for Canada. It wasn't just the

people from Newfoundland and Labrador they represented, they represented the

National Team.

The other issue was the proposed takeover for FPI. I think everybody in this

Province should stop and think. This is just not a board of directors replacing

a board of directors and what the possible outcome of this could be and what it

could mean to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a

number of communities around Newfoundland and Labrador who depend on the FPI

company to provide stability and income on a seasonal basis in their

communities, but we have a little more than that. We have quotas. We have the

shellfish part of FPI, we have the groundfish part of FPI, and we have the

marketing end of FPI. Now if Mr. Risley wants to come in and take over FPI he

has a right to apply and buy up shares within the legislation that is provided

by this House of Assembly, but they have already said their legal advisors say

with the legislation that is now in place that there is a loophole. You have to

be concerned about the thinking in the justice system and the legal system, and

the ability of people to find a loophole. So we had better be prepared. That is

the secondary issue here. The actual takeover can happen. As the Leader of the

Opposition said: what they couldn't do through the front door, they could do

through the back door. That is my concern. What are the possible out falls? Is

it possible that they will continue on the same as FPI has continued on? I doubt

it very much, and I am not a fan of any particular individual when it comes to

Vic Young or somebody else on the Board of Directors of FPI. It is not the issue

here. What is the issue is the company, one of the world's largest fishing

companies, and what it means to the economy, the jobs and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Those

people who earn money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, through the fishing

industry, keep the companies going in the urban parts. So it matters to every

man, woman and child in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was Minister of Fisheries - when I had the good fortune of being

Minister of Fisheries - there was a proposal on the table. My colleague,

Minister Tulk, said today that the position of government was very clear: You

have to go out and sell it to the people living in those communities, otherwise

we would not even entertain a discussion. That is still -

MR. TULK: And, by the way, that is still (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is still there, but now we have to be concerned about a

possible loophole. That is one thing, but they are now saying that they can go

up to within the 15 per cent - 14.1 or whatever - of a number of shareholders

and take over the board of directors. Can you stop that? I do not know. I have

no legal expertise whatsoever but we better find out through the best possible

legal opinion that we have, exactly what the out fall of this is.

Let us use a couple of possible scenarios. Let's use the Icelandic Freezing

Plants Corporation -yes, let us use John Risley - Clearwater Fine Foods and let

us use the Barry Group. Let's just take three of them for an example. Maybe it

is going to be right, maybe it is not. Let us use three. There are going to be

probably more companies involved. Let us suppose that Risley, the Clearwater

group, takes the groundfish quotas. Can he keep them in Newfoundland? Will he

keep them in Newfoundland or will he use them to his own company's advantage

in another part of Canada or in Nova Scotia? Or, vise versa, if it is the Barry

Group of Companies: What will they do with the shellfish industry? The other

thing that you have to thinking about is the market. Will the Icelandic company

take the marketing company totally out clear of Newfoundland and Labrador

altogether? These are the types of things that you have to be thinking about.

What is the other thing that FPI has brought to Newfoundland? Even during the

turmoil and the chaos in the fishing industry the one thing that the fishermen

could depend on was fair treatment by the FPI company when it came to pricing,

when it came to maintaining their operations, when it came to mean a business

partnership with the company. That is the one thing that they could talk about.

When I was appointed Minister of Fisheries in 1996, one of the things that was

prevalent in the fishing industry was the cartel. Don't anybody in this

Province say that it was not there because it was. In its own form, it was

there. It is not there now to the way in which it was because of the system that

we have in place today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Well, because of the price and because of FPI. The system

that was put in place by this government in 1997 and the price negotiation

system that we have today prevents the cartel from operating in the manner in

which it operated previous to that. Is there a formula in that system now? Yes,

there is. I am not arguing that there is not a system in place. They are

manipulative in how they have taken over the fishing industry. One of the

concerns that we have today - and we have had it for a long time as a government

- is how many fishing enterprises these individual companies own, and when they

have control of the fishing enterprises then they have control of the whole

structure of how the fishing industry operates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all of it.

MR. EFFORD: All of it. It is just not good enough to say: well, we will

see what happens six weeks, six months or one year down the road. Whether Vic

Young is CEO of FPI is not the issue, or whether it is John Jones as FPI's

CEO; because Vic Young is like all of us, he is getting older and at some point

in time in the future the Board of Directors and the age and everything will

cause things to change. What we have to be concerned about and what we have to

ensure is that the fishing, the quotas, the marketing end of it, and the rights

and the privileges that are given to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stays

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the company structure

stays here! That is where we can take the greatest benefits from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Who is at the end of the table, and who sits around the

boardroom table with me or with anybody in the fishing industry is not the

issue. We have come a long way in the fishing industry over the last four or

five years and we are at the critical stage now where a turn downward could

cause a total - the word collapse is not right but it certainly could cause many

problems in the future. What we have to do, that small growth that we have in

the fishing industry, is keep that momentum going and ensure that in no manner

whatsoever will we allow something to cause anything other than a successful

growth in the fishing industry. I don't how it is going to be dealt with. I am

not in a position to have a say anymore except through my right as a member here

in the House of Assembly or my right as a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador,

but I just bring to everybody a caution of the possible seriousness of the

impact on the future of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

what this could mean. I hope I am proven wrong. I hope at the end of the day it

works out for the best interest of the industry but knowing what is happening up

in St. Anthony, knowing the Clearwater attitude towards the industry and other

things, I have great concern about the future of FPI or whoever is in around

that boardroom table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me say in reply to - not in reply to but I

