May 25, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome several groups of students to the

public galleries. First, we would like to welcome fifteen Level I, Level II and

Level III students from St. Lewis Academy in St. Lewis, Labrador, located in the

District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The students are accompanied by their

teacher, Ms April Sampson.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The second group consists of eight high school students from

A. R. Scammell Academy in Change Islands, in the District of Twillingate &

Fogo. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Roy Morgan, the school

principal, and by Ms Christa Marshfield.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The third group consists of three participants in the Skills

Links Program, Evan Brinson, Todd Hoffe and Patrick White, in the District of

Twillingate & Fogo, together with their chaperone, Ms Gail Morgan, and their

bus driver, Mr. Junior Brinson.

Again, welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have several special guests.

We have Mrs. Diane Tobin, the mother of one of our Pages, Shannon Tobin. We

are pleased to have you in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the public gallery, as well, I would like to welcome Ms

Vi Parsons, a long-time member of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards

Association and the former president of that association.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Indeed, a very special welcome to Ms Ann Martin, the wife of

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. This is a very special day for both the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and for his family, and indeed for the entire

House of Assembly.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, by agreement, I call upon the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who wishes to make a statement.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of us in this House are very honoured to be here, and privileged to be

sent by our constituents to represent them in our Parliament. I have been very

fortunate to be able to be here for, I suppose, fifteen-and-a-half years, maybe

sixteen years coming up.

I just want to say, first of all, this is my last day as Leader of the New

Democratic Party in this House of Assembly. Unless we have some emergency

session of the House to deal with, perhaps further amendments to the FPI Act

over the summer, this may well be my last day in the House of Assembly, so I did

want to say a few words to acknowledge my time here and to thank those of you

who are here and who have been very kind to me over the years in allowing me to

carry out my duties.

I should mention my mother and my father. My father died before I was elected

to Parliament in 1987, but his talks, when I was a young boy, of campaigning for

Billy Brown and Rex Renouf are things that I remember very fondly. My mother was

somewhat cynical about politics, and thought that politicians and politics were

sort of a dirty game, so I had to overcome that myself to decide to go into

politics, but I think to remember their feelings about that is important to me

today.

I do want to thank, of course, my wife, Ann Martin, who is here today, and my

children, Amelia, Sarah and John, who have been very interested in politics and

very supportive of me over the years. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I also want to say to the young people who are here in the

gallery from St. Lewis, Labrador, and from Change Islands here in the Province,

that politics, despite all you hear, is an honourable profession, and those of

us who come to a Legislature like this, or the Parliament of Canada, do it for

the best of motivations. We want to think that we can somehow change the world

or our Province or our country for the better. Some of us have some influence.

Some of us succeed, some of us do not, but it is a very honourable profession.

In fact, I remember, when I first announced that I was going into politics, a

very respected individual using these words, saying that politics is a noble

calling. I want young people who are here in the gallery, or those watching, to

see that it can be and that it should be for the best of those who are involved

in politics for the purpose of representing their constituents and trying to

make their society better.

I have had great success in the sense of being able to be elected five times,

and I want to thank the people of St. John's East and the new district renamed

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Without them, of course, I would not be able to be here.

It was to represent them that I came here, so I thank them very much for their

support and continued support over the years. It has been a great pleasure of

mine to meet so many of them, to serve so many of them and, in fact, to help

them as individuals from time to time over the years.

Of course, politics, as you know, as everyone knows, I have been here for -

if someone said to me, when they were trying to talk me into running for St.

John's East back in 1990, I got good news and bad news; the good news is that

you are going to be there for sixteen years and the bad news is that for the

first nine you are going to be there by yourself, without a party, without a

colleague, the Member for Labrador West, I am not sure I would have said yes. It

has not been easy all of the time, but I have to say that it has been a terrific

pleasure and lots of memories.

I am looking at the Member for Kilbride here today and I remember, prior to

his coming here, the previous Member for Humber East and I keeping the House

going all night - ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes - on a

debate in this Legislature, assisted by the previous Member for Kilbride who

came in at 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning when he heard the House was still on the

go, and we kept the House going until 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock the next day.

I remember the current Member for Kilbride who kept the House at bay, I

guess, with a bit of a sit-down strike of his own for a day or so, protesting a

matter which I think is lost in the annals of time, but these are all very

positive memories of the House, memorable events.

I can remember the Catholic Women's League of MHAs that we debated one day

on a petition here in the House, but there were also very serious things, too. I

am pleased to say that I have been able, over the years, to get recognized the

Day of Mourning for workers who were injured or killed on the job, to get it

recognized through a private member's resolution. I remember the Newfoundland

pony resolution, which later became the Heritage Animals Act, and of course,

other resolutions on public auto insurance, and prescription drugs just the

other day, that I hope will contribute to the debate about these important

issues in the future.

Being in Opposition, sometimes people do not think you have any influence or

say, and I hope to think that I have had some influence. I remember one Cabinet

minister in the previous Administration coming to me afterwards - I was trying

to be as rough as I could on him and his department for not doing the things

that I thought he should be doing, and he came over afterwards, I thought he was

going to come over after me and attack me, but he came over to thank me. I said:

Why are you thanking me? He said: Well, the more you give me grief in the House

of Assembly, the better a chance I have in Cabinet of getting the things I want

done accomplished. So that is an important object lesson for anybody who is in

the Opposition.

I hope, as well, that my recent - in the last few months - comments and

exhortations about the value of FPI to the Province, and particularly, the

marketing arm that has been acknowledged recently as being most important to the

Province, that my exhortations in that regard have played some role in assisting

and convincing government that something dramatic and substantial ought to be

done in that regard.

I have been very lucky to be able to serve here, and I am very thankful to

all of those who, in the House over the years, we have had our debates and our

differences of opinion, but that is what the political process is all about. I

hope that I have been able to contribute to the democratic process over the

years.

I want to thank my party, the New Democratic Party, because they are the ones

who made it possible for me to be here, and of course, my colleague for Labrador

West, who joined me in 1999 to make a caucus of our Party and enable us to do a

much better job in representing our Party and our point of view here in the

House of Assembly.

Thank you, all of you, to the Speaker, to the Clerk, and the Officers at the

Table, Ms Murphy and all of those who have served this House. I am very grateful

for my life here in the Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will miss it, I

will guarantee you that, but I can assure you that I will have a continued

interest in the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I had a prepared statement which I intended to

read to the House tonight. I would like to deal with that first and, perhaps,

digress for a moment at the end. I think my colleague summed it up best, the

Minister of Natural Resources - and it was a compliment in the biggest kind of a

way - when he said: With Jack no longer debating in the House, we can either cut

our time in half or double the output of legislation. So, it is the best

compliment, I think, you can give to a parliamentarian. He is so articulate and

eloquoent.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and honour to rise in this House and

pay tribute to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi as he prepares to step

down as the Leader of the Province's New Democratic Party, a post he has held

since November of 1992. I have a bit of a lump in my throat here today, Jack.

This is not easy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harris started out his political life very early, being

elected as the President of the Council of the Students Union at Memorial

University.

He then went on to become the NDP Member of Parliament for St. John's East

in 1987 and served in the House of Commons in Ottawa until the federal general

election of November, 1988.

The hon. gentleman opposite has been a member of this House for fifteen

consecutive years since he was elected in a by-election in 1990, making him

among the longest-serving members of the current General Assembly.

As the NDP Leader, he has led his party in four successive general election

campaigns - 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2003 - and he has faced five Premiers across

the floor of the Legislature. During much of that time, the member stood alone

as a caucus of one, with shadow Cabinet responsibilities for every portfolio and

the natural expectation that, as leader, he would be on top of all of the

issues, and he was.

Surely this was not an easy burden to bear alone, but bear this burden he

did. And he did so with dedication and commitment that each and every member in

this House should aspire to. He bore the mantle of leadership with dignity and

distinction and persevered to do tremendous work for the people of our great

Province. He was, at all times, a tireless champion for the vulnerable and a

vocal advocate for the values that define his party and that will mark his

legacy as a leader.

He has applied his extensive legal background and the parliamentary

experience he gained, both in the House of Assembly and in the House of Commons,

to improve legislation and initiate legislation, and to do his part to help

shape public policy in ways that would benefit the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

He has earned an enduring reputation for his insight, his tenacity, his

integrity, his exceptional debating skills, his love for Newfoundland and

Labrador and, above all, his compassion for the people.

Mr. Speaker, if I can refer to him as Jack today. We go a long way back. We

go back to the 1950s, back to St. Bon's where we were in school together.

Jack, of course, was much older than I was. He was a father figure to me, Anne -

(inaudible) himself a young bride - and a mentor in a lot of ways. Then we went

our separate ways. Jack went to Brother Rice and I went to Gonzaga. Then we came

together again at Memorial University, of course, where Jack was President of

CSU. Then we didn't see each other for a period of time. I got married -

actually, we did things in reverse. I had the family first and then afterwards

went into politics, and Jack was in politics and then had the family after, late

in life, and I am delighted that you are now going to take the time to enjoy

your wonderful family.

The next time we bumped into each other, myself and Maureen were on the way

to Dalhousie to go to law school and I think Jack was actually on his way to law

school in Alberta at the time. Is that correct? You were heading out West.

MR. HARRIS: I was hitchhiking to Toronto.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You were hitchhiking anyways. So, we get off the ferry

in Sydney - of course, we were just married, so everything we own is in this

1962 Valiant station wagon - blocked to the rafters, blocked solid. Even the

passenger seat was blocked up right to the roof, and the two of us were in the

car. So we are driving along just after we got off in Sydney and we drive by and

I go: Oh, my God, that's Jack Harris. I have to stop. I can't drive past

Jack. Jack is on the side of the road and he is hitchhiking.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) in my knapsack.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What did he say?

