November

14, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 60

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 the High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada, His Excellency

the hon. Maurice McTigue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the

House on my trip to China as part of the Team Canada trade delegation led by the

Prime Minister.

The delegation included nine premiers, the federal minister

for international trade, the secretary of state for Asia Pacific relations and

the government leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and it was the

largest national trade delegation ever to visit China. It was certainly the

largest trade delegation ever to go abroad representing Canada and reflects the

importance which Canada places on its relationship with China.

In recent years, China has embarked on a substantial program

of economic reforms. With a population of in excess of 1.2 billion people, China

represents a huge potential market for Canadian products, services and

technology. To successfully penetrate this market, however, requires both a

commitment to developing and maintenance of strong relationships with Chinese

decision-makers. This is essentially the reasoning behind the Team Canada

approach; to demonstrate in dramatic fashion the long-term interest and

commitment of Canada to the Chinese marketplace.

It would be an understatement, I would think, Mr. Speaker, to

say simply that this objective was achieved. It was achieved in spades, to say

the least.

During the mission, the Prime Minister, the premiers and the

territorial leaders met with the senior leadership of China, including President

Jiang Zemin; Premier Li Peng; the Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic

Co-operation; and the Minister responsible for Internal Trade. As well, during

the many functions associated with the mission, there was ample opportunity to

meet with many other members of the Chinese political and economic

establishment.

One of the highlights of the mission, from Newfoundland's

perspective, was the signing of a letter of intent on behalf of C-CORE, the

Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering at Memorial, with the National

Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NNSFC). The NNSFC is the organization in

China that controls the bulk of the funding for academic and scientific research

in the natural sciences and engineering. This letter of intent sets out the

intentions of C-CORE and the NNSFC to establish and jointly operate a research,

development and industry interaction centre in Beijing modelled after C-CORE.

Ten industrial company associates from Canada, five of whom are from

Newfoundland, and ten industry associates from China, will form partnerships to

undertake work generated by the centre. Newfoundland companies identified to

date include Can Polar East Inc., BFL Associates and Seaborne Information

Technologies Ltd. Discussions are ongoing with the remaining two companies.

Subsequent to the establishment of "The Centre for the Application of

Intelligent Systems for Environmental Enhancement" in Beijing, substantial

contracts are expected to ensue.

As well, during the mission, I had the opportunity to meet

with the leadership of the Chinese National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping.

This organization is responsible for all surveying and mapping activities in

China, including coastal and seabed mapping. They are mounting a significant

program to improve and upgrade the quality of mapping in China and the meeting

provided an excellent opportunity to highlight the capabilities of Newfoundland

firms in the areas of surveying, mapping and remote sensing, particularly in the

oceans context. The Chinese were very interested in pursuing initiatives in this

area with Newfoundland companies and we will be following up on this in the next

few weeks and months.

In addition, I had the opportunity to meet with the

leadership of the China Central Radio and Television University and the Shanghai

Educational Television Station. China is grappling with the immense problems of

delivering quality educational services to its huge population, much of which is

concentrated in remote rural areas. The purpose of these meetings was to

highlight Newfoundland's experience in telemedicine and long distance remote

education. I am confident there are commercial opportunities in these areas for

Newfoundland.

During the trip, I also had an opportunity to meet with the

head of the Shanghai General Fisheries Corporation to discuss their joint

venture with Terra Nova Fisheries. In that regard, I was please to have the

management of Shanghai Fisheries, the Vice-Premier of China and the Minister

responsible for Internal Trade, to express his pleasure with their business

arrangements with this Newfoundland fishing company.

I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that something of great additional

value will come out of that as well.

While in Hong Kong, a number of meetings were held to discuss

business investment in Newfoundland. These discussions involved the possible

establishment of a manufacturing plant in Newfoundland and private investment in

tourism facilities in the Province.

The Team Canada mission came at a good time, as it presented

an opportunity to reinforce the relationships I established during our own trade

mission to the Far East in January of this year. The initial mission was, I

believe, an unqualified success. Most of the Newfoundland companies which were

part of the mission in January have already benefitted, and what is even more

important, especially in terms of the long-term relationships which Chinese and

other Asian cultures like to create, future prospects are limitless.

Some examples of immediate benefit are Ultimateast's

agreements in providing telecommunications technologies and services to China

and Hong Kong; Terra Nova Fisheries' joint venture in Clarenville and Shanghai;

and Canadian Ocean Resource Associates' seabed mapping program in China and

other Asian countries. Other companies, including BFL Associates, Canadian

Helicopters and the BAE Group are quite confident of gaining significant

additional business throughout Asia.

As we expand and diversity our economy, it is critical that

we seek economic opportunities for our products, services and technologies, both

nationally and internationally. Markets such as the Far East, and particularly

China, however, require considerable attention to the development of stable,

long-term relationships and it is in this area that governments have a

legitimate role to play. We are committed to building a presence in those

markets through those relationships. This requires effort, time and some

expense. However, the potential rewards are worth it.

On a final note, I endorse the Team Canada approach to trade.

It is an excellent mechanism to promote Canada as a significant player in

international trade. I congratulate the prime minister for utilizing this

concept and I look forward to future Team Canada missions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Marystown wish the Premier had been shanghaied

in Shanghai while he was over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: While he was fiddling in China he let 300 jobs

slip out of Marystown and head up to New Brunswick without one iota of protest

and for that he should be ashamed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this,

is all of a sudden we have the Premier coming into the House and giving a report

on one of his trips. Now that is most interesting because prior to his departure

for China - well first of all, he was not going to go. He was not going to go.

He had only been there a few months back. He was not going to go and I heard

news reports that quoted him as saying he did not expect much to come out of it

but he was going as part of Team Canada.

There were interesting releases, Mr. Speaker, prior to his

departure which I thought were interesting. I see it has been corrected, I

guess, in this statement. The statement that came over the wire from the

Executive Council on November 10: Sir, while in Shanghai the Premier met with

the general manager and deputy manager of the Shanghai Fisheries Corporation.

During this meeting Premier Wells introduced Shanghai Fisheries Corporation

officials to Prime Minister Chrtien, the vice-mayor of Shanghai and the

Minister of International Trade for China. I mean you would not know but if the

Premier had not gone over there these people, the vice-mayor and others would

never have met the officials of the Shanghai Fisheries Corporation, but

presumably that is an error and it has been corrected since.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy with some of the things that are

outlined in this statement, notwithstanding the fact there were very few

business people. In fact, I don't know if there were any business people who

accompanied the Premier on Team Canada, although there is a lot of reference in

his statement, much smoke and mirrors, I guess, more than anything else, but I

understand there were no business people with him on this trip; but we are

pleased with the C-Core project but point out, of course, that this was all done

whether the Premier was there or not; this would have been put in place. All the

work was done on this long before his trip to China, and the same thing applies

with the other items that he mentions.

We hope something comes out of coastal and seabed mapping

opportunities for Newfoundland telemedicine, long distance remote education

opportunities, and all these wonderful kinds of things. We hope something

prominent will come out of it in due course, and I hope that the Premier has set

a new example for his government, himself, and his ministers to follow, that

this is a new twist, that we can expect sometime soon now a report from the

Premier on his promotional trip to Boston, Washington, New York, back in

December of 1993; his trip to Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and

other places back in January of 1994; his recent trip in September to London,

Bristol, Paris, Geneva, Zurich, Milan, and Venice, and all these other places,

and I mean a report with something substantive other than things like a

wonderful picture of the Premier standing with the regional tourism commissioner

during his visit in Venice, and in the background is the Grandee Canal, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition Leader's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: We want something a bit more... I am sorry,

Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: Well, we hope we get something more

substantive in the future, Mr. Speaker, and that we will hear from the Minister

of Tourism on his trip to Japan, the Minister of Finance on his trip to Cuba,

and other ministers on their trips outside the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to pay tribute to the

fishermen and women of the group, Folk of the Sea.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be proud of these

men and women, who last night won the hearts of everyone attending their concert

at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, and who tonight will be performing at the

Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto.

I ask hon. members to join with me in congratulating the men

and women of the Folk of the Sea, and in showing them our appreciation for their

outstanding performances and their exceptional representation of the very heart

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The message which these proud Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are conveying so eloquently to audiences inside and outside the

Province reflects the tragic circumstances which have befallen the fishing

industry and the Province generally over the past several years. I am confident

that Canadians everywhere will have a greater sensitivity to this tragedy as a

result of the dedicated and talented efforts of the Folk of the Sea.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I had seen a copy of what the minister was going to say today. I guess being

perhaps his first statement that he will learn over the next couple of weeks the

common courtesy of sending a copy across the House so that at least we know what

he is going to say.

We would like to be associated with the minister's remarks.

This group has done a tour of the Province, I say to the minister. I'm sure he

is aware of that.

MR. TOBIN: Think so?

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably not.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know if he is aware of it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I think he is. He is aware of some

things about the fishery. We will have time to expose that over the next couple

of weeks as we get into the thrust of debate. We would like to be associated

with the minister's remarks. This group has shown a lot of initiative. They are

carrying the message throughout the Province and the country. In some ways it is

a sad message, as the minister has alluded to. I just hope that the minister

takes up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: By leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - the cause of those involved, Mr.

Speaker, when a lot of them now are going to get the boots -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - from the compensation programs that

his federal counterpart has in place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - by the end of December or maybe even

before. So I hope he takes up their cause in that way as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I hear no leave?

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave, does he? Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to

accept the invitation of the minister to join with him in congratulating the

Folk of the Sea on the wonderful presentation that they made in Ottawa last

night. I've seen them at their opening concert here and at the Folk Festival in

St. John's. They do a magnificent job of representing our culture and traditions

and the fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, for the information of members

and the public, I want to advise the House that today, on behalf of the

Government of the Province, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the

federal government, represented by the hon. Sheila Copps, Deputy Prime Minister

and Environment Minister, which will allow us to jointly and cooperatively

evaluate the environmental and economic problems associated with the treatment

and disposal of domestic wastewater.

