March 29, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to offer congratulations and extend best wishes to Stewart and Margaret Williamson of Labrador City who will be celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary on March 31, 2000.

Stewart and Margaret both were born in Montreal, but Margaret spent most of her younger years in British Columbia. Both are veterans of World War II. Margaret served in the Navy and was stationed here in St. John's, while Stewart served in Africa, Italy and Holland. They first met after the war while playing tennis in Montreal where, according to Margaret, both of them were on the rebound. They married in 1950 and moved to Quebec City and later to other communities, but came to Labrador City in 1965 and have resided there since. Stewart was employed by the Iron Ore Company of Canada as a blasting supervisor and Margaret worked in the engineering department of the Iron Ore Company.

Since living in Labrador City both Stewart and Margaret have been involved in our community, volunteering time to such worthwhile causes as the golf club, the curling club, minor hockey, Cadets, and visual arts. Margaret is currently a member of Crime Stoppers, the Steering Committee for Big Brothers-Big Sisters and the SPCA. Both are very proud members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Both are very proud members of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 47 in Labrador City.

They have two daughters, Jackie, who is employed with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in Labrador West, and Deschenec who resides in Grande Cache, Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure this House joins me in congratulating Stewart and Margaret on their golden wedding anniversary and wishing them the best for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a gentleman whose untiring efforts for his people go far beyond all expectations, a gentleman who has been riding an emotional roller coaster for the past several months as a result of problems in his district, problems that we can all sympathize with and hope we will never have to contend with.

He's jolly, he's thoughtful, undaunted and giving

His dream for his people an Improved Way of Living

But oft times his laughter, his wit and his joys

Are replaced by a faint heart and tears in his eyes

He's a man for his people - an Inuit man -

A government member doing all that he can

From the breaking of dawn to well into the night

His service an honor each effort a delight

He speaks with deep passion his many concerns

To all who are willing to listen or learn

Of a heritage proud - Of a culture so strong

Yet problems so many - A lifestyle gone wrong

He cries for the children - Then digs in his heels

Increases his efforts in hopes it will yield -

Some Rainbow of Promise - Some measure of Hope

His vision Revival - A Kaleidoscope

Awareness has mounted - Powers brought on side

Emerging from gloom there's a strained sense of pride

But with new infrastructure one sees at a glance

There's a will to Resolve - to give life a real chance

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

My colleague and friend we support you and pray

That God in His wisdom will show you the way

One thing being for certain - All good that will come

Bares with it all credit for Wally Andersen

Wally, you have opened our eyes and touched our hearts. May God bless you and your people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to inform Members of the House of Assembly that our government has bid successfully to provide the services of two of its CL-215 water bombers to North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Earlier this spring, Newfoundland and Labrador successfully outbid the governments of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, as well as a group from Bombardier Aerospace, for the contract, valued at $140,700 US per aircraft. This amount is guaranteed, regardless of whether or not the planes are used while stationed in North Carolina. Right now, we are projecting a net revenue of $60,000 US per aircraft, but depending on the usage of the planes this amount could be much higher. This will be the third consecutive year that we have provided this service.

The length of the contract is sixty-seven days, and in fact, the aircraft began their service to North Carolina on March 15. Scheduled to return in late May, the planes will be back long before our fire season begins. Currently, one aircraft is stationed at Lumberton Airport, and the other at Jacksonville Airport.

This contract makes good business sense for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. By providing the use of our water bombers to North Carolina, we benefit on two fronts. First and foremost, we profit from aircraft which would otherwise be parked idle at this time of year. Secondly, the possibility exists that we might, at some point, use some of their aircraft during our peak fire season. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, in conjunction with the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, is proud to be a part of this initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

Our main concern on this side of the House is that our water bombers are available in this Province for our people when the fire season is upon us. That is our main concern. I see this is the third consecutive year that it went to the lowest bidder, which is good to see that the process is working when it comes to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Whether it is the best bang for the buck or not, the minister says it is and we hope it is, but we reiterate that our main concern and purpose is that those bombers are ready for this Province when we need them here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We too agree that this is making good sense. It provides an opportunity for us to utilize our water bombers in a manner that generates revenue for this Province while at the same time providing the much needed service in other areas. At the end of May the water bombers will be back as the statement says. Our fire season shouldn't be started before that, and they will be here to provide this service when it is needed. So I congratulate the minister on his initiative and his good work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of my counterpart, the Minister of Health and Community Services, I am pleased to inform hon. members today that the Province has provided $500,000 to the new Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: The Centre is an independent research institute which reports to a Management Committee representing the University, the Department of Health and Community Services and the health boards. The Centre will develop linkages with other similar research units elsewhere in Canada and play a role on national research panels and associations.

The new Newfoundland Centre will focus on ‘applied' health research, that is, research using utilization data that is directly relevant to public policy making in health, health care, community services, health promotion, prevention and community health. Its mission will be to interact with policy makers in government and in the health system to develop a research agenda that responds to their needs. The Centre will assist government in making "evidence-based" health decisions.

The health sector will benefit from being able to make decisions that take into consideration up-to-date data on the health status and health needs of the population, on the changing demographic and economic context, and on the relative effectiveness and costs of different approaches to a given problem.

The $500,000 provided by the Department of Health and Community Services will be used on both infrastructure and research activities. I am pleased that a key objective of the Centre will be to make the results of its research available to all stakeholders - policy makers in government and health care system, health care professionals, associations and groups, and the public at large.

A key aspect of the Centre's mission is to seek external funds for health research; in particular, the Centre will target the expanded federal funding that will be available through the new Canadian Institutes of Health Research. By funding interdisciplinary research teams, by building research partnerships between academic researchers and community organizations and government agencies, and by using provincial funding as leverage, the Centre hopes to make possible a substantial increase in the amount of federal health research funding coming into the Province.

Increased research on subjects identified as priorities by health policy makers can mean more efficient use of provincial resources, better identification of needs and therefore better delivery of services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to see the Province putting $500,000 to assist in applied health research. I might add, the centre for health information has struggled for some time trying to bend government's ear to put money into systems that would increase the efficiency and delivery of health care, to cut down duplication of the system, to make access to records and other information that could expedite and make lean and streamline the system here in our Province.

We have not received our proportion of shares of research even on a pure research basis, not only applied research but on a pure research basis across this country. Our Province has only about 50 per cent per capita of the federal jobs as they have in the rest of Canada; our research even lags further and further behind.

I would also encourage the minister to look at opportunities here to get on stream in pure research in certain areas that can be beneficial. For instance, I will use a few examples here: our Province was late getting on steam with MS drugs, schizophrenia, after many other provinces were pushing. I have raised the issue on aricept, for example, Alzheimer's, that can save considerable dollars here in our system.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in the research here in our Province because our Province is the last one to come on stream. When you are an initiator, you move forward, you are innovative in the approach to government, you access the research dollars that companies are using; we maximize jobs here for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in research, and we allow our graduate students to stay here instead of having to go off to Dalhousie and McGill and other parts of Canada to get the jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? Okay.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly support the initiative to increase the applied health research in this Province. The area of community services, health promotion, prevention and community health are very, very important and much improvement can be done to both improve the health of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as, in the long term, save money for our health care system.

