May 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 48

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I table for hon. members the report of the Fact Finding

Committee that investigated complaints about the relationship between the

Grenfell Regional Health Services and some of its physicians.

Hon. members will remember that there were a number of

complaints through the media and otherwise against the administration and board

of Grenfell Regional Health Services. These came from some local citizens groups

and from some physicians who were practising or who had been practising with

Grenfell Regional Health Services.

Recently, the Fact Finding Committee appointed by me and

consisting of Dr. Ron Whalen as chair, Dr. Peter Blackie of Gander, and Dr. John

Sheldon of New World Island submitted the report which I am now tabling. The

report deals with their findings after visiting the Grenfell Regional Health

Services area and consulting with a number of individuals and groups. The

committee had been asked to review the relationships between Grenfell Regional

Health Services and its medical staff, including the issues of medical staff

turnover and third party billings by physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank publicly Dr. Whalen, Dr. Blackie

and Dr. Sheldon for their review and for the very helpful suggestions contained

in their report. I wish to thank also for their co-operation and assistance Mr.

Bruce Patey chairman of the board of Grenfell Regional Health Services as well

as the other members of the board, Dr. Peter Roberts the Executive Director, the

physicians, and other staff of Grenfell Regional Health Services and all others

who participated in this review. It has been a very worthwhile process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I am pleased the minister tabled the report as

he indicated he would. I think a lot remains to be answered, too, with the

committee appointed to do an audit on third party billings. The report makes

reference to third party billings and unauthorized mail openings and cannot be

settled until the audit committee report has been submitted. It also mentions

some very damning information here and makes recommendations that future

employees and doctors should be given the full details of their working

relationship before they leave their country of origin. In other words a lot of

the information has not been forthcoming.

This report deals with excessive workloads and so on,

improper working conditions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, last night CBC released their

corporate research poll which showed a large majority of the people still firmly

opposed to the sale of Hydro. The poll actually confirms the results of two

previous professional polls, the Market Quest poll on March 29 which indicated

63 per cent opposed the sale, a week later on April 5 the Decima poll showing 68

per cent opposed and now nearly two months later the Corporate Research Poll

confirming 68 per cent of the people are still solidly opposed to the sale of

Hydro. Once again I remind the Premier of the pledge he made to the people of

this Province during the TV debate, March 24 when he said: if the majority of

the people in the Province end up being opposed to the sale of Hydro I would not

ask the members of the House or Legislature to proceed with legislation

privatizing Hydro. Now Premier you made that pledge on that particular evening

not once, not twice but on three separate occasions and I want to ask you today,

do you intend to keep your solemn pledge to the people of this Province, the one

you made on that occasion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it's very easy for

individuals without responsibility to say no to anything they want to. When

government has responsibility for all aspects of government, government has to

make the decisions that are necessary. We are convinced that the best thing that

could happen to this Province for its economic and financial future is the

privatization of Hydro and it remains the firm policy of government to achieve

that privatization. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm encouraged by the fact that opinion is

changing. People are becoming aware of the utterly false basis put forward by

the Opposition in their criticism of Hydro and are becoming aware just how

significant this is for the Province. I have no doubt in the future people will

come to fully understand the importance of following that particular course. Mr.

Speaker, the government intends to continue its efforts to make sure that the

people of this Province are fully informed and we will continue our policy of

rebuilding the economy of this Province and salvaging the Province from the

ravages of seventeen years of Tory abuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, for the past three months, at

least, the people of this Province have been subjected to a massive propaganda

campaign to try to convince them that selling Hydro is good for the Province. I

say to the Premier, they've heard all your arguments including the ones you just

made, a large majority of the people, 64 per cent in that poll last night,

understand the issue and 68 per cent of them, more that two-thirds, simply don't

believe you, so I want to ask you today: when more than two-thirds of the

population say you are wrong, what right do you have to say that, you are right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has a

responsibility to govern in the best interest of the Province; to provide for

our financial and economic and social security future, and that's exactly what

we intend to do. Now I know, because of the false statements, some of them made

by the Leader of the Opposition outside this House, all around the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - some of the false statements made by

members of the Opposition; some of the false statements made by a man named

Abery, some of the false statements made by a variety of other people; some of

those false statements and false arguments, some of the incorrect statements

made by the Member for Humber East here in the House yesterday; all of it

attempting to colour the judgement of the people of this Province and I must

admit, Mr. Speaker, they have been rather effective; they have been rather

effective at colouring the judgement.

The responsibility of government now is to make sure that the

people are fully informed and that in the end to make sure that they do support

the actions that the government intends to take in the long run to achieve the

privatization of Hydro.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the Premier is

telling the people of this Province that he thinks they are stupid; that they

are too green to burn, that they don't know what's in their best interest.

That's what he is trying to say to us here today by suggesting that we are

misleading or providing false information. Well, if ever there was any example

of anybody in this Province who has been misleading the people of the Province,

he is sitting right over there in the Premier's seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I say again: the people of the Province have

heard all of his arguments for the last two months. The sale of Hydro will give

you a short-term cash windfall of $400 million to $500 million to allow you to

avoid borrowing for a year or so; something like selling your home to pay for a

vacation.

The sale of Hydro is not a solution to the problems that the

Premier has been talking about, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him this: What do you

propose to do next year when you have spent all of that cash, that $400 million

or $500 million, when you have nothing left to sell off, will you again raise

taxes, lay off public employees, close hospitals and close schools, something

that you have been doing for the last four years anyway, is that what you are

trying to tell the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, totally the opposite. We

are going to govern this Province on a sensible and sound basis, something the

hon. members opposite have no familiarity with at all. They ravaged this

Province for seventeen years, destroying its economy, putting it head over heels

in debt, putting us in a situation where the government must take action to

correct this mess and bring us forward so that we can rebuild the economy, and,

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the course we intend to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing.

PREMIER WELLS: They sound like a gaggle of barnyard

geese, just yakking without purpose.

Mr. Speaker, following this course, the government proposes

that we will not borrow any money this year, that we will not borrow to increase

our debt this year. We will not borrow to increase our debt next year. We will

not borrow to increase our debt the next year, and we will not borrow to

increase our debt the next year. There is no more borrowing to increase debt. No

more will be necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: They are not used to running the

government on a sound financial basis. I can understand why they don't

appreciate and understand it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've made very clear in statements I've

made in this House and otherwise that we may well have to borrow to refinance

existing debt, but no more borrowing to increase our debt. Government's policy

is our debt is capped. We will stop the treadmill that the former government put

us on, destroying the Province's integrity. To quote their former Leader when he

sat here, he said: `If we keep going on this course, in a couple of years it

will be 1933 all over again.' Mr. Speaker, that is where they were taking this

Province when they were in government. We are not going to let them do it from

the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Great rhetoric, I say

to the Premier, great rhetoric, great quotes, but the reality is - I'm not sure

if the Premier understood what he said a moment ago. We won't have to borrow for

the next four years, I believe, is what he is saying.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I said we won't borrow to increase our

debt.

MR. SIMMS: Let me - I will tell the Premier what he said.

He said the next four - we won't have to borrow this year, we won't have to

borrow next year, we won't have to borrow the year after and we won't have to

borrow the year after that. That is what you said!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That's what you said. You are trying to

mislead the people again. You are trying to trick them and it won't work.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the long-term benefit in savings

of about $25 million a year on interest payments. Against that the consumers of

this Province will have to pay at least $50 million more every year for

electricity. Now, how does he explain that? Fifty million dollars siphoned out

of the economy to pay shareholders' profits will have a far greater negative

impact on our economy and the finances of this Province than the $25 million

savings on interest. Explain that!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. Let me

remind the House what I said again, and it is precisely the same statement as

was made when we advised the House that Standard and Poor's had reduced our

credit rating. It is exactly the same statement, that government's policy is

that we so manage our affairs as to avoid any borrowing that will increase our

debt beyond what it is now.

Now, we know that as debt that they borrowed twenty years ago

falls due, we don't have the money to pay it off, so we have to borrow to roll

it over, but our debt doesn't increase. If we borrow $200 million, we repay $200

million of existing debt, so there is no debt increase.

Now, I know the hon. the Member for Grand Falls finds this

difficult to understand. He is not great at understanding that, so he needs it

spelled out in order to prevent him from being able to misrepresent the

government's position, as he seeks to do. Our objective is to make sure that we

so manage our affairs as to avoid, if at all possible, any other single dollar

increase in our total debt in this Province, and that's the best thing that any

government can do for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on the second point that was raised by the

Leader of the Opposition, What are we going to do about the rate increases? I

say to members opposite, and to everybody in the Province, for that matter, that

in Nova Scotia, their projection in late 1991 was that they would have a 5 per

cent increase in 1993, a 5 per cent increase in 1994, a 2 per cent increase in

1995, and a 3 per cent increase in 1996. They privatized. What happened? They

had a 1.8 per cent increase instead of 5 per cent in 1993; they had no increase

at all in 1994; they are projecting no increase in 1995; they may have a 3 per

cent to 4 per cent increase in 1996. Now, that's instead of 5 per cent, 5 per

cent, 2 per cent and 3 per cent.

MR. SIMMS: What about 1997?

PREMIER WELLS: Zero, 1997; zero, 1998.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I would expect will

occur in the case of Newfoundland Hydro.

MS. VERGE: That's not what you said before.

PREMIER WELLS: No, that is not what I -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The member is misrepresenting again, Mr.

Speaker, and I'll tell the House since she's raised it, exactly what I said

before. What I said before is if we assumed there was no improvement at all, if

we made that assumption, and that's an assumption I'm not prepared to make

because I don't think that that will be the experience, I think our experience

will be pretty much the same as the Nova Scotia experience. I think our

experience will be pretty much the same as the Nova Scotia experience, Mr.

Speaker, and we will be able to avoid any increase at all due to privatization.

That's what I sincerely hope will occur but, Mr. Speaker, when I made the

statements to the House I made it clear that if we assumed there would be no

productivity savings at all the increase would be less then 1 per cent,

seven-tenths of one per cent per year on average over the next five years.

That's assuming no productivity savings at all but as I advised the House, I'm

not prepared to assume that. I think we will have significant savings.

