May 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly eleven ABE Skills for Success students, accompanied by their

instructor, Donna Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the second day in a row I have questions about forest

management. I will put them to the government and hope that some member of the

government will have some answers today. The forestry accounts for a very

important part of our provincial economy. Thousands of Newfoundlanders depend

for their livelihood on forest industries and the provincial government has

exclusive jurisdiction over forest resources. I would like to ask the

government, either the acting Premier, the acting minister or somebody else over

there who acts, what is the government reaction to the statements of people

knowledgeable about the forest that the rate of cutting and natural loss has

been exceeding the rate of regrowth? What does the government say to those who

claim the Newfoundland forest are in trouble?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I briefed the Minister of Natural

Resources that these questions came up yesterday. I thought he would be here for

Question Period. He should be here momentarily.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a shocking display by an

incompetent government. I am asking about forestry which is one of the main

responsibilities of this government and for the second day in a row nobody

sitting on the government benches has been able to answer a simple basic

question about the state of the Province's forests. Now, Mr. Speaker, is the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology assuring me that the Minister of

Natural Resources will make an appearance here today?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the

forest industry. There are a lot of people who make their livelihood from it,

from the paper mills to people who work in the lumberyards, right across the

Province. That is why we have sustained the programs through Enterprise

Newfoundland for the small sawmillers program which has been very successful. I

have briefed the Minister of Natural Resources this morning. Maybe he has a

luncheon speech, which somebody just mentioned to me, but he is suppose to be

here this afternoon, and if he is here, by leave, we will let him answer your

questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's fair enough.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My question is for the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations. Yesterday in the House he indicated that he met

with the federal Transport Minister, Doug Young, regarding and with relation to

the Newfoundland Dockyard. Can he be more specific on what his meeting was

about, and is the federal government committed to the Newfoundland Dockyard and

its future survival?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member that I said yesterday I talked

to Mr. Young on two occasions about the Newfoundland Dockyard and my concerns

that have been ongoing for some six years about the state of the yard and the

uncertainty the workers have faced over those years. Mr. Young assured me that

Mr. Morrison, initially, who is the CEO and the President of Marine Atlantic who

are responsible for the yard, will be available as soon as possible. Now, as I

told the member yesterday Mr. Morrison had gone to Europe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he going to stay over there?

MR. MURPHY: No, he is not going to stay over there. As a

matter of fact we have arranged and confirmed a meeting with Mr. Morrision. It

is just a matter of which day it will be. We are going to get him over

initially, but if we do not get a response that suits this government, suits

this member, suits the Minister of ITT, and suits the Premier then we will ask

to see Mr. Young.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested a second ago

that maybe Mr. Morrison should stay in Europe because he is not committed to the

Newfoundland Dockyard, I can tell you that, and the reality of the situation is

that Mr. Morrison is a public servant of the federal Liberal government. The

reality is this, Doug Young the Minister of Transport, the federal minister, in

their own policy decisions, has he or has his department given Marine Atlantic

the mandate to dismantle the yard? That is the question. Whether Mr. Morrision

shows up here or not, Mr. Speaker, is irrelevant.

Can the minister say that he asked Mr. Young, the federal

minister: is the survival of the Newfoundland Dockyard a priority for the

Federal Liberal Government? Did he ask him that and if he did, what was his

response?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I think the member fully knows and should

know that initially, in order for this government to address with Minister Young

the issues, we have to have that meeting with Mr. Morrison. When that date is

confirmed, then if we are not satisfied as I told the member, yes, we would

request to discuss the issues with Mr. Young, but in all fairness, we have to

sit with Mr. Morrison and hear what he is telling us, to take that message and

bring it to Mr. Young and say that we are concerned. Maybe, Mr. Morrison and I

say maybe, because I have some of the same feelings that the hon. member has

about Mr. Morrison's concern with the yard, but in all fairness we have to go

through that procedure. I think the member understands that, I think the workers

understand that and the time will come very soon when we will sit with whomever

and get a resolution to the yard problem

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Member for

Kilbride.

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

In response to the first question, the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations indicated that if they were not satisfied with the

response, if he as the minister was not satisfied, if the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology was not satisfied with Mr. Morrison's response and if the

Premier is not satisfied, then they would see Mr. Young, so let me ask the

minister this: Is the closure of the Newfoundland Dockyard something that will

satisfy your government or will you, as a provincial minister and part of the

provincial Cabinet, stand up and say that the survival of the dockyard and the

closure is not a possibility and is not a consideration that this government

will accept?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the hon. minister answers the question, I would like

to point out for those in the public gallery that neither applause or booing or

some level of feeling about what is said on the floor is permissible and if it

occurs again, we will have to eject you.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member, let me say to all hon.

members, let me say to those in the galleries and let me say to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador: this government is not supporting the closure of the

Newfoundland Dockyard. Now let me also say to the member that I have had ongoing

negotiations with the former government, with the former minister in the

Mulroney government and we still never came up with a solution for the dockyard.

He never met with this government nor did the Minister of Transportation of the

Mulroney government meet with this government. This government is committed to

keeping the dockyard open, let me assure the member of that, let me assure

everybody that we will do everything in our power to make that a reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources, now

the minister of forestry since the Wells Government did away with our Department

of Forestry. I would like the minister's reaction to the feelings of many

Newfoundlanders that the Province hasn't done enough to protect our forests and

ensure adequate regrowth. Will the minister comment on the growing concerns of

Newfoundlanders about the state of our forests?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the

situation with the forestry. We are doing everything that is necessary and

appropriate. We are maintaining the funding for forestry. With the

federal-provincial agreement ending, we put $10 million into it provincially so

that we will continue to do what we need to do. We are going to do it. We are

going to do what we need to do and have to do, because forestry is a provincial

resource and forestry is forever, regardless of the comments from the other

side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary - it's for the Minister of Natural Resources.

I say to the minister that is no assurance, that is no comfort. Will the

minister admit that much of what the Province has done - and many claim that has

been inadequate - but much of what the Province has done in the way of planting

and thinning has been paid for by the Federal Government through

federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements? Will the minister confirm that the

Federal Government is making a bad forest management situation much worse by

discontinuing cost-sharing? Will the minister explain why he and the Premier and

the whole government have been silent in the face of these federal cuts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the ending of

federal-provincial forestry agreements, which was not just with Newfoundland but

with the other provinces from coast to coast, this was a decision made by the

former Tory government in Ottawa two years ago and I, as a minister, was against

it then. I worked with the new Federal Government and tried to get them to

change their mind. They stuck by the former decision made by Minister

Mazankowski two years ago. Unfortunately, the decision is firm. In view of the

decision that was made, we, as a Province, said we will do what we have to do

with this as a provincial resource and we put the $10 million in ourselves to do

it.

As to what we are doing relative to wood thinning and

planting, this year I expect to plant tree number 100 million in the very near

future - 100 million trees planted in Newfoundland and Labrador. Every year now

we are planting about 10 million trees. We are going to plant a significant

number again this year. We have many silviculture projects on for thinning in

various parts of the Province, done through our provincial Budget. The Minister

of Social Services has given me another extra million dollars for people who are

her clients. We can put them to work as well doing similar silviculture projects

in this Province.

We are putting the money into forest management, and we will

continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Natural Resources that whatever work

he did to maintain federal funding was invisible and silent. The Chrtien

government reversed other unpopular decisions because of public pressure, and it

is strange that there was no visible pressure applied by the Government of

Newfoundland to maintain federal funding for forest management in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about the

Chrtien government's decision to close the Canadian Forest Services Centre in

Newfoundland, centered at Pleasantville, with field stations in other parts of

Newfoundland, and the decision to shift the Newfoundland centre to Fredericton,

New Brunswick, with a loss of 200 full-time and temporary jobs and, worse, the

loss of the scientific expertise and research capacities specific to

Newfoundland forests.

If the tables were turned, doesn't the minister think that

the New Brunswick government would be fighting for New Brunswick jobs and New

Brunswick forest protection? Why isn't this minister and this government

fighting to save Newfoundland jobs and the Newfoundland forests?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: I would say the hon. member should try to

get her information from somewhere other than the union that is representing the

CFS.

We, Mr. Speaker, are continuing to work on that particular

subject. I have had meetings with the federal minister on that subject. I have

had discussions with the federal minister who represents Newfoundland on that

subject, and the Minister of Finance and I are scheduled to have a meeting on it

in the near future in Ottawa. So we are working on that subject. We want to

maintain an appropriate scientific base here, a base from Ottawa. We want to do

that, and we are working on it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Minister of Natural Resources.

What does the minister consider to be an appropriate federal

government forestry scientific base in Newfoundland and just what is he saying

to the federal ministers in these private meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to say that

today. I will deal with that in the private meetings with the federal minister.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

Yesterday there were some high level discussions between

processors, the union and government pertaining to some potential problems in

the crab fishing industry. I wonder if the minister could inform the House what

the problems discussed were and if they have been resolved to everyone's

satisfaction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can confirm that discussions took place yesterday

between representatives of the union, fishermen and processors concerning the

issue of crab, crab harvesting and production this year. Later on this week I

will be prepared to make a public announcement on the outcome of these

discussions.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that there has been a request put to government

for an exemption to export out of Province part or whole crab, unprocessed, not

in the form of crab meat. Is government seriously considering granting that

exemption? I understand it has happened in other years and there seems to be

some very serious implications for the industry of around $100 million on the

line here if this exemption is not granted. Can the minister confirm that that

is a fact and that government is seriously considering granting the exemption

now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point in time I will just simply say that the

concerns raised by the industry were discussed yesterday and a decision will be

made that is best for the entire crab processing and harvesting sector for the

Province.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, tied

to a question I asked the minister yesterday about the processing sector

reduction given to the industry renewal boards now.

I asked the minister yesterday who is going to represent the

interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that reduction board?. Can the

minister inform the House whether or not the Province has made any appointments

to that board and if so, who are they? If he cannot give the names would he tell

the House how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be represented on the

processing sector reduction board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the

board is a Newfoundlander and the three representatives on the board are from

this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of whom are either active

in the industry or directly associated with the fishing industry.

MS. VERGE: Who are they?

DR. HULAN: I will tell you that the chair of the board is

Mr. Cashin, Mr. Broderick is on the board and a representative from Mr. Tobin's

office is on the board as well.

MS. VERGE: Who are the provincial government appointees?