What is also important is that this government act on the knowledge that they already have. For example, programs which are used as pilot programs such as the Brighter Futures programs for young mothers or mothers at risk, which provides adequate nutrition and support for people while they are pregnant. It shouldn't be operated as a pilot program, but should be available throughout the Province to provide better outcomes in increased birth weight and better futures for the children who are born in these circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. There is a serious shortage, as I am sure the minister is aware, of nurses, LPNs, speech pathologists and physiotherapists. In fact, all allied health professionals are in serious shortage now at the Miller Centre, and this shortage is affecting both inpatient and outpatient services now provided at the Miller Centre.

I want to ask the minister: What is being done by the department to address this severe shortage now that is causing serious problems in the treatment of many medical problems of citizens of our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as members opposite as well as the general public at large are well aware, there are specific areas of the health professions where there are indeed shortages, and that shortage not only exists here in this Province but it exists right across the country.

At the present time, government is conducting a classification review which affects not only the nursing occupations but also includes the licensed practical nurses and many of the other specialists such as the one that the member opposite has referenced. We have undertaken significant measures around retention bonuses to try and keep nurses here in the Province as well, so we have a very comprehensive strategy to try and address the variety of shortages that are being experienced. It is a complex problem, it is one that is not only affecting this Province, and it is one that we will continue to work on as I am sure we work together across the country with other provinces as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a problem that I have seen get worse since I have come in here. I have not seen it improve. It has been over eight years now and it has not gotten better. It has gotten worse, I say to the minister.

I spoke with a family this week of a fifty-four-year-old woman who suffered a stroke last November and she has been in hospital in Placentia since that time. This lady lost her speech and has been waiting since December to get admitted to the Miller Centre for speech therapy. Her doctor and specialist say that immediate intervention is important for her to regain her speech. The only therapy she gets is being put in an ambulance in Placentia every two weeks and brought in here for one session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does she consider it appropriate to delay essential treatment for months where a total or even a partial recovery can never occur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that, with the health boards across this Province, they are trying their very best to provide the highest level of service possible with the resources they have. I cannot comment on individual cases, but certainly if there are concerns that the member has, I would expect that he could address those to the boards in question.

As I say, the boards have the resources; they have the human resources to disperse as best they can to meet the needs that exist in their regions of the Province. If there are any particular problems that people are experiencing, the most productive and effective route to channel those in the first instance is to the boards in question so that they can try and look at: Are there any particular issues that need to be addressed?

Overall, the boards, like ourselves, are trying to examine what the needs are and trying our best to gather the resources to do those.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already done that and spoke with people in supervisory capacities there. There is nothing they can do, because the resources come from the Province. The wages are set, the positions have to be filled, and when people are not taking the positions at a lower level they cannot get the people to work there.

A lack of health care professionals, I might add, is also impacting on the recovery of cancer patients who need therapy, and they cannot get scheduled timely around their chemo treatments. Now, delays in therapy go counter to the adage that a stitch in time saves nine. I might say that early intervention has proven to be the most cost-efficient in the treatment of medical problems.

I ask the minister: Why is this government not getting the message of putting increased emphasis on early intervention, on prevention and health care promotion, or does the minister still believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't see how the member opposite could stand and indicate at this point that government does not see the value of prevention. In today's sitting of the House I have read a statement on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Health, which has dedicated $500,000 to applied research. One of the primary reasons for doing that was because we recognized the value of that kind of research in addressing preventive health issues.

We have identified in our Strategic Social Plan that one of the major thrusts to address social development in this Province is to focus our resources in the area of prevention. We realize that there will always be issues and resources that we have to expend on current issues and on current emergencies, but we are trying to balance our expenditure of resources so that we can address preventive issues in health and in other areas of expenditures across government.

Certainly, prevention is a major priority with this government. I think many of the things we have done, as a government, over the past year have reflected that very appropriately.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, I guess, makes reference that it is not only us facing the problems, but I think it is not our concern as a Province how they solve it in Ontario or any other part of the country. Our concern is here.

I ask the minister: Why are there empty beds? For example, right now there are empty beds at the Leonard A. Miller Centre and there are people out in hospitals, costing immense dollars per day, since last November in hospitals in this Province, waiting to get therapy, people in areas where they cannot advance and move on with their physio, with their speech therapy and other areas, when there are empty beds in the Leonard A. Miller Centre because the resources or the appropriate compensation has not been put there to attract people. That, to me, is appropriate (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: -when that happens. Why, I ask the minister, are you allowing this to happen if you are so dedicated to prevention and to early intervention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member opposite got the reference to Ontario. We are going back to the first question which was, in fact, when I said that a shortage of specialists in the health profession is not in fact something that is unique to this Province. That is a fact; everybody recognizes it. If we are talking prevention and early intervention, I am saying that, as this Province, we have demonstrated time and time again through the violence prevention strategy, through our Strategic Social Plan, through dedicating resources to the School Lunch Program, through dedicating resources today to applied research, that we not only say there is a priority for prevention; we actually use our resources to the best of our ability in that manner.

We are addressing the shortages in the health professions. We are conducting a classification review which we hope will help resolve that matter. We will continue to dedicate our efforts in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Premier both agree that DFO must err on the side of conservation in setting the 2000 quota for crab. Will the minister tell the House specifically what advice he is giving the federal Minister of Fisheries with regard to the crab quota for this season?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the issue that hon. gentleman is talking about, the responsibility lies within the Department of DFO. Naturally, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada will make the final decision.

From time to time, we have consultations with all aspects of the industry. I have been very clear from day one, not only on crab but all species, that conservation comes first above everything else, and whatever final decision comes out of the consultation with industry and the officials of DFO, the managers of the resource, based on information from science - this is where we begin, based on information from science - I will fully support whatever science puts forth to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday DFO scientists told the industry representatives that recruitment of snow crab was down by approximately 45 per cent from last year.

Since the minister's advice is that, if there is any doubt, DFO should err on the side of conservation, I would to ask the minister: What relationship does he think should exist between the cut in quota and the decline in the recruitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the problem that we are having is the recruitment. There are no young crab coming behind the commercial crab that is out there. Scientists have said that there is about a three-year biomass left, and crab lives three years after it reaches a commercial size. So, even if you went to the extreme in taking that all of that crab - they will die anyhow in three years time - it is necessary to try to help the recruitment come along to keep a significant number of crab left in the water, male versus female.

What they have suggested to do is not cut the stocks 45 per cent. They said that there is a 45 per cent decline in the overall biomass, so some adjustment will have to be made between the amount that is caught, the amount that is left in the ocean, according to the recruitment that is coming behind. I suspect they will do more surveys this year during the catching season, and during the trawl survey this fall, to find out how that is actually working.

