The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the accomplishments of Judge James Kean, who celebrated his retirement from the Provincial Court of Harbour Grace on May 3.

Judge Kean has had a distinguished, lengthy career as a jurist and was one of the most senior provincial court judges in Newfoundland and Labrador. He also has the distinction of having been the longest serving judge at the oldest continually operating stone courthouse in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: It was built in Harbour Grace in 1832.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Judge Kean well in his retirement and I thank him for his continued service to our judicial system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate all those involved with the production of Random Passage on its debut Monday night in Ireland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The eight hour mini-series, based on a novel by Newfoundland writer, Bernice Morgan, and directed by John Smith, it was filmed in Trinity North -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - filmed in New Bonaventure, in my district. It has received a great deal of interest all over the world. Passage Films Inc. has sold the series to television stations in Ireland, Japan, Russia, the Middle East, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and we are hoping to see the production in Newfoundland in 2002.

With the films production of Miramax feature film, The Shipping News, which is also underway in New Bonaventure, in the Dunfield area, the beautiful District of Trinity North is again being showcased worldwide.

I congratulate all involved with the production and distribution of Random Passage on the success of their endeavor. Newfoundland and Labrador is continuing to develop its film industry and I hope that areas such as Trinity North will continue to benefit from future film projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise members of the initiatives that the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have taken toward improving infrastructure and training to enhance water quality in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Two days ago, $1.8 million was announced to be spent this year to install or upgrade municipal water disinfection systems through the Municipal Capital Works Program and the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, as part of the Province's $11 million multi-year commitment to address water disinfection problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that this has now been increased to $2.1 million. That is an additional $500,000, Mr. Speaker. We are providing 100 per cent funding, up to a maximum of $100,000, to help communities currently on boil water advisories. It is expected that twenty-four communities will benefit from this allocation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: As of yesterday, all qualified applications in this category were approved.

In addition, since September of 2000, thirty-eight small communities have received funding in the amount of $236,115 under special assistance to address and subsequently improve their water quality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, our commitment to improving water in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador does not end there. Additional projects of approximately $15.5 million will also address water quality issues, including seven water treatment systems. In total, $17.7 million will be invested through the cooperation of the provincial, federal and municipal governments this year toward water quality projects. These projects will assist ninety-eight communities and a population exceeding 147,000 people. We anticipate this $17.7 million spent on water quality enhancement projects should result in a substantial reduction in the boil orders currently in effect.

Mr. Speaker, in the recent budget, it was announced that the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be hiring three chlorination technicians. The western technician will also be responsible for Labrador. These individuals will be responsible for assisting municipalities in the operation and maintenance of chlorination systems, as well as on-site training of municipal operators and assisting in the developing of proposals for funding from the provincial government if required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: They will also recommend and provide monetary assistance for additional training and the purchase of chlorination monitoring kits for municipalities who require them.

The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has also made an arrangement to provide $100,000 to assist municipalities to attend training sessions sponsored by the Municipal Training and Development Corporation. This is a partnership between the department, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators, and the Combined Councils of Labrador. It is expected that a significant portion of the funding will go toward water quality related training. Mr. Speaker, if $100,000 is not enough, I will find additional funding from my departments existing allocation, because this is a high priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: All of these projects and initiatives are positive steps toward government's efforts to improving the quality of water and indeed the quality life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Many of these projects have already been announced. There is no doubt about it. I am glad to see that the minister is finally starting to take the issue of water quality in the Province a little more seriously, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see he is finally starting to take the issue a little more seriously in providing training and so on. We await the details to find out if this training is adequate. I can assure you one thing, it is not only training that is required, we have to start testing and treating water better than we do now. We have to start testing for toxins that are created by the incinerators that are placed near water supplies. We have to start testing for parasites that may be caused by agriculture sites, such as the one in the Premier's district -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

We have to start testing for parasites that may be created by agriculture sites that are adjacent to water supply systems. We have to start testing for parasites, toxins and other pathogens that government is not currently testing for because this is a serious issue.

I say to the former Premier, this is a serious issue. This is not an issue to be joked about. So I would advise you to stop joking. This is a serious issue regarding the health and safety of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this government is feeling the heat and the real concern of people around this Province. I guess the minister went yesterday to his officials and said: Give me a list of anything that could possibly be associated with water quality so that I can re-announce it tomorrow in the House to make it look like we are doing something.

I will acknowledge he has added an additional $300,000, Mr. Speaker-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - which will now allow one-tenth of the communities under boil orders to be assisted under the program that was announced two days ago.

Mr. Speaker, the other issues that have some relation to water quality, obviously chlorination technicians are needed but we must remember that it is the combination of the chlorine and other factors which produce the THMs that have caused the problems in the first place. This government is trying to play catchup on this issue and obviously has not devised a proper plan to ensure clean, safe drinking water in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members that when the Chair stands members should take their seats.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of how this government will continue to invest in the students of this Province by ensuring they are provided with the state-of-the-art school facilities, equipped with the most modern teaching and learning aids available.

Education reform was not just about streamlining the governance and organization of the K-12 school system. It was also about providing our children with modern school facilities to give them access to a wide variety of programs and services necessary to prepare them to live and work in a global society.

Since 1997, this government has invested $160 million to construct new schools, redevelop older buildings and upgrade many other facilities. This represents the largest investment in educational facilities in the Province's history. Over the last three years, we have undertaken twenty-five major construction projects, thirteen of which have already been completed.

Students in Blaketown - where I will be this evening, Mr. Speaker, for the official opening of the school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: And, of course, my colleagues will be joining me there, Mr. Speaker, who are MHAs for the area. The students in Blaketown, Buchans, Clarenville, Hopedale, Nain, Norman Bay, Pollard's Point and Rigolet are attending new state-of-the-art schools.

Construction is underway or is about to start on new schools in Arnold's Cove, Burgeo, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Lethbridge, New Perlican, New World Island, Plum Point, Pouch Cove and Roddickton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Students in Bay Roberts, Carbonear, Forteau, Gambo, Lourdes, Piccadilly, St. Georges, St. Mary's, St. Brides, metro St. John's, Upper Ferry and Wesleyville are attending schools which have been redeveloped. In addition, a major redevelopment is underway at St. Thomas of Villa Nova in Manuels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In this year's budget, government continued its commitment to providing students with the most modern school facilities possible with an additional $23 million capital construction program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: This new allocation will provide for new schools at L'Anse au Loup, Lawn, Mud Lake and Postville and redevelopment of schools at Burnt Islands, St. Brides and Winterton. Within the next few weeks several other major capital projects will be announced.

Mr. Speaker, whether we construct a new school or redevelop or upgrade an existing facility, each of these projects results in a wheelchair accessible facility in which every instructional area is wired for computers, the students have access to the Internet, there is a mechanical ventilation system, there are facilities for students with special needs, and there is a lunchroom, library/resource center and a gymnasium.

Regardless of where they live and attend school, all students must have access to clean modern schools. We will continue to respond to needs identified by school boards to make this happen.

