text:
May 9, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 10
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon, we are very pleased to welcome approximately forty high school students from three schools in the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. Specifically, these students are from Appalachia High School in St. George's, from E.A. Butler All Grade School in McKay's, and Belanger Memorial School in Upper Ferry. They are accompanied by their chaperones: Leandra Morris, Brendon Quilty, Darlene Gale, Chris Cooper and Nancy MacDonald.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery this afternoon, we are pleased to welcome Ms Sara Green from Winterton, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. Ms Green is the title holder of the Miss Summer Holiday Achievement Pageant for 2006-2007. She is also the recipient of a $17,000 Keyin College Community Connections Award.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We are also pleased to welcome in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, Chief Joe Browne of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Deputy Chief Bill Brown, Deputy Chief Robert Johnston, and Inspector Robert Shea.
Welcome to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A very special welcome this afternoon is extended to five visitors in the Speaker's gallery from Brazil. They are visiting Newfoundland and Labrador as part of Rotary International's Group Study Exchange. The team leader is Mrs. Claudia Zanchett, and the team members are: Miss Gabriela Baratto, Miss Rafaela Farina, Mr. Jean Ragnini, and Mrs. Denise Vieira Sperry. There are accompanied by Rotarian Philip Osborne. These people come from a town in the south of Brazil, from two communities named Passo Fundo and Erehim.
A special welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the Member for the District of Exploits; the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the District of Topsail; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; and, the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication and long-time service of three special parishioners of the Grace United Church in Cottrell's Cove in the District of Exploits.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the privilege to attend the 100 anniversary celebrations of this historic church.
In 1906 a young Minister from England, Reverend Robert Samuel Smith, just twenty years old, arrived in New Bay, later called Cottrell's Cove, and opened the church in 1907.
Mr. Speaker, for the past 100 years the Grace United Church has been able to survive because of the dedication of many volunteers in the parish. However, there were three very special people recognized for long-time service awards during the anniversary celebrations: Mr. Rufus Boone, forty-eight years as caretaker and treasurer; Mrs. Hazel Boone, forty-eight years as church organist; Mrs. Irene Boone, sixty-seven years as church organist.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating these three dedicated volunteers of the Grace United Church.
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 in the House to congratulate St. Mary's All-Grade Wolves Basketball team from my hometown of Mary's Harbour. This team recently won the inaugural Boys' Small School Basketball provincial championship which was held in Swift Current in April.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first provincial championship of any type for the St. Mary's All-Grade School. While most teams consisted of Level II and III boys, the St. Mary's team was comprised of students from Grades 7 through to Level III. But what makes this win a truly unique accomplishment, is that even though this was a boys tournament, the St. Mary's team had four girls who participated on its roster.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, these four girls were the only girls participating in the boys tournament and according to the coach, Mr. Todd Farrell, this was the first time he has witnessed this in a provincial boys basketball championship.
Mr. Speaker, not only were the girls competitive and equal in skill level to the boys, they were an integral part of the team's victory. They played regularly on the road to the championship. The Wolves defeated Hampden Academy - another sorry loss, I say to my colleague, the Member for Deer Lake - on a last-second shot to win their semi-final game and crawled back from a seven-point halftime deficit to defeat Swift Current Academy in the final - my other colleague, the Member for Bellevue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members in this Legislature to join me today as I proudly congratulate the St. Mary's Wolves players, and I would like to read their names into the record, please: Allison Rumbolt, Kevin Farrell, Chesley Rumbolt, Otto Glynn, Ronnie Spearing, Wendy Fifield, Taylor Farrell, Niki Rumbolt, Grant Pye, Kayla Smith, Lloyd Hicks, and their coach, Todd Farrell, and a special congratulations goes to Thomas Simms, who was named the most sportsmanlike player for the St. Mary's Wolves.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a little boy with a huge heart from Conception Bay South.
On a recent Saturday night, Lori Critch of Manuels, planned to take in a Fog Devils game at the Mile One Centre with her six-year-old son, Christan. Sometime after the first period Mr. Geoff Eaton, cancer survivor and founder of RealTime Cancer, spoke to the crowd and informed the audience about the: Shave for the Brave campaign. The Critchs are no stranger to the sadness cancer brings. Her grandmother lost the battle with the disease only five months earlier.
At one point during Eaton's speech, while he was addressing the people wearing the yellow Shave for the Brave toques in the audience, Christan turned to his mother and asked if he could shave his head to support the Shave for the Brave campaign. Christan's mother initially thought if she waited a few minutes he might forget about it, but the six-year-old did not forget.
As they stood in the line-up, someone asked Christan what made him want to shave his head. Christan replied: Because I want to help people with cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join me in recognizing six-year-old Christan Critch, a student at Topsail Elementary School, for being so brave and wanting to help others at such a very young age.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize two constituents from my district, Duncan and Mabel Nichols of Deer lake, who recently celebrated a huge milestone of their sixtieth wedding anniversary.
Mr. and Mrs. Nichols were married April 25, 1947 in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Mr. Nicholas, a native Newfoundlander, moved back with his bride to Deer Lake in 1949. During their married life, they have had five children, three of whom reside in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Nichols have been blessed with nine grandchildren, four great-grandchildren. Mr. Nichols worked all of his life for Bowaters and retired in 1984. Since that time, both have spent their time quietly together enjoying family and friends. It is great to hear stories like Mr. and Mrs. Nichols'. They are shining examples of the beautiful importance of family, and family ties, and can be seen right across our great Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Nichols. May they have many more happy years of marriage together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Glovertown Salvation Army Corps. The corps is celebrating its ninety-eighth anniversary.
Today the corps is led by Captain George and Karen Crocker. These individuals are both very active within the corps and are involved in a wide array of activities for both children and youth.
The congregation remains vibrant with a strong corps of more than 150 families.
Mr. Speaker, this corps, as many other Salvation Army corps, plays an active role in the Glovertown and surrounding communities, helping families and individuals in need. This is very evident by the groups involvement with the local food bank.
The eldest member of the church is Uncle Phil Collins, who will celebrating his ninety-third birthday in August. He is still an energetic member, regularly playing his tambourine in every service.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me today in congratulating the Glovertown Salvation Army Corps on ninety-eight years of spiritual and community leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday, May 4, 2007, I had the distinct pleasure of attending Prom Night and joining 203 students of the forty-second graduating class of Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts.
More than 850 students, parents, staff and invited guests attended the prom service officiated by Reverend Doctor James Min of Central United Church. This special service was followed by a dinner held at the Bay Arena.
Mr. Speaker, the evening of celebration was emceed by Jessica Hussey and Michael Coffey. Valedictorian, Jonathon Neil, gave an inspiring speech outlining the excellent rapport between students and teachers at Ascension Collegiate and the inspiration each student will carry with them as they graduate and start a new phase of their lives. During the proceedings, Bradley Dickson and Jessica Petten were crowned prom king and queen.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations and best wishes to the forty-second graduating class of Ascension Collegiate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, over the past two days, teachers piloting our skilled trades high school courses have received training in occupational health and safety. A two-day workshop was made available through Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission to make sure the skilled trades suites are safe and secure areas to learn.
The Departments of Education and Human Resources, Labour and Employment are investing $30,000 to ensure all fifty teachers involved in this pilot receive this important training. These sessions build on the first-aid training the teachers completed in February of this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, combined with the $100,000 already invested for extensive professional development, these teachers are well-equipped to safely deliver these innovative courses.
Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, government has invested $4 million in our Futures in Skilled Trades and Technology program for high schools. It is the first time since 1982 that any government has invested this kind of funding in skilled trades programming, and we believe it will open the world of skilled trades to our young people. Budget 2007 provided an additional $1.5 million which will be used primarily to purchase the same equipment and quality resources that are used on job sites.
Since first announcing details of this program in 2005, the number of pilot schools has increased. In September of this year the pilot will expand to thirty-seven schools from the original twenty-five. There is a tremendous level of interest among teachers, administrators and students. It is our hope that with more students exposed to this type of training more will give serious consideration to a career in skilled trades.
We know that in the coming years there will be increased opportunities in the area of skilled trades. We need a highly qualified workforce to meet current and future demands.
Budget 2007 also committed $2.8 million to improve our skills training and apprenticeship system. This includes $660,000 to expand post-secondary programming in skilled trades and technology offerings at the College of the North Atlantic.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, government established a Skills Task Force to recommend ways to address skill shortages in the Province. I anticipate the release of the report of the task force in the coming days.
Mr. Speaker, our Futures in Skilled Trades and Technology programs is exciting. It is relevant. Students are embracing it. This program, combined with our initiatives to build a stronger training and apprenticeship system, will allow students to look forward to a lucrative career here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say it is, no doubt, a common known fact that in the very near future we will see a shortage of skilled trades here in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the Premier when he said recently, that why he left his comfortable living room behind and joined the wild world of politics was so that there would be no more giveaways. Well, Mr. Speaker, I left the construction industry to join the wild kingdom of politics to see that our youth will not be shipped out of this Province. Yes, we have to train them right here at home and hopefully they will get jobs here.
All you had to do, Mr. Speaker, was listen to the Open Line show this morning to know that eighteen students are graduating at King's Point and twelve of them already have their tickets bought to leave this Province.
I hope this government and the Minister of Education will stand together, stand shoulder to shoulder, with the 203 students at Ascension Collegiate, one school alone, so that they can get training here, yes, but make sure that this economy is turned around so that they will find jobs here in this Province and will not have to leave for other places, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the minister for the advance copy.
I am pleased with this much-needed initiative by the Workplace, Health and Safety Compensation Commission. According to statistics shared by the WHSCC today, at a briefing for MHAs that I attended this morning with three of my colleagues from the House, there were 373 injuries among young workers in this Province last year. So, we cannot do too much to educate our young people in the skilled trades program around the dangers of working in skilled trades.
I also express our hope that the occupational health and safety training takes into account the different issues for males and females, because it is proven by research and by experience that things that may look safe for a male worker may not be safe -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS MICHAEL: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you.
Research has shown that things that may be safe for a male worker are not safe for a female worker, and vice versa, so I encourage the ministry to be sure that there is a gender sensitivity to the training that is going on.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today and recognize an exceptional individual receiving an exceptional honour. Joe Browne, Chief of Police for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, has been chosen to receive the Order of Merit of Police Forces award for his commitment to the country and his contributions to the career of policing.
The Canadian Police Services have a long history of service to the people of Canada. Officers and employees have distinguished themselves in many ways through volunteering, creating new programs to better service their communities, or working extra hours to create a safer environment for Canadians. Chief Browne certainly fits this description, Mr. Speaker.
Chief Browne began his career with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in 1983 and has worked in many sections of the force including patrol, working criminal investigations, accident investigations, and inside Communications and Community Services.
He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1995, to Inspector in 1997, and was District Commander until his promotion to Deputy Chief of Operations in 2001. It was our government's pleasure to welcome him as Chief of Police in March 2006.
While his academic achievements are many, it is his community involvement and his personable style for which he is possibly best known. Morale is now at an all-time high within the RNC and, as Minister of Justice, I would like to thank Chief Browne and his team for this achievement.
Mr. Speaker, Chief Browne is a graduate of the Executive Development Program from the Centre for Management Development at Memorial University's Faculty of Business Administration. His community involvement includes being a member of Rotary, a member of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council, and the chair of the Community Investment Committee of the United Way.
Chief Browne will participate in a ceremony in Ottawa later this month to receive a badge of the Order, similar to the Order of Military Merit. I know that Chief Browne will wear this proudly.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the House of Assembly, to join me in congratulating Chief Browne on this honour and to encourage him to keep up the great work that he is doing within the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to speak with respect to this statement today by the Minister of Justice. It is good to see that the meritorious service and traits of Chief Browne are finally being recognized nationally, because we have certainly recognized them here provincially for quite some time.
I personally first met Chief Browne back in 2000 when I was Minister of Justice. In fact, he was part of an interview process when then retiring Chief Judge Len Power was about to retire. We had a very private conversation on a particular Sunday morning. I will not get into the details of that conversation, but suffice it to say that I think as a result of that conversation Chief Browne knew where he was going at that time.
He actually became the Deputy Chief of Operations, I do believe, in 2001, when I had the pleasure of being the minister at that time and promoting him to that position, and very pleased to do so. He finally fulfilled and attained the position of Chief, which he most certainly deserves.
I had the pleasure of dealing with him in the capacity for about four years, as minister. We dealt with many sensitive files. I can say without reservation or hesitation that he is a very mild-mannered person, a very intelligent, smart person, sincere, dedicated to family and to the RNC. He is, in anybody's eyes or in anybody's estimations, the true measure of a professional and I congratulate you, Sir, and wish you all the best.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy.
