November 23, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 35

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for

the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank;

the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the

Member for the District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the

District of Lake Melville.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Central

Chapter

of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador on their spectacular efforts

in raising money for the Shamrock Farm Center for Autism, through a

province-wide radio telethon on Rogers Televison on November 15.

Mr. Speaker, through the efforts of this group, chaired by Mr. Scott Kenny of

Grand Falls-Windsor, and through the generosity of people from across our

Province, $130,000 was raised for this important project.

The Shamrock Farm Center for Autism, a state-of-the-art facility, located in

Pippy Park, St. John's, will provide treatment and intervention for

individuals with autism and their families. Construction began in June of this

year and this recent fundraising effort by the Central

Chapter will, no doubt,

contribute to this completion.

Mr. Speaker, the families of children with autism and their educators work

tirelessly to have government recognize autism as a disorder that requires

special attention and first-time government funding was provided in 1998.

Significant strides have been made since then and I am very proud to be able to

stand today and ask all members of this hon. House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating the Central

Chapter of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and

Labrador for a job well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I rise today to congratulate Mr. Bob Rideout of Botwood. On June 10, he was

presented with the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation in recognition of

his outstanding service to veterans, especially as a source of comfort to the

terminally ill comrades.

A veteran of the Second World War, having served as a Gunner in the 166

Newfoundland Field Regiment and Royal Artillery in Italy and the United Kingdom

from 1943-1945. Mr. Rideout had remained dedicated to the care of veterans and

promotion of remembrance.

Upon his return from the war, Mr. Rideout joined the Great War Veterans

Association, now the Royal Canadian Legion and is still an active member.

Mr. Rideout has special responsibilities for the Exploits Memorial Veterans

Pavilion in Botwood. However, it is Mr. Rideout's commitment to comrades

during their final days of life at the pavilion is why he received the

commendation.

Mr. Rideout is the only veteran from the central region to receive this

distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in passing

along congratulations to Mr. Rideout.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend sincere anniversary wishes

to Marilyn and Jack Keeping of Grand Bank. It is an anniversary of a different

sort, Mr. Speaker. It was ten years ago in August that this couple made medical

history in Atlantic Canada.

Ten years ago Marilyn and Jack were at Victoria General Hospital in Halifax

in adjoining operating rooms, with two teams of doctors working on them

performing a procedure they had never done before. One team of doctors removed

Marilyn's right kidney while the other team prepared her husband, Jack, to

receive it.

Today, ten years after the surgery - the first spousal transplant performed

at the Victoria General Hospital and indeed, in all of Atlantic Canada - the

couple is happily living and working in Grand Bank.

Marilyn and Jack have been married for twenty-six years. Marilyn, Jack, and

their son Jamie are savouring every minute together and enjoying life to the

fullest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Marilyn,

Jack, and son Jamie, many more years of health and happiness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today to congratulate

the Calvary United Church of Creston South on their fiftieth anniversary. On

this past Saturday, I was very pleased to share in a celebration of their fifty

years as a church community. The church was built and completed in 1955, and its

history of construction is very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, the congregation's fiftieth anniversary booklet points out

that a year earlier, in 1954, the community of Great Burin resettled to Burin.

They left behind a church building which was in excellent condition.

Negotiations saw the church purchased by the United Church residents of Creston

South, who fundraised the necessary $1,000. The church was dismantled and

transported in two loads by schooner to Creston South. From there, the

cornerstone was laid on November 17, 1954, and since that time the Calvary

United Church has served theirs and the surrounding community well.

Mr. Speaker, today, the members of the Calvary United Church continue to

contribute to the larger community, and I ask all members of this hon. House to

join me in extending our congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two churches in my district that recently

celebrated 100 years of service. St. Andrew's Anglican Church in the community

of Bryant's Cove, and All Saints Anglican Church in the community of Tilton.

Both churches opened their doors within a day of each other; St. Andrew's

Anglican Church on November 2, 1905, and All Saints Anglican Church on November

3 of the same year.

Special services and social events were held in both churches to commemorate

this joyous occasion. After 100 years of service, individuals are still giving

their time, talent and money to support those churches.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing

this momentous occasion for both churches, and pay tribute to all individuals

over the years who have given so much to maintain these churches as a place of

worship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize the athletic accomplishments of two

Happy Valley-Goose Bay athletes.

Young Alex White recently won gold at the Juvenile Men's Division at the

2006 BMO Skate Canada Sectional Figure Skating Competition held in Grand

Falls-Windsor. He will now compete in the 2006 BMO Skate Canada Junior Nationals

being held in Moncton in February.

Mr. Speaker, Stephanie Hodge, another athlete, now living in Boston where she

attends Harvard, also pulled off an amazing feat earlier this month. An avid

long-distance runner, Stephanie was the first Canadian woman to cross the finish

line at the New York Marathon, in a time of two hours, fifty-seven minutes. She

placed thirty-sixth in the woman's category and placed four hundred and

forty-forth overall in a field of over 36,000 runners.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize these two amazing

athletes as they strive to be the best in their chosen sport.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues,

parents and educators, about a project to raise awareness of skilled trades as a

career choice for our Province's young people.

Opportunities for our future high school graduates are rapidly increasing as

employers and business operators identify a shortage of skilled labour here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country.

The Department of Education, Mr. Speaker, has been working with the Canadian

Apprenticeship Forum and Skills Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador, a

not-for-profit organization that works with employers, teachers and labour

groups, to raise the profile of trade and technical careers as a real option for

young people.

This work is part of the $12 million national campaign, Skilled Trades: A

Career You Can Build On, which was launched last fall. With input from our

Province's schools, Women in Resource Development, and construction industry

stakeholders, a proposal for the development of a skilled trades' user guide

and information package was submitted to a national committee and chosen for

full development. The project is called Resource Tools for Educators, and is

expected to be completed next spring.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that our teachers and guidance counsellors are

well informed of all career opportunities that exist. Educators themselves have

indicated there is a lack of awareness of the many career opportunities in the

skilled trades. The tools that will be developed over the next several months

will not only raise awareness, but will also raise the profile of skilled trades

among high school students.

This is the latest initiative within the Department of Education to promote

the skilled trades. In May, 2005, the department launched a new apprenticeship

and certification Web site. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the Resource Tools for

Educators will help increase the number of young people who take

part in

apprenticeship programs and is a step to addressing our skill shortages.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her

statement. Anything that can be done to raise the awareness of skills and trades

for our young people, I think, is an honourable thing to take on; although, on

one hand they want to promote trades but on the other hand - in all of the

government literature that is being circulated from this new government - they

are saying that there is going to be a population decrease of 20,000 people over

the next ten years. That is not very encouraging for our young people who are

trying to get a job in our Province.

They talk about having teachers and guidance counsellors give direction to

young people looking at trades for a career; but still, for all of that, this

government eliminated 400 teaching positions over the past two years, so I do

not know how teachers are getting the time to even address this.

This same government, the first thing they did when they came to power, they

eliminated the tax credit for students wanting to work in this Province and

contribute to paying off their student loans. That is gone. This government also

reduced $3 million from student employment.

I believe it is time for this government to get serious and foster a new

relationship with labour and business, do a complete inventory assessment of our

skill shortage in this Province, show some real leadership here and get the job

done right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that this is good news indeed. I am very

pleased to see that the skilled trades are taking a priority in this Province

where they were years ago, but over the past number of years it seems as if we

pushed all of our young people towards computers, computer training,

programming, and all of these things, which left a big gap.

In the Province today, in the major industries, the majority of tradespeople

are getting older and about to retire. There is going to be a need for a new

group of apprentices to go through the system to take the jobs that will be

created.

When we look at what is happening in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, coupled with if

the Lower Churchill goes ahead, we will probably be looking at bringing workers

in from other countries, like we had to do back in the 1970s in Labrador, in

order to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: In the 1970s, we had to go to Europe to attract tradespeople

to come to work in this Province.

The tradespeople in our Province and in our country today, from an earning

power perspective, probably make more money than people who graduate from major

universities with two degrees. It is a very honourable way to make a living.

There is a need in this Province and in this country for skilled trades to

continue, and I am glad to see that there is some emphasis returning to the

importance of tradespeople as a skilled profession.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers. Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment has indicated that he is close to

making a decision as to what is going to be done with the stockpile of used

tires around the Province. The minister has confirmed that one proposal being

considered is to burn these used tires at the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill

to generate energy.

I ask the minister: Given the environmental and health concerns in the area,

before you move forward with this proposal would you at least hold public

hearings and do a full environmental impact study?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there won't be any need to carry out public hearings or

consultations. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has made the decision to pull that

proposal from the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I thank the minister for that decision, but I don't

understand why it was on the table before, because, Mr. Speaker, in an

article

in The Telegram two short years ago, on September 22, when he was the

environmental critic, this is what he said: Burning tires can release heavy

metals that have been linked to cancer, asthma and cardiovascular disease.

In light of these comments, I say to the minister, comments that he made, why

did you even consider that proposal and why did you put the people in that area

through the anguish that you have in the last couple of months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There are a couple of reasons we considered that proposal: because it was

submitted for consideration and we have to consider any proposal that is

submitted for consideration: but even more importantly, I guess, and the

question that maybe the Leader of the Opposition should answer - we did require

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to carry out consultations and when Abitibi was

considering burning tires at their mill in Stephenville we asked them to carry

out consultations. It was the Opposition party, when they were government, it

was them and their environment minister who gave Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

permission to do two test burns without any information be given to the general

public. Those two test burns, Mr. Speaker, were the basis for which we

considered that proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, now that this proposal has been taken off the

table by the company, and not the government I might add, what do you now plan

to do with the huge stockpiles of tires that we find around the Province?