I will leave the decisions of how it should be working, the quotas that should be cut, the amount of biomass that should be taken out of the waters this year, I will leave that up to the scientists and DFO. When they make their recommendation, when they send their message forth after consultation with the industry, we, as a government, will give it our full support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Surely, Minister, you must have been having some correspondence with scientists and your federal cousins up in Ottawa. People are looking to you for leadership here. People are looking to you to make sure that whatever the federal minister decides is in their best interest and in the interest of the local industry.

Don't they have a right to know what you are telling your federal cousin in Ottawa? Don't you have an obligation to let them know? Minister, they are waiting to hear from you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where my hon. colleague on the opposite side of the House has been for the last four years. I think, as a government, we have been showing a great deal of leadership in the fisheries consultation in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: A great deal of leadership, much more than was ever shown in the past by the former members.

We didn't build the seventy-five plants that his leader proposed in a recent election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We started off with 245 fish plants; now we have fifty-seven core plants.

Let's get to the issue at hand. I have said very clearly in every statement I have made in the last two months, in the last year, in the last four years since I became minister: Conservation is the number one issue which we will apply to every decision on every species of fish. Economics, demand and the need of fishermen will be second. Conservation is the key measure.

I have said that in speech after speech, in interview after interview, on the Fishermen's Broadcast, and on every forum that I can get in this Province. I have said it and I will keep saying it - for the fishermen.

The hon. member was down at Forum 2000. He was there when scientists made their presentation. He was there when fishermen stood at the microphone and supported scientists and said: We must err on the side of caution. We want the fishery for the long term, even if we have to suffer some short-term pain for some long-term gain.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Nobody will disagree with what the minister is saying. My question is very simple: As the minister, the first minister responsible for this industry in the Province, will you let this House know, and will you let the industry know, what your recommendation is going to be to your federal cousin in Ottawa? It is as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: There is something wrong with your hearing, definitely something wrong. I have said it - this is the third time. I said it today, right now, since I stood on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're saying it til you're blue in the face.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, God, no! Red in the face, not blue.

Mr. Speaker, I will send the same message to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans again as I already have. We were down at a meeting in Boston where people from the industry sat at the same table, had lunch, and we discussed concerns over the crab stocks. We all agreed that we must wait for the scientists to complete their review, compile all of the information, then have the consultations with the people in the industry, as is taking place now. The final meeting will be Friday, and when we get all that information the message that will go forth to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada will be what I have said - this is the third time in the last five minutes - whatever science recommends, we will support.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Minister, this morning on CBC Radio, a member of the Avalon East School Board revealed that the board had decided to put well-behaved French Immersion students into Holy Heart School in a desperate attempt to reduce discipline problems at the school. Can the minister offer a better solution for schools that have severe behavior problems, or a better way to treat French Immersion?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what I heard this morning was the opinion of one trustee. It certainly wasn't the chair of the school board. I have no idea if what the trustee is putting forward - what in fact the rationale is for putting French Immersion students into Holy Cross. I would expect that is not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Minister, mixing student populations is certainly no solution. Inner city schools have a high concentration of students with behavioural and learning difficulties, and the schools lack the professional resources necessary to cope with these particular needs.

Minister, you cut $11 million from the 2000 Budget for primary, elementary and secondary schools. Why didn't you allocate some of that money to provide the specialist personnel and services the schools desperately need to deal with the learning and behaviour problems these children bring to school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the fact there is $11 million out of the system is because we went from twenty-seven school boards down to eleven. We saw a savings in terms of the administration cost. Now, if you want to talk about reinvesting money back into the system, we have done just that. In fact, we have maintained the operating funding for all of the school boards even though we have significant reduction in student enrollment, even though we have fewer buildings in the system, and we are continuing to reinvest to the tune of $125 million to ensure that our students have clean, safe learning environments in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at the type of supports we have in our education system, we are far above the national average when it comes to the number of guidance teachers in our system. In fact, our student teacher ratio is better than the Canadian average. So if you want to talk about investment in education, talk about what this government is doing, not about what we are not doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, again I talk about the $11 million from last year's Budget and this year's Budget that has been taken away from the primary, elementary and secondary schools. There are numerous recommendations that have been given to youth through the years. I just referenced the 1996 Canning report. While you have implemented some of the programs, while you have done that, you came nowhere close to providing the resources to do the job.

I reference the special needs, minister. Why are you continuing to ignore the plight of children in schools that have the most desperate needs for the help only you can provide?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if there is any area where we can stand on our record it is in the area of special needs. We are putting $70 million into the education system to deal with special needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can stand here and I can rhyme off and give you reams of information about how we have spent money or reinvested it in the system in all areas, whether it is special needs, academically challenged or academically bright children. We have the guidance counselors, the psychologists, the categorical special education teachers and the itinerant teachers. Our numbers are far in excess of what is happening on the Canadian front. We have every reason to be proud of our system.

We would not advocate putting any group of children in with another group of children to try and enlarge or deal with the problem. We do not have to, because we have put the resources necessary into the education system.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services. It concerns the home care workers in this Province. Madame Minister, in the 1997 Budget Speech the then-Minister of Finance stated: That $4 million dollars would be set aside to provide, in part, worker's compensation coverage for home care workers in this Province.

He also stated: Not only will it take care of the home care workers, but it would also relieve the home care recipients from the possibility of being sued in courts. I ask the minister why this has not been done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have made a commitment as a government to try and provide this for the home care industry. What we have found in undertaking it, however, and looking at it, is that is an extremely complex issue. At the present time, the department is still reviewing and analyzing the total impact of this and how, in fact, it could be administered. It is under active review. There is a definite desire and commitment on government's part to move forward. However, we do have to have the answers to how to do this appropriately before we can implement anything. It is under active review. That is all I can say to the Member for Labrador West. We are trying to look towards a solution with this.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister it has been three years since this commitment was made by your government. I want to say that, as far as I can see, part of the problem is making the recipients of home care the employer. That is part of the problem I see from the people I have talked to. I ask the minister -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: This is not a joke, I will say to the Government House Leader.

I would ask the minister again very seriously: Does she think it is appropriate that people who are vulnerable and needing home care should be subject to be sued in the courts by home care workers who are not covered under workers' compensation? As the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women knows, most of the home care workers in this Province are women. Do you think they should be left without coverage? Do you feel that the recipients of home care should be able to be possibly sued in courts for workers being injured on their premises?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the question here, and the issue, is not one of appropriateness. The Department of Health and Community Services, along with my department of Human Resources and Employment, has been working for a number of years now to try and resolve this very issue. We have also been working closely with the minister and the Department of Environment and Labour.

This is not a simple issue and there are no simple answers to it. We have consulted with the home care industry, we have consulted with the private sector on this issue, we have consulted in the public sector. At this point we are still looking at the information that we have gathered, analyzing it, and in collaboration and in consultation with all of the stakeholders here trying to find a workable solution. That is the issue here. It is an effort on our part to try and find something that will work, that can respond to people who work in the home care industry and provide them with the protection they need. We are not going to move forward with a solution to this or with a response that is not well thought out and well planned so that it achieves what people want in this area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Last year, of course, the entire Province watched the hoopla as the public relations campaign - I say that in a positive way, I say to the minister - traveled this Province, including the minister. I commend, and I have done that publicly, the minister, the MPs, and any Newfoundlander and Labradorian who took part in bringing to the forefront the issue of Marine Atlantic in this Province. We say that in a positive way.