It is a real pleasure to rise today to join with the House, and everybody else in this House, in the galleries, to congratulate you, Chief Browne.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting you. Some day that might happen. It must be a great feeling for you to be honoured by your peers, and to be honoured by your peers not just in the Province but by your peers on a national level.
It is also quite inspiring to see that, in spite of the onerous and heavy, demanding position that you hold, that you can still hold a place in the community and be a part of the community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to pass that on to the Chief.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to welcome Chief Browne and the members of the RNC into our Chambers today. I feel much safer asking questions with you in attendance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, because of the ice conditions on the Northeast Coast of our Province, our fishery has reached a critical stage where fishermen cannot put nets nor pots in the water and their EI benefits have become exhausted. Because of this, thousands of individuals along that coast are without a source of income.
Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Fisheries went to Ottawa and met with his federal counterpart, Mr. Hearn, on the weekend. I ask the minister: Did you address this issue with Minister Hearn? If so, what was his response?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we have addressed the matter of an extension to EI with the appropriate federal ministers, including Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet. I have to be honest and say, no, it was not an agenda item that I raised personally with the minister on Sunday. We spent two or three hours discussing FPI, and possible solutions to it.
I do believe, from media sources, that the union president took an opportunity to raise that matter with our federal minister. I did notice, as we were leaving the room to head back towards the airport, that he had him cornered in the room. I found out since, that was what they were talking about.
Personally, no, I did not raise it at that meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister knows that I think it is incumbent on all of us to raise this issue with Ottawa, because it is a very serious situation that exists and there are people doing without right now as a result of it.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has field staff working in the area affected by these severe ice conditions, and obviously these people know the individuals affected and how many would require an EI extension. Has that information been forwarded to the federal minister so that they could expedite the decision?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, yes, in normal instances the federal government quite often ask us because we do, in fact, have field staff, as the hon. member indicated, in the area who know the numbers involved, what communities they are living in and so on, and the extent of the ice coverage and difficulty.
Whether or not we have been asked to provide it or not, I would have to take that under advisement and see, but certainly we are quite willing, ready and able to provide that kind of backup information, if it is required, for anywhere in the Province. The North Coast of Labrador, the Northeast Coast, Southern Labrador, there are a whole bunch of areas as a whole, a lot of areas in the Province, having difficulty.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista to Nain.
MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: From Bonavista to Nain.
MR. RIDEOUT: From Bonavista to Nain, exactly.
It is anticipated that this is going to be quite severe for some time to come. So, we are in a position to provide any information that is required. Whether or not it has been requested I will take under advisement, whether or not it has been provided I will take under advisement, but certainly we are prepared, ready, able and willing to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Premier.
For the past two days I have asked the Premier the name of the individual who oversees his blind trust, but on both of those occasions the Premier has risen and said that it was none of my business.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that, while he thinks it is none of my business, the taxpayers of this Province have a right to know because they paid $34,000 to have this blind trust established.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, on behalf of the taxpayers: Is your blind trust in any way connected, or your blind trustee in any way connected, to the fibre optic deal? If not, prove it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier answered that question definitively in terms of any connection between his blind trustee and his blind trust. The Premier answered that definitively in the House a couple of days ago - I believe two days in a row - so there was nothing further to add to it, except to say, Mr. Speaker-
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: - except to say that in terms of the Premier's response regarding the blind trust, and his response as to who the individual is, to the Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is: Ditto.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess if none of your business qualifies as an answer to it, we did get an answer. I am sorry, that is not good enough for the people of this Province. He will give the answer eventually. He will give the answer because the people will not stand not to have the answer.
Mr. Speaker, today we are going to continue probing into the fibre optic deal and the decision to give $15 million untendered dollars on a contract to the Premier's friends and former business associates. The Premier has continuously stated that he had no involvement with this project. In a 2005 briefing note prepared by officials in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development it states that Dean MacDonald, on behalf of Persona, sent a confidential letter dated May 17, 2005, to the Premier requesting the government's assistance in attracting federal funding for this project. On the same day the Premier wrote then federal Minister John Godfrey endorsing that request.
I ask the Premier: Why was no copy of that letter from Dean MacDonald placed in the boxes that were tabled in this House? Can we have a copy of that letter, and why did the Province decide to take over the $15 million share, even after it was stated that this project was not on a list of provincial priorities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that information was divulged by myself in this House and in the public on a number of occasions previously, earlier this year, late last year. It was clearly told to the people, to the members opposite, that Persona and Mr. MacDonald had approached the Premier and the Premier's office looking for support to access funds through Industry Canada for the construction of the Trans Gulf initiative. That, Mr. Speaker, was clearly laid out previously.
What we did say is that after it became a provincial discussion, after it was determined that this would probably - if it was going to proceed - require some provincial funding, the Premier's office was removed from the file and it was placed solidly in the hands of the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and then in my hands.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here untoward. It was divulged before. What can I say? I do not know. The Opposition House leader, once again, Mr. Speaker, is chasing down the wrong rabbit holes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Fine words from the minister of duct tape.
I say to the minister, it is pretty straightforward. It is a pretty straightforward request. Can we have a copy of the May 17 letter from Dean MacDonald to the Premier? That is what I am asking. I am not asking you to reveal that there was such a letter. Can we have the letter? Now, that is not complicated. Can we or can't we?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I can find the letter, which I am certain I will be able to, I see no reason why the letter could not be released. We released 6,200 e-mails. We provided the Auditor General with 60,000 pieces of paper. We are providing - this afternoon a person from the Auditor General's office is going to be upstairs going through 1,515 pages of information related to the Cabinet documents. So, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why we could not release a simple letter from 2005 between the Premier and the former Minister of Industry Canada and the other letter from Mr. MacDonald. I see no reason.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Wow, that answer - I feel like a dentist here pulling teeth. That is all I needed was: Yeah, we can have it and get it to us. Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you very much. That is great.
Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 2006 an e-mail was sent from officials in ITRD stating that the Premier would be meeting with the president of Allstream, one of the proponents involved in the consortium in this deal. The officials thought it would be a good idea if Dean MacDonald and Ken Marshall were included for a discussion about the fibre link.
I ask the Premier: Can you confirm whether these meetings took place or not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether a meeting took place or not. I can only tell you that when I took over this file, there was no involvement after that with the Premier on this file.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader wants, once again today, as he did yesterday, as he has been doing for twenty-four, thirty-six hours now on the e-mails, cherry-picking little pieces here to misrepresent what happened. That is what is going on here. There is a campaign of misinformation underway, publicly and inside of this House.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, all of the information is provided. In the absence of anything that proves - that demonstrates that the Premier did anything untoward and that anybody else did anything untoward, the only option for the Opposition is to throw around little snippets of information to try and portray something that is not there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The only cherry-picking that has gone on here is the cherry-picking by government to decide what went into those boxes. That is the only cherry-picking we had here.
I challenge the minister, I challenge the media, and I challenge the officials who I have presented anything about, to come forward and prove anything that I have said in this House, or outside of this House, has been misleading, misinterpreted or not factual. Now that is the challenge I issue to you, Minister. Prove it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, throughout this whole process officials hinted at the relationship between the proponents and the Premier's office.
In an e-mail dated July 26, 2006, the Deputy Minister of Industry at the time wrote an e-mail to Paul Hatcher of Persona , "...Robert hasn't heard from on-high, which is disappointing because the Council of the Federation will now consume the rest of the week. I wonder if a well-placed call to someone like Brian Crawley..." - the Chief of Staff to the Premier, that is - "...would advance the decision?"
I ask the Premier: Can you confirm or deny that contact was made with Mr. Crawley, your Chief of Staff, and did he discuss this with you?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that e-mail does exist. Again, Mr. Speaker, you can do anything with a piece of paper if you do not put it in context, if you do not talk about what actually went on, if you do not put it up against the rest of the information around it.
Now, the Opposition House Leader knows full well that what we were trying to determine, what the deputy minister was trying to determine at that time, what Hatcher was trying to determine, and the other official in my department was trying to determine, was what we were supposed to do around the issue of public consultations.
We were directed by Cabinet to engage in public consultations on this file. Our legal counsel told us that is the mandate of the CRTC, and if we engaged in public consultations on this then we were going to infringe on CRTC jurisdiction. At the time, there was a question asked so that we could get an answer -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, will you gag the Member for Bay of Islands for me, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked and the minister has about fifteen seconds left to finish his response.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was clarification required as to what we should do with that Cabinet directive. That was what was being sought and that, Mr. Speaker, is all that was being sought.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let's see how many cherries we have to get before we have a pie here.
On October 24, two days before Cabinet approved the fibre deal, an official in ITRD writes the deputy minister at the time and states the following, "Just spoke to Paul Hatcher." - that is the CEO at Persona - "It might be good for you to call him on his cell... when you get out of your meeting. I'm not sure if he got this direct or not, but it was "suggested" that YOU should call his friend and former colleague."
I ask the Premier: Do you know who that friend and former colleague referenced in that e-mail might be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have no control over what officials say in e-mails or telephone conversations or what have you. All I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who were appropriate to be involved in this file were involved, and the people who were not appropriate to be involved in this file were not.
There is absolutely, Mr. Speaker, in the 6,200 - I ask him, Mr. Speaker, if he has evidence that the Premier in any way interfered with this file to cause this deal to be put through, then table it here in this House. If not, close his mouth about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it seems very coincidental that the deputy minister responsible for overseeing this deal was shuffled and became the new Clerk of this House at the same time the deal was approved, and a new deputy minister was appointed by the Premier.
On October 30, another e-mail from an ITRD official, Mr. Robert Parsons, to Paul Hatcher again of Persona, one of the proponents, referencing the new deputy minister, said, "....she is one of the "good guys" too. You'll like her no nonsense approach just as you did Bill's, and I'm looking forward to working closely with her on many ICT projects that will be near and dear to your heart."
I ask the Premier: Do you have any idea what the statement, another one of the good guys, means, that you appointed this person, and what projects might be near and dear to Paul Hatcher's heart?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is no level low enough that the Opposition House Leader will not stoop. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of this House, an hon. man, was the Acting Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and when the job came up for competition, Mr. Speaker, for his own -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair reminds hon. members there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition that members who serve as Table Officers in the House should never be referenced either in questions or in answers. That is a long-term parliamentary tradition.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I ask him to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It would have been nice if you had done that in the question, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker - and I apologize. I was not aware that was a rule, and I apologize for it. I am going to say this, though: The acting deputy minister of the department at the time, regardless of where that person went, chose for his own reasons not to apply for the job because he did not want the job.
The fact of the matter is, the good guy, she is one of the good guys. Yes, Mr. Speaker, she is one of the good guys. She is one of the good guys, and that is what we have done since we got in this government, Mr. Speaker: we have put very capable people in the appropriate positions in this government so we can get the advice that we require.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not seen anything yet from the minister to stop this pie from cooking and baking, I tell you.
Mr. Speaker, after the Aliant fire on Allandale Road, instead of having any discussions with Aliant, or approaching the CRTC to file a complaint, government rapidly moved toward an untendered contract to the Premier's friends and associates.
In an e-mail dated October 31, 2006, the following was sent from an official in the Department of Industry. "I have been told that the Premier does not desire for our government to bring to the CRTC the recent event that saw a full service disruption for 6 hours. Should others raise the matter and the Federal Minister seek our opinion, at that time we will deal with it. Hence my oblique reference to quality of service and penalties."
I ask the Premier: If you are so concerned with the service disruption caused by the Aliant fire, why didn't you approach the CRTC instead of rushing to justify the awarding of the contracts to your friends?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, in 6,200 e-mails, it is abundantly clear to everybody that over the course of eighteen months this deal was receiving a very comprehensive review and evaluation of the merits, the pros and the cons of it, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions, whether the Aliant fire took place or not, this deal would have gone ahead. This deal should go ahead. It should have gone ahead, Mr. Speaker, a year ago. Only for the political foolishness that the crowd opposite are getting on with, it would have gone ahead, Mr. Speaker.
The only thing that they have, that they think they can wrap something around, is the Premier's relationship with former business colleagues. Outside of that, there is not one scrap of evidence that there is anything wrong with this deal, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After the deal was announced, government officials were concerned with the public relations message and whether the justification being used for the project was accurate. An e-mail from the Premier's public relations director to the Department of Industry on November 2 shows this concern:
"Aliant are adamant that the second fibre optic would not have helped in the situation that occurred last week. I hope we are fully confident of this, otherwise I am nervous about the strong focus on that issue."
In addition, the Premier began his media campaign by doing interviews with various provincial media outlets. An official from the department came back and said, "This is not consistent with everything we have been saying...The Min might need to fine tune his message. I am not sure how this meshes with our messages."