suppose in concert with the Member for Port de Grave, that the position of this

government is the same as it was in 1999. I want to emphasize one point that he

brought up, and it is this: that it is a concern and it is a concern that you

had better not jump in quickly, that you had better explore every option that is

available to you. Now I have to say, at this point, that what we have is a

declaration by those people that they intend to put somebody on the board of

directors; and the word takeover is probably not the correct word. There is a

fear that there might be a takeover of FPI, but it is of concern where the

marketing arm of that company goes. It is a concern where the harvesting arm of

that company goes. It is a concern who has control over the quotas. For those

people who came to us in 1999 - and FPI was one of them. Let's not forget

where FPI stood in 1999. FPI, as I recall, in 1999 came to this government and

said: lift the cap.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh yes, they did. There was representation made to this

government to lift the cap because private enterprise wanted to be the order of

the day. It was there, and I think we opposed it at that time for the right

reasons and I think we kept it in place for the right reasons. The truth of the

matter is, that if you let private enterprise run wild in the Newfoundland

fishery you lose the social side of the fishing industry. The real truth of the

matter is, I suppose if you wanted to, you could put one fish plant in

Newfoundland and process every bit of fish there is, and, I suppose, that is the

ultimate end of private enterprise. You probably did not need either one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, that

I have made the point to people. I have not argued for it but I have made the

point to people that maybe we could catch all of it on factory freezer trawlers

and ship it directly to market. If that was our sole aim; but our aim is to keep

the kind of Newfoundland and Labrador that all of us have come to know, to help

our smaller rural communities, in as far as it is possible, to survive. That is

the danger when letting the private enterprise philosophy take over and govern

the Newfoundland fishery completely. That is the danger, that if you aim for

efficiency and effectiveness only then you have a problem with the social makeup

and demographics of this Province. That is one of the things that governments

have always said no to. That is the purpose, really, of the 15 per cent cap.

That is the purpose of saying unless the communities themselves say: yes, okay -

as we did the last time. All of us in this House said let's hear from the

communities and what they have to say. When they said no, we said no. I have no

doubt that they will say no again. Sure, it is a serious issue. It is always a

serious issue when you start to try to change the demographics and the

reorganization of this Province. It is a danger that you have to be very careful

of and you have to weigh your options very carefully. You have to look at what

is happening and keep abreast of it. I don't think, to be frank with you, that

is was very hard to figure out when in late 2000, early 2001 of this year, we

seen a number of people move to buy up shares in FPI; but that's allowed. You

are allowed to buy up to 15 per cent of the shares in FPI. If anybody in this

House has the money tomorrow and wants to go out and buy it up, they are allowed

to do it. If they want to compete in public (inaudible) they are allowed to do

it.

We have always said in this Legislature that we will protect Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that position has not changed. We will protect the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That that has not changed. You have to keep your eyes

open and be aware of it, and that is what we intend to do.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a very important issue. First of all, let me say a few comments about

it upfront. This is not about Vic Young or John Risley, or Tommy Toe, or Jane

Doe, from our perspective. The leverage, if we have any, that protects and

provides this Legislature and this Assembly with the opportunity to ensure of

what is in the best interest, on this resource front, for the people in the

Province - in particular, rural communities that are heavily dependent upon this

resource. The reason we have leverage, the reason that this is an important

issue now based upon what has come out publicly, goes back to the reason why the

legislation was enshrined in the first place. The collapse of the industry, the

reorganization of the industry in the 1980s and what came out of that

reorganization, the restrictions or cap that was put on in this Legislature, by

this Legislature, and, from what I understand, unanimously approved in this

Legislature, irrespective of political partisanship, was unanimously approved

because all of us - everybody here at the time and the debate that occurred in

1999 - understood the importance of that legislation and the leverage it gave

the government to act in the best interest of the people of the Province. I will

say: Yes, FPI has indicated, publicly, that they wanted the restriction lifted,

but not carte blanche; not carte blanche.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, they did not, minister. Let me expand upon that for a

second. They did not say carte blanche. The former minister was there to discuss

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am sure you were. Let me go through it and I will be

specific about it. Discussions with government, this is my understanding, that

took place at the time - and if I am wrong maybe the Member for Port de Grave

who was there can correct me if I am wrong because I assume he was the lead hand

on the file. The discussions took place and there were conclusions reached out

of FPI's request to remove the 15 per cent. They were that FPI acknowledged

that it would be difficult for the government to seek: general removal of FPI's

15 per cent share constraints from FPI's articles in the absence of a deal,

specific business proposal, which could be assessed as part of the process of

removing FPI's 15 per cent share with constraints. Two -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, let me finish.

Two, government acknowledged that should FPI propose a deal specific

acquisition, merger, takeover, or growth opportunity which is, on the one-hand,

in the best interest of FPI shareholders, from FPI's perspective, and in the

best interest - here is the catch, and here is where we should be thinking only

about, all of us here - of Newfoundland and Labrador from the government's

perspective.

That was the conclusion, in my understanding, that was reached between FPI,

in their request, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that requires

the removal of FPI's 15 per cent share constraint from FPI's articles. Then

and only then would the government look favorably upon a proposal from FPI. The

onus, however - and again this is my understanding - would be on FPI to convince

its shareholders - and this is what is important - employees, and the

communities in which it operates, of the wisdom of removing the 15 per cent

share constraints from FPI articles in such considerations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It might be after the fact, but the point of the matter is

simply this: that the government reached the conclusion, and I assume it is

stated here today and that has not changed, that the onus, the responsibility,

the burden of prove, whatever way you want to put it, will be on the company to

ensure that it is in the best long-term interest and viability of the people of

the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you said it about four times. I understand that, and I

am concerned not necessarily with what you said but what you did not say. That

is what I am concerned about, not with what you said but what was not said.