MS. VERGE: Resign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Premier, the people have heard

all of his arguments. I mean this is a government that hasn't yet made a

projection right and I say to him also -

PREMIER WELLS: Is that right?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that is right. Just ask your former

Minister of Finance.

Now I say to him also, he says I have trouble understanding,

well I say to the Premier it's not trouble that I have understanding what he

says, that's not what I'm talking about. I have no difficulty understanding but

I sure have difficulty believing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now let me try once again. I want to bring him

back to the debate over the Meech Lake Accord, when you insisted that no

Legislature should act against the wishes of the people because such decisions

were very difficult to change. Now you made a similar argument in that debate on

March 24 when you said: I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it

feels about an issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause

something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this

Province and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that. I say to the

Premier, the sale of Hydro is also an irreversible decision and by your own

admission you do not have the moral authority to do what cannot be undone

without having the support of the majority of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: So I want to ask him directly, are the

principles that you have so often proclaimed real or are they just for show, a

sham, an illusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the sale of

Hydro or any other corporation for that matter, as a matter of interest is in

fact reversible. It can be reversed. So to say that it's irreversible is totally

wrong again. It just demonstrates that they're prepared to say anything

whatsoever to promote their cause. To say it's irreversible is again totally

wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on constitutional questions I don't quarrel

with the view I expressed, that, I think, was a sound view. Now, Mr. Speaker, I

think it's probably equally a sound view -

MS. VERGE: Hypocrite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: It's probably equally a sound view, Mr.

Speaker, that on any major or significant matter government should maintain an

acceptable level of public support for any action that it proposes to implement.

I don't deny that proposition but, Mr. Speaker, what does a government do when

it's faced with the economic and financial circumstances -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: As soon as the gaggle of geese stop I'll

continue, Mr. Speaker.

What does the government do when it's faced with these major

circumstances where you have one credit rating agency saying: if you don't

privatize Hydro we're going to reassess your credit again. That's a significant

factor.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the second time I've heard the hon. Member from

Humber East say that the Premier is a liar, as the member knows it's

unparliamentary and I'd ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, similar to my colleague, the

Member for Grand Bank, I am simply saying the truth. I honestly believe the

Premier is lying and I'm not going to retract what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member again if she's prepared to

withdraw the remark; otherwise, I will have to name her.

MS. VERGE: I am not prepared to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I hereby name the Member for Humber East,

Lynn Verge, for conduct unbecoming a member of this House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret because

obviously the hon. member wishes to be suspended from the House, but we must

maintain the authority -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Burin -

Placentia West, we are not going to turn this House into a beer rabble or a beer

garden, no matter how hard he tries.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I move that the hon.

Member for Humber East be suspended from the House for the balance of this day's

sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon.

Member for Humber East be expelled from this session for the remainder of the

day.

Motion carried.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The hon. Premier had the floor.

The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you shut up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said `shut

up'. Now that (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I heard the remark; I didn't identify who

said it.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of

saying that quite apart from the significance of constitutional decisions, and

the importance of not making constitutional decisions of that magnitude without

approval of the public to do so, I also was in the process of saying that it is

important that government maintain an acceptable level of public support for any

major decision that it wants to take. I stand by that. It's important that a

government do that.

When government is faced with the circumstances that we are

faced with, some of it we foresaw; some of it has been added since this issue

arose; some of it, like the reduction in our credit rating by Standard and

Poor's, and the impact of that on the Province; some of it arising on a daily

basis as we have to cope with major problems in this Province. We cannot risk

putting this Province into the kind of difficulty that it has been in the past

because the members opposite, when they had responsibility for government, acted

so irresponsibly as to put us in the financial position that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, in those circumstances government has to take

into account all aspects of it, and we intend to do that, and we intend to

continue to inform the people of this Province as to the full impact and the

full significance of this, and the full value of this to the people of the

Province, and we hope to continue to build on the growing support for

privatization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what world the

Premier is living in. He uses all kinds of blatant trickery. The Standard and

Poor's rating, he says now, is a reason to privatize Hydro, yet a week before

that, on May 3, he told me in this House he was going to privatize Hydro anyway,

so it is blatant trickery and that is what he continues to use.

Now, in answer to my last question, when I talked about the

future, and that this decision was irreversible, he tries to make an argument

that is not true. Well, the reality is that no future government will ever be

able to afford the millions and millions of dollars that it would take to buy

back the Hydro facility and the assets that you now propose to give away for

$400 million or $500 million; it will never occur.

Let me ask him this: If you were Leader of the Opposition,

Sir, facing a Premier who broke his solemn promise to the people, and who acted

in direct contradiction to the moral principles that he espoused, how would you

describe it? Would you say he was a man without real principles? Would you say

he was amoral? Would you say he was a liar?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Even in the face of that personal abuse, I

have enough respect for the position that the hon. member holds not to use the

kind of personally abusive language. I'm prepared, Mr. Speaker, to deal with

issues. I'm prepared to deal with issues, not deal with personalities, on the

basis of what (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member has demonstrated to the

members of this House and to the people of this Province just what his level of

integrity and political integrity is. He has demonstrated it very clearly to the

people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

person to lecture about integrity or lack thereof, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a person to lecture on it.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount, the education critic, who is attending a funeral, I want

to ask the Minister of education a question. There has been quite an amount of

concern and alarm out and about the Province expressed by parents, educators,

and last night and this morning, by one of the minister's own colleagues, the

Member for Port au Port, about the implications and ramifications and the

devastation that the elimination of the 2 per cent savings clause in the

teachers' contract will have if government pushes on its course and forces the

elimination of that clause.

I'm sure the minister now must be fully aware what is going

to happen to rural schools and rural communities if government persists in its

blatant attack and attempt to strip the teachers' contract, particularly to get

rid of that clause. Has the minister considered these implications and very

serious consequences, and can he inform the House now whether government is

willing to take that clause off the negotiating table?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I've been following very closely

what is happening in the Province with the 2 per cent rule, the teachers' strike

and so on. Government has to be concerned that we have enough teachers in the

system to deliver the programs that should be delivered. I don't buy the

argument that the 2 per cent rule is necessarily achieving the intent that was

there in the first place. The first time the 2 per cent rule was put in place

was a forum which was held by educators and government and various people in

this Province. They recognized that enrolment was going to decline over the next

number of years and so they decided to put in place a process whereby the amount

of teachers who were laid off would not drop too quickly and disrupt the whole

system.

When you look at what is happening out there you will find

that it is not working the way it was meant to. For example, in this information

brochure, which was handed out some time ago, it refers to the Green Bay

Integrated School Board has had to close two schools. One of the schools it is

talking about is in Ming's Bight. Ming's Bight has two school systems: The

Pentecostal school system, which has nineteen students and two teachers; and the

Integrated system, which has eighteen students and two teachers. It would have

made a lot more sense if years ago these schools had come together and attempted

to offer the curriculum.

So the 2 per cent rule, in addition to taking away the right

of the Department of Education and government to administer the educational

system, we are also finding that there are circumstances kept in existence which

in my opinion are actually detrimental, Mr. Speaker, to delivering an

educational program in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

not so sure that the minister is really looking at what is about to happen out

and about rural Newfoundland. I just hope that some of his own colleagues who

are now publicly expressing concerns about it might have some impact and effect

on the minister and the Premier and the President of Treasury Board. I just hope

they do. Because if not the future of not only rural schools but a lot of our

rural communities are certainly in jeopardy under this Administration.

I want to ask the minister a supplementary and it pertains to

Corner Brook has a contract to design the new school and set up preliminary

plans and so on. Apparently the insurance money has been approved but there

seems to be some hang up on the whole situation. Could the minister inform the

House really what is the situation in Ramea and when can people expect the

construction of their new school to begin?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two

issues, but first (inaudible) continuation of the first, and then the Ramea. I

will try to address both. He is talking about what is going to happen out there

in rural Newfoundland. Again, like the Hydro debate, there are a lot of untruths

getting out. For example, again in this reference with the teachers, the

information (inaudible), they talk about the Carmanville High School had to

cancel industrial arts.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Ramea.

MR. DECKER: The first part of his questions was about the

upset in rural Newfoundland. Let's get the truth out.

The industrial arts courses and music courses at Carmanville

High School, this paper says, were cancelled as a result of the 2 per cent rule

being taken away - this was the argument. In actual fact, it was a decision of

the school staff; it was the decision of the staff to cancel Industrial Arts

courses because they felt it would be more appropriate to offer more science and

technology courses, a good decision. There were no staff cuts to cause this

change, Mr. Speaker, so let's try to get the truth out so that we can deal with

this argument on its own basis. And as far as the 2 per cent rule goes, if there

were no 2 per cent rule, there would be more teachers assigned to the Province

than there would normally be assigned based on the normal student-teacher ratio.

For example, we did not take away the 2 per cent rule. When

we assign teachers this year, there are 200 more teachers being assigned than

would be there under the normal ratio, Mr. Speaker. So if there were no 2 per

cent rule, we want the flexibility to deal with the problems. But there are

seven school boards in this Province which have no teachers on holdback. They

are in the St. John's area. The Pentecostals don't have teachers on holdback,

there are problems there, we want the flexibility to assign, so we want to make

sure that the truth gets out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Ramea deal - the Ramea school burnt

some time ago. There is an insurance policy - the school is insured. There is a

$1.5 million deductible which the Province has to pay. The school board has gone

over the Ramea situation and determined how many students the school should be

built for; these plans have been submitted, directly to government in this case.

Normally they would have gone to the IEC, but in the case of insurance they have

gone to government with a copy to the IEC. The IEC expresses some concerns that

the school being built is too big for the projected enrolment of that school;

however, there is no attempt to delay, the plans are progressing; hopefully, in

a matter of course, the contract will be issued to the engineer to design and

make the plans available for the school and then tenders will be called.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

a supplementary for the Premier.

Can the Premier confirm for the House, that officials of the

Economic Recovery Commission have been directed to visit the Town of Ramea?

My information is that they will be arriving there next week

to begin a feasibility study and the future of the community of Ramea, and I

would suggest that if there is a study going to be done on the feasibility of

the town, then certainly, the decision of the school seems to be somewhat up in

the air, depending on what the feasibility study of the community determines.