In recent years we have become more aware of the need to perform preventative maintenance on our school buildings. It is critical that our buildings are maintained to ensure they can continue to be used for their expected lifespan. The greatest threat to the lifespan of a building is the infiltration of water. While school districts will continue to be responsible for minor maintenance and repairs, government will provide funding for major preventative maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: To this end, we have provided $12 million over four fiscal years for such projects. To date, tenders have been called for thirty-eight projects, an additional twelve will be tendered shortly. In addition, funding will be provided to repair or replace windows and siding. This extensive preventative maintenance program will ensure out buildings can be used well into the future.

Mr. Speaker, government's investment in school construction, renovations and air-quality concerns speaks for itself. We remain committed to providing teachers and students with comfortable, safe and modern schools in which to work and learn. This, Mr. Speaker, is in addition to keeping in the system every teacher that was there this past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for sending along a Ministerial Statement. I can go back three years and find the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am kind of glad, Minister, that you have gotten off the 125 and that there is an extra $23 million this year, or so, because we get kind of sick and tried of hearing about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the minister that any time the government can get closer to the goal of having every school building in this Province up to a standard whereby our students are safe, healthy, and exposed to proper learning environments, I support those initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, we are not close yet. You have dragged your heels through the years when you allowed buildings to be leaking around this Province, where you have allowed children to be in buildings where it was not fit to have children, and you had to close down schools after the fact. But, I say again that the students and staff, Mr. Speaker, of the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve nothing less than schools which certainly cater to their particular needs; state-of-the-art schools, we hope, Minister. We hope that these state-of-the-art schools will certainly not ask parents to raise money to put the learning aids in there that are required. We hope that these schools certainly will address the educational needs.

Minister, in your statement, as we go down through and you are saying every school, I notice that the music rooms are not there. I wonder where they are gone, Mr. Speaker? I wonder where they are gone?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: When you say wheelchair accessible, Minister, I hope you mean that the buildings are not just accessible but every area in that building is accessible. That is what we talk about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: That is what we talk about when we say, Mr. Speaker, that we want to take care of the needs of all children in our schools, and that they should be accessible.

When you talk about having school boards, I ask the minister again: Are you saying now that the school buildings will be the same as government buildings, and that they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important that our schools be of a nature that they have a clean and environmentally friendly atmosphere that will be more conducive to our children learning. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that we have modern technology installed in all schools so that our students, as they progress through our educational system, are fully prepared to meet the challenges and the opportunities that will face them once they finish their education.

I look at the list that the minister has read off there, Mr. Speaker, and I am very glad to see that wheelchair accessibility has taken a priority, and facilities for special needs children so that they can - all of our students - be full participants and included in our educational system to the highest degree.

The preventive maintenance program: I guess the minister and others before her have learned from past mistakes, hopefully, that if you let things go long enough they get to a point where they have to be torn down and it would probably cost twice as much money than if money was allocated as time went on and as problems arose and were corrected.

This is a step in the right direction, not to say that there is not anything else that needs to be done. Certainly air quality is something that needs continuous work. There are many schools in this Province today that still need improved air quality.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. The Canadian Institute for Health Information released its 2001 report yesterday. For years we, on this side of the House, have been asking health care questions. We have been seeking answers, we have been trying to push the government to find solutions, and nowhere is that more true than in our questions on cardiac services and the effect of long waiting lists for surgery. Across Canada, 12 per cent of patients died in hospital within thirty days of admission - with a heart attack; however the rate for Newfoundland and Labrador for the same time period was over 18 per cent. That is 50 per cent higher.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: What is wrong with our health care system, Mr. Minister, that makes our Province the very worst region in Canada to be living in if you happen to have the unfortunate circumstance to be admitted to hospital with a heart attack?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question, and indeed it is a valid question. As part of the report that he referenced today, there are a number of factors that are looked at. I think in any field or any area that you go into, if you pick out isolated items from any report, you can draw all sorts of conclusions from them.

Certainly we, as a government, and this department, and I as minister, are always concerned when we see the questions that are being raised. Basically what this report does is raise some questions. When that happens we think, acting responsibly, we will certainly look at them and examine and see if there is, in fact, some reason here for us to have some concern. This is what my officials have done. We have been in contact with the Health Care Corporation. Our officials are looking at the data and trying to determine just what exactly they are telling us.

I would say to the hon. member as well, if you are being choosey in what you select from the report to reference, it is interesting that he chooses not to reference some of the other factors that are mentioned in the report as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister knows that the data has been adjusted for differences of age, for sex, and for (inaudible) conditions.

Mr. Speaker, clearly lives could be saved if all regions of Canada could achieve the same thirty-day mortality rates. I say to the minister: Isn't it really true that your government has failed in its responsibility to reduce long waiting lists for cardiac surgery, you have failed to make better utilization of our operating room facilities, and you have failed to take the right measures to assure that the survival rate after admission to hospital following a heart attack in this Province at least meets the Canadian average? I address these questions directly to the minister because the public wants answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question, and the answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting on such an important question, the minister could make such a cursory answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Isn't it true, Mr. Minister, that health care in this Province today has been rationed through the management of waiting lists and through many delays and cancellations of surgery? The minister knows this, or he should know it. Physicians want to know today what you are going to do to fix the problems, and patients are stressed to the limit knowing that their survival rate following a heart attack in this Province is among the lowest in Canada. Again, what is your government going to do to address this critical health care issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to notice the approach and the tactic that the hon. member used in addressing and selectively cherry-picking items from the report that covers a multitude of issues. It is interesting that he just ignores the fact that the report also acknowledges that we have the second highest number of registered nurses per capita in the country; the highest number of LPNs in the country; the second highest health expenditures percent of the GDP, and we are continuing to put more money into health care. We spent more money on institutional services per capita than any other province in this country!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: That, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you is the crux of what we are discussing here today, and for the hon. member to suggest that this government is being negligent does not speak well of him. Either he indicates that he is totally uninformed as to what the reality is - this year we have commited $1.4 billion to health care in this Province. That is our commitment to health care and that is our commitment to the people of this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We know that the people who are up in these hospitals are not counting nurses. They want attention and they want it immediately. The minister knows that a quick medical response is a critical factor in the survival rate following a heart attack. The chances of survival drop every minute that is lost without medical intervention and attention.

Why are heart attack victims in this Province not getting the medical care they deserve, they most urgently need, and they have just cause to expect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the hon. member for this question. I remind him, again, he is selecting one item from a report -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Oh yes, and I have already acknowledged -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: If the hon. member would listen. I have listened to his question. I will now ask him to listen while I try to give him an answer.