We have no interest in getting involved in a corporate scrap. The only

interest that we have, as legislators in this House of Assembly, is to protect

the laws, rules and regulations that have been passed and enacted in this

Legislature. We are ultimately responsible, and our paramount responsibility is

to ensure that the spirit and intent of the legislation is also enacted; that if

there are opportunities that present themselves in any given set of circumstance

- we did it on Voisey's Bay, if you will recall, the legislation that all of

us unanimously supported in 1999 where there was a loophole - I believe the

minister at the time is now the Premier - that was suggested in the legislation,

that we, government, proposed legislation to close that loophole. What did we do

on this side of the House, and what did all members do? We agreed that the

spirit and intent of a former piece of legislation needed to be amended because

there was an opportunity or a perceived opportunity, based on sound legal

opinion from the Department of Justice, that we needed to amend it to ensure

that we lived up to the spirit and intent of that piece of legislation. The same

logic applies in this case - the exact same logic applies in this case - so we

had better get our house in order on this issue quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, absolutely. This is not a time for knee-jerk reaction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not. It may be a time to reassert the will of

this Assembly. It may be a time to reassert and endorse the spirit and intent of

the legislation that now exists. That does not mean we are being panicked. It is

a time, I suggest to members opposite, for the leader of the government, which

is the Premier in this case, to stand up and be counted on what government's

view of this is. This is serious stuff. This is not amending a piece of

legislation because regulations do not work, not because that is not important.

This is serious stuff, serious business that we are up to here. Every document

or publication by government on a development strategy for rural Newfoundland

and Labrador that has been tabled in this House, the most recent one tabled by

the Minister of Development, when you look at a cornerstone or a fundamental

underpinning of developing a rural economy, it involves the fishery. That is the

reason we are here.

I appreciate the comments of the Member for Port de Grave today in terms of

what FPI has been able to do - and not necessarily just FPI - but I would think

in some part that the legislation that was passed in the early 1980s has had a

great deal to do with how that company has operated.

This is a time for us to be very clear-headed, clear in our thinking. I can

tell you now that we are not going to play partisan politics with it. We have no

intention of doing that; it is too important an issue. You may laugh, but we are

not. I am telling you now, putting you on notice today, that we are not.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the hon. gentleman to get carried

away with the fact that I grinned across my face when he said that. The truth of

the matter is that I believe the hon. gentleman has a lot of character. I really

do. I believe that the hon. gentleman at times, like the rest of us in this

Legislature, can put aside partisan politics. I ask him not to interpret a

flinch of my face, or anything like that, that I am doubting his character or

doubting his commitment.

MR. E. BYRNE: I accept your apology.

MR. TULK: It is not an apology, I say to the hon. gentleman. I know where

he is on those issues. It is not a problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not speaking to the point of order. There is no point

of order.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate that; it is fine. I gave him leave to do it,

Mr. Chair, and that is fair enough.

What is critical here, we cannot underestimate what this is about. Let's

not underestimate what this is about. There has been enough history in this

Province to show what happens when a particular group has unfettered access and

unfettered control of an industry. Prior to our time as a Province in Canada,

that is pretty clear.

You know, all of the legislation surrounding the fishery, the quota system,

processing, the harvesting sector, this has evolved the way it has evolved for

particular reasons -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: - for particular reasons based upon our shared history and

our history as a Province and what occurred in that history to the point we are

now.

I concur with the Member for Port de Grave on this issue because his

statements in speaking to it reflect the questions that were asked - that I

asked - on behalf of the Official Opposition in the House today.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible) concur with what I said?

MR. E. BYRNE: I never said that I did not concur with what you said. I

just referenced the Member for Port de Grave because it reflected the questions

asked today and the concerns that were contained and inherent and fundamental in

those questions. So let's keep our head about us here. We have to. If it comes

to a point in time, which it may, the process will determine it, I suppose, but

government has a statutory obligation on this issue unlike any other merger or

acquisition or corporate takeover, whatever it wants to be, simply because we

have a statutory obligation because of the legislation that was acted in this

House, and the spirit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) of the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: - nature of the Province - but because of the legislation

that now exists that provides some measure of leverage for this House to act in

a way that is in the best interest of everybody. That is the obligation of the

government.

I was happy to hear that an opinion has been sought by the Department of

Justice. Obviously government must be concerned. They would not have sought the

opinion in the first place if they were not concerned. It is very critical and I

can, in the strongest possible terms, suggest to the Premier, to the ministers

involved, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, and to every member in this

House, that we monitor this very, very closely on behalf of all of us.

Thank you, Mr .Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue that is under discussion here now, and I think first of all we have

to acknowledge that in this Province both constitutionally, politically and

financially, we have, at best, a tenuous hold over our primary resource, the

fishing industry. We have seen what happened last year when the Government of

Canada gave away a part of our shrimp. We see what is happening even now, and I

believe it was Gus Etchegary this morning reporting to CBC of a panel being

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Dhaliwal is doing this, I say to the Deputy Premier. Mr.

Dhaliwal is doing this, not Mr. Etchegary, appointing an academic committee to

allocation of Newfoundland fish stocks, Mr. Chairman. No Newfoundlanders on this

committee, but we are talking about principles and criteria on which

Newfoundland's offshore resources are going to be allocated. I do not know

where the Minister of Fisheries provincially was when this was happening, but

what we see will constitutionally - control over the fish quotas is in the hands

We have some control over processing, some control over plant licences,

control which is often as not being used in the best interests of the fishing

industry as whole but rather to individual operators and communities from time

to time.