Finally, are you still going to continue to charge consumers $3.00 to have these

tires recycled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is another proposal we had received through the MMSB; eight proposals.

Two of them - we had narrowed it down to one by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

There is another proposal that we are very close to making a decision on. We are

still asking for background information on that proposal. We will be releasing

information on that proposal, which is not to burn tires but another use of the

tires. We will be releasing information on that, once the proposal is formally

submitted from the MMSB to our department for consideration.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if political patronage did not play into the

former tire recycling programs - the tire recycling program that was put forward

by that party when they were in government - it never, ever would have gotten

into the dire situation that it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation

and Works.

Yesterday, I asked if government would table two reports related to equipment

problems and road conditions on the day of an accident on the Argentia Access

Road earlier this month. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he would

pass this request along to the minister. I ask the minister: Will you table

those two reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am not aware of two reports, and maybe there are two. If

there are, I will certainly endeavour to find out about the second one. I am

aware of one report, a handwritten report by the supervisor on duty at the time

of the incident that the member just referenced. After Question Period is over,

if the member wants to come and have a look at the report, it is handwritten -

and certainly, I would suggest, a little bit of a sensitive issue - but if he

wants to come and have a look at it, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to

accommodate him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister is not willing to table

the report here today but wants me to have a look at it, I will table the report

for the minister.

In this report, it contradicts what the minister stated the day after the

accident took place on the Argentia Access Road. The minister stated that the

roads were dry. I quote the minister from The Telegram on November 15:

The truck went down the road about seven to ten kilometres and encountered

nothing but dry pavement. At that point, there was no need to continue on with

salt and sand. The actual report states that the roads were 50 per cent wet and

50 per cent dry, and the temperature was 0.8 degrees Celsius. We all know this

water turns into ice.

I ask the minister: Why did you release incorrect information concerning the

road conditions, contradicting your own department's weather and road

condition report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that the Opposition continues to try and make

political gain out of an unfortunate incident on the Argentia Access Road. The

fact that a person died, they are trying to make political hay out of it. Now,

that is the fact of the matter. That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what I said on that -

MR. BARRETT: Trying to save lives.

MR. TAYLOR: If you were trying to save lives, I say to the Member for

Bellevue, when he was Minister of Transportation he would have invested more

money into roads so that the roads would not be deteriorated to the point that

they are now, and he would have invested more money in equipment so that the

equipment that is on the roads today would not be in the deteriorated state that

it is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said is exactly inline with what the

report said. The report said - if he had read on. I am not sure if it was read

on or if it was in the former part of it - that the

section of road that I was

referencing, that the truck went down over, was dry. The report does indeed say

that the road was 50 per cent wet and 50 per cent dry. The 50 per cent dry, Mr.

Speaker, was the part that the salt truck went down over. The 50 per cent wet

was beyond that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary question by the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister, I am not trying to

use any unfortunate circumstance. I am trying to stop another one from

happening. I am trying to stop another one from happening, I say to the

minister.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated that equipment in the area was

operational and working on the day in question. The minister stated in the media

that there were two pieces of equipment available. These are your own words,

minister. I would like to table the maintenance report that the truck in

Placentia was not in working condition that day. The out-of-shop date for the

truck was November 15, 2005, and that report is in your own department files,

Mr. Minister.

I ask the minister: Why did you leave the impression that this equipment was

on the road in the day in question when the information that the minister has in

his possession contradicts his public statements?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if he is going to submit the document, or table the document,

then it will clearly show for the record what the status of the equipment was at

that time.

Mr. Speaker, when I was interviewed on this issue I was asked about the

status of equipment. Somebody suggested that there was one piece available out

of six. I inquired and was told that there were two available out of five.

Whether that was indeed factual or not, Mr. Speaker, I do not know. That is what

I was told at the time.

MR. REID: You should find out.

MR. TAYLOR: That is what I was told at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I have

seen no evidence of anything being wrong.

MR. REID: Here, we will show it to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would you please quiet down the Leader of the

Opposition so I can answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the piece of equipment in question was available

when the supervisor directed it to go on the road. The road was inspected, as

the accident report will clearly show. The road was inspected at 4:00 o'clock,

the road was inspected at 5:30; portions of the road were found to be wet,

portions of the road were found to be dry. The temperature was above zero, and

it was not seen necessary (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to table these reports to give the

minister the information, which obviously is in your department, which obviously

you never took the time to read or you just do not have. Mr. Speaker, if they

want a copy, I have a copy here. I say to the minister, this is something that

we need to prevent somehow.

Mr. Speaker, the minister held a press conference earlier today to deflect

criticism that has been directed at his department; however, nowhere in today's

announcement was there anything to address the problem being created from the

closure of thirteen highway depots in the Province. As a matter of fact, the

Placentia depot was one of the thirteen depots closed.

I ask the minister: Why are you not reversing this poorly thought-out

decision instead of having a press conference in an effort to do some damage

control during a polling period, when obviously the information that you have -

which you say you have - is inconsistent with the reports that were given to

your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious what is going on, the politics that is being

played. The member has actually referenced that there is a polling period going

on. That is why they are trying to make the hay out of this that they are. That

is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. They are not concerned about the fact

that some people died on the highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the Member for Bay of Islands.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the accident report speaks for itself. The supervisor on duty at

the time makes the determination as to whether or not trucks are dispatched.

When it was decided that a truck needed to be dispatched, the truck was

available. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. There was a truck available. The

accident report clearly says that at 7:15, when the person who was on the

highway checking the highway found that ice conditions were developing, he

radioed back and was directed to come back, take the truck and go out over the

road. The truck was dispatched. The accident report comes from Placentia, Mr.

Speaker.

As for the issue of winter maintenance, Mr. Speaker, the closure of the

summer depots has nothing to do with winter maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the FFAW and its members, the communities that depend on the

fishery in this Province are in crisis. My colleagues and I were invited to meet

with fisher people from Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, and

they told us that what they are experiencing today is probably worse than when

the moratorium came into effect. They also said efforts by their union to get

this government to acknowledge this crisis have fallen on deaf ears, which is

why they were holding meetings with the various MHAs. There are Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who have worked at the fishery for a lifetime and now face an

uncertain future. They and their union have been asking this government to

support an early retirement package for them.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Has this government made a written request

to the federal government for funding to support an early retirement package?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has consistently been on the record saying that

we believe an early retirement program is necessary in the fishery as part of a

rationalization program that is also needed in the industry. That issue has been

raised on every occasion when I have met with the federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans, including at the latest Atlantic Council of Fisheries and

Aquaculture Ministers' meeting two weeks ago, including at the Canadian

Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' meeting in Saskatoon two

months ago, as well as previous occasions similar to that in the past year and a

half.

Mr. Speaker, it is a priority of the government. We believe that it is

necessary in order to help us get through this crisis that the industry is

facing right now. Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that this government is

certainly willing to put its 30 per cent on the table if the federal government

are willing to put their 70 per cent on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that response from this Minister of

Fisheries or that Minister of Fisheries ever since he has been the Minister of

Fisheries. I recall asking this question of him in Estimates Committee, and at

the time he had made a reference in passing to the federal minister. Mr.

Speaker, it is not good enough, it is about time this government made a formal

written request to the federal government for an early retirement package.

Again I ask the minister: When are you going to put the request in writing,

so that those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are looking for some way to

retire with dignity can do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue as to when it will be directed to the federal

government in writing officially, I do not know how much more official you can

get than dealing with it at Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Ministers' Meeting and Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers'

Meeting. That is a fairly official forum, I would think, within which to address

that issue. It is one of the main priorities of our government. It is one of the

four or five issues that were raised at the last two meetings of Fisheries and

Aquaculture Ministers from across the country, by myself, and I am sure that the

current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will carry on with that.

Certainly, I think that we will be working aggressively with the FFAW on a

go-forward basis to try and bring that about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is foolhardy for this minister, or any

minister, to expect that the federal government is going to come to the table

without a formal written request from this government seeking an early

retirement package that will be cost shared. The previous Liberal government

made a commitment to cost share to the tune of 30 per cent and it is about time

this government did the same.

Mr. Speaker, you have a federal election just around the corner. Has the

Premier made an issue of this with each of the leaders of the parties so that

this will be considered when people come knocking on the door? Has he made an

issue with this, as he did with the Atlantic Accord, and as the Minister of

Justice said he will do with the fact that there are no federal jobs or few

federal jobs in this Province? Certainly, this must be a priority with this

government. So, I am asking: Will the Premier make this a request with each of

the leaders?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that, not only with

this issue - issues raised and dealt with this morning by my colleague, the

Minister of Justice, and many others - once the federal government falls, that

the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador plan to have its own

shopping list before the three leaders and do exactly what we did before with

respect to the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is to hold every federal leader, irrespective of

political stripe, to account for what they plan to do for Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is our plan, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it has been two years of talk and no action by

this government when it comes to an early retirement package for the people of

this Province, people who have given a lifetime to the fishery and who want to

retire with dignity. Why don't you put your request in writing? Put it in the

table. Table it so the people of the Province will know exactly what you are

asking the federal government to do, so that when people come knocking on the

doors in the various districts the people will be able to say to those MHAs or

MPs, who are looking to get re-elected, will you support this? And that will

help them determine who they are going to support in the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member makes the allegation that two years and nothing has been done. We

were able to leverage more money on equalization, more money on health care,

more money on the Atlantic Accord. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this,

the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition wish to ask a serious

question which impacts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if you would like to have an answer, I will provide

one for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the Member for the District of Grand Bank and

the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader who is giving the response.

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

I know what is going on today. I mean this is a serious issue, and I

appreciate the member who has raised it, and I also would appreciate dealing

with it in a serious and responsive way.

