March 29, 2000 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to offer congratulations and

extend best wishes to Stewart and Margaret Williamson of Labrador

City who will be celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary

on March 31, 2000.

Stewart and Margaret both were born in

Montreal, but Margaret spent most of her younger years in British

Columbia. Both are veterans of World War II. Margaret served in

the Navy and was stationed here in St. John's, while Stewart

served in Africa, Italy and Holland. They first met after the war

while playing tennis in Montreal where, according to Margaret,

both of them were on the rebound. They married in 1950 and moved

to Quebec City and later to other communities, but came to

Labrador City in 1965 and have resided there since. Stewart was

employed by the Iron Ore Company of Canada as a blasting

supervisor and Margaret worked in the engineering department of

the Iron Ore Company.

Since living in Labrador City both Stewart and

Margaret have been involved in our community, volunteering time

to such worthwhile causes as the golf club, the curling club,

minor hockey, Cadets, and visual arts. Margaret is currently a

member of Crime Stoppers, the Steering Committee for Big

Brothers-Big Sisters and the SPCA. Both are very proud members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Both are very proud members

of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 47 in Labrador City.

They have two daughters, Jackie, who is

employed with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in Labrador

West, and Deschenec who resides in Grande Cache, Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure this House joins me in

congratulating Stewart and Margaret on their golden wedding

anniversary and wishing them the best for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in

this hon. House today to pay tribute to a gentleman whose

untiring efforts for his people go far beyond all expectations, a

gentleman who has been riding an emotional roller coaster for the

past several months as a result of problems in his district,

problems that we can all sympathize with and hope we will never

have to contend with.

He's jolly, he's thoughtful,

undaunted and giving

His dream for his people an Improved Way of

Living

But oft times his laughter, his wit and his

joys

Are replaced by a faint heart and tears in his

eyes

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

A government member doing all that he can

From the breaking of dawn to well into the

night

His service an honor each effort a delight

He speaks with deep passion his many concerns

To all who are willing to listen or learn

Of a heritage proud - Of a culture so strong

Yet problems so many - A lifestyle gone wrong

He cries for the children - Then digs in his

heels

Increases his efforts in hopes it will yield -

Some Rainbow of Promise - Some measure of Hope

His vision Revival - A Kaleidoscope

Awareness has mounted - Powers brought on side

Emerging from gloom there's a strained

sense of pride

But with new infrastructure one sees at a

glance

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

real chance

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

My colleague and friend we support you and pray

That God in His wisdom will show you the way

One thing being for certain - All good that

will come

Bares with it all credit for Wally Andersen

Wally, you have opened our eyes and touched our

hearts. May God bless you and your people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am

extremely pleased to inform Members of the House of Assembly that

our government has bid successfully to provide the services of

two of its CL-215 water bombers to North Carolina's

Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Earlier this spring, Newfoundland and Labrador

successfully outbid the governments of Quebec, Ontario and

Manitoba, as well as a group from Bombardier Aerospace, for the

contract, valued at $140,700 US per aircraft. This amount is

guaranteed, regardless of whether or not the planes are used

while stationed in North Carolina. Right now, we are projecting a

net revenue of $60,000 US per aircraft, but depending on the

usage of the planes this amount could be much higher. This will

be the third consecutive year that we have provided this service.

The length of the contract is sixty-seven days,

and in fact, the aircraft began their service to North Carolina

on March 15. Scheduled to return in late May, the planes will be

back long before our fire season begins. Currently, one aircraft

is stationed at Lumberton Airport, and the other at Jacksonville

Airport.

This contract makes good business sense for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. By providing the use of our

water bombers to North Carolina, we benefit on two fronts. First

and foremost, we profit from aircraft which would otherwise be

parked idle at this time of year. Secondly, the possibility

exists that we might, at some point, use some of their aircraft

during our peak fire season. The Department of Works, Services

and Transportation, in conjunction with the Department of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods, is proud to be a part of this

initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Our main concern on this side of the House is

that our water bombers are available in this Province for our

people when the fire season is upon us. That is our main concern.

I see this is the third consecutive year that it went to the

lowest bidder, which is good to see that the process is working

when it comes to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Whether it is the

best bang for the buck or not, the minister says it is and we

hope it is, but we reiterate that our main concern and purpose is

that those bombers are ready for this Province when we need them

here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. We too agree that this is making good sense. It

provides an opportunity for us to utilize our water bombers in a

manner that generates revenue for this Province while at the same

time providing the much needed service in other areas. At the end

of May the water bombers will be back as the statement says. Our

fire season shouldn't be started before that, and they will

be here to provide this service when it is needed. So I

congratulate the minister on his initiative and his good work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of my counterpart, the Minister

of Health and Community Services, I am pleased to inform hon.

members today that the Province has provided $500,000 to the new

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research at

Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: The Centre is an independent

research institute which reports to a Management Committee

representing the University, the Department of Health and

Community Services and the health boards. The Centre will develop

linkages with other similar research units elsewhere in Canada

and play a role on national research panels and associations.

The new Newfoundland Centre will focus on

‘applied' health research, that is, research using

utilization data that is directly relevant to public policy

making in health, health care, community services, health

promotion, prevention and community health. Its mission will be

to interact with policy makers in government and in the health

system to develop a research agenda that responds to their needs.

The Centre will assist government in making

"evidence-based" health decisions.

The health sector will benefit from being able

to make decisions that take into consideration up-to-date data on

the health status and health needs of the population, on the

changing demographic and economic context, and on the relative

effectiveness and costs of different approaches to a given

problem.

The $500,000 provided by the Department of

Health and Community Services will be used on both infrastructure

and research activities. I am pleased that a key objective of the

Centre will be to make the results of its research available to

all stakeholders - policy makers in government and health care

system, health care professionals, associations and groups, and

the public at large.

A key aspect of the Centre's mission is to

seek external funds for health research; in particular, the

Centre will target the expanded federal funding that will be

available through the new Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

By funding interdisciplinary research teams, by building research

partnerships between academic researchers and community

organizations and government agencies, and by using provincial

funding as leverage, the Centre hopes to make possible a

substantial increase in the amount of federal health research

funding coming into the Province.

Increased research on subjects identified as

priorities by health policy makers can mean more efficient use of

provincial resources, better identification of needs and

therefore better delivery of services for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to see the Province

putting $500,000 to assist in applied health research. I might

add, the centre for health information has struggled for some

time trying to bend government's ear to put money into

systems that would increase the efficiency and delivery of health

care, to cut down duplication of the system, to make access to

records and other information that could expedite and make lean

and streamline the system here in our Province.

We have not received our proportion of shares

of research even on a pure research basis, not only applied

research but on a pure research basis across this country. Our

Province has only about 50 per cent per capita of the federal

jobs as they have in the rest of Canada; our research even lags

further and further behind.

I would also encourage the minister to look at

opportunities here to get on stream in pure research in certain

areas that can be beneficial. For instance, I will use a few

examples here: our Province was late getting on steam with MS

drugs, schizophrenia, after many other provinces were pushing. I

have raised the issue on aricept, for example, Alzheimer's,

that can save considerable dollars here in our system.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in

the research here in our Province because our Province is the

last one to come on stream. When you are an initiator, you move

forward, you are innovative in the approach to government, you

access the research dollars that companies are using; we maximize

jobs here for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in research, and

we allow our graduate students to stay here instead of having to

go off to Dalhousie and McGill and other parts of Canada to get

the jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker,

just to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? Okay.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly support the initiative to increase

the applied health research in this Province. The area of

community services, health promotion, prevention and community

health are very, very important and much improvement can be done

to both improve the health of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador as well as, in the long term, save money for our health

care system.