I ask the Premier: If this deal was so squeaky clean, why was government's lack of detail and mixed messaging of such concern to the officials, particularly those officials in the Premier's own office?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would think, as a matter of course, on any number of fronts in this government and the previous government, that from time to time senior communications officers, senior communications personnel, in the government would enquire of their colleagues in departments as to whether or not we were absolutely certain of what we were saying. Because, of course, those people are dealing with communications, not with the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, irregardless of what I said, regardless of what the Premier might say, go back to what Cindy Roma said. Forget what Aliant said, they have a vested interest, Mr. Speaker. See what Telelink said, see what Cindy Roma said, see what the Newfoundland Association of Technology industry said, see what the Board of Trade said, see what the City of St. John's said, see what the Federation of Municipalities said. They said, this is a vital piece of infrastructure, they said this is absolutely required, and if we had carrier redundancy in this Province the Aliant fire would have gone ahead and the Aliant system would have been temporarily disabled, but with emergency inter-connectivity protocols we would have been able to bump over on somebody else's system and we would have continued out telecommunications.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have just one more for today.
The minister was outside the House of Assembly shortly before today's session having a rant. I say, the minister is becoming just like the fibre deal, a moving target. He said, as a part of his rant today, that he is now going to, at this late stage - this is about seven months after the October approval of the deal - he is now going to get a new EWA. That is the electronic warfare crowd that we had a review from last June or July. It never worked then and that was full of holes, because we presented that here.
I ask the minister: Here we are seven months out, we are getting a new EWA report to see if this deal is and can be a supported substantial business deal. Minister, with all of the holes and the shortcomings that was in the first EWA report, why, in the name of God, would you go back to the same crowd? Do you think maybe you should do an RFP on that, even?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the only hole, and it is a pretty big one around here, is the one that the Opposition House Leader is continuing to dig himself into on this file.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if he had been paying attention back in late October and early November, if he had been paying attention on November 2 when we had the press conference, he would know full well, and if he had been paying attention when I read the MC on the airwaves back in November or December, or whenever it was, he would -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: You know why I said it, ask him. He listened to what was going on out in the scrum this morning. Go find out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they were supposed, as directed by Cabinet in late October, to come back and do an evaluation of this when we had finalized the deal. That is why they are supposed to come back, as directed last fall.
Mr. Speaker, at least he should get his facts straight. He has all the information, he might as well, at least, put it out there in an accurate form.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The government finally has a waste management strategy, though the details are sketchy as to how much money will be spent each year and what the annual targets are, as well as why it will take so long to implement. We have only $22 million coming from Municipal Affairs capital works money going into this over four years, another $22 million is coming from the gas tax and we understand that other funding avenues are being pursued.
I guess I have two parts to the question, Minister. When will the details of the strategy be known, including what the other funding avenues are that you are looking at, and why would the government not invest more money upfront so that the whole strategy will be in place much sooner than 2020?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for her question. It is simple logistics. It is not something we are going to spend $200 million on that you can spend in a week, a month, a year or two, or five even.
Mr. Speaker, the $22.4 million, or $22.5 million that the hon. member refers to is the money that is coming out of the gas tax, that is 25 per cent of the gas tax, so $82 million over the next four years. Municipal Affairs is putting in $5 million a year out of their capital works. MMSB is putting money in, in due course. The gas tax program with the federal government has already been extended for another four years, so we expect there will be another $22 million come out of that. It is not something within our Budget to do within a year, or two, or five. The strategy that was in place since 2002 is now going from a strategy to an implementation plan and I think it has been well received by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. It is well received by various municipalities. It was well received by the Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association, Mr. Speaker. These people do not seem to have any problem with it, so I do not understand why the hon. member would have any problems.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have problems. I just have questions that I would like answers to, that is all. We are very pleased that a plan is being put in place. We do not have a full plan yet. You have a strategy. We do not have a lot of details.
Are there any of the funding avenues that you are looking at going to be able to come up with larger lump sums in the beginning, because people are not happy with the fact this will not be fully in place until 2020 and that has already been out there today in the media?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what people are not happy with. I don't understand. There is one individual from the Sierra Club who had some problems, but from the information and the feedback that I am getting, most of the groups and organizations within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are quite pleased with this right across the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: With respect to the detail, Mr. Speaker, we have fifteen zones across the Province; eleven in Newfoundland, on the Island, and four in the Labrador part of the Province. There will be regional authorities. All of this is being laid out for the media, for the people within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of consultation has gone on with the various organizations across the Province.
So, with respect to the detail; again, there has to be certain logistics to flow. The regional authorities will be putting in the plans for each given authority, each zone within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, with respect to the detail and the plan itself, we are at a point now that we can go no further until those zones are put in place, those authorities are put in place. We did have an issue with the government with respect to the Avalon region. I have had a meeting with the City of St. John's who have accepted a different governance proposal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for a very brief supplementary by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quickly then, I am disturbed that recycling is not included in a mandatory way.
So, my quick question is: Why is this government not committing to more provincial level financing of recycling and composting as essential parts of waste management in every municipality so that these can be in place sooner rather than later?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, time for a very brief response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As my colleague has said, this is good news. We have received good responses from mayors across the Province - a phone call just before I came over here. I can assure the member that recycling will be an integral, important part of this entire strategy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!
During the process of Question Period, there was one expression that caused concern to the Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development used the expression, in reference to the Opposition House Leader, of carrying on a campaign of misinformation. This particular expression I do find to be unparliamentary and I ask the minister if he could withdraw the expression?
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I withdraw the statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to report today that the Resource Committee have reviewed and passed, without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Business; Environment and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, excluding subhead 2.1.01 Labrador Affairs; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Natural Resources; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Rural Secretariat Division of Executive Council, subhead 2.1.01.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of: the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works; the Labrador Affairs subhead of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs 2.1.02, and the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I would like to table, on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Lewisporte and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Annual Report for 2005-2006 for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?
Notices of Motions.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that it being Wednesday, the Order of the Day will be the Private Member's motion put forward by the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
We will dispense with the Whereases and it reads: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI."
The Chair recognizes the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess for expedience on your behalf you dispensed with the Whereases, but I have to read them, I say to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a Private Member's motion here this afternoon that deals with FPI and I will read it into the record. It says:
"WHEREAS the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS FPI was originally established to be the flagship of the fishing industry of this Province; and
WHEREAS over 2,000 people in this Province look to FPI for direct employment; and
WHEREAS the sale of the marketing and secondary processing division of FPI to a Nova Scotian company would not be in the best interest of FPI workers or the fishing industry as a whole; and
WHEREAS the government has been unable to negotiate effectively with the Federal Government to gain control of FPI quotas, which was supposed to be a precondition to the sale of FPI or any of its assets;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we all, or most people, know the history of FPI. It was established in the mid to late 1980s as a result of a collapse and bankruptcy in the fish processing sector of our Province. A number of plants had run into trouble, they were closing, and there were a number of people being displaced in areas around the Province. As a result - and the present Minister of Fisheries, I think, was the minister at that time - the first FPI Act was brought before the House. The government decided, rather than leave all of these communities in the lurch, all of these communities without a means to sustain themselves, all of these employees of various fish plants around the Province that had gone into bankruptcy, that they would step in and create FPI, and under the umbrella of FPI they would operate a number of fish plants around this Province.
At that time, FPI was set up, Mr. Speaker, to lend stability to rural communities in the Province, but it was also established to be the flagship of the fishing industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think that FPI, up until about 2003, was the flagship of the fishing industry in this Province. It was recognized not only provincially, not only nationally, but internationally. It was known around the world. They built that company into the assets that we see today, with a presence in Great Britain, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see what has happened to that company over the last two or three years. I have said it once, and I will say it a hundred time, one of the reasons we are in the predicament we are with FPI is because the current government didn't act quickly enough. They dropped the ball on FPI. They allowed the current Board of Directors, and Mr. Risley especially, to run roughshod over the employees of that company. They allowed them to walk away from fish plants, and allowed those fish plant to close and throw hundreds and hundreds of people out of work.
They bought into the line they were being fed by directors of FPI, that being that there was no money in groundfish and that we couldn't compete with the Chinese market because of our high Canadian dollar. They bought that hook, line and sinker, and as a result we have seen FPI close the plant in Harbour Breton, close the plant in Fortune, and close the plant in Marystown.
We see today the situation that company is in, whereby FPI is now going to sell it piecemeal. They want to break the company up and sell the marketing and the secondary processing division to a Nova Scotia company. They want to sell off the new asset that they bought last year even though I opposed them buying it. That didn't seem to matter. A lot of people opposed them buying a fish plant in Great Britain. They bought that for $40 million, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder today had they invested or reinvested that $40 million into the plants in Newfoundland and Labrador would they be closing them. So they are breaking it off and they breaking off the reminder of the assets. It looks like there is a potential sale of that to a company that is based here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a brief period of time, but what we are proposing is that we strike a committee of this House to examine very seriously whether or not what the government should do today is what they did in the 1980s, and that is to go out and purchase the assets of FPI.
I happen to think, personally, that is where we should be going. We should be buying the assets, all of the assets, of FPI. It was established as the flagship of the fishing industry, and I think that, with the right people at the helm of that company today, if we were to purchase it by a government, set it up as a Crown corporation, and set it up with the right individuals to run that company, that company could revert to where it was a few short years ago before the current board of directors took over, led by Mr. Risley.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could accomplish that, and I do not see why anybody would have any problem doing it. We have a government today, led by the Premier of our Province, who is out there every day talking about going it alone, and how we want to be part of each and all of our other industries.
Let me give you an example. They want ownership - they either want to run it completely by themselves, as a government, or they want ownership in it - in our oil industry offshore. The reason we are not moving ahead with the Hebron-Ben Nevis field today is because the Premier demanded an ownership position in our oil and gas industry. He wanted an ownership. They call it an equity position but, for anyone out there who does not know what equity means, it is an ownership position. He has no problem with taking an ownership position in our oil and gas industry.
The Premier has no problem whatsoever taking an ownership in our hydro industry. In fact, he said on many occasions in the past year or so - that is our electric industry, I say, Mr. Speaker - he has no problem with that because he says we are going it alone on the Lower Churchill. We will be the masters of our own destiny. We are going to go it alone in our hydro industry.
Mr. Speaker, in our high-tech industry - which this government pats themselves on the back for, what a great high-tech industry - we are debating in the House of Assembly today an ownership position we have in a high-tech industry, namely through our fibre optic link with the mainland. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has bought into that high-tech industry through $15 million that the Premier gave to his friends and business associates. Now, that might not be the right reason to do it, but we still have an ownership position, and they applaud themselves for having an ownership position in our high-tech fibre optic industry.
In our forestry industry, we all remember when the mill in Stephenville was going down - the Abitibi mill in Stephenville was going down - we all heard the Premier on Open Line shows and in the media talking about expropriation of the mill in Stephenville. That means taking ownership of a mill in our forest industry. He was also prepared, back some two years ago, to invest $150 million of our taxpayers' money - our money, your money, any of those people who are watching us here today - $150 million into the forest industry, namely to keep Abitibi alive out in Stephenville.
So, he had not problem investing in our forest industry, our high-tech industry through fibre optic, our hydro industry through the Lower Churchill, and our oil industry, through ownership, no problem. Mr. Speaker, why can't we have a part ownership in our most valued industry, our fishing industry? Why can't we take an equity position in our fishing industry, an ownership position? We are not out there talking about buying out every fish plant and taking complete control. Why can't we take an equity position by owning FPI, and let that act as the flagship for the fishing industry in the Province?
I think what it is, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier does not want to get the smell of fish on his hands. For some reason he is interested in the oil and gas industry, the high-tech industry and those industries, but he has no interest and no knowledge of what is happening in the fishing industry. As a result, we see communities around this Province that have been devastated by the closure of plants belonging to FPI over the last two or three years with very little, if any, response from this government except that FPI has to do it.
In fact, the Premier even went so far as to agree with John Risley a few short months ago, that not only should he close plants in the Province but those who remain working for FPI should take a wage cut. He agreed with Mr. Risley, when Mr. Risley went out and talked about the need to slash the wages of the plant workers in the Province. The Premier went out and said he agrees with him, and the plant workers should reconsider this.
Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that we should put FPI back the way it was. Look, the thing that I find the most distasteful about all of this deal is the fact that we are selling off what most in the industry would consider to be - most people who know that industry - the most valued asset of FPI being sold off to a Nova Scotia company, and that is the secondary processing and the marketing division.
In the secondary processing division we only have one plant, and that is located in Burin. They make a tremendous product and they have seen some semblance of a normal work year down there in that plant. Years ago they worked year-round, and even up until recently, in the last few years, they worked year-round and employed 150 or 170 people.