Also last year when this was ongoing, the public relations campaign around On Deck and Below, even the Minister of Tourism at time said that December 1999 was a critical date that we know final details on exactly what would happen in this Province with respect to Marine Atlantic.

Is the minister comfortable today, three months later, heading into April, that with the time frame left to us that we indeed will be ready for this year?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his sincerity and his comments about the forums that we held across the Province. We think they were important. They were non-partisan and we heard from the people of the Province. I can report to him that I have had discussions with the Chairman of Marine Atlantic. I am not at liberty to announce a federal program, but I do know they have a long-term strategy and it is one that I am very confident and supportive of. I do know they have a short-term strategy, one that, actually, I find quite exciting, and I think the hon. member will when they announce it in ten days.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, he can be assured that I am sincere. As a matter of fact, I attended one of the forums in Corner Brook as many people did.

We are talking about April, just around the corner. We are talking about a season. As the minister knows full well, the tourist industry in this Province - I have been contacted by many people - is very concerned at this late date. There may be some contingency plans. We don't know what is coming. I believe today I should ask - I have been asked to ask the same questions on specifics - what is the name of the new boat coming into this Province and when will the maiden voyage of the new ferry in this Province be listed?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me preface the answer by saying that I, and I think most members in this House, have a great deal of confidence in the reputation and credibility of Captain Sid Hynes who is doing a superb job under difficult circumstances. I don't think it is my place as a provincial minister to announce a federal program, but I do know they have purchased a vessel which is a competent and good vessel which will suit the needs of the Gulf, and that is the long-term strategy. I also do know that they are concluding a lease arrangement which should be concluded within the next ten days and that vessel can be in place for the beginning of the tourism season. I have full assurances from Captain Hynes that it will be.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) new boat (inaudible)?

MR. FUREY: The new boat will be in place, the lease arrangements will be concluded in time for the summer season, and I think you will be very excited with this boat as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and they too have to deal with Marine Atlantic. With the announcement of a new Argentia ferry last fall many people were led to believe by MP George Baker and our own tourism minister, Chuck Furey, that several hundred new jobs would be created and that training for those new jobs should take place immediately. Training did take place, and last week over one hundred people in Placentia and Port aux Basques graduated from the College of the North Atlantic's six-week training course. Another two groups started Monday of this week.

I would like to ask the minister this. In light of the fact that approximately 80 per cent of present employees, 80 per cent of the administration, are on the other side of the Gulf, the fact that the majority of the Board of Directors are on the other side of the Gulf, and the fact that a person must send his or her resume to P.O. Box 2000, Sydney, Nova Scotia, and that an advertisement in The Telegram last week called for fluency in both languages to be required - but it was later changed to an asset - with all of these concerns can the minister tell this House what the provincial government is doing to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive the full and fair share of these jobs with Marine Atlantic?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it was a very good start to put a competent, capable and credible Newfoundlander as Chair of this new corporation. That was a very good first start. I can tell the hon. member that in discussions with the Chairman a significant sum of money is being prepared to re-invest for service upgrade. That is one of the things we called for in On Deck and Below, a major infusion of new dollars for an upgrading of the service to make the service first-class like it ought to be in the Province.

When the hon. member asks: How many jobs?, it is difficult to actually quantify the number of jobs until the new vessel is announced by the federal government, it is put into service or prepared to be put into service next year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, it is not too late next year. Then and only then can you look at determining what kinds of jobs, what kind of service jobs and other jobs will be available on that vessel at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Marine Atlantic Gulf ferry service exists today because of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have heard the minister or the Premier say that. As far as we are concerned, 100 per cent of these new positions should go to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Due to the fact that you have to send a resume to Nova Scotia and that many people may be ruled out because of a French language asset, I would like to ask the minister: Can he tell us today if the interviews will be taking place in this Province, and will the people carrying out the interviews and deciding who receives the jobs be Newfoundlanders or Nova Scotians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would make a couple of points. First of all, the hon. member should have listened to his colleague talk about bilingualism and French immersion a minute ago. There are thousands of Newfoundlanders who speak French and are competent in the second official language of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, and the Premier is very competent in it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: It is just absolutely stupid to say that Newfoundlanders are not competent in French and would not be available for it. The second point that I would make is that this is a Canadian service provided by the Canadian government for Newfoundland and is open to all Canadians, as it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present today, in accordance with statutory requirements, the 1999 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf on some very anxious parents, some of whom are in the gallery today, whose children have chosen to leave home, and they are between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years of age.

We recognize that the new Child Welfare Act for this Province does include a provision that was recommended in the study on children some years ago that sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds do have some access to help, and we recognize that was a progressive piece of legislation.

The parents who have signed this petition, and there are literally hundreds of them here, are petitioning the House to amend the legislation to give greater parental guidance to children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. Their concern is that in some cases children who leave home often are able to access benefits without having the required intervention by way of counseling.

These parents are asking for more help for conflict resolution. They are asking for early intervention. They are saying that by the time that the teenager leaves home it is often too late, that they feel the intervention should have occurred a long time before that. They are saying that when you are in the school system, that when parents and teachers and others are able to identify those children who are potentially in crises, that there should be resources put in the system that let the issues be addressed.

They are asking mandatory counseling before these teenagers are able to access any financial benefits that would let them have alternate housing. What they are saying is that there are two groups of people that are affected. One is the children themselves, the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds, and the other group is the parents. Parents are saying that they want to have more authority, more help, more rights, and they want to say that they want to continue to be good parents.

This petition is to the House of Assembly, and it is a plea for help from the parents who are saying they want some recognition of their rights as parents.

We know that this is a very difficult issue. We know as well that when we did the study on children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we know that when we were doing the study on children, this was a very contentious issue. While we know there are no simple solutions, and while those parents will admit that taking those young teenagers, sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds, and bringing them forcibly back into the home would only provide a very temporary solution, it is not a solution either to simply divorce them from the home itself. They are crying out for help. They are crying out for assistance. These parents want to bring their perspective to the House of Assembly today.

It is in that spirit that I present this petition on behalf of these parents, so that their rights to maintain their family unit can be upheld and supported by all Members of this House of Assembly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, have a petition with a lot of names on it from these parents.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to amend legislation to give greater parental guidance of children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen.

When the Child, Youth and Services Act was being debated in this House of Assembly, one of the main concerns that I had was the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds who would fall through the cracks.

Part two of this act, under Principles, it said, 7(a) "the overriding and paramount consideration in any decision made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child;" and in this instance it would be in the best interest of the youth.

Isn't in the best interest of youth that they be given good parental guidance? Many children or youth, when they become sixteen years of age, figure they know it all. I, as a mom who has raised six children, know that when children are sixteen years of age, it is very difficult to talk to them. Isn't it in the best interest of the youth to be protected by the supervision and the guidance of loving parents and loving step-parents, or loving care-givers in whoever's care the children are?