DR. HULAN: The provincial government appointee, I think

has already been made public and if it has not then I will table that

information tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, does this part-time

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture know anything, I ask him? Does he

know anything? Can he give an answer on any question that is asked in this

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Every time I ask him a question he has

to go off and call his deputy minister or some other official who will provide

him with a briefing note that he will bring back a day or a week after or he

will ask the Member for Eagle River or the Member for Fogo and get the answer. I

ask him, Mr. Speaker, will he please get more informed about the very important

fishing industry so that he can stand in his place and give us some answers in

this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now I asked the minister yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, a final supplementary. Would the people in the communities who are

going to be affected by the processing sector reduction, who are going to have

their fish plants in a lot of cases, closed, their communities are going to shut

down. Can the minister inform the House whether or not the people in the various

communities around this Province, who now have fish plants, will be provided an

opportunity to appear before the industry renewal boards to make a case for

their fish plant staying in the system for their communities being allowed to

survive in rural Newfoundland. Can the minister answer that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I notice the hon.

member did not say that I went to him for advice. I guess the Province knows

why. After seventeen years of advice and direction from the Tories and himself

included we inherited a debt that our children and our grandchildren will be

paying on for generations to come. I'm appalled that they have the audacity to

ask some of the questions that directly relate to the mismanagement of this

Province by the Tories who were in power for unfortunately seventeen years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the

question publicly and I have answered the question here in this House. The

realignment of the processing sector will be done in full consultation with

those who will be most directly affected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My District of Green

Bay has a considerable industry involved in mineral exploration. I would like to

ask the Minister of Natural Resources, has there been a change in the nature of

mineral claim staking on the Island of Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, yes. A couple of weeks ago - I

can't remember the exact day now - we published a notice in the Gazette

stating that we would be switching to map staking on the Island as we now do in

Labrador so that all of the Province, every square inch of it, will be subject

to the same regulations so that there would be fairness for all.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Green

Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we have people

involved in the outfitting industry who take Americans or whoever into the bush

to fish salmon or hunt moose we require that they avail of the services of local

guides, et cetera. I have a small industry in my district that makes its living

from staking claims physically on the ground. Is the minister aware that this

particular policy change, this conforming Labrador with the Island in terms of

how claims are staked, could cost my district up to fifty jobs in this

particular year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, last year in the Province as a

whole we had approximately 5,000 mineral claims staked. That would mean about

5,000 mineral claims getting explored, about 5,000 mineral claims getting line

cutting on them for various exploration activities relating thereto other than

just putting boundaries around the claims. This year, as of yesterday, we have

145,000 mineral claims staked in the Province in Labrador alone plus another

5,000 I guess on the Island. I'm not sure of the exact number. In round figures

we probably have 150,000 claims outstanding that will be explored this coming

year.

The people who in the past would spend their time cutting

boundaries around 5,000 claims can now I think avail of a lot of work

opportunities to do exploration on the claims that are already mapped for the

next year and get out in other types of exploration activity. Put the work into

exploring for minerals, not in putting boundaries around claimed blocks.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, there are obviously various

categories of work in mineral exploration. What the minister is saying, because

of the Voisey Bay situation and a bonanza situation in Labrador, somehow the

situation on the Labrador peninsula has got to be equated with the situation in

the Province where the bonanza situation is not altogether the case. So the

minister is saying that these jobs are expendable. Is that what he is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying

that there will be many more job opportunities available for this year for

people who are interested and involved and experienced in mineral exploration

type activities. People are going to be looking for them. Our estimate to date

is that there will probably be 1,500 to 2,000 jobs this summer carrying out

exploration on claims that have been staked, and that is going to require people

who cut lines and do such related activities.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the

Minister of Education and Training.

The Royal Commission identifies, in

chapter 15, a number of

barriers to educational achievement. Disruptive student behaviour seriously

comprises the learning environment for all students, including the student or

students causing the disruption. What initiatives have the department taken to

ensure that disruptive behaviour in classrooms is kept to an absolute minimum?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for

his question.

Two initiatives immediately spring to mind. One is the

initiative which was put in place by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador when we put a joint

committee in place with representatives from Education, Health and Social

Services, as well as from NLTA. They have prepared a document called `The

Classroom Issues Report', which makes a significant number of recommendations as

to what we should do to deal with the problems with disruptive children.

Government has accepted the whole report in principle. We have a process in

place to start implementing some of the recommendations.

The other initiative which government has taken is in

co-operation with the school boards in the St. John's region, again in

co-operation with the Department of Justice. There is a Judge Hyslop who is

playing a tremendous role in this initiative, and representatives from the

various departments of government, to deal specifically with the problem. One of

the problems is where a child goes before the courts and in his sentence has to

attend school. The teachers have been saying: We don't know what this person has

done; we don't know how to deal with this person. This committee has found a

way, with the co-operation of Judge Hyslop, to deal specifically with it, to

tell teachers what they can do.

These are at least two initiatives. Another initiative which

is related not in the fact of discipline as much as the special needs children,

the Royal Commission recommended that we should do further study on the

requirements of the special needs children. As the hon. member may or may not

know, about three or four months ago we had a task force in place which is

pursuing that recommendation of the Royal Commission, so we recognize the

problem. I believe we have finally taken the bull by the horns and we are coming

to grips with the issue, and we are making good success. I thank the hon. member

for giving me an opportunity to say that.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, recommendation 142 of the Royal

Commission report says that schools be empowered to refuse access to students

who regularly disrupt the learning environment. Other provinces, for example

Manitoba, have recently adopted zero tolerance to persistent disruptive

behaviour and have empowered teachers to suspend students, and have deemed

parents to be totally and completely responsible for the care of such students

during such periods of suspension.

Will the minister be implementing recommendation 142, and

will he empower teachers to suspend disruptive students in the classrooms of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you have to weigh the rights of

the majority as well as the rights of the individual. Now, if I am a parent who

has a child in a school and my child's education is being disrupted by an unruly

student, my first reaction is to kick out the unruly student; however, if I am

the parent of that discipline problem I am responsible for that person as well,

so we have to look at both sides of it.

The Royal Commission talked about alternate schooling. There

is a very small minority of our children who have a discipline problem, and it

seems like in many, many cases the schools have a very difficult time dealing

with them, and the other children's education is being disrupted by that, so are

trying to weigh - and society ever has to do that - the rights of the minority

against the rights of the majority.

We have not gone far enough yet to suggest that the principal

or the teacher can expel the student indefinitely. As the hon. member will know,

there is already a process in place where students can be expelled for one, two

or three days, but total expulsion has to receive the approval of myself, or

whoever the minister of the day happens to be. We are wrestling with that. I do

not think we will get into permanent expulsion until we have an alternate system

in place, but we are looking at the concept of the alternate school to deal with

the discipline problem. We have a duty as a society to the majority of students,

but we also, as a society, have a responsibility to the child who has a

discipline problem, and there are many factors which makes a child a discipline

problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to

alternate classroom settings which of course is recommendation 143 of the Royal

Commission Report. I wanted to ask the minister if he could be more precise as

to when the ministry will be ready to establish some parameters for that kind of

classroom setting and if there will be pilot projects initiated and where will

they be established in the Province, and under what school boards?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member has gone a little bit further

than I have but yet, Mr. Speaker, he is quite right, that the concept of the

alternate school was recommended.

Now, as I said in the early answer to his question: the

Classroom Issues Report which the NLTA and the Province did, made some excellent

suggestions which might make it possible for us not to have to go with alternate

schools. The last thing we want to do as a government, Mr. Speaker, is to pluck

children out of the classroom and put them into an alternate setting and would

only do that as a last resort. One of the problems we are finding, and the

Classroom Issues Report pointed it out, is that, there is a lot of co-ordination

between Social Services and Education and Justice.

For example: there are many teachers in this Province who

thought that because of the Young Offenders Act, the teacher had no right to

know what a particular student had done before that student came into the

classroom as a result of a court case. Judge Hyslop points out that the Young

Offenders Act does not say that, but certain people whose business it is to know

should know, and there have been several cases in this very city where some

children have been ordered back to school and because of this process which is

put in place on the Avalon there has been remarkable success, Mr. Speaker, so

the recommendation is, alternate schooling yes, but that will be dealt with only

as a last resort.

We are not talking about something similar to Whitbourne, we

are not talking about some sort of a prison, Mr. Speaker, we are simply talking

about addressing the needs of all of our citizens and some of our children, for

whatever reason, have severe discipline problems and I don't believe there is

such a thing as `a bad child'; I believe there is something which causes these

discipline problems. I would like to be able to get at the cause and solve it

that way but as a last resort, if we have to do it and can't do it any other

way, then I suppose in desperation, I will have to ask my colleagues to consider

recommendation 143 which is alternate schooling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition signed by forty people, most of

them from my District of Green Bay, from Springdale, one from Gander, some from

Grand Falls - Windsor, Robert's Arm, South Brook, Port Anson, Miles Cove et

cetera, and the prayer of the petition is as follows, Mr. Speaker, petition to

the House of Assembly:

We the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly not

to approve changing claim staking from ground staking to map staking.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that I raised with the minister

concerned, in Question Period a few moments earlier. The government in its rush

to be consistent between its operations on the Labrador Peninsula and on the

Island of Newfoundland, has brought about a policy change that is going to cost,

in a slack year, my district in the order of fifty jobs.

I met with a number of concerned individuals on this subject

the weekend past, and in the short space of an hour they managed to put together

a petition with these forty names, most of whom are directly concerned with the

claim-staking industry, as an avenue for me to bring their concerns before this

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great rush on in Labrador, as the

minister indicated. I think there was something in the order of 140,000-plus

claims being staked in that area; obviously, when you get into a situation of

that size and magnitude, a frenzied situation is the only way to describe it and

individual staking of claims on the ground is not at all practical. The

situation on the Island of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat more sedate

and there is no need to rush into a massive map-staking situation when there are

literally dozens of Newfoundlanders not only in my district but in several other

areas of the Province, who make their living working in the bush during the

Spring and summer months staking claims for various mineral exploration

companies.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this particular

government has gotten onto with regard to map staking, especially in Labrador,

is they recently upped the fees for staking claims and they are getting tens of

thousands of claims staked in any given week, so it has become a cash cow, and

one has to wonder if a similar motivation didn't apply to their changing the

claim staking provisions around the Island. However, with the number of claims

being staked on the Island of Newfoundland, compared to Labrador, they would not

be raking in any great amount of cash and I would suggest that they would haul

in much more cash from the income tax provided by people actually working in the

bush staking claims.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I have been told by people in my

district who are affected by this, there was no consultation. They happened to

see a notice in The Newfoundland Gazette of a change in policy, one that

will practically wipe out a number of companies in Central Newfoundland and

literally put dozens of people out of work. Mr. Speaker, this isn't good enough

and it is another example of this government catering to interests from the

mainland who like to call up a friend here in St. John's and have him walk down

to a government office and file a claim by marking an X on a map. Mr. Speaker,

that is simply not good enough. We have to cater to the mineral exploration

industry, yes, but not only the big shots from upalong who have an interest in

running amuck all over the Labrador Peninsula, we also have to take into account

the people who earn their livelihoods on the Island of Newfoundland in this

industry as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day and I understand

that motion 5 will be debated.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

On Monday afternoon I rose in this House to introduce a

private members' resolution. I will read it again for the record of Hansard:

`WHEREAS the Newfoundland Dockyard has been operating in

Newfoundland and employing Newfoundlanders for most of the century; and

WHEREAS the Dockyard has proven its ability to make a

significant contribution to the Newfoundland economy, most recently having

employed more than 700 people in 1994; and

WHEREAS the Dockyard, being situated in Newfoundland, is

strategically placed in the Northwest Atlantic to take advantage of shipping and

other marine traffic routes; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a

direct interest in the Dockyard through its $8 to $10 million investment in the

snychrolift; and

WHEREAS recent decisions by Marine Atlantic in managing the

facility have raised serious concerns about the Crown corporation's plans for

the future of the operation;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

management of the Newfoundland Dockyard, to revitalize the operation, safeguard

the jobs it provides, by among other things, Mr. Speaker, permitting the

Newfoundland Dockyard to bid on projects all across Canada, and

internationally.'