That is why it is in this context that this issue here about FPI is so

important. FPI is not just another fishing company. It has been described by a

recent financial analysis that is available for a fund company, ABC Funds, which

refers to it as one of North America's leading seafood companies. In fact,

they say in November, 2000, as part of their updates on this particular stock,

that it is a stock, a company, which appears primed for takeover. I will quote:

With three seafood companies each owning just under 15 per cent of FPI, and only

five shareholders owning approximately 64 per cent of the total shares, FPI

appears primed for takeover.

That was on November 10, 2000, by financial -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Do you want a copy of it?

Mr. Chairman, primed for takeover. That is what we have happening here by

another name.

The big fear a couple of years - let's recall back in November, 1999, the

various interests who wanted to buy, using money at that point, FPI. That wanted

to tear it apart. They wanted to cut up the pieces. The scallops were all going

to go to Nova Scotia. The Icelanders were interested in the marketing arm in the

United States, Clouston Seafoods. They were going to carve it up. Mr. Risley in

Nova Scotia, Mr. Barry and the Icelanders were all going to take their interests

and carve up the company and break it up. That was the plan at that time.

Now what is the plan? Well, we will just take over the company. We will not

need to pay any money for it. We will not need to put any money in shareholders'

hands. We will not need to worry about the 15 per cent. We will just become the

Board of Directors. We will put in a whole new group of management. We will put

in a whole new group of management who will answer to us. We will put a new CEO

in place, a new management team, and the Icelanders, the New Zealanders, Mr.

Risley and the minority group, they will be pacified one way or the other. The

minority group of Newfoundland shareholders will be pacified with a little bit

of this and a little bit of that, but the majority plan is still available for

action, still available to carry out the plans to take FPI's success, take FPI's

assets, and use it to the best interests not of the shareholders as a whole but

of the individual shareholders.

Yes, they may pay money for it. They may actually reach into their pockets

and buy a part of the enterprise. They may, in fact, be able to get it approved

and get various approval through the stock markets and whatever else they have

to go through, because the only principles that apply is whether the

shareholders are getting what they are entitled to, or whether a minority is

being oppressed. The interests of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be a

consideration in the selling off of the assets of FPI if the group, whether

individually or collectively, takes over FPI the same way the NEOS group wanted

to a couple of years ago.

I think the Deputy Premier misspoke when he said it was a takeover by a

company. I don't think he intended to say that, but I think there is some

truth in what he says; there is either a company or an association of companies

that have a plan.

How naive does the Premier think we are, when he says: All we know is that

they are going to propose some directors - that is all we have been told - and

they trotted away out of our office after they said that.

Well, how naive does he think we are? Does he think that we were born under a

cabbage patch yesterday? Does he think that we can swallow that whole?

MR. J. BYRNE: Which one are we talking about, the one here or the one in

Ottawa?

MR. SULLIVAN: He knows we can't.

MR. HARRIS: He knows we can't, says the Member for Ferryland. There is

no doubt that there is more to this than what the Premier is saying. There is

more to this than what the Premier knows, because he knows that this is an

attempt by Mr. Risley, his pals and his partners, to take over what has been

described as one of North America's leading seafood companies.

This is a company that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a great

deal at stake in the future of. This company has been, as the former Minister of

Fisheries has said, a company that has won the respect of the fishermen, fish

harvesters and plant workers in this Province for its dealings with them both in

terms of its being upfront, honest, straightforward, and also in terms of

sitting down and negotiating collective agreements and not attempting to use the

legal process to prevent workers from achieving reasonable collective

agreements, wages and working conditions.

They have not obviously rolled over and given the union everything that it

wanted, but they have a reputation of being fair. They have a reputation of

being tough bargainers but, at the end of the day, insisting and accepting that

the fish harvesters and the plant workers have a right to a fair share of the

harvest and a fair share of the value-added that they add in the plants around

this Province.

They have done a good job, Mr. Chairman. I don't think anybody can say that

from going from near bankruptcy in 1990, going through the cod moratorium,

making a success of this enterprise over the last ten or a dozen years, being in

the position that it has been in, it is certainly a credit to the

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have caught the fish, who have processed

the fish, and who have made the company a success from the fishing boat to the

board room. They deserve a lot of credit for that success, having raw materials

at this point from over thirty countries of the world supplying the harvesting

and processing operations and adding value to the shares as time went on.

I have a question and I don't really know the answer, but I do want to know

what percentage of Icelandic fishing companies are permitted to be owned by

foreigners. I have a good question about that, and maybe we should find out the

answer to that question. Would the Country of Iceland, with the importance of

its fishing industry to its future and to its well-being and to its communities,

be satisfied to see New Zealand, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia go and take over

their largest fishing company without any concern, without any restrictions,

without any action taking place? Is that permitted under the laws of Iceland?

Another question that needs to be answered as a part of this debate: To what

extent - we have talked about the previous government's position on lifting

the 15 per cent, and the question of the approval of the communities and the

employees. That was the previous government's position, not necessarily mine.

That 15 per cent provides a protection for this Province that we would be -

MR. SHELLEY: Did you vote for it? I thought it was unanimous.

MR. HARRIS: I wasn't here. I was not here for every vote in this House,

I say to the Member for Baie Verte, only in the last ten years. Anything that

happened before that, I do not take responsibility for personally.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise today to speak to the resolution and Bill 2, respecting Interim Supply

to Her Majesty. I speak to the need for government to have Interim Supply today

to allow us to begin the first quarter of the new fiscal year 2001-2002, to

allow for health programs and stabilization that we have announced in the

Budget, to also allow us to provide the pay increase to the home support

workers, the pharmacy dispensing fee, to allow for the women's centres funding

to occur, the community centres, our provincial roads, our municipal operating

grants and our new infrastructure program. All of these, plus many other

programs, are necessary and would need to have Interim Supply in order for those

programs, as well as others, to begin the first quarter of the year. As well,

this Interim Supply will allow for the payment of the seven pay periods required

in government, and also to allow us to manage not only our current account but

also our capital accounts, as we have identified between April 1, 2001 and June

30, 2001.