The fact of the matter is this, the minister has talked about, on several

occasions when he was minister, that he has raised this at the

federal-provincial meeting level. He has stood up here today and has made a

commitment to the people of the Province that this Province's 30 per cent

would be there. Will it be an issue during the federal election? Absolutely!

Will this government make it one as a priority? Absolutely! The fact of the

matter is this, Mr. Speaker, we will do what is necessary to protect the

interests of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically with that

request.

I say to members opposite, that if they want to participate in a good-natured

and in a spirit of co-operation, that during the federal election, if it does

come next week, that all of us should hold our own individuals and our own

individual MPs to account. The question is: Will you join us in doing so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not have to worry about

what we will do when it comes to holding the federal government, or anybody who

wants to be the federal government accountable. You are the government. You

should have that formal, written request out there so the federal government

know exactly what it is you expect of them. I know that we have fisherpeople

around this Province who have been asking and begging for this government to put

it in writing so that the federal government will respond; not to make a

reference in passing at various meetings that you are having with ministers of

one stripe or another.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know the member may be trying to kill some time with respect to Question

Period, but the fact of the matter is this, a reference in passing - she tries

to minimize the impact and the credibility that government has brought forward

on this issue. The fact of the matter is, at federal-provincial-territorial

meetings - she was a minister one time, she understands that this is how it

operates - that when you bring your priorities forward as a government,

irrespective of jurisdiction, on this matter with respect to fisheries, that

when you bring it forward and you make the official request, a request has been

made. This issue has been on the radar with this government for some time and,

Mr. Speaker, let's not forget the fact that the money associated with an early

retirement program has already been committed to by this government.

The fact is, now: How do we, as legislators, and how do we, as people in the

Province, ensure that the federal government ante up too? That is exactly what

we plan to do in the upcoming federal election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Back in September, Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement made that the

Trans-Labrador Highway would become part of the Trans-Canada Highway network. I

want to say to the minister, that was good news and we give credit to the

previous minister for making that one of his priorities; but, now that this has

been done, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What proposals have they put

forward to the federal government that will see an aggressive work of putting

blacktop on the Trans-Labrador Highway in the coming year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the negotiation for adding the Northern Peninsula

Highway, or a portion of the Northern Peninsula Highway, and the Trans-Labrador

Highway in particular, to the National Highways Network, initial contact was

made between the federal government and the provincial government to identify

funding, cost-shared funding, for the further development of that highway.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, all provincial governments and the federal

government are awaiting a national transportation strategy that is being

developed jointly. We should have that in the very near future, Mr. Speaker.

That will form the basis for negotiations between the Province and the feds on

cost-shared funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, during the upcoming

provincial budget we look forward to a fair chunk of money being committed for

this project since the dollars will be matching from Ottawa.

Again, Mr. Speaker, to go back to what we just talked about in the previous

question, will the minister and his government make the issue of transportation

and upgrading road standards and paving programs a priority, and try to get a

commitment out of all three federal parties in the upcoming federal election for

very strong programs to be put in place so that this work can be accomplished in

a relatively short period of time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, needless to say, having a highway added to the National Highway

System is of little consequence if the funding that needs to be done to upgrade

and further develop that highway is not associated with it. Mr. Speaker, this

will be a priority of this government. We will be prepared to commit our 50 per

cent to the ongoing upgrading of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and we would hope

that the federal government will be prepared to do the same.

We hope that we do not hear the rhetoric out of certain politicians about:

the funding gone into the Labrador Highway is federal money. The fact of the

matter is, it is all provincial money. The fact of the mater is, the provincial

government took over the ferry service and the coastal boat service on the

Labrador Coast in exchange for three hundred and some-odd million dollars.

I am not questioning whether it was a good deal or a bad deal, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, it was federal money that was paid in lieu of them

having to continue a service, so therefore it is provincial money. It was

provincial money that built the Trans-Labrador Highway; it is provincial money

that is continuing to build it. The federal government, I hope, and federal

politicians, recognize that fact when we go looking for 50-50 funding for the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that some of the radiation equipment at the

Health Sciences Centre has been shut down due to renovations. I also understand

that there are a number of patients who are suffering from skin cancer, who have

had to have their appointments deferred on more than one occasion in the last

few weeks.

My question for the minister today is: Can he tell me when this renovation

will be completed and when that equipment will be up and running again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I can say to the hon. member that I will certainly have

to make an inquiry with respect to that particular piece of equipment to which

you refer at the Health Sciences Centre. I will certainly undertake to do that

this afternoon and report back to the hon. member and to this hon. House with

respect to the equipment to which she refers, and whether or not the fact that

it is not working has resulted in any impact again that she has referenced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware that there have been a number of patients who have had their

treatments deferred, as I said, on more than one occasion in the last two or

three weeks. I would like to ask the minister how many patients that require

this treatment for skin cancer, radiation treatment, have been affected, how

long their treatments have been deferred, and how soon this equipment can get up

and running and the services being provided?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises, obviously, an important issue. It is one that I am

not presently familiar with. I will certainly endeavour to ascertain the

information and immediately report back to the hon. member and to this House

with respect to the issue that she has raised. It is an important issue and I

will certainly undertake to provide the information forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, and it is pertaining to the watch.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that it was a Rolex? Was there an

appraisal done, and if so, would he table it?

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the hon.

member: Again, I think it is time that I put this to rest; I really do. I

certainly would say to the hon. member that it was a protocol gift. I certainly

disclosed it properly, and right now I feel very comfortable in saying that I

will be moving forward in the next stage which will be to take care -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: What I am saying to you is this, that the watch was given

to me as a protocol gift and that I followed proper procedure. With regard to

moving forward, I would say to the hon. member that I will make sure that the

business is taken care of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, last fall the Town of Stephenville was faced with serious flood

conditions which threw the lives of many people in that community into chaos.

I ask the minister: Can he give the House an update on the current situation

in Stephenville on the status of the response to the flood?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I thank the member for the question. It is a very

legitimate and timely question, Mr. Speaker.

The situation in Stephenville is that over 150 people had to move out of

their homes and we are trying our best to get those people back into their homes

as soon as possible. We are presently waiting on a final report from the

assessors, the engineers and all the individuals concerned with respect to doing

the assessment on Stephenville. What will happen in the not to distant future,

Mr. Speaker, is that we will be making an announcement. I had to prepare a

Cabinet Paper based on information. There are certain situations that had to be

looked at. The disaster financial assistance program, that the former minister

is quite aware of, has to take

part in this, and the federal government has to

be involved in the final decision as to where we will be going with respect to

the situation in Stephenville. We do have to look at the area itself, the flood

zone. Will the people be permitted to go back there: That is a decision that has

to be made. If they are permitted to go back, it has a varying impact with

respect to the amount of monies that will be spent in the not-to-distant future.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is not something that can be answered in a minute here

but we are on top of the situation, no doubt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I just want to move some motions that are on Order Paper today.

Motion 1 through Motion 9, if I could do it or would you rather me do it -

MR. SPEAKER: Under our Routine Procedures, I think the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) maybe when we get to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: We should wait until we get to Orders of the Day.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on the issue of Sunday hunting. I

will read the petition, Mr. Speaker. It is:

WHEREAS hunting on Sunday is not permitted in our Province; and

WHEREAS there are many people in our Province who work Monday to Friday

leaving them only one day a week to hunt; and

WHEREAS hunting is probably the only activity, I say to the minister, that

people of our Province are prohibitive from doing on Sunday; and

WHEREAS not being able to hunt on Sunday has a negative impact on local

hunters and outfitters alike;

We, the undersigned residents, petition the House of Assembly to direct the

government to change the laws and regulations of this Province that will allow

Sunday hunting.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the last couple of days, being restricted to a

one-day hunt a week really for people who work Monday to Friday is hardly fair

to them, considering the amount of money that they have to spend in order to

pursue that activity. Sometimes it may not even be one day a week because that

time of the year our weather is not exactly great all the time, and if you have

terrible days in October and November, then, obviously, these are days that are

ruled out as well. So, the time frame that people have to exercise their right

to utilize their licence is limited indeed. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that

this is necessary in today's world.

Northern Ontario, now - I say to the minister, Northern Ontario now has just

changed their laws that will allow for Sunday hunting to take place. Southern

Ontario, I doubt there is much hunting that takes place there, so it is probably

not an issue like it would be in rural and Northern Ontario. So, this is

happening, Mr. Speaker, throughout the country and I want to say to the minister

that rather than just let this issue die in the House and not deal with it, it

would be wrong and irresponsible. I think the time has come when people of this

Province are open to the concept of Sunday hunting and that many people,

particularly those in rural parts of the Province and, indeed, many in the urban

parts who pursue hunting activities would like to see this change take place

which would give them more flexibility and more time to enjoy being out in the

country and pursuing the hunt.

As I used the example yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when you are 100 miles from

nowhere and the closest people that you see - if you see any - are hunters

themselves, than this just does not make sense that you are not allowed to use

your gun on a Sunday when you are out in the middle of the country, in the

middle of nowhere, and you come across an animal that you probably did not see

the day before, but simply because it is Sunday, you are not allowed to execute

your licence. It is time for that to change, I say to the minister. After three

days of petitions, I look forward to hearing a positive response from him in the

near, if not immediate, future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the

District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, this petition relates to the marine services that are provided

to the area, especially through the Sir Robert Bond , which operates

between the ports of Lewisporte, Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what the petition, in essence, is asking, is that the Sir

Robert Bond be used to provide a greater, I guess, frequency of service

between the Cartwright and Goose Bay ports. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is

simply because there has been increased traffic, there have been a number of

complaints, especially in the last year, by people who have had trouble getting

reservations on that particular

section of the service. What they are asking is

that government would reconsider, or at least take another look at this

configuration of service, and see if there is a way that they can increase the

frequency of trips that would occur between Cartwright and Goose Bay on a weekly

basis, to allow for a greater number of people to travel, to allow for more

goods and services to be transported in that particular region.

