Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 9 May 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 23)
2001-05-09
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 9, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 23
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
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!
Statements by Ministers
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
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.
Oral Questions
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
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!
Notices of Motion
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.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
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!
Petitions
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!
Orders of the Day
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
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
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
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
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.