Particularly today we ask for concurrence on Interim Supply on this bill

because in order to allow the people in Labrador to receive their social

assistance cheques by April 1, we would have to put them in the mail tomorrow

morning. It is certainly an issue that I am sure all hon. members would want to

see complied with, and one that we hope will happen today. As well, it is

important to note that all of the other programs and services are equally as

important and we are anxious to allow that process to begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wonder if the Minister of Finance would mind if I asked

her just one question in terms of the explanation why you need Interim Supply

today?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Not at all.

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you saying that none of the cheques can be mailed to

Labrador until you get that, even though there has been an understanding - we

have never held up Interim Supply beyond April 1 - that the government cannot go

ahead and process based upon the word of the Opposition House Leader and the

word of this side of the House to allow members in this Legislature some more

time and latitude to debate granting $1.2 billion for the government?

Again, I am only asking for clarification. It seems to be an extraordinary

sort of explanation where we cannot go ahead and process and guarantee the usual

transaction of government's affairs in this regard, and suggesting then that

members on this side, if we hold it up beyond today, are somehow, in some way,

shape or form, being obstructionists and not allowing people to get their

cheques. That seems to a quantum leap, from my point of view, in an explanation.

We are not going to hold it up beyond April 1. You know that. We have given you

our word on that. We never have done it.

Surely, giving us, as the Official Opposition, the appropriate amount of

time, up until it is prudent to do so, to allow us to debate the issuance of

providing government $1.2 billion worth of money in terms of Interim Supply,

surely that is not the case.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In response to the question, the cheques are cut and, in fact, they are ready

to go. My instruction is, and the information that I have asked, and I have

asked for clarification, that in order for those social assistance cheques to be

released, the Interim Supply Bill has to receive Royal Assent by March 26, 2001.

That is the information that I have. The reason is specifically to allow the

cheques, particularly in the northern portions of Labrador, to have the time to

reach the people who live in those areas. That is the rationale behind that.

In terms of the ability of the House to do that, my information is that,

while the cheques are cut, they cannot be released until Royal Assent has been

given on the Interim Supply Bill.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the past, we have given approval as late as a couple of days before March

31. Is there a particular pay period due on April 1, right on April 1? That is a

Saturday. That, I doubt very much in terms of it. We have done it before. I am

sure the cheques are not being mailed individually here from St. John's. I

would assume they are been sent out to the offices in those respective areas and

they are probably going to be dispersed from those respective areas there. I

cannot see that as being a problem, five days before the end of the month, when

we do not have a specific pay period that is due on April 1. Actually, I doubt

it. The pay period is probably not due until the following Wednesday or even

Friday, I would think.

If we give assurances here, even today, and got Royal Assent after 5:00 this

evening, they are not going to be in today's mail anyway, I wouldn't think.

They are going to be in tomorrow's mail. It is an issue that, if we are back

here - and beyond Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day, we would not

advocate going to the last minute on it, but at least why don't we have an

explanation? Why, if it was passed tomorrow, can we not meet that commitment? We

have done it on shorter notice in the past, when a pay period was due to come up

very shortly. That is not the instance now, unless somebody can tell my why, if

there is a pay period on April 1, that needs to be met.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I checked just as late as a few minutes before I came into the House with the

Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and I was informed that,

specifically as it relates to Northern Labrador, they would need to have the

cheques in the mail tomorrow morning. That is the rationale for doing it. We

would require Royal Assent for those cheques to be released.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I rise today to take

part in debate on Bill 2. Madam Chairperson, it never

ceases to amaze me that this government, when they re-open the House of

Assembly, there are always a couple of pieces of legislation that have to be

done and have to be done within one or two days, or else it is going to be the

demons on the other side.... I can hear the Minister of Finance now if, for some

reason, we want to stand in this Assembly and talk about $1.3 billion of the

taxpayers' money, if we want to stand here and raise some concerns and ask

some questions, I can hear the Minister of Finance, come Friday evening, talking

about the uncaring Opposition, how bad they are because the people on the Coast

of Labrador, or somebody else, is unable to get a cheque which was struck by

government.

I say to the Minister of Finance, and I say to the Government House Leader,

it is about time that you look at your legislation before you call the Assembly

together. It is about time that you gave the Opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, an opportunity to get up and ask about $1.2 billion of the taxpayers'

money that you want a blank cheque for, that you do not want discussed, that you

do not want debated, but you want passed on about the fourth day that we have

had an opportunity to stand in this House and do regular government business.

Before I get on to that, I would like to say a few words, and I am going to

keep them brief, about a topic that has been a great concern in this House here

today. We talk about the activity in seeing an outside interest come in and try

to control Fisheries Products International, a company that I know very well, a

company that I put on my rubber boots and went to work for, for thirteen years

of my life. It is a situation, and nobody should be surprised, I say to people

here in this Assembly. Nobody should be surprised to hear of what is happening

and to hear of this outside interest now making another bid to take over this

fishing company. At some time somebody might say: Why are you so concerned? Why

is this private company acting under legislation of the House of Assembly? Why

isn't is allowed to proceed like every other private company? Madame

Chairperson, there is a special reason for that. This company was constructed

with thousands and with millions of dollars of taxpayer's money. When this

company was formed in 1987 it was formed and the legislation was put in place to

protect taxpayer's dollars and protect rural communities in this Province. If

you are going to take over an industry you have to do one of two things. If you

want to control an industry you have to control the market or you have to

control the supply.