In the very beginning I acknowledged up front that whenever concerns are raised, we, as a responsible government and I, as minister, have taken that matter under advisement. We have our officials checking just to see what exactly it is saying to us. Is the hon. member suggesting - after what I have quoted here from the report as well, what I have indicated, the actions that we have initiated as a government - that at this point and time he has no confidence in the health care system, in the tremendous responsibility and tremendous duty of care that is being delivered on a daily basis by our physicians and health care professionals? I, for one, have complete confidence in our health care corporations, in the professionals who are delivering the service for us, and I think the hon. member is just trying to be an alarmist as he usually is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that a heart attack is a death sentence in Newfoundland nearly 20 per cent of the time, compared to 10 per cent in Alberta, and the Canadian average of 12 per cent. My question is: Knowing this statistic, knowing the history of health care in this Province, what is your government going to do about addressing this vital issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to do what it has always done, to make health care the number one priority of this government. That, we will continue to do!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday, Minister, you made heavy demands on the federal government regarding the cleanup of St. John's harbour. The municipalities in the region have confirmed their one-third share. The Province, as we know, have confirmed its one-third share.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yet, the federal government have not committed their share of the cost of the cleanup. Have you written the federal government informing them of your demands? Have you any intention of meeting with the federal government to inform them of your strong intentions, or does it stop with your members' statement yesterday? If you have written them, can you table the documents in the House today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the member opposite that what I said yesterday, I stand by what I said, is the fact that the municipalities in this area have already committed one-third to the cleanup of the St. John's harbour. The provincial government, my predecessors, have already, in the department, committed on behalf of government to do the one-third. What we are asking is for the federal government to put in their one-third.

What I said outside yesterday when I was interviewed, was this: That this particular problem that we have is bigger than any one minister in the federal government. It is a total commitment that the federal government has to do. It was their choice whether they were to do it ad hoc, do one project like in St. John's harbour or do another one in Corner Brook. It is their prerogative if they want to do a national policy, but what we said from our government's point of view, we have our one-third, we are asking them to do it so that the project can go ahead and proceed, and get the harbour cleaned up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the St. John's harbour is under federal jurisdiction. Under the Terms of Union the St. John's harbour is the property of the federal government. The provincial government must have some authority to demand of the federal government, the property owners, to clean up their environment. When are you going to force the federal government to clean up their property?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I see that question asked to me by the hon. member opposite in the same frame as he asked yesterday about the waste management, when he said that waste management was the responsibility of the provincial government and not the municipalities. The waste in the area belongs to the municipalities. We will assist the municipalities, as I said, in infrastructure and planning to help, but at the end of the day they have to take responsibility.

As a provincial government we will work with the federal government. We will pressure them to take responsibility here. I cannot force them to clean it up but I would think that the federal government would, at this particular time, do what we have done, commit to the table, do it and clean up the project in St. John's harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if it was a private citizen the government would force them to clean it up. We should not have to go begging to the federal government for their share of the cost. As owners, they should be coming to us; one-third cost is a bargain.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Minister, doesn't this Province have the legal authority to force property owners to clean up environmental catastrophes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just interested in the line of questioning and would like for the record of Hansard, the record of this Legislature, for the public and the people of the Province to try and make it clear. Is the hon. member suggesting, as the critic and the voice for the Official Opposition, that the position of the Official Opposition, if they were the government, is that the Government of Canada should be cleaning up St. John's harbour, 100 per cent, at its own expense because it is their property, as he describes it, and that the provincial government, if they were the government, would withdraw their one-third of the funding and that he would suggest to the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and Paradise that they should take back their offer and have the Government of Canada clean up their own property? Is that what the Opposition is suggesting? Is that it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My questions, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Minister, the never ending issue of a youth remand centre in St. John's is once again a public issue. How is it that your department, which now has in its possession at least three reports, is still unwilling or unable to make a final decision, a decision that would, hopefully, meet the needs of our young people in this jurisdiction?

I ask the minister: Why are media reports suggesting that it could be July of this year before you could make a decision on this very pressing matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this government responded to the needs which existed at Pleasantville by, indeed, committing to build a new facility. That commitment was made back in 1998-1999. There was some difficulty selecting a site, and it was ultimately decided that it would be constructed at Pleasantville.

The government, shortly after the construction and site clearing actually started, were advised - we became aware that the rate of incarceration and the demographics had changed drastically. In the course of eight months the number persons on remand had dropped significantly to the point where it became questionable whether we needed a twelve-bed facility at all. Based upon that information we solicited an opinion from a consultant, the Institute for the Advancement of Public Policy, who reviewed the situation, consulted with all the parties that were there, as to what options were available. The institute reported back to government in January of this year. I thought it would be appropriate, as a courtesy if for nothing else - but I thought more than a courtesy because I wanted their input - to give a copy of that consultants report to NAPE, which is inline with our consultation, openness and transparency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I gave that report to Mr. Hanlon, as well as union representatives of the Pleasantville youth correction centre, and they took two months to review it. They asked for time to review it, we gave that. They took two months and reported back to me on Monday, two days ago, May 7. They provided me with a thirty-five page written report as to their comments. I think it is only fair and prudent that we analyze what they had to say and not act rashly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A remand centre is more than just a detention centre, Mr. Speaker. Young offenders are those charged with a crime, are often there for medical reasons, to allow visitation with their loved ones, or for counselling and guidance. It seems to me, minister, that the need is clear and obvious.

As the minister himself indicated, this issue has been ongoing now for some three years. Why not make a decision today, I say to the minister, to move forward and put in place an adequate facility that meets the needs of young people in need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed with this line of questioning. If I had received the report on Monday, decided and made a decision on Monday, I would be accused by the hon. member or not giving due consideration to NAPE's concerns.

I think it is fair, prudent and reasonable that we consider what they have written to us. That is all we are doing here. Haste makes waste. Besides that, we want to pay due respect to what they have told us. The decision has not been made, and we want to make sure that we make the proper decision. Nobody has forgotten here about the needs that are served by Pleasantville youth corrections. We are cognizant of those needs and we still intend to fulfil our commitments to the users of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I ask the minister: How much time does he need? There was an internal review done, I believe, in 1998. There was a public debate on this very issue in 1999. The minister, himself, refers to an external report, a review that was done by Advancement of Public Policy Inc. some two months ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and now we have a further report prepared by NAPE. I ask the minister: Really, minister, how much time do you need? Young people in this jurisdiction, young people in need, they need their problems and issues addressed. I will ask the minister again: Will he now make a decision, a fundamental decision, that is in keeping with what is in the best interests of the young people of our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, one thing I can assure the House and the public of this Province: I have no intention of making a decision simply because the hon. member insists that I should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I insist that reasonableness here has to be the major overriding factor. We are going to act, but we are going to do what is right. We want to do what is fiscally prudent to do and what is in the best interests of the users of the facility. We do not act simply because someone tells us to act. This government is about performance, and proper performance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The facilities for the remanding of youth have been described by Dr. Linda Inkpen as woefully inadequate. Sheriff's officials have called the situation so dangerous as to indicate that someone may in fact lose their life because of the inadequacy of the facilities for holding young people.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had this report since January, as he has had other reports. He has cancelled the building of a proper facility. Will the minister not recognize that this new facility is in fact necessary and that it is inappropriate to house juveniles who are accused of crimes in remand centres, in a remand centre or lock-up attached to a police station?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has missed the point. No one has ever suggested that a facility needs to be built. That is why the recommendations of Dr. Inkpen -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe if the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis might listen, he might learn. Maybe there are some people in the Province who would like to know the answer to the question.

