November 14, 1994           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 60


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly the High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada, His Excellency the hon. Maurice McTigue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on my trip to China as part of the Team Canada trade delegation led by the Prime Minister.

The delegation included nine premiers, the federal minister for international trade, the secretary of state for Asia Pacific relations and the government leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and it was the largest national trade delegation ever to visit China. It was certainly the largest trade delegation ever to go abroad representing Canada and reflects the importance which Canada places on its relationship with China.

In recent years, China has embarked on a substantial program of economic reforms. With a population of in excess of 1.2 billion people, China represents a huge potential market for Canadian products, services and technology. To successfully penetrate this market, however, requires both a commitment to developing and maintenance of strong relationships with Chinese decision-makers. This is essentially the reasoning behind the Team Canada approach; to demonstrate in dramatic fashion the long-term interest and commitment of Canada to the Chinese marketplace.

It would be an understatement, I would think, Mr. Speaker, to say simply that this objective was achieved. It was achieved in spades, to say the least.

During the mission, the Prime Minister, the premiers and the territorial leaders met with the senior leadership of China, including President Jiang Zemin; Premier Li Peng; the Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation; and the Minister responsible for Internal Trade. As well, during the many functions associated with the mission, there was ample opportunity to meet with many other members of the Chinese political and economic establishment.

One of the highlights of the mission, from Newfoundland's perspective, was the signing of a letter of intent on behalf of C-CORE, the Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering at Memorial, with the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NNSFC). The NNSFC is the organization in China that controls the bulk of the funding for academic and scientific research in the natural sciences and engineering. This letter of intent sets out the intentions of C-CORE and the NNSFC to establish and jointly operate a research, development and industry interaction centre in Beijing modelled after C-CORE. Ten industrial company associates from Canada, five of whom are from Newfoundland, and ten industry associates from China, will form partnerships to undertake work generated by the centre. Newfoundland companies identified to date include Can Polar East Inc., BFL Associates and Seaborne Information Technologies Ltd. Discussions are ongoing with the remaining two companies. Subsequent to the establishment of "The Centre for the Application of Intelligent Systems for Environmental Enhancement" in Beijing, substantial contracts are expected to ensue.

As well, during the mission, I had the opportunity to meet with the leadership of the Chinese National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. This organization is responsible for all surveying and mapping activities in China, including coastal and seabed mapping. They are mounting a significant program to improve and upgrade the quality of mapping in China and the meeting provided an excellent opportunity to highlight the capabilities of Newfoundland firms in the areas of surveying, mapping and remote sensing, particularly in the oceans context. The Chinese were very interested in pursuing initiatives in this area with Newfoundland companies and we will be following up on this in the next few weeks and months.

In addition, I had the opportunity to meet with the leadership of the China Central Radio and Television University and the Shanghai Educational Television Station. China is grappling with the immense problems of delivering quality educational services to its huge population, much of which is concentrated in remote rural areas. The purpose of these meetings was to highlight Newfoundland's experience in telemedicine and long distance remote education. I am confident there are commercial opportunities in these areas for Newfoundland.

During the trip, I also had an opportunity to meet with the head of the Shanghai General Fisheries Corporation to discuss their joint venture with Terra Nova Fisheries. In that regard, I was please to have the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, meet the senior management of Shanghai Fisheries, the Vice-Premier of China and the Minister responsible for Internal Trade, to express his pleasure with their business arrangements with this Newfoundland fishing company.

I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that something of great additional value will come out of that as well.

While in Hong Kong, a number of meetings were held to discuss business investment in Newfoundland. These discussions involved the possible establishment of a manufacturing plant in Newfoundland and private investment in tourism facilities in the Province.

The Team Canada mission came at a good time, as it presented an opportunity to reinforce the relationships I established during our own trade mission to the Far East in January of this year. The initial mission was, I believe, an unqualified success. Most of the Newfoundland companies which were part of the mission in January have already benefitted, and what is even more important, especially in terms of the long-term relationships which Chinese and other Asian cultures like to create, future prospects are limitless.

Some examples of immediate benefit are Ultimateast's agreements in providing telecommunications technologies and services to China and Hong Kong; Terra Nova Fisheries' joint venture in Clarenville and Shanghai; and Canadian Ocean Resource Associates' seabed mapping program in China and other Asian countries. Other companies, including BFL Associates, Canadian Helicopters and the BAE Group are quite confident of gaining significant additional business throughout Asia.