The other part of that secondary processing facility is located in Danvers, Massachusetts, along with the marketing division, but there are people on O'Leary Avenue who are also connected with that division, Mr. Speaker. We often forget them, but there are 140 people or 120 people on O'Leary Avenue who will lose their jobs as well if this deal goes through.
I do not, and I think that government would be negligent if they allow the marketing division and the secondary processing division of FPI to be sold off because anyone who knows anything about FPI - you can talk to Mr. Vic Young or anyone who has been connected with FPI over the past twenty years, they will tell you that what kept FPI alive in Newfoundland and Labrador - when I mean alive in Newfoundland and Labrador, kept the plants open during the moratorium when there was no fish or little fish to process. What kept those plants open in this Province was the fact that FPI owned the marketing and secondary processing division in the United States. They took the profits that they were making on marketing fish, under the FPI banner, they took the profits from that portion of the company and subsidized the plants that they operated here in this Province. Unfortunately, with that division being sold off there will be no more subsidies coming from that division. And so they should subsidize. It is one company.
The marketing division is one part of FPI. That is all it ever was, one part. It was all under the one management, one board of directors, and it was run out of O'Leary Avenue up here. So, obviously if one portion of your company is making money, you are going to subsidize the other until they get back on their feet. You just do not chop off the portion of the company that is not making money because that portion is falling on hard times. The groundfish division made money for FPI. That is how they got their start. That is how they were able to be successful in buying the marketing and secondary processing division.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing, some might argue that government should not be involved in the private sector. Well, I say to the Premier, or anyone else who wants to argue with that, they have no problem about investing in other private sector industries in our Province. None whatsoever, and nobody seems to complain in this Province when the Premier says we want an ownership position of our oil and gas industry. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people might say: What is the cost going to be? Well, it is my understanding that there are roughly 13 million shares in FPI and today I think the shares are selling around $14.95 a share, but six months ago we could have picked up the shares in FPI for less than $5. Less than $5, I say to the members opposite. So, what is that? That is $65 million, we could have picked up FPI for. We could have picked up all the shares in FPI for roughly $65 million, five months ago.
Today, because the shares have gone up, because people know it is going to be sold off piecemeal, it would probably cost the Province in the area of $200 million. Not a large amount of money to take control of that gem of an asset called FPI, or what used to be called a gem in our fishery, FPI. I have no problem with it. If you want to, you can write part of that down, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. Because what we have done, FPI went to Great Britain and bought a seafood company for $40 million that did not benefit anyone in this Province. Now I understand that is for sale. If the Minister of Fisheries for our Province is correct, he said that FPI bought that two years ago for $40 million and today it is worth $80 million. If you want to reduce the cost of buying FPI from $200 million, round figures, down to $120 million, all we have to do is sell off the British seafood company. Because it is going to be sold off now anyway, Mr. Speaker. You can rest assured, that no one in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to own it once they sell it off because they have already announced that they are doing a deal with an European company. Where the profits of that sale is going to go, I have no idea.
If you talk about it, Mr. Speaker, that we can have the FPI that was passed over to John Risley and group back for $120 million, why don't we purchase it? The Premier had no problem offering the mill workers in Stephenville 300 direct jobs in that mill, $150 million. That is what he was prepared to put in for that mill. Yet, we have 2,000 employees with FPI, more than 2,000 direct jobs associated with FPI, and we are quite prepared to see that company divvied up and sold off. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should do it. What I am saying is that we should strike a serious committee of the House of Assembly and do it rather quickly, hold some talks with individuals who know the fishing industry in this Province, hold some talks with people who know something about finance, hold some talks with people who know about investing money and do an analysis of the benefits that that purchase would be, not only for the people who work in the fish plants and work on the draggers of FPI in this Province, and work on O'Leary Avenue, but we should also know what the benefit of having that company continue to exist in our Province as a whole rather than just parts of it.
Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you, the plant in Europe is going to be sold off. We will have nothing to do with that and my fear, as it has always been a fear, is that once we break off the marketing and the secondary processing division, it is only a matter of time before the plant in Burin is sold off and the equipment in that plant is shipped off to Nova Scotia to a High Liner plant, because that is who is buying that, or end up in Danvers, Massachusetts. The most valued asset, that American marketing division, that is what we should be holding on to because, Mr. Speaker, they purchase fish around the world and sell it around the world. Most of that fish never sees the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Vic Young told me, when he was the President of FPI, they were buying fish out of Victoria Lake in Africa and selling it somewhere else in the world and making money. That money was coming back to the bottom line of FPI in this Province. While there was no work attached to it, direct work in terms of processing that fish, there was money made off the sale of that fish and it was coming back into this Province to keep that company strong.
Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that when I was minister - and even before when I worked for the previous two ministers before I became minister myself - I felt proud when I walked into the Boston Seafood Show, which is the largest seafood show in the world, and you look around that facility with thousands of booths. I have never been to a show as large in my life. Three floors of a convention centre with individual booths set up all around it and down through it, representing companies from most of the countries around the world that have a seacoast. When you walk -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has lapsed.
MR. REID: Just a minute to clue up Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. REID: When you walk into that building on the first floor, you turn to your left and you see the big banner, FPI - larger than any other one there. The individuals who were standing behind that booth, as smart as anybody in the fishing industry in the world. They were a showpiece for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we are forgetting, as well, that a lot of companies in this Province, a lot of the small processors marketed their fish through FPI. Today, some of them are going to be left in a lurch. FPI can continue to operate. I know there is a fear that if the government owned FPI that they would be unfavourably, or unfairly competing on the head of the wharf for product with other fish companies. Well, we did that for twenty years here in the Province. Those companies - I am not aware of any company or any smaller fish plant owner who was driven out of business because of FPI. I am not aware that it has ever happened.
Mr. Speaker, there are ways, if we strike an all-party committee, to get around that, too, and to alleviate the fears that some people in this Province might have, that FPI will be unfavourably competing with the smaller fish merchants in the Province because we can put stipulations on it. We do not have to be running them under our thumb on a daily basis, but they would have to be responsible, especially if we set them up. We could not have FPI and its board of directors out trying to drive other companies into bankruptcy. It never happened when they were there before, at least under the board of directors that were there prior to 2001, and I do not think that it would happen again. I also think that having a strong company, one with the ability to market other fish products from other fish plant owners in the Province would be an asset.
The Premier and the Minister of Fisheries attended a summit last spring down here in St. John's, and what the Premier came out of it with, right off the bat, was: Look, what we need to do is, we need to buy the marketing division of FPI, because we need that division to remain here in this Province.
The minister is probably going to get up later on and say why that could not happen: because no one was interested. I say to the minister, before he even says it, the government should have still bought it, because Iceland controls its marketing divisions. It might not be true, but Iceland, I think, markets all of its fish under one or two marketing divisions. It used to. It worked very well for Iceland, I say to the minister. It used to work very well for Iceland.
What would be wrong with having the marketing division of FPI market all of the fish for all of the processors here in this Province if it were run properly, if the other processors were given an incentive to market through FPI and if the other processors knew that they were not going to get ripped off or swindled by the Board of Directors of FPI?
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up, but I do believe that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador should purchase FPI. I am willing to say today that we should strike an all-party committee first to examine this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are out there saying that the provincial government should not be nationalizing industries, I say, I am not talking about nationalizing all industries. I am talking about nationalizing one company in our most important industry, the industry that brought us here in 1497 and the industry that is going to maintain us. Long after our oil and gas is gone, long after our mines have been cleaned up, what are we going to be left with? We are going to be left with our fishery, Mr. Speaker. That is what is going to sustain us, and we cannot sit back and watch as FPI cuts, slices and dissects that once proud company into divisions, into parts, and sell them off piecemeal to people who live outside of this Province.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and somebody else can have a few words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to the motion on the floor, and to speak in support of the motion on the floor, and to speak in support of it because I really do believe what this motion is about. I absolutely believe that we can own FPI, as a government, and that owning an industry that is connected with one of the most important resources in our Province is something that we should not only just talk about but we should take as a given.
As I was preparing for today, as we all know, this is my first time standing and speaking to the issue of the fishing industry. Even though I have not done that before, I have, over the years, been always interested in our fishery and have worked on various aspects of research around the fishery and have some sense of our fishery, but part of my research for today was to look at some of the discussions that have taken place in this House over the years.
I could not help but note - and I hope my colleagues will find this a bit humourous - that I think we are having what we could call in this House the annual FPI event. All the dates I looked at over the past while in Hansard, discussions were happening in May of each year on FPI. To me, that says we have a problem that has not been resolved.
I noticed last May - on May 25, actually - when discussion was going on in this House with regard to amendments to the FPI Act, that my predecessor, the then Leader of the NDP and MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, had this to say when speaking to the amendments that were on the floor at that time. " I say again today, that I do not believe that these amendments are going to do what needs to be done to ensure that Fishery Products is going to be the vehicle that we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, hope and expect it can be for the fishery of the future in this Province. I believe that we are going to be back here again in a number of months dealing, for the fourth time in four years, with Fishery Products Act legislation."
Now, our discussion today is not on the legislation but our discussion is on: What can we do with regard to FPI?
You know, my predecessor had the foresight to understand that what was happening last year was band-aid treatment. It has been band-aid treatment every year for the past number of years, so what can we do to make sure that this time we fix it? We have to fix it. We have to fix it for the good of the people in this Province. We have to fix it for the communities and for the individuals, and we have to fix it so that we are involved as intimately as we can be in saving our resource, in making sure that the future is there for our people in the fishing industry. We have to fix it, so I think that we have to be open to every discussion in looking at how to fix it, and I urge my colleagues in the House, especially the colleagues across the House from me, to be open to this motion that is on the floor.
We have a situation that is a very distinct situation as we all know. Maybe some people watching us don't know, so I would like to talk about it a bit. We have a hybrid with FPI. We have a private company, but that has legislation, an actual Act, controlling it. We are trying to have control over something that we don't own. I think by now we should have a lot of experience in understanding, as a Province, that trying to control something we don't own or to control something that others perceive or think that we don't own, is a very, very difficult thing to do.
For example, the control of fish quotas by the federal government is protected in Constitution. Therefore, when we try to have conversations with the federal government they take that role to mean that they own it and they control it. That is why governments, and our current government, have not been able to negotiate with the federal government about a transfer of quotas directly to the government, because it is a federal government jurisdiction.
We have to find a way, a systemic way, in which to get at that. Because, you know, the people inside of FPI don't like the hybrid. Certainly the ones who are there now and who have been there in the past couple of years, they don't like the hybrid. As Board of Directors, they want to have total control over that company because they own it. While I disagree with that, and I do believe that my colleagues on the other side of the House disagree with that as well, we all have to understand the dilemma of asking people who own a private company to be controlled by legislation.
I just don't see any other way out. Trying to maintain this hybrid, no matter how we try to configure the Board of Directors, doesn't seem to be working. You know, it was only last year that we had this struggle going on - well not a struggle, I mean a situation going on, where, in spite of legislation, in spite of everything the government tried to put in place, when the CEO of FPI left the company there was a long period of time when a select committee composed of three members of the Board of Directors actually ran the company. The very thing that the government wouldn't have wanted to happen was happening.
Legislation wasn't working because the people who run that Board of Directors were going to find their way around the legislation. They would find a way of doing it, because they do not understand ownership without control. To be honest, I do not understand ownership without control. Therefore, the only logical way I can see going is that we go for the ownership, and that means forming a Crown corporation which we had before.
Now, as my colleague, the Leader of the Liberals, said earlier, we should not be afraid of that. I want to go through it again. Crown corporation is not a bad word. Crown corporation is a common thing. It is something that we know a lot about. We have them all over our country and we have them in our Province. We have our Crown corporation dealing with energy, a good corporation. We are proud of Newfoundland Hydro. We show what a well run Crown corporation can do. Why wouldn't we do that for the fishery?
When the people in Arnold's Cove ran out with the problem they had with the closure of the plant, the government found a very interesting way to deal with getting the quota: by forming a Crown corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation, and it was the corporation who got the quotas and then leased them to the plant in Arnold's Cove. That was really creative. We were not afraid of Crown corporation there; and, while the involvement in the fibre optic project is not a Crown corporation, the government wants ownership, and the government wants control over what it owns, and that is what is really interesting.
In the Estimates Committee the other day, the minister was talking about how, in the negotiations that are going on with regard to the final agreement around the fibre optic project, one of the things that the government needs to know is, number one, how many strands it is going to own, and, number two, shoring up the control that they have over those strands.