This is a significant issue in our Province, Mr. Speaker, in

that we have a responsibility to protect our marine and freshwater resources. We

also have our share of problems in this regard in a major way. As a result of

this MOU however, with the assistance of the federal government, we will be able

to evaluate the nature and extent of the problem in our Province so we may make

informed decisions on how to deal with them. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, we

will be able to work together to identify and propose long-term solutions which

are practical, effective and affordable.

The execution of the MOU will take the form of a research

project and a number of other projects which will involve three main components:

an inventory of all major wastewater systems in use, with an evaluation of their

performance; an evaluation of available technology which might be appropriate

for Newfoundland and Labrador communities; and a number of demonstration

projects for the more promising technologies in order to evaluate their

potential for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The MOU will have a term of five years in which this work

will be completed. At the end of that time and during that time, I hope and

expect we will be able to deliver information which will permit us to develop

and implement a long-term strategy for the proper management of domestic

wastewater in our Province.

I want to thank the federal government and the federal

minister for their cooperation in making this project possible and we look

forward to some very positive results as we try to tackle this problem over the

next two, three or four years. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

First of all I would like to thank the minister for sending

me over a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, for his few words today

before the House opened. Just a few words on it, Mr. Speaker. It is always good

to hear of actions being taken to clean up our environment and always good to

hear of actions that are planned to prevent pollution to our environment. Mr.

Speaker, let us hope that this Memorandum of Understanding is more than just a

memorandum of understanding and that we won't have to wait five years for action

to be taken to help clean up the St. John's harbour and other harbours in the

Province where there is pollution going into the harbours at this very minute as

we speak, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank the minister for his efforts on

behalf of the Province and I take the opportunity to congratulate him as a newly

appointed minister. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have leave to

address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Does the hon. Member for Bonavista

South have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province now

knows that there has been a major catastrophe occurring on the south coast of

the Province, in particular in the Marystown area and the whole Burin Peninsula,

and it was about a month ago, on October 17, that the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology announced that government's Vinland Industries and

government, had reached an agreement with HMDC, the Hibernia Management and

Development Company, to take at least a third of the drilling modules work

contract from Marystown, and give it to the Irving Shipyard in St. John, New

Brunswick and, Mr. Speaker, that move has enraged the people of this Province

and rightly so.

I want to ask the Premier, will he table in this House, a

copy of that particular agreement to which the minister referred, the agreement

between HMDC and Vinland Industries, so that we can all see for ourselves, what

great economic or fiscal disaster, that the Premier has often referred to, was

avoided by taking 250 jobs from this Province which has 21 per cent

unemployment, and sending them off to a province like New Brunswick which has 12

per cent unemployment? Will he table a copy of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is no formal agreement

to table. I have forgotten the dates now but I will get the dates when these

things arose. At some point in time, two or three weeks I think before the

decision was actually made by HMDC, they told me - and I guess it was about five

weeks before the decision was made - they told me of their concern, and asked me

to see if there was some way we could help speed up things or eliminate the

difficulties they foresaw at Marystown, and one of the concerns they had was the

long delay that was caused by the union refusing to allow Marystown to bring in

specialized welders who were not available in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: That is not true (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The Leader of the Opposition can ask the

question but he cannot dictate the answer.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer

the question. He is asking me about the agreement that was reached, that he

referred to, and I have told him there is none. Now I am giving him the basis of

the agreement. The basis of the agreement is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The arrangement, Mr. Speaker, arose as a

result of the HMDC coming to us about four or five weeks before, asking us if we

could do something to try and avoid the long delay that was caused by the union

refusing to allow the company to bring in specialized welders -

MR. TOBIN: Not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - unless the company also agreed to pay

the unionized workers in Marystown the same amount of living allowance they

would have to pay these people who were brought in on a temporary basis. I did

that, Mr. Speaker, in the expectation that it would resolve the problem. About a

week or ten days after I did that, they came back to me and said: we still have

a problem; we are still concerned that this is a major problem and is going to

cause delay and we are contemplating diverting some of the work, part of it to

Bull Arm and part of it to another yard in Canada. I told them that the

government objected most strenuously to this and having made this effort that I

made to go to Marystown and seek the support of the union, I expected them to

respond by having the work done in Marystown.

A week or so after that, they came back and told me that

because of the danger to the project schedule, they felt they had no

alternative. We, Mr. Speaker, had no alternative either; that was their

decision. Our objective was to keep the maximum amount of work we possibly could

in Marystown.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what this Premier did and this

government did is, you caved in. That is what you did. You caved in to the

Hibernia Management people. Mr. Speaker, there is more backbone in a jellyfish

than there is in this Premier on this issue.

I asked him a simple question about a copy of the agreement

that his government announced on the wire. Your government, Executive Council,

announced an agreement had been reached, and we want to see a copy of the

agreement.

I wrote to his minister back on October 20 and he said that

he had to refer that question to the Department of Justice. So if there was no

agreement, why didn't they just tell me there wasn't an agreement and then we

wouldn't have had to worry about it.

Let me ask him some other questions, and I would appreciate

him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter

dated October 25, written to me by Mr. Furey, saying that because the Vinland

Industries, etc., etc., is a commercial entity I have referred your request to

the Department of Justice. That was on October 25.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if you don't know about it, how do you

expect us to find out anything about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What request?

MR. SIMMS: Request for a number of documents we are

looking for related to this, including -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, including -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: A lot different than what, asking for a copy

of the agreement between government owned Vinland Industries and Hibernia

management? That is the exact question I just asked you and you said there was

no agreement, so make up your minds.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also said - and he said it to the

people of this Province - that he did this, he agreed to this deal, in order to

save the Province, he said, because the Province was going to be responsible for

hundreds of millions of dollars in overrun costs on the entire Hibernia project

if the delivery date on the drilling modules was going to delay the entire

project.

Now I want to ask the Premier this: Will he table in this

House the clause, or the clauses, that he is referring to in that drilling

modules contract that would make Vinland or the Province responsible for those

hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties on this $35 million contract, and

perhaps while he is standing to answer that question he can answer this: How

come other contractors who have been involved in a one year delay already on the

Hibernia project, a $1 billion cost overrun, how come they aren't responsible,

or to be held responsible, for the entire delay in the Hibernia and the entire

cost overruns that might be associated with that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the House, and

what I said to the public at the time and I will repeat here in the House, this

government will not, despite this kind of narrow-minded, partisan political

haranguing by the Opposition, this government will not do anything to cause a

delay in the proper performance of that overall Hibernia project. This

government will not take the decisions or take any steps that will threaten the

viability or integrity of that project, that will add to the cost by hundreds of

millions of dollars. We will not cause that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: We will not do anything to cause that to

happen, Mr. Speaker.

The government acted totally responsibly in relation to this

matter because we are not prepared to do as the Opposition will do, and try and

score puny, narrow-minded political points out of this. What is important to

this Province and its long-term future is maintaining a reputation for

credibility and ability in getting the job done.

Now if one component, the Marystown Shipyard, has a problem -

and it does have a problem - if one component has a problem, it can wreck the

whole reputation of this Province in the development of offshore oil in the

future, and the government is not prepared to see that happen, Mr. Speaker. We

will act responsibly to make sure that while we give the maximum level of

protection we possibly can to the industry at Marystown, we will protect the

long-term interests of the people of this Province, and not respond to the

narrow-minded political approach of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province just

don't buy what the Premier is saying. It is hogwash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Talk about speaking with forked tongue, you

own the Vinland Industries; you own the operation down there. You are the one

who has ruined the reputation of businesses and companies in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - because of the way you have caved in on this

issue. That is the reality of it.

You were right about one thing. This government will not do

anything. You are a do nothing government, and that is the reality, not only on

this issue but on everything else.

In the meantime I note, Mr. Speaker, he avoided answering my

question again. Where is the clause and clauses, in that drilling modules

contract that would make the government responsible? That is what I asked him.

But I want to ask him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - while I have the floor -

MR. SULLIVAN: You had two chances.

MR. SIMMS: While I have the floor -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to phrase a

question and we will get an answer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Yes,

well, Mr. Speaker, I've asked two and I can't get the answers so I will try

another one.

The Premier says that he gave up on the contract because he

took Mr. Hall's word that the Marystown Shipyard wouldn't have those drilling

modules completed by the time they were needed at Bull Arm. I would like to ask

him this question: Did Vinland Industries and did Marystown Shipyard also tell

you that they wouldn't have the modules completed by the time they were needed

at Bull Arm, or did they tell you they would have the modules completed? Did you

understand the question?

You said that you took Mr. Hall's word that in fact - or

Hull's word - that Marystown wouldn't have these modules completed in time or by

the time they were needed at Bull Arm. You took his word. The question is: Did

Marystown Shipyard and did Vinland Industries also tell you that they could not

complete the work by the time they were needed at Bull Arm? Is that a fact or

not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think there were two or

three questions the first time around that I didn't answer, but that is because

he asked eight questions at a time. I just can't keep track of them. If he wants

the question answered, ask a question and I will answer it, but don't add four

more to it and then complain that they are not answered.

I never at any time said I took Mr. Hull's word that it could

not be completed at Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You did!

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I said just the opposite.

That is the twisting and contortion of the Opposition. What I said to Mr. Hull

and what I stated publicly is we disagreed with Mr. Hull. I did not accept his

view that it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is very clear. It is in the press

release, it is my letter, my exchange of correspondence. That is simply the

misrepresentation of the Opposition. What I stated clearly was I disagreed with

him, I did not accept their view and the Marystown Shipyard people did not

accept their view that they couldn't have it completed in adequate time. They

felt they could have it completed by December. That was the position of the

government then; it is the position of the government now.

What I did make very clear, Mr. Speaker, was I could not

challenge their right to make the decision to protect the integrity of the

overall schedule. I disagreed with their view that Marystown couldn't do it and

I stated so publicly, and I'm quite prepared to table the correspondence which

says that very clearly, as well as the press release at the time if the Leader

of the Opposition wants to read it. It stated it very clearly.