Now, the question that we have to answer today - and as

elected representatives, it is one we must answer. It is not good enough to pass

the buck to the Federal Government and say it is their responsibility, because

ultimately, it is ours as provincial members of the House of Assembly.

Now, this is a very, very serious issue and one that deserves

full attention by all members in this House in a non-partisan, non-biased way.

What we are talking about here at one level, the most important level, is the

maintenance of several hundred jobs, directly, several hundred families,

directly, and 300 to 400 other jobs in this neck of the woods, or in this region

of the Province, indirectly. Now, if it was not in question, or if there was not

a concern, or if there was not a problem, there would be no need to present such

a resolution, Mr. Speaker. There would be no need to debate it. There would be

no need for people who work in the Dockyard, who have worked there for years and

years to be here, there would be no need for anybody to be concerned about what

the future holds for them.

The question is, why are we here? What has brought us to this

point? The reality is this, and it is simple from where I stand. There is a

private agenda by Marine Atlantic to dismantle the Newfoundland Dockyard. I do

not say that without having put some thought into it, without having gathered

the evidence that demonstrates clearly what I am saying is a fact. What is more

important and what is scary about that is that it is not an agenda that is being

debated publicly, until recently, it is not an agenda that the federal Minister

of Transport put forward so that he would let people know upfront but it is one

that has been motivated for the past several years, year by year, bit by bit,

month by month and so on. We have seen lack of capital investment in the

Dockyard and more and more the statements made by the new CEO certainly indicate

that what I have said here is true.

In a recent interview with CBC Radio, Mr. Morrison was asked,

`Is there a likelihood that the Newfoundland Dockyard will be dismantled?' His

response was unequivocal, `It is a distinct possibility.' They asked him, `What

has led to this situation?' He indicated, `Well there is not much shipbuilding

repair work going on nationally, in Atlantic Canada, in Europe or

internationally.' Misleading statements, Mr. Speaker, very misleading statements

and I am not about to stand up and take strips off people in the House today

because I know there are members on both sides who are extremely concerned about

the future viability and the survival of that yard, and they should be, but let

me get back to Mr. Morrison.

In the last two to three years the Newfoundland Dockyard has

positioned itself to bid on work internationally, most recently, a lucrative

contract in Peru. It was stopped. Orders came down from the ivory tower in New

Brunswick, Marine Atlantic's head office, to stop the bidding process that we

were positioned to win. We, as a Province, and we, as the Newfoundland Dockyard,

employing Newfoundlanders, was positioned to win. Why? that is the question. Why

was it stopped? In the interview he said, `The Newfoundland Dockyard cannot bid

on work in Quebec or in Ontario.' Why is that so? Why does Marine Atlantic, who

has the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the Newfoundland Dockyard,

say to a subsidiary company that you cannot bid on work internationally or in

other parts of Canada? Is that not suspect? Does it not deserve more attention?

Does it not deserve the raising of some serious questions about what Marine

Atlantic's agenda is? It further supports my claim that Marine Atlantic - it is

their agenda driven by the political masters in Ottawa, not by Mr. Morrison. He

is a top level bureaucrat, yes. He is a problem, yes, but he is not the ultimate

problem.

The ultimate problem lies at the federal Cabinet table, the

ultimate problem lies with the political masters, that is where the problem

lies. If there is a solution, that is where the problem will be solved. It is

not Mr. Morrison who will solve the problem, he is a task master. He is given

the agenda, he carries it out on behalf of the government; but the agenda he has

been given is not to make the Newfoundland Dockyard viable, it is not to make

Newfoundland position it so that it can aggressively go after work in Europe and

elsewhere. He has not been given an agenda by the Federal Government to take

advantage of the 33,000 to 50,000 vessels that pass 50-60 miles off our coast,

outside the Narrows of this city, that is not the agenda that he has been given.

So it deserves more attention then we, all of us, have been giving it.

Now, we are at the eleventh hour, supposedly, but I think

not. I have a great deal of optimism about the future of the Newfoundland

Dockyard. I think it has positioned well, outside of all other normal regular

activity of work that is going on in the shipbuilding industry in fabrication.

The Hibernia project alone, which I will get into in more detail, that alone and

the spin-offs from that over the next fifteen to twenty years could see the

Dockyard survive, on that work alone and it doesn't need to get all of it. It

needs to get a portion of it. It doesn't need to be greedy.

I will get into more detail about the Federal Government's

response but first I would like to point out that the federal minister, Doug

Young, indicated in the federal House that the Newfoundland Dockyard lost $3

million last year and it is part of the government's agenda to privatize,

possibly. But it is a situation that can't continue.

Mr. Young neglected to tell the people of Canada and his

associates and colleagues in the federal House that last year there was a $25

million payroll at the Newfoundland Dockyard. He neglected to tell the people of

Canada and his colleagues in the House that $8 million to $10 million from that

payroll went into Federal Government coffers in personal income tax. Why did he

neglect to do it? That is the question that must be asked.

Again, another question must be asked: Did it really lose

money? Did it really lose money last year? All we have heard is that Doug Young,

the federal minister, has said that the Newfoundland Dockyard has lost money.

But on no occasion has the Federal Government or the Dockyard or Marine Atlantic

produced the solid evidence to demonstrate clearly that the Newfoundland

Dockyard in fact lost $3 million, or if it lost $1 million, or if it lost a

dollar or $100 million. The questions have been asked but they have never been

answered.

The reality is different. This is a game of political smoke

and mirrors by the Federal Government. You throw up a concern to get at what you

are really after through the back door. It is not right, it is unethical. The

reality -

MR. HARRIS: How much (inaudible) the yard?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. HARRIS: How much (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is another question that deserves to

be answered. The reality is this, that Newfoundland Dockyard last year

represented 30 per cent of the revenues of Marine Atlantic and 3 per cent of its

losses. That doesn't sound like a losing proposition to me, doesn't sound like a

losing proposition to the 150 or so people from my district who work at the

Newfoundland Dockyard.

What about the spin-off impact? which again I will get into

more detail about, but it is important to highlight up front. One employer in

this city, if the Newfoundland Dockyard closes tomorrow, within a week will lay

off fourteen people indirectly associated with the work that that employer has

done consecutively, year-by-year, with the Newfoundland Dockyard. That is a

fact. The Dockyard itself entered into agreements, bought and purchased

services, from over 300 companies in this Province last year. Over 300

companies, local business. The money that has been brought in through its

contracts is not old money circulating from one hand in this Province and

another hand, it is a new money. It creates new wealth, it creates new

opportunities, it creates new jobs.

Much has been said about the workforce at the Newfoundland

Dockyard. Some people within municipal politics have indicated that productivity

is low, it is not high, it is a problem. Again, the reality is quite different.

The tradespeople employed at the Newfoundland Dockyard are amongst the most

highly-technical, highly-skilled, the most ingenious, especially with the

equipment that they have to work with, in this country. It is a testament to the

Newfoundland mind and to the Newfoundland work ethic, the Newfoundland Dockyard,

and the people who work down there. We should be proud of that.

What about Atlantic Canada? What else is happening in the

shipyard industry in Canada? Saint John, New Brunswick, that much work going on,

new contracts coming in. They are subbing it out. The Federal Government is

directly involved. Halifax, the Dartmouth yard, frigate contract worth $40

million to $50 million, subbing out work now because every employee who has ever

been employed there is working full steam ahead. Again, direct involvement by

the Federal Government.

The shipyard in Quebec - the former Mulroney government, I

know, pumped in $363 million to MIL-Davie, in fact, bailed them out. Three

hundred and sixty-three million dollars - if the Newfoundland Dockyard were to

get .05 per cent of that we would be employing 600 people or 700 people down

there today. It wouldn't be a ghost town at the Newfoundland Dockyard today,

there would be 600 or 700 people employed down there. And it is not because its

geographic location inhibits the work it can do. It is not because the workforce

is not skilled to do it. The reality is that Marine Atlantic does not want the

Newfoundland Dockyard to survive and it is out to dismantle it, pure and simple.

The Newfoundland Dockyard historically has been - in its own

creation initially it was a yard that was established, it was a Crown

corporation that was not ever set up to compete privately initially in the

1950s. It was set up to service the marine fleet in Newfoundland and Labrador

but, as we all know, the marine fleet disappeared for a variety of reasons which

are not necessarily important to the scope of the debate but important to

mention it. What has happened since then? The Dockyard entered into - I am

trying to give it a very quick overview because I have other points to make,

more important points, but it is important for the record that we understand the

synopsis of where it came from and where it is.

In the mid-'70s trouble began. Then we enter into the mid-80s

when the Federal Government, under Pierre Trudeau, did not want to invest in the

Newfoundland Dockyard, and were going to shut it down but the Provincial

Government of the day stepped in with an $8 million - $10 million investment in

the syncohrolift. While it was not enough, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a step

in the right direction. But where does that leave us today? Where does that

leave the several hundred people who are employed there? Where does it leave

their families? That is the real question and more importantly, Mr. Speaker,

where does it leave this Provincial Government? Because what is happening at the

Newfoundland Dockyard is not isolated. It has happened before in the last two

years and it is continuing to happen.