We all know of an attempt that happened back just a year ago when a similar

company tried to take over Fishery Products International. We all know the way

that they went about doing it. We should also be reminded of what happened a

short time ago when there was a special bid made - I see the Minister of Justice

looking over because he knows the situation very well - when certain people went

out and said: we have the answer for Burgeo; a community that has been

devastated by the closure of the ground fishery on the South Coast of this

Province. They had the answer for Burgeo. They had the people in Burgeo -

naturally, like everybody else the people wanted to go to work. They are good,

hardworking people who saw an opportunity to provide for their families; saw an

opportunity to be able to live in their communities; saw an opportunity to be

able to continue with a way of life that they were used to. We saw an action, a

direction made where this company put forward a proposal to go in and open up

the fish plant in Burgeo, but there was a catch to it, I say to the Minister of

Justice, and he knows the catch very well.

In order for this company to take over Burgeo they wanted to have access to a

resource outside the 200-mile limit. They wanted to be able to harvest the

product themselves and bring the product ashore, process it in Burgeo, providing

many people with an opportunity to go to work. They thought they were going to

split the fishing industry wide apart. They thought that they would have a big

split; and the Minister of Fisheries knows this issue very well. I am not even

sure were he was on this one. The former Minister of Fisheries knows it very

well. They thought they were going to create a split in the boat sectors of this

Province. They brought in the rules and regulations and said to certain

harvesters that you do not have the capability of going out and landing a

product that exists 200 miles offshore. How are we going to get around that? How

are we going to prove to them that they cannot go outside of the 200-mile limit

and land a quality product? So we are going to say, in order to harvest this

product you have to have a refrigerated sea water supply on your boat. That is

one way of doing it. We will supply the boats with the RSW system on it and we

will go out and catch the fish because now we have the technology that will

allow us to do it and everybody else will not be allowed to do it. In fact,

there were boats in ports here in this Province that were bought - I do not know

if they were paid for but I tell you what, they were landed and were put in

ports in this Province right ready to go out and harvest that quota outside the

200-mile limit, but it did not happen. It did not happen because the fishermen

and harvesters got together and said: hang on now, we are capable of going

outside the 200 miles and we are capable of landing a good quality product. We

are not going to allow processors in this Province to go out and take away our

livelihood. That was another move, I say to the minister, to try to get in

through the back door. That was another move.

I went out in the lobby of the building the other day and seen a couple of

individuals. I wasn't surprised to see and read the story that I read in The

Telegram today. It is obvious that this company did not go, in 1999, and

spend millions of dollars in order to take over Fishery Products International

and then walk away from the table. It is obvious there is going to be another

bid. I serve notice on the Deputy Premier that if he is going to wait until May

1, if he is going to hold off and do nothing until the annual meeting of Fishery

Products International, if he is going to do nothing and wait and see what the

fall out of that meeting is going to be or see who the board of directors are

going to be, then I fear he might have a big fight on his hands after. I tell

you what, my phone has not stopped ringing today from people who are in fear of

what might happen to the two plants that Fishery Products owns in my district. I

am talking about Bonavista and Port Union.

The former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and our leader got up and

talked the reputable company. I can only concur with that because I don't know

of another company today that exists in rural areas that is so trusted as

Fishery Products International.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about Clearwater in Burgeo.

MR. FITZGERALD: Tell us about Clearwater in Burgeo. The other question

is: What is Mr. Risley doing with the shrimp that he is catching offshore today?

What is Clearwater doing with the shrimp that they are catching off Greenland

today? Where is it being processed? This one is on you, I say to the Deputy

Premier. This is not one you can blame on your cousins up in Ottawa. This one is

in your court. That is why it is important to make sure that you reach out and

get the best possible advice that you can. If there are loopholes there in that

piece of legislation don't wait until May 1, get it done now, because I can

tell you that Clearwater Fine Foods, or John Risley, or NEOS will certainly not

have a record in two years' time that Fishery Products International have had

in the years that they served this Province and served the communities in the

Province. I can tell you that I have not talked to many fishermen who have had a

problem getting their paycheque from Fishery Products International. I have not

talked to many plant workers who have been taken advantage of. I have not been

talking to many people who are saying that we don't want Fishery Products

International to look after the fish processing plant in our town anymore. It is

always a situation where they know they have been treated fairly. They know that

here is a company that has reached out. While they have never given them

everything they wanted - they have never expected that - but at least they know

that there is somebody there they respect, and respects those people as workers.

I say to the Deputy Minister: Be careful of the way that this is unfolding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Deputy Minister?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Deputy Premier, I say to the lost minister down there

who sits in his seat and occasionally speaks from his seat but never stands.

Madam Chairperson, it is a special need. I know your district, Madam

Chairperson, has a large processing plant there, one of the biggest in fact,

owned by Fishery Products International, just down the way at Harbour Breton.

Those people, I am sure, that if you have talked to them - I know what they put

forward before and I knew their concerns before and I don't think that has

diminished any. I think they have great concerns today because they are in fear

of what might happen.

I say to you, Deputy Premier, that when you meet with Mr. Risley again, ask

him where he is processing the shrimp that he is catching off Greenland now.

When you are finished with that conversation you can ask Mr. Vic Young where his

shrimp is being processed, and you will find that there is a vast difference in

the manpower, or the people power, the women power, that is used by Fishery

Products International and by the plant workers that are employed by Clearwater

Fine Foods.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the situation, Madam Chairperson. I say to the

Deputy Premier to not sit back and wait for it to unfold, or not sit back and be

complacent about it because it is something that needs to be done immediately.

Madam Chairperson, before I get off the fishery and talk about other things

here, I took this picture when I was down in Bonavista. I went out by the marine

centre this past summer, and here is a good indication of the rules and

regulations that were brought in by your federal cousins up in Ottawa when they

limit the size of a boat that fishermen are allowed to have in order to go out

and harvest product here in this Province, I say to the members opposite.