What the government couldn't do is substitute its judgement

for their judgement as to whether or not leaving this work at Marystown would

jeopardize the overall

schedule of the project. I can't take the responsibility

for that. The people of this Province can't take the responsibility for possibly

causing hundreds of millions of dollars of delay if HMDC were right and we were

wrong. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't challenge their right to make the decision that

they did.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: This gets more bizarre as time goes on with

the Premier's explanation, because it just isn't saleable. I mean, people do not

believe you, Premier, on this issue. They don't believe your explanation. If all

of this is true then why in the name of heavens are the 300 jobs going to New

Brunswick? Why didn't you stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador and the workers

and the business community and not let it go to New Brunswick? Let me ask him

this - does he stand to answer that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You just asked a question.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I just asked a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Oh now, I'm sorry, I thought the Premier

could handle two questions. They're pretty straightforward. The second one is

this. I will give the Premier time to settle down. Does HMDC have a guaranteed

fixed dated from the Irving shipyard for delivery of the modules to Bull Arm,

and what is that date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Why didn't

the Premier stand up and refuse to allow it to happen? For a simple reason. No

government, no premier, had the right to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. This is the false and

fraudulent representation of the Opposition. This is totally wrong. Under the

contract, as under all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I'm prepared to answer the question if the

members want the question answered, but I'm not prepared to engage in this

juvenile shouting match with the kindergarten from the opposite side. I'm really

not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the contract with Marystown, as in the

case of all other contracts, HMDC has the right to take over any aspect of the

work at any time they feel - that is what they did with NODECO. They took over

control of the overall building contract for the GBS at NODECO. Now, they did

that. There is the major one. They have the right to do that at any time, Mr.

Speaker, that they feel the overall

schedule of the work is in jeopardy. They

had the unquestioned legal right to do this and make this decision and the

government had no right whatsoever to interfere and stop it, none at all.

Now, for the Opposition to represent otherwise is to

perpetrate a massive political fraud. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province

understand that if the Opposition do not. The people of this Province understand

that and they realize that the reputation of the Province and the ability of the

Province in the future to build and benefit from the continued development of

offshore oil is more important than allowing the Opposition to perpetrate this

kind of political fraud, and they are prepared to put that first, Mr. Speaker,

as is the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is only one party in this

Province perpetrating political fraud on the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I am looking at the perpetrator. Let me tell him that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let me say to the Premier that it is very

ironic, would he not think, that you have a Quebec shipyard which filed an

objection with the federal/provincial offshore petroleum board because they did

not get the work and here we, the Province that let the work leave, did not file

an objection. Would the Premier instruct the federal/provincial Offshore

Petroleum Board to formally inquire into this decision and will he ask HMDC to

keep the drilling modules in Marystown until the board reports back to him and

the government, and through him to this House? Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is again continuing to put forward this false propaganda about the rights of the

board, the rights of the government and so on. The government has no right to

interfere with that decision, none at all.

MR. TOBIN: They do! The federal minister caused

(inaudible) for MIL, she told me herself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The federal minister did not alter the

decision. She couldn't alter the decision and this minister couldn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we can ask the board to

look at it and they can look at it, but they cannot direct a different decision.

They have no legal right, and it is pointless, therefore, to ask them to direct

a different decision.

For the Opposition to put this forward, that either the

government or the C-NOPB can alter that decision, is a massive political fraud

for which they are going to have ultimate responsibility. Mr. Speaker, no wonder

they have no credibility in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Look who is talking about lacking credibility

in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier carefully avoided the question. Any owner, and

you are an owner in this situation, can file an objection with the

federal/provincial Offshore Petroleum Board, asking for a formal inquiry into

this whole situation. A Quebec company, a shipyard, has done so, and the board

is looking into their objection. Now, isn't that very ironic - a company that

didn't get the work, and here we are giving the work away and we can't get the

board to have a look at it and file an objection with the board. Why does he not

do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the Leader of the Opposition knew what

he was talking about he would not make that representation. What the board has

the right to determine and what they are being asked to inquire into is whether

or not that company in Quebec had a fair opportunity to bid on this work. That

is what they are asking, whether the company in Quebec had a fair opportunity to

bid on the work? Now, in the past we have asked the board to examine, on a

couple of occasions at least, that I am aware of, whether or not Newfoundland

companies had a fair opportunity to bid on the work, or were included. That is

the basis of MIL's complaint, that they did not have an opportunity to bid on

the work that went to Marystown; that is the basis of their complaint to the

C-NOPB. Now, Marystown had the work, and do you think that if HMDC were taking

the work out of Marystown because they were not confident Marystown could

complete it on time, that they would give them another opportunity to bid? How

stupid, Mr. Speaker, how utterly stupid to even suggest it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to put some questions to

the Premier as well. I happened to be at the meeting with the Offshore Petroleum

Board when they were told that it was caused by the minister. The minister told

us herself; the federal Minister of Natural Resources wrote to MIL and said: By

copy of this letter, I am asking the Offshore Petroleum Board to look into your

complaint. Now, that was done by the federal minister for the people of Quebec.

When is the Premier of this Province going to do it for the people of Marystown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of

the Opposition just understood the explanation that I gave him. Obviously, the

Member for Burin - Placentia West doesn't even understand it now. Now, let me

repeat again for him: what the C-NOPB has the right to do is cause an inquiry to

be made, to determine whether or not any company in Canada had a fair

opportunity to bid for the work. That is the basis on which MIL asked the

minister to inquire, and Port aux Basques, St. John's shipyards could make an

equal application, Marystown could not, Mr. Speaker. If HMDC were taking the

work away from Marystown, they already had it, by what stretch of the

imagination does anybody think that HMDC could give Marystown an opportunity to

bid on the same work again that they were taking away? Now, Mr. Speaker, to make

those kinds of representation to the public of this Province is politically

fraudulent and the member ought to be criticized for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the way the Premier plays with

the truth it is no doubt that anyone would be confused by what he says. Now, the

fact of the matter, basically, is that HMDC is taking the work from Marystown

under false pretences. I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, to tell us in the House

today when the work will start in Saint John, New Brunswick? This is the key

question, when? When will HMDC have the work back from Saint John, New Brunswick

delivered? We know when Marystown is going to deliver it, in the Fall of 1995.

When is Saint John, New Brunswick going to deliver it?

MR. SIMMS: I already asked him that. He didn't answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the multitude

of questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked and I just lost track of

it. The answer is, HMDC refuses to accept Marystown's judgement that it could

deliver the work by the first of December. They told me very clearly - I

disagree with them - but they told me very clearly, their judgement, that they

had no confidence it could be delivered until into the next year. Now, I

disagree with them, Marystown disagrees with them, I have told them so. But I

cannot substitute my judgement for theirs, I have no right to do that, and I

certainly wouldn't even think about trying to substitute the hon. member's

judgement for theirs. I wouldn't substitute his judgement for anybody's, as a

matter of fact.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, they have no - I don't

know that they have any firm date from New Brunswick.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know that they have a firm date

but I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble -

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the answers and, at times, the

questions and I just ask the House to come to order so that we can finish this

answer.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hull told me that he was

confident that Saint John's shipyard could deliver the work in time so as not to

cause a delay to the project. I told him that I was confident Marystown could do

it, too. He said: `I disagree' - all of our judgement and experience with it -

disagree.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have this to say also, and hon. members

should be aware of it: the government wants to protect, to the maximum extent

that we can, the reputation of Marystown. I am satisfied that HMDC is, itself,

concerned about the reputation of Marystown. They don't want to do anything to

harm Marystown.

All the Opposition are doing by this kind of false and

fraudulent representation, is they are doing more and more harm to the

reputation of Marystown. It is not going to help Marystown any to keep berating

it in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the successful completion of the Hibernia

project is critical to the future participation by various other industries in

this Province in future offshore oil development.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a bit of

quiet so I can answer the questions and the issues they have raised.

The future of this Province, in terms of offshore oil

development, is critical to the economy of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to draw the answer to a close.

PREMIER WELLS: It is important that we make sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer with this

constant harangue from the other side.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we make sure we have a

reputation that will enable us to participate to the maximum possible. We are

not helping this Province by berating Marystown in this way. It is important

that we go forward from here with the maximum possible level of activity we can

cause to be created in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what a gigantic bluff, to get on

with that today and not even answer the questions.

Let me ask the Premier, then: Why, on September 26, I believe

it was, did he go to Marystown when he should have known that Mr. Ken Hull had

already done a deal with St. John, New Brunswick? Why did he go to Marystown and

seek concessions? Was he not involved in the public relations scam to divert the

attention away from HMDC, and try his best to lay it on the shoulders of the

workforce?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I went to Marystown on that date -

September 21, was it?

MR. TOBIN: September 26.

PREMIER WELLS: September 26. I went to Marystown on that

date because I had previously had a meeting in my office with the executive

members of the union, when I pleaded with them for the future of Marystown. I

pleaded with them, `Please let the company bring in workers without imposing

this additional penalty on them,' and they refused. They were the author of

their own misfortune in that regard. Now, I sat in my office and I pleaded with

the executive of the union to do that, and they didn't do it, they wouldn't do

it. So I went to Marystown because I knew it would be no good to ask the

executive of the union to do it. I went and asked the full membership, and the

membership agreed to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I went in good faith, believing that if

they did that it would resolve the problem at Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I did not know! No, I did not know!

Mr. Speaker, I went to Marystown in good faith, and I got the

consent of the union to make that adjustment in the future. It was a week or ten

days later that representatives of HMDC came to see me again and said: `Premier,

we still have this concern. We don't think it can be done at Marystown.'

My words to them were, at the time, `You can't do that.

Having asked me to go down to Marystown and get the consent of the union and I

have done it - now you are going to come back and tell me you are going to do it

anyway? That I consider to be an abuse of me.'

Now, those were my words to them at the time. That was the

position the government took at the time. So they went back again, and two weeks

or so later, they came back to me again to tell me that they had given my

request or my comments to them every consideration and they saw no alternative.