When the parents have lost the ability to give the guidance and the supervision to their children because the rights of the child supercede those of the parents, then we have lost something very, very precious, and that is the right of the parent to give supervision to the child; but the child has lost something as well, because we are robbing the child or youth, who is sixteen years of age, of that parental supervision and guidance. At that point in their lives, when they figure they know it all, they are under peer pressure, and we have all seen youth who are in that situation.

Sometimes if the parents have the final say, it is an easy out for a youth who is being pressured by his peers to do something. He or she can stand up and say: No, I can't do that because my parents haven't given me permission to do so. Now, the way the legislation is, the peers can say: You don't need your parent's permission to do so; you can go on and do it. So actually the youth in this case does not have an out from the pressure that is being put on he or she by their peers.

It is a lot easier as a parent - and those of us who have been parents of teenagers know - it would be a lot easier in many situations to say: Look, go and do whatever you like.

It is easier. It gives the parents an easy out - you can go and do your thing - but that is not what good parents are about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

It is a lot easier for parents to walk away and let the youth do whatever they like, but that is not what it's about. It's about being able to afford to our youth the guidance and the supervision of loving parents. Until that is legislated so that it is easy for the parents, in conjunction.... As my colleague said, if there are problems in the family, then all of them - parents, youth, the department of social services and child protection department - should be able to get involved. While the parents have been stripped of their ability to give loving supervision and protection to their children, then the children out there, or the youth between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, will continue to fall through the cracks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today to present another petition, this time on behalf of residents of Wild Cove in my district. The prayer of the petition reads as follows: To the hon. House of Assembly:

We, the undersigned residents of Wild Cove, in the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our road. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make traveling to and from unsafe for our school children as well as jeopardize the safety of the residents and the traveling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and portray government's lack of commitment to rural areas of this Province.

These are from residents of Wild Cove in my district, and I am sure the Government House Leader knows many people in that area, including the Small family, the Pinksons and the Sacreys. Representative from this particular community in my district has been in here over the months with me in meetings with Municipal Affairs and with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. When they put forward their cases to officials in the Department of Municipal Affairs, for example, the officials are sometimes surprised and even shocked when the community talks about the economic activity in this particular little community on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It uses very little of the social safety nets of social assistance or unemployment insurance. As a matter of fact, the community of Wild Cove employs not just the people in the community but people from outside. It has a very lucrative fishing industry in that particular part of the Province. It is one of the most prosperous communities, I would say, on the Baie Verte Peninsula but indeed, per capita, probably in the Province. They are people who contribute to the economy of this Province. There is no doubt about that.

What they are asking for is a very simple, straightforward request, that after all these years of that community existing down there, those people are asking for the simplest of requests, of having their road paved. That road was upgraded some years ago, and of course as it continues to be graded year after year to make sure that it is at least passable, especially for school children who travel on those roads, the situation now is that it has been graded so much that there is nothing left to grade.

Now people in that community know, and I know, and any officials who have traveled over that road - and I have done it - know that the only answer to that now is to upgrade and pave it.

It is not a luxury that they are looking for. It is not something beyond. There are about eleven kilometers left to be paved, and these people are making the simple, decent request of saying that they deserve to have their road paved, and I agree with them. A gravel road such as theirs should be a priority. I have said it to the minister when I met with him on many occasions, that the Wild Cove road should be a priority. It is a gravel road and there should not be a gravel road left in this Province, especially for communities who are still thriving and still contributing to the economy of this Province. That is what Wild Cove boasts, that they are not a community that is downtrodden and failing. It is a community that is still bolstered by the fishing industry and they still contribute to the economy of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I support the petition wholly.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present today on behalf of the residents of the Shea Heights area regarding their housing and the lack of handicap accessible housing in that area.

As I said yesterday in the petition that I presented, what we are asking government to consider is the fact that people who have disabilities, and their families, need to utilize the support of family, friends and neighbors within the community. If people are forced to live outside of the community in which their families and friends reside, then it compromises the help and support that those families need.

The community of Shea Heights is a very closely knit community and there is a very wide support base for family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. There are no handicap accessible housing units at the present time in the community of Shea Heights within the City of St. John's. What I am asking government to do today is to consider constructing handicap accessible units within the boundaries of the community of Shea Heights in St. John's and barring that, if that is impossible, we are asking that they make some of the existing units more accessible to people with handicap disabilities.

We respectfully request that government give serious consideration to people with physical handicaps and people who utilize wheelchairs and canes and so on within the community of Shea Heights, and heed the request they are making for handicap accessible units.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I call on the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

The private member's resolution we are speaking on today deals with the Marystown Shipyard, and I will read the contents of the resolution that we are proposing today:

WHEREAS the Provincial Government entered into a deal enabling Friede Goldman to take over the Marystown Shipyard operation on the condition that it meet certain specified employment targets;

AND WHEREAS Friede Goldman has failed to meet the employment targets specified in its agreement with the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government to enforce the penalty provisions of its agreement with Friede Goldman.

We know that government struck a committee comprised of the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, as well as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to negotiate all issues with respect to the sale of the Shipyard facilities including the completion of the agreement of sales.

What we are asking today is that government enforce the condition of sale to maintain a minimum of 1.2 million man hours per year for the calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000, and in default be required to pay government $10 million, $5 million and $5 million respectively.

The agreement that was met between government and Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited does not require that the report on man hours from Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited be audited or otherwise independently verified. We know from the Auditor General's statement -

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): We recognize the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a serious point of order, and that is to take note, on behalf of all members of the House, of your presence in the Chair, and to express our profound confidence in the job you will do in an impartial manner on behalf of all members of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. SULLIVAN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure he will do justice to his job there. I cannot see anybody who would publicly say he was sandbagged by the Premier - he must be impartial, and I give the full confidence to Mr. Speaker in that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, sir.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you jumped ahead of me. I was about to say that we would anticipate your first very wise ruling that this was not in fact a point of order by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Although I would join in his sentiments and wish you well in your new role as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly. As Your Honour has just said, there was no point of order, and that is a very wise, proper and appropriate first ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I accept the advice of the House. Mr. Premier, there was no point of order but thank you very much for your sentiments and I appreciate your confidence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do not know if this shows the seriousness with which this private member's resolution is taken by government's side. Maybe it shows the same level of seriousness that they have taken in the agreement with Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd. Because the discussions between the department and the Auditor General of this Province indicate that the information presented by Friede Goldman was not verified by government on the man hours.

They have reported on two years. We know that they were in default and we know that the Province has not collected on the provisions of the agreement and enforced the fine to Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd., because of the fact that they have not lived up to the specified number of man hours. We also know that government have not verified the number that they have given them. What we are asking government to do here, very plainly, very simply, is: Therefore be it resolved that this hon. House of Assembly urge the Government to enforce the penalty provisions of its agreement with Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd.