We have seen, in the last two years, a downloading from the

Federal Government on the Provincial Government. We have seen jobs disappear in

forestry, from the Canadian Forestry Service, gone, disappeared to Moncton. That

is where those jobs are gone. We have seen a downloading in UI. The changes in

UI cost this Province $273 million. We seen the loss of work at Marystown, which

was incredible unto itself, but we have seen the loss of work there. The

question for this government is, When does it stop? When do you draw the line in

the sand and say, That's it, enough is enough, we are not going to take this

lying down anymore and that by god, if this is going to happen to the

Newfoundland Dockyard - if we don't stand up today it could happen to me

tomorrow, it could happen to you, it could happen to anyone of us and we, as a

Provincial Government and as provincial members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

- if we do not stand on this issue today then we will have

more serious problems in the future, because this government, provincially, must

say to the Federal Government and to its federal representative, Brian Tobin,

that closing the Newfoundland Dockyard is not an option. What does it take to

revitalize it? Does it need to be privatized to ensure that several hundred

people will work? Do we need to diversify so that several hundred people may

continue working? Do we need to go after niches in the marketplace? If we do,

then how do we achieve that? What capital investment is required? If it is $20

million - $30 million how are we going to achieve that over a period of time?

These are the questions we must be asking now but never, ever, ever must the

closure of that facility be an option for any of us in this room, ever!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, future considerations for the

Dockyard are bright. Recently, in an interview with a specialist, Mr. Deans - I

have a transcript of what he said about the Newfoundland Dockyard - when asked

about the future considerations: Does it have a future? He said to Catherine

Hicks, `Well, let me put it this way, the shore base facility requirements for

Hibernia alone - never mind any future exploration and development of Terra

Nova, White Rose or other fields in the oil and gas industry - called for

considerably more space and heavy duty dock, that at present exists only in the

Newfoundland Dockyard in this Province, only in this region.' I understand that

the Harvey Group would have a plan to spend money because they have largely

wooden jetties, that wouldn't be up to task. We are talking here of shipping

very large quantities of tubulars.

There is a $2 billion drilling program to commence

immediately, ninety wells in the provision on the Hibernia platform alone and

these are running 30,000 feet. If you think 30,000 feet of casing and 30,000

feet of production tubulars - the vast quantities of cement, mud, brine, diesel

and so on required to be shipped offshore, I believe it is unlikely that the sea

base facility, really quite small - and the only other place is the old fish

plant he mentions. But the reality he talks about is the same. The future is

bright for the Newfoundland Dockyard if it is given a chance to survive. And if

it is given the equipment to survive with, it can be a profitable operation. It

can continue to impact positively on the Newfoundland economy. It can continue

to impact positively on several hundred families from Harbour Grace, Harbour

Main, Carbonear, Flatrock, Torbay, Kilbride, the Goulds, and Bay Bulls. These

are the places they come from. These are the places from which the people at the

Newfoundland Dockyard work.

I think, in my own heart and soul, of our federal minister,

Brian Tobin, who made such a solid stand for conservation of our turbot stocks,

who stood up to the international community, stared them in the face and stared

them down, and won. Will he stand as he stood on the dock in New York? Will he

stand on the dock in St. John's Harbour and stare his Cabinet colleagues down

and say: the Newfoundland Dockyard not only will survive, supported by this

Federal Government, but it will thrive?

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

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

placing this motion before the House. I think it is appropriate, I think it is

timely, and I am sure it is something that the government can support. Without

any question you will find 100 per cent support from this side of the House.

I recognized from the outset that the hon. member's comments

began by saying this is not a partisan issue, and it certainly isn't. Because

the very history of this Dockyard, some 112 years ago, in 1884 when it was set

up, somebody at that time obviously had great vision. They obviously saw that

the most easterly point in North America, here in the capital city, that long

ago, and the oldest city, the strategic location that could be capitalized on,

if in fact things were done correctly, were absolutely magnificent and

monumental.

The hon. member is quite right when he says this crosses

partisan lines because in 1949 when we joined Confederation, many of the assets

that were held by the Crown at that time directly reverted to the Crown of

systems, including the Dockyard. But you are right when you say it is an

non-partisan issue, because from St. Laurent on, right through to Diefenbaker,

Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, and even today, the Dockyard essentially has

been cast aside, set adrift, and treated like an orphan. It really hasn't been

treated fairly. I can see that and any fair examination of history will show

that is true.

Mr. Speaker, while in 1884 somebody did have the foresight,

nobody from 1949 onward saw the real potential that is here. You asked and urged

the government to proceed to make those people who were in power, currently,

today, because we can all look backward over various governments, whether

Conservative or Liberal - I think the only one who can seek safe harbour from

the politics of this is the New Democratic Party because they haven't governed

in this country yet. But it is not a political issue. It is one of which any

reasonable and fair-minded person would say it is an issue which nobody has

focused on properly, nobody has assessed it fully, and nobody has put the muscle

power and capital behind it to give it a fair and decent chance in the

marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I know a little bit about what I am taking

about, because on the other side of the horns of this dilemma, the Province

itself owns a shipbuilding facility here in Eastern Canada, at Marystown. And it

has been most difficult, because it is a very competitive, almost vicious,

global marketplace where many people who are bidding on contracts around the

globe recognize that they have to walk the margins of these contracts just to

win contracts, just to keep the wolves away from the door, and just to keep the

thing up, operating and functioning.

I know; I have taken some interesting hits on the very yard

that we operate ourselves, and we put substantial capital at Marystown to chase

a diversified opportunity in the world marketplace at Cow Head, and still we

find that it is very difficult. We have had some winners; we have had some

losers. We have some winners happening down there right now with two ships which

were commissioned from Maersk out of Copenhagen, and we just won this morning, I

am told, a $2 million contract to do the soffit fittings for the concrete in the

roof of the gravity-based system, so it is very difficult out there.

So the Dockyard was set adrift. It was treated as an orphan.

It was never really focused upon. Nobody asked: Is this really a strategic

location that we can capitalize on? What kind of equipment are they using down

there?' I have had meetings with the management, and I can only commend the

management down there, particularly under the enlightened leadership of Michael

Apostolidis, who is there now. I have had a number of sessions with that

gentleman and I am very impressed with his view of the world and of the

potential for that place.

Secondly, I want to say that I have met with Mr. Locke and

Mr. O'Keefe and a few others who I tip my hat to as well. They have done a

terrific job under extremely trying, frightening circumstances, and they, too,

have to be commended because it is a difficult time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the orphan wasn't cast adrift in

I believe. Then CNR, in its great big corporation across the country, shunted it

aside as well. I see the hon. Member for Placentia nodding. I know he worked in

that operation at, I believe, the marine system, for awhile.

Then in 1987 they came up with a great plan. They said, we

will carve off the marine sector and make it a corporation unto itself called

Marine Atlantic, and the Dockyard will report to it. On the surface it looked

like a brilliant idea, because the Dockyard then would fold under the very

marine capacity whose lifeblood could be passed to the Dockyard to sustain it

for a considerable period of time, but did that happen? Did Marine Atlantic

direct their ships into the Dockyard, use its very own facility to beef up not

only employment and opportunity but its very own bottom line? No, it did not,

Mr. Speaker. It didn't do a focused direction of work into the Dockyard, so the

orphan was set adrift yet again.

Then, in December, 1990, Transport Canada announced that they

would seek privatization, and they made a public statement to that effect

whereby they would look at the privatization possibilities and they would take a

year to review the process and see what would happen. I think that was in 1990 -

1990?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FUREY: Yes.

So that process went along. From everything that I can see,

they just basically spun their wheels. They accepted and looked at some

propositions, but none of them at that time were acceptable.

In 1992, they put in, I think, $5.1 million, a portion of

that for emergency structural repair, and a smaller portion for training.

Then, in January, 1994, a little over a year ago, Marine

Atlantic received an unsolicited proposal for the Dockyard. That unsolicited

proposal triggered them going out publicly yet again, and I am told six parties

came forward and they were assessed by a local accounting firm, I believe it was

Nesbitt Burns at the time, and paring that down, one group looked acceptable and

one group is in discussions on the privatization side for the dockyard as we

speak here today on this critical and important issue.

Mr. Speaker, privatization is nothing new. This government

was involved in privatization. I remember the Member for Grand Bank and I in

Marystown signing an agreement in principle with a very big and muscular power

from the North Sea, Kvaerner Rosenberg and we were within a whisker of

privatizing the Marystown Shipyard for $21.5 million and putting the muscle

power of the North Sea behind this corporation down at Marystown. What happened

was, in the intervening week, in that seven, short days before we signed the

actual legal text of that agreement, Gulf Canada pulled their shares out of

Hibernia, collapsing and sending the whole massive project into a spiral. That

collapsed the deal.

Now I heard somebody on the radio the other day, some expert

in the oil industry saying: nobody wanted Marystown and they ran away from it.

That is just not true, that is a fabrication of the highest order. There was a

deal in principle struck and the legal text was being finalized and within that

seven days, Gulf Canada crippled the Hibernia project by withdrawing their 25

per cent share and that sent the whole thing into a spiral. So privatization is

not something that's new, or foreign, or frightening or shouldn't be

frightening; nobody should be frightened of that. These are people who operate

in the real world of shipbuilding, ship repair and offshore fabrication; we

weren't frightened of it, we nearly had a deal, I think it would have been good

for the Burin Peninsula and it is just a shame that it fell through.

Now, I am not privy to the details of the one company that is

left behind bidding on the dockyard, but I hope that it is substantive, I hope

it is meaningful and with Mr. Locke and I the other day, the President of the

union, were asked about it, to comment on it in the media, we both agreed that

if there were some kind of meaningful way that the Province could ante-up,

whether it's through some kind of forgiveness of the $8 million and accumulated

interest on our portion of the synchrolift, some kind of combination with EDGE

status to wipe out the burden of taxation for ten years, if there is some way

that we can come to the table as a provincial government, I and the Cabinet and

the government would be happy to do that; we would be more than happy to do

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak to the numbers

because every time I hear numbers floating around, they lost $3 million here,

they lost $4 million there, it has been a loser since Confederation, I think the

only way to do that is to have a proper and audited set of numbers before you,

so you can review it in a meaningful way; but what -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes. - otherwise we are just dealing with

smoke and mirrors but when you blow away the smoke and fold up the mirrors and

you look at the reality of what's happening, the trend at the dockyard, Mr.

Apostolidis who ought to know, tells me the trend from 1992 forward, is decline

and losses - and I heard the Member for St. John's East, quite rightly say: what

apportion of those losses are applied against the mother company or the holding

company from the dockyard, so you need to see the whole picture, to examine it

properly and to look at audited numbers to see whether it is right or wrong and

I concur with the hon. Member for Kilbride, he is quite right to say that.