Mr. Speaker, we had several meetings, by telephone, meetings

in my office; the government did everything we could to persuade them to do

otherwise, but we would not take the responsibility for substituting our

judgement for theirs. We had no legal right to do it anyway, and I wouldn't

bring undue pressure to bear on them to cause them to do what the government

wanted them to do, for fear that it would risk the integrity of the overall

project. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. members this: As important as

the jobs at Marystown are, as important as every last one of those jobs are, the

overall future of the Province is more important, and that is what we work for.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to draw to members' attention that, during

Question Period, some phrases were used that, in my view, were unparliamentary,

among them: `fraudulent', `perpetrating a fraud', and suggesting that someone

has uttered a falsehood. I refer members to Beauchesne in that regard; it wasn't

objected to, it didn't come up previously, but just so that members are aware,

in future, if a member uses those comments I will call on him or her to withdraw

them.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with

section 32, subsection 4 of the Auditor

General Act, I am pleased to table the Auditor's financial report and statements

of the Office of the Auditor General for the financial year ended March 31,

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its desire for

reforms to address the need for better quality, higher achievement and greater

efficiency in our school system;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House request government to

bring in legislation to enact changes recommended in the 1992 Report of the

Royal Commission on Education, that can be dealt with entirely within the

Legislative jurisdiction of this Legislature, and further urge government and

denominational representatives to negotiate an agreement for greater

co-operation and co-ordination among denominational school systems, in the

delivery of educational services; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that affirming its desire that the

negotiations between government and denominational representatives proceed in

good faith, this House give its solemn pledge to the holders of the educational

rights and privileges protected in the Constitution, that it will not

arbitrarily remove or amend those rights and privileges without their consent.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled: "An Act To Amend The Pensions

Funding Act."

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made

under the Loan Guarantee Act.

I also give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will on tomorrow move

that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local

Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Teachers

Association Act," and a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees

Association Act."

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "

An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act."

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

MR. CARTER: (Inaudible) department (inaudible) ask leave

to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in

any quantity or form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador is an indignity to our people and our Province and should not be seen

as a potential source of economic development for this Province; and

WHEREAS any such initiative would have a negative impact on

the image of this Province and be detrimental to other forms of industrial and

economic development, including and especially the development of our tourism

and aquaculture businesses; and

WHEREAS the overwhelming majority of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are opposed in principle to any such initiatives;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House take such action as

may be necessary to enact legislation that would effectively prohibit the

importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in any form or quantity for final

disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like

to give notice for the introduction of a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the issue of fire safety among the residents and

owners of property in the older row housing units in St. John's is of prime

concern; and

WHEREAS many of the row houses in this area have inadequate

fire blocks between attached houses, in some cases with common attics and no

fire blocks at all between houses; and

WHEREAS there is currently a lack of effort on the part of

the provincial, federal and municipal governments to address this problem;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the provincial government begin

immediately to devote more of its financial resources to instituting programs

and policies which would assist in the refurbishment of existing units and

buildings, both privately and publicly-owned, in the downtown core of St. John's

and other communities with similar safety problems with row housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I

will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS advances in information technology are

revolutionizing business, government, academia and society in general; and

WHEREAS the growth of the information technology sector is

important to the economic development of this Province; and

WHEREAS potentials exists for cost-effective access by the

public to government information;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognize the

importance of development in the information technology sector and support the

establishment of local public access computer networks or FREE-Nets in this

Province, is committed to being an information provider for such networks, and

to allowing public access to government information in this way, and support the

continuation of the STEM-Net and related computer network activities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS there has been worldwide growth in the importance of

aquaculture; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is a province with

extensive coastlines and a history of leading the way in marine-related

industries;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognize the

potential of the aquaculture industry in this Province and encourage government

to continue its focus on this growth industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the fishing industry has been and will continue to be

the cornerstone of this Province's culture and economy; and

WHEREAS the fishing industry in this Province is in crisis;

and

WHEREAS the crisis demands a new sense of direction and

strengthening; and

WHEREAS the submersion of the Department of Fisheries into

the new Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than

strengthens efforts to revive the fishing industry in this province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Premier to reinstate a

Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fishery-related

matters, strengthened and revitalized, and separate from the Department of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture announced by the Premier on August 26 1994.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of

Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill No. 40)

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Waste

Material Disposal Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Advanced

Health Care Directives And The Appointment of Substitute Health Care

Decision-makers."

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all work on the

drilling modules M71 and M72 is completed by Vinland Industries in this Province

at Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 3,000

residents in the district of LaPoile. The letter accompanying the petition

containing the 3,000 names is signed by the President of the St. James PTA -

Parent Teachers Association, and they are writing on behalf of the parents of

the Port aux Basque school district concerning recent cutbacks by the

government, the Department of Education, in particular. The member is fully

aware of this - he has a copy of the letter. As a result of the cutbacks, there

are going to be a lot of program losses and positions eliminated in a number of

schools, as outlined in the letter, music programs, resource unit programs,

physical education programs, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I have to put this on the public record, and I

am sure the member would be surprised if I didn't. The final comments of the

letter accurately describe why I am presenting this petition. They say, `I

request that you have these petitions tabled in the House of Assembly. The

documents have been forwarded to your office, as we feel we have not received

proper representation from our government member' and I won't - well, they

mentioned his name, Mr. William Ramsay, just to make it official.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member will have to respond to that and

deal with that question raised by 3,000 of his constituents. I will leave it up

to him. However, I will fulfil my responsibility in presenting the petition and

ask the Minister of Education to take this petition seriously, because I

understand that this particular area served by the five schools is really a

model of the integrated system that the Minister of Education is advocating for

the entire Province, yet, it is being forced to cut out five teaching

specialists in the areas I mentioned, music, physical education, and learning

resources.

In this area, there is only one school system in the whole

area serving students of all denominations, as it turns out. Several years ago,

I understand, the Roman Catholics made arrangements with the Integrated School

Board to take care of their students, and the Pentecostals have not set up a

school in that area. So, there is one school system. There is only one school

bus system. Many years ago community schools there were consolidated. There is a

regional senior high, a regional junior high, and elementary and primary schools

have been reduced to a minimum, short of busing very young students over long

distances where we know weather conditions aren't appropriate and can get

hostile.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a compact school system,

one that the minister is advocating for many parts of the Province, as efficient

as any school system in this Province is likely ever to get, yet, it can't have

music, and it can't have physical education teachers and librarians in its

schools. Channel - Port aux Basques is one of the largest communities in the

Province and if they can't have music, physical education, and librarians, what

hope is there that the smaller schools in the smaller rural parts of this

Province will hang onto their programs? And how long will it be before

communities maybe just a little bit larger, like Gander, I don't know if Port de

Grave is a little bit larger or not, and Grand Falls, for example - what chance

is there, and how long will it be before larger communities will probably have

to give up their programs?

So the question the people are asking in Channel - Port aux

Basques, representing the schools in Rose Blanche, Burnt Island and Port aux

Basques, is to the Minister of Education and Training: Is the government turning

its back on eliminating equal educational opportunities for children wherever

they live in this Province; and does the quality of education now depend on

numbers rather than on equal opportunity?

Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition. I refer it

to the Department of Education and Training and its minister in the hope that

the minister will respond and look seriously at this criticism, because 3,000

signatures on a petition in a small area such as this is not to be scoffed at.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Just with respect to the petition, Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much.

I received a copy of the letter to the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, and I might note that this activity was undertaken at the height of

the negotiations prior to the election last year. It is just that right now it

has managed to come forward. If you note the date on the petition itself, it was

collected around about that time, and it was held on to, of course, over the

summer, with the House of Assembly not being opened until this time.

I have made my views known publicly on the issue, with a copy

of that particular letter and a copy of my response to that letter to The

Gulf News .

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, the letter was dated this September, but

the actual activity in having the petition circulated about the community was

prior to the provincial general election that we all participated in, so that is

the activity of that time.

Anyway, notwithstanding that, I might point out that -

MR. SIMMS: Did you say it's a non-issue?

MR. RAMSAY: I never said it was a non-issue. I said the

activity of collecting the petition was, at the time, prior to the previous

election.

The electors of the district of LaPoile, in general, did see

fit to elect me to the Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: - and, at that time, I might add, prior to

the teachers strike situation, which we all experienced, we now have a situation

where the issue has been dealt with insofar as the numbers of teachers who will

be distributed to the various school boards, is concerned, and also to note that

the district of LaPoile did receive an additional teaching unit for isolated

schools, which is a problem that is there in the overall allocation of teachers.

Now if you look at the program loss in the district of

LaPoile, no different from the program loss in any given area, we have a few

factors, in that we are a very isolated district from others, isolated by about

100 miles from the other major areas of the West Coast, and therefore, we

operate a completely integrated school system with the strongest percentage of

the population in the area being of the Anglican faith, and the majority of the

balance are Protestant, with some Roman Catholic involvement in the school

system there as well.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I might point out that the

programs that have been deleted from the overall choice in the district for

students to partake in physical education, in some cases, in other cases, it is

the resource room aspects of teaching, all very important to a child's overall

development, but the school board in the Port aux Basques area, along with the

educators at the school level, decided that these particular programs were such

that they favoured others, and that these programs would be no longer maintained

in the area.

It is unfortunate, and I feel there was a bit of a play at

the time to put the maximum amount of pressure on the government and, of course,

our children, my own children included, are the ones who suffer in this case. I

think that those priorities have been dealt with by the professionals at the

district level. This district does receive adequate funding in comparison to

other districts throughout the Province. Now, with the changes to the school tax

situation, they are receiving more funding than they have at any time in the

past, and really, it is a matter of declining enrolments.