As you know, if you have a licence today to harvest and take

part in the -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I do not mind the hon. gentleman from Bonavista South standing

up and blaming my cousins - as he calls them - in Ottawa for putting something

in place that was wrong. Now, if he wants to say they have not corrected, I will

agree with him, but the truth the matter is that both sizes in this Province

were put in place by his cousins, not mine.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chairperson, I have never campaigned to have

anybody elected in Ottawa who would bring about such draconian rules and

regulations as I am about to show this House today, never. But I say to the

member opposite that when I look over there I see many faces that were on the

campaign trail for the hon. Brian Tobin when he was on the go, when he was a

former Minister of Fisheries, and we had every right. He had every opportunity

to stand in his place and change those rules and regulations.

We heard the former minister, now Member for Port de Grave, talk many times

about how he would like to see this regulation changed, but he has never gotten

anywhere with it. His federal cousins would never listen to him. He tried to get

up there himself. Maybe we would have better served if he had been up there

because at least he would have been making a noise, I say to members opposite,

not standing and being an apologist - to borrow a phrase from the Opposition

House Leader - for the Primer Minister of the country.

Here is the situation, fishermen today are asking that they be allowed to go

and operate their enterprise independently. Here is the situation today where

fishermen are saying to government: Mr. government, get out of my pockets and

allow me to reach out and purchase or build a boat that would provide me and my

crew with some form of safety, some degree of comfort when we have to go out and

take

part in the fishery and deal with the unkind ocean, who this past year -

and I don't want to tie this in with it. It was only this morning that I read,

or heard on the radio, when they were advertising and putting forward what Land

and Sea is going to be about on Tuesday nights. There have been something

like seven lives lost this year by people having to go out to either retrieve

fishing gear because of rules and regulations that were brought into effect at

certain times rather than be charged, or had to go out fishing in a boat that

was unsuitable for their needs.

Those fishermen are not looking for any extra quota, I say to people

opposite. They are not looking for any extra species of fish. All they are

saying is: look, allow me to operate independently. Here is the former Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when he was the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, believed in free enterprise, believed that you should not

restrict people on what they are allowed to do. That is why he allowed truck

drivers - if I wanted to buy a truck and go hauling asphalt or hauling frozen

product, the minister said I should be allowed to do it. It is a job to argue

against that concept, but how do you, on one hand, say we are going to open up

the trucking industry, open up other businesses in this Province, and still

restrict fishermen with the size of boat that they are allowed to be able to go

off to sea in, in order to carry out and make a living.

I have a picture here. Because of the size of the boat, and the restriction

on fishermen, he had to go and make some modifications on his boat. This all has

to be done and inspected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a

boat that the fisherman bought. It is probably the biggest Newfoundland joke,

the biggest Newfie joke, that you ever saw in your life. I am going to pass it

around to show the people of the House how Archean your federal cousins - the

rules and regulations they make, being made in isolation from the industry, and

being made so far away - how out of touch they are with the industry.

I ask the Page if she would take this picture and give it to somebody to pass

around the House. Here, we have a boat today with a square stem, by abiding by

the rules and regulations that your cousins up in Ottawa say is the way it

should be done, and we are not going to change rules and regulations in order to

allow that to happen.

The minister has probably seen it. Pass it to the Finance Minister. I bet she

hasn't seen a boat like this before. The minister is not looking at it because

he is ashamed of what rules and regulations exist in this industry today.

MR. SULLIVAN: You don't know if the boat is going forward or backward,

do you?

MR. FITZGERALD: You don't know if she is going forward or backward.

That is only one. There are worse examples. It is just that I happened to have

seen this particular boat while it was under construction in Bonavista.

Here is the situation: If we are going to go making rules and regulations, if

we are going to say that we support an industry, and if we support the people

working in that particular industry, then that is all the more reason why we

have to be mindful of the rules and regulations that we implement and allow to

be put out there as policy and regulation in this industry.

I have always said that the decision-makers are too far removed from the

industry in order to make wise decisions.

MR. EFFORD: I withdraw leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: You did what?

MR. EFFORD: I withdrew your leave.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has withdrawn leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: That is alright, I will stand again.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The Member for Bonavista South - I get mixed up in the south and the north

down there.

MR. TULK: He is not in the north!

MR. EFFORD: Not in the north.

Seriously, here we are talking -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your phone is not working.

MR. EFFORD: It hasn't worked for a few months.

Here we are talking about a major change in the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that both sides of the House, as your leader said

today, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, should not be playing

partisan politics in any form whatsoever. We all have a right, standing in the

House of Assembly, to make comments on what we see are the positive and the

negatives, or the outcome of this happening, and here the Member for Bonavista

South gets off on a tangent about the Temporary Vessel Replacement Program, and

starts talking about our federal cousins in Ottawa.

There are a number of things that I would have thought you would have known

the difference in, on how this all came about. First of all, members on both

sides of the House, representing fishing communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador, have never, for the most part, agreed with this foolish policy. I am

on record, as the former Minister of Fisheries, on eight occasions, of writing

the federal Minister of Fisheries, arguing with the federal Minister of

Fisheries, about the silly rule; but, who caused the rule to stay in place? Was

it federal politicians? No. Was it provincial politicians? No. It was Richard

Cashin.

MR. TULK: Supported by who?

MR. EFFORD: Supported by the FFAW -

MR. TULK: And?

MR. EFFORD: - and supported by many people in consultation around

Newfoundland and Labrador involved in the fishing industry; and here is the

reason why they said it couldn't be changed.

MR. TULK: Who was one of them?