I think it is a very fair request, Mr. Speaker, and one that I would

certainly encourage the Minister of Transportation - the new Minister of

Transportation, who happens to be the Member for St. Anthony - to have a look

at. I think, in doing so, there could certainly be some compromise made here,

there could be some resolution, so that the people in this particular area could

have a better service, a more frequent service.

The other thing that they are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the ferry rates be

brought in line with the distance travelled. What I mean by that is, as it is

right now, if I was going to ship a container of freight out of Lewisporte to go

to Nain, I would pay about $2,300 for a container of freight on the ship to go

to Nain. If I was to ship that same container of freight out of Cartwright to go

to Nain, I would be paying $2,200. So, Mr. Speaker, the range of pricing is not

adequate and, in essence, when it costs you the same amount to ship a container

of freight from Lewisporte to Nain as it does from Cartwright to Nain, you know

yourself it is an unfair playing field. It is unfair for the business community

in the Upper Lake Melville and in the Southern Labrador region, and I think that

government should have a look at those rates.

We have run the service there the last couple of years; now is the time to

reassess it, have another look at it and see what the rate structure could be,

how it could be adjusted so that it allows for the business community in that

region of Labrador to be competitive with the business community in the rest of

the region of the Province that may be using Lewisporte as a shipping port for

Northern Labrador.

That is basically what the petition is asking, that there be some changes in

that service. That it be brought in line in a more fair way for the people of

that area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I wonder if I could ask the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, by leave, to introduce

Motions 1 through 9, as opposed to going through them individually. I know it is

Private Members' Day and I would like to get those Motions, each one of them,

Motions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, introduced and read a first time before

3:00 o'clock so that we can proceed with Private Members' Day without any

interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It seems I have leave; so, Mr. Speaker, I do move Motions 1

through 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that we will dispense with the reading of

each individual bill and the Motion number?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. ministers as named shall have leave to

introduce bills entitled according to their listing on the Order Paper.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. ministers shall have leave to

introduce said bills?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

[Introduction of Bills]

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce

the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Dietetics." (Bill 51)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians." (Bill 52)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid

Practitioners." (Bill 53)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses."

(Bill 54)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy." (Bill

55)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists." (Bill 56)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration of Psychologists."

(Bill 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004." (Bill 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act." (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bills be now a first

time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

[First Reading of Bills]

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Regulate The Practice of Dietetics. (Bill 51)

A bill,

An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians. (Bill 52)

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid

Practitioners. (Bill 53)

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses. (Bill 54)

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy. (Bill 55)

A bill,

An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists. (Bill 56)

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Psychologists. (Bill 57)

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004. (Bill 58)

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: These bill have now been read a first time. When shall the

said bills be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bills 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 read the first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I do understand we have a private member's

resolution being introduced by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member now.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's motion that I would prefer not to

have to bring forward, but I think it is safe to say that this motion, I guess,

in some respects, is what could be considered a non-confidence motion in a

company, that company being Fishery Products International.

We usually hear the word non-confidence attributed to governments. Of course,

with what is taking place in Ottawa this week, it is something that is on the

top of everyone's mind.

Today, I guess, I am talking about non-confidence in a company, and I think

it would be safe to say that, if you were to ask anyone in Newfoundland and

Labrador, even those who are not associated with Fishery Products International

- maybe with the exception of the Board of Directors and management of FPI -

they would indeed say that they have lost confidence in a company that has

played such an important role in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

It has played a major role in the economy of this Province for years, and it is

sad that today we have to stand here and speak to a motion calling for a public

inquiry into the operation and management of Fishery Products International.

The sentiment in terms of non-confidence is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from how

FPI was viewed in this Province just a few short years ago. In fact, FPI played

a big

part in ensuring that communities throughout our Province had a future,

that those people who worked day in and day out in fish plants around our

Province had a future, that they, in fact, could provide for their families

because of FPI. If you worked for FPI you were counted among the fortunate,

because you knew you had a job to go to, albeit the job tended to be seasonal,

but then the nature of the fishing industry in our Province has been seasonal.

There were areas of the Province, of course, where many worked for longer period

of time than others, and it was those people who were very fortunate indeed.

What has happened in such a short span of time, from when the former regime

was ousted and replaced with a new management and with a new Board of Directors?

All that happened in the space of a very few short years. I recall the

discussion around the board table, in the executive board room in the West Block

of the Confederation Complex. At the time I was a member of the Economic

Planning Committee of Cabinet as a Cabinet Minister. It was a meeting of both

the Economic Planning Committee of Cabinet and the Social Planning Committee of

Cabinet. We had come together as two committees to meet with individuals who

were interested in comprising the new Board of Directors for FPI. As we sat

around the table with them, first and foremost in our minds, of course, was the

future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the future of those communities where

FPI had fish plants, the future of the residents of those communities, people

who depended on FPI.

Naturally, our questions to the people who met with us - and they weren't

all there, some of them couldn't make it - but our questions all centered

around: What are your plans? How is it that you can do a better job of FPI than

the present management or Board of Directors? What are you going to do? How can

we feel confident that your plans are the best plans for Newfoundland and

Labrador, in particular for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Every response that

came from those individuals who we were meeting with, every response talked

about expanding, creating new jobs, growing the industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and every answer we would ask them to elaborate because we wanted to

be sure that they were, in fact, being up front with us and that they had a

vision and that they would, indeed, grow the company.

While all of the members of the board spoke - well, most of them spoke - to

the issues that we raised, they made it very clear that the company had a very

bright future, indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, not only would the

existing plants continue to flourish under their watch, but we could, indeed,

expect expansion and with it more jobs.

Of course, for those of us in government at the time, who had a

responsibility and an obligation to make sure that there was a good environment

in Newfoundland and Labrador for business to invest, and that, in fact, there

would be jobs available to those people who elected us to represent their

interests, everything they were saying was music to our ears.

Well, if that commitment had materialized, Mr. Speaker, I would not be here

today introducing this private member's motion. I would not be calling for a

public inquiry into the operation and management of FPI. Thousands of people

around this Province would not be wondering where the next dollar is coming

from, how they will support their families, how they are going to put food on

the table, if they are going to be able to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Province where they have lived and worked for the best part of their lives.

Now, I am all too familiar with the repeated comments from FPI, that their

problems can be attributed mainly to the rise in the Canadian dollar and to

cheap labour in other parts of the world, specifically in China, but aren't

these challenges that most companies face? And, when you are making plans, aren't

those the types of issues that you take into account? The dollar tends to

fluctuate. Yes, you can get cheaper labour in other parts of the world; that is

nothing new. So, certainly, in putting forward a plan and a strategy, when they

took over FPI, this present Board of Directors and management must have taken

that into account. If they didn't, what does that say about the management and

Board of Directors of FPI? Aren't these issues that are factored into your

plans so, as the saying goes, you are not caught with your pants down?

The questions go on: How is it that a company that had a debt load of $75

million in 2001, which at the time they said was manageable, is today saying

that debt load has grown to approximately $300 million? That is a significant

increase. Now, just look at that; it has gone from $75 million to approximately

$300 million in four years.

Certainly the powers that be at FPI have something to answer for. It cannot

all be blamed - or, I do not think it can all be blamed - on the rise in the

Canadian dollar. I do not think it can all be blamed on cheap labour in China.

How is it that other companies who experience similar challenges, as all

companies do who are doing business in the global marketplace, how is it that

there are other companies who are thriving, or at least surviving? In fact, some

are even expanding - local fishing companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. So,

how is it that on the one hand we have FPI who said they cannot possibly deal

with the rise in the Canadian dollar, with cheap labour in China, and still be

able to continue with their operations that they have in Newfoundland and

Labrador, while on the other hand we have other fishing companies in our

Province who are surviving, who are employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

who are making it possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stay in their

communities and earn a living and support their families? Is it any wonder,

then, that today we are calling on the government to initiate a public inquiry

into the operations and management of FPI?

How is it, Mr. Speaker, that just four months ago this company was promising

to invest $8 million in converting their fish plant in Fortune to a secondary

processing facility? Now, I know the response to that question will be that

promise was tied to the establishment of an income trust, but the promise to

build a new plant in Bonavista was not tied to proceeds from an income trust,

and they promise to do that in 2007.

The $40 million investment in the UK, money that they borrowed - albeit I

expect they hoped to be able to repay that out of proceeds from the income

trust. Nevertheless, they went ahead and borrowed the money and invested a

significant amount of money into a company in the UK..

These are decisions made by a company who knew it was going further and

further in debt and, in so doing, was jeopardizing the very reason for its

existence, and that is to provide employment opportunities for people in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I ask, is it any wonder that we are calling on

the government to initiate a public inquiry into the operations and management

of FPI?

Now, don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with making a profit. In my

books, profit is not a dirty word, but I do question how much profit and for

whom. Is it possible that, in trying to grow the company and increase the profit

of their shareholders, those in charge at FPI lost sight of its history, lost

sight of the fact that the company came into existence because a provincial

government of the day saw fit to take several fishing companies that were

struggling and create, with taxpayers' dollars, tax dollars paid by the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that could compete on the international

scene? The idea was that, in making the company viable and competitive, the

people of the Province would benefit from the expenditure of their tax dollars.

There would be jobs for people in this Province, particularly in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, in those rural communities whose very existence came

into being because of the fishery.