But, here are, as I see them and as honestly as I can say it

to the House and to the people of the Province, the three choices that clearly

are before us, and unless there are others, Mr. Speaker, that I can't see or

somebody hasn't brought to my attention, they seem to be as plain as the nose on

your face. The first is, Mr. Speaker, you either take the tough decision to

recapitalize this yard to give it a fighting, fair chance; and when I say that,

Mr. Speaker, I hear horror stories from the union and others - and I visited

with Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Locke I believe about two years ago; they took me

through the dockyard and I felt like I was walking through a Charles Dickens'

novel; it was just extraordinary to see the kinds of equipment they are asking

these men and women to produce, heavy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, antique is a kind word. I mean, it is

just completely antiquated. Your are asking this workforce to walk in to an

antiquated environment; you are asking them to bid with this antiquated

equipment against state-of-the-art facilities including Marystown but worldwide,

Mr. Speaker, where I said at the outset, the competitive, global marketplace is

forcing even the winners to walk the margins and the profit lines to draw in

income to keep their machinery operating and the workforces moving so, when I

think of the despicable, horrific, Dickensian atmosphere that I walked through

at the dockyard, it is just frightening.

Lifting equipment that is forty years old. When you see the

cranes of Korea and Norway, and even our own on the South Coast, modern,

efficient, state-of-the-art equipment, how can they dare talk about productivity

against such an antiquated set of equipment? Yet the men and women of the

Dockyard are forced to produce, be efficient, and be productive against all the

other bidders in the world. That is too much to ask of any workforce or of any

group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the graving dock, they tell me

the door is leaking and that there are pumps going all the time, twenty-four

hours a day. Spilling out capital where they have to bring in pumps from the

outside and pour money into that just to create a decent working environment for

the men and women there. The president tells me the other day they had to shut

down the heat, and men are asked to go in in large coats and big gloves and

boots and work and be productive? It is impossible.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, clearly the first option is to

recapitalize, make it efficient, make it productive, give these men and women

decent equipment, transform that antiquated, Dickensian environment to a

state-of-the-art facility, leading edge technology, sitting in the strategic

position on the most easterly part of the North American continent where, yes,

thousands of ships go by and ply our waters. That is number one.

Number two is to privatize. Go aggressively privatize. Do

joint venture deals. Do a public-private partnering if you have. Yes, ask the

union to participate. From my discussions that I've had with them these men and

women are prepared - they have been in the past prepared - to come to the table

to make concessions to make it work. We are taking the tough decisions at

Marystown. They are not pleasant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FUREY: May I?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: They are not pleasant, Mr. Speaker, but they

are necessary. I get the impression directly from the union membership that I

talked to that they are willing to play their part, but it takes two to play in

this game. The other partner is the federal government through that Crown

corporation that must give them the state-of-the-art facility.

So you either recapitalize - recapitalize means putting your

money where your mouth is - privatize - which means aggressively getting out

there and doing the deal - or three, and this is the one that is least hopeful,

you've got to be honest enough with the workforce and the management and the men

and women who for 100 or more years have worked at that facility, be honest

enough to tell them the truth. Don't tow them along with threads of hope and

some kind of illusion, and toss up smoke and put up mirrors. Be honest.

We concur with the member's resolution. It is a fine

resolution and it is one we accept and is appropriate and we are in total

longer treat this as an orphan. It must take full possession of it, own it, be

proud of it, recapitalize it, put the money where the mouths are always spouting

rhetoric. Because there is a future. There is a great potential out there. When

I saw the supply bases - with great deference to my friend for Argentia and

Placentia, who I understand for his reasons is very upset that they didn't make

the pre-qualification list, and he makes some valid points - but in reality who

are pre-qualified are three companies in St. John's, one at Bay Bulls, all in

proximity to what could be a great facility with a great future.

Because Hibernia's real cash is in the production side. Yes,

there will be $6 billion on construction at Bull Arm. But when it is towed out

and it sits in that eighty metres of water and that oil is pumping at 100,000

barrels a day, it will pump for twenty-four years. Billions and billions of

dollars will flow through this support system here at St. John's or Bay Bulls.

Guess what? Sitting there is a golden opportunity called the Newfoundland

Dockyard. It owes, and it is owed, the opportunity to recapitalize, to get back

up on its feet, to not be treated as an orphan, and to take hold of that bright

future for another 100 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm honoured today

and pleased to be able to stand in my place and say a few words of support for

the private member's resolution brought in by the Member for Kilbride, Mr.

Speaker.

The Member for Kilbride is well informed on this topic and

has been for the past number of weeks and months. He has researched the topic

with respect to the dockyard very well, the situation down there. He has had

meetings with the union. A number of us have had meetings with the union

representative, and there are a lot of problems in the dockyard. The Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology just touched on a few of them as he spoke a short

while ago.

This resolution is asking for the federal government to get

involved with the dockyard, to help save the dockyard and get involved in the

management of the dockyard. Now we all know that Marine Atlantic is responsible

for the dockyard at this point in time, and that is basically an offshoot of the

federal government, but I believe it is not doing its job. We have to get the

federal government more involved in the process, and one of the big problems I

see down there is that they are not allowed to bid on international projects.

That is what I have been informed of.

Marine Atlantic has been basically tying the hands of the

workers and administration at the dockyard. Competition - how can these people

be expected to compete in the international market if they are not permitted to

compete in the international market? They are not on a level playing field at

this point in time.

The federal government has pumped millions and millions of

dollars into shipyards in Quebec. The latest figure I have heard is $360

million. They have pumped millions of dollars into other shipyards in Atlantic

Canada. Again, the Newfoundland dockyard is not being treated fairly.

The Newfoundland dockyard has been operating for most of the

century, employing hundreds and thousands of people over that period of time.

They have been supporting families in and around St. John's over that period of

time. These families have been paying taxes to the City of St. John's, have been

paying income tax, federal sales tax, and retail sales tax. The federal

government has been receiving revenue from the people working at the dockyard.

The dockyard has supported other businesses in the area, as

many as 300 businesses. They supported these businesses' employees and their

families. These people have paid taxes to the federal and provincial government

over that period of time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a chain reaction. If the dockyard

closes, it is not only the 700 or more people who have been employed down there

over the past number of years, but hundreds and hundreds of more small

businesses affected.

The Member for Kilbride mentioned the people who supply the

gas for the dockyard, fourteen people automatically laid off if the dockyard

closes. It is not something that is acceptable. The dockyard has contributed

greatly to the Newfoundland economy over those years and I would like to see it,

and I am sure everybody in this House would gladly see it, continue on that way.

Maybe some of the people in the galleries, or the workers or

the employees at the dockyard, should start a petition from these local

companies and do some kind of study to see what businesses have been involved

with the dockyard over the years, how many people are directly affected, and

what the benefits have been to these people individually.

The location of the dockyard has been addressed somewhat here

over the past week or two. The Newfoundland dockyard, of course, is in a

strategic location on the Atlantic Ocean. Thousands of ships pass by each year,

just outside the Narrows. These ships require repairs, they require maintenance,

and they require upgrading, and they pass right by the dockyard - no benefits

coming to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and none to the people who

work at the dockyard.

Something that has been on my mind since this issue has come

up, and it has been ongoing for a long while, is the promotion of the dockyard

itself, and that is the question: Has it been promoted properly? Obviously not.

I have yet to see or hear of any promotion with respect to the dockyard. How

much money has been put into advertising of the dockyard, in selling the quality

of the yard, in promoting the experience of the employees at the dockyard and

the great work that has been completed down there over the past number of years

since the dockyard has been started up, over 100 years ago?

I know a number of people who work at the dockyard - some of

them live in my district - and they are quite proud of the work that they do

down there and, of course, they are quite concerned with what may happen to the

dockyard.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has an investment of $8 to $10 million in the synchrolift at the

dockyard, and I believe this investment has to be protected. Now, how do we

protect an investment of $8 to $10 million? When you talk about the investment,

I suppose, it is not only dollars you would be speaking of, but you would have

to look at, again, the employees, the experience, and all the hard work and

labour that has gone into that site over the past number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you how we have to protect our

investment and I probably will not be as polite and as nice as the Member for

Kilbride on this issue when I am speaking to the government. The provincial

government, and its ministers, from my perspective, have to start standing up

for Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. We have to stop accepting the cutbacks

that have been dictated from Ottawa over the past number of years. We have to

stop being yes men for the Chretien government, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier was elected in 1989 to represent the interests of

Newfoundlanders, not the rest of Canada, and I do not think he has done that. I

do not think he has represented the interests of Newfoundlanders properly over

that period. I would like to tell the ministers that they have to stop being yes

men for the Premier and have to start standing up for their constituents. The

closing of the dockyard affects all, all the districts in and around St. John's

and on the Avalon Peninsula. As a matter of fact it will affect all districts in

the Province because of the revenues that are received by the provincial

government from the dockyard.

The MHAs have to speak up for their districts. The families

in all the districts around St. John's, as I said, are being affected. I saw the

Premier and two ministers this past week in the media and they only got onto

this after the Member for Kilbride, the union, and other people started making

an issue of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government has been at it for six

years.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if they have been at it for six years

why is it only now when it is on the verge of closing that they are getting on

the media saying they have to do something about it?

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was on the

media the other night and made the statement that it is a time we have to be

tough and make tough decisions. Is the decision already made? Has Marine

Atlantic already made the decision? The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations said he would meet with the federal minister, Young, to discuss the

dockyard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: He has already had the meeting with these

people? Well, he has asked the question, will the dockyard be saved? Will Mr.

Morrison be called before the provincial government and asked what he is going

to do to save the dockyard?

AN HON. MEMBER: You were told today he has been.

MR. J. BYRNE: He has been? A big deal, he is on call. Mr.

Morrison the President of Marine Atlantic is on call. What does that mean? Are

we now having the same situation here as we had in Marystown where jobs are

going to be floating away? Is Mr. Morrison a happy man? I am asking the

questions that need to be asked, and that the government over there should be

asking and have not been asking. It is nice to say, we will be on call.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Mr. Morrison is the

problem. I believe he is a symptom. He is a symptom of what is going on with his

lack of interest in the dockyard. Mr. Morrison has already stated that the yard

will probably close if it cannot be privatized.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are trying to privatize it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if we are trying to privatize it, and

we are tying to sell it, how can we tell the potential buyers that we are trying

to sell a dockyard that has been losing money over the past number of years? How

can we approach a potential buyer and say the dockyard lost $3 million last

year? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology got up and said, did it

really lose money? We are talking $3 million, $4 million, or is it no million

dollars? Did it lose any money at all? I agree that there needs to be a

financial study done on the dockyard and have it looked at properly, Mr.