So, is the Premier aware of this situation? I am told that

this is the case and I want to question the Premier as to whether or not he has

any information on it, if not, if he not aware of it, would he get in touch with

the Economic Recovery Commission and, if there is such a group going to visit

Ramea next week, would he immediately tell them to stay out of there, because

Ramea, like any other rural community, has a right to survive, I suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, not only am I aware of it, in

fact Cabinet directed it, only it is not at all what the hon. member represented

it to be.

What we did, was directed not only representatives of the ERC

- there were ACOA, ERC, Fisheries, Industry, Trade and Technology; we asked

ACOA, we didn't direct them, we asked ACOA to join them and the objective, Mr.

Speaker, is not at all what the hon. member has misrepresented it to be; the

objective is to exhaust all possibilities that we can possibly think of or they

can possibly think of to find economic activities for Ramea. That's what they

are directed to do, explore every possibility that they possibly can to promote

economic activity in Ramea.

I mean, I can't order businesses to conduct business in

Ramea, but what I can do, Mr. Speaker, is ask the Department of Industry, Trade

and Technology, ask the Department of Fisheries, ask the ERC and ask ACOA to put

together a team that would pull out all the stops to try to find whatever

possible economic activity there is that can be developed for Ramea. Mr.

Speaker, it's a desire to try to help the community.

Now, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank has it that it's the

ERC going in to dismember Ramea or something?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that's what it is, too.

PREMIER WELLS: It's typical of the prejudicial, false,

misrepresentations that they have made in respect of everything they have

addressed in this House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Wait until you get your report, then

we'll see (inaudible). There's a way of doing things. If you get the report

tonight and if nothing can be done (inaudible) you're going to shut down that

community - that's what you're up to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Order, please!

If I could have members' attention for a moment.

I wish to draw members' attention to a question of the Leader

of the Opposition in Question Period in which he put a hypothetical to the

Premier, that if the Premier were Leader of the Opposition, then would he say of

the Premier that he was - and I forget the three, I think, one was without

principles, and the other was, either amoral or immoral, and the third was a

liar. I give the member the benefit of the doubt, but at the time it raised an

issue with me. If you look at Page 143 of Beauchesne, paragraph 487,

subparagraph (2) it says quite clearly, "Words may not be used hypothetically or

conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation.

Putting a hypothetical case is not the way to evade what would be in itself

disorderly." I caution members, and I give the member the benefit of the doubt

this time, but in future, if one puts an imputation indirectly through a

hypothetical case, that is the same as accusing the person of whatever may be in

substance in the question, in this case, either a liar, without principles, or

whatever.

I just say in general that the whole thing about

parliamentary language is to let us deal with the serious issues that confront

us without any rancor, although, of course, one has strong feelings about them.

Things like this really don't help and I ask members to try to keep within the

terms of the rules and the language that we are supposed to.

Notices of Motion

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 To Amend The Internal

Economy Commission Act". I say to hon. members that the Internal Economy

Commission has requested this amendment and members on both sides, I think, are

familiar with the effect of it. It is a very minor amendment indeed.

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 Respecting Newfoundland

And Labrador Computer Services Limited".

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

Technology.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Incorporate The Grand

Concourse Authority Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday in the House I asked a question of the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations and the Premier answered. He stated that when

the House next sits and immediately when that minister comes into the Chamber he

would ask him to answer that question. That was last Friday, so I just say he

has been in the Chamber several times since. It is stated here in Hansard on

Friday, May 20, page 1665. I am still waiting for that response.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that I

don't recall asking the member to do it and if there is any fault it is on my

part. I will draw it to the minister's attention now and ask him to provide the

answer as quickly as possible.

I apologize to the hon. member for that. It was just an

oversight on my part.

MR. SPEAKER: A further point of order, the hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder is the Premier ready to

advise whether or not there have been Cabinet exemptions for hiring pensioners,

whether Mr. Seabright was covered by this, and whether he is getting his $98,000

on top of his pension or instead of it? The Premier said he would advise the

House of that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Where is the answer?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I asked questions

of the President of Treasury Board related to new regulations dealing with

electrical inspection in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to just point out to hon. members that the time set

aside for Answers to Questions is for the answers, not the questions to be

raised again. I don't think members, during this time period, can raise on a

point of order a question that has not been answered. I would say the better way

to do it is to put it on the Order Paper or raise it with the minister, but

there is no provision under our rules under Points of Order to raise questions

that have not yet been answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has been often done.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it is often done, but I just say that

in terms of conducting business of the House I cannot allow it because it is not

provided for in our rules.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Could I speak to that for a second? I am

not meaning to belabour the proceedings but it creates a lot of difficulty for

members. We were here yesterday in estimates of the Executive Council,

Consolidated Services Fund, Treasury Board, and a question that had been asked a

week ago by the Member for Placentia, about the cost of elevators, the

renovation and maintenance was asked, and we took it up again in the Estimates

Committees. The President of Treasury Board left the Chamber at the time and the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said he would answer the

questions. He refused to give us the answers yesterday.

It puts members in a bit of a predicament when you exhaust

all the avenues to get answers, and find that some ministers just won't give

them anyway. We need the answers, and we said today we (inaudible) in Question

Period, which we refused to do, but these kinds of things - members ask the

questions to get answers. Now if the ministers have the information they should

give it.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I appreciate the hon. Opposition House

Leader's concern. I will hear from the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The hon.

member knows full well we are not under an obligation to answer questions, and

he and his colleagues showed that when they were in the government, but it is

our policy to try to answer all questions fully and completely, and let me say

there are three methods.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition persists in being rude, and he, above all people, should know better.

Now I can be as rude as the hon. gentleman. The difference is, I have to try to

be rude and he doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Government House Leader wishes to speak to

the point of order, I will hear him.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it will make the business of

the House go much better if the hon. Leader of the Opposition doesn't try to be

rude or overbearing, but let us get on.

Mr. Speaker, there are three ways -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the difference between myself

and the Leader of the Opposition is that I have to try to be rude; he does it

naturally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Government House Leader to address the

point of order and not make comments about other members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends for their support of

the Chair, and I hope they continue it.

Mr. Speaker, there are three ways in which questions can be

asked. One is during debate, such as we say yesterday, and my friend from Works,

Services and Transportation answered it. If further answers are required he will

give them when the matter is called tomorrow. Secondly, questions on the Order

Paper, and there are only three or four that have been asked. Thirdly is Orders

of the Day, during the Question Period.

Now most of the questions asked during Orders of the Day,

during Question Period, are completely out of order. I don't mean out of order

for their phrasing - out of order for the detail they seek. So I would say to

hon. members, if they believe that a question has not been answered promptly,

they have adequate and proper remedies, and if any one of them wants to speak to

me I will undertake to speak to any of my errant colleagues to see what we can

do to oblige them, but these are not points of order. All they do is burn up the

time of the House needlessly and uselessly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader says

there may be a better way to do it, and there certainly may be, but it is not

provided for in our rules.

The point I was making was that under Answers to Questions it

is not the appropriate time to raise questions that have not been answered,

because the government is not under a compulsion to answer any questions.

Certainly if one wishes to raise it again, Question Period would be the

appropriate time.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association. The petition reads:

The petition of the undersigned members of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Injured Workers Association petition the hon. House of Assembly

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not change the present

structure of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal from a three person panel

to a single person appeal tribunal.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

support this request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers

Association, and request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador ensure

that the three person appeal tribunal remain in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, over the last week to ten days there has been

much debate in this House, and controversy, surrounding the Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal. As a result of that, the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations has said publicly that government, and Cabinet in

particular, in the next few days will be considering, seriously, changing the

three person appeal tribunal to a one person single adjudicator process.

Mr. Speaker, early in March the Newfoundland and Labrador

Injured Workers Association wrote the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations regarding this issue, and they said clearly in the letter what their

intentions were and what their feelings were about such a change. They said the

proposed change by the minister is evidence of government's move away from the

original purpose of the compensation system - that of a collective liability in

exchange for workers foregoing their rights of action against the employer, to

the establishment of a punitive system engineered to guarantee economic hardship

to injured workers.

The system as it is now is not perfect, they go on to say,

but it is a fairer system than the one the minister is proposing. The

chairperson is neutral; the workers representative looks out for workers rights;

the employers representative looks out for employers rights and interests. With

the implementation of a one person appeal panel, the injured workers rights rest

in the hands of this person. How can this be fair, they say.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go even further and to suggest

some changes to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations dealing with the

Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and that he and his government seriously

consider adopting and hiring full time a chairperson and two vice-chairs for the

appeal tribunal, and that those three people be hired on a full-time basis, but

be selected by the Public Service Commission to eliminate any of the above

abuses, patronage abuses.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation shouldn't lecture me on abuses to the Public Service Commission,

I can assure him of that. He should not lecture me. He was flicked out of

Cabinet for abuses to the Public Service Commission, so if you want to get up

and speak to this petition, stand up at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I will go on to say that the minister and his

government and Cabinet should seriously consider appointing or hiring three

full-time people. One chairperson, two vice-chairs. Hired through the Public

Service Commission. Not only would such a move ensure that appeals are heard and

greater numbers of appeals are heard, thus ensuring that injured workers get

decisions made about their livelihoods and lives quicker, but in the long term

would result in significant savings, I would say to the minister, compared to

the present salaries that he is paying now to Judge Gordon Seabright, Jeffrey

Brace and other chairs.

I ask the minister today if he can respond to this petition,

to look at seriously what the injured workers of this Province and through their

association have said, and to look at seriously what I have proposed and

recommended to him today. Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. I rise today to support the prayer

of the petition as put forward by my friend and colleague for Kilbride, the

Member for Kilbride.

I concur with his statements of hiring three persons, a

tribunal, rather than the way it is now. We have people out there in rural

Newfoundland - and I've spoken to a good many of my colleagues here and some

members opposite who their own constituents have come up on occasion against

matters that have an awful effect on the injured workers. To go to a committee

of one sometimes might be faster. They do not have to confer with anybody else.