Nobody is suggesting that this facility is not needed. It certainly is needed. We want to make sure that we build a facility that is appropriate. You do not build a twelve bed facility if a twelve bed facility is not needed. We want to do what is fiscally prudent, but at the same time we recognize the needs that exist with regard to young offenders who are on remand. We have no intentions of overlooking our responsibilities when it comes to the medical services they need, the rehabilitation services they need, the social work services they need, the psychiatric or physiological assessments that they need, the family visitations that they need and deserve. We are cognizant of all those things. We just want to make sure that the facility we build is a proper facility. Do not assume, because it may or may not be attached to the side of any particular building, that it is not adequate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the officials who are responsible for the rehabilitation of young offenders or, in the case of remand, people who are alleged to be offenders. To house them in a facility attached to a jail is inappropriate for young offenders, and I think the minister knows that.

Mr. Speaker, how long is he going to continue to allow these woefully inadequate facilities to be used, and to allow our young people to be endangered by not having a proper and appropriate facility? Why does he have to wait until July? Why can't he move now and solve the problem? He has the information before him. He does not have to wait two or three months.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would restate the obvious. The stakeholders of the institution, or at least one of the major stakeholders, being the NAPE association, asked for an opportunity to review the report. We consented, they reviewed, and they presented us with their written comments on Monday. I have no choice other than to be reasonable, read what they have presented, and analyze it; because it may, and no doubt will, play a significant part in what the ultimate decision is. If that takes a week, it will take a week. If it takes until July, it takes until July. We have an obligation to do what is right and what is proper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice also. Mr. Minister, you have committed to tabling in this House the legal opinions your received regarding the takeover of FPI. When can we expect you to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have in fact here for presentation today - I thought it was most appropriate to do it under the section Answers to Questions, but I certainly have it here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can table it at this time. I understand the process is that, once tabled, the Table officers arrange for copies to be made and circulated to all parties concerned, but I can certainly do it now or at a later time, whichever -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Finally, we have it; but I wonder, if we had not asked today, would he have presented it today?

I ask the minister this: Does the government still plan to present to the House amendments to the FPI Act to more forceably protect the plants now in operation by FPI, and to protect for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the harvesting, processing and marketing segments of FPI?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Member for Cape St. Francis has any particular amendments he is referring to, that he may have as suggestions. My knowledge of what the commitments are in this particular case is, we dealt with the situation up to and including the time of the shareholders' meeting on May 1. Since that time, there is a new board in place, of course, and there has been ongoing discussions between the Province, the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself, with the new board of Fisheries Products International. Again, one does not like to be foolhardy and to rush into a situation without understanding if, in fact, or indeed, there is a need for any amendments. In the sense of consultation that we have, we will continue to consult; and if and when required, they will be submitted.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to say to the Premier initially, Mr. Speaker, that one month ago to this day the seat for Humber West became vacant. I want to ask the Premier: Will he do the honourable thing, call a by-election, and give the people of Humber West representation in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we will be calling a by-election in Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We changed the legislation in the House so people would not have to unduly wait to get representation, and the Premier knows quite well that he is committed by law to call it. I ask him, will he call it now? Or maybe I will ask him if his members are sufficiently rested, from their prescription of rest, and are able to take on an election now in Humber West?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question because it is a useful opportunity to remind the people of the Province why it is that we did change the law, as the member so appropriately just mentioned. We did change the law in this Legislature after 1989 because of the fact that, when that group were the government, they had a law that allowed by-elections to be delayed indefinitely. The law says clearly that within ninety days of a resignation there will be a by-election called, and there will be a by-election called within ninety days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Citizens' Representative. (Bill 10)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act. (Bill 19)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this past week, I would like to submit here a summary, a copy of the legal opinions as he requested at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I have a petition here on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province.

It is time that we demand our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spin-off from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions today come from the St. Mary's area. We have petitions coming in on a daily basis, because the people of this Province feel that this is a sufficiently important enough issue that they want the resource protected. They have spoken on this back in 1999. They felt that they spoke loudly and clearly enough that government responded by banning the bulk export of water. Now again, the people of the Province have to resort to sending in petitions to demand that government protect this resource. The people of the Province are demanding that the government -

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is coming in every day with the same petition and presenting it in the House of Assembly. I think our rules indicate that he is supposed to give the prayer of the petition and how many people signed the petition. I never heard tell of how many people signed the petition. So would the hon. member, for clarification, tell us how many people signed that petition today, the one that he has in his hand?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, we have dealt with petitions in the House and we have asked members to clear the petition with the Table and I assume that has been done. I just assume that the hon. member has cleared this petition with the Table.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order, and if the member is smart enough, he would know that once the petition was presented and tabled, he could read the number of names on the petition. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that there are far more people throughout the Province signing petitions to ban the bulk export of water than are signing to allow the bulk export of water.

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to my petition after the rude interruption by the Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sufficiently important issue that the people of the Province are signing petitions from throughout the Province, from various areas of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will have it noted for the record that the Member for Bellevue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3, the motion by the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today in an attempt to gain support from all Members of this hon. House for a resolution that I know to be of the utmost urgency and importance to my district, and indeed a resolution that impacts the entire shipbuilding industry in Canada.

The resolution reads:

WHEREAS Canada has the largest marine boundary of any nation in the world; and

WHEREAS a strong shipbuilding industry is an important part of any economic strategy for a strong trading nation such as Canada; and

WHEREAS we have a skilled workforce and facilities in this country capable of competing with any other nation in the world in the shipbuilding industry; and

WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry in Canada has been adversely affected by unfair trade practices by other nations; and

WHEREAS Canada has significantly subsidized other modes of transportation to take advantage of world market opportunities; and

WHEREAS Canada, particularly on the east coast, has a developing offshore oil sector which will create an environment where marine construction will be a strategic sector where we can lead the world;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this House of Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to act and act quickly to implement the recommendations in the Report of the National Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Partnership, Breaking Through.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, I introduced a similar resolution to this hon. House, a resolution that passed with unanimous support and consent, and I certainly thank all members who contributed to the debate and supported it at that time.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, was intended to advocate support for the Marine Workers Federation in my district, in this Province, and indeed elsewhere throughout Canada in their campaign efforts to have a national shipbuilding policy for Canada.

Some may even think this to be the very same resolution, Mr. Speaker, and while it may appear to be somewhat repetitive, I have no problem with repeating and repeating again, and continuously knocking on doors until such time as a shipbuilding policy is adopted that will provide adequate protection for the shipbuilding industry and the industrial marine sector.