MR. EFFORD: Our friend opposite, Mr. Taylor, representing now the

Straits.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You were there. You were part of the FFAW at the time. Here

is the logic - listen to it - on why they wouldn't change the Temporary Vessel

Replacement Program regulations. We have just gone through a capacity reduction,

they said.

That is the only logic they had given as to why it couldn't be changed:

capacity reduction. In other words, we had reduced from several thousand

fishermen down to 1,500 or 2,000 boats and, if we increased the size of the

boats, that would cause an increase in capacity. Utter nonsense! I argued that

with Richard Cashin at the time. The federal government and the science

department sets the quotas; and if you, as an individual, have an IQ on crab,

and you know how much cod you are going to catch, and you know what shrimp you

are going to catch, and you are foolish enough to go to the bank and build a

vessel the size of the Titanic, that should be your business.

So, it was not the federal cousins in Ottawa. Had we here in the Province

recommended changes to the Vessel Replacement Program, it would have been done;

but we as a Province, as the industry led by Richard Cashin, recommended that no

changes be put in place.

Get your facts straight if you are going to talk about the Vessel Replacement

Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and it is quite obvious that the Member for the Straits

knows very clearly how this all had taken place. Even now, just a few months

ago, even now today, they are still arguing; we cannot change the rules and

regulations because of the capacity reduction that we went through, the buy-out

program.

It is too silly to talk about. Yet, we will force people to cut the stem off

their boat. I was down in Bonavista awhile ago and I saw the stem cut of a boat

so she could meet the measurement requirements.

MR. FITZGERALD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The former minister can wiggle and try to blame all he

wants, but the former minister knows full well that the FFAW or the IFAW or the

UFCW do not pass legislation. Those rules and regulations can be changed if your

cousins in Ottawa have the will to change them. You know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: The Member for Bonavista South is right. Any government can

change legislation when they want to; but in cases like this, in the example of

the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, what the federal government

has been advocating for the last decade is consultation and working with the

people in the industry to make the changes that the people in the industry want.

When Richard Cashin was appointed to that board, that renewal board, he went

around the Province and held meetings all over Newfoundland and Labrador and he

sent the recommendations to Ottawa.

If Ottawa went against the recommendations that were sent up, then we would

be up there condemning them for not listening to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. You cannot have it on both sides of the fence. Should they be changed?

Yes, they should be changed. Should the people be allowed to build any size boat

they want? Yes, within their own means and within their own financial

obligations, they should be allowed to do it.

When you stand in the House of Assembly and talk about an issue in the

future, get your facts straight!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a couple of comments. I will start with the particular issue we

are debating now. I think we have advocated for some time, through our former

critic here, that if people are given a specific quota to catch, why should you

restrict the size of boat you catch them in? If you have to transport 2,000

pounds of fish, do you have to transport it in a pickup? If you want to use a

flatbed or if you want to use a reefer to transport it, why shouldn't you? Who

dictates -

MR. EFFORD: What about quality? You have to use a reefer (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Product. I did not say what we were talking about. If you

wanted to carry in a fish box, 2,000 pounds or 1,000 pounds, in a container,

fresh product, iced downed, is there a difference in carrying it in the back of

a pickup for ten miles or on a flatbed for ten miles? Should you dictate that

you have to carry it in a specific type? Of course not, provided - if it is a

quality issue and you meet standards - you carry it in a proper manner.

A fisherman in Petty Harbour had to cut three feet off his boat. He got a

boat that was three feet too long. Not only that; you had to get the boat and

cut a three-foot

section out and then put it back together, very similar to my

colleague from Bonavista South.

If government was financing operations, they would put a limit on freezing

capacity in this Province. No more loans to fish companies to increase freezing

capacity, we have over capacity.

What about a company that wants to spend a million bucks of their own money -

individuals - and increase their capacity? What can you do about it? We should

not use government money.

Yes, if we have excess use of public money it is one thing. Okay, I will

repeat it, in case the minister did not hear. I said, when there were limits put

on the freezing capacity in the Province, and government are not going to fund

anyone to increase their freezing capacity, and somebody wanted to spend their

own money, if there is a limit on the size of boats and someone wants to spend

their own money on a boat, or to buy a bigger truck to transport, or buy

whatever the particular thing, within the specific quotas, they should operate

that. If they want to have more space to do processing, if they are a little

cramped in their facility and would like to widen the plant and make it longer,

to have a little more space in their plant, probably make it more efficient,

there should not be limits, and there have not been limits on doing that, to try

to increase productively or maybe increase quality and these things, when you

are spending your own particular money.

When you have a quota to catch, and if you can catch it in a thirty-nine-foot

boat as opposed to a thirty-four-foot by eleven-foot, or a forty-foot boat, and

it is safer to do it, and you are spending your own money - when you had

competitive quotas before, people with bigger boats can go further afield, they

can have increased capacity to bring in, but when you get into specific quotas,

when you get into IQs, individual quotas there, why should someone be limited in

that regard? We have addressed this in the past.

I just want to switch now to an issue that came up here in discussion.

Fishery Products has been a hot topic today in the media. I think my colleague,

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development did indicate, and I agree,

to my knowledge, Fishery Products requested back some time ago to have the 15

per cent lifted without strings attached. They requested that.

Under the NEOS takeover proposal, they had a deal specifically lifting the 15

per cent. To me, what we have to do as a government, and the people of this

Province, our job is to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. If that cannot be done by lifting the cap, we do not lift it.

Corporate interests serve their own corporate good, whether it is Clearwater or

whatever the company happens to be, whether it is any industry, fishery or

non-fishery related, corporate interests are out to enhance and make more

efficient and turn a bigger dollar on the bottom line for their corporate