I am not going to delay this debate because this is a very simple request of this House of Assembly. It is a very simple request that we are making of government, to enforce the penalties on Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd., and we are not going to delay this debate. We want to get to the point. We want government to agree to the provisions of the agreement and to enforce the penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to respond to the motion made by the Member for St. John's South. I am pleased that the hon. member has, through his resolution, expressed an interest in my district and in the operations of Friede Goldman, an industry that plays a very great role in my district and indeed to the economy of the entire Burin Peninsula.

The thirty-two year history of the Shipyard, not unlike the history of any shipyard in the world today, has indeed be one of peaks and valleys, one of bust and boom. As an elected representative in one capacity or another for more than twenty-five years, I am well aware of the affect the uncertainty of employment has had on our world renowned, skilled workforce. For all of these years I have played an active role in supporting the industry through involvement with other concerned stakeholders in seeking ways and means to enhance opportunities for much needed employment through lobbying and trying to eliminate barriers along the way. Just last year, this hon. House adopted my private member's resolution urging the federal government to implement a new shipbuilding policy so that shipyards such as Marystown could compete on a more equal basis with shipyards in other countries.

Premier Tobin, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Education and the MHA for Grand Bank, and the Member for Bellevue District and I, along with other stakeholders, have met with company officials on many occasions to discuss further employment opportunities for the Shipyard. We are pleased that this company have committed to have the facility in Marystown continue to be a core part of their worldwide operation. As a result of our discussions, I feel very confident that Friede Goldman will play a lead role in the economy of the Burin Peninsula and of this Province for many years beyond the commitment specified in their agreement.

As everyone knows, during the first year of their contract Friede Goldman exceeded all expectations by providing $1.5 million person hours of employment in Marystown, 500,000 more hours than they had committed to in their contract.

There were many valid reasons why the company did not reach their commitment in 1999, one of them being a general shutdown in the overall industry worldwide. The actual fact is that that year 833,395 person hours was generated in employment at the yard. These numbers have been verified.

While we realize that this number is lower than the 1.2 million hours in the agreement, it is also well to note that this total all but exceeds but two or three years in the overall thirty year history of the Shipyard.

Yes, we are concerned over the current levels of employment at the Shipyard in Marystown. That is why a joint action committee of senior management, union and government officials was formed and put in place. They are working together to try and enhance further business for that facility.

We are all very aware of the penalty clause in the clause, but we also stated from the beginning that this government can be flexible on this issue pending a review of the company's work plan for this year and beyond. The $5 million penalty issue has been set aside temporarily, but only temporarily. If we don't see any action over the next few months we will take action to enforce the penalty provisions.

It is easy for us to criticize Friede Goldman International for their lack of commitment to Marystown even though we sincerely believe they are doing their very best to obtain employment opportunities for the skilled workforce who live on the Burin Peninsula. They are bidding on several contracts.

This government is showing flexibility because we have confidence Friede Goldman International will provide much needed employment in my district. It is great to have this penalty clause in the contract as an insurance but at this point it is employment that the people of the Burin Peninsula need. However, as I said, if there is no improvement we are not afraid to take action and implementation of this penalty will happen just as soon as we decide that it should.

Everyone on this side of the House wants the facility to grow and prosper so that it will continue to play a major role in the economic growth of this Province. With activity picking up in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore there will be new opportunities for work at the Shipyard. Retrofit of the Sedco 714 has created around 300 to 400 jobs for the next eight weeks or so in my district.

As I said, Fredie Goldman will have to demonstrate, not only to government, but to the yard workers that it has generated, through employment, opportunities at the Marystown facility.

Yes, we will continue to work with all the stakeholders to ensure that the goal is reached, but again, if we do not see action we will move quickly.

In conclusion I thank the Member for St. John's South once again for his interest and I feel a certain genuine concern, but I must ask at this point for a little patience. What we all want is to build Marystown up, not to tear it down. Government's first concern is for the employees at the yard. It will be counter productive for us, I believe, at this particular time to implement the penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to participate in this debate. Having some connection to the Burin Peninsula - it being the place where I was born and raised and where many of my family members still live; some of my family have worked at the Shipyard over the years - I am speaking as a concerned member of this House, but I am also speaking as a member who has roots on the Burin Peninsula.

I am reminded of the words of Mr. Holloway, two years ago, when he told the town of Marystown that his company had enough work of its own to keep the Newfoundland yard busy for ten years. Those were Mr. Holloway's words when he spoke at the public consultations that went on at the time when the yard was transferred to Friede Goldman Newfoundland.

Friede Goldman and the government signed a deal whereby Friede Goldman International purchased the Marystown Shipyard for one dollar. Government sealed that deal with a guarantee of work. This was very important to the people who were the employees at that yard. The Premier reported that the government would impose a penalty clause in the sale which would be used in default if the company could not meet the minimum of 1.2 million person hours of work in the first three years of the five year deal. The first year penalty, if they fail, will be $10 million. The next two years, the penalties would be $5 million each.

In year one, 1998, the company, FGN, reported they had reached 1.5 million person hours of work. It has now been confirmed in government circles that as much as 65 per cent of the total work completed in 1998 was work the government had on its books, on the order books, at the time of sale. So only 35 per cent of the work completed in 1998 was indeed work brought to Marystown Shipyard by Friede Goldman International. Sixty-five per cent was work that was already on the books at the time of sale. In fact, some of the work that was credited to 1998 was indeed done in 1999.

In year two, 1999, the loss of a major contract is how Friede Goldman International put the spin on why they fell short of reaching their requirements for last year. The unofficial report states that Friede Goldman produced between 820,000 and 840,000 person hours of work during the year. The member for the area just said the figure entered into the record as 833,000 person hours. This falls short of the commitment to produce 1.2 million hours as required by the government, and as is noted, I say, in the Auditor General's report as well.

Year three is the current year. It is now the March 29. We are just about into the third year of this contract, year 2000. The company is off to a very poor start, I say, when the first quarter has seen the industry actually bottom out. This has affected nearly every worker at both the Shipyard and at the Cow Head facility. With 1.2 million person hours of work required, which represents about 600 person years of work, and now that the first quarter is just about over, the company will have to produce an even larger volume of work during the next nine months to meet their requirements for this current year.

I want to put forward several other points. Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited promised workers at least five years of work from their parent company, Friede Goldman International, upon signing the deal with government. In other words, Friede Goldman International told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they would have a minimum of five years of work. That was put forward by J.L. Holloway, President of FGI, during the signing of the agreement, and which was quoted by the Mayor of Marystown in an article in The Southern Gazette dated November 16, 1999: Union Local 20 agreed to and signed a five year contract with the written knowledge put forward by government and Friede Goldman International that the industry would be protected in the contract.

For example, one clause stated: All equipment and fixed assets could not be removed during the five year deal. The union agreed to make the necessary changes and concessions in their collective agreement in order to secure work and protection for the membership. However, the above clause with respect to the removal of equipment and fixed assets from facilities was subsequently removed from the agreement signed by Friede Goldman International and the government, dated January 1, 1998.