But in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: I will get to him after. We want something of

sober thought. We think that something quite independent, which is paid

employees, would give the people who have to go to the tribunal a chance. We all

know people who have won their cases through the tribunal, have been given

reason to believe that their aims and objectives have been fulfilled, only to

find out after that it is not covered in the mandate of the tribunal. I will

state again that I support all endeavours to make improvements and not to take

away. I agree with my friend for Kilbride.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the petition

because I understand fully the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for

Kilbride and Placentia. Particularly in support of the injured workers who are

very concerned about their opportunity to have a fair hearing once they've been

rendered a decision by the Commission itself that they, for whatever their own

valid reasons are, find to be not in their best interest and in their minds not

fair. Because that is the whole basis of the appeal system.

We have the matter under very active current review, and I

appreciate the comments made. Maybe later, for clarification, because I think

there were two different things just said, and I believe the hon. Member for

Kilbride in particular mentioned the full-time positions. Because that is a

suggestion which I feel personally has a lot of merit and we may very well go in

that direction some time soon. You mentioned chair and vice-chair. I believe you

meant chair and a representative of employers and a representative of employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Okay. Because they are not the vice-chairs.

The chair and the vice-chairs are the ones that hear. I just wanted to make sure

that representation was correct. That you are interested in an employer

representative, an employee representative, and a chair, and they would be

full-time positions.

We will certainly be looking at that, Mr. Speaker. What the

final outcome will be - as a matter of fact, we may be in a position - I'm not

sure yet - but we may be in a position even to table legislation making changes

even before we break for the summer if we can make it all but I wouldn't want to

do that and rush through the thing and make a mistake of another sort. So in one

way or another, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made and I do understand

that everybody here is genuinely concerned that the number one priority should

be that the injured workers who feel that they are still aggrieved should have

ready access to some kind of an appeal, it should be timely and it should be

seen to be fair in the best possible sense. So I certainly appreciate the

sentiments expressed in the petition and we'll be looking at the matter very

soon.

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of seventy-five

residents of the district of Grand Bank, the communities of Grand Bank and

Fortune, mainly, opposing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seventy-five in addition to the hundreds

and hundreds that I've presented before, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

But as other members have said, if it's three people, their wishes should be

adhered to and their concerns should be brought to the floor of the Legislature,

I say, Mr. Speaker.

These people, Mr. Speaker, are opposed to the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They are calling upon the government to

withdraw the legislation, to keep ownership of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

with the people of the Province. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I guess the latest

public opinion poll released last night says it all once again, more people then

ever are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Sixty-four percent of those polled say they are very well informed on the issue

of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. To sit here today and

listen to the Premier still going on that once the people know the full story,

once they know the true story, how they're going to change their opinions. Mr.

Speaker, we've been at it day and night since last October and the Premier has

had -

MR. EFFORD: With your flashlight?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the old night crawler -

he's the only one who goes around with a flashlight. He's the only one. But even

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, with his penetrating

night-light, hasn't come to realize yet that the majority by far of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are opposed to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. For the Premier today, on May 25, two months

after he made those statements on television - he went on public television

right across the Province, Open Line shows, newspaper ads, radio ads,

hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising to convince Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that it was in their best interest to privatize Hydro and still,

Mr. Speaker, as late as the last three or four days, more than two-thirds of the

people of this Province are deadly opposed to the privatization of their asset.

The other alarming thing, Mr. Speaker, about the Premier, is

he went on to say about the money he gets for Hydro and what difference it's

going to make to the bottom line of the Province and to the credit rating

agencies. Standard and Poor's were told in spades by the Premier and by his

minister, that they were going to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they

were going to get this $400-$500 million. What did Standard and Poor's do

knowing that? They still downgraded the credit rating of the Province. So

everything that the Premier has said, he's lost badly on. He's as leaky, Mr.

Speaker, as a basket, the Premier is on this issue, as leaky as a basket, and

he's lost the battle. He just won't - his stubborn pride is in the way now but

if he were smart at all, politically smart, if he were financially smart, if he

were half as smart as he would like people to believe, he would withdraw the

legislation today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m., Private Member's Day.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia, motion 7.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

I would like to have something read into the record after

consultation with a colleague of mine opposite:

WHEREAS the United States Naval Facility at Argentia will

formally close in October, 1994; and

WHEREAS the compensation benefits offered to the civilian

employees of the Argentia Naval Facility are much lower than the benefits paid

to civilian employees on Canadian military bases who will lose employment as a

result of base closures;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House urge the Government

of Canada to support the campaign to persuade the Government of the United

States to provide pay and compensation benefits to displaced civilian employees

of the U.S. Naval Facility Argentia, equivalent to benefits paid in similar

military bases.

When the Americans announced that they were closing out the

base in 1994 - originally, back in December 1991, they said that they would be

closing out in June 1995, so they have moved the closure date.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, Sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is, he has

asked leave of the House to substitute a new wording for his resolution and I

think it probably appropriate to record, since my colleague will be speaking

first on it, that we, certainly on this side, give our consent, and accordingly,

the debate would be on the resolution that my hon. friend has moved, not the one

that appears on the Order Paper itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. (Inaudible) by all members, I take it,

including the Member for St. John's East? Does the hon. the Member for St.

John's East concur in the changes request? Yes, unanimous.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

As I was saying, the Americans came to Argentia, actually in

1941, after an agreement had been made earlier, in 1940, before the Americans

got into the fray of World War II, an agreement was made between the British

Government and the American Government on mutual agreements, even though the

Americans had their own neutrality act. Anyway, the time came when the Americans

did come to Argentia and it became the most expensive base in the Western

hemisphere outside of anywhere in the continental United States. I think it took

$52 million or $53 million in those days to complete that base and at one time

or other there were 15,000 civilians in Argentia, and the thousands and

thousands of Americans, 400 families, I should say, from Argentia, were

displaced at that time to make room for the war effort, and that is indeed

another story at another time of what those people had been subjected to, but in

the overall, the Americans came and for fifty-odd years they had provided much

work in the area.

They made an announcement in December 1991 that they would be

vacating the Argentia premises in June of 1995. Months later, they said they

would close out the base in October 1994. The Americans made their announcement,

and shortly thereafter, a number of bodies - home organizations, councils -

agreed to form an Argentia Development Corporation to take a pro-active step on

what was going to happen in Argentia. They have since had a reuse study done and

they are hoping that the Province shortly will let them know their intentions

with regard to what they are going to buy into, in the full package on

management and development. There is another case that they put forward on the

environment which will be talked on another day here, but today, as I said

earlier, we will deal with the compensation.

For months back in 1992-1993, civilian employees and others,

efforts by the Canadian government, some efforts through the Province to try to

find acceptable local practices - because in the American Department of Defence,

there is a clause 1400-10 that the Americans should treat with compensation,

informal employees in accordance with local customs and practices of the host

country. Well what we are talking about is Canada. At that time, with help,

civilian employees looked at practices in Canada and Newfoundland, local and

national companies, to seek an equitable and fair compensation rate that they

could put forward to the Americans. They did this and it wasn't received too

kindly by the Americans, who came out with a compensation package that was not

adequate at the time and is still not acceptable to the workers in Argentia.

At that time when they were making their cases forward to the

Americans they did not have a parallel Canadian military to tie into. But since

the federal Budget came down on February 22 of this year, Canada has made known

that they will lay off people from their own bases. The one that particularly

got highlighted, and the one talked about mostly, is Chatham, New Brunswick, and

Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. Compensation packages for civilian personnel in

Canadian bases are way far and above the compensation rate that the Americans

are willing to pay the Newfoundlanders employed at the Argentia naval station.

The Canadian people in Argentia, I'm pretty well sure, and I

can go out on a limb in saying, are supported even by the base commander and by

some of the legal people who have mentioned since the Canadian Government has

announced its layoffs - the captain of the base wrote some of his superiors

stating that the original policy was developed before Canada had made such

layoffs and he said: `However at the time that the severance package was

considered and approved there was no cogent local law or custom to provide

guidance for fashioning a plan, and recently Canada developed a plan on

severance packages for civilian employees of the military bases which are

closing. It would be appropriate for the U.S. government to revisit the

severance package of Argentia workers in light of this new Canadian plan.' This

was signed by the captain of the base, and it makes it pretty clear that he is

in support of his own. But time is running out. October 4, over most of the

acreage in Argentia, the Stars and Stripes will lower, except for about

thirty-five acres that the Americans will retain over their own secret

surveillance area known as the T building. People are getting frustrated, people

are getting frightened. People are comparing the American package, what they are

supposed to be subject to, as Canadian citizens, towards what other Canadian

citizens are supposed to be getting or will get in other jurisdictions.

In other jurisdictions, Canadian employees will get an amount

of money that will bring them up to at least two years in severance and

compensation. Down in Argentia some of them will get up to a maximum of some

thirty weeks. Now, just taking those two entities alone, if workers in Argentia

who work in Argentia - well, most of them are from the Argentia - Placentia

area, others from other jurisdictions in this Province. If they had this

two-year package they would be able to plan their lives a little bit better than

what they are going to be subject to shortly. They would have an opportunity to

consider where they are going, what business they might want to enter, what

further training, if they can get in through HRD, because the Americans, I must

let them know, too, in their plan there is no retraining. There is retraining up

to, I think, about $7,000 under the Canadian plan, but under the Canadian plan

these people, in Canada, will be much better off than the Newfoundlanders down

in Argentia, the Canadians promotion is that their financial component would

include a lump sum payment of twelve months of regular pay, the severance pay is

calculated at lay-off rate, two weeks pay for the first year of service plus one

week of pay for each additional year of service, and a separation benefit for

employees age fifty or older with five years of service, one week of pay for

every year of service to a maximum of fifteen weeks. The maximum cash

settlement, including severance pay, would not exceed 104 weeks of salary. Now

that is what I told you earlier. That was two years, and two years would give

them a chance.

Here, barring something with our health, and usually a

provincial government - we will not have another provincial election for another

three years, so you can look forward to three years, unless something strange

goes on, and the workers in Canadian bases who will be laid off will have two

offer its country people, but the Argentia people are caught on a hook of

international situation, and I believe that it should be raised to the highest

political level in this country, to talk to the American administration, to get

this matter straightened out in the way it should be.