The declining enrolment throughout the Province last year,

was 4,000 less students than there were the year previous. So, if we look at

that, this year we are dealing with 4,000 less students. It is obvious that we

have to have fewer teachers in the overall system mix, and we have kept

ourselves in check with respect to the application of the 2 per cent rule. As a

result of teacher negotiations, that will now be applied over a three-year

period, so we are not taking the maximum number of teachers out of the system

this time as was originally purported to have been contemplated by the

government. So we are bridging the gap over a period of three years, and I think

this will do much to help us adjust in light of the declining enrolments and the

problems associated with the programs.

Again, I might add that I find it unfortunate that the

Parent-Teacher Association in Port aux Basques have put this forward in this

manner but I have dealt with it publicly in the local newspaper and the people

of Port aux Basques and throughout LaPoile District are very well aware of my

position on the issue. Also I do not think there is any fear of repercussions

for myself politically or otherwise, if there is then I will wear that crown at

the time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the

Member for LaPoile would attempt to slough off this issue as being a non-issue

because this morning at 10:30 when I talked to the superintendent he certainly

did not feel it was a non-issue at that time. In fact, the superintendent of the

Intergraded School Board in Port aux Basques this morning told me that this is a

very real issue, that they had been obliged this year to cancel classes in

physical education at the high school level.

Mr. Speaker, he tells me that music as a course at St. James

Elementary is no more. Mr. Speaker, what is even more amazing is that at St.

James Junior High School they have had to cancel one of the resource units. Now,

as the member knows, the resource unit referred to is a special education

resource unit, and when we start to balance our budget based on withdrawing

services from those children who are most at risk, which is special education

students, then, Mr. Speaker, we have come to a very sorry state in this

Province.

I want to say to the member that there are 3,000 signatures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, last year there were only 1,983 students in that entire school

system and this year, this current year, there are 1,878 students and keep in

mind we are not talking about all the schools in this system. So therefore if

you can get 3,000 signatures when the total population of all the system is only

1,878 students, Mr. Speaker, we have a pronounced demonstration of a problem in

the viewpoint of the parents and, Mr. Speaker, they are saying to their member

they want greater representation.

Mr. Speaker, this school system last year lost nine teaching

units and I am amazed that the member would stand and minimize that. He stood in

his place and said that that is a minimum issue. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to

the member that when you have a school system like this and you are taking out

nine teaching units, it is a dramatic change. Mr. Speaker, with the loss in

school students this year, the declining enrollment that is, we know that they

will lose another four to six teachers in the next school year.

What we see here is a consequence of the Minister of

Education and his cut, cut approach to his restructuring proposals. What we are

talking about is a threat to the integrity of programs, a threat to the quality

of educational opportunities and how it dramatically affects rural Newfoundland.

I expect all members on the other side, from rural Newfoundland, to stand and

say that rural Newfoundland students need more teachers. They need new and

comprehensive programs and we cannot stand to have any more of these cuts.

What we have here is the Minister of Education telling

educators you have got to do more with less but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do

better with less, that is the issue. The minister says, do more with less but we

cannot expect educators to do a better job with less. When we talk about

improving standards of excellence we are saying to the school system you have

got to do better and we want to encourage teachers and parents to do better.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that on the graduating

requirements, last year, 1993, the graduating rate, success rate in the Port aux

Basques system was the fourth lowest in the Province as a percentage, looking at

the minsters data which he tabled a few days ago. What Port aux Basques needs is

an infusion of new money, keep the teachers they have, keep the programs they

have, don't take out the physical education courses at the high school level,

don't drop the music programs and more important than all of that, let us not

threaten the educational quality in the Port aux Basques area by going and

taking away learning resource centres. Mr. Speaker, that is the very worst thing

you could do particularly since the resource centre we are talking about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - is for special education students and they

need more, not less.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 23,

dealing with the need to have a debate on a matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 23, I would say to the member that I do have

that right and I do so, Mr. Speaker, ask for an adjournment of this House

because of the loss of jobs that have taken place at Marystown and are moving to

St. John, New Brunswick; and the reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask for it, is because

it is such an important urgency to debate it today for several reasons.

There is going to be in excess of 300 job losses; the

equivalent on a population and economic impact basis to the losses of 6,000 jobs

in Ontario. The loss of that many jobs in Ontario would cause an emergency

debate not only in the Legislature of Ontario but in the Parliament of Canada.

The transfer of high tech and electrical enrichmentation work out of the

Province will damage the reputation of this Province and will be a major setback

to our hopes for greater participation in Hibernia and other offshore projects.

Newfoundland's unemployment rate in October was 20.5 per

cent, nearly double the unemployment rate in New Brunswick. The unnecessary loss

of 300 jobs in Marystown will be a major blow to the economic recovery of this

Province. The issue, Mr. Speaker, cannot wait. The issue has to be dealt with

immediately. There is a narrow window of opportunity for government to prevent

or moderate the loss of work on the drilling modules.

Transfer trucks will be arriving in Marystown tomorrow to

remove some of the components for the drilling modules and barges will be

arriving this weekend to take away the two steel towers. Whatever can be done

must be done quickly, we do not have the luxury, and if we as legislators are

concerned about protecting the jobs of 300 to 400 Newfoundlanders, then, Mr.

Speaker, we have to move on this today. We cannot wait because the trucks are

going to be rolling in tomorrow and a barge is on its way to Marystown this

week, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will see the necessity to have this

debate put today and for that, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly, under Standing

Orders 23, move, Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the House for the purpose of

discussing this matter of urgent public importance.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the matter that falls to Your Honour to decide

in response to the request for leave made by my friend from Burin Placentia -

West, is the question of the urgency of debate. It is not a matter of the

importance of the issue, it is not a matter of the importance of debating the

issue, it is a matter of the urgency of debating the issue at this time.

My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, agrees that that is

the issue before the Chair, so the issue accordingly is, whether the House

should interrupt its regular order of business to deal with this issue. My

submission is that it should not do so. Mr. Speaker, the matter is important. We

spent all of Question Period today on it. We may spend all of Question Period

tomorrow on it. That's for members, Mr. Speaker, to decide when they decide what

questions they wish to ask. We may spend part of today or tomorrow on any number

of matters but, Mr. Speaker, the issue is, whether we should interrupt the

regular business of the day to do that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is on the Order Paper - and I can

refer you to any number of precedents - there is on the Order Paper, still the

Address in Reply which would afford a debate on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. gentleman's

concern. I, too, am concerned and I would say to him in all candour and all

humility that he should accept that members who sit to Mr. Speaker's left are as

concerned with this issue as those who sit to Mr. Speaker's right. We are all

concerned but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we should interrupt

the order of business of this House today to debate this issue. I say in my

submission we should not do so and the reason for this, as the Premier has

explained, is there is nothing the government or the House can do to deal with

this.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite may or may not like that

state of affairs. I accept that they may not like it but that does not change

the reality of the situation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, my submission is that

the hon. gentleman should not be given leave because the debate is not a matter

of urgency and there are other matters before the House which can be dealt with.

The hon. gentleman could arrange to deal with this at the appropriate time and

at the appropriate place.

Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to rise to support the motion put

forward by my colleague for Burin - Placentia West and I want to say to the

Government House Leader that indeed the matter is very urgent and it is very

important. What we have on the Order Paper presented to us today has been here

since June and if it were all that urgent in the order of business of

government, then certainly we would have been back here after Labour Day and had

some of this stuff dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every single piece.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The situation in Marystown cannot wait.

We have 300 jobs on the line in Marystown today. It is urgent, it is important,

and we cannot delay the situation. It is an extreme emergency. I say to the

Government House Leader that 300 jobs are certainly more urgent and more

important than the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation standing in

his place today, as important as the minister's bill is, to reduce the alcohol

blood level from .08 to .05, as important as that is, I say that this issue, the

loss of contract work to the Marystown Shipyard, some 300 jobs to St. John, New

Brunswick, is far more urgent and far more important, which are the two key

words, Mr. Speaker, to allow my colleague's motion to stand and that we do have

an emergency debate on this issue. We cannot wait. We are running out of time.

This is the first day this House has sat since the middle of

June and all the government business on the Order Paper has been lying there

ever since then. The first order of business is Bill 30. That is the most urgent

thing this government is going to deal with, obviously, in this sitting of the

House, between now and Christmas. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that my colleague

has done very well in the statement he has prepared and sent up to you, and that

indeed this is very urgent and very important.

I submit to Your Honour that you give it due consideration

and that you rule in the member's favour.

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

MR. HARRIS: I rise to support the motion or the request

for leave by the Member for Burin - Placentia West on this matter of urgency for

an emergency debate. There could be few things that qualify as being more urgent

for a debate of this nature. As the member has set down quite adequately we are

dealing with something that cannot be dealt with on other orders of business.

The fact that a question can be raised in Question Period surely is not a

sufficient answer, as we have heard from the Government House Leader. If that

were the case there could never be an emergency debate in any legislature

because any matter can be raised in Question Period. That is not the point. It

is not a question and answer period. What we want is an urgent debate on this

issue.

It cannot be dismissed by the Government House Leader saying

there is no point to debate because the Premier has already said there is

nothing the government can do. Surely that in itself gives rise to the need for

debate, to have that issue, as to whether or not other measures could be taken

by the government in this urgent situation to deal with that issue.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this issue, the sense

of urgency that surrounds this issue throughout the Province, given the fact

that, as the member has said, the trucks are on the way, the barge is prepared

to leave, this work is ready to go, if this debate does not take place now, a

debate at a later date under some other order of business would be totally

futile - totally futile. The sense of urgency brought to this House on this

first day of opening is important.

The request for an emergency debate deserves the serious

consideration of you, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances that are arising

here. The reputation of Newfoundlanders is at stake. The message that is being

sent not only to our own workforce but to other provinces and indeed to other

countries is that the Newfoundland workforce is not sophisticated enough to do

this kind of work, and I wonder, is that the message that the Premier was

preaching in China when he was there? Is that the message he was preaching

there, that the Newfoundland workforce cannot undertake this kind of work?