There have been developments since that time, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the union executive of Local 20 considered it to be a major breakthrough. At least, right now, there is a documented report. I am sure it was not intended as a birthday gift for me, but it so happened that on my birthday, April 5 of this year, our federal Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, received a shipbuilding and industrial report from the four industry-labour co-chairs of his select committee. Mr. Peter Cairns, President of The Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Mr. Les Holloway the executive director of the Marine Workers Federation, Mr. Philippe Tremblay and Mr. Peter Woodward. The committee was established by the hon. Minister of Industry at the National Shipbuilding Conference held here in St. John's in October of last year.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I attended that conference and it probably was one of the most upbeat conferences I have ever attended. The stakeholders in the industry believe that at long last there was an opportunity to revitalize the Canadian shipbuilding and industrial marine sector. Brian Tobin had just been appointed as Minister of Industry for Canada, and just prior to that conference he had met with the Atlantic premiers to champion the cause for a shipbuilding policy.

This report entitled, Breaking Through, details the capabilities of Canadian shipyards, future prospects for these yards, and the relevant issues that are impediments to the industry's future potential. The recommendations are based on cross-country consultation.

The report, Mr. Speaker, further confirmed that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is struggling to survive. Our other leading shipbuilding countries are employing major subsidy programs and incentives, whereas Canada abandoned all of such measures back in the early 1980s. Subsidies in the range of 20 to 40 per cent are not unusual.

In addition to the subsidy problem, Mr. Speaker, Canada is blocked from making sales of commercial vessels to our most important export market, the United States, by virtue of the Jones Act.

This committee, Mr. Speaker, was challenged with applying a comprehensive approach that used taxpayers' dollars prudently to find effective solution. Some of the recommendations included in this report were that the Government of Canada focus on marine transportation as the more environmentally-friendly alternative to other modes of transportation, and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans review the licensing of vessels currently registered to sixty-five feet to allow them to replace or be converted to a length of less than eight-five feet.

Other issues and recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were that the Government of Canada press for the elimination of subsidies to the worldwide shipbuilding industry. Another recommendation was to press the United States for amendments to the Jones Act to allow for greater participation of Canadian shipyards as well as several recommendations conforming to the OECD guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, there are other exceptionally good recommendations, and they are all listed in the summary of recommendations in Page 49 to 52 of this document. Great recommendations, as they appear on paper, but of no value to us whatsoever until the federal government plans to adopt and implement these recommendations. This must be done immediately. It is time that our government tell the world that we no longer want to play by international rules.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate on the Burin Peninsula is presently the highest in the entire Province. A lot of this can be attributed to the loss of employment at the Friede Goldman facility. It is disheartening to see a skilled workforce having to leave families behind and tear up roots that go back many generations to find work outside of their Province, and indeed their country, to build the workforce of another nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening for all stakeholders and shipyard workers to gaze across the waters of Mortier Bay at a silent state-of-the-art facility, a facility that he or she hoped would see them through to their retirement, a facility that he or she hoped would be there as an employment generator for his or her children and grandchildren. It is disheartening, Mr. Speaker, for council members and other stakeholders on the Burin Peninsula to feel they are fighting a losing battle as one of the regions two main industries once again strikes rock bottom. It certainly is devastating for me. This is my community, my people, the region of this Province I have devoted my entire adult life to. It is a day in, day out campaign: writing letters, attending meetings, placing phone calls, dragging in every company and business I can hear or think of, to contact them in any attempt to find some form of employment opportunity. It certainly would be an enjoyable part of my job, Mr. Speaker, an effort of love, if it were getting me anywhere, but it is so devastating when nothing at all happens or materializes

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just recently, while this House recessed for Easter break, I attended some twenty meetings, all shipyard related. I remember last winter my doctor telling me that if I did not stop worrying about the future of the shipyard it would take me down to it's watery grave with it, but it is so hard not to worry. It is not a matter of some thousand workers being displaced and unemployed. I know practically every person in my area, Mr. Speaker. I know their history, I know their financial circumstances, I know the number of children in their families, I know their aging parents, and I know of their involvements and their attachments in the communities.

Mr. Speaker, I know what it is like to stand in line at Vital Statistics to pick up their birth certificates before going downtown and standing in line once again to get passports, so that these people can go outside of the Province to find employment. Mr. Speaker, I have brought these people in from my district, I have brought them to the airport, and I have shed a tear with them as I bade them good bye. It is hurtful, Mr. Speaker.

This realization, that while we starve for work at home, there are two boats for Clearwater and another for Fishery Products International being built overseas. Disappointing as this is we cannot come down too harshly on those companies. A saving of $7 million to $9 million to have a trawler built outside of Canada is a substantial difference. The reality is, if we had a shipbuilding policy in place to ensure that we receive a fair share of the shipbuilding orders on the global market, if there were tariffs in place on ships built to operate in Canadian waters, our Canadian shipyards would have a much more competitive edge.

It is even more disheartening, Mr. Speaker, when you read that a federal minister, John Manley, is arguing in the House of Commons that shipbuilding is not a sector of the future, that the industry does not fit with the high tech direction which they think this country should be going in. This is the kind of attitude and public perception which leads to the federal government being able to find billions in loan guarantees and subsidies for Aerospace and other industries while the shipbuilding industry gets next to nothing. It is so important, Mr. Speaker, that we combat the way that this industry is being portrayed as the industry of the past rather than the industry of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I know well the history of shipbuilding in my district, and if time permitted today I could certainly provide this hon. House with the year by year history, from 1718 to this present day. One thing remains unchanged, Mr. Speaker, the history of shipbuilding has been one of peaks and valleys, one of boom and bust.

Mr. Speaker, prior to my being elected to government in 1996, I served the people of Marystown for sixteen years as a member of council and deputy mayor. The Marystown Shipyard was always a number one issue on our agenda in all meetings of council. I was hopeful, the councils on the Burin Peninsula were hopeful, and the shipyard unions were hopeful, that when the shipyard was sold to Friede Goldman in 1997 things would really happen. Every search for information on this company from all stakeholders, government, unions, even the media, indicated that this sale would be a major breakthrough for the Marystown Shipyard. There was a high level of confidence that Friede Goldman would play a led role in the economy of the Burin Peninsula and of this Province for many years, well beyond the commitment specified in it's contract.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that was the company's intent at that time. There was no way at that time that FGN could have known the stroke of bad luck that lay in wait for them. It is my hope that the company will recover, but regardless of what the turn of events may be at this time the fact remains that we still have a state-of-the-art facility in Marystown located in one of the most sheltered, deepest, ice free ports in all of the eastern seaboard, a facility that is ideally posed to reap benefits from the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, while this document is obviously a step forward, I would like to see a policy that is even more firm in protecting our Canadian shipyard industry, one more closely in line with the Jones Act. One thing that we do know for certain, Mr. Speaker, unless a shipbuilding policy is adopted, and adopted soon, it will not make any difference who operates our yards. They simply just will not be able to compete.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are duty bound to impress upon our federal government in Ottawa the need to recognize that shipbuilding and marine construction should be an area where we have a strategic advantage; an industry where we should be leading the world. As I stated in the motion, Canada has the largest marine boundary of any nation in the world. We are a major trading nation and shipping and shipbuilding should be a part of our competitive strategy.