Just take a look at our Province. There are 10,000 miles of coastline, and if

you were to look at a map of Newfoundland and Labrador you will see that the

coastline is dotted by hundreds of communities. People built their homes as

close to the sea as they could possibly get, because it was by fishing they

earned a living. The fishery has been the industry of choice by Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians since this was a Province. They have fished and provided for

their families without questioning the hardships associated with earning a

living from the sea. Those who went to sea provided a product to be processed in

our fish plants, some owned by FPI, where thousands of other Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians went to work daily, and that is not easy work.

I think if you were to ask those people who earned a living with FPI prior to

2001, if the company lived up to its obligations, they would say that it had.

Were there difficult times? Of course, there were difficult times. There are

difficult times in any industry. But, prior to 2001, the management of the

company never lost sight of the moral responsibility it had to the people who

made it possible for it to exist in this Province. That is what is missing from

the mindsets of those who now hold the reins at Fishery Products International.

Now, there is an irony here, because one of the individuals who was front and

center in this whole debate is John Risley. John Risley is President of

Clearwater Fine Foods, the largest shareholder in Fishery Products and

Clearwater Seafoods, which are Canada's largest fishing companies. Clearwater

is the parent company of a fish plant in my hometown of Grand Bank. I would be

less than honest if I did not say that the company has been good for the town

and for the entire Burin Peninsula.

In fact, I read with interest a column that Mr. Risley had published in the Globe

and Mail on January 12 of this year. It was titled, Don't write off Rural

Canada. If I could recall correctly, it was actually written in response to the

now infamous column -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having some difficultly hearing the hon. member. She is making some

concluding statements and I would appreciate some co-operation from all members.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious issue and I, too, would appreciate if the members opposite

would listen to what is being said instead of talking over it.

The column that was written by John Risley - in fact, if I recall correctly,

it was written in response to the now infamous column that was written by

Margaret Wente. I was so pleased to read Mr. Risley's words but, as I did, I

could not understand how this same individual could initiate actions that would

question the very statements he made in that article. Statements that if you

believed in rural communities would in fact be music to your ears. And I quote:

It is foolish to try and measure the role that any member of Confederation plays

purely in financial terms. What is tragic is to suggest that rural Newfoundland,

or indeed any part of rural Canada, has no future. Now, to me this sounds like

an individual who understands that with business decisions comes a moral

responsibility to those who helped to build the business.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker. It is my experience that the vast majority

desperately want quality year-round jobs which they know are the key in

retaining the next generation; key to the very survival of their communities.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a person in this Province who would not agree with

this statement. However, because they are not able to work year-round and while,

unfortunately, it is primarily a seasonal industry, an important one at that,

does not mean you write them off. Even working seasonally and living and working

off the land for the rest of the year, as most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

do, has meant the survival of rural communities, those very communities that the

thousands of tourists who visit our Province come to love and return to, in some

cases, to buy property. I venture that without our rural communities, we would

not have a flourishing tourism industry in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more quotes that I could refer to, and I will in

my concluding remarks when I finish off this afternoon, but today I am asking

the government to take this motion seriously and undertake immediately a review

of the operation and management of FPI. You have the authority to do so and an

obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. By doing so, you can also

postpone proclaiming recent amendments to the FPI Act, amendments that were

voted on based on commitments given by FPI, which now appear may not

materialize, thereby leaving hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out in

the cold, which they do not deserve, and their government should ensure it does

not happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start by saying that I listened to the Member for Grand Bank quite

intently and there is not a lot in her statement that I can disagree with. In

fact, as I prepared to stand today to speak on this matter, I just wondered

where I could begin. I think as people around the Province recognize this to be

a provincial issue, I think though, the debate and the entire matter speaks more

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It speaks to the future and how it will

unfold. I know that this is an issue that has been discussed very much around

our caucus table. I know the Member of Bonavista South has had meetings, and I

think today he is meeting with a town in his district and with FPI

representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the last sitting when all of the debate took

place regarding the proposed income trust, and I think back to the stress that

people were under at that time. Earlier this week, I said that I thought the

people of my district, especially those who work in the plant, if you look at

how the fish plants in my district have impacted upon the economy, I think the

entire district, and indeed the entire Peninsula, is under this cloud of stress.

Again, if I reflect on the income trust debate, I think about the people who

filled this House, who sat in the galleries from day to day from Harbour Breton,

the people who were in the galleries who were from my district, who followed the

debate very closely. During that time, I spoke with community leaders, I spoke

with union leaders, I spoke with individuals, and, as I went back to my district

on the weekend, the debate around FPI was continuous. Again, we find that we are

in that situation.

As the Member for Grand Bank alluded, FPI was putting before us matters and

challenges that they faced in terms of the Chinese labour market, how it was

cheaper to operate in China, and how they faced ever increasing challenges

because of the strength of the Canadian dollar. Like the Member for Grand Bank

has mentioned, we have other companies that have met those challenges; and our

hope, in moving ahead with that income trust, would have been that FPI could

have faced some of those challenges. Unfortunately, due to the federal

government ruling, that income trust is now on hold, so we are again faced with

more and more challenges.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, for a minute, just show you and show the people of

the Province who are watching, and show the members of this hon. House, how

important FPI has been to the Burin Peninsula and the District of

Burin-Placentia West.

My district is built around the sea. We have people in the inshore, and for

so many years people fished the draggers and continued to fish the offshore. We

have been into ship construction, and during the 1960s, with the increase in

fish plant construction, times were booming and work aplenty.

Mr. Speaker, it was during the late 1960s that my family, and many other

families from my community, resettled into Marystown. It was exactly because of

that. My father had gone ahead of us and had gotten a job in the fish plant,

like so many other men from my community. Mr. Speaker, during my time there as a

high-school student, the fish plant in Marystown was a place where you could

always go in the summertime to get work. Many of the people will relate to that.

During my summers there, we went there on Saturdays loading and unloading boats,

working on the assembly line, and so on and so forth. Even for a couple of

summers, Mr. Speaker, work was such aplenty on the draggers that I even took to

taking a few trips to the Grand Banks. I think it would be safe to say that

every community on the Burin Peninsula, and in the District of Burin-Placentia

West, profited from how lucrative the fishery was.

No matter what, Mr. Speaker, we have always been connected to the sea and I

think, whatever transpires from these proceedings, we will remain connected to

the sea. It is in us, and that is the way it will always be.

If we look specifically at the fish plants, in Burin there is a secondary

processing plant. It is involved with the marketing arm of the Ocean Cuisine,

and there are approximately 200 people living there. They make a good living

from this fish plant. This is a sector that seems to be doing quite well.

Then, if we look to Marystown, FPI have made major investments in Marystown.

There are approximately 600 people working there. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the

workers in these plants are committed to making these facilities successful.

I had a discussion this past week with an individual who said that production

capacity in the Marystown plant, in this groundfish operation, is probably as

high as it has ever been. These workers, with their union, have worked as hard

as they possibly can in this facility to make it successful. Never can it be

said that the people in these plants are not working up to their potential to

help this company.

Madam Speaker, even during the days of the moratorium this fish plant in

Marystown operated. People managed to eke out their living there. Any business

people within the community will tell you that, how go the fish plants in the

area so goes the economy. When the fish plants are operating up to capacity and

doing well, so does the economy. It has been a steady employer and it has been a

steady contributor to the economy. Not only in our larger communities, Madam

Speaker, has FPI been an integral part of the community, they have been good

corporate citizens - I don't think anyone would argue that - secondly, in the

smaller communities. In the Community of Baine Harbour where I lived, FPI

operated a small plant. There were only ten to fifteen people working in that,

but, Madam Speaker, let me tell you how important that was to that community. On

a seasonal basis they processed everything from lump roe to salt fish. It was an

employer, and ten to fifteen jobs in these smaller communities can equate to

much higher numbers in areas such as St. John's.

In the fish plant in Marystown it can't only be said that it is a Marystown

plant. We have people from the Northern part of the Peninsula, in Brookside and

Boat Harbour, who work there and have always worked there, and so it continues

on around the boot, from Grand Bank to St. Lawrence, on down through Lewin's

Cove. People from all over the Peninsula work there. It is a stable employer for

the entire Burin Peninsula.

Madam Speaker, where do we go from here? As I looked and followed the CBC

programing on these people - a little while ago I watched a gentleman from

Harbour Breton and a little while ago I also saw a husband and wife who worked

in the fish plant in Marystown, and have always worked there. If we look at the

people who started in these plants, these many years ago, some of them left high

school to go to work there, because at that time a job at the fish plant meant

security. You could come out of high school - you worked there. Work was

aplenty, as I have said, and people dedicated their time and their efforts to

making the company successful.

This is where these people have worked for their entire lives. At the age now

- I think the average age in the fish plant in Marystown is somewhere around

fifty to fifty-two. As governments and union leaders - the federal government

has a responsibility here to come onside with the provincial government to look

at programs, such as early retirements. I feel so deeply for someone who at the

age of fifty-eight, for example, and who have worked and given their entire life

to a fish plant facility and a fish plant company to make it work, who suddenly

can be left in a situation whereby there are alternatives that none of us want

to consider.

So, Madam Speaker, where do we have to go from here? We have to ask certain

things of this company. In their news release the company said that they would

look from the boardroom to the floor. I am asking this company to, first, look

at the boardroom; to take a look at how many people they have in management. We

may as well be up-front.

As the Member for Grand Bank said, we have companies who seem to be operating

in the Province and who seem to be successful, and maybe FPI needs to take a

closer look at the numbers in their management as compared to these other

companies. Start in the boardroom. The easy target would be the workers, but I

am asking the company to start in the boardrooms.