MR. E. BYRNE: He had everything he owned in his knapsack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was going there. I'm coming to that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He had it all in his little knapsack, and his

(inaudible) as we would have called it in those days. So, there was no room. We

had to get Jack in but we couldn't get his belongings, all his life

possessions and his knapsack in. So what we did was we strapped it to the top of

the wagon. We put it on a small rack that we had on top of the wagon because

that was the only place we could put it. So, we get in, and first of all, if I

remember correctly, I tried driving the vehicle. It was so tight that I put

Maureen on the lefthand side of me. I am driving now, and this is in a Valiant

station wagon. She is here, I'm here, and then Jack is there and everything

else is that way. We go along for five or ten miles, the next thing we hear this

snap, snap off the side of the roof. What's that? We look around. Anyway, we

go another couple of miles and we hear it again. We have to stop. We get out,

Jack's knapsack is gone. There is nothing. There is only the strap on the side

of the roof. So we turn around, because everything that he owns is there. We

turn around on the Cape Breton Highway. We go back the road five or eight

minutes, five or ten miles and there it is all over the road, socks, drawers,

underwear, shirts, t-shirts, everything is there. But, do you know what the most

impressive thing was? Most of it was books. Remember? It was all books, and the

underwear were not Guccis or Armani, they were Stanfields but they were clean,

Jack. They were good and they were clean.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: All his life's reading and possessions were all over

the road. We had to get out on the highway and we had to pick it all up, and

then we proceeded on from there. Did you actually go into Halifax with us after,

because we dropped you off? Anyway, when we got into Halifax the old wagon

caught on fire. We ended up having to put that out when we got into Halifax.

I will not be too long, but we go a long way back. Then we hooked up again

afterwards. We articled together, we worked together, we had a law firm

together. I have seen this man in action professionally. It was interesting,

that the people who were coming across the door in those days were Ricky Cashin

and all of the people from the union. I remember - I can never get the name

right - the Labrador Fishermen's Shrimp Company. I have never, ever gotten it

right, but that was incorporated in our firm. It was interesting to hear Hubert

Linstead speak yesterday.

We did a lot of wonderful things together. Jack, of course, led the way in

the Hughes Inquiry. He represented the victims in Mount Cashel and, ultimately,

closed it and ended up with a solution that was a good settlement for the

victims of Mount Cashel. I also saw him in criminal court representing his

clients to the best of his ability. He was an extremely good lawyer and a good

advocate.

So, I had that opportunity to work with him in the profession, valued his

opinions, saw how intelligent and articulate he was. We did then make a joint

mistake together. We had a lot of successes but we made a joint mistake, and I

accept some responsibility for that. I think Jack in Twenty Questions, indicated

that might have been the low point of his political career. That was when an

all-party, self-constructed committee talked him into running for the Mayor of

St. John's. There were representatives from the Liberals and from the Tories

and from the New Democratic Party. We really felt that there was a need for new

leadership at City Hall. Basically, we went to Jack with a plea that he offer

himself in municipal politics. At that particular point in time we basically had

to really talk him into it because he was committed, obviously, to what he was

doing in the House, but we convinced him that there was a need for a change in

direction at that time in City Hall. And, unfortunately, we lost it by just

under 100 votes. I have to accept some responsibility for that because over

time, people have blamed Jack for his cellular telephone comments down on the

deck of Green Sleeves, but I think it all started Jack when I saw Andy going

down the road and I said: We got you now, we are going to take you out. That is

when the slippery slope started for this all-party committee and our candidate.

So, we have shared some absolutely, wonderful times together. We have talked

politics over the years. I have often said to Jack that at times we are very

close on the political spectrum. I may be perceived by the party I am in as

being to the right and Jack very much to the left, but I don't think, Jack,

over the years we have had very many disagreements on political issues; very few

if any to be quite frank with you.

It has been a wonderful experience. It is ironic that here today you are

finishing and spending the time with your wonderful family which I think is the

right thing to do. You have selflessly dedicated yourself. It is not lost on

people that at times when, I guess, your chance of becoming Premier of the

Province or your party winning the Province wasn't within your grasp, you

stepped up, and you were there alone. It wasn't for the prize, it wasn't for

the crown, it wasn't for the title, you were there for the people, and I think

you will always be respected and revered in this Province for having done that.

You have really handled yourself very eloquently.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it has truly been a

privilege to see him work, especially having seen him work in the House over the

last four years, and to work with him in the office and in the private sector.

On behalf, Jack, of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I want to thank you

personally on behalf of our caucus, on behalf of our government, for giving so

many years of your life to the Province as Leader of the New Democratic Party

and for striving at all times to make a lasting and meaningful difference in

people's lives.

I wish yourself and Ann, and Amelia and Sarah and John as well, all the best

as you pursue new challenges and opportunities, and a great life ahead.

Thank you, Jack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Listening to the Leader of the NDP and the Premier argue about who was the

poorest growing up reminds me of a Monty Python skit, and all I can say to both

of us is, don't get me started, because I know I can outdo you. I say to the

Leader of the NDP, I hope you learned one important lesson in your race for the

mayor's job, and if you try it again don't get the Premier to be your

campaign manager.

[Laughter]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I would like to echo the

sentiments expressed by the Premier on behalf of my colleagues in the official

Opposition. We would like to thank Jack for the tremendous amount of work that

he has done, not only on behalf of his constituents but on behalf of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You have always been out there on issues of

great importance to everybody in this Province, and we thank you for that. I

have always had a great deal of respect, and I have said it to you in the House

many times, for your opinions and your stand on certain issues, even though

sometimes I think you stray a little bit to the right of center too far for me,

especially when you stand sometimes and agree with the Premier.

I think my opinion of you was somewhat confirmed, I say to the Leader of the

NDP, when some very good friends of mine, Dr. Barry Martin and his wife Lois,

agreed to let you marry their daughter. I figured, Barry and Lois being very

knowledgeable and very wise people, if you were good enough for them then you

were good enough for me.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have a great deal of respect for Jack. He has a

done a tremendous job. We would like to thank you on behalf of our caucus and I

am sure on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I close, I would just like to say that all politicians enter this

House with some degree of dignity and respect, but we cannot say that we all go

out that way. With regard to you, Jack, I say that you have kept your dignity

and you have increased that respect in this House and around the Province. I

would like to congratulate you on the work you have done and I would like to

wish you and Ann all the best in whatever endeavors you choose to go into.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing as I represent half of the caucus, and soon to represent 100 per cent,

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words as well.

First of all, I would like to say, back in 1999, on February 9, during the

election - I have to tell you this - I was declared elected, and the results

were not in from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The minute I found out I was elected I

got on the phone and managed to get hold of Jack. I said: What is going on? Is

the count in yet? No, he said, it is close but the count is not in. I said:

Well, boy, you let me know fast because if you do not make it I am out of here.

[Laughter]

MR. R. COLLINS: There was no way I was going in there to face all of

these people by myself. Fortunately for us, fortunately for the Province, Jack

did get re-elected and he has remained here up until today.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that coming into the House of Assembly brand new,

unlike other caucuses where you had many people who you could surround yourself

with, talk to and everything else, it was great to be here with Jack because

Jack was an amazing teacher. I think the Premier mentioned his ability to remain

on top of all the issues. That has never ceased to amaze me, Mr. Speaker. No

matter what subject came up for debate in this House I could always take a great

deal of comfort in knowing that if I did not have a clue about it Jack did. That

was a source of comfort for me, believe you and me. It is amazing, his ability

to grasp the issues and to be able to debate them intelligently and

knowledgeably.

His has taught me a great deal. I will never forget it. I owe him a deep

appreciation for what he has been able to pass on to me, his ability,

particularly, on how to conduct yourself in the House of Assembly, because I

have been known in other circles to have a short fuse. It has gotten longer

since I have been here and a lot of that is due to Jack and his diligence in

passing on his expertise and the way that he carries himself and conducts

himself. It has been a great, great experience.

I would like to say one thing to all of the young people who are present in

the gallery today, and I think it is important and I do not think it should be

lost: If you look, during the Premier's remarks on Jack, when he talked about

going back so long and friendships and everything else, I think it is important

for people to realize that you can be on different sides of this House, that you

can be on different sides of any issue, it does not mean that when you walk out

these doors you still cannot be civil and be friends. I think that is a very

important lesson to everybody in the Province and I would like to acknowledge

that to the young people here today, that you do not have to be enemies to be in

different parties and debate the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to wish Jack

and Ann and their family the best in the future. Because Jack is leaving this

Legislature, I think anybody would be dreaming very vividly and in technicolor

if they thought that we have heard the last of him in the Province and his

professional opinions on whatever maybe happening and on current events. I am

sure he will always be valuable for that, and I am sure that other people will

be seeking him out for advice as we go into the future and raise new issues and

debate new things.

On behalf of myself, my family and the constituents of Labrador West, I just

want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with Jack for the past

seven-and-a-half years. On behalf of all the people of Labrador West in

particular, and the Province in general, I certainly want to wish him the best

in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to thank the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the

Member for Labrador West for their very kind words.

I should say to Randy, and others who may be able to see the mess of my desk,

the reason I have all these papers on my desk is so that I can keep on top of

all of the various issues. I got into that habit and I cannot break it even

today. Even today I cannot break it, Mr. Speaker, so I have a lot here.

I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, I am hoping that one day you will

create a list of those things on which you are to the left of me, because I

would really like to look at it. I know you say it from time to time. I just

want to underscore one thing, and Randy actually made the comment that I was

going to make in thanking both the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier for

their kinds remarks, that for young people and for those watching, politics

involves people having different political parties, different political views

and very strenuous views about the issues. I have always tried to stick to the

issues, and as a result I think I have not only maintained friends, such as that

with the Premier, but also made friends on both sides of the House.

Thank you very much for your friendship and for the years that we have spent

together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all members for their presentations.