So, ownership and control go together. I get confused when I hear members of the opposite side of the House sometimes speaking about them as one without the other, that they are distinct. I cannot see how they are distinct. We have tried it. We have tried doing it in a way that makes them distinct by having the hybrid FPI that we have, but that hybrid FPI is not working. Unless we have a board of directors that is totally committed to this Province, totally committed to being sure that the resource is there for this Province, totally committed to having people work in this Province, totally committed to having secondary processing begin in this Province, unless we have that kind of a board of directors completely, we are not going to get what we need from FPI.
I think the only way that we can get that kind of a board of directors completely is by us owning that company and controlling that company, and thereby controlling the resources of our Province. That is the only way we are going to do it, because we are not going to be able to arrest the quotas from the federal government. We are not going to be able to do it. I would love to think we could, but I know we cannot; however, if we own our company, they cannot keep the quotas away from us. If our government owns the company, if it is a Crown corporation and that is the company that is in charge of the fishery, the large part of the fishery in this Province, then that corporation has to get the quotas.
It just seems so logical to me, it really does. I do not think this has anything to do with ideology, you know. I do not think it has anything to do with whether we are talking about being pro-business or being socialists in our thinking or whatever. I think this is about common sense. It is about common sense. We want to make the decisions, we want the control, we have to own it.
It bothers me the way the federal government looks at us, just like it bothers all my colleagues in the House and everybody in this Province, I would say. The fact that we do not have a constitutional right over our fishery bothers me. If we keep fighting that, if we keep beating our heads against the wall, that is all that we are going to be doing, so we have to become creative in how to deal with this.
I noticed as I read, again, the various Hansards from the different discussions that have taken place in the House, that all of us are expressing the same concern. All three parties in this House are concerned about the people of this Province. We are concerned about maintaining as many communities as we can, dependent on the fishery, knowing that some are not going to be able to depend on having processing, for example, in their community - we all know that - but we want to maximize the number of communities that can stay alive in this Province and stay alive as fishing communities. We all want to do it. I have not read anything, in the Hansards that I have read, that says that we differ on that.
When you had the all-party committee, I was really quite impressed again when I read Hansard, and read how the three parties worked together on the committee, and read the excellent recommendations that the committee came up with. Why did that committee work? Because we all had the same goal. We want a viable fishery, we want viable communities, and we want people to have work. So, let's be creative. Let's work together. If ever there was an issue in this Province that demands that we work together, it is this one.
In thirty, forty or fifty years time we have no idea how much oil or gas is going to be left out under the Atlantic where we can access it. We do not know. We have no control over it in the sense that as it gets used it does not replenish. We all know that. It is non-renewable. However, we do know that with a well-kept fishery, and with a fishery that has environmentally concerned people in charge of it, and making the right decisions, in fifty, sixty or seventy years time the fish is still going to be there, just like the fish was there in 1497. Now, we do not have the fish jumping into baskets the way it happened when John Cabot arrived on our shores, I know that, but we know the damage that was done to this fishery. We can learn from the damage that was done, and we know that in fifty, sixty, seventy years time we can still have a viable fishery.
Why wouldn't we want, as a government, to have ownership? Why wouldn't we want to have as much control as possible, just like, why do we want to have ownership in the oil and gas industry? I agree with my colleague again, the Leader of the Liberal Party, that equity is ownership. If we are willing to say we want ownership there, and we want ownership in the fibre optic deal, why don't we want ownership in our fishery?
Ownership in oil and gas, yes, it means that we will get a lot more money back, there is no doubt about that, but ownership with the fishery has to be about more than just getting money back. It has to be about maintaining our communities. It has to be about creating new employment opportunities for our people.
The people who work on the rigs out in the offshore, it is a limited number of people, it is not a lot of people, but the people who work on land in our fishery, or work off the land - they work out in the ocean, but off the land - in this fishery, are people who are multiplied many times the number of people who will ever work offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many, many times.
We know that, so I do not understand it. Why would we not, then, keep our communities alive? Why would we not only work to keep plants open that we have, but come up with more creative ways around secondary processing, new secondary processing, not secondary processing that is going to compete with China for example -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that her time for speaking has lapsed.
MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much. I will just take a minute or so.
As I was saying a couple of minutes ago, and that is what I want to clue up with, we have shown in the past that we have common concerns in this House. We have shown in the past that this House can work together on a committee dealing with the fishing industry. We have shown that we have a lot of common concerns and a lot of common creative ideas. So I would really ask my colleagues to support this motion, to let's do it again, let's put a committee in place again. This time it has a very specific reason for being in place. It is to look at ownership and what ownership would look like.
What I hear from all member in the House, including my colleagues on the opposite side, what I hear you saying is, it is ownership that you want. Because if you are talking the control you are talking, you are talking ownership.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to say a few words on the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
In many respects, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, but I don't want to disagree with as lot of the sentiment expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks. I certainly don't want to disagree with a lot of the thoughts and sentiments expressed by the Leader of the third party in this House in her remarks.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador have a common goal when it comes to the fishery. Whether you are from Long's Hill in the centre of St. John's, you know something about the fishery. If you are from Fleur de Lys in White Bay you probably are a little closer to it. If you are from Marystown or Grand Bank or Fortune or Harbour Breton or the North Coast of Labrador, you are even closer to it again, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't really matter who you are, as a Newfoundlander or Labradorian, the fishery has been part of us. The fishery is who we are. The fishery is what brought us here 500 years ago, or our forefathers or our ancestors. The fishery, to a large degree, Mr. Speaker, has been what has sustained us and kept us alive and kept us rooted to this place that we love so much, to this place to which we cling with such a fierce determination to hang on and survive. That has been kind of inbred in us, Mr. Speaker. It is part of our nature. It is part of our culture. It is why, to a large degree, Mr. Speaker, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian considers him or herself to be an expert in the fishery. Because we are, in a way, an expert in the fishery because it is us. We grew up with it in some degree, more or less, depending on where we came from.
It is for the same reason, Mr. Speaker, that if you asked a car salesperson in Gander or Grand Falls how their business is, they will be able to tell you that, to a large degree, their business is flat or prospering or declining, depending on how the fishery is in Bonavista or how it is in Fogo or Valleyfield or La Scie. That has been the yardstick, Mr. Speaker, that has measured the fishery and the impact that it has had on rural Newfoundland and Labrador but, in general, the whole of the economy of this Province. So, when we say we have a common bond, yes we do. It is what brings us together in many respects and what makes us as a people, Mr. Speaker. Now, that is distinct - nobody can disagree with that, but that is distinct and different from trying to wrestle with the question of: What do you do about FPI as it currently exists and what should we do in relationship to this particular resolution that is before us?
Mr. Speaker, nationalization of FPI, of course it is an option. It is an N word that a lot of politicians in many walks of life in this country are reluctant to mention but, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be part of a government in my political past that engaged in nationalization. We were the government back in the 1980s when what we now know as Fishery Products International was formed from the bankrupt remnants of what was left of the offshore deep sea fishery, in most cases, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The old JC Penney operation on the South Coast was part of it. The Lake group on the South Coast was part of it. Fishery Products itself, the old company called Fishery Products, which operated in many places - again, on the South Coast, but also in places along the Northeast Coast; parts of what were, at that time, National Sea Products, some other independent groups that were associated with some or all of those companies. Mr. Speaker, because of a whole range of issues, because of a whole range of circumstances found themselves bankrupt.
The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Bank of Nova Scotia, allowed a Crown corporation, a Crown held corporation set up under the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, Mr. Speaker, although controlled by the federal government, because the federal government held 60 per cent of the shares, it was a Crown corporation that was set up under the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador and was therefore a provincial Crown corporation; a provincial Crown corporation with 60 per cent ownership by the Government of Canada, 26 per cent ownership, I believe, by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, at that point in time when it was set up, 12 per cent ownership by the Bank of Nova Scotia. That was the forerunner. That became the Fishery Products International that we are dealing with here today.
Mr. Speaker, after the reorganization and the setting up of the Crown corporation of FPI, and the taking over and the direction of that company by people like Vic Young, Dave Norris and other people who are well-known to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that company, Mr. Speaker, proved to be a very effective and a very worthy operator in the fishing industry, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but worldwide. Now, things were not perfect, Mr. Speaker, under that operation. No question about that. There were times when the company, particularly when the resource became difficult as we headed into a declining resource, as we got into the motorium it became worse. But, that company, even under the excellent guidance and stewardship of people like Vic Young, at times had to make very difficult decisions. They had to decide whether a Trepassey had to close down, or whether a Harbour Deep, or whether a - I am thinking about Grand Bank. They had to make decisions regarding Charleston, out in Your Honour's district. There were a whole bunch of plants that FPI had to decide whether they could continue to operate them or whether it was better to spin them off to the private sector, and maybe the private sector inshore operators had a better opportunity to operate them than did this large fishing company called Fishery Products International.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the mix of what was happening globally in the world at the time, you had this vision of returning FPI from a Crown owned company to a privately held company, but publicly traded. That is the animal, I suppose for the want of a better word, that is still in existence today. It was at the request and the insistence and the recommendation of the people who were running that Crown corporation back in the middle 1980s, that we return it to the private sector; that we offer shares widely in the private sector and public sector to the world; that we reserve a bit of it, perhaps for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Certainly, there was some share ownership reserved for the employees. There was a share restriction put on, in that no individual or company could control more than 15 per cent. All of that continued to operate, pretty well positively, for quite a long time. Mr. Speaker, a lot of that has changed now. We find ourselves in different times and in different circumstances.
So, if we were to nationalize - and I said at the beginning that nationalization is not a nice word to a lot of governments. It is not something that scares me politically, or scares me as an individual. I was part of a government that created a Crown corporation to hold the assets of FPI in the beginning. I was part of a government back around the same time that expropriated, by an act of this Legislature, the assets of what was the old Advocate Mines in Baie Verte and then we turned it over to a private operator after that, known as Baie Verte Mines. So, the nationalization, or expropriation of private assets - gosh, I forgot, I was also the Minister of Fisheries back in those days who expropriated the assets of Rose Ting. Who could ever forget Rose Ting? The Tom of the Rideout, she used to call me. Rose Ting who operated a number of plants down on the South Coast, St. Lawrence and over in Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche. Anyway, a wonderful entrepreneur who came here with an idea.
MR. TAYLOR: She was a thing to behold.
MR. RIDEOUT: She was a thing to behold.
Anyway, it just did not work out and there were other people interested in those operations. Rather than see those operations tied up, Mr. Speaker, for the good of the people in those communities, I was the minister who presided over the expropriation, in other words the nationalization, taking back to government of those assets of that company. Again, we spun them off to another private operator.
Nationalization or expropriation, the point I am trying to make, it is not something foreign or something that I am scared of or something that I am not prepared to deal with. The question, though, becomes this. In the current environment that we find ourselves in today, what do we gain to Newfoundland and Labrador and for the 2,000 people or so who worked with FPI when it was operating in Marystown - and, hopefully, when it will operate there again - and the other communities like Port au Choix, Catalina, Bonavista, Triton? I do not know if I am leaving out a place where they currently operate. If we were to nationalize the assets of FPI today, what do we gain for the future of those people in those communities? If we were to gain control of a public resource called quota, forever and a day to be held by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, you know, I probably would be the first one lining up to support that kind of initiative. But, it has been made abundantly clear that the present Government of Canada and the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, despite the fact that he is a minister from this Province, will not allow the quota currently held by FPI to sit with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or a Crown corporation controlled by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, none of us in this House might like that, but that is the cold, hard facts. We are trying to find some way to perhaps massage that so that we can find a way to protect, as best we can, the long term of people where FPI currently operates. But, for us as a Province to nationalize, or expropriate the assets of FPI, minus the quota, minus the fish quotas, is of very little value for the long term of those people in the communities where FPI operates. What do we have to turn over to them? What do we have to turn over to an operator? We have hard assets in plants and ships, but no fish to catch. So, what would be the use of that particular exercise if we could not find a way - and we cannot at the moment. We are told the answer is no, the Province cannot hold those quotas. I will not agree to the Province holding those quotas either directly or through a Crown controlled corporate entity.
If the answers is no, and there is no legal way that any of us are aware of - there is no question, Mr. Speaker. This does not put bread on anybody's table in Bonavista, but there is no question about the constitutional division of powers in this country and who controls fish while it is in the sea and who controls fish once it gets onshore. There is no question about that and there isn't any question in the mind of any court, as far as I know - up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada - about that, so what do we do? Would it be prudent to nationalize and expropriate anyway, in view of staring in the face the reality that those quotas will not be held by the people of this Province? I do not know how you explain that, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister, federally, tried to explain the difference between Arnold's Cove - because that is what was done in Arnold's Cove, the Province bought it for $3.5 million. The Province holds it. The Province holds those quotas in a Crown corporation in the Department of Finance today, just as they did when we first purchased the quota back in 2004, whenever it was.