This is much more than a business decision, Madam Speaker. We, as a

government, meet continuously on this. My colleagues and I are continuously

talking about this. The minister is very much on top of this entire matter, as

is the Premier, and as is all of our members of our caucus. We, as a government,

are willing to work with whomever. We are willing to work with the company. We

certainly hope that we can work with the federal government here to look at

things like our early retirements. We are willing to work with all of the

stakeholders in this to ensure that a resolution is found that will benefit all

of the people, especially the people in our rural communities, our fishing

communities, our fish plant facilities, and Madam Speaker, this is no time for

blame. This is a time that all of us work together here. We, on the Burin

Peninsula, in the District of Burin-Placentia West, have always survived and

have been attached to the sea.

Madam Speaker, as a district, we continue and we will always continue to be

attached to that. You cannot separate us from that. FPI, I certainly hope, will

be a contributing factor in the future. As I have said, the workers in these

facilities have given their utmost. They do what is necessary. They do whatever

they can to ensure that this company is successful. I certainly hope that the

company sees that and that they will work in partnership with us, as a

government, and the workers, as a unified union force, who will work to

reconcile these matters and make a successful future for people, such as in the

District of Burin-Placentia West.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member

for Grand Bank, calling for a halt or postponement of the passing of the Income

Trust that went through the House here back in June, as well as a call for a

public inquiry into the management of FPI.

Before I start on that, I have to beg the differ with my colleague, the

member who represents Marystown, when he says this is no time to blame people or

to cast blame. Well, that is a magnanimous gesture, but I certainly cannot stand

in this House today and say we should not be pointing fingers or we should not

be placing blame because I cannot be that magnanimous when it comes to the Board

of Directors of FPI and what they have done to the people of this Province in

the last three years. I certainly cannot do it. I know it is not the Christian

thing to do but, boy, I have to cast blame when it comes to FPI and what they

have done to the people in the communities in which they operate. But, I will

get to that later, Madam Speaker.

As I said, I am standing today to support the motion put forward by the

Member for Grand Bank with regard to FPI. Let's talk about the inquiry first,

why we should be investigating FPI publicly, because we did it. We held a public

inquiry by an all-party committee, when I was Minister of Fisheries in 2002. We

did not have a problem doing it then and it was an all-party committee, I say,

Madam Speaker, made up of the Opposition, the NDP and the Official Opposition at

the time. Because when the current Board of Directors took over FPI back in

2001, they made commitments to the government of the day - and I was the

minister, and my colleague from Grand Bank sat around the table in this building

when five or six or eight of us met with the Board of Directors of FPI. There

were some concerns as to where they were going to take this company, the

direction that they were going to take it in. We had concerns, and a lot of the

people in the communities who work for FPI had concerns. They sat around the

table with us and to allay these concerns they made us a number of commitments.

Their commitments were to: Number one, rebuild the fish plants that needed

rebuilding in the operation of FPI in the Province. Number two, they were going

to rebuild or build new boats so that they could bring more fish ashore, to

provide more work for the people who worked in FPI plants. Number three - the

one I find most galling that they made - was to employ more people, not fewer,

to create more jobs to grow FPI, not only in terms of the number of employees,

but grow the company so that they could provide a bigger share value to the

shareholders; who, I might add, the vast majority of them, live outside this

Province. I would go so far as to say, 99 per cent of them live outside of this

Province.

Well, Madam Speaker, we took them at their word, but we did, that day when we

met with them, we did say to them: We will hold you to your words and we will

ensure that you will keep your commitments and if you vary from these

commitments, then you will feel the weight of government. They said: You won't

not have to worry about this, Minister. They said to the Member for Grand Bank:

You won't have to worry about that because our commitments are as good as

written in stone. We are going to do this. We will provide better management to

FPI than the past Board of Directors, led by Mr. Vic Young. Because they gave

the impression that he certainly was not going in a direction that would

improve, not only the lot of those who work with FPI, but the shareholders.

Madam Speaker, we told them we were going to hold them to their commitments.

One short year after - it was not even a full year, I do not think. Yes, almost

a full year. The fall of 2001. Back in December, 2001, they announced that they

were going to layoff 700 workers on the South Coast of the Province, namely in

plants in Harbour Breton, Fortune and in Marystown. Well, we knew what we were

going to do as a government. We heard lots of rhetoric from the Opposition: You

should not have let it happen. You should not have let them take over the Board

of Directors. The Premier himself was saying we should not have let them take

over the Board of Directors. We told them we could not prevent the shareholders

of the company from voting for a new Board of Directors because that would be

tantamount to nationalizing the company, but not to worry, we would hold them to

their commitments. When they decided that they were going to layoff 700 people,

we said: No, you're not. We held public meetings and they withdrew. They said:

No, we will not layoff the 700 workers. In fact, we will not lay anybody off

unless we have had extensive consultations with the union, and the agreement of

the union, and that we would do something for these workers in the event that

they were laid off.

Well, the company operated well in 2002, and the company operated and kept

their commitments while we were in government up until the fall of 2003. We did

not see massive layoffs, plant closures and the company going into bankruptcy.

Then, something happened in 2003. The government changed. Then, all of a sudden,

the Opposition - who wanted to enforce all kinds of rules and regulations on FPI

- gave them a free run. They told them they could do what they want; either that

or they turned a blind eye to it and they did not pay any attention to what was

happening in the boardroom on O'Leary Avenue. They certainly did not pay any

attention to what was happening in the boardroom, because one thing that they

did, right off the bat, was drive the company from $75 million to $80 million in

the hole to $300 million. Nothing said!

They came out and complained a lot about competition from China and the cost

of importing foreign fish; something they told us they could do without any

trouble. All we heard from this government and the Minister of Fisheries - the

past Minister of Fisheries, the new Minister of Transportation - it was almost

like an echo chamber for FPI, out every single day saying the competition from

China is driving us into bankruptcy over here; that FPI is experiencing trouble

because of the dollar, the marketplace and the competition from China.

Well, the people who run FPI were in businesses, in the fish business for

lots of years. The shareholders in FPI, the group in Iceland, they made a living

in Iceland since the day that Iceland was formed off fish. The New Zealanders,

who owned fish plants for years and year and years, knew what the fishery was

like. Mr. Risley, who became the president of the company, owns his own fish

company over in Nova Scotia. He knows about the ups and the downs in the fishing

business. He knew all of that when he made us the commitments. Now, all of a

sudden, they have the company driven $300 million in debt, who are we going to

blame it on? We are going to blame it on China - we cannot compete - and the

minister falls right in line and says: He is right. There is nothing we can do

about it.

So, when they came along a year ago, almost to the day that we are standing

in this House, a year ago, the people of Harbour Breton where informed that this

plant is no longer going to operate. Three hundred and fifty people were told to

go home out of it, we longer need you in this great corporation. We no longer

need you in this great corporation where the Board of Directors and the CEO are

making anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 a year. We do not need the people in

Harbour Breton who built this company. We do not need them. You go home out of

it. What did this government do about it? Absolutely nothing. We are going to

help you out with a make-work program - nothing going to happen.

Shortly after they made the announcement in Harbour Breton, what did they do

then? They went down the road to Fortune, across the bay into Fortune, and said:

Too bad, you are gone as well. What did this government say? Nothing. Oh, the

groundfish fishery is in an awful state; the company is not going to be able to

survive unless they close plants. They did nothing, they said nothing, because

it was too late when they found out what was happening. They did not keep a

close eye as to what was going on in FPI. I do not think they were interested

enough in those districts, because they are two Liberal districts, probably.

Maybe that was the reason.

Anyway, we saw what happened then. When questioned on the Fisheries Broadcast

- that is two plants. That is Harbour Breton and Fortune gone. When questioned

on the plant in Bonavista, an old crab plant, one of the first crab plants that

was in the Province, I guess, when questioned on that by me, and questioned on

the Fisheries Broadcast - what are you going to do with the plant in Bonavista?

- the only answer that we could get from the CEO, Mr. Rowe, was: Wait and see.

Wait and see. It is an old building. How can I tell you the answer to that? No

answer for Bonavista. No answer.

Then, shortly after they made the announcement in Harbour Breton and then in

Fortune, they came forward and said: We want to make an income trust. We want to

do an income trust. We want to sell 40 per cent of the American asset, the most

valued asset of FPI, the one that is worth the most, into an income trust, so we

can raise money.

What did they say they were going to raise money for? What did they say they

were going to raise money for? Number one, to pay down the debt; and, number

two, to honour commitments that they made to the Province, to give $3 million to

Harbour Breton, to rebuild the plant in Fortune and create new jobs down there,

or at least maintain some of the jobs that they had. What else were they going

to do? Rebuild the fish plant in Bonavista.

Do you know when they started talking, ladies and gentlemen, about an income

trust? A year ago today. In fact, if you look at their last financial statement,

they will tell you, between last November and June of this year when we sat in

the House and you passed the income trust, they spent $5 million on the income

trust, to work out the details, to have it ready to go to the market once it was

passed in this House. What happened? Five months after they were given

permission to do the income trust, they came back and said we cannot do it now

because the federal government will not allow it; it is on hold. Poppycock! I

say to the members opposite. They never had the intention of going through with

the income trust because they knew back in June that they could never realize

the amount of money. They were looking for $100 million for 40 per cent of a

company that was worth $105 million. They knew they could not do it.

They could not, and they come back now and say: Because of the federal

government, we have to cancel the commitments that we made to the 350 people in

Harbour Breton, to give them the $3 million that they owe them because they did

not pay their severance. They went to Fortune and said: The deal is off. We are

not rebuilding your plant because the income trust is going through. We do not

know what we are going to do in Bonavista. We cannot honour our commitments.