What is also important is that this government

act on the knowledge that they already have. For example,

programs which are used as pilot programs such as the Brighter

Futures programs for young mothers or mothers at risk, which

provides adequate nutrition and support for people while they are

pregnant. It shouldn't be operated as a pilot program, but

should be available throughout the Province to provide better

outcomes in increased birth weight and better futures for the

children who are born in these circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of

Health and Community Services. There is a serious shortage, as I

am sure the minister is aware, of nurses, LPNs, speech

pathologists and physiotherapists. In fact, all allied health

professionals are in serious shortage now at the Miller Centre,

and this shortage is affecting both inpatient and outpatient

services now provided at the Miller Centre.

I want to ask the minister: What is being done

by the department to address this severe shortage now that is

causing serious problems in the treatment of many medical

problems of citizens of our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as members

opposite as well as the general public at large are well aware,

there are specific areas of the health professions where there

are indeed shortages, and that shortage not only exists here in

this Province but it exists right across the country.

At the present time, government is conducting a

classification review which affects not only the nursing

occupations but also includes the licensed practical nurses and

many of the other specialists such as the one that the member

opposite has referenced. We have undertaken significant measures

around retention bonuses to try and keep nurses here in the

Province as well, so we have a very comprehensive strategy to try

and address the variety of shortages that are being experienced.

It is a complex problem, it is one that is not only affecting

this Province, and it is one that we will continue to work on as

I am sure we work together across the country with other

provinces as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a problem that I have seen get worse

since I have come in here. I have not seen it improve. It has

been over eight years now and it has not gotten better. It has

gotten worse, I say to the minister.

I spoke with a family this week of a

fifty-four-year-old woman who suffered a stroke last November and

she has been in hospital in Placentia since that time. This lady

lost her speech and has been waiting since December to get

admitted to the Miller Centre for speech therapy. Her doctor and

specialist say that immediate intervention is important for her

to regain her speech. The only therapy she gets is being put in

an ambulance in Placentia every two weeks and brought in here for

one session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask

him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does she consider it

appropriate to delay essential treatment for months where a total

or even a partial recovery can never occur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would expect

that, with the health boards across this Province, they are

trying their very best to provide the highest level of service

possible with the resources they have. I cannot comment on

individual cases, but certainly if there are concerns that the

member has, I would expect that he could address those to the

boards in question.

As I say, the boards have the resources; they

have the human resources to disperse as best they can to meet the

needs that exist in their regions of the Province. If there are

any particular problems that people are experiencing, the most

productive and effective route to channel those in the first

instance is to the boards in question so that they can try and

look at: Are there any particular issues that need to be

addressed?

Overall, the boards, like ourselves, are trying

to examine what the needs are and trying our best to gather the

resources to do those.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already done that and spoke with people

in supervisory capacities there. There is nothing they can do,

because the resources come from the Province. The wages are set,

the positions have to be filled, and when people are not taking

the positions at a lower level they cannot get the people to work

there.

A lack of health care professionals, I might

add, is also impacting on the recovery of cancer patients who

need therapy, and they cannot get scheduled timely around their

chemo treatments. Now, delays in therapy go counter to the adage

that a stitch in time saves nine. I might say that early

intervention has proven to be the most cost-efficient in the

treatment of medical problems.

I ask the minister: Why is this government not

getting the message of putting increased emphasis on early

intervention, on prevention and health care promotion, or does

the minister still believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a

pound of cure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't

see how the member opposite could stand and indicate at this

point that government does not see the value of prevention. In

today's sitting of the House I have read a statement on

behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Health, which has

dedicated $500,000 to applied research. One of the primary

reasons for doing that was because we recognized the value of

that kind of research in addressing preventive health issues.

We have identified in our Strategic Social Plan

that one of the major thrusts to address social development in

this Province is to focus our resources in the area of

prevention. We realize that there will always be issues and

resources that we have to expend on current issues and on current

emergencies, but we are trying to balance our expenditure of

resources so that we can address preventive issues in health and

in other areas of expenditures across government.

Certainly, prevention is a major priority with

this government. I think many of the things we have done, as a

government, over the past year have reflected that very

appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, I guess, makes reference that it

is not only us facing the problems, but I think it is not our

concern as a Province how they solve it in Ontario or any other

part of the country. Our concern is here.

I ask the minister: Why are there empty beds?

For example, right now there are empty beds at the Leonard A.

Miller Centre and there are people out in hospitals, costing

immense dollars per day, since last November in hospitals in this

Province, waiting to get therapy, people in areas where they

cannot advance and move on with their physio, with their speech

therapy and other areas, when there are empty beds in the Leonard

A. Miller Centre because the resources or the appropriate

compensation has not been put there to attract people. That, to

me, is appropriate (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: -when that happens. Why, I

ask the minister, are you allowing this to happen if you are so

dedicated to prevention and to early intervention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure

where the member opposite got the reference to Ontario. We are

going back to the first question which was, in fact, when I said

that a shortage of specialists in the health profession is not in

fact something that is unique to this Province. That is a fact;

everybody recognizes it. If we are talking prevention and early

intervention, I am saying that, as this Province, we have

demonstrated time and time again through the violence prevention

strategy, through our Strategic Social Plan, through dedicating

resources to the School Lunch Program, through dedicating

resources today to applied research, that we not only say there

is a priority for prevention; we actually use our resources to

the best of our ability in that manner.

We are addressing the shortages in the health

professions. We are conducting a classification review which we

hope will help resolve that matter. We will continue to dedicate

our efforts in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the

Premier both agree that DFO must err on the side of conservation

in setting the 2000 quota for crab. Will the minister tell the

House specifically what advice he is giving the federal Minister

of Fisheries with regard to the crab quota for this season?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all,

the issue that hon. gentleman is talking about, the

responsibility lies within the Department of DFO. Naturally, the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada will make the

final decision.

From time to time, we have consultations with

all aspects of the industry. I have been very clear from day one,

not only on crab but all species, that conservation comes first

above everything else, and whatever final decision comes out of

the consultation with industry and the officials of DFO, the

managers of the resource, based on information from science -

this is where we begin, based on information from science - I

will fully support whatever science puts forth to the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday

DFO scientists told the industry representatives that recruitment

of snow crab was down by approximately 45 per cent from last

year.

Since the minister's advice is that, if

there is any doubt, DFO should err on the side of conservation, I

would to ask the minister: What relationship does he think should

exist between the cut in quota and the decline in the

recruitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all,

the problem that we are having is the recruitment. There are no

young crab coming behind the commercial crab that is out there.

Scientists have said that there is about a three-year biomass

left, and crab lives three years after it reaches a commercial

size. So, even if you went to the extreme in taking that all of

that crab - they will die anyhow in three years time - it is

necessary to try to help the recruitment come along to keep a

significant number of crab left in the water, male versus female.

What they have suggested to do is not cut the

stocks 45 per cent. They said that there is a 45 per cent decline

in the overall biomass, so some adjustment will have to be made

between the amount that is caught, the amount that is left in the

ocean, according to the recruitment that is coming behind. I

suspect they will do more surveys this year during the catching

season, and during the trawl survey this fall, to find out how

that is actually working.

I will leave the decisions of how it should be

working, the quotas that should be cut, the amount of biomass

that should be taken out of the waters this year, I will leave

that up to the scientists and DFO. When they make their

recommendation, when they send their message forth after

consultation with the industry, we, as a government, will give it

our full support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Surely, Minister, you

must have been having some correspondence with scientists and

your federal cousins up in Ottawa. People are looking to you for

leadership here. People are looking to you to make sure that

whatever the federal minister decides is in their best interest

and in the interest of the local industry.