On behalf of the Table Officers, I would say thank you to the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi and our staff, the people who work in Hansard and the

broadcast centre and others, who certainly appreciate the contributions that the

hon. member has made to parliamentary life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Members' Statements this afternoon are as follows: the

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of

Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member

for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the

District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's

Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to attend the Annual General

Awards Ceremony for Hockey Canada this past Monday evening. This event attracted

over 350 hockey officials, executives and organizers from all regions of Canada

to our Province.

During this event, Mr. Speaker, a number of awards were presented by Hockey

Canada to deserving individuals for their contribution to the development and

promotion of hockey across this country. Two of these award winners were from

Newfoundland and Labrador, and I wish to publicly recognized their significant

achievement and recognition by their hockey peers.

The Hockey Canada Order of Merit award was presented to Gerry Taylor,

President of the St. John's Junior Hockey League. For over fifty years, Mr.

Taylor has been involved as a player, a coach, an organizer and an educator of

the game of hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has been involved with three

different hockey associations in the Province and has served as the Chairman of

the NAHA Hockey Hall of Fame.

The Hockey Canada Official of the Year Award was presented to Ray Bowe of St.

John's. Mr. Bowe has been officiating since 1954 and has officiated in many

leagues across Canada, including the Armed Forces, the Senior, Junior, Major

Junior and Minor Hockey leagues. Ray is a Hockey Canada Level VI certified

official which is the top level within the Hockey Canada officiating program. He

is a member of the Armed Forces Sports Hall of Fame and the Hockey Newfoundland

and Labrador Hall of Fame.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Mr.

Gerry Taylor and Mr. Ray Bowe, two exceptional community leaders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sunnyside

Lions Club who are celebrating their 40 th Anniversary.

In 1966, Chesley Mercer of Sunnyside decided to start the first Lions Club.

The charter night was on April 15, 1966, with Clarenville being the sponsoring

club. At that time, the charter members probably did not realize they were

starting what would be the most influential organization in the history of

Sunnyside, and that several of its members would remain volunteers for the next

forty years.

Mr. Speaker, the Sunnyside Lions Club celebrated its 40 th

Chapter

Anniversary on April 29. It was an evening of reflection, remembrance and honour.

Phil Temple and Will Temple, both charter members, who are still active with

the Sunnyside Lions Club, were honoured for their many years of commitment. They

were presented with the Melvin Jones Fellowship award. This award is the highest

possible honour in the Lions Clubs International Foundation and it recognizes a

person's commitment to humanitarian service.

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

congratulating the Sunnyside Lions Club on their 40 th Anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

Danita Burke, a graduate of Leo Burke Academy this year, on receiving the Duke

of Edinburgh Silver Award.

Although Danita volunteered at the public library, performed tutoring at her

school and was a member of the Bishop's Falls Minor Hockey league until bantam

age, her dedication to the 512 Air Cadet Squadron did not go unnoticed.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of emceeing the 512 Squadron Annual

Ceremonial Review on Saturday, May 13, at which time Warrant Officer 1 st

Class Burke was awarded the 100 per cent attendance, six-year Service Medal,

$1,000 Cadet Scholarship, the Lord Strathcona Medal, and the Most Advanced Cadet

Award.

Danita has met the prescribed areas of self-development, which include

community service, adventurous journeys, physical fitness and skill development.

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

Danita Burke on receiving the Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate D.C. Young Tigers from Port Hope Simpson who

earned a silver medal at the boys' 3A Provincial High School Ball Hockey

Championships which was played at St. Bride's on May 12.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to make this statement today, because very seldom do

these young people get to compete at a provincial level in any sport.

Members of the D.C. Young Tigers are; Tristen Parr, Trent Penney, Justin

Ward, Loren Russell, Terry Clarke, Bernie Russell, Brent Russell, Charlie Curl,

David Burden, Dustie Russell, Andy Ward and Anthony Derrah, who is their coach.

Following the boys' 3A Provincial Ball Hockey Championships, Tristan Parr

from D.C. Young Tigers was also named the most sportsman like player for the

competition.

Mr. Speaker, in the round robin play, the Tigers won two of three games and

advanced to the semi-finals defeating St. Joseph's 4-3 in overtime. The Tigers

lost a close 2-1 decision to Mobile in the championship game.

The ball hockey teams were welcomed home with a motorcade and barbecue to

celebrate their achievement. Both the school and the community joined in

congratulating them and their team.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues in the House today to join me

in congratulating these young ball hockey players, the D.C. Young Tigers from

Port Hope Simpson, who won the silver medal at the boys' 3A Provincial High

School Ball Hockey Championships.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, on May 19, I had the pleasure of attending the

official opening and re-dedication of Templeton Academy in Meadows.

Templeton Academy is a new K-12 school which serves all students on the North

Shore of the Bay of Islands. The former Northshore Elementary and Templeton

Collegiate were combined and now has a student population of 555 students making

it the largest K-12 school in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the opening was an opportunity to showcase the new school and

what is has to offer. The new school colors and crest were unveiled as well as

the new school theme, "Aim and Achieve".

A couple of special guests present for the opening were Mrs. Joyce Gillett

and Mrs. Dorothy Rockwood, daughters of the late Reverend Gordon Templeton. The

sisters presented a portrait of Rev. Templeton, done by his grandson, to the

school. This was the first time the two sisters had been together in the area in

which they grow up since 1948.

Mr. Speaker, the former school councils of Templeton Collegiate and

Northshore Elementary are to be commended for their unwavering determination and

commitment to ensure that a state of the art facility was provided to the

students on the North Shore. As was pointed out at the opening, the work has yet

to be finished. The Northshore Recreational Outdoor Committee was formed to

develop the outdoor resources. The committee is currently working on a sodded

soccer field, a one-quarter mile asphalt track, ski and hiking trails, and an

outdoor classroom.

It was a pleasure to take

part in the opening and join with a kindergarten

student and a Grade 12 student in cutting the ribbon and cake. I was also

pleased that the Member for Mount Pearl, who was representing the Department of

Education, made a commitment to the school to replace their stage curtain as I

requested and I thank the member for that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year of transition for all students and teachers

as Lenna Ferrie, a student of the first graduating class of Templeton Academy

said at the opening, it was not always smooth but it was a great road and soon

both elementary and senior students learned to appreciate what the other has to

offer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations

to the students, teachers and parents on the north shore for their support,

patience and commitment and wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the work of the well-known nurse, midwife and

nursing professor, Kay Matthews, who was awarded an honorary doctorate at

Memorial University today for her service to maternity and to the provincial,

national and international community.

Mary Kathleen, known as Kay Matthews, has had a career in health spanning

more than forty-five years. She trained first as a nurse-midwife in England and

later obtained two nursing degrees from Memorial after arriving here in the late

1960s.

She was a prenatal instructor, a labour and delivery nurse, the coordinator

of the Maternal Child Health Program at the Grace General Hospital and became a

professor of nursing at Memorial University. Throughout her career she did much

to encourage the maintenance of midwifery as an option in this Province.

She also introduced the LaMaze method of childbirth to the Province and

started the Province's first breastfeeding clinic at the Grace General

Hospital in 1978. Although a full-time educator, Kay Matthews also had an active

clinical practice in prenatal education and childbirth support to women and

their partners.

Ms Matthews also worked as a nurse-midwife consultant on a Memorial medical

team which set up prevention programs for pregnant women in West Africa with

MaterCare International, founded Dr. Bob Walley of St. John's.

Ms Matthews helped to develop the teaching program that trains birth

attendants in villages to recognize and assist high-risk mothers. In 1997, Kay

received the Cross of Merit, Nursing, from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

for her contribution to this project.

In addition, Ms Matthews was project director for a partnership between

Memorial's School of Nursing and the University of Indonesia, developing a

masters program in community and women's health and a demonstration centre for

community health nursing education, research and practice in rural Indonesia.

She has received the Provincial Award for Excellence in Nursing Practice from

the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the

Leadership Award for Women's Health in Atlantic Canada from the Maritime

Centre for Excellence in Women's Health at Dalhousie University.

Kay Matthews was named an honorary research professor at Memorial University

in 2003 and is an honorary member of the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing the achievements of Dr.

Kay Matthews and her contribution to nursing and women's health in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible) the Buchans Highway?

MR. TAYLOR: No, not the Buchans Highway, I tell the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans. No.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that two companies have been

granted Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises status, or EDGE, by the

provincial government. These companies are making their mark on their respective

industries, as well as the business world in general.

Dynamic Air Shelters Limited of Grand Bank designs and manufactures

inflatable shelters for promotional and utility purposes. Their products are

extremely versatile, and have many uses such as custom-shaped shelters for trade

shows, shelters to protect industrial work sites, emergency response and crime

scenes, as well as larger shelters for outdoor events and activities.

Under its EDGE status, and to help facilitate its economic development

initiatives in the Province, Dynamic Air Shelters plans to establish a new

production facility in Grand Bank and manufacture and export its product for

many years to come. The company expects to create twenty-five full-time,

permanent positions in the short term, while long-term projections include

upwards of 100 employees at the Grand Bank facility.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur

Breeders Association undertook the initiative to expand the fur breeding

industry in this Province. This initiative, supported by the provincial

government, examined the potential to attract well-established and successful

breeders from leading fur producing countries to establish mink farming

businesses in this Province.

After operating successful mink farms in Denmark for many years, Viking Fur

Incorporated established an operation in Cavendish, Trinity Bay. Viking Fur is

expanding its operations, which will lead to the creation of at least ten

positions, and possibly more during the breeding, weaning and pelting seasons.

Denmark is the largest mink producing country in the world, producing over 12

million pelts or close to 40 per cent of the world production per year. We are

fortunate to have attracted such a high level of expertise from such an

established breeder.