What did they do? Instead of talking about debt - remember that? That was one

of the keys, pay down the debt with the income trust. What did they do? They go

to Britain and spend $40 million on buying a fish plant in Great Britain, and

drove the debt of FPI up, the one that they were going to pay down if they sold

the income trust, the one they were going to pay down the debt, because everyone

knows that debt and fish do not mix. That is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who

has ever been involved in it will tell you that, right from the Kirby report

back in the 1960s or the 1970s right up to the past Minister of Fisheries a few

months ago.

This government sat by and did not even know they were doing it; or,

obviously, if they did know, they said: Yes, boy, that is right. Go on; you do

not have the income trust. You have a problem with debt. You have a problem with

competition from China. You have a problem with foreign fish. It is too

expensive to buy.

Even though the company is going bankrupt, or we are up to $240 million or

$250 million in debt and we are closing all of the facilities in Newfoundland

and Labrador, go off, boy, and buy a fish plant in Great Britain!

Then the current Minister of Fisheries is standing in the House this week

defending it, yelling and screaming and insulting me for dare asking the

question. The best thing FPI ever did! Going to go and spend $40 million more,

drive the company $300 million in the hole, lay off people in Newfoundland,

close fish plants - but you are doing the right thing, boy! Do it!

Therein lies the problem. This government never kept an eye on what FPI was

doing, and they are still not keeping an eye on FPI, what they are doing,

because I am firmly convinced, in my mind - and I am not playing politics - the

Premier of this Province is a businessman, and every businessman will tell the

government: Butt out! Do not interfere with my business.

That is what he has done with FPI. So, yes, I say, put the income trust on

hold because they have not honoured one commitment, and do not pass the

legislation so we can allow them to go off and sell 100 per cent of the American

asset. Put that on hold until we find out what they are doing. Have the public

inquiry, similar to the one that we had in 2001 when I was minister and we were

the government. Go out and find out what happened to FPI, why they drove the

company from $75 million or $80 million in debt to $300 million in debt. Why is

it that, all of a sudden, the geniuses who took it over and said that they could

bring in foreign fish and do this and that and create employment and rebuild

boats - do a public inquiry. Find out exactly what is happening; because,

personally, I do not believe what they tell me. I do not believe what they tell

me. I do not like to be lied to, and when someone looks me in the face and makes

a commitment to me, I expect them to honour it. I expect them to honour it, and

they have not honoured one commitment that they made to the people of this

Province; but, more importantly, they have not honoured one commitment that they

have made to the people in those communities who are now in a very hard

situation and predicament. We have seen it on the public airwaves of this

Province, what is happening in Harbour Breton, and we are going to see it in

Fortune.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: One minute to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: For the member from Marystown to stand today and say we should

not place blame or cast blame, I will tell you one thing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Burin-Placentia West.

MR. REID: The Member for Burin-Placentia West.

I would cast blame, if I were you, because guess who is next if you are not

careful and your government is not more diligent? That is going to be Marystown,

and God help the Burin Peninsula if there are another 650 jobs gone off the

Burin Peninsula.

With that, Madam Speaker, I say I will be supporting my hon. colleague from

Grand Bank in her private member's motion calling for a public inquiry into

the workings of FPI, and calling that the income trust be put on hold until that

inquiry is over.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to have a few comments, a few words to speak on the motion

presented by the Member for Grand Bank.

I, too, remember the days when we sat around our table, when we were

discussing proposals from NEOS and the Barry Group and the Risley group. There

from government. We spent many hours discussing the proposal. It had a big

effect on my district. I have a plant in Triton employing 350 and sometimes up

to 400 workers. Of course, that makes me more suspicious than people who do not

have a plant in their districts.

When I look back at how this evolved, when we go back to 1983 and, of course,

the creation of FPI and thereafter, when things were done to keep the company

surviving, when they had no other choice at the end of the day - have we reached

that point now where we are in the same predicament, where FPI needs tough

decisions and tough measures taken by all the stakeholders, the unions

representing the workers, the company, and of course, the government. It is our

responsibility to make sure that every avenue of hope is given a chance.

I think today we speak on this resolution based on our own convictions,

representing our constituents. This resolution today, to me, is sort of a step

in a direction where it is premature. We should be giving the company a chance.

They are doing their internal review - and I am not defending the company - and

I think the internal review needs to be done so good solid decisions are made.

Of course, I go back to when we were discussing the whole aspect of FPI and,

of course, Bill 41 and the amendments to Bill 41. It is a time that I do not

like to remember because of the stress and pressure that it put on the MHAs,

particularly our MHAs with plants in their district, the Member for

Burin-Placentia West now, and our Member for Bonavista South back then, who is

today already meeting with FPI and his community leaders. We have to make sure

we do not put the cart before the horse. If we go ahead today and have a public

inquiry, then that could jeopardize, probably, the viable outcome of the

successful resolution to this problem.

I sympathize with the people of Harbour Breton. I am close to a lot of people

from Harbour Breton, being from Grand Falls-Windsor. I know the impact of a

fishery. I know the impact of a community in areas that are service sectors and

hubs of services for rural Newfoundland. In my district we have Triton,

Springdale and Grand Falls-Windsor that are major service centres for the

fishery. Without the fishery then we see a big downturn in the economy of rural

Newfoundland. We see a major effect on all of these communities. It effects the

whole Province. Even in St. John's we see the effect of FPI, with their head

office here on O'Leary Avenue.

As my colleague from Burin-Placentia West alluded to, maybe it is time the

company do this review. Maybe there are things that this company can do to make

their own accountability better for the company. I remember times when FPI was

so lucrative they were flying around in helicopters, their own helicopters,

spending thousands and thousands of dollars, probably unnecessary.

This internal review now is going to find out where the problem areas are and

where the solutions are. We need to give them a chance to do that. If we do not,

then rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be in a lot worse shape than it

is in right now. I am very fearful of the outcome, of what could happen. If FPI

disappears my district is going to be impacted so greatly that I can see many,

many families having to move away. The effect that it has on the community

councils, a dozen councils in my district, a dozen communities that are

depending on the success of FPI which has done well in the Triton plant - we

have depended mostly on crab and crabmeat production, but in the last couple of

years they have been experimenting with H+G cod, a few years ago, and now they

are into the palagics. They are doing really well in the mackerel. This year has

been a really good year for mackerel. That is not the solution to the problem.

We may have a good plant with millions of dollars invested in the last couple of

years. Back about three years ago they invested $500,000 in a waterline to the

plant and new equipment. The equipment has been upgraded continually. We have a

fairly young workforce out there, a stable workforce, who come from all of the

Green Bay area. Some come from Bay Verte District and some from other districts.

We have to be very careful that the decisions we are making - I put my trust

in this government and the minister who alluded to the fact that maybe an

inquiry is necessary, but it is not necessarily an inquiry. Maybe there will

come a time when we have to say, now is the time for an inquiry. We have to put

our ducks in line, we have to make sure decisions are made on a timely basis.

The former Minister of Fisheries has been so involved, of course, in the last

couple of years, and last year was involved with the Raw Material Sharing. We

had to look at trying to help fish businesses in this Province survive, to get

through the hard times. Are the hard times over? Not by a long shot. I think we

have a lot of tough choices to make in the near future.

The fishery is the backbone of rural Newfoundland. If the fishery goes then

so goes rural Newfoundland. If we don't make those crucial decisions - and I

don't mean that we have to be against big businesses, because big businesses

and small businesses are certainly keeping this Province alive. Even though FPI

is a creature of the government, it still has to have some flexibility to

survive. I don't think we can tie their hands and expect them to swim through

rough waters. It is not practical, it is not a good business practice, it is not

good business ethics, to be too involved, to let them drown in their own demise.

We need to give them a little bit of flexibility, not saying that we have to

change legislation to let them do what they want to do, but by not proclaiming

the amendments that we proposed last year to the bill, it is already on hold. We

have to wait and see, wait and see what the federal government's impact is

going to be on their proposals and how they implement the plans they have for

the different plants in the Province.

We see, all too often, that these communities are affected so greatly that

the population decreases very fast. Of course, the economies of these areas,

then, are devastated. Families have to move. Families have been moving out of

the Province for many, many years. We have to make sure the right decisions are

made.

FPI is a good company, it is a big company in this Province in the fishery.

It has a good collective agreement with its workers, paying good wages, good

benefits, top wages that are being spent in the communities. I am not saying

they should be allowed to do everything they want to do, but if there is no

alternative to FPI then it has got to be based on the same benefits to the

people of the Province. We have to have a company that is going to keep the

jobs, give good benefits and good wages. FPI is doing that. We must still make

them accountable.

I remember back on February 7, 2002, the all-party committee had a meeting in

Triton. Of course, there were a lot of nervous plant workers back then. They

were very nervous of the loss of jobs, and that situation is arising again. When

you are talking to your constituents, and you know them on first name basis who

work at the plant, you know that when they go to work they are proud to go to

work. They cannot wait to go to work. When you know that this is hanging over

their heads - and they are nervous. The same as they were back in 2002, when we

were having an all-party committee going around trying to find out what the

solutions are, what the problems are and of course, the proposals that were made

to government back from the NEOS group and the amendments to Bill 41. We were so

disillusioned, I guess, that maybe the answer was there in front of us and we

had to give it a try.

I supported the Income Trust last year because I thought that this extra

money was good for the company. The company needs to grow. The company needs to

have the flexibility, financially, to invest in the Province. Investment has

been good in Triton. I have seen it since I have been there. The company has

been investing in the town and in the plant there. Maybe this Income Trust was

going to be a way to help them invest in the other communities that we have

plants in. So, if we want to see lucrative fish plants in communities like

Burin, Marystown, Bonavista, then we have to make sure that - no matter if it is

FPI, or what company it is - we do not tie their hands and throw them out to

swim. The federal government has to take some of the responsibility as well.