Don't they have a right to know what you

are telling your federal cousin in Ottawa? Don't you have an

obligation to let them know? Minister, they are waiting to hear

from you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't

know where my hon. colleague on the opposite side of the House

has been for the last four years. I think, as a government, we

have been showing a great deal of leadership in the fisheries

consultation in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: A great deal of leadership,

much more than was ever shown in the past by the former members.

We didn't build the seventy-five plants

that his leader proposed in a recent election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We started off with 245 fish

plants; now we have fifty-seven core plants.

Let's get to the issue at hand. I have

said very clearly in every statement I have made in the last two

months, in the last year, in the last four years since I became

minister: Conservation is the number one issue which we will

apply to every decision on every species of fish. Economics,

demand and the need of fishermen will be second. Conservation is

the key measure.

I have said that in speech after speech, in

interview after interview, on the Fishermen's Broadcast, and

on every forum that I can get in this Province. I have said it

and I will keep saying it - for the fishermen.

The hon. member was down at Forum 2000. He was

there when scientists made their presentation. He was there when

fishermen stood at the microphone and supported scientists and

said: We must err on the side of caution. We want the fishery for

the long term, even if we have to suffer some short-term pain for

some long-term gain.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Nobody will disagree

with what the minister is saying. My question is very simple: As

the minister, the first minister responsible for this industry in

the Province, will you let this House know, and will you let the

industry know, what your recommendation is going to be to your

federal cousin in Ottawa? It is as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: There is something wrong

with your hearing, definitely something wrong. I have said it -

this is the third time. I said it today, right now, since I stood

on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're saying it

til you're blue in the face.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, God, no! Red in the

face, not blue.

Mr. Speaker, I will send the same message to

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans again as I already have. We

were down at a meeting in Boston where people from the industry

sat at the same table, had lunch, and we discussed concerns over

the crab stocks. We all agreed that we must wait for the

scientists to complete their review, compile all of the

information, then have the consultations with the people in the

industry, as is taking place now. The final meeting will be

Friday, and when we get all that information the message that

will go forth to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada

will be what I have said - this is the third time in the last

five minutes - whatever science recommends, we will support.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions

today are for the Minister of Education. Minister, this morning

on CBC Radio, a member of the Avalon East School Board revealed

that the board had decided to put well-behaved French Immersion

students into Holy Heart School in a desperate attempt to reduce

discipline problems at the school. Can the minister offer a

better solution for schools that have severe behavior problems,

or a better way to treat French Immersion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what I heard this

morning was the opinion of one trustee. It certainly wasn't

the chair of the school board. I have no idea if what the trustee

is putting forward - what in fact the rationale is for putting

French Immersion students into Holy Cross. I would expect that is

not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Minister, mixing

student populations is certainly no solution. Inner city schools

have a high concentration of students with behavioural and

learning difficulties, and the schools lack the professional

resources necessary to cope with these particular needs.

Minister, you cut $11 million from the 2000

Budget for primary, elementary and secondary schools. Why

didn't you allocate some of that money to provide the

specialist personnel and services the schools desperately need to

deal with the learning and behaviour problems these children

bring to school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite knows that the fact there is $11 million out of the

system is because we went from twenty-seven school boards down to

eleven. We saw a savings in terms of the administration cost.

Now, if you want to talk about reinvesting money back into the

system, we have done just that. In fact, we have maintained the

operating funding for all of the school boards even though we

have significant reduction in student enrollment, even though we

have fewer buildings in the system, and we are continuing to

reinvest to the tune of $125 million to ensure that our students

have clean, safe learning environments in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to

look at the type of supports we have in our education system, we

are far above the national average when it comes to the number of

guidance teachers in our system. In fact, our student teacher

ratio is better than the Canadian average. So if you want to talk

about investment in education, talk about what this government is

doing, not about what we are not doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the

hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, again I talk

about the $11 million from last year's Budget and this

year's Budget that has been taken away from the primary,

elementary and secondary schools. There are numerous

recommendations that have been given to youth through the years.

I just referenced the 1996 Canning report. While you have

implemented some of the programs, while you have done that, you

came nowhere close to providing the resources to do the job.

I reference the special needs, minister. Why

are you continuing to ignore the plight of children in schools

that have the most desperate needs for the help only you can

provide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if there is any

area where we can stand on our record it is in the area of

special needs. We are putting $70 million into the education

system to deal with special needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can stand here

and I can rhyme off and give you reams of information about how

we have spent money or reinvested it in the system in all areas,

whether it is special needs, academically challenged or

academically bright children. We have the guidance counselors,

the psychologists, the categorical special education teachers and

the itinerant teachers. Our numbers are far in excess of what is

happening on the Canadian front. We have every reason to be proud

of our system.

We would not advocate putting any group of

children in with another group of children to try and enlarge or

deal with the problem. We do not have to, because we have put the

resources necessary into the education system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of

Health and Community Services. It concerns the home care workers

in this Province. Madame Minister, in the 1997 Budget Speech the

then-Minister of Finance stated: That $4 million dollars would be

set aside to provide, in part, worker's compensation

coverage for home care workers in this Province.

He also stated: Not only will it take care of

the home care workers, but it would also relieve the home care

recipients from the possibility of being sued in courts. I ask

the minister why this has not been done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have

made a commitment as a government to try and provide this for the

home care industry. What we have found in undertaking it,

however, and looking at it, is that is an extremely complex

issue. At the present time, the department is still reviewing and

analyzing the total impact of this and how, in fact, it could be

administered. It is under active review. There is a definite

desire and commitment on government's part to move forward.

However, we do have to have the answers to how to do this

appropriately before we can implement anything. It is under

active review. That is all I can say to the Member for Labrador

West. We are trying to look towards a solution with this.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister it has been three years

since this commitment was made by your government. I want to say

that, as far as I can see, part of the problem is making the

recipients of home care the employer. That is part of the problem

I see from the people I have talked to. I ask the minister -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: This is not a joke, I will

say to the Government House Leader.

I would ask the minister again very seriously:

Does she think it is appropriate that people who are vulnerable

and needing home care should be subject to be sued in the courts

by home care workers who are not covered under workers'

compensation? As the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women

knows, most of the home care workers in this Province are women.

Do you think they should be left without coverage? Do you feel

that the recipients of home care should be able to be possibly

sued in courts for workers being injured on their premises?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the question

here, and the issue, is not one of appropriateness. The

Department of Health and Community Services, along with my

department of Human Resources and Employment, has been working

for a number of years now to try and resolve this very issue. We

have also been working closely with the minister and the

Department of Environment and Labour.

This is not a simple issue and there are no

simple answers to it. We have consulted with the home care

industry, we have consulted with the private sector on this

issue, we have consulted in the public sector. At this point we

are still looking at the information that we have gathered,

analyzing it, and in collaboration and in consultation with all

of the stakeholders here trying to find a workable solution. That

is the issue here. It is an effort on our part to try and find

something that will work, that can respond to people who work in

the home care industry and provide them with the protection they

need. We are not going to move forward with a solution to this or

with a response that is not well thought out and well planned so

that it achieves what people want in this area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her

answer.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Last year, of course, the entire

Province watched the hoopla as the public relations campaign - I

say that in a positive way, I say to the minister - traveled this

Province, including the minister. I commend, and I have done that

publicly, the minister, the MPs, and any Newfoundlander and

Labradorian who took

part in bringing to the forefront the issue

of Marine Atlantic in this Province. We say that in a positive

way.