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a sufficient amount of time to

properly debate this issue here so that the Premier and the government can be

told the kinds of things they could do to try and solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I support wholeheartedly the motion of my

colleague from Burin - Placentia West, and I ask Your Honour to accede to that

request and give it the urgent consideration that it needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess briefly to consider

the motion put forward by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour addresses

the point that led you to recess, perhaps I could inform you that in Your

Honour's absence from the Chair my friend for Grand Bank and I spoke behind the

Chair, as it were. We had not had an opportunity to do this beforehand because I

had not any notice that they would raise this Standing Order 23 matter today.

My understanding - and my hon. friend can confirm it if I

state it correctly - is that we are prepared, both sides are prepared, to have a

debate on this matter this day, subject to the understanding or the condition,

if one wishes, that there will be no more than two speakers from each side, and

that each will speak for no more than half an hour. At the end of that the House

will then vote on the motion before us which would be to adjourn for the day. If

the motion carries we would then adjourn for the day. If it doesn't carry we

would go on with our normal business.

If my hon. friend will concur that I have correctly stated

the arrangement, we on this side are certainly prepared to debate this matter.

Whether it be considered urgent or not in a parliamentary sense, we are prepared

to debate it and we would certainly speak to the points at issue.

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

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

to say to the Government House Leader that it is nice to see that he saw the

light, at just how urgent and important this debate is. That is not what he said

when he first stood in his place. Anyway, what the Government House Leader has

stated is indeed what we've agreed to, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: That being the arrangement and agreement

that the House Leaders have entered into, I guess we can now proceed with the

debate.

The ruling would be academic at this time.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much. I feel very strongly that

the ruling would be in favour of it. I think that the Speaker would have

probably seen the fact that there are people down there to be unemployed.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is very important. I

think it is also very important that members of this House understand what

really is involved in all of this. Marystown Shipyard back some years ago

entered into an agreement with Kvaerner - or sorry, at that time they entered

into an agreement with Moss Rosenberg of Norway - let me say the government as

the owner of the yard, together with the then-president, Tom Whelan, went out to

see who could be the best possible group to get involved with, in terms of doing

a joint venture for the offshore. It was quickly concluded that the best people

to do an arrangement with would be Moss Rosenberg from Norway.

As a result of that arrangement there was put in place a

company called Vinland Industries. From that perspective there was a transfer of

technology agreement put in place as well, whereby there was money put up and

people from Marystown were able to go to Norway and work, first-hand, on the

mechanical outfitting. Then the previous government in this Province that fought

for jobs, that believed in jobs for Newfoundlanders, unlike this government, put

in place the Atlantic Accord. Included in the Atlantic Accord was a training

component but also funding for infrastructure. Together with my colleague for

Grand Bank and the then-Minister of Natural Resources, I believe it was called,

the Member for Mount Pearl, and the hon. John Crosbie went to Marystown.

MR. GRIMES: You had that many departments you didn't know

what to call it. Something like forty departments.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation that this is too important for me to get

sidetracked by him. He can laugh and joke about 300 jobs going out of Marystown

but I would say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - to the minister that the people of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - the Burin Peninsula and the people of this

Province are not laughing and joking at 300 jobs going out of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we announced, together with John

Crosbie representing the federal government, an agreement to put in place the

Cow Head fabrication centre. First of all, the first phase was completed under a

federal/provincial agreement. The first phase of Cow Head was done, there was a

building and all that. It was under a later agreement that we put in place

another $30 million to bring the total to approximately $40 million. From that,

Mr. Speaker, Marystown had a joint venture with Rosenberg that was later sold to

Kvaerner and became Kvaerner Rosenberg but they put in place that system. They

put in place that system, Mr. Speaker, whereby Marystown would benefit from the

mechanical outfitting contract and everyone in the oil industry knew that that

was Marystown's intention with Kvaerner.

The Norwegian people came over and moved to Newfoundland,

became directly involved in the bidding and everything else. Mr. Speaker, the

bid was put in place and submitted. When the final bid was submitted and the

tenders opened, Marystown did not get the contract. Marystown was unsuccessful.

Marystown's bid was $114 million, somewhere in that area and M & M, their bid,

Mr. Speaker, was $104 million. So there was a $10 million difference and the

Premier of this Province got up and attacked the Norwegians. He said they were

greedy. I am sure we all remember that. That it was greed that kept us from

getting the bid. The minister of development went to Marystown and he said

sharpen your pencils on further bids. The Premier did not tell us that he

learned on a fishing trip with Bob Kimberlin some weeks before, that we were not

going to get the contract. He kept that quiet. He talked about people being

fraudulent today - Mr. Speaker, he kept that quiet. We did not get the bid, we

sharpened our pencils.

Now just let me get back to the mechanical outfitting bid

again. Whoever is responsible - I think it is the Minister of Natural Resources

who has the responsibility and I challenge him to become involved in some thing.

He has been involved in absolutely nothing so far. We have not heard a peep or a

whimper, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Natural Resources. He has not become

involved in this issue at all, which he has a responsibility for, but I

challenge the minister - I should not challenge him, I ask him, and I think that

is the right - we should demand that the minister table in this House what

arrangements have now been done on the mechanical outfitting because I have been

led to believe that the mechanical outfitting has now gone cost-plus and the

cost, Mr. Speaker, is $120 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not the $114.5 million Marystown bid.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be sidetracked by the

Member for Eagle River either, who is slavishly brown-nosing on the eighth

floor. Mr. Speaker, this is very serious business. I say to the member, you can

table what you like. This is very serious. It is only fools, I say to the Member

for Eagle River, who would consider this to be foolish.

Mr. Speaker, what happened is that Peter (inaudible), the

owner of M & M, became one of the key players out in Bull Arm. Now what you have

is a situation where Peter (inaudible) and M & M, the same company sits on both

sides of the table when they are discussing the issues, the supervision and

everything else.

MR. SULLIVAN: A scam, that is what it is.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural

Resources if he will table in this House what the cost of the mechanical

outfitting contract has gone to. Will the minister give some indication that he

will undertake to table that contract? I hope the minister is listening. I don't

know if he is listening or not.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You are? I hope you will undertake to find out

how much that mechanical outfitting contract is now gone to. Is it gone

cost-plus, I would ask the minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, more than Marystown bid. They will pay

more than Marystown bid on it, they can count on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: We've been told, I would say to the minister,

that the contract has now gone to $120 million. It was $104 million, Marystown's

was $114 million, and we now have been told that the contract is now gone to

$120 million. I'm sure that all members in this Legislature, indeed all

Newfoundlanders, will have no tolerance for that if that is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who scuttled the

hon. member's head, but there is not very much left in it.

We got a consolation prize. We didn't get the $200 million

contract, we got a consolation prize. We got a $35 million contract. The Premier

now asks - and why - make no mistake why this contract is gone, I say to members

opposite. There is only one person responsible for that and that is the Premier

of this Province. The Premier of this Province is responsible for that contract

being gone.

Why? Because he is going to save a few dollars. The Premier

talked about an overrun of $6 million to $7 million. I tell members here that

when the tender was submitted they were told by the partners, namely Vinland,

that: Your bid is $6 million less than what it is going to cost you to do it.

The government and the board of directors were warned that it would be $6

million less than what you are submitting your bid for. As a matter of fact,

I've been told by one board member that there were people who walked out of the

meeting when they decided that they were going to proceed and bid $6 million

less than the cost. I've also been told that the next lowest bidder was $9

million in the difference.

If that was the case the $6 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. TOBIN: Wrong. How would you know? If that was the

case, $6 million. As a matter of fact, we were told by the Minister of ITT - if

he was here today I'm sure he would confirm it - in a meeting that we bid it at

a loss. So why should the Premier be concerned or be alarmed to the extent that

he was going to let 350 jobs leave Newfoundland because we are between $6

million and $7 million overrun, when he knew he was bidding it at a loss? Why

shouldn't he be alarmed, Mr. Speaker?

I will tell you what happened. Ken Hull from Hibernia went in

- no, I'm a little bit ahead there, now, I want to go back.

MR. GRIMES: Don't get it mixed up (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No I won't, I would say to the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I won't get it mixed up. I know the issue very

well. When this bid was being submitted and put together, after we were told to

sharpen our pencils and go look for the work, the Norwegians were greedy and

everything else, the Premier and this government made one serious mistake. That

mistake was to let Kvaerner go. Instead of forcing Kvaerner out, which the

government did, the government should have kept the Norwegians and their

expertise and put them in in some sort of a management contract of that

operation. I can tell you, we would be better off than we are today.

That was not to be because the Premier on his high and mighty

horse decided that the Norwegians were greedy and had to go. Yet they submitted

the real bid and the best bid was submitted by Vinland for the mechanical

outfitting.

So along comes Ken Hull and says to the Premier that we have

to move the work from Newfoundland to St. John, New Brunswick. The work has to

go. Why does the work have to go?

Now I want to tell all hon. members a little story here. You

might be interested in it, and the Minister of Natural Resources knows what I am

going to talk about, because I talked to him when the House was open the last

time. There was one day I didn't raise it in this House; I went and dealt with

the minister. The minister knows what I am going to talk about - I went and

raised it with the minister - was a contract regarding the pontoon barges that

Marystown had, and HMDC was beating Marystown over the head with a stick,

saying: You are behind schedule; you are this and that, and you are over budget

and the whole bit.

I went to the minister and said: Everything I have been told

is that HMDC are not right, but what HMDC did was force Marystown Shipyard, or

Vinland, to have people working twenty-four hours a day, costing the shipyard a

fortune, because it was bid on eight hours a day, to work so many hours,

whatever way it is calculated. They forced Marystown and Vinland to spend a

fortune in overtime alone on that project, and directly it cost the taxpayers

because obviously the government owns the shipyard and it cost the taxpayers

because there was an overrun. The pontoon barges were built and constructed in

Marystown, tied on for months - four months - before HMDC were ready to accept

delivery. Now does that cause anyone concern about the credibility of HMDC? The

Minister of Natural Resources knows what I am talking about, because I raised it

with him, about why the shipyard is being forced for overtime and everything

else.