The federal government says we cannot allow you to have ownership. My question is: Well, who owns that quota? I think we own it. We paid for it. We bought it.
MR. TAYLOR: We pay for the licence fees every year.
MR. RIDEOUT: We pay for the licence fees every year. You allowed us to do it. Who owns the quota that John Risley lands as part of the Clearwater operation up in Nova Scotia? John Risley, I think, would swear on a stack of bibles that he owns it. I know it is a public property resource, but he would say it is his and he can go to the bank with it. Who owns the quota that FPI holds? FPI and their board of directors, their owners and their managers would say it is theirs. Who owns the quota that Bill Barry owns? It is a public resource but they would say they own it under licence from the federal government. Well, I say the quota for Arnold's Cove, Mr. Speaker - and make no apologies for saying it, despite the fact that this drives temperatures in Ottawa through the roof - I say we own it. If we were to be given the right and responsibility of acquiring the quota that FPI currently holds, I would say we own that, too.
The federal minister will always have the responsibility, and does have the constitutional responsibility to manage those.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. minister that his time for speaking has lapsed.
MR. RIDEOUT: And I appreciate the fact that others are waiting, so I will sit right down, and just conclude -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. RIDEOUT: I will just conclude very, very briefly by saying this: I don't know why - I don't know if this is good English or bad English, but growing up in Fleur de Lys we used to say a lot of things, and some people are pretty familiar with one of them. One thing we used to say, Mr. Speaker, was: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Now, if Nunavut is allowed to hold quota, why can't we hold and own quota? If Pêche Nordique in Quebec is allowed to hold quota, why can't we hold quota? If a New Brunswick firm can hold quota, why can't we hold quota? If we can hold quota for Arnold's Cove, why can't we hold it for FPI and the successor to FPI? If we could own quota for our middle distance fleet, as we did before there was a moratorium, what is wrong with us holding the FPI quota?
If the answer to all of this is yes, what is wrong, Mr. Speaker, what is different about those of us who live in Newfoundland and Labrador than those Canadians who live in Nunavut, than those Canadians who live in Quebec -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: - than those Canadians who live in New Brunswick, than those Canadians who live in P.E.I. where there are shrimp quotas held? What is different about us? Why can't we hold it?
The bottom line, though, Mr. Speaker, is we have a current government and a current minister who say, no, so therefore in my view expropriation of the assets of FPI would be useless and would be without benefit to the people of this Province. The all-party committee would have very little time to do anything in view of the fact that whatever is going to happen with FPI, whether it is something new or retaining the old, will happen between now and this weekend. So, I see no basis at all in logic for an all-party committee and I, personally, am not going to support the resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak in support of the Private Members' Motion on FPI.
I think the operative word here, the key word, that we are missing is, we are looking to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI. At this point in time we are not saying it is something that should happen. What we are saying is: Why not put in place an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI? Yes, we think that is something that government should certainly consider. We think it is doable. What we are saying is: Why not put in place an all-party committee representing all of the people in the Province to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI?
I have listened to the Minister of Fisheries go on about the issue with the federal government and the federal Minister of Fisheries, and the fact that they will not, or they say they cannot, turn over the quotas to the Province, or to the government, to own. The interesting thing about this is that I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and I disagree with our federal Minister of Fisheries, but what seems to be happening here is a difference of opinion. Because I get a sense from the Minister of Fisheries, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, that if they could own the quota then they would have no issue at all, but for us the issue still is: If the Province owns the quota you are quite willing to see FPI dismantled.
What we are saying is that if you can get the federal Minister of Fisheries to agree to turn the quotas over to the Province, why would you not take it a step further and say: Great, we have the quota. Now, let's own the company.
Instead of seeing this company being torn apart, a company that has been the mainstay in Newfoundland and Labrador for years, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, why not agree then to continue to see this company thrive under the ownership of the government?
There are any number of things that can happen here, but when I hear the minister say, no, we cannot go down the path in terms of exploring purchasing FPI, the government purchasing FPI, because the federal government will not turn over the quota, but on the other hand understanding that if the federal government does turn over the quota that it is perfectly all right to dismantle the company, then there is something wrong here. It just does not jive, the fact that you say we want the quota but we do not want FPI.
The sense that we have, as the Opposition, having listened to people throughout this Province, is that something needs to happen here. When I hear the minister say, well, you know, we do not want to go down this path because something is going to happen between now and the end of the week, do you know how many times we have heard that? Do you know how many times the people in places like Fortune and Marystown have heard that? Do you know how many times the people in Harbour Breton and Bonavista have heard that, that something is going to happen in a couple of weeks?
I spoke to the minster a month or so ago, if not longer, and he assured me that we would hear something within a couple of weeks, and today we are still waiting. So, to use that as an argument to say that something is going to happen by the end of the week, well, I think we will believe it when we see it on this side. I know that is how the people in the Province are feeling.
Here we are, in a Province built on the fishery, people who work so hard in an industry that is probably the hardest industry in the world in which to work - your hands in cold water all day long, standing on concrete floors, or out in the fishing boat in all types of weather - trying to make a living, but somehow the kind of attention that should be paid to this industry is not being paid to it by this government, and that is what is so sad about this.
We have people who are leaving this Province by the planeload, going off to Alberta. Many of them have moved with their children, or will do so at the end of the school year. They cannot wait any longer. The cannot wait, especially in rural Newfoundland where the economy has been devastated by what has happened in the fishery.
Things look good on the Avalon Peninsula - yes, they do, and we would all agree and admit to that - but in rural Newfoundland, where the mainstay of the economy has always been the fishery, things are not looking good. That is why we are saying to the government, here is an opportunity. Just because John Risley and the boys have decided that they want to see FPI dismantled, a few more dollars for the shareholders, more money in the back pocket, just because that is the way they think we should go, it is not the way that we believe is right for Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Here is an opportunity to do what is right for not only those who have earned a living over the years in the fishery, but for others who depend on the good economy that comes with a strong fishery. In rural Newfoundland, yes, those who worked in the plants and those who fished, those who process, those who harvest, are finding it difficult. So are others: those who have businesses, who have been relying on those individuals to help ensure that their businesses survive.
Here is an opportunity. Again, I say it to the government, if you want the quotas and that is what you are fighting for, and you are hoping that will happen, or some massaging will take place so that the Province will be able to own the quota, then why not own FPI? Why see Burin, the secondary processing plant in Burin, sold off to High Liner, a Nova Scotia company?
As the Leader of the Opposition said when he spoke, you and I know, we know that there are no guarantees that plant in Burin will continue to operate once it becomes a part of that High Liner operation. We know that there are no guarantees here, so that is a serious issue on the Burin Peninsula.
What about the plant in Fortune? We are hoping, still hoping, and we have been hoping for months, that there will be an opportunity there in terms of aquaculture. Aquaculture because there does not seem to be any other opportunity on the horizon. We do not know, at this point, what is going to happen in Fortune.
Marystown, where we have hundreds of people employed in the fish plant and we really do not know what is going to happen in Marystown. These are serious times for those who are engaged in the fishery, and there is no sense coming out of this government that it has an appreciation or an understanding of how difficult these times are.
To say that you are not going to support this private member's motion which is calling for an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with going down that path? We certainly have nothing to lose by doing it, and maybe everything to gain; but, no, we are not even going to explore it, or at least the provincial Minister of Fisheries has said he is not going to support this motion.
This is a motion that is meant to provide hope, to provide an opportunity for those engaged in the fishery to have something that they can look to, hang their hats on - hope - because I can tell you there is not much hope in rural Newfoundland when it comes to FPI today. There is not much hope in terms of the future in the fishery because of what is happening with FPI.
Mr. Risley might think it is okay to sell off the plant in Burin to High Liner. Others might think it is okay to sell off other aspects of FPI to Ocean Cuisine. What about the operation in Danvers, Massachusetts. Where is that going? Well, it is not okay if there isn't a future here for the people who have traditionally worked in the fishery and for others who have made a living as a result of the fishery. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Ocean Cuisine, nothing whatsoever; a reputable company owned by reputable individuals who have the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at heart. I know because they have an operation in St. Lawrence in my district.
The problem we are facing here is that Ocean Cuisine is not going to take over the entire operation, so we are going to be left with one aspect of the fishery probably being taken care of. We have not seen any details, by the way. We have no idea in the Opposition what is happening there. We have seen none of the details. We do not know what is being considered, we do not know what is being ruled out as unacceptable, so here we are saying: Okay, because Ocean Cuisine is a reputable company run by reputable individuals, then alright, that is okay.
What we are saying here today is there are other aspects of FPI, there are other assets that have to be considered. Instead of breaking up a company, which is what Mr. Risley wants to do and it's shareholders, George Armoyan and the boys - that is what they want to do. Why is it the government is so anxious to be part of that plan. Why is it the government is not second guessing what is happening here? Why is it the government is not using the authority it has under the FPI Act to take FPI to task, to take John Risley to task, to let him know that while he maybe be king in Nova Scotia, he is not king in Newfoundland and Labrador? We are determined here in this Province to show him that we stand up for ourselves, that we know where we should be going with the fishery and that we are not prepared to agree with what Risley is doing.
The Board of Directors of FPI have not at all considered what is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and unfortunately there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that board. What has happened here is that those involved in the fishery, those of us who support the fishery, those of us who profit from the fishery, have been hung out to dry. We have been hung out to dry.
Here is an opportunity now - and this is what we are saying to the government: Let's get this back on track. Instead of saying, well, you know, we will know something by the end of this week, let's get it back on track so that we are the drivers, we are going to decide in this Province what happens with our fishery. We are the ones who are going to say to the powers that be in FPI, that this is enough. We have waited long enough and we are not going to let it continue the way it is going on. It is not fair to those who have been engaged in the fishery for all of these years and we are not going to let it happen any longer.
Hence, the private member's motion, to put in place an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI. That is all we are asking to do. Again, nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I wonder why the government is finding that so hard to accept, the idea of purchasing FPI. It has been mentioned a couple of times earlier today. They are quite willing to take equity positions in other industries in this Province, whether it is IT industry, whether it is the Lower Churchill, whether it is offshore industry, the fibre, Persona, $15 million -
MADAM SPEAKER(Osborne): Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.
MS FOOTE: What we are saying here is that this industry, the fishing industry, is what Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. It is certainly what rural Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. That is why we are calling on the government to seriously consider this motion and to show that you understand and appreciate what people are going through, especially people who have been engaged in the fishery, people who work so hard and who want to see the fishery survive in our Province.
One day the oil is going to run out, one day the minerals are not going to be there, but the fishery is a renewable resource and we need to protect it just as we need to ensure that other renewable resource, our people, stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all we are asking, to do everything in our power, your power as a government, to take care of them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is certainly not with pleasure that I stand here today and debate this private member's motion. I suppose all of us can put a claim to being in a district that is somehow deeply associated with the fisheries. I guess, following the Member for Grand Bank, she and I would certainly have a common attachment to the sea.
When I think about the communities around the Province that were involved in the dragger fishery, I can only think of the day when FPI had fifty-two draggers operating out of their plants around the Province. You went to the Marystown plant and ships, draggers, were just coming and going, coming and going. I guess if we look at the evolution of the fishery and the situation we find ourselves in today in terms of the fish stocks, it is easy to see where we started and where we have come. If we look back to the bank fishery, the technology was not there. I guess if we look to the inshore fishery of the early days it was very much that an individual left the shoreline in the morning, went out, brought their fish in, they processed it basically on their stages, primarily salted, and then they shipped it to places such as Jamaica. Then, suddenly, as human beings, by their nature, moved further into technology, we caught more fish, we processed more fish. Unfortunately, it has come to a point where we have nearly decimated the fish stocks that, for so long, sustained us a Province.
If I listen to the Member for Grand Bank, she talks about understanding and appreciating the situation here. I can assure her, and I can assure anyone else in this House, that I do understand and I do appreciate. On a regular basis, I speak to constituents, in particular the ones who work in the fish plant in Marystown. Some of these people have been out of the fish plant now for a year-and-a-half, some of them for two years. When I look at the workers who are in the Marystown plant, when there were some 500-plus there, we had some young people coming into it, we had our middle-aged workers, and we had people who have worked in these plants for thirty-plus years. This is what they have done. This is what they have given their time and their energy to. They build their families around it, and communities were built around it. I think it is important for people to know the context of some of these fish plants.
The fish plant in Marystown, for example, is not simply a Marystown fish plant. The fish plant in Marystown serves people, and people work there from all of the communities around the Peninsula. I am willing to bet you could go to practically every community on the Burin Peninsula and you would find somebody who has worked, or continues to work, in the Marystown fish plant. Today, they find themselves in a very, very desperate situation.