I think it should also be noted that with the development of oil and gas resources off our coast, we should be leading the world in research and development in these areas. Mr. Speaker, despite the ups and downs, the shipyard served us well in the past and it has to be viewed for what it still can be, a strategic sector where we can lead the world.

Mr. Speaker, as a member representing a shipbuilding district, a member representing a workforce that has proven over and over that they are second to none in the universe, are urgently requesting the support of all members on this very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on this resolution that has been brought forward by the Member for Burin-Placentia West. I commend her for putting forward a resolution which means so much to the people in her district and the opportunity for people to be employed with an employer that provided them with some form of security and comfort in years gone by.

I listened to the member intently when she talked about the federal minister, Mr. John Manley, talking about the uncertainty of whether shipbuilding fits in with the modern day labour market information. That kind of concerns me because I am a great believer, Mr Speaker, that we have gone too far on the other side. I think we have gone too far training people for jobs that do not exist anymore. I will make a prediction right now that when we talk about Voisey's Bay and we talk about further development of the Churchill Falls and other projects in this Province, that if Voisey's Bay was to start tomorrow and if the development of Churchill Falls was to start tomorrow, I would suggest to people in this House that our unemployment levels would probably not be much lower than they are today. They probably would not be much lower than they are today because the basic skills of welders, pipefitters, electricians, plumbers - it seems that we have gotten away from training people for those realistic, hands-on trades - and today, when you see even smaller construction projects.

I think of what is happening out in Bull Arm right now. It is much, much reduced from what it was a few years ago when we had the Hibernia project on the go. With the small amount of construction work that is happening in this Province today, if you look and see, you will find out that we have to go outside the Province and bring in workers in order to attend to the basic hands-on skills that we need in this Province today.

Mr. Speaker, the member went on to state that on April 5 there were some recommendations a marine task force had brought forward as it relates to the shipbuilding industry. The headline at that time - following April 5, which was April 6 - was just what the doctor ordered. It came from Mr. Les Holloway, Executive Director of the Marine Workers Federation, and Mr. Wayne Butler, President of Marine Workers Union Local 20, which represents workers at the Friede Goldman Newfoundland shipyard in Marystown. He went on to talk about the recommendations being good. He thought it was going to provide some stability to the shipbuilding industry and he thought it would be able to provide, if the recommendations were implemented, some security and provide work in Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be political about this particular resolution because it is a good resolution and the member means well by it, but I think it can only be served if we convince our federal member, our federal minister in the House of Commons, who was responsible for allowing this particular group of people to go out and do some fact-finding, and bring back recommendations. So the onus right now lies with our federal minister. That is why, I guess, the member feels so helpless in bringing forward the plea and saying: Let's get on with implementing some of those recommendations so that we might be able to provide some gainful employment on the Burin Peninsula.

MR. TULK: What do you think of the recommendations?

MR. FITZGERALD: Some of the recommendations were good, I say to you. Some of the recommendations were very good.

I read part of the submission that was put forward for some of the recommendations. I thought that some of them might work, but it all goes back to the commitment to get work at Marystown. Right now, there is a big question in Marystown with Friede Goldman. There is a problem in Marystown right now with us not even knowing if the assets are going to be able to -

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the hon. member a question on that. I do this, not in a political sense, but he has obviously read part of the report. I suspect he has read the recommendations. I wonder if he could comment - if there are some recommendations that he does not like, if he could explain why not? I read the report -

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quizzing me, I guess, to see if I am telling the truth about reading the recommendations and this sort of thing, but I am going to speak on the resolution that was brought forward by the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

I say to the member, I say to the minister, just last year myself and the member happened to be up in Nova Scotia attending a public accounts committee forum. Part of the welcome to Halifax, Nova Scotia was a little trip, I say to the member, out on the harbour on a beautiful day. If you want to see the difference in the amount of work that is coming to this Province by the federal government and the amount of work that is going to Halifax by the federal government, then that little tour through that harbour, that day, told the whole story.

I risk in saying that there were at least thirty naval vessels belonging to the federal government, being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador, that were in Halifax harbour that particular day. They all were not there getting repaired. They all were not there getting a motor done or getting some repairs done to the shaft or the propellor, but I bet there were fifteen of them there getting repaired. I bet you there were fifteen of them there in Halifax harbour, that particular day, being serviced by the shipyard in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Sinful. It is ridiculous, I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I said to the member at that time: Just think what we could do if we had one of those vessels.

Do you know what happens here, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you how many naval vessels that we see here. If there is a naval vessel that comes into St. John's harbour - usually you listen to the radio in the morning and it is probably the top story on the radio, that we are going to have a navy ship come into St. John's harbour. We are going to open it up to the public to be able to go aboard and see what the Canadian Navy is all about. That is how popular, and that is how common, I should say, naval ships are here in this Province; not only in St. John's harbour, but you do not see them in Marystown as well.

Is it fair that we cannot access some of this work? Is it fair that our neighbouring States south of the border, the United States of America, can implement an act called The Jones Act, which in essence says that all ships built or repaired has to be done in the United States of America if it is connected with the home trade, if it is connected serving the United States of America. You do not see the United States going out getting ships built in Norway or up in Marystown. Why can't we have similar proposals here? If we are not going to protect our own industries, if we are not going to protect our own people, then how do we expect to survive?

The minister talked about being at the airport and seeing some of the people leave and go away. I can relate to all that as well. I know exactly what she is saying. Not only are you losing people, not only are you losing numbers, but you are losing skills as well.

My understanding is that the Marystown Shipyard has some of the most skillful people in the world. My understanding is, the reason Marystown Shipyard is not getting work is not because we do not have the skills, and not because we do not have the work etiquettes; it is because of one thing, and one thing only. The commitment and support and subsidization is not there to allow it to happen. It is not uncommon, I say to you, for the shipping industry to be subsidized.

In fact, on April 12, just seven days after the marine task force presented this report, the Premier of the Province came out and said: Government is prepared to put up millions in financial incentives to help Friede Goldman secure contracts to build a couple of offshore vessels at the Marystown Shipyard.

I ask the member if she asked her own Premier about his commitment to this shipyard. I ask the member if she had gone to the Premier of the Province and said: Premier, on April 12 you talked about providing millions of dollars to Marystown Shipyard - right here for all to see - where is that commitment?

While the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology sits there and says: Don't you worry about the assets of Marystown Shipyard, I am not sure it is enough for the minister to shout that out and say: Do not worry about it. We are looking after it.

We trusted the minister and we trusted the people opposite to protect those assets from the very beginning. We trusted them, as a government, to go and sign a deal in order to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of assets for one measly dollar, allowed them to use a million plus dollars in operating capital as well, that was in a bank account for operating capital.

MR. TULK: What a falsehood (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not a falsehood. It was $750,000, and I think there was extra money there besides.

