Minister responds to letter from FPI

Gerry Reid, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, released today a letter to Derrick Rowe, chairperson of the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International. The letter was written by the minister in response to a letter from Mr. Rowe, dated January 23, 2002.

Following is a copy of the letter from Minister Reid to Mr. Rowe.

Media contact: Elizabeth Matthews, (709) 729-3733, or (709) 727-3438.

2002 01 25                         4:10 p.m.

January 25, 2002
Mr. Derrick H. Rowe
Chairman of the Board
Fishery Products International Ltd.
70 O�Leary Avenue, P.O. Box 550
St. John�s, NF A1C 5L1

Dear Mr. Rowe:

            Thank you for your letter of January 23, 2002 in response to my letter of January 18, 2002, in which I outlined plans for an All-Party Committee to conduct public consultations on the FPI Act.

            At the outset, I believe it is important to reiterate why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has decided to proceed with public consultations. As Premier Grimes stated in his letter to you dated January 16, 2002, the proposal which FPI presented to the FFAW in early January was at such variance with the company�s previous commitments that the Government felt it was necessary to reassess the FPI Act to ensure the public interest was protected.

            The Government has a responsibility to ensure that the public�s views are heard in an open and fair manner. To depoliticize the process, the Government has established an All-Party Committee and it is noteworthy that the two opposition parties in the House of Assembly fully support this initiative.

            You state in your letter that the Government found your proposal to invest in excess of $40 million over the next two years at Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton to be "totally unacceptable". However, as both Premier Grimes and I have consistently said, the Government understands the need for FPI to modernize and introduce new technologies in an effort to be more competitive in the global marketplace. What the Government - and your employees, the FFAW and municipal leaders in these three towns - found totally unacceptable was the lack of consideration for the large number of people to be displaced, many of whom have spent their entire working lives with FPI. That was the point I was trying to convey in my January 18, 2002 letter.

            In your letter, you express in some detail your concern regarding the implications of amending the 15% share restriction in the FPI Act. I want to make two points on this issue. First, as I indicated in my January 18, 2002 letter, the Government intends to clarify the intent of the 15% share restriction to honour the spirit and intent of the legislation. I also advised you that the method of clarification would be determined following the public consultation process. Secondly, in my January 21, 2002 press release, I drew attention to the impact of changing this provision of the legislation. To quote from my release:

"Changing this share restriction would have a significant impact on the company and could also impact future investment prospects, not only for FPI as a company, but for the entire business community of the province. As such, it is important that we pursue public discussion on this issue, so as to fully debate and understand the ramifications of such a move in the legislature".

            It is my hope that the public and all interested stakeholders will express their views on the 15% share restriction provision as this input will contribute to the Government�s overall assessment of the appropriate method of clarification.

            You go to some length in your letter to outline your interpretation of the spirit and intent of the FPI Act. While I could debate the merits of some of your points, I believe that would not serve any useful purpose. Rather, the simple fact is that FPI is bound by an Act of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador and, as such, must be accountable to the Government and the public. As an open and accountable administration, responsible to the people of this province, the Government has an obligation to afford the public an opportunity to express their views on a matter of such importance. In this regard, I believe it is inappropriate for you to characterize the Government�s approach as being hostile or threatening to FPI. That is certainly not our intent.

            I am pleased that FPI will be represented at the public consultation sessions. I look forward to hearing the company�s views, and the views of all groups and individuals who choose to participate. It would be inappropriate, however, as you suggest in your letter, for FPI representatives to "cross examine" others at these sessions. As I noted in announcing how the consultation sessions would work, any group or individual who wants to make a presentation should pre-book a time and would be given 10-15 minutes to speak. This will be followed by an open microphone for general public comments. FPI will be given an opportunity to speak at the public sessions and you should provide a more detailed written brief to the Committee if you believe there is insufficient time to express your views at the sessions.

            Thank you again for your letter. I trust that I have clarified the Government�s intention with respect to the public consultations on the FPI Act and other related matters.

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    Gerry Reid
                                                                                    Minister