Mr. Speaker, by continuing to diversify our Province's regional economies

by supporting enterprises such as Dynamic Air Shelters and Viking Fur, this

Administration is demonstrating its solid commitment to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today. I am so

pleased to see that the government has continued with the EDGE program, a

wonderful initiative of the previous Liberal government, of course, and one that

we are glad that they see the benefits of continuing with that program. Of

course, the program was meant to attract companies to Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, it was even made that much more attractive for those companies who

would look to invest in rural parts of our Province.

I am delighted that today we are recognizing a company that is setting up

shop in Grand Bank. In fact, I worked very closely with that company when they

were looking to relocate from Western Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador. They

did a trial run of their products in Grand Bank. The owner of the company, in

fact, spoke very highly of the quality of work that was produced by the

workforce at their plant in Grand Bank. So it is only fitting, I think, that

they certainly be recognized and receive EDGE status. When you are talking about

twenty-five, full-time jobs that could possibly lead to 100 jobs, then that is

very significant indeed in a community the size of Grand Bank.

I am not as familiar with the Viking Fur Incorporated, but the fact that they

are looking at establishing a company that will have ten positions starting out

and looking for further expansion, again speaks to the importance of those types

of companies establishing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we would

all agree that the creation of ten jobs in a rural community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

I think the idea of ten jobs being established in a rural community, I think

we would all agree, would probably equate to 100 or 1,000 jobs in some of our

more urban centres. So, it is good news and I congratulate the government for

continuing with the EDGE program because I hope it will continue to attract many

more companies like this.

Thank you.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. We, too, would

like to acknowledge that this is good news for the Province, particularly as it

creates jobs in rural parts of the Province. Twenty-five, full-time jobs with

the potential of 100, as the previous speaker said, is not insignificant. It is

very important to rural areas of this Province and we look forward to seeing

more industries coming to rural parts of the Province to create a balance so

that people can remain in our rural areas.

The Viking Fur, Mr. Speaker, is an important venture because this type of

industry also leads to the potential of creating other industries, such as the

need for feed and other potential things that they will need to work in a

business like this.

I would like to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that more needs to be done

in this area. For every opportunity that is created in rural parts of the

Province means that there are other opportunities that will spinoff from that,

which will lead to a further development and enhancement of rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Question.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Premier, yesterday at the fisheries summit there appeared to be a consensus

among everybody there that there was an overcapacity, not only in the processing

sector but in the harvesting sector of our fishing industry. While there was a

consensus, I did not see anybody stand yesterday and say that: my plant should

close or my communities plant should close.

Mr. Speaker, if there is not a consensus as to which plant should close and

which community should die, who will make the decision? Will it be the

government? How do you plan to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, I would like to deal with the deliberate

misleading of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the hon. gentleman

opposite has done on Open Line this morning.

He sat in that room yesterday for part of it. I counted four time that he

just got up and left. I, myself, took thirty-seven pages of notes yesterday,

thirty-seven pages of notes of what people said. I saw you pick up a pen at 2:30

for the first time, for about fifteen minutes, then you put it down and you left

the room again. So to get on and make comments about what went on in that room

and talk about who was saying what and who offered solutions is absolutely

shameful. Let's deal with that first.

With regard to what was said in the room, I have notes of what was said in

the room. There were comments made by the FFAW, but the other unions, by the

Federation of Municipalities, by the processors, by people who took time to

prepare documents to offer solutions. The hon. gentleman opposite spent five to

seven minutes, acknowledged that he had no presentation, said the problem should

be spread around between the governments and the harvesters and the processors,

and that was it.

Here he is now looking to us for solutions. He had an opportunity to make a

presentation. The hon. gentleman from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a

presentation. What did he do this morning on the radio? Accused me and the

gentleman for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and Earl McCurdy of conspiring to buy the

marketing arm of FPI. Absolute utter nonsense and untruth, and you should be

ashamed of yourself.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, again he attacks me rather than the question. I say to

the Premier, he just went through a pile of rhetoric, but maybe if he had

allowed the media in there yesterday the people then would know the truth about

what the Premier just said.

Mr. Speaker, everyone at the summit agreed that if there is going to be a

rationalization of the fishing industry it has to be accompanied by an early

retirement and a license buyout program sponsored by the federal government.

In light of comments made by Minister Hearn after the meeting in which he

said that the Province should not hang it's hat on the federal government, do

you have confidence that we will see an early retirement package and a license

buyout from the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I could not have been more pleased and

more thrilled with what went on in that room yesterday, with the outcomes, with

the fact that there was general consensus around the table that status quo is

not an option, that we had huge problems in the fishery, which has been

acknowledged. The hon. gentleman opposite has termed it a crisis. We had the

federal government at the table as our partner for probably one of the very

first times, when a Premier, the provincial Minister of Fisheries and the

federal Minister of Fisheries sat there.

The hon. gentleman opposite indicated on Open Line this morning that the

federal Minister of Fisheries was dodging answers. Nothing is further from the

truth. We are working collectively together to find solutions. There were open,

honest admissions by all of the stakeholders in that room yesterday that we had

huge problems and they offered solutions.

The hon. gentleman - I knew the meeting was successful because I looked at

you about fifteen minutes in and you had a face on you like a can of worms. That

was my signal that this was going well today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again he will pass, but that is okay, Premier. I

am still going to stand on behalf of the residents of this Province and ask the

questions that people are asking me to ask him. You know, as well as I do, the

issue of early retirement came up and the minister did not directly address that

issue, I say to the Premier, he did not. In fact, the only mention he made of an

early retirement package yesterday was something about, it would have to part of

a larger national adjustment program.

I ask the Premier: What discussions have you had with Minister Hearn

regarding that larger national program, what time frames are being examined, and

do you think this program will be of any significance to the fishery and to the

people employed therein?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our government, our minister and our

former minister are clearly on the record as to where we stand on early

retirement. We have been out front and centre, we have put our money where our

mouth was, we allocated $30 million and we will do whatever is necessary in

order to make it happen. We consider it to be a key part of anything we are

going to be doing with the fishing industry. We are very clearly on the record.

When I wrote the Prime Minister, when I wrote all party leaders, and put the

top five fishery items, we clearly asked for a retirement program. The Prime

Minister came back and indicated that he's first leaning was towards

retraining. I have taken it up with him since, at the very first available

opportunity that I had. I discussed it when I traveled with him during the

meeting well over a month a go, the minister has discussed it with the federal

minister, it is very much in the forefront, and we will continue to press it as

hard as we can to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know where the Province stands on it. The question was: Where do you think

the federal minister stands on it? I think we know where the Prime Minister

stands on it. He is not doing - that is what he said in the letter that he sent

back to you - an early retirement package. I asked you where the federal

minister stood on it in all of those discussions you have had with him.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier said that such towns as Marystown, Anchor

Point and Fortune, that have been devastated by the closure of their plants,

will need short and long-term solutions to their problems. When discussing the

short-term solution, the Premier stated that there would have to be income

support programs put in place.

I ask the Premier: What kind of income support are you talking about? Is this

welfare or make-work programs or what? Would you care to explain that, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed this morning at Cabinet. I cannot go

into the details because of the confidentiality. It will be discussed again next

week at Cabinet. It is something that we are very much on top of.

As well, from a federal-provincial perspective, the federal minister and the

provincial minister have a joint ministers' working committee which has been

in place for a couple of months, anticipating problems that were going to occur

in the industry.

The hon. gentleman opposite was on Open Line this morning saying a knee-jerk

reaction, just because Daley's closed we decided we were going to have a

summit. The federal minister indicated in that room yesterday - and he probably

wasn't there because he probably stepped out like he stepped out at least four

or five times yesterday and stayed out for extended periods. He does not know

exactly what was said in that room. I was there for the full time, the minister

was there for the full time, and a lot of other people were there for the full

time.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You may clap, but I did take the time to take

thirty-five or thirty-six pages of notes, because I valued every single word

that was said in that room yesterday. But, not for you, you were going to go

outside and walk around for awhile and maybe talk to the media. Well, the media

know what is going on because they know you are not telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, he is awfully cantankerous today, and he is still

on the attack. That is all he has done in this House since it opened in March.

He will not answer the questions that the people in communities like Harbour

Breton and Fortune want to hear. The Premier said he is on top of the issue, he

is all over it, he is on top of this file. I remember him saying that about the

Stephenville mill. I remember him saying that about Harbour Breton. Where are

the people who lived in those communities? Where have they gone, Premier?

Mr. Speaker, it is almost a year ago today, I think it was June 5th last

year, when this government amended the FPI Act to allow the board of directors

to basically sell off the American marketing division of FPI. Today, this

government has amendments on the floor of the House of Assembly, and the Premier

and the Minister of Fisheries are on record as saying: It would make it very

difficult if these amendments go through today. It would be very difficult for

FPI to sell their marketing division.

I ask the Premier: Why the change of heart, and do you see the irony in your

own words and your own actions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. You know, a year has

transpired. Significant things have happened in this particular industry. The

dollar has gone up. We know what is happening with the Chinese labour market. We

know that crab has gone from $2.45 down to $.92. There are a lot of things that

are happening in this industry. Self-admitted, the industry is in crises.