Mr. Speaker, we trusted them then and what did they do? They did not protect the assets, and right now the people in Marystown are not only out of work but they are scared of what might happen to those particular assets if the government does not step in and protect them.

The minister says: Don't worry about it, we will protect them. If we have to bring in legislation, we will. If we have to cancel the contract, we will.

The people are waiting and I hope you will, Minister. I know what it is to see an industry in downturn, and so do you.

MR. TULK: Who do you think you are, to stand up there and say: Oh, I know (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am repeating what the member said. You had better look behind your back if you are going to talk like that. I am repeating her words. I have seen it happen. Unfortunately, a lot of the people on the Burin Peninsula do not have the comfort of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, to be at the end of their career. A lot of the people there, when they are unemployed, they are unemployed. They are not able to reach back and say, I am going to be okay; because they are not okay.

We are looking for ferries for our Province. We are looking for ferries to provide the needs of the portion of the Island that we live on. What is wrong with going to Marystown? What is wrong with going to Marystown and getting some of those ferries built?

My understanding is that every time we want a ferry, we bring it back. We go over to Norway, and we go over to some other places in Western Europe, buy ferries and bring them over here and have them serviced. I don't know how many go to Marystown.

I imagine the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will speak on this particular resolution. When he does, I would like for him to answer a question, because I am not so sure how it works. That is why I ask. I know that we are talking about a smaller scale. When we drive along the waterfront here in the city - I drive down many times, in fact, at least three times a week - and I see the shipyard and I see the dockyard there with probably 400 or 500 people working almost at a steady pace. It seems there is lots of work on the go here at the St. John's Dockyard. But, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in Marystown today the only people who are working there are people doing maintenance on the buildings that are there.

A few years ago when we opened the Cow Head facility, it was built and opened to service the offshore industry. It was built to create some new hopes and to create some new employment opportunities for Marystown. You go down there today and all you see is a couple of cranes just lying dormant there, nothing happening. The St. John's Dockyard seems to be doing well. I do not know why Marystown cannot compete for some of this work, or if it is not the type of work that they do. I would like for the minister to answer that because I do not know. I do not know, but I suggest - and I understand my time is up, Mr. Speaker - I suggest to the member that she work and not be one bit bashful about approaching the Minister of Industry in order to bring about some of the rules, some of the suggestions that this marine task force has brought forward. I understand that they are workable solutions, according to the president of the union down in Marystown. It can certainly be helpful in order to allow that particular shipyard to compete and again employ people there; because if we do not continue to build on the strengths that we have in some of those rural areas, and especially the shipbuilding industry on the Burin Peninsula, the fishery on the Burin Peninsula, as well as others, then how can we expect our rural communities and the rural areas of this Province to survive?

Mr. Speaker, I think there are opportunities there. I think that this government, the provincial government, can direct work to that particular facility. If the Premier of the day was going to direct millions of dollars there back on April 12, one month ago, in order to generate and secure work there, then there is no reason -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: - then there is no reason why the member should bypass our Premier as well, to make sure that some of this work and some of this money goes there in order to sustain the Marystown Shipyard and in order to generate some activity on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

I commend the member for bringing forward the resolution, and hopefully we will see some employment generated by the actions of both levels of government for this particular facility.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying that I want first of all to congratulate my colleague from Burin-Placentia West on the resolution that she has put forward here, calling upon the Government of Canada to indeed act and act quickly to implement the recommendations in the Report of the National Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Partnership, called Breaking Through.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the hon. gentleman, and answer a couple of questions that were raised by the Opposition critic on Industry, Trade and Rural Development. He says: Where is the government's commitment that was made on April 12? - the Opposition House Leader, I want to educate his friend. It is hard to do when he is listening, let alone when he is not.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to him that commitment that was made by the Premier regarding Marystown was put in place last fall. It is still there and it will be used if it can - and it was put there to level the playing field, as the union knows. They are aware of it, and the shipyard is aware of it. It was put there to level the playing field, to level the subsidies that are being paid by other shipyards in Canada; not in Europe, not in Korea, but in Canada. It was put there to level the playing field, to see that Marystown had a competitive chance to land a contract for which they were negotiating; and that commitment is still there, I say to the hon. gentleman. Let me put that very clearly to him.

Now, in terms of the assets of Marystown, first of all he starts off and says they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I have to say to him, that is a little bit of an exaggeration.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not what I said. I said, in excess of $100 million.

MR. TULK: Maybe it was in excess, but that in itself is a little bit of an exaggeration; but, the hon. gentleman is prone to that. He is prone to making statements that are exaggerated. When he gets past that, the next thing he stands up, wraps himself in the flag, and says: I am the protector of Newfoundland and Labrador and nobody else is.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House - there is not a person in this House -

MR. FITZGERALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not always rise on points of order; but it is important, when people are speaking in this House, especially a Minister of the Crown, if he is going to repeat something that was said - and Hansard will show - that he get his facts right. What I stated was that the assets there are worth in excess of $100 million. My understanding is, they are. And this member was not wrapping himself in the flag. This member was merely reacting to a statement that was made by the Member for Burin-Placentia West when she talked about seeing her people leaving the Province and being hurt by unemployment. I can relate to that just as well as other members here. It has nothing to do with wrapping yourself in the flag, or saying I am the only one experiencing it. I was one among the many, I say to the member opposite. Don't get up and try to patronize me by saying that you are the only person who knows this, or don't think that you are the only one to recognize it.

MR. TULK: What are you upset about?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that he is not the only person in this Province who can wrap himself in the flag and call themselves good, rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, or good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Everybody in this House, I say to him, fits that category. Don't do disservice to anybody, either on his own side or on this side. Stick with the facts and he will be okay.

Mr. Speaker, let me get to the resolution. This is a great report. It is one of the best reports, I believe, that has ever been done by a committee that was set up. I congratulate the former Premier of the Province, and after he became Industry Minister, for having the intestinal fortitude to take on what is a thorny problem in Canada. As the Member for Burin-Placentia West says, there is a belief in Canada, especially in Central Canada, that the shipbuilding industry is an outmoded industry, that it is an industry of the past. That is not the case. The shipbuilding industry is one of the most technologically advanced industries in the world; but, because it is associated with the sea, then I suppose some of those people in Central Canada believe that it must be outmoded. I suppose they somehow connect it to, I don't know, history past or something.

I want to congratulate the minister for doing what he did, for having the fortitude to take it on. I am sure that in the coming days ahead we will see him push to see that the recommendations are made part of the fabric of Canadian society. I would hope that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that I also want to congratulate the people who sat on this board. They did an excellent job. They did not go out and say, we want to be subsidized. In spite of the fact that if you look today, Korea subsidizes its shipbuilding industry by 40 per cent, and the European economic community subsidizes its shipbuilding industry anywhere from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, and in spite of the fact that in the U.S. you have The Jones Act, which says that any ship that is used to transport U.S. goods, in U.S. waters, must be built in the U.S.A. - none of that - they did not say, we want you to subsidize the shipbuilding industry. They have not said that to the Government of Canada. They have not said, we want you to pour in millions of dollars. What they have done is suggested that under the tax acts that we have, under the Income Tax Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act - what they have done is said to the Canadian government: we want you to give us the kind of tax breaks - not the correct word; I am searching for a word here - we want you to set up a system of taxation of the shipbuilding industry that levels out the playing field. So they have not asked for subsidies. If anybody in Canada thinks they are asking for subsidies, they are not. This is not a case of somebody in Atlantic Canada or a group of Atlantic Canadians getting together and saying: We want you - with a hand out. This is a group of people saying: We want a hand up. We want the ability to be competitive in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: A level playing field.