As we expand and diversity our economy, it is critical that we seek economic opportunities for our products, services and technologies, both nationally and internationally. Markets such as the Far East, and particularly China, however, require considerable attention to the development of stable, long-term relationships and it is in this area that governments have a legitimate role to play. We are committed to building a presence in those markets through those relationships. This requires effort, time and some expense. However, the potential rewards are worth it.

On a final note, I endorse the Team Canada approach to trade. It is an excellent mechanism to promote Canada as a significant player in international trade. I congratulate the prime minister for utilizing this concept and I look forward to future Team Canada missions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Marystown wish the Premier had been shanghaied in Shanghai while he was over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: While he was fiddling in China he let 300 jobs slip out of Marystown and head up to New Brunswick without one iota of protest and for that he should be ashamed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this, is all of a sudden we have the Premier coming into the House and giving a report on one of his trips. Now that is most interesting because prior to his departure for China - well first of all, he was not going to go. He was not going to go. He had only been there a few months back. He was not going to go and I heard news reports that quoted him as saying he did not expect much to come out of it but he was going as part of Team Canada.

There were interesting releases, Mr. Speaker, prior to his departure which I thought were interesting. I see it has been corrected, I guess, in this statement. The statement that came over the wire from the Executive Council on November 10: Sir, while in Shanghai the Premier met with the general manager and deputy manager of the Shanghai Fisheries Corporation. During this meeting Premier Wells introduced Shanghai Fisheries Corporation officials to Prime Minister Chrétien, the vice-mayor of Shanghai and the Minister of International Trade for China. I mean you would not know but if the Premier had not gone over there these people, the vice-mayor and others would never have met the officials of the Shanghai Fisheries Corporation, but presumably that is an error and it has been corrected since.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy with some of the things that are outlined in this statement, notwithstanding the fact there were very few business people. In fact, I don't know if there were any business people who accompanied the Premier on Team Canada, although there is a lot of reference in his statement, much smoke and mirrors, I guess, more than anything else, but I understand there were no business people with him on this trip; but we are pleased with the C-Core project but point out, of course, that this was all done whether the Premier was there or not; this would have been put in place. All the work was done on this long before his trip to China, and the same thing applies with the other items that he mentions.

We hope something comes out of coastal and seabed mapping opportunities for Newfoundland telemedicine, long distance remote education opportunities, and all these wonderful kinds of things. We hope something prominent will come out of it in due course, and I hope that the Premier has set a new example for his government, himself, and his ministers to follow, that this is a new twist, that we can expect sometime soon now a report from the Premier on his promotional trip to Boston, Washington, New York, back in December of 1993; his trip to Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and other places back in January of 1994; his recent trip in September to London, Bristol, Paris, Geneva, Zurich, Milan, and Venice, and all these other places, and I mean a report with something substantive other than things like a wonderful picture of the Premier standing with the regional tourism commissioner during his visit in Venice, and in the background is the Grandee Canal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition Leader's time has expired.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, we hope we get something more substantive in the future, Mr. Speaker, and that we will hear from the Minister of Tourism on his trip to Japan, the Minister of Finance on his trip to Cuba, and other ministers on their trips outside the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to pay tribute to the fishermen and women of the group, Folk of the Sea.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be proud of these men and women, who last night won the hearts of everyone attending their concert at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, and who tonight will be performing at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto.

I ask hon. members to join with me in congratulating the men and women of the Folk of the Sea, and in showing them our appreciation for their outstanding performances and their exceptional representation of the very heart of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The message which these proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are conveying so eloquently to audiences inside and outside the Province reflects the tragic circumstances which have befallen the fishing industry and the Province generally over the past several years. I am confident that Canadians everywhere will have a greater sensitivity to this tragedy as a result of the dedicated and talented efforts of the Folk of the Sea.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had seen a copy of what the minister was going to say today. I guess being perhaps his first statement that he will learn over the next couple of weeks the common courtesy of sending a copy across the House so that at least we know what he is going to say.

We would like to be associated with the minister's remarks. This group has done a tour of the Province, I say to the minister. I'm sure he is aware of that.

MR. TOBIN: Think so?