In other words, what was agreed to by the workers at Marystown, by members of Local 20 of the Marine Workers Union, and what was finally signed by the government, is not the same agreement. This is very serious, because what happened there was that there have been many efforts to obtain the agreement. Finally, I might note the agreement is now becoming public knowledge, very slowly, but it is becoming public knowledge. There is now confirmation that the agreement that was signed by this government that protected a fixed asset, all equipment, was left out of the final document that was signed.

The Premier of this Province and the currently Minister of Education signed this agreement with the Friede Goldman International on behalf of the government. I understand the Member for Grand Bank was very instrumental in negotiating the contract. In fact, I am told she was the front line person in the negotiation.

I would therefore want to hear from the minister to find out why the contract that was agreed to in the public consultations with the Marine Workers Union in Marystown was varied, changed, from the time that it was agreed to by the workers in Marystown and the final document that was signed There is a very great change.

The impact of the downsizing of Marystown on the workforce has been very significant in that part of the Province. The impact on the workforce has seen a major loss of employment during the past two years. In fact, there has been a management of decline mentality persistent on the Burin Peninsula for a long time. Concentration has been on, as Clyde Wells would say, managing decline.

One of the characteristics of this government's tenure in office pertaining to the Burin Peninsula is in the management of decline. That is certainly not very happy news for the workers at the Marystown Shipyard.

There is a fear of loss of confidence in the (inaudible) of the government over the five-year deal. The workers in Marystown tell me - and I have information and have been in contact with many of these workers - they tell me they no longer feel confident of the future of the Marystown Shipyard. That is sad; that is regrettable. I wish I could do something to change that. They certainly have no confidence in the government and its ability to enforce and live up to the contents of the five-year contract.

What has happened in Marystown has brought severe hardships to many of the workers who were employed at the yard. Many of them have been forced to leave the area. There is a steady stream of cars, trucks and vans down over the Burin Peninsula, heading off to any other place in Canada. It is a sad reflection. The population of the Burin Peninsula is declining rapidly. A good part of it is because of what is happening at the Marystown Shipyard and the failure of this government to be fair and to live up to their commitments that they made to the people of Marystown and to the whole Burin Peninsula relative to the Marystown Shipyard.

Many of these workers have had to re-mortgage their homes. They had to go out and get new mortgages. They had to go and take out second mortgages in order to be able to keep up with their life style. That is sad when, in order to keep yourself going, you have to re-mortgage your house, to access the equity in your house in order to pay your bills. That is commonplace in this part of the Province. I want to say as well that this tremendous loss of jobs in the Burin Peninsula has had a very negative impact on the revenues to this Province.

What the workers in Marystown want is not the - well, they will accept. There was a rig in there just before Christmas. That is good, and we applaud that. There is another one on the way, which will give some needed employment. What the workers in Marystown want is some long-term commitment, and what this resolution attempts to do is to put pressure on this government to live up to the agreements that were signed with Friede Goldman International.

Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to live up to the agreements that are signed, then what is the point in signing them? Of course, we can see from our now knowledge of the contract that the government buried the contract almost immediately, told the workers at Marystown one thing, told them that the fixed assets would be protected, and then went out and signed a contract in which that was not a part of the written document.

Mr. Speaker, how can the workers in Marystown have any confidence in this government's ability to able to speak up on their behalf, when they go out - you have your consultations, words are spoken, commitments are made, they are told that commitments are ready to be signed, and then before the words are spoken there are private deals made. No wonder the people who work at that yard have lost confidence in the ability of this government to force Friede Goldman International to live up to its commitment.

Mr. Speaker, when a contract is signed, a contract is a contract. Friede Goldman has failed, and I think we need to send a message to them that we, as a people of this Province, believe in the documents that we signed and therefore we are calling upon this government, in this resolution, to impose the penalties that the people of Marystown don't want to have imposed.

I should point out that the workers at Marystown do not want this money. I want to make that quite clear. They do not want the money. They would much rather have the jobs. The people I talk to on a daily basis do not want to have this money put into their pay cheques. They do not want the government to impose this penalty and then put this money somehow into their hands. They want the government to impose this penalty because it is an agreement. They want to send a message clearly, and they want to send it to Friede Goldman: When you sign a contract, it had better be worth something and you had better live up to it, because at the end of the day if you do not do that there will be a penalty imposed.

The workers want work. They do not want to have another situation where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology goes to Marystown, flies in on a helicopter back in December, and she doesn't even have the courtesy to invite the Mayor of Marystown to be part of the ceremony - a big issue there. A rig comes in and they want to have a ceremony there. She flies in by helicopter. The Mayor of Marystown is snubbed, ignored and left out of the ceremony that was there because the minister apparently did not feel she wanted to invite him, or maybe it was Friede Goldman International who did not want to have the then Mayor of Marystown present for that particular ceremony.

What a snub to one of the great spokespersons for the people of Marystown over many years. Perhaps it was because he happened to represent as well the president of the union there. Maybe that is why the minister snubbed him at that time, but certainly there was something communicated on that very day that this government is more committed to Friede Goldman International than they are to the workers of Marystown and to their union representatives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

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

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to bring some clarity to this debate. I would like to start off by saying that government, the people of Marystown, the council of Marystown, and the workers at Friede Goldman, Marystown, are looking to grow in industry in Marystown by working with the company.

I agree with all of the comments that have been made that this issue is very important to the future of Marystown. That is why we, as a government, and in particular my department and the MHAs from that area, worked very closely with the company. That was why, when the union wanted and the company wanted to strike a joint action committee for us all to work together in marketing this facility, government agreed to do it, and we have met recently for our first meeting. It was a very good meeting.

So, really what we are doing in this committee is formalizing a lot of the work that we have been doing anyway. My department have been working very closely with Friede Goldman in Marystown, close enough that we have been able to help them secure some contracts. Last fall, for instance, we helped them obtain a contract, a very successful contract that they implemented very well for a submarine, the first one done at Marystown. At the end of the contract, the Canadian Navy made it very clear that they would certainly have no difficulty in doing more work at Marystown when more work needed to be done on their submarines. Marystown Friede Goldman International proved that they could be competitive when they won that bid and successfully implemented it.

We also helped them recently, this past fall, with obtaining the contract for the Henry Goodridge. They were very so successful in doing the work down there that the company decided, with the very skilled workforce that was in place, that they would get future work done. They would put a whole new water and sewer system in rather than wait and do it a few years down the road, and that provided a great deal of employment.

Right now, I think it is as of March 21 that the Sedco 714 arrived in place. This government was also very active in working with the White Rose development and the company who owns the Sedco 714, and saying to them: This is a great place to get this work done. This rig will be out offshore working on White Rose over the next few years. If you bring your rig into Marystown and get the work done, and the regulatory work done, put in place, that needs to be done before this rig goes out into our offshore, you will see the quality of work and you will know that when you need any work done on this rig in the future, you can either bring it into Marystown or Marystown workers can go out to the offshore to do it.

We have worked very closely with the company to make sure that every bit of available work goes into that site.