Speaker.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has already

stated that tough decisions have to be made and I fear the decision has been

made. Marine Atlantic, as I said earlier, has basically tied the hands of the

people of the Dockyard by not allowing them to bid on international work. Only

bid on work in Atlantic Canada, they have been told. What work is there in

Atlantic Canada for the Newfoundland Dockyard to bid on? There has been no money

gone into the Dockyard for upgrading of equipment. How can the Newfoundland

Dockyard compete? There has been no money go into the facility itself for

upgrading. Again I ask, how can the Dockyard compete. How can the Dockyard

survive?

I think Newfoundlanders deserve better than this government

has been prepared to dish out to them over the past few years. There has been

out-migration of Newfoundlanders over the past five years and it has been

getting worse each year. Last year 4,500 people left this Province that we know

about. Forty-five hundred people, increasing year after year. Now we have

possibly 700 more employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard who may end up having

to leave this Province and their families to look for work elsewhere. Then they

have to look at the spin-off, the employees at other companies from the work

they receive from the Dockyard. How many of those people will have to leave?

Will they have to go to Quebec where the federal government pumped in $360

million to work in the dockyard in Quebec? Serious concerns here.

This government has done very little to promote the hope and

prosperity of Newfoundlanders. The Member for Kilbride was getting up and saying

that we can't play politics. I'm not playing politics here. I'm being sincere

when I say it is like there is a plan here within this government that they

believe there are too many Newfoundlanders living in Newfoundland. It is like a

plan that they want to see them leave, forcing people out of the Province. I

think it is time for this government to stand up to Ottawa and say: Listen,

we've had enough, we are not taking any more. We gave away our fishery, we let

you control that, and what happened to it? We let you control our railway, and

what happened to it? Churchill Falls, what happened to it? Time to stand up. The

list goes on.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said that the

government is 100 per cent supportive of this resolution. He talks about vision

when the Dockyard was set up, what great vision those people had. What about the

vision now, today? We all need to have the vision with respect to the Dockyard

and other industries within this Province. The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology talks about real potential, he talks about stiff competition in the

marketplace. How can the Dockyard compete, with the equipment that they have at

the Dockyard? The Minister of Industry, Trade an Technology put it in better

words than I could, let me tell you, when he talked about the equipment and the

facility itself.

The minister realizes the potential for the Dockyard, I say.

He talks about giving it proper support and to upgrade it and to allow

international competition. These are basic things that need to be done to the

Dockyard. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology talked about tough

decisions. He talked about three choices. Recapitalizing, which would make the

Dockyard more efficient and productive and put state-of-the-art equipment in

there. Who can argue with that? We all agree that should be done. Second choice,

he was talking about privatizing. As I said, how can we really expect to

privatize it if we go out promoting the idea that the Dockyard is losing money

annually and is on a decline? That is not something that would be very

attractive to a potential buyer.

I would say that closing the Dockyard is not an option. I

would like to again say I support this resolution put forward by the Member for

Kilbride and hope that the Ministers of Employment and Labour Relations and

Industry, Trade and Technology, when they do talk to the federal counterparts,

that they be tough -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that they be

tough with Ottawa and say: Listen, this is the way it is going to be, like it or

lump it. Do it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm really

pleased today to have an opportunity to stand in this House and say a few words

on the private member's resolution moved by my colleague for Kilbride. Not only

is it a timely Private Members bill, it is one that I accept with great support,

I suppose, because since 1990, when Marine Atlantic first announced that they

were going to privatize the Dockyard, that uncertainty - I suppose it goes back

even to when CN and - the CN program that was in place for the workers at the

yard, the pension structure and all the things associated with CN, when it moved

over to Marine Atlantic the workforce at that yard were given a commitment and a

promise that the yard would continue to prosper and grow. As we have seen since

the exploration days in the oil, a tremendous amount of marine involvement has

taken place but always there has been a workforce at the yard. The three

managers that I have had discussions with, Mr. Locke, Mr. O'Keefe, the workers'

representative, workers themselves - workers have come not only from St. John's

South but as the Member for Kilbride said, from all over the Avalon area.

The Dockyard has been a tremendous way of life for me. I

remember - I think it was in 1954 and the late Mike Curtis - when I went to work

at the Newfoundland Dockyard to try to gather up a few dollars to go to

university, bucketing rivets. I ended up in the valley car shop and back in the

Dockyard. My grandfather worked at the Dockyard for some thirty years. So I have

a long and a very good association with the yard. I have walked into the yard, I

suppose, a couple of dozen times over the last six years, for different reasons.

I have tried, as the member, where the yard sits - not that all the people in

the yard are from St. John's South. All the members adjacent; the Member for

Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's East Extern, the Member for Kilbride said

it, even my colleagues, the Member for Carbonear and the Member for Harbour

Grace and those areas, that is where the workforce comes from.

I was always a little sceptical and/or afraid during the last

few years to talk about the equipment at the yard and was often cautioned

because if we made too much of equipment that should have been, I suppose, for

all intents and purposes, in a Smithsonian Institute, if I made too much of that

it may have reflected, it may get out and the yard's ability to do the work -

somebody would say, Oh, I just heard the Member for St. John's South advocating

that the equipment was not good equipment, it was old equipment, and that would

reflect on the ability of the workers at the yard, but the Minister of ITT

covered that very, very well. He said it and I will say it again because it

needs to be said. If you look at the batch plant that was constructed for the

Hibernia job, not on

schedule but ahead of schedule, 850-approximately people

just a year ago employed at the yard, good high-paying jobs.

I have talked to the senior management people at Hibernia.

That whole slipform that was so important to that GBS, my colleague, the

Minister of Natural Resources will tell you how important it was. He said it

many times. We have discussed it many times. It was a state of the art - to

reuse the phrase - job. It was done, as I said, ahead of schedule. It was in the

minds of the Hibernia management people, a class A job. So we don't need to sit

and discuss whether the yard can do the work and do it competitively.

Number one, I don't believe the numbers that I am hearing. I,

like the Member for Kilbride - that is why the Morrison meeting, to get some

numbers so we have some ammunition to address. I don't think that Mr. Morrison

and/or anybody else - I have seen bean counters, I have seen people take

numbers. There is an old adage and somebody used to say it to me: `Figures lie

and liars figure.' I take that approach to that kind of $3 million loss - the

Member for Kilbride said it, and I am glad to have some help, I say to the

Member for Kilbride. I am glad, after six years, to see some help from the other

side. I never saw it - and I don't want to make this a political issue - I never

saw it up until this present crisis.

MR. J. BYRNE: We never saw it for seventeen years.

MR. MURPHY: I never saw it - and the Member for St.

John's East Extern should not bring politics into it. This is not a political

problem. This is a problem for all of us to address as Newfoundlanders, and the

Newfoundland Government to tell Ottawa - it matters not who is in Ottawa - to

tell them we are not going to tolerate the closing of the Newfoundland Dockyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The best thing for us to do is to forget that

rhetoric; I will forget it, and hon. members forget it.

The initial thing that I want to say, number one, right now

again, is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: If the McCulloch chain saw would just keep

his tongue over there and hang on to it, I would really appreciate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I don't need any lectures from the member,

when he was coaching a basketball team, to tell me about what I was doing for

the Dockyard. He is the last one I need to hear it from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: So let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker.

Number one, the thing that Marine Atlantic has to do is take the handcuffs off

the Newfoundland Dockyard immediately. I have said it to Mr. Morrison, I have

said it in the yard, I have said it to the union representatives, and I will

continue to say it: Take the cuffs off the yard. Let the yard bid whatever jobs,

whatever work is available - that is number one.

Number two is to put immediately some marketing money into

the Newfoundland Dockyard, to tell trade magazines and whatever vehicle, to tell

the world that the Newfoundland dockyard is open for business. We have long seen

too many federal governments -

MR. SULLIVAN: - close it down.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the Member for Ferryland, yes,

that is the attitude. He should remember when the Federal Government shut down

CN, closed CN.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Fine. Let me say to the member that Bonnie

and Jean have worked very hard, more than the member knows, and I am not here to

discuss that issue but some day in private I will tell the member exactly what

Bonnie and Jean have done, okay?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We know.

MR. MURPHY: No, you don't know, I say to the Member for

Grand Bank; you don't know anything.

The other thing that is needed immediately besides taking off

the handcuffs, besides putting some marketing dollars in place, is to put in

place a task force comprised of the workers, management, Marine Atlantic and

Transport Canada, and have a 90-day reporting structure in place - nothing less

than that - to put that task force in place to ensure that all the information,

the financial information, the work that is available, the whole situation, is

looked at by this task force and reported back in 90 days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I say to the member - yes.

Now, if ever an opportunity was at hand... We are seeing

things going on in the world. We are seeing the great yards in Asia and Japan,

and what have you, in real, real trouble because of the yen versus the dollar,

etcetera. It was never more of an opportune time for Marine Atlantic to promote

the Newfoundland Dockyard. The same thing is happening in Europe with the

structure of the European money market versus the American and Canadian market.

We have long seen, as the member has said, the support that

federal governments have given to MIL-Davie and Sorel, $361 million. When I

asked Mr. Crosbie about it some three or four years ago he said to me: I am

lucky to get $5 million, $6 million, for the Newfoundland Dockyard. I am sitting

around a Cabinet table with ten people from Quebec.

I understood that, and I publicly thank Mr. Crosbie for his

effort on behalf of the Newfoundland Dockyard - never brought any politics into

it, because the issue was too great. It is not political.

It is an appropriate time for Marine Atlantic, for the

Newfoundland Dockyard, to tell the world that the Newfoundland Dockyard is

capable. They should show the pictures of the batch plant in trade magazines -

produced at the Newfoundland Dockyard. The first keel that was ever laid, to my

knowledge, in years at the Dockyard was some years ago when we got a herring

seiner. I've listened to the figures and watched the figures being twisted

around in that particular situation. So I have no reason, as the member who is

responsible, where the yard is, to believe any of the figures that I hear.

That is why on May 29 at 11:30 a.m. the Premier and the

Minister of ITT and this minister will sit with Mr. Morrison and whoever Mr.

Morrison wants to bring and discuss the issues of the Newfoundland Dockyard.