The last time around, when we looked at this company and it looked like it

was headed towards very difficult times and perhaps bankruptcy, we shored up

Fortune to make sure - the hon. member who is making some comments over there

now - that there was security there. We shored up Bonavista to make sure there

was security there. It was all about shoring up the Newfoundland and Labrador

assets to make sure that the Newfoundland and Labrador assets, the communities,

the people, the towns, the plants, were secure. That is why it was put before

this House. It was a free vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I voted against it because, like the House Leader

opposite, I was not comfortable with the security that was in it. That is

probably more from a legal perspective, but the basic principle - the people in

this House passed it, the government passed it - it was done to protect our

communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it was done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, had Ralph Goodale not interfered and put a hold on

Income Trust last July or August, we would not even be discussing the American

division of FPI today in this House of Assembly because they would have

permitted them to sell it, I say to the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said at yesterday's summit that he would like to

see the industry come together and take over FPI's marketing division in the

United States. The Premier said that he believes that this could be the saviour

for our marketing woes in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If that is the case, why are we amending the

FPI Act today, and when do you expect to come back into the House of Assembly to

amend or to scrap the FPI Act? Because, you did say at the conference yesterday

that if that were to go ahead we probably would have to scrap the FPI Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What is most interesting is, we got a chuckle out of

that from the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Port de Grave.

Have you had a call, Minister of Fisheries, from the Member for Port de Grave

with regard to the problems out in his district? Has he bothered to contact you?

Did the Member for Bellevue contact the former Minister of Fisheries when he had

a problem out in Arnold's Cove? Never heard from them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They will get up in the House of Assembly and they will

wax eloquent and they will play politics, and they will do it all. You never

phoned, you never did anything, you never made any contact.

Now, to get to your question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we are trying to do is to prevent the directors of

FPI, who we don't think are acting in the best interests of the people of the

Province, with these amendments, to stop them from doing something untoward that

would not be in the best interests of the Province.

If a co-operative of all of the stakeholders in the Province in the fishery

decide that they want to participate with government and we will passably invest

and help them in taking over the marketing arm of FPI, then we will do what is

necessary to give effect to the intent so that will be a good result for the

people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes 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 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is passing. I ask all hon. members for their co-operation. Colleagues,

there is a limited time. We have many questions to be asked.

I recognize the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Paramedics in rural areas are working long hours, on call, some of them,

twenty-four hours a day, and most of them have no health benefits or other

benefits that are often afforded to other medical personnel in our Province.

Many of them, Mr. Speaker, feel they are inadequately paid.

Government permits these operators to run ambulance services with two point

three people while the provincial government requires eight point five people to

operate ambulances in their own service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he is prepared to look at a complete

overhaul of rural paramedic services in this Province and put them on an even

keel with all other medical personnel that operate in our medical system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Health and Community Services fully understands the role

that these people play, as well as the member who asked the question who sat in

the department there as minister, actually, when they were performing the same

service and maybe at a lower rate of pay than they are getting now, I say to the

hon. member who is raising the question. She sat as a minister there.

What we will do, Mr. Speaker - government is not the employer of these

people. We do deal with the association, or deal with the owners who represent

these people out there. We are very cognizant of the issues and any concerns out

there. The contract was in place, expired March 31 of the year. Certainly, as

the Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat here, I am very much

aware that, I guess, in the near future we will be sitting down with those

operators and the employers of these individual people to look at reaching an

agreement over the next number of months, hopefully, and that they will know the

direction they are heading.

That is the role. The member knows full well that these are employed by

individual operators around the Province here, and that is who they deal with.

She knows full well that particular question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister of Finance is wrong again.

I was never the Minister of Health, I would like to inform him, never in the ten

years I have been in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, a young woman paramedic told me that she had worked all day

responding to emergencies. She gets home; she is on call for twenty-four hours.

She leaves her home in Conception Bay, drives to St. John's, picks up a

patient, takes him to St. Anthony, and returns home to Conception Bay with no

overnight accommodations from her employee, no additional benefits, Mr. Speaker.

Do you mean to tell me that this is an acceptable standard for paramedics?

Many of them that are rural based have no medical control. I think the

minister already knows that. Quite often, when they are responding to

emergencies where a patient requires an IV or a defibrillator, they are not

equipped to be able to provide that service without calling in for on-line

medical control.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that not all rural areas have cellular services, and

sometimes there is miscommunication with radios. I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if she could get to her question quickly.

MS JONES: I ask the minister: Is he prepared to establish a position in

the Province to regulate and authorize paramedics for medical control instead of

these companies and these paramedics going out and trying to find a doctor who

might be willing to give them medical control so they may do the jobs they are

trained for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is very much aware, and the department, of the role that they

play. Certainly, we are very sympatric with the people, and the role they play.

They are providing a very valuable service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like the opportunity to answer, Mr. Speaker, if I

could. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans seems to want to interrupt me.

We have worked to try to enhance the levels. That has happened under the

previous Administration and it has carried into this Administration, trying to

enhance the level and qualification of people working there.

I feel confident that it will probably come up on the table in negotiations.

I cannot predict, nor will I prejudge, what is going to be brought to the table

by independent operators out there who come to sit down with us and negotiate

prices and contracts there. That would be presumptuous. It would be none of my

personal business, or none of government's business, what they bring to the

table, but I would assume that the people out there have those interests. We are

aware of the issues. The department is very much aware of those issues there. I

am sure, in due course, the opportunity to discuss that will occur. We have not

sat down to the table (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going to be starting soon, I

understand, between these operators and the government. When members opposite, a

number of them, were in Opposition, they met with these paramedics, sympathized

and empathized with them and the situation they were in. Now, I say to the

Minister of Finance, you are in a fiscal position to be able to deal with the

extreme problems that are affecting these workers in our Province who are not

getting medical benefits, who are not getting proper wage compensation and not

working under proper conditions.

I say to you, Minister: Are you prepared to make the investment and address

the issues that are being brought forward by these paramedics?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is always prepared to look at all issues that concern peoples

health and providing the best possible service. Certainly, there is a process to

follow, and the member knows quite well there is a process to follow. We will

sit at the table in the negotiation process and we will discuss issues and look

at the availability of funding to address issues that are brought forward. I

will not go out and predict what people coming to the table are going to bring

forward. The member knows that fully well. There is a process to follow here,

the same as we deal with any other group out there that employ people who are

not employees of government. There is a procedure and a proper process to

follow. We advanced money last year to get an agreement with those operators

there and we are hopeful that in the future, over the next while as we sit down

to the table, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will get an agreement with the various

representatives and associations that represent these people out there. I am not

going to stand here weeks or months before that happens until there is an

opportunity to sit down and discuss issues there. It is not the place to predict

what someone is going to bring to a negotiating table. The member knows that

fully well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Another question, Mr. Speaker, for the minister. Maybe he will

be able to deal with this one.

Home care services provided by the government and subsidized by taxpayers are

not taxable, but private essential home care services paid for by individual

families in this Province is subject to HST. Why is government demanding that

these people pay taxes on this important service when all others are HST exempt?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The answer to that, quite simply, is that when the former

government were in they made a subject to taxes on all those transactions when

we harmonized the tax here, and she was a part of the government that brought

that in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has been here for almost three years now so we will see if he is

going to tackle it. All other medical services, such as physiotherapy,

chiropractic, podiatry, dentistry and so on are HST exempt. Are home care

services not considered a medical service, and if so, why is it that your

government is not prepared to look at exempting them from HST taxation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a whole list of services out there. Some services provided come

under the Canada Health Act, some services do not. There are all varieties of

services under the whole spectrum. What is in this Province might be done

normally, is not necessarily done in other provinces. There are numerous

standards all over the place. Probably the same reason why the member, when they

sat in government, did not do anything about it. We are prepared to look at all

aspects of medical services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we will take the appropriate action when we look at

things. The former member is asking us to do - they get on that side of the

House and they are after asking about 500 things over the last number of weeks

to do, something they were not prepared to do.

We have an advanced agenda to reduce the burden to people on $32.8 million

this year, we announced on a drug care plan. We increased for low-income people.

We eliminated taxes for people who make less than $11,500; a family of two,

$19,000. We have implemented tens of millions of dollars to have low-income

people here to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a lady recently who contracts home

care services for her husband. Maybe this will help the minister understand the

impact that this is having. Because she pays for her own home care service, she

has to pay HST. If she was getting one hour a week from the government, and the

other thirty-nine hours a week she was paying out of her own pocket, she would

be HST exempt because of that one hour, but that is not the case. Because she

pays for the full forty hours, she pays $350 for her care. She pays another $50

for HST in the Province. I think that this is unreasonable and unfair and I am

asking you, minister, are you prepared to look at changing this policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are prepared to look at any possible thing. In fact, consideration has

been looked at for the provision of private services, what is subject to tax

under a private service and what is under public services, and there is a

distinction. There are implications for a whole variety of services that are

private versus public in adding a specific tax on a particular item, and the

member knows that very well. She sat in government. Those same issues came up to

them when they were in government and they decided that they could not do that.

I am not saying yes, I am not saying no. I am saying we are knowledgeable about

the issues there and we look at things. There may be effective ways to deliver

programs that we have already indicated and I was starting to mention some of

these. We have put into place here in this Province, Mr. Speaker, at least a

dozen different implications of aspects that have been brought in here in the

Province to help low-income people; from every single thing, from increasing

child supplements to indexing low-income people. We have done it on removing

income tax from levels. We have done it on a drug plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just one question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Max Ruelokke was chosen as the successful candidate to be the

new Chair and CEO of the C-NLOPB but has been waiting for his appointment for

several months.