One of the big disappointments last year was when the price of oil was very down. I think it was down to about $10 a barrel at the time. The Terra Nova people made the choice not to use the Trans Ocean Explorer. That was a lot of work that would have gone to Marystown, a whole lot of work that would have gone to Marystown and certainly would have enabled the company to be able to reach their work targets last yea; but, because this is a cyclical industry and one that the people in Marystown, the unions in Marystown, the company in Marystown, know that it is and that it will always be a cyclical industry, we have to be able to take these blows, but we also have to be able to work with the company to go out there and find the work.

Now that the price of oil is rising, or is certainly rising very high, this is a good thing for this industry. The company told us, when they were here in January to meet with the Premier and to meet with the MHAs in the area, to meet with the union, to meet with the town council, they said to us that because of the high price of oil they expected by the second and the third quarter of this year there would be more work for Marystown.

I know that the manager of the operation in Marystown has recently been in the U.S., working with the international company on the work plan for the upcoming year. We will shortly have our second joint committee meeting to outline what available work may be out there, what the company itself can put into the facility, and is there anything that government can do in acquiring work to help the company like we have been doing over the past few months - very successfully, I might add.

Government will continue to work closely with Friede Goldman International and monitor the employment situation at the shipyard. We have said - government has said previously to this afternoon - that we intend to be somewhat flexible on the penalty issue, but that doesn't mean that we are negating that. That doesn't mean that we are letting the company off the hook.

This resolution today is very counter-productive. The union would agree that it is counter-productive, the company would agree that it is counter-productive, and the people of Marystown would agree that it is counter-productive.

If there is no improvement in the work situation at Marystown, this government will move quickly to enforce the penalty provisions, but right now we want to work with the people of Marystown, we want to work with the union, and we want to work with the company to ensure that the employment provisions are fulfilled. The people of Marystown want to grow an industry. They don't want just a job for a few weeks. They want a strong, secure future. They want to stay in their community, and we want to help them do it. There are so many things that can be done to help. I don't know why a motion like this would be put forward at this time, just as we are waiting for the company to come in with the work plan for the upcoming year.

It is very important that we continue to work and address the pressing issues in this area. We want to formalize plans and recommend actions with our committee to enhance opportunities to secure work at the yard. We work very closely in Ottawa. We have a staff person in Ottawa who works very closely with the Defence Department to look at some federal procurement, as we did last fall with the submarine contract, so government has indicated to Friede Goldman Newfoundland that it will be flexible on the penalty issue but it will not be flexible indefinitely. We want to sit down and find the work, now that this industry is picking up again.

The terms of the divestiture agreement on the sale of Marystown Shipyard say that this company will maintain 1.2 million person hours of work in three calendar years. We will ensure, in any arrangement we make around this penalty issue, that this amount of work will be delivered; but we have to realize that this industry has been in quite a big turmoil and it is not just because of what has been happening with the price for a barrel of oil. This company has been a part of rearranging itself. It has been acquiring another company which, by the way, the acquisition of Halter Marine should be of great benefit in the near future to Marystown Friede Goldman, because the acquisition of this company has expertise that also Marystown has. Halter Marine has a lot of shipyard experience, and the shipyards that they have acquired and the architectural side of all of this will in the future be able to get more of that type of work for Marystown.

So as we grow our offshore we want to ensure that all of our facilities, those at Marystown, NEWDOCK here in St. John's, our Bull Arm site, that all of them will prosper and do well. We have a very bright future in the offshore, and we want to ensure that our facilities are there, that they are competitive, that our skilled workforce stays in place so that we will be able to offer, in particular the South Coast of Newfoundland, a vibrant future in the fabricating business, both in the development of the offshore and also servicing ships, which it has a very proud history of doing.

I would like to conclude by saying that this resolution is counter-productive today. It is very counter-productive at this time. The union is not interested in this, the people of Marystown are not interested in this, and the company at Marystown are not interested in this. It is not money that they are looking for; it is jobs the people of Marystown want. They want the company to come forward with a work plan that demonstrates that there will be work for this facility, and we intend to work with the company to ensure that everything we can do to help them market this facility will be done.

We expect, within the month, to sit down again and to have a more detailed work plan whereby the company will be outlining to both the union and all of its workforce, the town of Marystown and the people of Marystown, what work they expect to see in the upcoming months. Government's main concern at this time is for the employees at the yard.

At this time I would like to close the debate by saying that we intend to vote against this motion, and we intend to vote against this motion for good reason, as I have just demonstrated to you. We intend to vote against this motion because we intend to work with Marystown, to work with the facility, to work with the union, and when our joint action committee meets again, we hope by then we will have detailed work plans from the company to look at; but we will work with the people of Marystown, the union and the company. We will not work against the people of Marystown by imposing this penalty at this time. We strongly support the people of that area, we will continue to support the people of that area, and we intend to vote against this resolution. It is very counterproductive.

Thank you very much.

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

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

Some of the comments the Minister of Industry made were interesting. We know that most of the work that Friede Goldman did in the first year of the contract was on the books when they acquired the Shipyard. The minister said that the government helped them to secure contracts last fall, that they helped them in securing the Henry Goodrich contract; they helped secure the Sedco 714 contract. What contracts are you telling me that Friede Goldman secured if government helped secure all of these contracts?

We know that the people in Marystown and the union and the workforce at the Shipyard are interested in employment. That is what we are interested in, seeing the Shipyard employees back to work. That is what this whole exercise is about.

The contract that government made with Friede Goldman was broken. There are provisions within that contract to penalize Friede Goldman for breaking that contract. Why doesn't government take the money and put it in trust to ensure that Friede Goldman are going to continue to live up to their obligation to supply employment for the employees at the Marystown Shipyard? The government has a staff person working in Ottawa, close to National Defense, trying to secure contracts for the Marystown Shipyard, according to the minister. She just said it herself.

You look at the capital improvement that Friede Goldman were supposed to have put into that Shipyard in the first year. It was $8 million according to the Friede Goldman figures. That was never verified by government. What we are asking government to do here is this. Five million dollars would create a lot of employment at that Shipyard, but furthermore, if government were to take that $5 million and put it in trust - and if Friede Goldman lives up to their obligation, if they continue to operate that Shipyard, and if they improve their track record of providing employment to the workforce at the Marystown Shipyard, then maybe they can look at relinquishing that $5 million back to the owners of the Shipyard. Maybe they can look at taking that $5 million and doing further promotion at the Shipyard to help secure further contracts. Get the people back to work.

That is what this side of the House want. I am sure that is what that side of the House want. It is what the people of Marystown want. It is what the workforce at the Shipyard want. They want the work. The contract was broken. There are provisions within the contract to protect the people of this Province. If one side or the other of the contract broke the contract - in this case, Friede Goldman broke the contract - there are provisions there to protect the people of the Province by collecting the sum of $5 million for the year in which the contract was broken. That is what we are interested in, seeing government secure that $5 million. Hold it in trust, even, to put pressure on Friede Goldman to live up to their obligation and provide work for the people in Marystown.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favor of the resolution, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, ‘nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

As soon as we get past Question Period we will hear again from my friend the Member for Cape St. Francis, and his melodious voice. I have to tell him, it is a greater pleasure listening to the finance critic this year than it was last year to the Member for Waterford Valley.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.