Also last year when this was ongoing, the

public relations campaign around On Deck and Below , even

the Minister of Tourism at time said that December 1999 was a

critical date that we know final details on exactly what would

happen in this Province with respect to Marine Atlantic.

Is the minister comfortable today, three months

later, heading into April, that with the time frame left to us

that we indeed will be ready for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

member for his sincerity and his comments about the forums that

we held across the Province. We think they were important. They

were non-partisan and we heard from the people of the Province. I

can report to him that I have had discussions with the Chairman

of Marine Atlantic. I am not at liberty to announce a federal

program, but I do know they have a long-term strategy and it is

one that I am very confident and supportive of. I do know they

have a short-term strategy, one that, actually, I find quite

exciting, and I think the hon. member will when they announce it

in ten days.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, he can be

assured that I am sincere. As a matter of fact, I attended one of

the forums in Corner Brook as many people did.

We are talking about April, just around the

corner. We are talking about a season. As the minister knows full

well, the tourist industry in this Province - I have been

contacted by many people - is very concerned at this late date.

There may be some contingency plans. We don't know what is

coming. I believe today I should ask - I have been asked to ask

the same questions on specifics - what is the name of the new

boat coming into this Province and when will the maiden voyage of

the new ferry in this Province be listed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me preface

the answer by saying that I, and I think most members in this

House, have a great deal of confidence in the reputation and

credibility of Captain Sid Hynes who is doing a superb job under

difficult circumstances. I don't think it is my place as a

provincial minister to announce a federal program, but I do know

they have purchased a vessel which is a competent and good vessel

which will suit the needs of the Gulf, and that is the long-term

strategy. I also do know that they are concluding a lease

arrangement which should be concluded within the next ten days

and that vessel can be in place for the beginning of the tourism

season. I have full assurances from Captain Hynes that it will

be.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) new boat

(inaudible)?

MR. FUREY: The new boat will be in

place, the lease arrangements will be concluded in time for the

summer season, and I think you will be very excited with this

boat as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs and they too have to deal with Marine

Atlantic. With the announcement of a new Argentia ferry last fall

many people were led to believe by MP George Baker and our own

tourism minister, Chuck Furey, that several hundred new jobs

would be created and that training for those new jobs should take

place immediately. Training did take place, and last week over

one hundred people in Placentia and Port aux Basques graduated

from the College of the North Atlantic's six-week training

course. Another two groups started Monday of this week.

I would like to ask the minister this. In light

of the fact that approximately 80 per cent of present employees,

80 per cent of the administration, are on the other side of the

Gulf, the fact that the majority of the Board of Directors are on

the other side of the Gulf, and the fact that a person must send

his or her resume to P.O. Box 2000, Sydney, Nova Scotia, and that

an advertisement in The Telegram last week called for

fluency in both languages to be required - but it was later

changed to an asset - with all of these concerns can the minister

tell this House what the provincial government is doing to ensure

that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive the full and fair

share of these jobs with Marine Atlantic?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it was a very

good start to put a competent, capable and credible

Newfoundlander as Chair of this new corporation. That was a very

good first start. I can tell the hon. member that in discussions

with the Chairman a significant sum of money is being prepared to

re-invest for service upgrade. That is one of the things we

called for in On Deck and Below , a major infusion of new

dollars for an upgrading of the service to make the service

first-class like it ought to be in the Province.

When the hon. member asks: How many jobs?, it

is difficult to actually quantify the number of jobs until the

new vessel is announced by the federal government, it is put into

service or prepared to be put into service next year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, it is not too late next

year. Then and only then can you look at determining what kinds

of jobs, what kind of service jobs and other jobs will be

available on that vessel at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Marine Atlantic Gulf ferry service exists

today because of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have heard the minister

or the Premier say that. As far as we are concerned, 100 per cent

of these new positions should go to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Due to the fact that you have to send a resume to

Nova Scotia and that many people may be ruled out because of a

French language asset, I would like to ask the minister: Can he

tell us today if the interviews will be taking place in this

Province, and will the people carrying out the interviews and

deciding who receives the jobs be Newfoundlanders or Nova

Scotians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would make a

couple of points. First of all, the hon. member should have

listened to his colleague talk about bilingualism and French

immersion a minute ago. There are thousands of Newfoundlanders

who speak French and are competent in the second official

language of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, and the Premier is very

competent in it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: It is just absolutely stupid

to say that Newfoundlanders are not competent in French and would

not be available for it. The second point that I would make is

that this is a Canadian service provided by the Canadian

government for Newfoundland and is open to all Canadians, as it

should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present today, in accordance with statutory

requirements, the 1999 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Liquor Corporation.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf on

some very anxious parents, some of whom are in the gallery today,

whose children have chosen to leave home, and they are between

the ages of sixteen and eighteen years of age.

We recognize that the new Child Welfare Act for

this Province does include a provision that was recommended in

the study on children some years ago that sixteen- to

eighteen-year-olds do have some access to help, and we recognize

that was a progressive piece of legislation.

The parents who have signed this petition, and

there are literally hundreds of them here, are petitioning the

House to amend the legislation to give greater parental guidance

to children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. Their

concern is that in some cases children who leave home often are

able to access benefits without having the required intervention

by way of counseling.

These parents are asking for more help for

conflict resolution. They are asking for early intervention. They

are saying that by the time that the teenager leaves home it is

often too late, that they feel the intervention should have

occurred a long time before that. They are saying that when you

are in the school system, that when parents and teachers and

others are able to identify those children who are potentially in

crises, that there should be resources put in the system that let

the issues be addressed.

They are asking mandatory counseling before

these teenagers are able to access any financial benefits that

would let them have alternate housing. What they are saying is

that there are two groups of people that are affected. One is the

children themselves, the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds, and the

other group is the parents. Parents are saying that they want to

have more authority, more help, more rights, and they want to say

that they want to continue to be good parents.

This petition is to the House of Assembly, and

it is a plea for help from the parents who are saying they want

some recognition of their rights as parents.

We know that this is a very difficult issue. We

know as well that when we did the study on children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we know that

when we were doing the study on children, this was a very

contentious issue. While we know there are no simple solutions,

and while those parents will admit that taking those young

teenagers, sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds, and bringing them

forcibly back into the home would only provide a very temporary

solution, it is not a solution either to simply divorce them from

the home itself. They are crying out for help. They are crying

out for assistance. These parents want to bring their perspective

to the House of Assembly today.

It is in that spirit that I present this

petition on behalf of these parents, so that their rights to

maintain their family unit can be upheld and supported by all

Members of this House of Assembly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

John's West.

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

I, too, have a petition with a lot of names on

it from these parents.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of

Assembly to amend legislation to give greater parental guidance

of children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen.

When the Child, Youth and Services Act was

being debated in this House of Assembly, one of the main concerns

that I had was the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds who would fall

through the cracks.

Part two of this act, under Principles, it

said, 7(a) "the overriding and paramount consideration in

any decision made under this Act shall be the best interests of

the child;" and in this instance it would be in the best

interest of the youth.

Isn't in the best interest of youth that

they be given good parental guidance? Many children or youth,

when they become sixteen years of age, figure they know it all.

I, as a mom who has raised six children, know that when children

are sixteen years of age, it is very difficult to talk to them.

Isn't it in the best interest of the youth to be protected

by the supervision and the guidance of loving parents and loving

step-parents, or loving care-givers in whoever's care the

children are?