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably not.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I think he is. He is aware of some things about the fishery. We will have time to expose that over the next couple of weeks as we get into the thrust of debate. We would like to be associated with the minister's remarks. This group has shown a lot of initiative. They are carrying the message throughout the Province and the country. In some ways it is a sad message, as the minister has alluded to. I just hope that the minister takes up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: By leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - the cause of those involved, Mr. Speaker, when a lot of them now are going to get the boots -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - from the compensation programs that his federal counterpart has in place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - by the end of December or maybe even before. So I hope he takes up their cause in that way as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I hear no leave?

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

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to accept the invitation of the minister to join with him in congratulating the Folk of the Sea on the wonderful presentation that they made in Ottawa last night. I've seen them at their opening concert here and at the Folk Festival in St. John's. They do a magnificent job of representing our culture and traditions and the fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, for the information of members and the public, I want to advise the House that today, on behalf of the Government of the Province, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government, represented by the hon. Sheila Copps, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister, which will allow us to jointly and cooperatively evaluate the environmental and economic problems associated with the treatment and disposal of domestic wastewater.

This is a significant issue in our Province, Mr. Speaker, in that we have a responsibility to protect our marine and freshwater resources. We also have our share of problems in this regard in a major way. As a result of this MOU however, with the assistance of the federal government, we will be able to evaluate the nature and extent of the problem in our Province so we may make informed decisions on how to deal with them. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to work together to identify and propose long-term solutions which are practical, effective and affordable.

The execution of the MOU will take the form of a research project and a number of other projects which will involve three main components: an inventory of all major wastewater systems in use, with an evaluation of their performance; an evaluation of available technology which might be appropriate for Newfoundland and Labrador communities; and a number of demonstration projects for the more promising technologies in order to evaluate their potential for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The MOU will have a term of five years in which this work will be completed. At the end of that time and during that time, I hope and expect we will be able to deliver information which will permit us to develop and implement a long-term strategy for the proper management of domestic wastewater in our Province.

I want to thank the federal government and the federal minister for their cooperation in making this project possible and we look forward to some very positive results as we try to tackle this problem over the next two, three or four years. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all I would like to thank the minister for sending me over a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, for his few words today before the House opened. Just a few words on it, Mr. Speaker. It is always good to hear of actions being taken to clean up our environment and always good to hear of actions that are planned to prevent pollution to our environment. Mr. Speaker, let us hope that this Memorandum of Understanding is more than just a memorandum of understanding and that we won't have to wait five years for action to be taken to help clean up the St. John's harbour and other harbours in the Province where there is pollution going into the harbours at this very minute as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank the minister for his efforts on behalf of the Province and I take the opportunity to congratulate him as a newly appointed minister. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Does the hon. Member for Bonavista South have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province now knows that there has been a major catastrophe occurring on the south coast of the Province, in particular in the Marystown area and the whole Burin Peninsula, and it was about a month ago, on October 17, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology announced that government's Vinland Industries and government, had reached an agreement with HMDC, the Hibernia Management and Development Company, to take at least a third of the drilling modules work contract from Marystown, and give it to the Irving Shipyard in St. John, New Brunswick and, Mr. Speaker, that move has enraged the people of this Province and rightly so.

I want to ask the Premier, will he table in this House, a copy of that particular agreement to which the minister referred, the agreement between HMDC and Vinland Industries, so that we can all see for ourselves, what great economic or fiscal disaster, that the Premier has often referred to, was avoided by taking 250 jobs from this Province which has 21 per cent unemployment, and sending them off to a province like New Brunswick which has 12 per cent unemployment? Will he table a copy of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is no formal agreement to table. I have forgotten the dates now but I will get the dates when these things arose. At some point in time, two or three weeks I think before the decision was actually made by HMDC, they told me - and I guess it was about five weeks before the decision was made - they told me of their concern, and asked me to see if there was some way we could help speed up things or eliminate the difficulties they foresaw at Marystown, and one of the concerns they had was the long delay that was caused by the union refusing to allow Marystown to bring in specialized welders who were not available in this Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The Leader of the Opposition can ask the question but he cannot dictate the answer.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer the question. He is asking me about the agreement that was reached, that he referred to, and I have told him there is none. Now I am giving him the basis of the agreement. The basis of the agreement is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The arrangement, Mr. Speaker, arose as a result of the HMDC coming to us about four or five weeks before, asking us if we could do something to try and avoid the long delay that was caused by the union refusing to allow the company to bring in specialized welders -