The bureaucrats, with all compliments to what they have done

to date, they have tried - the provincial and, particularly, some of the federal

bureaucrats - but it seems to be at an impasse with the Americans now not even

looking at the compensation that Canada has stated they will afford their

citizens who will be laid off in Chatham, New Brunswick, and Cornwallis.

Another matter under contention down there, I will just

quickly say, is the pension. Some of the American personnel in the American

fleet in the United States would like the pension, which is going to affect a

whole bunch of them, but there is one particular part of it that they would like

to buy into part of the provincial plan, which would mean that people who have

contributed monies over the years will get less on their pensionable funding

than they would if it was kept the way it was, or to find another agency to fund

these people their pensions.

There are a bunch of them down there now, employees at

Argentia, who, right at this moment, do not know, after thirty years, and

twenty-eight years, what they are going to be eligible for, and the base is

scheduled to close on October 4.

That is the reason I am happy to be able to bring this

forward to members here today, people who believe, both sides of this House, in

fair play. People who I have talked to, and known, and beat around with, people

opposite, many Newfoundlanders, and some Labradorians, I should say, have worked

in Argentia. They know what it was to work on some of these bases, to start

bringing home wages - wages they weren't used to in Newfoundland.

The base, when it closes, will take a good chunk of the

Argentia area economy with it. Projections were done in 1992 that without

Argentia, unemployment in our region could shoot to 73 per cent. Unheard of when

we pay so much - when we contributed for years into the provincial economy and

were happy to do so because people like to work all over. A bit of work is good

for your head, not only good for your pocketbook but it's good for your head.

What is going on with some games that are being played at higher bureaucratic

levels in the US Navy is not fair and it's not good treatment from what is

supposed to be a friendly nation. We had good relationships with that country

and particularly our area since 1941. At this time for it to come to a sour note

on what would wind up being - the American extra compensation would wind up

being something less then a years budget for Argentia - for them to look after

these loyal and skilled work people who worked their best for the Americans.

The telegram quoted one time last year about the end nearing

for Argentia and they said finally there is a matter of compensation for

civilian employees who will lose their job when the station closes, especially

those who are close to pensionable age and might stand to lose their benefits.

The American reputation for fairness and generosity is very much at stake in

circumstances that may be unique to US foreign relations. What the employees are

seeking seems totally compatible with Canadian standards and practices and

consistent with benefits the US might offer it's own citizens. It is shameful,

in our view, to offer Canadian friends and loyal employees anything less and it

couldn't have been said any better.

We are asking our own House here to aid and abet the people

in Argentia to get a just settlement. Thank you.

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for tabling this

resolution today and in fact for clarifying the wording of the recitals which

dealings with the United States Government, a sovereign nation, to deal fairly

and equitably with the employees of Argentia.

Mr. Speaker, I should say from the outset that I spoke with

my hon. friend from Placentia and we certainly concur with everything that he's

laid before the House today. In fact, you'll find unanimous support for this

resolution but it's a difficult and sensitive issue for a number of reasons.

There are three basic issues when we deal with the Argentia problem. The first

one deals with the employees situation and of course this is something that's

employer/employee relationships, it's not government to government per se,

although in this particular case both orders of government, provincially and

federally, have chosen to intervene on behalf of the employees to see if we

can't leverage out a decent, fair and dignified settlement for these people and

for their future.

The second issue is one of environmental problems and

environmental clean-ups and it is a significant issue. We take the position that

the Government of the United States have leased this parcel of land for

ninety-nine years and have had access for a good number of years so therefore

that which they have used, they must leave as they found. I think that's a

straightforward principle and one that ought to be honoured and certainly is

honoured in international law. We have done, as the hon. member knows, a

preliminary study and there are some significant problems out there with respect

to the environmental issues. We've called upon the United States Government,

through our embassy and through our countries foreign affairs secretariat, to

ensure that the United States pays for that clean-up whatever the magnitude of

the clean up is.

MR. CAREEN: (inaudible) separate because he says he does

not want to have it tangled up in what could take a longer time, like the

environmental clean-up.

MR. FUREY: That is right, because if you keep the issues

together one can be resolved and the other one then can be outstanding. You are

quite right, we have unbundled the issues to create three separate and distinct

issues. One being the environmental problems that have been left behind by the

Americans and the use of our property for that period of time. We contend that

the United States should pay for the complete environmental clean up, whatever

its magnitude and size.

MR. CAREEN: (inaudible) of the environment? If you don't

I can run off a couple of extra copies for you.

MR. FUREY: The second issue which the hon. member raises,

is quite right, the problem of the employees at Argentia and fair and decent

compensation for the work they put in, the good and hard work they put in over a

tremendous number of years working for the government of the United States on

our sovereign soil.

The third issue is the handback of the buildings, the assets,

the physical assets that remain out there. The government of the United States

takes the position that they ought to hand back the assets to us as is for fair

market value, and how you define that in the context of this economy is quite

puzzling to me. We say they ought to revert to the Crown for a dollar. Those

assets should be used then, put in our inventory to be used in pursuit of

economic activity. The government of the United States takes the position that

they ought to be paid handsomely for it because they ought to define fair market

value based upon what they put in, in respect to the cost they laid out for

these buildings.

It is in that context that we unbundle the issue and we deal

separately with the employees. There are 265 employees left behind in the wake

of the American pull-out which will take effect this fall. Of these 265

employees 165 of them are directly employed by the US Navy, or were directly

employed by the US Navy, and therefore come under the statutes of the US base

provision closures which says that whatever is given in the United States to

employees who are affected in base closure situations, that circumstance will

revert right across onto our sovereign soil and those employees will be treated

equally, or better.

Secondly, there were 100 employees out there who come under

the designation of non-appropriated employees. That is to say they were not

employees who worked directly for the United States government through its navy

and other personnel or government departments. They worked on the base in areas

where there were what was called revenue generation which spun out their

salaries for them. Things like the supermarket - I forget what they call it out

there, the special X, what was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The bowling alleys and the small gambling

casino, those kind of things which generated revenue which created the salaries

for those people who came onto the base. They do not in fact in American law

come under any provisions of protection whatsoever. In other words if a base

closed in the United States tomorrow and the non-appropriated employees - for

example, in Norfolk, Virginia if they closed down that base tomorrow the

non-appropriated salaried employees have nothing whatsoever directly to do with

the US Navy and therefore directly with the US government and therefore it would

stand to reason that there are no provisions for protection under pensions,

severance, or any of those matters.

What has happened in this case is that the American

government, because of pressure and consultation, and because of a number of

representations made by the Province, and by the federal government, both orders

of government, I might add, the Conservative government and the Liberal

government making representations through Mr. Beatty's office, the former

Foreign Affairs Minister, and currently Mr. Ouellet the current Foreign Affairs

Minister, those 100 employees have fallen under the direct compensation

provisions that the other 165 would fall under. I think I mentioned that to the

hon. member just before the House.

MR. CAREEN: (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I am going to read from the US compensation

offer package document. It specifies that severance pay for non-appropriated

employees (NAFI) you know what I am talking about, will do the same as for

appropriated funded employees. That is right from the agreement and the offer

the Americans have made to the Newfoundlanders working there.

support the employees; we can only concur 100 per cent with that. You are quite

place what they called a workforce adjustment directive and what that does, is,

outlines severance packages, pension packages, compensation for workers in the

Canadian military as well as training and retraining programs for Canadian

citizens who fall under that program.

What the Argentia employees are asking for, is a similar

package which Canada provides to her employees to the military, which is a

superior package than the Americans supply to their own personnel right across

the United States of America. Now, can we demand that the United States do that?

I don't think we can quite demand it and I don't want to in any way disrupt the

provisions of the current package that has been laid before the Argentia Workers

Committee. I don't want to disrupt that and cause any disruption because if they

apply the American law, 100 workers would be discounted from that compensation.

However, what I can say, is that I am very proud of the way

the Canadian government has treated her employees. They have treated them with

dignity, they have treated them with fair compensation, with severance, with

pension provisions, with retraining; Canada has done a remarkable job for her

employees looking after those people who have been displaced through the base

closures, involuntarily. They didn't volunteer to quit, they weren't asked to be

fired but Canada looked after her people who served this country very admirably.

Now those employees who worked for Argentia are getting what

any American citizen would get or equivalent would get working in similar

conditions on American soil, with the exception of the non-appropriated people

who worked at Argentia, those 100 people are getting special provision. They are

being treated as if they were direct employees of the navy or in fact the US

government. I can't quarrel with that, I can only commend the American

government for that but, the hon. member is quite right to represent his

Government of the United States to lift up that compensatory package to the

equivalent of what Canada offers to her servants in the military. I can't

quarrel with that; nobody on this side can quarrel with that, we can only agree

with that.

I want to just point out a couple of things - Mr. Speaker,

let me say something else, that -

MR. TOBIN: I think that you should call (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: This is the most I have ever had in here

listening to me speak.

MR. TOBIN: If it were not for you (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: You know something, it is really interesting

that you should point out that I am the only one on the front bench because I am

the only one on the front bench who always gets a hard time about not being

here. Working slavishly for the Queen on business around the world, trying to

induce investment into the Province, signing a $10-million contract last week in

Ottawa for new tech instruments, on and on it goes.

If anybody on the front benches listening at all, anywhere in

the confines of this Parliament building, would you please come in and sit next

to me and pretend that you are interested in what I have to say. Maybe this

stuff is over their heads, I don't know. Anyway, speaking of the master plan,

this just as an aside because that's important too. I spoke to the Chairman of

the Cabot Corporation; I think it is a 1000-page document, it is quite detailed;

they are preparing executive summaries and they are going to make the 1000-page

document public too; but I am also told that the executive director was down and

spoke to your groups, Joe Bennett, spoke down on the Bonavista Peninsula?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. FUREY: Yes, he spoke down there himself, there was no

problem. Anybody who wants to see the document it will be made public but let me

get back to this issue because I think it is important; but yes, that will be

released, I have talked to the chairman, he is all gung-ho to do it and that's

great.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I just have to make sure I have some witnesses

back there now. I see the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Port au Port

and the Members for Harbour Main and Torngat Mountains, for any time that I get

a hard time in the future about not being in the House or leaving my seat, I can

count on you guys. I can count on the Members for LaPoile, Lewisporte, Mount

Scio - Bell Island, and the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. I just want to make sure that everybody is witness that I'm here and

nobody else is.