When the parents have lost the ability to give

the guidance and the supervision to their children because the

rights of the child supercede those of the parents, then we have

lost something very, very precious, and that is the right of the

parent to give supervision to the child; but the child has lost

something as well, because we are robbing the child or youth, who

is sixteen years of age, of that parental supervision and

guidance. At that point in their lives, when they figure they

know it all, they are under peer pressure, and we have all seen

youth who are in that situation.

Sometimes if the parents have the final say, it

is an easy out for a youth who is being pressured by his peers to

do something. He or she can stand up and say: No, I can't do

that because my parents haven't given me permission to do

so. Now, the way the legislation is, the peers can say: You

don't need your parent's permission to do so; you can

go on and do it. So actually the youth in this case does not have

an out from the pressure that is being put on he or she by their

peers.

It is a lot easier as a parent - and those of

us who have been parents of teenagers know - it would be a lot

easier in many situations to say: Look, go and do whatever you

like.

It is easier. It gives the parents an easy out

- you can go and do your thing - but that is not what good

parents are about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

It is a lot easier for parents to walk away and

let the youth do whatever they like, but that is not what

it's about. It's about being able to afford to our

youth the guidance and the supervision of loving parents. Until

that is legislated so that it is easy for the parents, in

conjunction.... As my colleague said, if there are problems in

the family, then all of them - parents, youth, the department of

social services and child protection department - should be able

to get involved. While the parents have been stripped of their

ability to give loving supervision and protection to their

children, then the children out there, or the youth between the

ages of sixteen and eighteen, will continue to fall through the

cracks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition, this

time on behalf of residents of Wild Cove in my district. The

prayer of the petition reads as follows: To the hon. House of

Assembly:

We, the undersigned residents of Wild Cove, in

the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of

Assembly to upgrade and pave our road. The deplorable and unfit

conditions of the roads in our area make traveling to and from

unsafe for our school children as well as jeopardize the safety

of the residents and the traveling public, hurt economic growth

opportunities, and portray government's lack of commitment

to rural areas of this Province.

These are from residents of Wild Cove in my

district, and I am sure the Government House Leader knows many

people in that area, including the Small family, the Pinksons and

the Sacreys. Representative from this particular community in my

district has been in here over the months with me in meetings

with Municipal Affairs and with the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation. When they put forward their cases to

officials in the Department of Municipal Affairs, for example,

the officials are sometimes surprised and even shocked when the

community talks about the economic activity in this particular

little community on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It uses very little

of the social safety nets of social assistance or unemployment

insurance. As a matter of fact, the community of Wild Cove

employs not just the people in the community but people from

outside. It has a very lucrative fishing industry in that

particular part of the Province. It is one of the most prosperous

communities, I would say, on the Baie Verte Peninsula but indeed,

per capita, probably in the Province. They are people who

contribute to the economy of this Province. There is no doubt

about that.

What they are asking for is a very simple,

straightforward request, that after all these years of that

community existing down there, those people are asking for the

simplest of requests, of having their road paved. That road was

upgraded some years ago, and of course as it continues to be

graded year after year to make sure that it is at least passable,

especially for school children who travel on those roads, the

situation now is that it has been graded so much that there is

nothing left to grade.

Now people in that community know, and I know,

and any officials who have traveled over that road - and I have

done it - know that the only answer to that now is to upgrade and

pave it.

It is not a luxury that they are looking for.

It is not something beyond. There are about eleven kilometers

left to be paved, and these people are making the simple, decent

request of saying that they deserve to have their road paved, and

I agree with them. A gravel road such as theirs should be a

priority. I have said it to the minister when I met with him on

many occasions, that the Wild Cove road should be a priority. It

is a gravel road and there should not be a gravel road left in

this Province, especially for communities who are still thriving

and still contributing to the economy of this Province. That is

what Wild Cove boasts, that they are not a community that is

downtrodden and failing. It is a community that is still

bolstered by the fishing industry and they still contribute to

the economy of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I support the

petition wholly.

Thank you.

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

John's South.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present

today on behalf of the residents of the Shea Heights area

regarding their housing and the lack of handicap accessible

housing in that area.

As I said yesterday in the petition that I

presented, what we are asking government to consider is the fact

that people who have disabilities, and their families, need to

utilize the support of family, friends and neighbors within the

community. If people are forced to live outside of the community

in which their families and friends reside, then it compromises

the help and support that those families need.

The community of Shea Heights is a very closely

knit community and there is a very wide support base for family

and friends within the community of Shea Heights. There are no

handicap accessible housing units at the present time in the

community of Shea Heights within the City of St. John's.

What I am asking government to do today is to consider

constructing handicap accessible units within the boundaries of

the community of Shea Heights in St. John's and barring

that, if that is impossible, we are asking that they make some of

the existing units more accessible to people with handicap

disabilities.

We respectfully request that government give

serious consideration to people with physical handicaps and

people who utilize wheelchairs and canes and so on within the

community of Shea Heights, and heed the request they are making

for handicap accessible units.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I call

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

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

The private member's resolution we are

speaking on today deals with the Marystown Shipyard, and I will

read the contents of the resolution that we are proposing today:

WHEREAS the Provincial Government entered into

a deal enabling Friede Goldman to take over the Marystown

Shipyard operation on the condition that it meet certain

specified employment targets;

AND

WHEREAS Friede Goldman has failed to meet

the employment targets specified in its agreement with the

Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House

urge the Government to enforce the penalty provisions of its

agreement with Friede Goldman.

We know that government struck a committee

comprised of the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the President

of Treasury Board, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, as well as the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation to negotiate all issues with

respect to the sale of the Shipyard facilities including the

completion of the agreement of sales.

What we are asking today is that government

enforce the condition of sale to maintain a minimum of 1.2

million man hours per year for the calendar years 1998, 1999 and

2000, and in default be required to pay government $10 million,

$5 million and $5 million respectively.

The agreement that was met between government

and Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited does not require that the

report on man hours from Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited be

audited or otherwise independently verified. We know from the

Auditor General's statement -

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): We recognize the

Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to

raise a serious point of order, and that is to take note, on

behalf of all members of the House, of your presence in the

Chair, and to express our profound confidence in the job you will

do in an impartial manner on behalf of all members of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. SULLIVAN: To that point of order,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure he will do

justice to his job there. I cannot see anybody who would publicly

say he was sandbagged by the Premier - he must be impartial, and

I give the full confidence to Mr. Speaker in that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order,

sir.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you jumped

ahead of me. I was about to say that we would anticipate your

first very wise ruling that this was not in fact a point of order

by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Although I would join in his

sentiments and wish you well in your new role as Deputy Speaker

of the House of Assembly. As Your Honour has just said, there was

no point of order, and that is a very wise, proper and

appropriate first ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I accept the advice of the

House. Mr. Premier, there was no point of order but thank you

very much for your sentiments and I appreciate your confidence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's South.

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

I do not know if this shows the seriousness

with which this private member's resolution is taken by

government's side. Maybe it shows the same level of

seriousness that they have taken in the agreement with Friede

Goldman Newfoundland Ltd. Because the discussions between the

department and the Auditor General of this Province indicate that

the information presented by Friede Goldman was not verified by

government on the man hours.

They have reported on two years. We know that

they were in default and we know that the Province has not

collected on the provisions of the agreement and enforced the

fine to Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd., because of the fact

that they have not lived up to the specified number of man hours.

We also know that government have not verified the number that

they have given them. What we are asking government to do here,

very plainly, very simply, is: Therefore

be it resolved that this

hon. House of Assembly urge the Government to enforce the penalty

provisions of its agreement with Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd.