There will be questions asked and I am sure - I can't speak for the Minister of

ITT and the Premier, but I can assure you and this House and the workers of the

yard that I will be putting very strong suggestions to Mr. Morrison, looking to

his response. I say to the Member for Ferryland, that may be the ammunition to

take this member and whoever else to address Mr. Young. But we have to get that

little parcel out of the way first.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has his orders. (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is fine. I say to the member, yes, I

don't doubt but he has some orders. Maybe the agenda is - and I say "maybe," but

I don't want to deal in anything hypothetical here. I want to look at this whole

thing face on. I don't want to look over my shoulder at it, I don't want to

think or surmise that it is a real estate deal here, that the yard and the

adjacent properties will be a lay down area, or a marshalling yard for the

offshore, with thirty-two jobs of forklift operator. That is not what I'm after.

I'm after the continuation of what I saw this time last year, 820 qualified

Newfoundlanders working at the Newfoundland Dockyard, and the spin-offs.

The Member for Kilbride is totally right when he says we

never take into account the indirect jobs that are associated with the

Newfoundland Dockyard. The tremendous amount of oxygen acetylene they buy, the

aprons they buy, the hard-hats they buy, all the welding rods, and all the other

things that support the business community in and around the city. There is a

tremendous amount of consideration here. Just the mere thought of somebody

sitting in Ottawa making the decision, which has historically been thrust upon

us as Newfoundlanders. This is not new. And somebody sits in Ottawa making a

balance sheet decision and not knowing the situation in the Newfoundland

Dockyard.

We saw it in the fishery, we saw it in other areas, we are

continuing to see it in other areas, and it is time for us to be extremely

severe and direct with those who are making the decisions. We just can't sit

back any longer and say: That is okay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I suppose, yes, the Member for Grand Bank is

right, political cousins of some substance. But I also remember, and the member

remembers, when we had the difficulty of dealing with your cousins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) kicked them out.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the country kicked them out.

Mr. Speaker, not to be repetitious, I say that this

government is totally committed to doing everything we can as a Provincial

Government in addressing the problem of the Newfoundland Dockyard. The innuendo,

the maybes - I mean, the impact on the lives of the workers down there, I have

dealt with it, talked to them - I'm sure some members opposite have - for six

years. It is one of: Do we have a job, will we have a job, will they build

another job?

This is the kind of constant pressure that these workers have

been under and subject to for so many years. We have to address it. As the

Minister of ITT said, it is time to come clean and address the issues. I think

with the White Rose , with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Just a few seconds to clue up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MURPHY: The Terra Nova , and the vessels

associated with the supply and what have you, there could not be a yard more

strategically located as we see the offshore building to refit, to refurbish, to

repair than the Newfoundland Dockyard. We have tremendous capabilities not only

with the dry dock itself but with the synchrolift, so all in all we have in

place a yard that can do the work, has the workers to do it, all it needs is

some capital to dress it up, to give it a chance so that somebody in the yard

can push a computer and get a plate rolled to suit the vessel, instead of the

quality of that worker having to do it in a roll mill that only he knows how to

do and pick it off a drawing; that's the kind of skill we have at our dockyard,

that's why we can still bid and compete.

I don't care where the tenders are, in Timbuktu, the

Newfoundland Dockyard, if it is a marine tender, it should be out there bidding

on it, should be out there aggressively saying: we can do it and, Mr. Speaker, I

can assure hon. members in this House, I can assure those whom I have dealt with

over the last six years, Mr. Locke and the workers of the yard - I have

forgotten some of the fellows now but - yes, Kevin and all the rest of the guys,

that this government will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that the

yard continues as a yard and not as a piece of real estate for some mainland

investment, for some mainland company to come in here and live off our backs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to be able to get up today for a few minutes

to say something about an area where I didn't work but was quite familiar with

the work.

I worked with CN Marine, then it became East Coast Marine and

Ferry Services, if you remember it went through various changes and paper

chases. I joined the William Carson in 1965, it wasn't until the

following spring that I first visited the dock in St. John's. I knew a number of

men over the years in the various shops there, from the sail shop down to the

boiler makers, the machine shop and security after hours but, they did great

work and the last time I was there, I finished a shift, when I resigned in April

of 1980.

St. John's dry dock has been up and down like a yo-yo ever

since, and contrary to what hon. members have said here today, it is political

because everything in this Province is political. It is the cradle to grave

politics that we are facing here, but what we are facing here is Ottawa again,

Ottawa. Ministers out of Ontario and Quebec running this country. We have 2 per

cent of the population I believe, and it is like the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology had said earlier, it's an orphan's fight and you know what an

orphan's fight is, when you have a stepmother or a stepfather who is supposed to

be looking after you.

The dry dock, the people down there had an apprentice program

and when you came through that at the time, when you were trained as a

machinist, you were a machinist when you finished your trade. We heard about the

antiquated equipment. Well how good are they if they can still make a few

dollars against such obstacles? How good are they, and I can identify with the

people from this region who work on the dock because there are people from the

District of Placentia who worked there last year.

I remember, the Member for Kilbride and I were quite upset

when people in power did not have the training done for welders, for CWBs and

they had to bring them in mostly from Nova Scotia because we should be looking

after our own. If you don't look after your own first, who in the hell are going

to look after them?

Mr. Morrison, a very highly paid messenger, but that is all

he is, just a messenger. Before that we saw Mr. Ivany and for every bit he could

save on cutbacks he got more of a commission at Christmas. That is a fact. Where

is Mr. Ivany now? Gone off to do something on Via Rail. He is going to railroad

someone else. The St. John's dry dock is Newfoundland in a little bit of space.

It is 700 workers, 600, 800, or whatever it is, and every reaction causes

another reaction. Where are those businesses that the dry dock has been

supporting for years? Where are their representatives today? Where is the city?

Where is the town council of this city, the city council? I know if it was out

in Placentia or in any of the other member's districts there would be a lot more

say. They would fight. All I heard was one member from the city council talk

about the productivity of the dry dock. Well, that is not good enough.

If you fight and you fight and lose that is one thing, but if

you do not fight at all, that is another thing. Where are those people? They

have a big stake in it. They are suppose to be representing our capital city.

Where are they? The minister earlier mentioned our geography. Well, we know

about the jet lanes. They are too fast, but in the ocean seagoing lanes this

Province, and particularly this area, is very strategically located.

If you stood on your toes high enough on Cape Spear you would

be able to see Ireland. That is if it is not foggy here in St. John's, but we

are closer than any other part of North America to Europe. Someone mentioned the

thousands of ships that pass by. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

made a good point about the ninety days and the marketing money, and you go

after it. We must also be reminded of the hundreds and thousands of men that

poured through here because of the Second World War. It was documented a few

weeks ago, about the part the dry dock played in the efforts to fight of the

Axis and how they were retained to work there, being just as important as other

people in fields of endeavour.

Are we going to let that grand old veteran, that 112 or 114

year old veteran go without a fight? No. It is not Mr. Morrision. It has to be

the Minister of Transportation. He is the one who is talking about icebreaking

service which you will have to pay for in this Province, about airports and

municipalities. That is the same minister, Doug Young. Somebody has to clip his

wings and the only ones who can come close to it is our government.

In Opposition I can get over here and mouth off. Now, if I

had been in the company of Mr. Young I would certainly mouth off to him, but it

is our provincial government, obviously, which is going to have the most

influence on him. You should do as much as you can to influence him, or the

civil servants who have been retained from the Mulroney era and who are still

there, to change their minds. Politicians come and go but these career civil

servants still have their own agenda, and their agenda is not St. John's, Port

aux Basques, St. Anthony or Placentia, it is where they live or where the

majority of them are.

I was a bit disappointed there awhile ago, on March 22 of

this year when I brought up the issue of the dockyard here, when they were only

suppose to be rumours, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

explained he had every bit of confidence in the federal Minister of Transport.

Well, I have no confidence in the federal Minister of Transport. I have no

confidence in what I have seen since he came into power, and his attitudes about

this Province. He is no better than the Globe and Mail , it is the same

attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: More expensive.

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes, he is a damn sight more expensive and

he is a damn sight more damaging.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes, God forbid.

Marine Atlantic is saying to the dry dock that if you lose

the wind out of your sails then row. Well probably you could row but they have

taken the oars. They are out there ready to scuttle the boat they are on and

that is not good enough. The fight starts here today. We know that the member

has a good resolution. I compliment the Member for Kilbride and the government,

I know, will not refuse it. There will be a unanimous vote here today but it has

to be more than just a unanimous vote. It has to go somewhere this evening,

tomorrow morning and to continue on to give the people and the dock -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: - a fighting chance and to show other

Newfoundlanders that when you hang together you will certainly get your way.

Thank you.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to

stand here today and to speak in favour of this resolution that my friend from

Kilbride has brought forward and to compliment the speakers who have preceded

me, all speakers who preceded me. A number of very strong points have been made

that we not only can support but hopefully add to.

A hundred or so years ago when the Newfoundland Dockyard was

built it injected into the economy of this town a large number of jobs and other

purchasing powers. A number of things have changed in St. John's over the last

number of years and in this Province, which has had a very serious effect on the

city in which we live. We had a railway and the railway closed. We lost a lot of

very strong jobs, good jobs went. We had a lot of jobs, longshore - labour

intensive jobs, good jobs that people had. Downtown there were shops galore and

we had a lot of jobs in the shops. The wages were not always that high but the

jobs were there, labour intensive, people writing out bills and so on. That has

changed because now you have the supermarkets, you have the cash registers and

you don't have all this labour intensive work going on in shops. Times have

changed and they have changed dramatically.

When the dockyard was built and the railway was there we had

all the coastal boats coming in. A lot of coastal boats up until recently were

refurbished at the dockyard. That was the purpose of the dockyard to refurbish

the coastal boats to a large extent and to refurbish the ferries but times have

changed. The railway now has been replaced by roads, no longer do we have that

and the shops have changed. The whole pattern of life has changed. It has not

been good for this city, particularly the area that I represent because people

are without work in many cases and they have not been able to restore that work

yet. That is part of the physical deterioration of downtown that we have noted

and we spoke about last week. A week ago today when we talked about the problems

that we are having with housing and the other problems we are having, the social

problems and so on, that it is related to the lack of work. I, for one, am very

nervous about the closure of the dockyard because it is not just the number of

jobs that would go; it is what happens to people who are there afterwards.

I would like to say this, that amongst the changes that have

taken place, the longshore went when they brought in the automation of the

containers. The ships come in, the containers go off, and off they go on the

trucks, not many jobs loading and moving things around from the holes to the

dock and onto the shops that are nearby.

We used to have a song around: When the outport member's

family comes to town. I remember Gerald Doyle collected that one. They don't

come to town anymore, because everything is done by truck that doesn't come

through this city anymore, so there has been a deterioration in many of the jobs

and the stuff that we used to do in the downtown of the city.