I ask the Premier: When will Mr. Ruelokke be appointed to this position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been crystal clear with the federal government. We have

said that the recommendations that came from the board was that Mr. Ruelokke be

appointed and that the position of Chair and CEO be split. I have discussed that

option with Mr. Ruelokke himself. I have said to him that government is prepared

to appoint him as CEO immediately, but for the sake of good governance

practices, we wanted to separate the Chair's position. We have outlined that

position in no uncertain terms to the federal government and, Mr. Speaker, that

is where it is. Until we can reach a resolution on how that will be resolved,

right now the Acting Chair, Mr. Fred Way, is still acting in that capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Grave concerns have been raised about the charging of an eighteen-year-old

girl in Blaketown with trafficking in drugs based on a zero tolerance policy at

high school in relation to what one defence lawyer has called overkill. As a

parent, Mr. Speaker, I worry about the proliferation of drugs in both high

school and junior high but also as a parent I would worry that if one of my

children or any other child passed on a marijuana cigarette to another child,

that she or he might be charged with trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, can we expect that every child who passes on a marijuana

cigarette to another child at a school can be convicted of trafficking and face

a lifetime of being treated in the same category as the mafia or Hell's Angels

biker gangs which they would be by boarder guards and police forces across the

country? Can we expect some police discretion or prosecutorial discretion in

these matters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is well aware, I am sure, that the

decision as to whether or not charges are going to be laid is the decision that

the police will make. That is entirely within their discretion to determine

whether there are justifiable grounds, reasonable cause to lay a charge. After

the charge is laid, of course, it is the job of the independent prosecutorial

branch of government, the Crown Attorney's Office, to determine whether they

will exercise their discretion to lay a charge. Of course, it would be entirely

improper for the Attorney General to interfere in that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is yes, if the police are

prepared to lay a charge.

A follow-up to the Minister of Education. Is the Minister of Education

prepared to lay down some guidelines for the Province's schools in terms of

their relationship with the police forces? This individual who is charged based

on the so-called zero tolerance policy at a school and what was called by the

RCMP, I do not think they used the word cozy, but a very friendly relationship

with the school. Is the minister prepared to establish a proper relationship

with the schools so these problems can be dealt with, based on zero tolerance

but not subjecting children to be treated as if they were the same as mafioso or

biker gangs when it comes to relations and very minor involvement with the use

of illegal drugs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very serious question and

scenario that is playing out in our schools today. It comes down to the fact

that we need to have very safe and caring schools and that, as students, they

need to be able to understand the consequences of their behaviour. In saying

that, we often deal with students who probably break the rules or do something

they should not do, and we have to be able to deal with that.

When we set up, or when schools set up, a zero tolerance for drugs, it gives

the message to the students as it would give to a young person who is going on

the job who has to operate equipment, who has to work in an office environment,

who has to work in a grocery store, that it is completely inappropriate to light

up a joint and pass that around. That is a message that needs to be there.

There are young children who go to school and there are parents who really do

not want somebody lighting up a joint and passing that around the schoolyard, or

the classroom, or wherever they do it, and it can set up a very serious

situation.

The very basic definition of trafficking is when you pass the drug from one

person to another, whether it is the sale or whether it is something that is lit

and you are going to smoke it and pass it on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for the hon. member has expired.

There is still time left in the time allocation for the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi to put a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that drugs are a problem, but we also know that treating children as

drug traffickers for simply passing around a marijuana cigarette, which the

minister just acknowledged, is, in fact, an overkill, and that those children

will be treated, when they are adults, the very same as trying to cross a border

into the United States or any other country. This is overkill. Something needs

to be done to have zero tolerance but also treat children properly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't remember the last point I was trying to make, but I do want to

continue on with that.

The hon. member made an important observation when he said, when the criminal

record is there, providing the person is convicted, until there is a pardon,

that record will carry with the young person.

We do need zero tolerance, but we also need to be able to work with the

police force, work with the schools, work with the parents and the students, to

make sure that there is a safe environment where the other students can go

without the influence of drugs, or having to watch that type of behaviour on the

schoolyard.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly committed to work with the

young people to do it, but we also have to understand the reality that if there

is criminal or illegal behaviour going on and teachers do not report it to the

appropriate authorities, or they do not take necessary action, and as a result

there is an accident or somebody gets killed because of drug use or because

somebody was impaired or intoxicated and unable to perform their duties, at what

point, then, do we go back to the parents of the victim and say we knew there

were intoxicating substances, or there was something going on, but we chose not

to deal with it, we are trying not to deal with it, we are trying not to involve

the police or bring it to court?

Mr. Speaker, it is a very -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

This afternoon, in Question Period, we did have an expression used in the

Assembly which, according to all parliamentary records, would be deemed to be

unparliamentary.

In answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier used

the words deliberately misleading. I ask the Premier if he would withdraw that

statement.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The statement is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is a pleasure to table the Bull Arm Site Corporation Activity Report for

the period of April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to

accountability, I would now like to submit the 2005 Annual Report for the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission on behalf of the Minister

of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am pleased to table the Report of

Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April, 2006.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that our House of Assembly will be closing today, so this is

basically my last chance, before this construction season ends or begins,

whatever the case might be, to give this petition on behalf of the people of the

Buchans area.

It was interesting today when the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose and

said how important it was to impress upon the government the needs of the people

in different areas, because it made it easier for Cabinet ministers to get their

message to the Premier and for the Premier to okay it. Well, I have been giving

this same message now all spring, and this particular Cabinet minister has not

had any luck in convincing either the Premier or the Minister of Finance to free

up some money to look after the Buchans Highway.

I would suggest that, before this House reconvenes in the fall, we are going

to have a shuffle here and the first person to be shuffled is going to be the

Minister of Transportation and Works. That is my prediction.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it has been said today and, in fact, the minister who

is acting today on behalf of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, stood up in

this House and said how important it was to give EDGE status to businesses that

are now in rural communities, and how important it was for ten jobs to be in

Grand Bank, and how important it was for another twenty-five jobs to be there.

I would say it is very important for 200 full-time jobs to be in Duck Pond

mine, near Millertown, and I think it is very important for twenty-five

full-time and expanding to forty-five jobs to be at the barite plant in Buchans.

It is almost an insult that the Premier of this Province, who has been out

yesterday in the summit touting how important rural communities are to this

Province, how he can neglect and overlook how important it is to get the Buchans

Highway recapped. He pays zero attention to rural communities in this Province;

yet, when he wants to stand up on a soapbox and say how important rural

communities are, he has a different speech.

I would impress, Mr. Speaker, on this government, that this is probably the

last day that this House will be in session and government now has an

opportunity to come forward and make an announcement, and let the people of the

Buchans, Millertown, Badger and Buchans Junction area know how important their

economy is to the running of this Province, and how important it is to make sure

that people who travel over that highway have a safe highway to go over.

I have tried, ever since the spring when this House opened, to impress upon

the Premier and he has turned a deaf ear. In fact, he has turned a blind eye,

and all of his Cabinet ministers have done the same, but they won't be turning

a deaf ear or having a blind eye when they are counting the money in the public

Treasury that is coming from that area from permanent jobs.

Once again, Mr. Premier - Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just thirty seconds, Mr. Premier - Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something? I am so intent on giving the Premier the message that

I mistakenly called you the Premier twice.

We do have the Premier in our midst and, Premier, if you can hear me, bring

out the cheque book!

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

District of Grand Bank and I guess on behalf of the entire Burin Peninsula

because the impact that is being felt because of the closure of the fish plant

in Fortune is in fact being felt throughout the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, as I read the names on this petition, and it struck me while I

waiting to stand here, that over a dozen of the names on this petition are names

of people who have already left the community of Fortune or some other community

that has been impacted by the closure of the plant in Fortune. That is what is

so sad about what is transpiring in our Province today with respect to the

fishery. Whether we want to admit it or not, I think the fishery is indeed in a

crisis situation. When we see people who have worked for years and years at a

fish plant, we see fisherpeople who have been harvesting the resource for years

and years and now are finding themselves with no income, no employment and not

knowing where to turn, then I think we are indeed in a crisis situation. It

certainly is a crisis situation for those people who have to move their families

lock, stock and barrel out of this Province to another part of the country to

try and feed their families, just to put food on the table and provide them with

the necessities of life.

The prayer of the petition is, in fact, calling on this government to do

whatever they can to ensure that the quota that is attached to the fish plant in

Fortune will remain there, no matter what happens to FPI. I am hoping, in fact,

that will be an amendment which will be accepted by the government, because it

is an amendment that we have introduced, that FPI should not only be expected to

maintain or allow the government to be responsible for plants if they should go

under but for quotas as well. So, I am hoping that amendment will be accepted

because I think it is really important that quotas be attached to communities

and not to companies. It has been said time and time again by the federal

Minister of Fisheries and others that fish is in fact a common resource owned by

the people, not by the company. They are given to the company to be utilized for

the benefit of the people who are employed in those plants or who provide

product to the plants.

So, the prayer of the petition is, again, that the government do everything

it can to ensure that the quota attached to the fish plant in Fortune continues

to be utilized for the benefit of the people who have, over the years, been able

to work there and benefit from that quota. I know that with FPI and the decision

to close Fortune, that is a very serious concern on behalf of not only the

people who have signed this petition but the other petitions that I have

presented in the House since the House resumed for this sitting.

The hundreds of people who have signed this petition not only are people who

have worked at the plant or harvested fish or worked in management at the plant

but, as well, the businesses in the area are feeling the effects now of a fish

plant that has been closed, meaning that there has been no income for hundreds

of people who would traditionally have been able to purchase products at local

businesses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is requested, leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

I thank the government for leave because I think it is such an important

petition, important issue, not only in my district but throughout rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, that if we are going to see rural Newfoundland and

Labrador survive, this has to be a crucial element of it and that is to ensure

that quotas which have been traditionally processed by fish plants in rural

Newfoundland remain with that plant so that they can continue to be utilized and

not be given to some company who can take them and process their product

anywhere else in the world.

I think it is crucial that the prayer of this petition be acknowledged by the

government and that government do everything it can, and today would be a golden

opportunity for them to accept an amendment that we put forward as a government

that would in fact see quotas being looked at in the same light that vessels and

plants are being looked at, and that the company just cannot ride roughshod over

the people and take their marbles and go home without bearing some

responsibility for the impact that it will have on the people who have worked

for them for years and years and years.

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.