Can I just say one other thing just so the hon. member is

brought up to date on this issue?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) mentioned earlier (inaudible)

there is a clause 40 0 0-10, that they act, with respect to foreign employees,

in accordance with local customs and practices of the host country. That leaves

them open now since the Canadians have started laying off (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: You know what? That provision wasn't for First

World countries, it was more there for Third World countries. You know why that

was put in there. But I accept that that is certainly a hook that we, as

Canadian citizens and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, can certainly hang our

hat on.

May I say to the hon. member that I spoke about this issue to

the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin, some time ago. In fact,

he was in Washington, I think, ten days ago.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) the American Ambassador Wednesday

before last and he is scheduled to go to (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, sorry. He is to be in Washington this week

to meet with the officials of the U.S. government on a series of issues but

central to his discussion will be the Argentia problem, unbundling the issues as

we have here in debate today - the issues of environment, employee benefits and

compensation, and the issue of asset return and reversion to the Province. His

key problem is to deal with the employees, that is first and foremost on his

mind.

I can table for you, if you would like, letters that - the

Premier has been most seriously involved in this issue since two years ago

anyway. I know on July 27 he wrote the then-minister Perrin Beatty. In it he

references the whole problem of the Argentia employees and whether they would

receive fair compensation. The Premier again writes November 22 to Andr

Ouellet, just shortly after the federal election, to make sure that the federal

Liberal minister was tuned in with our position with respect to the employees. I

can table both of those.

There is also a series of - this has quite a large file. This

particular file has been governed both through Industry, Trade and Technology

and through the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, led by the Premier.

July 14, 1992, he met with the Argentia employees committee. Again, April 27, he

talked to the U.S. Navy about the compensation package. July 19 the employees

presented a bottom line list. You are familiar with that. July 19, 1993 the

employees presented a revised bottom line position to the Navy. Then, of course,

there was the exchange of letters between the Premier and Mr. Beatty, the

Premier and Mr. Ouellet. Of course, the Premier hosted the new Ambassador, the

former Governor of Michigan, Mr. Blanchard, at his home one night and had dinner

with him. In fact, I attended - Did I attend that one? I attended one of them -

where he spoke specifically about Argentia and trying to get a sense of

fairness.

The Ambassador in fact shared the view of the Premier that

the U.S. Navy compensation package to the employees at Argentia should be as

generous as the compensation package the Navy would offer to any group of U.S.

employees in similar circumstances. The Premier and the Ambassador agreed that

provincial officials would meet with the U.S. Consul General in Halifax. That

meeting occurred. Again on October 14 the Premier writes to Mr. Beatty outlining

the problems again. Again on the 22nd he writes to Ouellet. November 24 the

Province convenes a meeting in St. John's with the U.S. Navy officials from

Norfolk, Virginia, and the Argentia employees. You are familiar with that, I

guess. The meeting was constructive. The U.S. Navy agreed that further meetings

with the employees would be helpful.

December 1993, just prior to last Christmas, the Premier met

in Washington with Canada's Ambassador again. As a result of that meeting the

Canadian embassy - I don't know if the hon. member is aware of this - in

Washington agreed to have a U.S. firm knowledgeable in U.S. law and practices

and precedents in base closures do a comparison of the offer that was made by

the U.S. Navy in Argentia to the employees of Argentia and all offers made that

year right across the U.S. to similar employees.

When we brought that back to the Argentia employees committee

- are you familiar? - they said: No, we are not interested in that, don't bother

doing that study, don't engage that consultant, don't worry about that; our

benchmark is the Canadian standard. Are you familiar with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: That was unfortunate, because we may have, in

that study, drawn out other things that the U.S. government had given to

employees in similar circumstances, and perhaps leverage that out for our own

employees.

May 11 the hon. member references Brian Tobin's meeting with

the ambassador in Ottawa. He raised those issues again. Mr. Blanchard responded

that the present U.S. package for Argentia civilians is more generous than is

offered to U.S. civilians in domestic base closures. So, in

summary, this file

has been around for a long, long time. It is a file that causes us a lot of

concern.

I know that the hon. member tables this resolution with the

greatest of sincerity and with the employees' best interests at heart; I know

that to be true. I can also tell him that we will continue to pursue, using

every means available to us as a Provincial Government, to pressure Ottawa, who

has been with both governments, the Conservative government and the Liberal

government, most co-operative, to continue to pursue this issue on behalf of the

employees, and if there is some way to achieve a settlement that is equivalent

to the settlement that Canada offers her military personnel, I assure you that

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will certainly be there to support it,

and we endorse 100 per cent your resolution today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand and support the resolution

presented by the Member for Placentia, and I concur with the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology that the Member for Placentia, when he presented

this resolution, presented it with the utmost concern for his constituents and

the people who have been dependent upon the Argentia naval base for employment

over the past number of years.

I have been in this House now for awhile. I have seen three

members from that area, and all of them have spoken out about the naval base at

Argentia, but I have never heard anyone in this House, from any area, really

speak with the concern of his constituents as the Member for Placentia did when

he presented this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What I found insulting was that when the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stood to speak to this resolution,

his colleagues deserted him. The Cabinet deserted the minister, who was making a

lot of sense and made a lot of good points.

MR. GRIMES: We knew that. We hear what he was saying this

morning. We talked to him about that this morning and knew what he was going to

say, so we didn't have to hear it again.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? Well, I would say that -

MR. GRIMES: He let us know what he was going to say.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is why the minister had to make a

plea.

Now, some of the ministers who were out should stay out, and

this Province would be better off if they stayed away from the House, stayed

out, stayed out of their office.

The Minister of Education, for example, was not in his seat,

nor should he be, nor should he be in his office. He should be deported and let

them see if they can get the education system back on the rails here, because he

is undermining everything the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury

Board tries to do.

MR. DECKER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. TOBIN: What I am saying is that when the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology was speaking on the bill, you did not come to the

House to listen to what he had to say.

MR. DECKER: I was listening out there, glued to the

earphone (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yeah, glued on the wall.

MR. TOBIN: Well, it's too bad the glue came loose,

because you should be glued on for life - nailed on to the fence - and let the

President of Treasury Board handle negotiations, and stay out of it; stop

undermining him.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution that was presented by the Member

for Placentia also has a fair degree of interest to myself and my own

constituency, because I happen to represent the other side, the western side of

Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, not the bad side. There is no bad side to

Placentia Bay, I say to the Member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Port de Grave.

MR. TOBIN: No, not Port de Grave; the Member for Port de

Grave wouldn't say that. It is somebody who knows nothing about bays who would

make that comment, I say to my colleague, the Member for Menihek.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Placentia area have given

their lives working on the American base, and the Americans, Mr. Speaker, were

darned happy, proud and delighted to have such a facility, to have such an area,

when they needed such an area, back when the base was constructed. I'm not sure

of the date but I did hear my colleague make reference to it a little while ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was 1941.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they came there in 1941 and got

the property, the soil and the area that they wanted because of the traffic in

the Atlantic. Argentia served the Americans well and it is only fitting that the

Americans now pay their fair share, the same as the Canadian Government is

prepared to do in dealing with their employees.

I speak with some affinity for that area as well, because I

remember back a few years when we talked about the golden triangle in Placentia

Bay for the Hibernia development, when we talked about Come By Chance, Argentia

and Mortier Bay, the role they were going to play, and for some strange reason,

Mr. Speaker, this government, together with a few of the major oil companies,

decided that Placentia Bay was no longer useful to them and they moved it to

Trinity Bay. I questioned it then and I'll still question why that move was

made, because Argentia had been let down, not only by the Americans but by this

government, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. TOBIN: - when they refused that area for the Hibernia

development site. There's another reason why I have some affinity for that area,

Mr. Speaker, it's because my family came from that area. As a matter of fact, it

was only a few years ago that the Tobins had a reunion out there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who showed up?

MR. TOBIN: I won't say. It was a family reunion, Mr.

Speaker, and apart from myself there was another member in this Assembly, on

that side of the House, who was part of that Tobin reunion.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was he doing there?

MR. TOBIN: I'm not mentioning names or anything else, but

it was a great evening, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He shouldn't have been allowed there.

I'd have driven him out if he came here. I tell you, he wouldn't last long at my

family reunion!

MR. TOBIN: Well, when I found out, he didn't last long,

he knows, after that either!

Mr. Speaker, that's the other reason why I have an affinity

for that area.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You showed him the door, did you?

MR. TOBIN: No, I told the truth about him. Mr. Speaker,

that's something aside. The point I was making is that my family, while they

originally came from Merasheen Island, a place called Indian Harbour on the

lower end of Merasheen Island - my father was baptized, as a matter of fact, in

Placentia. I lived there for a few years before the family moved on to

Trepassey. So Placentia Bay is, I guess, where my roots came from.

But, Mr. Speaker, why should the Member for Placentia, in the

Newfoundland Legislature, have to bring in a resolution calling upon the

United States to provide pay and compensation benefits to displaced civil

employees of the U.S. Naval facility? Why should we, as legislators in this

Province, have to deal with that? Why should the Americans not accept their

responsibility to the people from that area? Why should this House be held up to

have to debate a resolution because the American government - who for years were

delighted and prospered with Argentia, as well as other parts of the Province -

but we're dealing with Argentia right now - and all of a sudden, when Argentia

is no longer of benefit to them, should they be allowed to go away and forget

their employees, to throw them out, to turn their backs on the place that

they've served in for years, since 1941 when it was constructed, when people

went to work there? It was not just the people from Argentia and the Placentia

area that worked on that base, it was people from all over this Province who

worked on the naval base in Argentia. As a matter of fact, I believe the father,

Mr. Speaker, if I'm not mistaken, of one of our great National League hockey

players worked on the base in Argentia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. TOBIN: Joe Slaney.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: From St. Lawrence. There were members from the

Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, who worked in Argentia for years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great numbers (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Great numbers is right. My colleague, who is

from Marystown, says great numbers.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My father worked there.