MR. TULK: A level playing field. That's what we want, and the recommendations speak to that. They say: Let us use our interest rates. Let us use our interest rates by taking longer periods of amortization by decreasing the interest rates on the shipbuilding industry. Let us use a model that builds in the contributions that the shipbuilding industry makes to Canada. Let us use our offshore resources.

Everybody knows in this House that the Supreme Court of Canada, not the Government of Canada, made a ruling - I think it was in 1989 or 1988 when the Peckford government was in place. I do not dispute what the Peckford government tried to do in this case. The issue of who owns Canada's offshore was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not blame them for doing it. As a matter of fact, I think I supported it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who argued for Canada?

MR. TULK: Never mind who argued for Canada. We know who it was. It is not important. The truth of matter is that we lost the court case. The offshore oil in this Province was passed over to the Canadian government by the Supreme Court of Canada. So the truth of the matter is that, technically, we do not own it. Right here we feel we do, but technically, legally, I say to the lawyers in the House: They got us again.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this report says to the Government of Canada: Put in place a system that allows us to compete even for shipbuilding for resources that are off our own coasts.

We have groups, if you look today. If you look at some of the names on some of the ships - and I have learned this since last fall. I have to say to you, since I had this chance to be Premier of the Province for four or five months, I saw it. Today we have ships in this Province that are being used in the offshore, that are being used and built by companies that are also involved in developing the offshore. It is there. Surely, the Government of Canada has to move to make a level playing field for us to compete.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take any longer because I understand there are other people who want to speak. Generally, I want to say this: That I support what the Member for Bonavista South said, when he said that in terms of the skills, in terms of the ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially in the Marystown area, to compete in terms of the skills. Let us wipe that out of our minds. Let's only look at what happened to the - what was the name of the boat for Terra Nova? Does anybody remember?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TULK: The FPSO for Terra Nova. Was there a name on it when it came here? It came from Korea. A great deal of money was spent by the Terra Nova proponents to correct - hundreds of millions of dollars I believe, if I am not mistaken - what had been built in Korea.

MR. FITZGERALD: And they delayed the project (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Delayed the project. It has probably been delayed for four or five months because of it. So let nobody doubt the skills of Canadian shipbuilders. Let nobody doubt the skills of the people in Marystown. Let nobody doubt their productivity. They are at their peak and they do well. But the truth of the matter is, that we are competing on a playing field that is like that. We are not only competing with some of our own, we have governments in Atlantic Canada - I stand to be corrected on it, but I am under the impression that two weeks ago the Government of Nova Scotia subsidized a boat to the tune of, guaranteed, 87 per cent of the finance. Mr. Speaker, our shipbuilders cannot compete with that. What they said to us and said to the Canadian government is: Make it level so that we are all on a competitive playing field, and don't do it through subsidies. Set up the tax system - if you read the report, and I have read it. I have to say to you, I read it the first night I got it because I recognized the people who sat on it were people who knew the shipbuilding industry, and at the time - and I am still involved with it - I was involved with the Marystown people.

MR. FITZGERALD: That was one of the recommendations of the report, if I recall correctly. (Inaudible) involved in changing the way the taxation is done -

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, that is the real backbone of the report. The real backbone of the report is that you change the taxation system and that you amortize stuff, lower some interest rates, bring them down to industrial competitive rates, and use the EDC to see that we stay competitive with the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I read the report and I have to say it is one of the finest reports that I have ever read. I think it speaks to the issues. I think the people who put it together did a great job, and I congratulate them. I say to my friend from Burin-Placentia West, if we could only get this implemented. If we could only get the federal government to come to the table and see that this is done in the right fashion and see that the recommendations of this report are implemented, I say to her, that I believe in five or six years time you will have no concern about Marystown being operating because it is one of the most modern shipyards in Eastern Canada. I suppose it is one of the most modern on the Eastern Seaboard. Probably one of the most modern in the world, I do not know, but I know it is one of the most modern in Eastern Canada. I have heard that phrase on a number of occasions.

There is no reason, absolutely no reason, if this report were implemented - we would not have the concerns about Marystown today if this report were in place. I can say to you that if we can get this report in place - and over the next four or five years see that the recommendations are implemented by the federal government and the effects of them are felt throughout the economy - I believe the people of Marystown will not have to have the kind of fear and suffering, and torment and torture to their soul that they have gone through ever since that shipyard was built; because its future was always uncertain. It had nothing to do with their productivity. It had nothing to do with their ability to build boats but it had to do with an un-level playing field, a playing field in this world that was not level. That is what needs to be done.

This report needs to be implemented and I hope that everybody in this House unanimously supports the resolution put forward by the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the member speaks now she concludes the debate.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise and close this debate today, and to thank the hon. members for their support. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bonavista South and his reference to the tour we took of Halifax harbour and all of the activity that was happening there as a result of all of the defense work that is happening in Halifax. That was quite timely.

I did not mention it when I spoke earlier today, but on May 3, I wrote the Federal Minister of Industry and I made reference - I made a plea in fact, Mr. Speaker, to the minister telling him of the conditions in my district and asking him if he would move, and move quickly, to try and secure some of this defense work for Marystown. I made reference to the amount of defense dollars that is going into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the need to have these dollars spent here at home. I am still waiting a reply. The letter went out on May 3.

I also ask all members in this House today, Opposition and the members on this side of the House alike, that if any of you know of any contact whatsoever that could help in securing work for Marystown, I am certainly not too political or too proud to take advice from anyone, anyplace. Marystown is my community and I will be living there long after, I hope, my political years.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the hon. Minister of Industry in Ottawa is intent on ensuring that this shipbuilding policy goes through, but we all have to continue to lobby our federal members to make sure that there are no further delays.

Before I conclude, I want to express a special word of thanks to our provincial Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and his Deputy Minister, John Scott, as well as the other members of the staff, for their continuous cooperation and assistance, especially during those past months. I want to thank the Premier for his assistance in attempting to resolve the current situation with Friede Goldman, and also the president of Local 20, and the executive, for working with me to try and find solutions.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank all members here today, the hon. Opposition members, for speaking with genuine concern for the people of the Burin Peninsula whose livelihoods depend on the future of the shipyard and on a shipbuilding policy to ensure that there is a fair playing field on the global market.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you,.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further debate, is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

MR. LUSH: Could we record that it was a unanimous vote, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried unanimously.

This being Wednesday, the House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.