MR. TOBIN: Not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - unless the company also agreed to pay the unionized workers in Marystown the same amount of living allowance they would have to pay these people who were brought in on a temporary basis. I did that, Mr. Speaker, in the expectation that it would resolve the problem. About a week or ten days after I did that, they came back to me and said: we still have a problem; we are still concerned that this is a major problem and is going to cause delay and we are contemplating diverting some of the work, part of it to Bull Arm and part of it to another yard in Canada. I told them that the government objected most strenuously to this and having made this effort that I made to go to Marystown and seek the support of the union, I expected them to respond by having the work done in Marystown.

A week or so after that, they came back and told me that because of the danger to the project schedule, they felt they had no alternative. We, Mr. Speaker, had no alternative either; that was their decision. Our objective was to keep the maximum amount of work we possibly could in Marystown.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what this Premier did and this government did is, you caved in. That is what you did. You caved in to the Hibernia Management people. Mr. Speaker, there is more backbone in a jellyfish than there is in this Premier on this issue.

I asked him a simple question about a copy of the agreement that his government announced on the wire. Your government, Executive Council, announced an agreement had been reached, and we want to see a copy of the agreement.

I wrote to his minister back on October 20 and he said that he had to refer that question to the Department of Justice. So if there was no agreement, why didn't they just tell me there wasn't an agreement and then we wouldn't have had to worry about it.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter dated October 25, written to me by Mr. Furey, saying that because the Vinland Industries, etc., etc., is a commercial entity I have referred your request to the Department of Justice. That was on October 25.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if you don't know about it, how do you expect us to find out anything about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What request?

MR. SIMMS: Request for a number of documents we are looking for related to this, including -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, including -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: A lot different than what, asking for a copy of the agreement between government owned Vinland Industries and Hibernia management? That is the exact question I just asked you and you said there was no agreement, so make up your minds.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also said - and he said it to the people of this Province - that he did this, he agreed to this deal, in order to save the Province, he said, because the Province was going to be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in overrun costs on the entire Hibernia project if the delivery date on the drilling modules was going to delay the entire project.

Now I want to ask the Premier this: Will he table in this House the clause, or the clauses, that he is referring to in that drilling modules contract that would make Vinland or the Province responsible for those hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties on this $35 million contract, and perhaps while he is standing to answer that question he can answer this: How come other contractors who have been involved in a one year delay already on the Hibernia project, a $1 billion cost overrun, how come they aren't responsible, or to be held responsible, for the entire delay in the Hibernia and the entire cost overruns that might be associated with that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the House, and what I said to the public at the time and I will repeat here in the House, this government will not, despite this kind of narrow-minded, partisan political haranguing by the Opposition, this government will not do anything to cause a delay in the proper performance of that overall Hibernia project. This government will not take the decisions or take any steps that will threaten the viability or integrity of that project, that will add to the cost by hundreds of millions of dollars. We will not cause that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: We will not do anything to cause that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

The government acted totally responsibly in relation to this matter because we are not prepared to do as the Opposition will do, and try and score puny, narrow-minded political points out of this. What is important to this Province and its long-term future is maintaining a reputation for credibility and ability in getting the job done.

Now if one component, the Marystown Shipyard, has a problem - and it does have a problem - if one component has a problem, it can wreck the whole reputation of this Province in the development of offshore oil in the future, and the government is not prepared to see that happen, Mr. Speaker. We will act responsibly to make sure that while we give the maximum level of protection we possibly can to the industry at Marystown, we will protect the long-term interests of the people of this Province, and not respond to the narrow-minded political approach of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province just don't buy what the Premier is saying. It is hogwash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Talk about speaking with forked tongue, you own the Vinland Industries; you own the operation down there. You are the one who has ruined the reputation of businesses and companies in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - because of the way you have caved in on this issue. That is the reality of it.

You were right about one thing. This government will not do anything. You are a do nothing government, and that is the reality, not only on this issue but on everything else.

In the meantime I note, Mr. Speaker, he avoided answering my question again. Where is the clause and clauses, in that drilling modules contract that would make the government responsible? That is what I asked him. But I want to ask him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - while I have the floor -

MR. SULLIVAN: You had two chances.