MR. TOBIN: Your father worked there? My colleague, the

Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker - his father worked in Argentia. Everyone

went to Argentia to find work. It was the only social employment for years. They

would commute, I know, from the west side of Placentia Bay. They would go back

by boat on weekends, or whenever they got home - get home on a Friday and leave

Saturday night on the coastal boat. The old Home was the boat.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Bar Haven .

MR. TOBIN: She was the later one. She was there in later

years.

Mr. Speaker, that's why it is important, as the minister just

pointed out, that all members of this Legislature support the resolution.

I made reference a little while ago to the role that was

planned out for Argentia to play in the development of the Hibernia oilfield.

How often did we hear people talk about the role that Argentia was going to

play? How often did we hear about the assembly being put together in Argentia -

in the old base? How often did we hear about the assembly that was going to be

put together in Argentia? Never a thing done. When this government came to power

the hopes and aspirations of employment at Argentia went out the window. If it

wasn't for the ferry that the Member for St. John's South, if it wasn't for the

Marine Atlantic ferry, the Joseph and Clara Smallwood , that the Member

for St. John's South now wants to take away from the people of Argentia and

bring to St. John's - you know, there is going to be 71 per cent unemployment

rate in Argentia, yet the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, who speaks on

behalf of the Premier, is calling for the ferry to be taken from Argentia and

brought to St. John's? Is that what this government is all about?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Government House Leader, it irks

me a bit when I think about what the Member for St. John's South has done on

behalf of government -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: - trying to take away the few jobs that are

left in Argentia and bring them to St. John's. I say to the Government House

Leader, I don't care, Sir, what you think, I don't care how you feel, and I

don't care how anyone else over there feels about it. I am going to express my

views on behalf of the people of the Placentia area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You have to shout to be heard.

MR. TOBIN: This government, Mr. Speaker, has no right to

try to take away the jobs from the people from Placentia and to bring them into

St. John's.

MR. FLIGHT: Why are you shouting?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture I'm not shouting so he would understand it, because I wouldn't

expect him to understand it.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South, the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier, did a tremendous disservice to the

people from the Placentia area. Let me ask the question, why? Why would this

government want to take the jobs of the people from Placentia and bring them

into St. John's?

MR. ROBERTS: The government didn't.

MR. TOBIN: The parliamentary assistant to the Premier,

Sir, while he is not sworn into Cabinet, at least when we were there he had to

take an oath of secrecy and everything else.

MR. ROBERTS: He wasn't speaking for government policy.

MR. TOBIN: He wasn't speaking for government policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I am not sure I say to the member, I am

really not sure.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) but I am sure.

MR. TOBIN: Well okay, you might be but you haven't

convinced me.

MR. ROBERTS: Well that's different. You can lead a horse

to the water but you can't make him drink.

MR. TOBIN: That's right and you have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You haven't convinced me either -

MR. ROBERTS: I accept that.

MR. TOBIN: - but I would say to the Minister of Justice,

why I have had difficulty accepting it, because it is a year or so ago that the

Member for St. John's South floated the idea of privatizing Newfoundland Hydro

and now the Member for St. John's South is floating the idea of taking Marine

Atlantic from Argentia and bringing it to St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: He floated more than that Glenn.

MR. TOBIN: Yes he floated more than that and that's what

is causing me concern I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Corner Brook now it's in Port

aux Basques.

MR. TOBIN: Well I tell the Member for Humber Valley I

don't know who would benefit from that either. Port aux Basques has served this

Province well as the gateway to North Sydney as well as Argentia, and I don't

know, Mr. Speaker, why the city centres, the urbanized centres would want to

attack either Port aux Basques or St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I have not spent a lot of time in Argentia but I

have been there I would say to my colleagues; I have been to Argentia on a few

occasions. I remember when we used to go out there from high school to play

basketball tournaments; I remember the slot machines, Mr. Speaker, that some of

the other crowd used to play and I remember the good food.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) slam dunks, I don't think.

MR. TOBIN: Well there is one slam dunk and not too far

from me, he fell on his head. Mr. Speaker, as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I haven't got much time left, I only have ten

minutes left I say to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't intend to use it unless you really

push me. If I were the Government House Leader I would be quiet, Mr. Speaker,

because I might use my ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I know there was a semi-submersible there,

there were semi-submersibles brought in there. There were semi-submersibles

caught up in Argentia several times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) brought the picture?

MR. TOBIN: There is a picture of the old dock in

Argentia. As a matter of fact, I had the pleasure last year, the honour I would

say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. - to cross on the Joseph and Clara

Smallwood and when we came back into Argentia, I had the privilege to be with

the captain in the wheelhouse when they docked there. A fine man, Mr. Speaker, a

Placentia Bay man of course, Captain Pomeroy, Clarence Pomeroy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, three years, from the time I was in high

school. If there is anyone who introduced me into politics, it was the Member

for Twillingate, the Minister of Fisheries. For years, he was on the right side

at that time.

MR. ROBERTS: Even on the left side, all his life.

MR. TOBIN: No, he was on the right side at that time. Mr.

Speaker, I say to the member that I worked for years, for every election

campaign for the Minister of Fisheries when he represented St. John's West which

included the Argentia and Placentia areas, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister of Fisheries is indeed very supportive of the people of that area

in this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: All I would say to the Minister of Forestry

that as he got the flick by the voters of Windsor - Buchans that the same thing

may happen to me, but he knows what it is like and I don't. Probably I will

learn but he knows what it's like, Mr. Speaker, and I don't. Probably I will

learn.

In conclusion, let me say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Wait now. I have five minutes to conclude.

In conclusion I want to say that I think this is a genuine

motion put forth by a person in a very genuine state of mind on behalf of his

constituents and we the people, these legislators in this, on this side of the

House obviously support it. My friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology has offered his support on behalf of the government to this very

legitimate, reasonable, and responsible resolution. I look forward to it being

passed in the House and hopefully, hopefully, the government of the United

States will treat the people who worked on that base with dignity and award them

a decent pension.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the hon. member's resolution I suppose in

many ways the hon. member and myself deal with issues that meet us both head-on

in dealings with Marine Atlantic. The hon. member opposite having been a former

employee of Marine Atlantic and sharing that Crown corporation with Argentia and

my own hometown of Port aux Basques there are similarities, I suppose, in the

way we deal with issues, national issues and in this case an issue which has

international implications.

Now, it is a very short and to the point resolution and the

re-wording which was effected here earlier this afternoon to allow it to be

proper in form so that the intend with which we bring it forward will do it

justice in approaching the United States government through the Government of

Canada to support the intent of the parties here in this House of Assembly in

doing what they can to benefit those individuals who will be laid off and who

will be displaced by the closing of the Argentia naval base.

Now, to look at it I cannot speak from a standpoint of having

a long association with Argentia. The main thing being the sharing of certain

factors that effect us both through things I previously mentioned. Also to look

at what has happened with my own home district and what Argentia may go through,

I suppose. In some cases it has already gone through a lot of the problems

associated with high unemployment, with difficulties in the fishery in that

area, difficulties with high numbers of layoffs and problems of that nature.

In the District of LaPoile and Port aux Basques,

specifically, we have had the closure of the Newfoundland railway. The railway

itself and the closure of that Crown corporation as it existed at that time has

gone on to become Terra Transport, but now again CN roadcruiser and CN trucking

throughout the Province. It has taken on many different monikers over the years

but essentially the same company operating with the same benefits for the

workers involved. Marine Atlantic was at one time intertwined with that and the

community itself that I represent has in effect felt the pain of large numbers

of layoffs. It has had to refocus and hopefully will be able to bring some new

economic development and activity to bear, which really, if the hon. member

looks at it, is a short-term thing which he has proposed here today.

Hopefully, the long-term will see improvements for the

Argentia area, a very pretty area of the Province. I note the view of the sand

bar in the Placentia-Argentia area to be very noteworthy and often a key point

for tourists visiting the area. It has a lot of promise I would think. The

individuals who have had the opportunity to work and work hard for the US naval

facility over the years, and also the people who benefitted within those nearby

communities for that economic activity over the last fifty years. It certainly

goes without saying that is to be recognized and acknowledged by us as

legislators on behalf of all the people of the Province, and to do everything

possible to see to it that all possible benefit is gained for these individuals.

It is not just for those individuals. We do it on behalf of

them, we do it on behalf of those that they affect through the economic activity

generated, and we do it for the general good of the Province, and the country, I

would think, in seeing to it that the overall effect is mitigated to some point

and becomes acceptable, given the circumstance of base closure.

It was interesting to point out that the issues had been

separated and divided to a point that we wouldn't tangle up the environmental

issues and the issues of concern down there in Argentia, as it is with almost

any base closing. I think we are realizing now as we enter the new awareness

that what we would call the vigilant individuals who now deal with issues with a

conscience in looking at the environment as an example see that there is more of

a financial consequence to things such as base closures. At one time it was

thought you just lock the door, walk away and leave it to chance.

Nowadays the issues of economic development are in the

forefront, which were always there, but there is a much better awareness. With

the revolution of information that is available to the average person now in

areas such as Argentia, and anywhere for that matter in the Province, the

knowledge of what is required and the inter-tie to the global community and the

global business community is such that there is a realization that we can do a

lot to try to attract industry. Whether we will be successful or not depends

entirely on I suppose the eagerness and the capability of some of the local

individuals involved, such as the hon. member himself, and some of the local

community leaders who put together efforts to try to bring forth economic

activity to benefit those individuals. That is also taken into account in a case

like this.

To get a little bit more specific into the details, my

understanding of the situation is such that the package being offered currently

which was presented by the U.S. Navy to these employees, was deemed as a

non-negotiable package put forward. It had been given approval at all levels of

the U.S. government, and by virtue of that they deemed from the beginning that

this was their position, their opening position and their final position, with

respect to severance, with respect to any kind of compensation that was being

offered. I stand to be corrected if that is an incorrect assumption on my part.

Subsequent to that the employees committee felt that they

should be offered something similar, if not better than, the current situation

with U.S. naval facilities. They wanted ultimately for it to be a mirror of the

package offered to Canadian base closure employees. It is only recently with the

closure of some bases in Canada that the regime has been developed in a very

clear and legislative or regulatory means as to what exactly these employees are

entitled to under a Canadian regime.