The jobs that I am talking about are good jobs, unionized

jobs, good wages, and labour intensive, but I think we should look carefully at

the future. What is the future? We have heard some fine remarks by the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology as to what has to be done with the dockyard,

and that is the kind of thinking that I believe we have to bring positively to

this problem. Let's look at what is there.

We have quite a number of federal boats that are operating in

this area. We have the coastal boats still; there are still a number of coastal

boats. There are still ferries. Now some of the ferries cannot use the dockyard

because they were constructed incorrectly. They were constructed a bit too long

for some reason or other, a bit too large. I would think that in future ferries

should be able to be constructed in such a way that we can use, if there is a

ferry to Newfoundland, surely we should be fixing up the ferry here and

refitting it and so on, and perhaps that point can be made to the federal

government. If the dockyard is privatized, perhaps a conditional sale would be

that that dockyard can continue to refurbish the ships that the Crown

corporation refurbishes. It almost has to go there.

We have Coast Guard vessels in the area, the Sir Wilfred

Grenfell , the J. E. Bernier , the Sir John Franklin , the Ann

Harvey , the Sir Humphrey Gilbert , and all of these. We have offshore

surveillance now, with the Leonard J. Cowley and the Cape Roger ,

and the DND sometimes comes in. We have inshore surveillance as well, a boat or

so there. I believe all these should continue to get their fittings done at the

dockyard. We have federal government research vessels, Telost , the

Wilfred Templeman , and so on. They also have to continue to be refurbished

and fixed up at the dockyard, so there has to be a continuation of the business

that is out there, and this business has to continue to be tied to that

dockyard, no matter what happens, whether it is privatized or retained.

Something else has happened in Canada recently. Somebody

across mentioned the federal Minister of Fisheries and how he was able to take

control of the overfishing off our coasts, and it seems now that we have the

Spaniards and the Portuguese on side. One of the saddest things that ever

happened to us in St. John's, I think, was when Canada and Spain began to fight

and the Spaniards were no longer able to bring their ships into the city. I

think now that there is peace between the two, I believe we should encourage a

good, strong relationship, because it looks like the Spaniards are going to

continue to have quotas offshore, and the Portuguese are going to continue

offshore, so they should come into this port. I don't think the Portuguese are

going to be washing their clothes on Rennies River anymore, but they should come

in here and be made welcome, and so should the Spaniards. They should come in

here, and they should be fitting out their vessels at the dry dock. That is what

they should be doing, and I believe that could be part of the agenda that our

people bring to Ottawa, or wherever they bring it to discuss this question,

because that involves some sort of foreign relations initiative on the part of

Canada. We have to do that.

You know, Halifax used to be the centre of the Canadian navy,

largely because they had the great Bedford basin. They could back up convoys for

ever so long. That is not the issue any more. I don't know why the Canadian navy

doesn't have a presence in St. John's or nearby. They should have a presence.

They should have the odd ship coming in here and stationed here. That too can be

fixed up in the Dockyard. There are things like that I believe, initiatives that

we should go after. I don't know how practical what I'm saying is because I'm

not an expert in the shipbuilding industry. But it seems to me there is a lot of

local ships, ships that are used locally and are in our waters, not only those

which pass by our shores, but which are part of our life here and have been part

of our life for many years, and should be part of our life. If we can do that,

it seems to me that there is no reason why the Newfoundland Dockyard should

close.

The hon. Member for St. John's East Extern referred to the

value of the Dockyard in terms of the taxes and so on. I would like to elaborate

a little bit on that. A $3 million loss last year, that is something that a

private firm would find hard to keep going with. This is the problem we have.

When we conceive of a thing like the Dockyard as being a private company then

the bottom line of $3 million means something. But it can't be conceptualized

only in terms of a private firm. You have to look at it holistically and how it

fits into the total economy, as my friend mentioned.

You have to look at the taxes. That is one thing you have to

look at. Just look at the taxes. You mentioned the income tax. Twenty-five

million dollars and the pay is good. These are good jobs and so people are

paying quite a lot of income tax. I haven't totalled it up but it is probably as

much as $3 million or probably more. Not only that - that is the federal

government's share, whatever it is - on top of all that we get a cut out of that

too, because 69 per cent of the federal tax equals what we get out of income

tax. So my friend here, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, is getting a

good cut off the Dockyard workers' salaries as well. It is good. That has to be

counted in. When you look at the thing holistically rather than just on the

enterprise of the firm itself you have to look at these things because they are

important. They are real. They are not just imaginary things, this is real.

AN HON. MEMBER: RST (inaudible) GST.

DR. KITCHEN: Then you have to look at the GST and the RST

that the people spend over and above what they would be spending if they were on

some other sort of income and so on.

Supposing the worst happens and people just stay in the area

and when their UI runs out they go on government assistance. Seven hundred

families on social assistance, that is close to $10 million a year out of this

government. Half of that comes from the federal government. You see? When you

start thinking along those lines you realize that this figure of $3 million loss

has less significance. It is something to be considered - we don't want to lose

money on an enterprise - but that is not the only figure that we should be

taking into account. That is not to mention what it does to other industries as

well, as my friends have mentioned.

What I would suggest is that we do have a cost-benefit

analysis. Not just a cost-benefit analysis that applies solely to the firm

itself, to the company or whatever, to the enterprise, the Crown corporation

itself, but as it fits into the whole structure of the area. Now I'm nervous

because, as I said before, if the breadwinners are gone from 700 families what

is that going to do to the families if they continue to live in this area?

Imagine the social problems that would occur when people don't have the funds. I

can imagine because I know lots of people who are not working now and they are

having one heck of a job trying to stay alive and to live meaningful lives.

If you have 700 more families that are in the same position -

now I'm sure a lot of the people, if anything bad happens, they would probably

take off and move somewhere else and probably get as good a job or better. But

it will have a very negative impact on the quality of life in this city which

has already been hurt, as I mentioned before, by the closure of the railway, by

the changes in the longshore, by the changes in the shopping patterns in this

city, where it has now moved out of the downtown and we will be faced with a

very serious question.

So I believe that there is justification, good justification

for keeping the Dockyard open and on reasonable, not just passionate reasons,

but for realistic, serious reasons. Perhaps a small subsidy may even be

justified. I can't lose any more jobs in St. John's Centre. There are only a few

people working now. I don't know how many thousands of people - every day I get

calls: Can you get me a job? I will go back to my office now and there will be

calls: Have you got me a job yet, boy? Can you help me? What can you do?

I'm tired of passing out lists of the companies that are

working up in Voisey Bay, saying why don't you try some of those guys, that is a

possibility. Thank goodness we have Voisey Bay. I don't know how many they are

hiring, Mr. Minister. Are they hiring now?

DR. GIBBONS: Not until the summer I expect (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I'm telling everybody to go and get your

applications in. Phone up Diamond Fields and get cracking on it if you can. Go

on up there. Apart from that - I don't want to be too pessimistic, because I

have great faith in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and what he

is doing. It takes time to change the economy of this Province. To change takes

time. But I really believe, as he has said, that we have to revitalize the

Dockyard where it is necessary. The provincial government did help some time ago

with the synchrolift and we have to do a similar - whatever is required, we have

to do.

Because I tell you that maybe we have not only to go to see

Mr. Morrison and Mr. Young. There is another guy up there who is even more

important. That is Jean Chrtien. We've got a really good relationship in this

Province with that man. I believe that he will do - that we can do something

here. I think we should take nothing less than the retention and the

modernization of that Dockyard. I wholeheartedly support the resolution of my

friend for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to

rise to support the resolution of my colleague for Kilbride. In the greater St.

John's region the St. John's Dockyard has been a contributor for many

generations to the economy. Its closure or even talk of its closure is sending

serious financial messages to not just the St. John's area but all throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are looking at over 800 jobs. Last year I understand that

there were 850 jobs counting the full-time and part-time positions. Last year

these employees paid $8 million in income tax to the federal government and the

provincial government. They contribute over $300,000 in UI premiums. There was

$24 million paid in wages; over $1 million paid to the provincial economy or the

provincial government by way of payroll taxes; and $11 million worth of goods

and services were purchased from local businesses. We have to look at the full

impact that kind of industry has positively on the St. John's and the

Newfoundland economy.

Let's think of it for a moment in terms of what we would call

in economics the multiplier factor. If you are going to have $30 million paid in

wages then what happens to that money? It gets spent by the people who receive

that income. Studies will show that when you receive $100 in income, on average

people will spend $92. Then, of that $92, on average there will be $87 of that

spent. In other words, you are looking at disposable income and savings. The

result of every $100 is $1,000 put into the economy, therefore $30 million put

into the Newfoundland economy really amounts to $300 million of benefit because

everybody does one or two things with their money. They either spend it or they

save it, and I don't think that the people who work at the Newfoundland Dockyard

are known for the magnitude of their savings accounts. These are ordinary,

Newfoundland men and women who spend their money in ordinary ways; they are

people with young families, who have mortgages, who have expenditures related to

everyday living. They buy cars, they buy all kinds of household and family

items.

So, Mr. Speaker, the loss of this Dockyard is of great

significance to all Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's why, when in Quebec

last year, when there was a possibility that there would be a layoff of 300

workers at MIL Davie Shipyard, the Premier of Quebec was jumping up and down. He

was saying, this is not going to happen.

We know what would happen in the Province of New Brunswick

and what Premier Frank McKenna would do if the Province of New Brunswick were

going to lose its 800 jobs. Premier Frank McKenna would be on every airwave, and

would be doing all that he could do to make sure it simply did not happen. We

want to see no less of a resolve from the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador relative to the Newfoundland Dockyard. We want to see a determination

that is unequalled by any premier in this country. We don't want to say today

that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is not concerned, his government

is not concerned, we believe they are, but saying that: tell the people the

truth, if you are going to close it then go ahead and close it, because I heard

the minister say on CBC radio yesterday morning - and I don't think that is

sufficient. You have to struggle, you have to work, you have to make sure that

we have done every single thing that we can do, before we say that we will

engage in that kind of pessimism and that kind of negativity.

Mr. Speaker, as legislators in this Province, we take great

offence to the private agenda of Marine Atlantic on this issue. What we need in

this Dockyard is more consultation, more dialogue, more determination, a

commitment to investment, a commitment that will see that every possibility is

explored before we give up on it. But, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 150 people

in my district who find employment at the Dockyard, I say to the House today

that we have to encourage the people of the Dockyard to seek new contracts; we

can't go and simply say, we won't let you bid on certain kinds of work because

it might offend somebody else; we can't let contracts like the Peru contract

slip away because it doesn't suit the agenda of Marine Atlanti