I am not going to delay this debate because

this is a very simple request of this House of Assembly. It is a

very simple request that we are making of government, to enforce

the penalties on Friede Goldman Newfoundland Ltd., and we are not

going to delay this debate. We want to get to the point. We want

government to agree to the provisions of the agreement and to

enforce the penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in

this hon. House today to respond to the motion made by the Member

for St. John's South. I am pleased that the hon. member has,

through his resolution, expressed an interest in my district and

in the operations of Friede Goldman, an industry that plays a

very great role in my district and indeed to the economy of the

entire Burin Peninsula.

The thirty-two year history of the Shipyard,

not unlike the history of any shipyard in the world today, has

indeed be one of peaks and valleys, one of bust and boom. As an

elected representative in one capacity or another for more than

twenty-five years, I am well aware of the affect the uncertainty

of employment has had on our world renowned, skilled workforce.

For all of these years I have played an active role in supporting

the industry through involvement with other concerned

stakeholders in seeking ways and means to enhance opportunities

for much needed employment through lobbying and trying to

eliminate barriers along the way. Just last year, this hon. House

adopted my private member's resolution urging the federal

government to implement a new shipbuilding policy so that

shipyards such as Marystown could compete on a more equal basis

with shipyards in other countries.

Premier Tobin, the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology, the Minister of Education and the MHA for Grand

Bank, and the Member for Bellevue District and I, along with

other stakeholders, have met with company officials on many

occasions to discuss further employment opportunities for the

Shipyard. We are pleased that this company have committed to have

the facility in Marystown continue to be a core part of their

worldwide operation. As a result of our discussions, I feel very

confident that Friede Goldman will play a lead role in the

economy of the Burin Peninsula and of this Province for many

years beyond the commitment specified in their agreement.

As everyone knows, during the first year of

their contract Friede Goldman exceeded all expectations by

providing $1.5 million person hours of employment in Marystown,

500,000 more hours than they had committed to in their contract.

There were many valid reasons why the company

did not reach their commitment in 1999, one of them being a

general shutdown in the overall industry worldwide. The actual

fact is that that year 833,395 person hours was generated in

employment at the yard. These numbers have been verified.

While we realize that this number is lower than

the 1.2 million hours in the agreement, it is also well to note

that this total all but exceeds but two or three years in the

overall thirty year history of the Shipyard.

Yes, we are concerned over the current levels

of employment at the Shipyard in Marystown. That is why a joint

action committee of senior management, union and government

officials was formed and put in place. They are working together

to try and enhance further business for that facility.

We are all very aware of the penalty clause in

the clause, but we also stated from the beginning that this

government can be flexible on this issue pending a review of the

company's work plan for this year and beyond. The $5 million

penalty issue has been set aside temporarily, but only

temporarily. If we don't see any action over the next few

months we will take action to enforce the penalty provisions.

It is easy for us to criticize Friede Goldman

International for their lack of commitment to Marystown even

though we sincerely believe they are doing their very best to

obtain employment opportunities for the skilled workforce who

live on the Burin Peninsula. They are bidding on several

contracts.

This government is showing flexibility because

we have confidence Friede Goldman International will provide much

needed employment in my district. It is great to have this

penalty clause in the contract as an insurance but at this point

it is employment that the people of the Burin Peninsula need.

However, as I said, if there is no improvement we are not afraid

to take action and implementation of this penalty will happen

just as soon as we decide that it should.

Everyone on this side of the House wants the

facility to grow and prosper so that it will continue to play a

major role in the economic growth of this Province. With activity

picking up in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore there will

be new opportunities for work at the Shipyard. Retrofit of the

Sedco 714 has created around 300 to 400 jobs for the next eight

weeks or so in my district.

As I said, Fredie Goldman will have to

demonstrate, not only to government, but to the yard workers that

it has generated, through employment, opportunities at the

Marystown facility.

Yes, we will continue to work with all the

stakeholders to ensure that the goal is reached, but again, if we

do not see action we will move quickly.

In conclusion I thank the Member for St.

John's South once again for his interest and I feel a

certain genuine concern, but I must ask at this point for a

little patience. What we all want is to build Marystown up, not

to tear it down. Government's first concern is for the

employees at the yard. It will be counter productive for us, I

believe, at this particular time to implement the penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to participate in this debate.

Having some connection to the Burin Peninsula - it being the

place where I was born and raised and where many of my family

members still live; some of my family have worked at the Shipyard

over the years - I am speaking as a concerned member of this

House, but I am also speaking as a member who has roots on the

Burin Peninsula.

I am reminded of the words of Mr. Holloway, two

years ago, when he told the town of Marystown that his company

had enough work of its own to keep the Newfoundland yard busy for

ten years. Those were Mr. Holloway's words when he spoke at

the public consultations that went on at the time when the yard

was transferred to Friede Goldman Newfoundland.

Friede Goldman and the government signed a deal

whereby Friede Goldman International purchased the Marystown

Shipyard for one dollar. Government sealed that deal with a

guarantee of work. This was very important to the people who were

the employees at that yard. The Premier reported that the

government would impose a penalty clause in the sale which would

be used in default if the company could not meet the minimum of

1.2 million person hours of work in the first three years of the

five year deal. The first year penalty, if they fail, will be $10

million. The next two years, the penalties would be $5 million

each.

In year one, 1998, the company, FGN, reported

they had reached 1.5 million person hours of work. It has now

been confirmed in government circles that as much as 65 per cent

of the total work completed in 1998 was work the government had

on its books, on the order books, at the time of sale. So only 35

per cent of the work completed in 1998 was indeed work brought to

Marystown Shipyard by Friede Goldman International. Sixty-five

per cent was work that was already on the books at the time of

sale. In fact, some of the work that was credited to 1998 was

indeed done in 1999.

In year two, 1999, the loss of a major contract

is how Friede Goldman International put the spin on why they fell

short of reaching their requirements for last year. The

unofficial report states that Friede Goldman produced between

820,000 and 840,000 person hours of work during the year. The

member for the area just said the figure entered into the record

as 833,000 person hours. This falls short of the commitment to

produce 1.2 million hours as required by the government, and as

is noted, I say, in the Auditor General's report as well.

Year three is the current year. It is now the

March 29. We are just about into the third year of this contract,

year 2000. The company is off to a very poor start, I say, when

the first quarter has seen the industry actually bottom out. This

has affected nearly every worker at both the Shipyard and at the

Cow Head facility. With 1.2 million person hours of work

required, which represents about 600 person years of work, and

now that the first quarter is just about over, the company will

have to produce an even larger volume of work during the next

nine months to meet their requirements for this current year.

I want to put forward several other points.

Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited promised workers at least

five years of work from their parent company, Friede Goldman

International, upon signing the deal with government. In other

words, Friede Goldman International told the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that they would have a minimum of five

years of work. That was put forward by J.L. Holloway, President

of FGI, during the signing of the agreement, and which was quoted

by the Mayor of Marystown in an

article in The Southern

Gazette dated November 16, 1999: Union Local 20 agreed to and

signed a five year contract with the written knowledge put

forward by government and Friede Goldman International that the

industry would be protected in the contract.

For example, one clause stated: All equipment

and fixed assets could not be removed during the five year deal.

The union agreed to make the necessary changes and concessions in

their collective agreement in order to secure work and protection

for the membership. However, the above clause with respect to the

removal of equipment and fixed assets from facilities was

subsequently removed from the agreement signed by Friede Goldman

International and the government, dated January 1, 1998.