Order 3, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

to consider matters related to Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Fishery Products

International Limited Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The

Fishery Products International Limited Act, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Fishery

Products International Limited Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, by agreement, I know it is agreement with the

Official Opposition, I assume the third party agrees as well. There are a number

of amendments that the Opposition proposed. The government has informed the

Opposition that we are prepared to accept two of the nine amendments, and the

government has an amendment that it is proposing as well. So, a great victory

for the Opposition.

I think, by agreement, what we are proposing is that I will move all three

amendments, we will second them and we will put them on the table. Then the

Opposition and ourselves can debate them as a package rather than moving them

one at a time, as would normally be the case. That being the case, Mr. Chairman

- the Chairman has a copy of the amendments, I take it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he does.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that

clause 1 of Bill 32 is amended by striking out the proposed subsection 7.(2) and

(3) and substituting the following. The new subsection 7.(2) will read as

follows: "Not withstanding subsection (1), except with the prior approval

of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, neither FPI Limited nor Fishery Products

International Limited shall sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a

security interest on, or otherwise dispose of, or allow or direct a subsidiary

of it to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest

on, or otherwise dispose of, a plant or other processing facility wherever

located." That is the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I believe they

used different words, but the legal drafters have provided this wording. It

means exactly the same thing that the Opposition proposed. I believe the

Opposition proposed: wherever located, and machinery and equipment located in

the plant or processing facility. So, that is the first amendment as proposed by

the Official Opposition.

The second amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to clause 7.(3), and clause 7.(3) will

read now as follows: In subsection (1), property and assets include all

property, whether tangible or intangible, wherever located, and include: (

a) vessels, (

b) quotas, and (

c) shares or interests in a subsidiary corporation,

but do not include inventory and inventory means, inventory as defined in the

Personal Property Act.

That is the second amendment proposed by the Opposition, that the government

is accepting. The wording, again, may be a little bit different than that

drafted by the Opposition, but it is in the context of tying up, making it in

language that is more acceptable, and in that spirit that it was done.

The third and final amendment is one that has been proposed by the

government. Clause 2 of the bill is amended by adding to the proposed

section 9,

immediately after subsection (6), the following, and I will read it, Mr.

Chairman. It is as follows: A majority of the members of the committee of

directors of each of FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited

shall be independent of a significant shareholder, or an associate of a

significant shareholder, of either corporation.

That, Mr. Chairman, simply makes the definition of shareholders that are on

committees exactly the same as the definition and restrictions on the board of

directors in general. We had those

definitions applied to the board but we did

not have it spelled out in the act that the same restrictions and qualifications

apply to committees of the board. This makes the committees of the board

consistent and therefore the act consistent.

Mr. Chairman, if there are any further questions on those proposed amendments

as we go through the afternoon I will certainly be prepared to deal with them

but, in the spirit of an agreement between both sides, we put down all three

amendments and therefore they can be debated all at the same time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the Opposition House Leader standing to put forward an amendment, or is he

standing to speak to the amendment as put forward by the Deputy Premier?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I think (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I think my colleague, the Deputy Premier and

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, put it out, we put the amendments down

and the debate is going to be sort of free ranging as opposed to clause by

clause this afternoon on it. There is going to be some latitude allowed on both

sides to deal with it. That is done by consensus and we will do it with leave,

as opposed to saying the title of the bill, clause 1, clause 2, clause 3. We

have laid down the amendments and we will speak to it as a package, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which has been done from time to time on many occasions,

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would concur with the comments of the Government House Leader and the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is the intent, by leave, and I would

also like to move the amendments that we have. There are nine in total, seconded

by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The idea, as I understand it, is to

have a free-ranging debate. Our amendments and the government's amendments

will be all on the table and there will be speakers back and forth.

I understand we also have an agreement, the Government House Leader and

myself, with respect to, if the Premier wants to have comments, for example,

that exceed the usual fifteen minute rule by him, or the Leader of the

Opposition, or the Leader of the NDP, that is going to be acceptable and fine by

all sides as well.

I would just like to table these and we will be ready for the debate

whenever.

CHAIR: I think the Chair understands where the agreement is going.

The Chair is looking for directions to clearly understand, to make sure there

is no confusion at the end, that we will not vote on any of the amendments. We

will allow the debate to take place and, at the end, in passing the bill, we

will recognize the amendments as put forward by each clause and vote on the

amendments individually at that time.

MR. E. BYRNE: Without any debate.

CHAIR: Without any debate.

Is that where the Committee wants to go, or intends to go? If it is, then

that is fine.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: For the record, Mr. Chair, that is exactly the agreement.

CHAIR: Well, if that is the agreement, the Committee is ready to hear

debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is the understanding that I do not have to live within the ten minutes.

Normally we get ten minutes each in this particular

section of the bill, but it

is my understanding that, thanks to the Government House Leader, who happens to

be, I think, a far greater person than the Premier, he is giving me leave to

speak beyond that.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader.

We are talking about FPI. We have been talking about FPI for a number of

years now, but since FPI announced the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton

back in November of 2004 it has come more to the forefront and it has been kept

alive in the Province as a result of what has been going on with regard to the

plight of the people who live in Harbour Breton, and those who had worked in the

plant in Harbour Breton, the FPI plant in Harbour Breton, some of them as much

as forty years.

Over the period of time, in the last couple of years, we have been asking the

government to amend the FPI Act again, to strengthen it, so that we have more

control over the company that was established in this Legislature back in 1985,

at which time the government appointed the Board of Directors of FPI. That later

changed, obviously, as it became somewhat of a more quasi-private company.

As a result of the actions of the current board of directors, we have been

asking the government to strengthen the act so that we could deal more

appropriately with the current board of directors who had given the government,

especially when we were in government, commitments back in 2001 about what they

were going to do for the Province, what they were going to do for the

communities in which they operated but, more importantly, what they were going

to do for their employees in those communities.

I remember vividly Mr. Risley, at the time, and Mr. Crosbie made a number of

commitments to the people of the Province about growing FPI rather than

shrinking it, about employing more people rather than decreasing the number of

employees that they had, and that they were going to have a greater return for

their shareholders. They could do that because, they said, the previous board of

directors, led by Mr. Vic Young, were not doing an adequate job and that they

were not making the money that they could have been making on the resources that

they had and the plants that they had. More importantly, they thought, by

growing the company not only could they make more money but they could also

employ more people and, as a result, they took over the board in 2001. They made

the commitments to government, and I was minister at the time, and a number of

my colleagues who still sit on this side of the floor were actively involved at

the time and we told the Board of Directors of FPI we were going to hold them to

their commitments, and we did while we were in government. They actually did not

close a fish plant, and I am not aware they laid off any people. They certainly

did not lay off any numbers of people.

Mr. Chairman, I think, as well, that we finally convinced the government this

spring that it was time to amend the FPI Act and strengthen it. The current

Minister of Fisheries even went so far, outside of this House and inside of this

House, as to say that one of the things that he was going to do, or was

considering doing, with the FPI Act was to strengthen it in a manner in which it

would force the Board of Directors of FPI to cross-subsidize. In other words,

take money from its more prosperous division, that division that rests in the

United States, the American marketing and secondary processing division, and

take some of the profits that they are making from there and put it into towns

like Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown and Burin, who happen to be their

groundfish plants. As we all know, the groundfish fishery is experiencing some

problems today, but that is not unusual in the groundfish fishery, it has its

peaks and valleys. We have seen the price of fish rise and fall in the past 500

years. I can't say that I have been around for 500 years, but since I have

been a boy I have seen the price of fish rise and fall. There have been lots of

songs written about it, in fact, Mr. Chairman.

That was one of the things that the Minister of Fisheries advocated earlier

this year in the back of a pickup truck on O'Leary Avenue. He said: maybe we

will amend the act to force FPI to take its profits and cross-subsidize its less

lucrative division, the groundfish division. We kept it up and kept it up until

finally we see in the House of Assembly some amendments to that act which the

government feels will strengthen the act so that they will have more control

over the board of directors and more control over what that company does.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I applaud the government in bringing forward the

amendments, and I think they have three or four or five amendments to the

current act. What we are asking for is to accept the nine recommendations that

we have as well. I understand from the Minister of Fisheries that he has

accepted two of our recommendations and they will be included in the act, for

which I am grateful. I would be a lot more grateful, I say to the minister, if

he were to include all of them because we are not saying we don't agree with

the amendments that the government is putting forward. We are saying that if you

change the wording on some and add a word here and take a word out somewhere

else, that we would even strengthen the act more.

Mr. Chairman, I will give you a couple of examples of these. In the current

FPI Act, the one that we amended in 2002 - I was the minister at the time when

we amended the act. In that act it says: FPI is not permitted to sell all, or

substantially all, of its company. What we realized last spring, last June to be

exact, when FPI wanted to sell their American division - which I happen to think

is the most profitable. There was a question as to whether or not - if FPI was

going to sell that division, would it constitute all, or substantially all, of

the company? The government at the time, led by the Minister of Justice, had

three independent legal opinions. Two said it would not be selling all or

substantially of the company and one said that it would. In other words, there

was conflicting legal advice as to whether or not selling the American division

would be tantamount to selling all, or substantially all, of the company.

Now, the minister said he is going to change this clause. He has it put

forward here today as an amendment. What he is saying is that you should replace

all, or substantially all, with the words: a substantial portion of the company.

FPI shall not be permitted to sell a substantial portion of the company. What we

are asking them to say: without the written permission of government. That is

what, I think, the clause that the minister wants to substitute in there today,

that FPI cannot sell a substantial portion of the company without written

consent from the government. What we are saying is let's take that a little

bit further because we know the word potential or substantial - substantial can

mean a lot of things to a lot of people. It is rather ambiguous. What my fear

is, is that FPI may try to sell something that is far more substantial than they

would lead you to believe without coming back to government.