I feel for all who are involved, but the one thing about it is that the other plants have gotten work in past year and they are working. Now, we know there is a looming deadline coming on Sunday, but still they are working to this point. The folks in Marystown simply have not, and they find themselves in dire straits there. Some people have transitioned out of the fishery, out of the fish plants, and they have been fortunate to find work. We are very fortunate at this particular time in the Marystown area, that Kiewit has a short-term project and there are some 500-plus, some 550 people working there. I know of people who have gone back and upgraded their skills around welding or pipefitting, or something of that nature, and they have found employment there. Some are fortunate in that way. Others are not quite as lucky.
Some of the folks that I speak to - anyone in this House, just put themselves in the situation of an individual who is sixty-two or sixty-three years old and for their entire working life they have worked at a fish plant, let's say as in Marystown, and now they find themselves in a situation of uncertainty. Where do I go from here?
This motion just raises one alarm for me. If we look to the hope and anticipation that something will happen, well, this past Monday there was that hope and anticipation as we thought there was a deal settled. Then, all of a sudden we find, wham-o! Then we have been struck again and the deal is not there again.
Just before I came into this House today, I spoke to Allan Moulton, the leader of the local union for the Marystown plant. I cannot express to the people in this House the frustration that this man is feeling as he gets continual calls from the people he is representing as to: What have you heard? What is next?
I can sympathize with him because, if I go out to my district, and I usually go out every weekend, you meet people, and anyone who is associated with the fish plant, that is the first question that is on their minds: Is there anything new? You bring them in a certain direction and all of a sudden that is turned upside down and you almost seemingly end up back at square one.
I am extremely, extremely disappointed in our federal counterparts at this particular time. Minister Rideout, whom I have the utmost respect for, is leading this file. When we came into government first, one gentleman from my area said that he remembers a boisterous meeting that he attended, as minister, in the community of Rushoon back some years ago. I think his association with the fishery puts him in good stead to be leading this file, a very, very difficult file. Challenges confront us continuously in the fishery, and I feel confident in his leadership here, but again I go back to the frustrations that confront us.
Throughout attempting to get this sale forward, Minister Rideout has being saying it has been contingent upon getting the quotas. Then, all of a sudden, we are struck with this. I could understand it if it were the same across the country, but it has been referred to here, as has been stated in the media, you know, what is different about us as a Province when we can see the situation that has happened in New Brunswick, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island and Quebec? Why is it that something can be transferred to a company in Quebec and it can't be transferred to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? As has been said here, we paid licensing for the quotas, we have fished this resource for as long as we have been in existence as a people here, and now we are placed in this situation that, quite honestly, Madam Speaker, we shouldn't be placed in.
I try to, in this, put the human face on it. I have spoken to some of the people I have heard from in Marystown. Let's switch to Burin. Burin is a fish plant, a secondary processing plant. The workers who were there - as this debate went on I spoke to Lonas Mayo, the head of the local there, and they had concerns as to where this was going. The difference in the two plants is that the people were working there. The workers, 150-plus of them, worked basically forty to forty-five weeks of the year, were earning a good wage, and they were doing quite well. Likewise, they sustained their communities and their families based on those incomes.
My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, originally from Burin, would tell you about the fight that went on when there was an attempt to close that plant many years back. They fought to keep it open. They did succeed, and for many years to follow a good living was made by the people in that particular community.
As the Member for Grand Bank said, our oil will run out and so will our minerals. We look forward to having them for many years, but our resource, the fish, is renewable, and I am totally convinced that the fishery, inshore, offshore and the fish plant sector, will be a part of our future, as a Province and as a Peninsula.
As was alluded to before, it is the essence of us as a people. If we were to talk about the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the national context or in the international context, the one thing that we would be associated with is our history as it relates to fishing.
As much as I speak to my colleagues in this House who represent, I will say, districts within the boundaries of St. John's or CBS, they may not have the same attachment to the fishery as I would with the number of inshore fishermen and the number of fish plants that are in my district, but I can assure you one thing, those members know the importance of the fishery to this Province and know what it contributes to this Province and what it means to the Province as the historical attachment to the culture of us as a people, and that will continue.
I can also speak to where we go from here with striking the deal. I have said that people had anticipated that the deal was made and that they would be able to somehow get on with their lives. Well, I want to just take it back a little bit and look at the FPI folks and the team that came in. The days when Vic Young left, there was a group of people under the direction, I suppose, of a fellow by the name of Mr. Risley and along came people such as Mr. Derrick Rowe. I do not know them personally but from a business perspective it was evident and pointed out to the people that we were going to have a better deal, a better fishery and so on and so forth. Well, as things started to evolve people soon found out that certainly was not the case. We heard of people in management who left with huge contracts, huge pensions, huge severance packages and people were striving day in and day out to make profits to this company but the return to the worker just was not there. I can tell you, people right now who are involved in this will go forward and they will tell you they have absolutely no trust, no confidence in anyone associated with FPI, in terms of the management certainly. As a result, they will be seeking alternatives to go on from that.
I know, Madam Speaker, that I am nearing the end of my time, but I want to get back to the motion. Right now, I think if we are to agree to what has been put forward in the private member's motion, we stand to stall the entire process. If we can get to a point where we were when the tentative deal was made just a short while ago, if we can get to that point again and find a resolution around the transferring of quotas, then we can move on with a deal that will see people back into the plant in Marystown within a very short time frame. That is where we definitely have to be. I cannot support the motion today, simply based on these facts.
To say to the Member for Grand Bank, have we considered? I think we have considered everything under the sun. I can assure you that our Cabinet meetings and our caucus meetings revolve around a discussion on FPI. Just this morning, at 10:00 o'clock we had a caucus meeting and the question was posed again to the Fisheries Minister: Give us an update on FPI? Options? Certainly. We have considered them all. In the end, here is what we need. We certainly do not need a motion at this particular point in regards to what is being proposed here. As I have said, I think it only holds up the entire process and people out in the district certainly do not want that. I can tell you that much right now.
Speaking to the people who are representing and working in the fish plant in Marystown, the last thing they want right now is for us to enter into something that says: we are going to have a process now that is going to take us another two weeks to investigate. The furthest from their minds, the furthest thing they want. They want us to find a solution. The onus is on the federal government to certainly come forward with something different from what they are proposing at this moment. We need that in place, Madam Speaker.
I look forward to moving ahead with that, finding a resolution to this so that I can call Allan Moulton and workers in my area and say to them: We have a deal. You will be back to work in your plant within - dot, dot, whatever the number of days. To the Burin operation, you fellows will be able to continue as you have, possibly with some of the stipulations that have been put in around - in terms of a deal, that the result in the end will be a better system than we presently have in place.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want to have a few words with regard to the motion that has been put forward today by my colleague, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
Madam Speaker, I have listened intently to all the speakers here in the House of Assembly today and I have to say that while there are members on the other side - and I just listened to the Member for Burin talk about government exploring all options and all things have been considered in the context of what a solution could be for FPI. I would say that the member would have no problem then tabling in the House of Assembly all the analysis that they have done on nationalizing this company, what it would mean in terms of revenues to the Province and in terms of what the cost would be to the Treasury of the government to buy out a company like this, buying out all of its assets and all aspects of the operation. So maybe tomorrow, in Question Period, we might be able to have all of that information tabled in the House of Assembly.
What this motion is actually asking is that the House of Assembly support the establishment of an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI,. Not to outright purchase it, not to go and do the deal, but to explore that as an option in terms of what it will mean for the people in this Province in the long-term in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Member for Burin-Placentia, basically, just stood and said that this isn't something that the people in his district would want to even consider. I do not know if he speaks for all of those people, in terms of that particular comment, but that is not the only sediment I have heard from the people in that area and the people on the Burin Peninsula. I have had dialogue with these people. My colleagues have had a lot of dialogue with these people. One of the things that I can tell you the people in Burin Placentia West want, out of any deal, whether it be with FPI, or whether it be under another auspices, that is that they want to have a certain amount of security, security that is going to be there for the long-term. They want commitments for jobs and they want commitments to their communities. I think that kind of sustainability in employment is what they are looking for, first and foremost, out of anything else.
I would caution the member for the area, because there is always a fear, even if the existing deal that is on the table being negotiated now was to go through, and that part of the company was sold to High Liner out of Nova Scotia, there has to be some guarantees there for the people in Burin and for the people who work with that company in the secondary industry, that in four to five, or six years from now, High Liner will not just decide to dismantle that operation and operate it some place else. They then will have all of the assets, they will have full control, not anyone in government, no matter who it is at the end of the day, or not anyone within the fishing sector.
So, it is those kinds of questions that you have to make sure people know what the answer is and have the long-term commitments for this industry and not just in the short term -
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speaker.
MS JONES: Madam Speaker, I have no problem supporting this motion simply because I know that all-party committees of this Legislature in the past, on a number of issues, have been effective: effective in bringing about new laws and legislation, and effective in terms of finding solutions for a number of controversial issues throughout our Province. So, I have some faith in how all-party committees work and that is why I have no problem with having a committee of this House explore the option of purchasing FPI.
Madam Speaker, I am a little bit taken aback by the fact that government is not jumping at the opportunity to have an equity share in our fishing industry because, when you look at their record over the last number of years, equity shares seems to be the line of the day when it comes to negotiating on any front. In fact, when they talk about the Lower Churchill project, they talk about going alone on this project. When they talked about finding a solution for Abitibi's closure of the pulp and paper mill in Stephenville, it was to put an investment of $150 million into a private sector company to prop up the pulp and paper industry and to try and have some stability in the forest sector in our Province.
Madam Speaker, when you look at IT, and the developing of new technologies, running cables across the Province, buying into fibre optics, owning fibres, they were able to come up with $15 million to go out and take equity shares again in a private consortium to be able to do that.
Then you look at the oil and gas industry, another industry where, in the midst of negotiations, they lay on the table a 4.5 per cent equity share in an oil and gas field, the Hebron-Ben Nevis project.
So, owning equity and owning shares and having ownership and investment into resource sector developments in this Province seems to be the order of the day for the government opposite, and that is the reason I am left with a huge question mark as to why this government is not prepared to buy into the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Speaker, I think it is a very legitimate question, because what you have to look at is that the fishing industry has been the backbone of this Province for a very long time. I think one of my colleagues said today, we came here because of fish in 1497 and we are going to be here probably because of fish long after the oil and gas and the mineral resources have been depleted.
Madam Speaker, the fishery has been and maintains to be not only the backbone of this Province but the economic driver for rural Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of economic development. It is not the royalties or the jobs created out here on the oil and gas fields that are going to sustain a lot of these rural communities around the Province directly. It is going to be other resource sector industries, of which the fishery is the primary one in rural communities right now around Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, Madam Speaker, I am left with a question, and I am sure the public is, as to the reason why government is prepared to buy in to all of these other resource sectors in substantial ways, investing upwards to $150 million in equity shares, and then some, when you are talking about oil and gas, but not prepared to invest in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Speaker, you only have to look at Fishery Products International to know that this is a company that has held a huge part of the platform on the national stage for fisheries in this country. I think my colleague spoke about being at the Boston Seafood Show. I, too, attended the Boston Seafood Show, and I can tell you that Fishery Products International was the key player in Newfoundland and Labrador in the fishing sector. They were the movers and shakers on the floor of the trade shows, negotiating the deals, launching fish products from Newfoundland and Labrador into new marketplaces, internationally and around the world. It was companies like that, that led the charge to butt the tariff restrictions that the UK had placed on Canada for importing shrimp into the United Kingdom.
These are the kinds of issues and the kind of stage that FPI performed on, in terms of representing the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Speaker, they would take second place to no one, absolutely no one, and in doing so not only did they raise the market value of our product but they created jobs at home. They created jobs at home for people in rural communities in this Province that needed it.
Madam Speaker, what will be the end result for the fishing industry when you take a company like this out of the equation? Because this was a company that not only was an international marketer of their own products, but they also marketed products for many other fish companies throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I was well aware of that, and I was well aware of a lot of the partnership agreements they had with these companies, even with some companies in my own district, Madam Speaker, in which they would market their fish products.
This was no small company. This was a company that had a huge presence and was making a huge impact in the fishing industry in Canada and internationally, and therefore we were reaping the benefits here at home.