In other words, what was agreed to by the

workers at Marystown, by members of Local 20 of the Marine

Workers Union, and what was finally signed by the government, is

not the same agreement. This is very serious, because what

happened there was that there have been many efforts to obtain

the agreement. Finally, I might note the agreement is now

becoming public knowledge, very slowly, but it is becoming public

knowledge. There is now confirmation that the agreement that was

signed by this government that protected a fixed asset, all

equipment, was left out of the final document that was signed.

The Premier of this Province and the currently

Minister of Education signed this agreement with the Friede

Goldman International on behalf of the government. I understand

the Member for Grand Bank was very instrumental in negotiating

the contract. In fact, I am told she was the front line person in

the negotiation.

I would therefore want to hear from the

minister to find out why the contract that was agreed to in the

public consultations with the Marine Workers Union in Marystown

was varied, changed, from the time that it was agreed to by the

workers in Marystown and the final document that was signed There

is a very great change.

The impact of the downsizing of Marystown on

the workforce has been very significant in that part of the

Province. The impact on the workforce has seen a major loss of

employment during the past two years. In fact, there has been a

management of decline mentality persistent on the Burin Peninsula

for a long time. Concentration has been on, as Clyde Wells would

say, managing decline.

One of the characteristics of this

government's tenure in office pertaining to the Burin

Peninsula is in the management of decline. That is certainly not

very happy news for the workers at the Marystown Shipyard.

There is a fear of loss of confidence in the

(inaudible) of the government over the five-year deal. The

workers in Marystown tell me - and I have information and have

been in contact with many of these workers - they tell me they no

longer feel confident of the future of the Marystown Shipyard.

That is sad; that is regrettable. I wish I could do something to

change that. They certainly have no confidence in the government

and its ability to enforce and live up to the contents of the

five-year contract.

What has happened in Marystown has brought

severe hardships to many of the workers who were employed at the

yard. Many of them have been forced to leave the area. There is a

steady stream of cars, trucks and vans down over the Burin

Peninsula, heading off to any other place in Canada. It is a sad

reflection. The population of the Burin Peninsula is declining

rapidly. A good part of it is because of what is happening at the

Marystown Shipyard and the failure of this government to be fair

and to live up to their commitments that they made to the people

of Marystown and to the whole Burin Peninsula relative to the

Marystown Shipyard.

Many of these workers have had to re-mortgage

their homes. They had to go out and get new mortgages. They had

to go and take out second mortgages in order to be able to keep

up with their life style. That is sad when, in order to keep

yourself going, you have to re-mortgage your house, to access the

equity in your house in order to pay your bills. That is

commonplace in this part of the Province. I want to say as well

that this tremendous loss of jobs in the Burin Peninsula has had

a very negative impact on the revenues to this Province.

What the workers in Marystown want is not the -

well, they will accept. There was a rig in there just before

Christmas. That is good, and we applaud that. There is another

one on the way, which will give some needed employment. What the

workers in Marystown want is some long-term commitment, and what

this resolution attempts to do is to put pressure on this

government to live up to the agreements that were signed with

Friede Goldman International.

Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to live up to

the agreements that are signed, then what is the point in signing

them? Of course, we can see from our now knowledge of the

contract that the government buried the contract almost

immediately, told the workers at Marystown one thing, told them

that the fixed assets would be protected, and then went out and

signed a contract in which that was not a part of the written

document.

Mr. Speaker, how can the workers in Marystown

have any confidence in this government's ability to able to

speak up on their behalf, when they go out - you have your

consultations, words are spoken, commitments are made, they are

told that commitments are ready to be signed, and then before the

words are spoken there are private deals made. No wonder the

people who work at that yard have lost confidence in the ability

of this government to force Friede Goldman International to live

up to its commitment.

Mr. Speaker, when a contract is signed, a

contract is a contract. Friede Goldman has failed, and I think we

need to send a message to them that we, as a people of this

Province, believe in the documents that we signed and therefore

we are calling upon this government, in this resolution, to

impose the penalties that the people of Marystown don't want

to have imposed.

I should point out that the workers at

Marystown do not want this money. I want to make that quite

clear. They do not want the money. They would much rather have

the jobs. The people I talk to on a daily basis do not want to

have this money put into their pay cheques. They do not want the

government to impose this penalty and then put this money somehow

into their hands. They want the government to impose this penalty

because it is an agreement. They want to send a message clearly,

and they want to send it to Friede Goldman: When you sign a

contract, it had better be worth something and you had better

live up to it, because at the end of the day if you do not do

that there will be a penalty imposed.

The workers want work. They do not want to have

another situation where the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology goes to Marystown, flies in on a helicopter back in

December, and she doesn't even have the courtesy to invite

the Mayor of Marystown to be part of the ceremony - a big issue

there. A rig comes in and they want to have a ceremony there. She

flies in by helicopter. The Mayor of Marystown is snubbed,

ignored and left out of the ceremony that was there because the

minister apparently did not feel she wanted to invite him, or

maybe it was Friede Goldman International who did not want to

have the then Mayor of Marystown present for that particular

ceremony.

What a snub to one of the great spokespersons

for the people of Marystown over many years. Perhaps it was

because he happened to represent as well the president of the

union there. Maybe that is why the minister snubbed him at that

time, but certainly there was something communicated on that very

day that this government is more committed to Friede Goldman

International than they are to the workers of Marystown and to

their union representatives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

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

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I

would like to bring some clarity to this debate. I would like to

start off by saying that government, the people of Marystown, the

council of Marystown, and the workers at Friede Goldman,

Marystown, are looking to grow in industry in Marystown by

working with the company.

I agree with all of the comments that have been

made that this issue is very important to the future of

Marystown. That is why we, as a government, and in particular my

department and the MHAs from that area, worked very closely with

the company. That was why, when the union wanted and the company

wanted to strike a joint action committee for us all to work

together in marketing this facility, government agreed to do it,

and we have met recently for our first meeting. It was a very

good meeting.

So, really what we are doing in this committee

is formalizing a lot of the work that we have been doing anyway.

My department have been working very closely with Friede Goldman

in Marystown, close enough that we have been able to help them

secure some contracts. Last fall, for instance, we helped them

obtain a contract, a very successful contract that they

implemented very well for a submarine, the first one done at

Marystown. At the end of the contract, the Canadian Navy made it

very clear that they would certainly have no difficulty in doing

more work at Marystown when more work needed to be done on their

submarines. Marystown Friede Goldman International proved that

they could be competitive when they won that bid and successfully

implemented it.

We also helped them recently, this past fall,

with obtaining the contract for the Henry Goodridge . They

were very so successful in doing the work down there that the

company decided, with the very skilled workforce that was in

place, that they would get future work done. They would put a

whole new water and sewer system in rather than wait and do it a

few years down the road, and that provided a great deal of

employment.

Right now, I think it is as of March 21 that

the Sedco 714 arrived in place. This government was also very

active in working with the White Rose development and the company

who owns the Sedco 714, and saying to them: This is a great place

to get this work done. This rig will be out offshore working on

White Rose over the next few years. If you bring your rig into

Marystown and get the work done, and the regulatory work done,

put in place, that needs to be done before this rig goes out into

our offshore, you will see the quality of work and you will know

that when you need any work done on this rig in the future, you

can either bring it into Marystown or Marystown workers can go

out to the offshore to do it.

We have worked very closely with the company to

make sure that every bit of available work goes into that site.