So, we are asking that they remove the word substantial and just write in

there that FPI shall not dispose of any portion of their operation without the

written consent of government. Take out the word substantial and just say:

should not be able to sell any portion without the written consent. That does

not mean, Mr. Chairman, that they will never be permitted to sell a portion, I

say to the Minister of Justice. That does not mean they would not be able to

sell a portion or substantial portion. All we are saying is put down that they

cannot sell any portion without the permission of government and take out the

word substantial. Take the ambiguity out of it so that we do not have to get a

legal opinion down the road; so we do not have to come back here and debate that

word again, as lawyers are apt to do. For some reason, lawyers like to find

meanings to words that most people do not think about. I think that is how they

make their living and that is why they put words like that in there.

The other thing that we would want them to do, Mr. Chairman, is in the act

today they are saying that FPI cannot sell a plant, cannot dispose of a plant

without the prior approval of government. Well, what we are saying is that - for

example, they have Harbour Breton closed today but they still own the plant. So,

under the amendment that the minister is putting forward today, they would have

to come to government for permission to dispose of the plant in Harbour Breton.

That is what you are saying, and that was not in the act before. They would have

to come and ask government to sell that plant. What we are saying is, before

they even decide that they are going to sell it: Why not put in the act that FPI

will not be permitted to close a plant without government approval? That does

not mean, I say to the Minister of Justice, that FPI will never be allowed to

close a plant. All that means is that before they close one and before they sell

it, they should have to come to government and ask for permission to close it. I

am sure -

MS FOOTE: Look at the impacts on rural Newfoundland.

MR. REID: Yes.

I am sure there are certain situations where the government would say: Yes,

we will permit you to close the plant. But before they do that and before we

realize the impact that it is going to have on the community, at least they

should be able to have the decency to come in and sit down with government and

say: Listen, we want to close that plant. Can you give us permission? If there

was a good business case and a good social case made for closing it, I am sure

the government would (inaudible). All we are asking for, instead of saying

permission to sell a plant; permission to close a plant and then to sell it. So,

it is only by adding another word.

The other amendment that we wanted to put forward - again, we are not

changing anything. All we are asking to do is strengthen the wording that you

already have in your amendments. The third one says: FPI cannot dispose of a

plant or processing facility in the Province. That is all it says. FPI cannot

dispose or sell a plant in this Province without the permission of government.

Well, there is another thing that is missing here. FPI just bought a brand new

plant, or not a brand new plant, but FPI just added another plant to their list

of plants and it is in the United Kingdom. It is in Great Britain. They also

have another processing plant in Danvers, Massachusetts. What we are asking the

government today is to take the word province out. They need permission from the

government to sell a plant in the Province and say: they need permission to sell

any of the plants they own, wherever they may be. We want to put in there: to

dispose of a plant situated anywhere that FPI owns. That way they would not be

able to sell the very lucrative plant in Danvers, Massachusetts, which the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador indirectly bought through FPI. That is what

we are asking.

I must admit, the minister was kind enough today to agree with this one. So

we are not always at loggerheads. It just proves that we are capable of putting

forward reasonable, logical, suggestions to government and one of them was

accepted today, and that was one. I appreciate that, I say to the minister, the

fact that you did have a second look. It just goes to show that Oppositions can

be effective. We can contribute. That is the reason we question sometimes. That

is the reason we are always questioning. We are not questioning to score

political points. We are questioning so that we do what is right for the people

and we hold the government accountable. Unfortunately, when we ask some

questions the Premier gets rather testy and he wants to insult people, but that

is just his nature. I look over him in that. We come from different backgrounds.

I know that he likes to attack and insult me every time I stand up, but we were

very jovial prior to Question Period. We were even throwing a few jokes across

the floor at each other.

It is like the old cartoon, remember when the wolf and the sheepdog used to

go to work in the morning? The sheepdog would go to work in the morning to guard

the sheep and the wolf would walk in with him to kill the sheep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sam and Ralph.

MR. REID: Sam and Ralph, those were their names.

Sam and Ralph would walk in together in the morning and the whistle would

blow and they would try and kill each other all day. Then, when the whistle blew

at 5:00 o'clock and it was time to knock off work, out they walked together

and said: See you tomorrow, Ralph. See you, Sam.

Well, that is the way the Premier gets on. As soon as I asked him a logical

question today, sure, he went ballistic. He called me everything under the sun,

I cannot repeat. It is a good thing my mother is not alive, I say to the

Premier, to hear what he called me today in the House of Assembly. I just find

that, every single time I ask him a question, he attacks me instead of answering

the question. I don't know if it is his nature or it is just because of his

background in a business where nobody -

CHAIR: Order, please!

While the debate is certainly wide-ranging and there has been an agreement by

both sides that we would give members an unlimited time to speak, I would ask

the hon. member if he would confine his comments to the spirit of the bill,

please.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for that, but every now and then - the point I was trying to make

was that we do make some good suggestions, and at least the Minister of

Fisheries takes these suggestions seriously, unlike the Premier, and

incorporates them into the bill.

The third amendment, or the fourth or fifth, we would like to see is - the

Premier spoke quite often in the last few weeks about strengthening the Board of

Directors of FPI so that competitors could not move in, such as Mr. Risley and

Mr. Armoyan and people like that, and sit on the Board of Directors of FPI, and

they wanted to tighten up the restrictions as to who could sit on the board and

who could not.

They are talking about also increasing the number of people on the board from

the current day number of seven. That is all that sit on the board at FPI today,

seven, and he wants to increase it to thirteen. Well, we are saying if you are

really serious, really serious about this, why not, when you go from seven to

thirteen, go back to when this act first came into the House of Assembly in

1985. Then the government appointed the board of directors. We are not saying

the government should appoint all of the board of directors today, but if you

are going to increase it from seven to thirteen, what we are suggesting is that

you add two members on that board who are appointed by government. That does not

mean they have to be government employees - in fact, I would recommend against

that - but we should be able to appoint two members who would act on behalf of

government and act on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador . I do

not think that is unrealistic, when you consider it was in the original act,

when you consider what that board has done with FPI, when you consider the

commitments that they made and the commitments that they broke. I do not think

any of them qualify to be the pin-up or the poster child for Trust magazine. As

a result, we are saying, if you are going to have thirteen members on a board,

appoint two people from this Province by the government so that they can be the

eyes and ears of the people of this Province and report back to government. That

is what we are saying in amendment number five.

There is another amendment, because the minister is talking about being on

committees of the board, because the board of directors set up committees, like

all organizations do. City Hall has a transportation committee and a finance

committee. FPI has the same type of thing. I do not think they have a

transportation committee but they have a finance committee. What the Minister of

Fisheries is suggesting is talking about what the makeup of these select

committees of FPI should be. What we are saying is, if we have two government

representatives on the board, each of these committees that FPI forms should

have at least one of those individuals on the board or on that committee - not a

lot to ask for.

Mr. Chairman, we are also putting in, if you really want to get serious about

the competitors sitting on the Board of Directors of FPI - and I have a concern

about it, there is no doubt about it. We all had concerns when they took over

the company originally. We told them we were going to keep an eye on them.

Unfortunately, when the government changed in 2003, they forgot that FPI existed

over there. They did not keep a close enough eye on it and, as a result, that

company and its board of directors runs roughshod over the employees of that

company in the Province.

What we are saying is, if you are serious and you do not want competitors

like Mr. Risley who owns the very large - the largest, actually - largest

seafood processing operation, harvesting operation in Nova Scotia. He sits on

the Board of Directors of FPI. We also have a very large Icelandic company, who

is our direct competitor in the United States, they own 15 per cent of FPI. They

sit on the board, and they are the direct competitors.

We are saying, if you are really serious about not letting competitors of FPI

sit on the board, or you are trying to limit their right to sit on a board go a

bit further. Put it into law. Put it into the bill that we are discussing here

today, into the FPI Act, where it says that a competitor cannot sit on the board

of FPI.

These are some of the proposals that we are putting forward. I am delighted

that, for once, anyway, the minister responsible for this act, the Minister of

Fisheries, at least felt that some of the suggestions - two of the nine, I

think, that we have here - are worthy of putting into the bill. I thank him for

that, Mr. Chairman. I do hope that the act will be strengthened as a result of

it, and I do hope that we are not here again discussing this act in the very

near future, but, believe me, I really and truly think we are going to be back

here.

Number one, I don't think that we have strengthened it enough. If you would

put our proposals in there, I would feel a little bit more confident that it was

strengthened enough. Even with that - because every single day, as they say, to

use the expression, the water changes on the beans. We are here today discussing

an FPI Act that this government over here last year basically voted to scrap.

For all intents and purposes, you voted to scrap the Act, because you voted to

allow FPI to sell the most valued division of that company, the American

division. You voted for it. That was done. Last June 5, I think, Minister, wasn't

it? Last June 5, the majority of the members opposite voted to allow FPI to sell

the American marketing division. Everyone remembers that.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) I didn't.

MR. REID: The Minister of Fisheries says he didn't.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is only because I wasn't here.

MR. REID: It is only because he wasn't here. That is very good. That

means, if you were here you would have voted. Okay. Maybe you can explain to me,

when you get up, why your Premier didn't vote for it, but everyone else did,

or most of all of you did, enough to win the day.

Anyway, last year this time government voted to amend the Act to allow FPI to

sell off its American division, the most valued division. Now, all of the sudden

- if anyone is listening out there and who has been following -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: We will debate that later, I say to the hon. Leader of the

House.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is last year in this House the majority of

those opposite voted to allow FPI to sell its American marketing division and

the second year processing division.

Anyone who has been following the FPI shenanigans that have been going on in

the past year or so, that was supposed to be a done deal. Then, all of the

sudden, what do we hear floated just two or three days ago by the Premier

himself? All of the sudden now, the American marketing division of FPI is

probably the most important part of that company, and that division of FPI is

going to be the saviour of our marketing woes in the entire fishing industry in

the Province. He wants now to get some group together to take that from FP