We had many discussions in my district with workers pertaining to the early

retirement plan. We have to be involved in that. That is not the solution of all

the problems but it is one of the things with respect to the plants that we have

to make sure that does happen. In some areas they have a high age of workers. We

are fortunate in the Green Bay South area where we do have a lot of younger

workers and, of course, a lot of experienced and skilled workers, but we do have

to look at what we are going to do with people who are ready to retire now. They

are anxious to have an answer. Of course, I have no problem in supporting a

resolution calling on the federal government to bring forward an early

retirement plan for plant workers. It is something that needs to be done and

done soon. Other things need to be done soon, but I do not think, at this point

in time, we need a public inquiry into FPI's operations.

I think that this resolution today, even though it may come to a point where

I may think differently, I will be voting against this resolution today and

hoping that we do not see a full demise of FPI in the near future. I hope that

we can work together with the Opposition, that we can come up with plans and

solutions and ideas that communities, like Harbour Breton - we can work together

with them. We can work with the company, with the unions, which is very

important, that all the stakeholders work together, because if we do not work

together, then we will spread further apart and a demise will come quicker.

We all know the fishery is in big trouble in the last decade or two, and that

solutions are out there. Some answers are not what we want but they are

necessary. It is necessary for the people of the Province to realize that our

fishery is not in the shape that we would like to have it, that we know it is

not the same as it was thirty years ago. It is not the same as it was twenty

years ago. It is not the same as it was last year.

So, if we are going to make decisions, I encourage the stakeholders, the

Opposition, the towns, the communities, the unions, workers, all work together

and give your opinions. Let us know, let the minister know, what your opinions

are but make sure they are not political and make sure they are decisions that

are going to help keep the towns in this Province alive. I have no problem in

supporting any ideas or resolutions or amendments or policies that makes rural

Newfoundland more viable and more sustainable - as the Member for Grand Bank

said - to keep our families, to keep our people in rural Newfoundland, in the

communities they want to live in, in communities they want to work in and raise

their families in, because, if not, then rural Newfoundland will disappear, and

I am certainly not against anything that could help rural Newfoundland.

So, thank you, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to any comments from other

speakers on this issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this resolution as well. I would beg to

differ with the Member for Windsor-Springdale when he says that FPI is a good

company. He certainly hasn't been in the meetings that I have been with the

people from Harbour Breton, and I would say that the former minister would

probably attest to that as well, but I am not going to go there. I am not going

to play politics with it. I have not up to this time. I do not intend to. The

problem is too crucial for that. It is too severe for that. It is too important

for that. It is the life of a community that we are talking about. It is the

life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we are talking about. For any of us

to try to show one-upmanship on that, I think it would be blatant disregard for

the problems that are out there. So, I have no intention of doing that.

Why is it necessary to call into question FPI's operation within the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to call for an inquiry and to stop, or

ask the government to not carry through with the legislation for the Income

Trust that was done here earlier in the spring? I want to give some reasons, and

I will not be able to give them all, but I want to be able to give some of why I

think this should happen.

First and foremost, like the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for

Grand Bank, I, too, was in a meeting when the new board of directors came in to

meet with us and we had a lot of concerns. I was always told when I grew up, and

still use it as a rule of thumb now, that your word is your bond. If somebody

told you something, you could believe it. Because if you could not believe what

somebody told you, then you are in big trouble, and I do not mean joking around

like we all do sometimes. When you have a serious issue, and the person gives

you their word, then obviously you take it and hope that you can go and run with

it.

I am telling you, that is not the case with FPI. They came in and they told

us that Vic Young and the whole board of directors did not know what it was to

run a company. They did not have the company at heart. They did not have the

communities at heart. They were old fashioned businesspeople of doing things.

They wanted a new way of doing it, a new way of growth so that the communities

in the rural part of the Province, especially in the rural areas, could prosper

and do well. We took them at their word, but do you know what? As the Leader of

the Opposition has already said, and my colleague from the District of Grand

Bank, within a year they were back in to us saying: We are going to lay off 700

people on the Southwest Coast, in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton. I am

going to tell you one thing, they failed. Yes, we said no to them. I will tell

you why they failed. Because they came at it and said: We are going to lay off

people in Marystown, people in Fortune, and people in Harbour Breton. Do you

know what happened? The communities galvanized together and said: You are not

going to do it. The Mayor - I think it was Sam Synard from Marystown at the

time. I am not sure if it was Alex Noseworthy in Marystown. I think it was

Churence Rogers who was the Mayor or Harbour Breton at the time, came in and

said: No, sir. And the people from Newfoundland and Labrador in the urban and

rural areas stood with us and said: You're not going to do it.

Do you know what they did? They went back and devised another plan and the

plan was to divide and conquer. I said that in the House last spring, and I am

telling you they succeeded. They came here and said: We are going to close the

plant in Harbour Breton. Do you know what they said? We will give Fortune

Harbour Breton's red fish to keep them quiet, so they would not say a word.

What is happening to Fortune now? I will make a prediction, and I do not want to

say it for the sake of doing it - and the same for Harbour Breton - but I fear

that it will never open again. That is the fear I have for the people who live

in the communities. Do you know what? They even went further. Derrick Rowe - and

I will come back to that in a moment. They are saying now: We are getting out of

the groundfish industry altogether. We are only going to be a shellfish company.

Then what happens to Marystown?

Last spring, when we asked in the House to have a quota of FPI's catch to

be attributed and assigned to Harbour Breton as a community quota, we should

probably have done it, because it is going to happen eventually if they get out

to the groundfish industry. I want to go back. Do you know what? They said they

were going to grow the company. They grew it alright! They grew the shares that

were one time up to $12. What are they now? A little over $4. They grew it! What

did they grow? They grew distress. They grew economic uncertainty. They grew

depression. They grew everything on the people of Harbour Breton. I am telling

you, if you were in that community you would see the houses are the same, but, I

will tell you what, the people are not the same with what they have to live

with, because of a company like FPI who perpetrated that on them. That is what

they did. They were not honest with the people. They said something they were

going to do and they did not follow through on it, and there has been a legacy

of that all through.

I will tell you what, only recently, when Bill Matthews was on Open Line and

Bill questioned the sincerity of FPI - and I have never ever seen it happen. I

have been in politics here for just about sixteen years, seventeen years come

the spring, and I have never seen it happen before. The communications person

from the company came out and lambasted Bill Matthews, lambasted him because he

told the truth, and even taunted him, you know, he should go back to his adopted

party and see to his colleagues in Ottawa to get more support. I can tell you

one thing, I got more support from Bill Matthews than I got from Russ Carrigan,

the communications officer for FPI, the former communications person for Joe

Clarke. This is not what you play politics about. It is people's lives that

you are talking about.

I will tell you what happened after the day he lambasted Bill Matthews. Guess

what happened a day after that? Derrick Rowe resigned. I could not believe it

when I heard it. He resigned. He said: I can no longer lead this company as I

had intended a couple of years ago. What has happened? Isn't that enough to

question, a man who took over a company $75 million in debt and ended up with

$300 million in debt, and giving him a freehand?

I will tell you what we should call into question; when they bought the new

plant over the summer. Just think about it! Neither one of us would do it here

on a private situation with our own finances. What he said was: We cannot afford

to build a new plant in Bonavista or do the repairs in Fortune. The company is

not in a position to do it. They go over to England and they buy a plant for $40

million and they built it on bridge financing because they thought they were

going to get the Income Trust. They knew they were not going to get the Income

Trust. They gave us false information last year. They tried to tell us that FPI

was worth $250 million. The company was not worth $250 million, it was worth

$105 million. They were going to sell part of the Income Trust and raise $100

million on $105 the company was worth. How long would you keep that person as

CEO your company? You tell me.

What was the object of getting the new plant into Britain? I will tell you

what the object was. The object was to take the shrimp that has been bought -

and they did buy two factory freezer trawlers - to take the shrimp on those

trawlers, send it into Britain rather than processing it in Catalina or up in

Port aux Choix or wherever else they had gone. That is what they are going to do

with it.

Guess what the other thing about it is? The other thing is, what are they

going to process in the plant that they bought in Britain? They are going to

process lobster and they are going to process scallops and other fish. Nova

Scotia does not have the law that we have on our books, because it says once the

fish is brought here then it has to be processed. In Nova Scotia you do not have

to do it. Guess who is going to send the lobster and the scallops to the new

plant in Great Britain? Who is going to benefit from it? It is going to come

from Clearwater and John Risley. He did, deliberately, in my opinion, try to

undermine the company right from the beginning. That is what happened. You had

those people who saw that FPI was a great company, had a great marketing company

and they wanted a part of it. They became envious of it. If they saw FPI be

successful then they could not be themselves. What did they do? They saw the

demise of the company so they could benefit from it, and benefit it on who? On

the backs of the people in Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown and everywhere

else. That is what they did. What we are saying is, all of these things added

together cause us to have concern. Why not check it out?

I am sure that the former Minister of Fisheries had been frustrated to death

with them as well. I am sure he had more meetings than I did with them, and I

would say that day after day. Do you know why? They were never upfront. You

cannot allow a company that really has so much control of rural Newfoundland -

we are talking about the rural part of the Province here. Think of Harbour

Breton. We are looking at the Connaigre Peninsula. This is the whole problem,

the Connaigre Peninsula, the whole peninsula down there. What else are you going

to put down if we do not have some situation of some fishery? I am telling you

the community today is in a crisis situation. I know it.

I was in the community a couple of weeks ago and I was talking to a guy in

the local garage there where people were putting on their tires. You know what

he said to me? He said: Oliver, I have a moose licence and I cannot afford to go

moose hunting. I cannot afford the gas. He said: If you are here 9:30 at night

you will not see many cars going around the community. People cannot afford it.

That is the situa