One of the big disappointments last year was

when the price of oil was very down. I think it was down to about

$10 a barrel at the time. The Terra Nova people made the choice

not to use the Trans Ocean Explorer. That was a lot of work that

would have gone to Marystown, a whole lot of work that would have

gone to Marystown and certainly would have enabled the company to

be able to reach their work targets last yea; but, because this

is a cyclical industry and one that the people in Marystown, the

unions in Marystown, the company in Marystown, know that it is

and that it will always be a cyclical industry, we have to be

able to take these blows, but we also have to be able to work

with the company to go out there and find the work.

Now that the price of oil is rising, or is

certainly rising very high, this is a good thing for this

industry. The company told us, when they were here in January to

meet with the Premier and to meet with the MHAs in the area, to

meet with the union, to meet with the town council, they said to

us that because of the high price of oil they expected by the

second and the third quarter of this year there would be more

work for Marystown.

I know that the manager of the operation in

Marystown has recently been in the U.S., working with the

international company on the work plan for the upcoming year. We

will shortly have our second joint committee meeting to outline

what available work may be out there, what the company itself can

put into the facility, and is there anything that government can

do in acquiring work to help the company like we have been doing

over the past few months - very successfully, I might add.

Government will continue to work closely with

Friede Goldman International and monitor the employment situation

at the shipyard. We have said - government has said previously to

this afternoon - that we intend to be somewhat flexible on the

penalty issue, but that doesn't mean that we are negating

that. That doesn't mean that we are letting the company off

the hook.

This resolution today is very

counter-productive. The union would agree that it is

counter-productive, the company would agree that it is

counter-productive, and the people of Marystown would agree that

it is counter-productive.

If there is no improvement in the work

situation at Marystown, this government will move quickly to

enforce the penalty provisions, but right now we want to work

with the people of Marystown, we want to work with the union, and

we want to work with the company to ensure that the employment

provisions are fulfilled. The people of Marystown want to grow an

industry. They don't want just a job for a few weeks. They

want a strong, secure future. They want to stay in their

community, and we want to help them do it. There are so many

things that can be done to help. I don't know why a motion

like this would be put forward at this time, just as we are

waiting for the company to come in with the work plan for the

upcoming year.

It is very important that we continue to work

and address the pressing issues in this area. We want to

formalize plans and recommend actions with our committee to

enhance opportunities to secure work at the yard. We work very

closely in Ottawa. We have a staff person in Ottawa who works

very closely with the Defence Department to look at some federal

procurement, as we did last fall with the submarine contract, so

government has indicated to Friede Goldman Newfoundland that it

will be flexible on the penalty issue but it will not be flexible

indefinitely. We want to sit down and find the work, now that

this industry is picking up again.

The terms of the divestiture agreement on the

sale of Marystown Shipyard say that this company will maintain

1.2 million person hours of work in three calendar years. We will

ensure, in any arrangement we make around this penalty issue,

that this amount of work will be delivered; but we have to

realize that this industry has been in quite a big turmoil and it

is not just because of what has been happening with the price for

a barrel of oil. This company has been a part of rearranging

itself. It has been acquiring another company which, by the way,

the acquisition of Halter Marine should be of great benefit in

the near future to Marystown Friede Goldman, because the

acquisition of this company has expertise that also Marystown

has. Halter Marine has a lot of shipyard experience, and the

shipyards that they have acquired and the architectural side of

all of this will in the future be able to get more of that type

of work for Marystown.

So as we grow our offshore we want to ensure

that all of our facilities, those at Marystown, NEWDOCK here in

St. John's, our Bull Arm site, that all of them will prosper

and do well. We have a very bright future in the offshore, and we

want to ensure that our facilities are there, that they are

competitive, that our skilled workforce stays in place so that we

will be able to offer, in particular the South Coast of

Newfoundland, a vibrant future in the fabricating business, both

in the development of the offshore and also servicing ships,

which it has a very proud history of doing.

I would like to conclude by saying that this

resolution is counter-productive today. It is very

counter-productive at this time. The union is not interested in

this, the people of Marystown are not interested in this, and the

company at Marystown are not interested in this. It is not money

that they are looking for; it is jobs the people of Marystown

want. They want the company to come forward with a work plan that

demonstrates that there will be work for this facility, and we

intend to work with the company to ensure that everything we can

do to help them market this facility will be done.

We expect, within the month, to sit down again

and to have a more detailed work plan whereby the company will be

outlining to both the union and all of its workforce, the town of

Marystown and the people of Marystown, what work they expect to

see in the upcoming months. Government's main concern at

this time is for the employees at the yard.

At this time I would like to close the debate

by saying that we intend to vote against this motion, and we

intend to vote against this motion for good reason, as I have

just demonstrated to you. We intend to vote against this motion

because we intend to work with Marystown, to work with the

facility, to work with the union, and when our joint action

committee meets again, we hope by then we will have detailed work

plans from the company to look at; but we will work with the

people of Marystown, the union and the company. We will not work

against the people of Marystown by imposing this penalty at this

time. We strongly support the people of that area, we will

continue to support the people of that area, and we intend to

vote against this resolution. It is very counterproductive.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member

for St. John's South.

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

Some of the comments the Minister of Industry

made were interesting. We know that most of the work that Friede

Goldman did in the first year of the contract was on the books

when they acquired the Shipyard. The minister said that the

government helped them to secure contracts last fall, that they

helped them in securing the Henry Goodrich contract; they helped

secure the Sedco 714 contract. What contracts are you telling me

that Friede Goldman secured if government helped secure all of

these contracts?

We know that the people in Marystown and the

union and the workforce at the Shipyard are interested in

employment. That is what we are interested in, seeing the

Shipyard employees back to work. That is what this whole exercise

is about.

The contract that government made with Friede

Goldman was broken. There are provisions within that contract to

penalize Friede Goldman for breaking that contract. Why

doesn't government take the money and put it in trust to

ensure that Friede Goldman are going to continue to live up to

their obligation to supply employment for the employees at the

Marystown Shipyard? The government has a staff person working in

Ottawa, close to National Defense, trying to secure contracts for

the Marystown Shipyard, according to the minister. She just said

it herself.

You look at the capital improvement that Friede

Goldman were supposed to have put into that Shipyard in the first

year. It was $8 million according to the Friede Goldman figures.

That was never verified by government. What we are asking

government to do here is this. Five million dollars would create

a lot of employment at that Shipyard, but furthermore, if

government were to take that $5 million and put it in trust - and

if Friede Goldman lives up to their obligation, if they continue

to operate that Shipyard, and if they improve their track record

of providing employment to the workforce at the Marystown

Shipyard, then maybe they can look at relinquishing that $5

million back to the owners of the Shipyard. Maybe they can look

at taking that $5 million and doing further promotion at the

Shipyard to help secure further contracts. Get the people back to

work.

That is what this side of the House want. I am

sure that is what that side of the House want. It is what the

people of Marystown want. It is what the workforce at the

Shipyard want. They want the work. The contract was broken. There

are provisions within the contract to protect the people of this

Province. If one side or the other of the contract broke the

contract - in this case, Friede Goldman broke the contract -

there are provisions there to protect the people of the Province

by collecting the sum of $5 million for the year in which the

contract was broken. That is what we are interested in, seeing

government secure that $5 million. Hold it in trust, even, to put

pressure on Friede Goldman to live up to their obligation and

provide work for the people in Marystown.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the

question?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, ‘nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution

defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the

House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

As soon as we get past Question Period we will

hear again from my friend the Member for Cape St. Francis, and

his melodious voice. I have to tell him, it is a greater pleasure

listening to the finance critic this year than it was last year

to the Member for Waterford Valley.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned

until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.