Mr. Speaker, four months tied on in Marystown, waiting for

delivery. That is the kind of a game that HMDC has been playing with Marystown.

Why are we in the mess that we are in today? Because the Government of

Newfoundland, the Premier, wimped out, gave in, when Ken Hull came to see the

Premier and said: We have to take the work out of Marystown. The Premier said:

Why? Because, he said, there is going to be a large overrun. It is going to cost

the Province a fortune.

The only ones who saved money in this debate, in this issue,

was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are 300 men and women

going to walk out through the gates of Cow Head.

AN HON. MEMBER: Already gone, some of them.

MR. TOBIN: One hundred and ten gone, thirty-seven more -

147 - but there are going to be 300 people walk through those gates, never to

return. Most of them will never return, and I say to members opposite that what

is really sad about this is that people thought they had work for up to two

years, and people went out and spent and borrowed and did all accordingly, to

the fact that they were going to have work for that period of time, but that was

not to be.

This government turned their backs on 300 Newfoundlanders,

and the Premier caved in and crushed like a marshmallow under pressure. The

Premier wimped out, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wimp.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he is a wimp, the same as you have been

since the dockyard in St. John's lost a $200 million contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shouting and bawling.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell you the people of the Burin

Peninsula are shouting out loud and clear, to try to be heard by this Premier,

because this government has the right to do something about the work leaving.

Make no mistake about that.

Don't listen to what the Premier said today, because I have

never seen anyone being as careless with the truth as what we saw displayed here

today - never before. When a rat gets cornered it will do anything to get out.

Well, I can tell you one thing, this government is trying

desperately to starve 300 people on the Burin Peninsula.

Yesterday, I attended a rally in Marystown -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people were there?

MR. TOBIN: Close to 2,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are they doing it Glen? That is

enough of rallies.

MR. TOBIN: They had one yesterday, I can tell you that

and we have had a couple. Yes we have. We had to fight, Mr. Speaker, to try to

protect our health care system where we had 3,000 people out because this

government tried to destroy that. We had another one, Mr. Speaker, to try to

save our college system. That is all we can do. We are always fighting this

government; this government has to be taken on day in and day out because of the

way they are trying to destroy rural Newfoundland, but I can tell you one thing,

the people of the Burin Peninsula, will not roll over on this.

The Premier got up today in the House and blamed it on the

union. Mr. Speaker, that was not the truth. What the Premier said in this House

today, let the record show clearly, what the Premier said in this House today

was not the truth. He did not tell the truth on that issue. The union went back

to Marystown when they met with the Premier and met with the management of the

shipyard and worked out an agreement, whereby the welders could be brought in,

and the Premier knows that, Mr. Speaker, yet today, he would not state it in

this House.

The Premier knows that the management of the yard at the time

worked out an agreement with the union to bring in welders, that was not an

issue; that was a non-issue and what the Premier said today were not the facts.

We were at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I, when he attacked the

union for no reason. It was pointed out to him then that he was wrong and he is

wrong again today. The Premier of this Province should have stood up for the 300

men and women who are going to lose their jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not long enough, not long enough. The Premier

of this Province should have stood up for the 300 men and women in this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not long enough, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this Province sold out on the Marystown

Shipyard. The Premier of this Province is involved in a scam, a scam. Let there

be no mixing of words or mincing of words, this is a scam, and I hope and pray

that the Premier's role in this scam will be exposed because he is right to his

neck in it, make no mistake about that, right to his neck. This is a conspiracy

to get at the Marystown Shipyard and there is an underlying attempt to discredit

the Marystown Shipyard for the benefit of some other people. That is what is

going on in this Province, I say to members opposite. Mr. Speaker, it was the

biggest scam that was ever cooked up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Like Hydro, a hidden agenda.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a hidden agenda. Why is the work leaving?

Nobody has told us; the Premier today, in this Legislature, got up, and what did

he say? He said: I don't know when the work is going to be brought back from St.

John, New Brunswick. Now, Mr. Speaker, isn't that startling? He knows when

Marystown is going to be done; by the fall of 1995, is when Marystown will have

it ready to deliver, but I can tell you one thing, the President of HMDC, Mr.

Hull, told us at a meeting, he said: how can I tell you when I am getting it

back when I do not know when it is going to go, and that day he did not know

anything.

Now, the Premier knew nothing when he came to Marystown on

September 26; Mr. Hull, we met with him in the latter part of October and he

said: I can't tell you anything because my team today is in St. John, New

Brunswick negotiating a deal, yet, Mr. Speaker, the President of St. John, New

Brunswick was speaking at a service club in St. John a few days ago and said he

signed a deal with HMDC on October 12.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: He signed a deal on October 12, the week of

October 12. Mr. Speaker, who is telling the lies, who is the liar? That is the

question that has to be answered. Who is lying to the people of this Province? I

can tell you one thing, Marystown Shipyard and Vinland Industries are owned by

the Newfoundland government. What has happened? Where is the CEO who was brought

in some months ago? What has happened, is that the Premier of this Province has

tried to take over the operation in Marystown, he has tried to become the CEO of

Marystown Shipyard and Vinland Industries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The

Member for St. John's South can try what he likes but he will not distract me on

this issue.

The Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, has the power to

do what needs to be done. I was at a function the other night in Marystown and

one of the members on this issues, from Salt Pond in Burin, one gentlemen got up

and said: I wish we had Brian Peckford back to fight this one for us; because he

said, what would be leaving Newfoundland would not be the work, but would be

whomever is responsible for taking it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, one of the people who said that

happened to be involved with the closure of the Burin fish plant and spoke from

experience, because Brian Peckford who was the Premier of this Province stood

shoulder to shoulder with the Town of Burin and fought and fought and fought -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - and fought, and fought and fought, Mr.

Speaker, for the Town of Burin. Mr. Speaker, what we had then was a Premier who

believed in jobs for Newfoundlanders and in Newfoundlanders.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for

Eagle River that like everyone else, I choose to ignore him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is immature.

MR. TOBIN: Well everyone knows he is immature. What has

happened here, is that there is a government that owns the Marystown Shipyard, a

government that owns Vinland Industries and are not prepared. Can you imagine

that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Board has been meeting in St.

John's, Newfoundland for two weeks, discussing why the work did not go to MIL

Quebec as opposed to St. John, New Brunswick? For two weeks, asking the question

as to why the work did not go to MIL Quebec as opposed to St. John, New

Brunswick and this government has not done anything about it, has not even asked

the Offshore Petroleum Board to investigate?

Mr. Speaker, there is one other very interesting factor in

all of this. Where has the federal government been and why has not the Premier

gone to the federal minister and ask for a point of clarification?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can the Member for Eagle River

and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation have their conversation

outside rather than shouting back and forth?

Mr. Speaker, the federal government holds the shares of Petro

Canada and the federal government hold their own shares that went in when they

bought out with Murphy Oil, the Gulf shares. What have they done as an owner of

HMDC to protect the jobs in Newfoundland, and has this Premier once spoken to

the federal government? He introduced the president or someone from China to

someone else in China, but has he introduced this problem to the federal

minister or to the Prime Minister who holds shares in that project? Not on your

life, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier of this Province is the man solely

behind, together with Ken Hull, but more responsible for the work leaving

Marystown than anyone else in the Province. This Premier is the man that is

solely responsible for that work.

He went to Marystown and asked for concessions, and the

biggest surprise the Premier got was when they granted the concessions because

did the Premier ever want the union to say, no concessions, and he would have

been on the radio for the last month saying, I told you so. If he had listened

to me he would have kept the work. The union is smart enough for that Premier.

They have watched him and listened to him playing his games long enough. Now, we

all know why he sold out.

What would you call 300 jobs from the Burin Peninsula, the

South Coast of this Province, with the highest unemployment of anywhere in the

country? A disaster. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that there are 300 more

jobs going. The Premier was on a jaunt to China looking for work, the second

time in as many months. What a joke.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity

of being able to participate in this debate and I hope that all members will put

pressure on the Premier to do what is right and proper and to move immediately,

today, to correct that situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this subject today, and I would

like to speak on it in such a way that we lower the level of rhetoric and

emotion on this and try to get down to some of the facts on this situation. Let

us get down to the reality of this situation and what is in the best interest of

the people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula, and the people of the Province.

Let us get away from the rhetoric and the emotion because I have heard enough of

the rhetoric and emotion today and I do not believe it is in the best interest

of the people of this Province and the people of Marystown and the Burin

Peninsula.

Let us get down to the facts. Right now, today, as we speak

and debate this issue, there are over 5000 people in this Province working on

the Hibernia project with a bit of a decrease. We are in a little bit of a lull

at Bull Arm because the gravity base is being towed out today. We are at a

milestone today in this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Today as we speak the 4000 or so people who

have worked at Bull Arm have met a milestone and they are getting the gravity

base towed out to its deep water site. We should be pleased and we should praise

them all because they have done a great job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have some numbers.

DR. GIBBONS: I can give you the numbers as of October 31.

As of October 31 there were 3,739 people working at Bull Arm, 766 people working

in St. John's with the various management and engineering companies, and at

Marystown, primarily at the Cow Head site, 409, and that does not include the

approximately 500 others at Marystown Shipyard who are working on two of the

supply boats for this particular contract. We should not be looking at the

negatives here and laying blame. Nobody on this side of the House, nobody in

this government, has sold out anybody on this case, let alone the Premier. The

Premier stated in the Question Period today how he has fought for Marystown and

Cow Head, how he has fought for it and how we have fought for it.

We can go back to when in preparation for winning a contract

for Newfoundland we helped get the Cow Head facility completed. The initial

announcement might have been one thing but it was this government that saw it

through. It was this government that did all the encouraging of the Cow Head

people, the Vinland people, to bid. They did bid. Unfortunately, in a fair and

full bidding process in Canada - because this particular project had to be bid

for Canada - in a full and fair bidding process for the mechanical outfitting

that the hon. member opposite talked about, Cow Head lost. It is unfortunate. We

all wanted it to win. We invested $45 million in Cow Head for it to win. It lost

in the fair and full bidding process.