Based on that, Mr. Speaker, we would assume that the U.S.

could take a closer look at it. Because the fact of the matter is that they

intend, at times in the past, from what I can understand, to deal with issues

like that in the same manner that the host country deals with it. As the hon.

member has put forward, if the host country of Canada deals with its own

civilian base employees in a certain way, then the employees of the Argentia

naval facility in the U.S. should expect a similar benefit package to what is

being offered the Canadian civilian employees for base closures here in Canada.

It is only to have someone at the highest levels of the U.S.

government to agree to revisit it. It seems to be somewhat bureaucratic, I

suppose, in nature to think that they are refusing to take forward any kind of

revision. They have the support of some of the individuals within the facility

to have it revisited, albeit yet we understand that there has been no change in

the U.S. position.

I'm hopeful, as the hon. member is, that the position will be

taken to provide benefit in the way similar to the Canadian benefit package. As

noted, the U.S. benefit package itself in U.S-based closures is sometimes not as

good. It may not be to the advantage to have it mirror what is offered in other

U.S. locations because that in effect could be counter-productive to the

original offer that is there. They may have a point, I suppose, in stating the

argument that they wouldn't want - I know the employees committee didn't want to

revisit the issue when the offer was made to have a comparison done. They wanted

the offer to include the comparison and look at it in the light of the Canadian

equation and what is offered to Canadian civilian base employees as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to look at the future, to get a little bit

beyond the short term that is offered up by the hon. member, and to look at the

future of Argentia, it is something with my area, the area I grew up in, and the

area where I now live, that I have been very involved in, and it is no easy task

to try to change anything, or improve the local economy through the attraction

of new business ventures, through fostering entrepreneurial spirit within the

people who live in a given area, because we have been attempting - whatever

groups, agencies, through the federal/provincial government, local agencies -

over the last number of years, to help in planning and trying to secure new

business opportunity and industry to the area, and our success has been very

limited.

We have managed to establish a company there called Atlantic

Seaboard Industries Limited, which has had its difficulties but hopefully are on

the brink soon of being able to bring some new and very good news to the

Province. In that light we are hopeful that some of the activities that they are

able to bring to this Province will also have an effect on Argentia, because

some of the activities are way beyond the capabilities of any one community to

handle, and Argentia, with the geography of the area, being close to the water,

some of the ocean load out capabilities that are there, we foresee and hope that

we will be able to - and I am not privy to be able to say anything about it here

now, and I am not just saying it for the purposes of conjuring up this nice

cloud of something that may happen, but I am very hopeful that the future will

hold bright things for Argentia as well as Port aux Basques in some of the

activities that we hope to be able to work on jointly between them.

We have met with some of the people in Argentia dealing with

the facilities there, and are hopeful that this will come to fruition and some

of these industrial activities will have benefits for the people of Argentia as

well.

This is not really a government initiative, although the

assistance and co-operation of both levels of government in the federal and

provincial government is required in order to achieve some success with this

kind of activity. It is a private sector initiative which, if there is success

that meets us on this, we should all be able to benefit from the taxes generated

through the economic activity and the products that would be manufactured and

built both in Argentia, possibly Stephenville, and Port aux Basques.

So that is the kind of thing that the future holds. I am sure

that the opportunities offered up through the new federal government programs

through Industry, Science and Technology Canada, now under Industrial Trade and

Foreign Affairs, can be very helpful, as well as some of the co-operation

agreements between the industry, trade and technology people here in the

Province, and the federal government, as well, through their various agencies,

will be helpful in providing for the individuals in that area to develop their

own business ideas, to utilize the existing programs, and to take those ideas

and nurture them along so that we can develop an entrepreneurial spirit for the

people who are displaced, because a lot of these people, I am sure, are no

different from the people who are displaced from the Newfoundland railway.

They have interests. They will undertake whatever it is that

they need to make a living. Some people we did lose to the mainland when the

railway was shut down. They were relocated to Halifax, Moncton, some went out to

western Canada, and it is to take into account that there will be some losses,

but one only has to look at my own area right now to see that the areas

population is fairly stable.

In consideration of that we are hopeful that Argentia will

not be a place where the people will leave en masse, that they will seek to

develop other economic activity in their area, that they will take up the

challenge of starting their own businesses, that they will - with all of the

help that's being provided - seek out new opportunities for their community and

that with the full help and cooperation of both levels of government, Mr.

Speaker, that we can make Argentia a better place for the people who live there,

grow there and raise their families there.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we can see to it that it can also

provide, for the rest of the Province, a bit of hope because it is an area that

is strategically located. The Americans didn't locate the naval facility there

in the first place - for anything other then the fact that it was geography and

the capabilities of that given area - and that could certainly be a key point.

One only has to think - maybe it's a novel approach I suppose but with some of

the secrecies surrounding Argentia, at times with the naval facility there, that

maybe there are some things within the Argentia complex that would be of note

and interest to the travelling public for tourist development activities if in

fact some of these so called secrets and rumours about such a facility are in

fact correct. We could certainly utilize that kind of thing in some future

development of Argentia for the benefit of the people of the Province and the

country.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to conclude by saying that

I fully support the hon. member's resolution. I also will commit to work with

him on any joint activities that we can, as coastal communities that are ports

here on the south coast of the Province, work together for the benefit of the

people, both of our communities and also in activities that will help get the

Province moving in the industrial development area. Hopefully, by virtue of our

shared Crown corporation in Marine Atlantic, see to it that Argentia remains as

the point of departure for Marine Atlantic in the east coast area of the

Province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and allow the next member to

speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my

colleagues for that rousing welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to stand and say a few words

on the private member's resolution put forward by my hon. friend from Placentia

and cousin - yes, that's right. I have to say that I am, without a doubt, sure

that the member has put this forward in a very sincere manner for the simple

reason that I have been within a half hour's drive from the Placentia area, I

have been working over the past number of years with the hon. Member for

Placentia through development associations, through the Avalon West Community

Futures Organization, through the Argentia Development Corporation, et cetera,

as he tried to find the answers and tried to chart a course for the future of

Argentia, Mr. Speaker. This member from Placentia has worked very hard through

the years, through these organizations and now he has the opportunity to bring

forward the concerns of the people of his district as it relates to the closure

in Argentia and therefore it gives me great pleasure to stand and support him in

his efforts.

I would like to comment on some of the speakers that have

gone before me here today, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very pleased to find that it

seems like the complete House of Assembly will support this private member's

resolution. It is worth it, Mr. Speaker, in the attempt to have all members

support it because of the importance of the Argentia base to the Placentia area

and I was glad to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology say that

they fully support the resolution and the Member for LaPoile.

I would also like to say that I was very pleased with the

comments put forward by my hon. colleague for Burin - Placentia West who so ably

puts forward his concerns from his district, and when the time comes to receive

assistance in relation to concerns of our districts the Member for Burin -

Placentia West stands up and is well heard in this House, as I'm sure across the

Province.

I say that I'm very pleased that the Minister of ITT stood up

and supported the resolution. I have to go along with him when I say that I'm

very supportive of his efforts in his travels around the globe to try to bring

business to Newfoundland. I'm supportive of his efforts. He is Newfoundland's

own Frank McKenna, I would say, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is good to

have a minister who has that insight into the problems that we face here in

Newfoundland and has the courage to try to improve on them.

In December of 1991 the United States Navy announced the

closure of the United States naval facility at Argentia for June of 1995, with

the loss of 265 civilian jobs and $7.5 million in payroll to the economy of the

Placentia area. This was a sad day for the people of Argentia, and not only for

the people of Argentia, but indeed the whole area around the Placentia -

Argentia area. The history of Argentia doesn't only affect the people right

there in the area, it affects the people of my district and especially the Cape

Shore area, where many people found work back in the 1940s and the 1950s as

Argentia was being built.

As a matter of fact there was an installation at St. Bride's,

which is my home town, a place up on top of the hill that we used to call the

base. We had our own little base here in St. Bride's and there was also an

installation, a little barasway, that served the same purpose. As a matter of

fact it was only a few years ago that they released the land at St. Bride's and

now there is a home built there. The memories of the Americans and the memories

of the boom that was brought to the Placentia, Cape Shore, and indeed the whole

southern Avalon area have been remembered for years. It was back I think - yes,

February 13, 1941, that the American flag was raised in Argentia and the people

were brought into the American fold, per se.

There were many people back then who received the opportunity

to go to work in Argentia and were very happy. As I'm sure you are fully aware,

and many members in this House are fully aware of, the 1940s were a tough time

in Newfoundland and many people were very pleased to have the opportunity to go

to work in Argentia. I often heard the stories, and there are many people ended

up being married to an American serviceman and leaving our areas and travelling

to the United States to make their homes. It is very important that we look back

at the history and what the Argentia naval base did for our area.

It is sad to see that today we see the possibility - well,

not the possibility any more - we will be seeing in the not-too-distant future

the closure of the Argentia naval base and it is sad to see this, especially in

an area like Placentia. Because over the past year, due to the cod moratorium,

we have seen many people lose their jobs and gone on compensation, or whatever

the case may be. The closure of the Long Harbour phosphorus plant has seen

hundreds of people lose their jobs, and now with the closure of the Argentia

naval base we will see hundreds more.

It is not only the people who are directly involved with the

jobs, it is the spin-off from those jobs and those industries in an area that

create much more employment, such as in the service sector. I'm sure that the

Placentia area will feel the impact of the Argentia naval base, not only with

the direct employees but throughout the businesses and throughout the area that

will be affected. It is sad to see that with the 55 per cent unemployment rate

that is there now due to the fishery closure and Long Harbour closure, et

cetera, that with the closure of the Argentia Naval Base the unemployment rate

will climb upwards to 70 per cent, in that area. I say that it is going to be a

tough ride for those people in the years ahead, and it is very important that

this resolution be brought forward so that the people really understand the

concerns and the urgency, I should say, of making sure that this issue is front

and centre by this government, and indeed by the federal government, in the

months ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Read Hansard, Sir.

If I could get back for a moment to the Private M