I agree with the provincial Minister of Fisheries, on his views with regard to ownership of fish quotas. In fact, if the minister will remember, two years ago I showed up at the Delta Hotel downtown when DFO was in here holding a round-table discussion on shrimp allocations in the Province. At the table, looking for shrimp off the Coast of Newfoundland, and primarily Labrador at the time, were the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Quebec. There were other private consortiums of companies, privately owned companies all over the Province. I made no bones about going to the microphone that day to say that I did not think any of those people in that room should be getting access to those shrimp. In fact, those shrimp allocations and those quotas should have been awarded to communities, and they should have been awarded to communities in terms of ensuring that they were going to be processed and caught, and the wealth of it was going to benefit the people in this Province directly, and not have quotas being held by retired individuals who live in Florida today but still hold massive shrimp allocations in Newfoundland and Labrador, or by the Province of Prince Edward Island or Quebec who have shrimp allocations in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries provincially will get no argument from me on that. That has been an opinion that I have maintained for an awfully long time, that fish allocations should become the property of the people, and not go out to one individual so that they can sell the fish at sea, put the money in their back pockets and walk away without giving anything back to the people of this Province.
What I see today happening with FPI is just that, and that is my fear. When you start taking a company like this apart, piece by piece, and you start selling it off to the highest bidder, you will lose complete control. Once government loses control of this company, it means the people lose control of this company. It means that the guarantees and the securities are no longer there for the workers of FPI, for the 2,000 employees who enjoy the paycheques from that company every day now, and that is the problem.
I am not saying this because I don't think the government opposite is capable of working a deal with this particular structure of FPI. I say it, Madam Speaker, because every single deal, when it comes to the fishery, is subject to fish stocks, subject to markets, subject to prices. All of these conditions, all of these variables, change on a day-to-day basis, and it is those variables, regardless of the deal that is negotiated, that can make the company vulnerable and could make it unsustainable, as we have heard FPI tout for the last two years, or since 2004. That is my fear.
Madam Speaker, I want to say this: I think that there is an opportunity here, an opportunity for the government of this Province to show some real leadership in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the same kind of leadership that they wanted to go out and show in oil, gas, energy, forestry and in everything else. This is an opportunity for the government opposite to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to investing in resource sectors in this Province. When they say no more giveaways, that should apply to the fishing industry as well, and the people in this Province should have, not only the security of the quotas of groundfish, but the security of the quotas of shellfish as well that goes along with this company. They should have the security of knowing that the assets belong to the people of the Province and that it is them who will decide how the course for that industry is steered.
Madam Speaker, I live in a district where I have a company called the shrimp company, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited. It is a cooperative of sorts. It is a cooperative in that it is owned and operated by the fisher people who are the shareholders. It is a non-cooperative in the sense that it does not pay out dividends to its shareholders. All of the money that is made in this company stays in the communities. It is reinvested back into the company; a perfect model that should be looked at and researched in terms of looking at Fishery Products International; the perfect model for any fishing industry in this Province, I say to you.
In addition to that, Madam Speaker, the arguments are all there. If the provincial government was prepared to put its $150 million or $130 million on the table to buy out Fishery Products International today and to offer a sense of security to those 2,000 workers and sustainability to their communities in this Province, then, Madam Speaker, in fact they would be doing a great justice to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the key right here.
I listened a few days ago when members opposite got up and said: We are going to be masters of our own house. That is what they said, Madam Speaker. We will be masters of our own house. Let me tell you something, there are a lot of people out there today who are looking for you to be masters of your own house in the fishing industry in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Not just in the oil and gas, not just in the energy sector, not just investing in places like Abitibi Price to try and save the company, but they want you to be the real masters for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is (inaudible)
MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS JONES: May I have leave just to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if they really want to be masters in their own house remember how this house was built. It was built on the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was built on the sweat of many of these people who went out there and fished and worked in the plants and built up these companies like Fishery Products International. If you want to be the masters in your own house today, let's start by being a master in the fishing industry in this Province, and let's start by investing in the people in that industry, and that means you are prepared to invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let's see you put your money where your mouth is before this company is dismantled, before it is taken apart and before the people of this Province are left with little or no security. For God's sake, do the right thing and at least have a committee of the House of Assembly explore the option. That is all we are asking today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Under our Standing Order 63, it being quarter to the hour, we normally go back to the mover of the motion. I do understand from the House Leadership an arrangement has been made, and the Speaker wishes to confirm that.
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South will now speak to the motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Opposition Leader for allowing me part of his time. I understand he is to clue up the debate. Like you said, the last fifteen minutes goes to the mover of the motion, but thank you, I say to the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand and say a few words on this particular motion as put forward here today. I say to members opposite and I say to people out there listening, when this motion was brought forward and read into the record on Monday by the Leader of the Opposition, today it came up at our caucus meeting to decide who was going to speak on the motion and there was no end to the number of people here on this side of the House who wanted to speak and take part in this debate. The only way we could justify deciding who was going to speak was to look at the people who had the presence of FPI in their home towns, in their home districts. Mr. Speaker, I have two Fishery Products International plants, one in Port Union, which is a modern shrimp plant, and a crab plant in Bonavista. I guess that is what qualified me.
I do not have a big problem with most of this motion that is put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Most of it is things that we all agree with.
The first one says, "WHEREAS the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador." Nobody over here is going to argue with that. I would change it a little bit and say, the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when he had an opportunity to speak earlier, Mr. Speaker, said it better than I could ever hope to say it; what this industry means to every place and every crook and cranny in this Province
Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say, "AND WHEREAS FPI was originally established to be the flagship of the fishing industry of this Province." That is exactly - in fact, those are almost the same words that exist in the FPI Act, I say to members opposite.
"AND WHEREAS over 2,000 people in the Province look to FPI for direct employment"; a true statement.
Mr. Speaker, then it gets down to the whereases, and I certainly cannot support one of the whereases and I certainly cannot support, therefore be it resolved.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the FPI Act when it was implemented a number of years ago - and I understand the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture played a part in bringing about and being the author of part of that Act - when you look at, I think it is section A of the Act, it clearly states that the sole purpose of forming Fishery Products International, by the government and the government having taken it over with the help of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the federal and the provincial government, was to privatize it. It was the whole purpose of creating the act and creating the new entity of Fishery Products International, to have it privatized as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of events have taken place over the years. We know what happened in 1999 when the NEOS deal was in motion, when there was an attempt to takeover Fishery Products International by a company from Iceland, if I recall, Mr. Speaker, and by a Newfoundland company and by a Nova Scotia company. At that time, Mr. Speaker, people moved pretty fast. People spoke and they wanted no part of it. NEOS, I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, ever went away. They have regrouped and they have come back in another form.
Then back in, I think it was 2001, May 1, 2001, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi indicated that May month could almost be declared fisheries month because it seems like that is when things happen within the fishing industry here in the Province.
I remember going down to the Radisson Hotel, I think it was called at that time, Mr. Speaker, and sitting in and listening to the new Board of Directors. I watched them as they marched up to the stage and talked about growing this company and talked about all of the wonderful things they were going to do. They were not going to close down plants, they were going to open plants and they were going to expand the workforce. That was the way to build a prosperous company and that was the only way they knew that this company was going to grow forward.
Mr. Speaker, then I was part of an all purpose - an all-party, and probably all purpose, too - an all-party committee that went around the Island looking at the FPI act a couple of years later. We went to all the major areas and filled our meetings and allowed people to come forward and speak. We heard, quite plainly and quite forcefully, what they thought of Fishery Products International and how they wanted to be protected from the people who were trying to take it over and the people who had almost infiltrated the company and gave the boot to the people that they respected, people like Vic Young and people like Kevin Coombs and David Norris. Names that I know very well, having worked for Fishery Products International myself for some thirteen years.
Mr. Speaker, now we are into a situation where FPI, themselves, wants to get out of the business of processing fish here in this Province. We have another Newfoundland company, a very reputable company, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, Ocean Choice International, people that I know very well. They are looking at taking over this company. They have had many meetings with government, had many meetings with the union, the FFAW. It is my understanding that government likes what they see, the union likes what they see, but we have a problem with quotas. That is what we should be debating here today. I think that the entire House should be supporting the government in their effort to obtain those quotas from the federal government so that we can allow this deal to happen.
When I get calls in the morning from people like Barry Randell and Beverly Dyke who work on the floor of the plant in Bonavista, knowing that they have a very small window where they can get enough EI contributions, because that is what it all about when you work in a seasonal operation. They still have to maintain their families. They still have to be able to maintain the cost of running a household. When they see themselves, after thirty and thirty-five years within the fishing industry coming up short, that is their concern today. I do not think they would get any comfort today in knowing that the House passed a resolution where we were going to form an all-party committee to now look at nationalizing or expropriating Fishery Products International.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked about other companies that were nationalized, and it was not a bad thing. I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there is a whole lot of difference in running Fishery Products International, a fishing company, than running the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. There is a whole difference in running Fishery Products International, I say, Mr. Speaker, and Newfoundland Hydro. Can you imagine if the other fish processors out there saw their own tax dollars going into competition with themselves?
I remember a few years ago when the government of the day, the government of yesterday, I should say, allowed a loan guarantee to go to the Fogo Island Co-Op. The Fogo Island Co-Op was operating under a government loan guarantee and the Fogo Island Co-Op, at that time, was accused of going out on the wharves and paying a bigger price for the purchase of crab and other fish products than other private companies could pay in order to keep a viable business. Mr. Speaker, I know the racket that caused and the concern that here was taxpayers' money, here was the government allowing their money to go into competition with private business. That is not the route that we want to go down.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I almost look forward to the time when we sit here and see a company take over Fishery Products International and talk about the FPI Act, because I think that is something we are going to have to deal with down the road as well. Mr. Speaker, I do not see how another private company can survive and operate in this Province and be saddled with such an act as the Fishery Products International Act.
Mr. Speaker, I say again, thank you to the Opposition House Leader. I will now sit down, take my seat and allow him to bring the debate to a close.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I do understand that arrangements have been made that the Opposition House Leader will close the debate in place of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Due to prior arrangements with the Government House Leader, we have had this discussion and as seconder to the motion by the Leader, it has been agreed that we would clue up.
I will just make a very brief comment. I listened intently to everybody's comments here, and particularly concerning the Government House Leader. He said something that really sparked my attention. That is the only issue that I would make reference to in this debate and that was his comment about where we fit constitutionally. He has had discussions with the federal minister: Can they or can they not, for example, or would we or would we not have the quotas even if we did go through this all-party committee process to investigate it? That was a very interesting question, a very valid point, because the minister federally, Minister Hearn, the question he is saying - as I understood it last week in his public announcements. He is saying: We do not want to let the government be in control but we have no problem in letting a company be in control, and it should stay in the hands of the company. That begs the question: What if the company is owned by the government? Does that change his focus then? We do not have an answer to that, folks. That is the whole purpose of suggesting here, an all-party committee.
Some members opposite might not like some of the whereas clauses in this resolution, but the bottom line here is that we are trying to find a way to make the thing work for the betterment of the people in this Province who work for and on behalf of FPI. That is what this resolution is all about.
I do not know why anybody who are right-thinking people, certainly those people who live in a community that is impacted directly by FPI, would be opposed to having as many heads as possible looking at options to make this work.
We did it before. We had an all-party committee that went around this Province a few years back and came up with some very good suggestions, actually - the NDP, the Liberals and the PCs - to try to put teeth into the FPI Act to protect the assets for the benefit of the people of this Province.
Anybody who would vote against a resolution such as this, which basically says let's put all of the heads that we have together, as best we can, to find out what our options are, I do not understand why you would not want that. That is all that is being suggested by this resolution.
Now, the Government House Leader talked about an old saying from his town about what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not know which one would apply. There is another, I guess, too, that says too many cooks spoil the broth. Maybe that is what they feel here, that too many cooks spoil the broth, but I happen to think that two heads are better than one. I happen to think that forty-eight heads are better than two. What is to be lost if, after the end of the day, an all-party committee concludes that we have A, B, C, D options? What has been lost in that initiative? Nothing.
I speak in favour of the motion, as concluding the motion. I see nothing wrong with getting as many people involved as you can. It is unfortunate if the government should decide to vote this down. It is a very wide open, amicable, positive reaching motion on behalf of the people who work for FPI and deserve to have a proper solution for their best interest.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The motion before the House - and, as the Chair did at the beginning, he will not read the whereases - the motion reads,"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI."
AN HON. MEMBER: The motion says (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: I was interrupted here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) talking to myself. Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the Chair read it correctly, as it is written on the Order Paper.
All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair reads that the motion has been lost.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, just for a second before you put the motion, which is automatic today, to adjourn at 5:00 p.m., I just want to remind members that the Social Services Estimates Committee will meet here in the Legislature at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Estimates of Health and Community Services.
Tomorrow morning, Thursday, the same Committee will meet here at 9:00 o'clock to consider the Estimates of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
I believe that a motion to adjourn is now before the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the Chair adjourns the House.
This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.