MR. TOBIN: What is the cost today?

DR. GIBBONS: I'm not getting into the cost today because

anything that you want to talk about about the cost today is pure speculation

about the cost today. You don't know and it is not out there. It is a private

contract and it is not to be argued about and debated about publicly.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

DR. GIBBONS: It is being done.

MR. TOBIN: Why are they covering it up?

DR. GIBBONS: There is nothing being covered up at all.

The key thing for us to consider today is that the Hibernia project and the

construction related to it worldwide, but especially in Newfoundland, is

proceeding well. The job is getting done and it is being done by residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are working

at the site at Bull Arm and elsewhere in this Province. Right now about 5,500

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are working and are making good money on

this project, and they will continue to work on it more into the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be 5,850.

DR. GIBBONS: I would like to see it be about 1 million,

or 580,000. Unfortunately the job is not that big.

Right now today at Marystown we should be thinking more about

what else is being done down there, what is remaining at Marystown, and how we

can complete this. Let's not put this in jeopardy. Right now there are two

supply vessels being worked on down in Marystown.

MR. TOBIN: Is that a threat?

DR. GIBBONS: This is not a threat, no. This debate

certainly does not help the situation. We have $75 million worth of work

approximately still continuing to be done at Marystown, and it will take another

year and a half to complete that work. We have to make sure that work is done.

We have to make sure that work is done properly to good quality and done on time

to meet the deadlines. Unfortunately, with regard to the project at Cow Head, it

was the Hibernia management company that had lost confidence that this could be

completed in time to meet their schedule, and a very serious schedule.

The gravity base has to go to sea in 1997. The gravity base

has to go to sea during that short weather window in 1997. It has to be ready to

sail away at that time. What is being done now, in the best view of the company,

in the best assessment by the company, is everything that needs to be done to

get it to sea on time. If it does not go to sea on time, and if you miss that

short weather window, well, you are going to have another year of not producing

oil. That is when it is going to cost us not just millions of dollars, friends,

but hundreds of millions of dollars for that delay. In the opinion of the

Hibernia management company they believe they must make this change to do that.

The Premier stated clearly today: we did not accept that,

that was not our opinion. We know that the Marystown people did not accept that,

it was not their opinion. It was the opinion of the company that this had to be

done or else the

schedule was threatened. And they could not do it because they

had to meet this schedule. They have taken (inaudible) to meet this schedule.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), tell us that. (Inaudible).

MR. GIBBONS: They are quite satisfied that they will get

it back from Saint John, New Brunswick and meet the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: When? When?

DR. GIBBONS: Without regard to the specifics, they will

get it back and meet the schedule. The Premier did not say a specific date

because he said he did not know a specific date. I don't know the specific date

either, but the company is satisfied that they will have it in time to meet the

schedule, and that's what is most critical here, to meet the schedule.

In the meantime, what we are looking at, what Marystown - Cow

Head is looking at, as a facility, with Hibernia management, is whether or not

there are some other smaller things that can also fit in there, that we can get

more people working in Newfoundland. We know the quality of the work was

excellent, there is no question about the quality. The problem was the timing,

and the timing kept changing. Friends, it was a year ago, November 1, when this

contract was awarded - November 1, 1993.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: It was awarded November 1, 1993. It wasn't

until the winter that we really got going. By the time the project really got

going in the winter of 1993, the concern was already there that they could not

meet the original

schedule of May 1, 1995. It was not long after that that

Hibernia management was approached and told, `we're sorry, no, we can't make May

1. What about September 1, 1995?' And Hibernia management said, `Sorry, that's

too late. We cannot accept that date. The latest we can accept, as a sail-away

is July 1. We need it by July 1, 1995 to meet our schedule.'

Later on, Cow Head went to Hibernia management saying, `Well,

we can't even make September 1.' Earlier today, the Premier talked about

December. Well, it is getting way beyond even a drop dead date for getting

things done to meet that window in 1997.

It is critical for the project to meet that window in 1997

because, as the Premier said in Question Period, what is most important for us,

as a Province and as a people at this time, is to get Hibernia done; to get

Hibernia's gravity base platform at sea, to get the wells drilled and get the

oil flowing by December or thereabouts in 1997. Let's get this project going,

because it is only after Hibernia that we are going to have an industry. It is

after Hibernia that we get Terra Nova moving, we get Whiterose moving, we get

Hebron, Ben Nevis moving and the others, and the discoveries that I believe,

personally, will be made out there in the future. We have to get on with this

and start our industry.

Hibernia is just a starting point of it and let's not kill

Hibernia by causing us to miss a year. Let's not do that. Let's make sure

Hibernia is on

schedule and let's not cost us the hundreds of millions of

dollars that it would cost somebody if there is a delay in Hibernia. Let's get

it done. That is what it means to miss the window. That is what it means to not

get it out to sea in the middle of 1997. That is what it means to miss a year of

not producing oil. And the project can't take that, our future industry cannot

take that. We have to get the job done.

Right now that is part of it. So for the small number of

jobs, for the small part of this project that is not done, let's make sure it is

done. It is unfortunate, it is sad, we wanted to see all of these people work,

too, but let's get on with it, with the 600 people approximately that will

continue to work at Marystown and some of them will continue to work at the Cow

Head facility for the next eighteen months or so as they complete their work.

Let's get on with that and let's try to get from Hibernia management some other

contracts, smaller ones that will be available at this stage, that can fill in

the space that is down there and get some more people working. Let's look at the

positive side of what we can get from this, not the negative side. Let's build

on what we have right now.

A lot has been said today about what the two governments

could do and what the federal minister could do, what the federal minister has

done, what is being done by the C-NOPB relative to the MIL question regarding

whether they - because they didn't get a chance to bid. Well friends, if you

look at the facts, if you look at the Atlantic Accord Act, if you look at the

contracts, it is quite clear that with regard to this specific contract, there

is nothing in the Hibernia plan that requires the C-NOPB or gives the minister

any room relative to this specific contract. This specific contract is not

mentioned in the benefit plan. It is not mentioned in the benefit plan. What the

benefit plan does say is that M-71, M-72 and M-73 have to be built in Canada,

and M-71, M-72, M-73 are being built in Canada. What the benefit plan does say

is that relative to the pipe rack, the M-73, a best effort must be given to see

that that is done in Newfoundland. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is staying

in Newfoundland, it is not moving to Saint John, New Brunswick. The pipe rack

part of this contract is staying here.

Two other components, and only parts of the two other

components, the seventy-one and the seventy-two drilling derricks, only parts of

these are going to St. John, New Brunswick. All of it is being done in Canada.

As long as all of it is being done in Canada, there is no way that the federal

minister and I can say anything. There is no way that the federal minister and I

can give a directive to the offshore board on this issue.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to be done? I

know (inaudible) so where is it going to be done now?

DR. GIBBONS: The construction will be done in St. John.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to take

place?

DR. GIBBONS: The final commissioning obviously has to be

done in this Province. The final commissioning of everything related to the

gravity base for Hibernia is going to be in this Province. The final

commissioning is going to be at Bull Arm, where all components that are being

built for the Hibernia gravity base and the top sides eventually come to Bull

Arm and they get installed on the rig at Bull Arm. That is where all of it is

finally done.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the contract take place at

Marystown of M71, M72 (inaudible). What about that?

DR. GIBBONS: As I said, the final commissioning of

everything is done at Bull Arm. It is put together at Bull Arm and it gets towed

to sea from Bull Arm in the summer of 1997, and I want to see that happen. The

people of this Province want to see that happen and should see it happen, and it

is all in our best interest to do it. All the facts are here. I can read right

out of the legislation for you.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to take place

(inaudible) the contract in Marystown? Where is it going to take place?

DR. GIBBONS: The final commissioning has to happen from

Bull Arm. It all gets put on the rig at Bull Arm.

MR. TOBIN: It is not at Bull Arm in the contract.

DR. GIBBONS: Anyway, we will see.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Obviously, there will be testing at various

sites.

On the MIL question that was raised - the question that MIL

raised was: Why didn't we get a chance, as MIL Quebec, to bid on this work that

is being moved? That was their question: Why didn't we get a chance to bid? That

is the question that has been put to the offshore board, and that is legitimate.

That is a legitimate question, because under the benefits plan for Canada, all

companies in Canada are to be given fair and full opportunity to bid. They

raised that question and it is being reviewed by the board, but what the board

cannot do is interfere with a private contractual arrangement that is in place

between Hibernia management, the company that is running Bull Arm, and Vinland.

The offshore board cannot interfere with that private arrangement. There is

nothing that the offshore board can do about that private arrangement, and there

is nothing that either I or the federal Minister of Energy can do about that in

terms of directives - nothing at all, according to the legislation that is in

place in the Atlantic Accord - nothing.

So, as I said earlier, what we should be doing is looking

forward from here, not beating the negatives around. We are all doing everything

we can for this, for Newfoundlanders. Most of the people who have worked on this

project from day one have been Newfoundlanders. About 70 per cent of the working

time to date has been by people in Newfoundland, and let's hope that continues.

And that's the way it is, let's let that continue. And the quality of work being

done in Newfoundland is second to none.

Unfortunately, with this particular contract, not the

quality, but the timing, is what became a concern of Hibernia management. We

said to them: `We want you to leave it there.' The Premier said it loudly. `We

want you to leave it there,' but they have the right to do what they are doing,

and no government can tell them what to do; and if we were to do it, then we

have to be concerned about that financial liability. If we were to force them -

in any way, if it were possible, if we were to force them to leave it at

Marystown and then if the sail-away in the summer of 1997 were delayed and it

missed a year of production, then that is when we, as a people, and taxpayers,

have to worry about the hundreds of millions of dollars of liability for

delaying this project for a year, and there is no way that I want to be part of

that. I want it to be done on time. I want it to go out to sea on schedule. I

want it to flow oil on schedule, so that we can then share the benefits of that

and get on with the other developments that are to follow.