MR. SIMMS: While I have the floor -

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

I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to phrase a question and we will get an answer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Yes, well, Mr. Speaker, I've asked two and I can't get the answers so I will try another one.

The Premier says that he gave up on the contract because he took Mr. Hall's word that the Marystown Shipyard wouldn't have those drilling modules completed by the time they were needed at Bull Arm. I would like to ask him this question: Did Vinland Industries and did Marystown Shipyard also tell you that they wouldn't have the modules completed by the time they were needed at Bull Arm, or did they tell you they would have the modules completed? Did you understand the question?

You said that you took Mr. Hall's word that in fact - or Hull's word - that Marystown wouldn't have these modules completed in time or by the time they were needed at Bull Arm. You took his word. The question is: Did Marystown Shipyard and did Vinland Industries also tell you that they could not complete the work by the time they were needed at Bull Arm? Is that a fact or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think there were two or three questions the first time around that I didn't answer, but that is because he asked eight questions at a time. I just can't keep track of them. If he wants the question answered, ask a question and I will answer it, but don't add four more to it and then complain that they are not answered.

I never at any time said I took Mr. Hull's word that it could not be completed at Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You did!

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I said just the opposite. That is the twisting and contortion of the Opposition. What I said to Mr. Hull and what I stated publicly is we disagreed with Mr. Hull. I did not accept his view that it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is very clear. It is in the press release, it is my letter, my exchange of correspondence. That is simply the misrepresentation of the Opposition. What I stated clearly was I disagreed with him, I did not accept their view and the Marystown Shipyard people did not accept their view that they couldn't have it completed in adequate time. They felt they could have it completed by December. That was the position of the government then; it is the position of the government now.

What I did make very clear, Mr. Speaker, was I could not challenge their right to make the decision to protect the integrity of the overall schedule. I disagreed with their view that Marystown couldn't do it and I stated so publicly, and I'm quite prepared to table the correspondence which says that very clearly, as well as the press release at the time if the Leader of the Opposition wants to read it. It stated it very clearly.

What the government couldn't do is substitute its judgement for their judgement as to whether or not leaving this work at Marystown would jeopardize the overall schedule of the project. I can't take the responsibility for that. The people of this Province can't take the responsibility for possibly causing hundreds of millions of dollars of delay if HMDC were right and we were wrong. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't challenge their right to make the decision that they did.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: This gets more bizarre as time goes on with the Premier's explanation, because it just isn't saleable. I mean, people do not believe you, Premier, on this issue. They don't believe your explanation. If all of this is true then why in the name of heavens are the 300 jobs going to New Brunswick? Why didn't you stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador and the workers and the business community and not let it go to New Brunswick? Let me ask him this - does he stand to answer that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You just asked a question.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Oh now, I'm sorry, I thought the Premier could handle two questions. They're pretty straightforward. The second one is this. I will give the Premier time to settle down. Does HMDC have a guaranteed fixed dated from the Irving shipyard for delivery of the modules to Bull Arm, and what is that date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Why didn't the Premier stand up and refuse to allow it to happen? For a simple reason. No government, no premier, had the right to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. This is the false and fraudulent representation of the Opposition. This is totally wrong. Under the contract, as under all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I'm prepared to answer the question if the members want the question answered, but I'm not prepared to engage in this juvenile shouting match with the kindergarten from the opposite side. I'm really not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the contract with Marystown, as in the case of all other contracts, HMDC has the right to take over any aspect of the work at any time they feel - that is what they did with NODECO. They took over control of the overall building contract for the GBS at NODECO. Now, they did that. There is the major one. They have the right to do that at any time, Mr. Speaker, that they feel the overall schedule of the work is in jeopardy. They had the unquestioned legal right to do this and make this decision and the government had no right whatsoever to interfere and stop it, none at all.

Now, for the Opposition to represent otherwise is to perpetrate a massive political fraud. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province understand that if the Opposition do not. The people of this Province understand that and they realize that the reputation of the Province and the ability of the Province in the future to build and benefit from the continued development of offshore oil is more important than allowing the Opposition to perpetrate this kind of political fraud, and they are prepared to put that first, Mr. Speaker, as is the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is only one party in this Province perpetrating political fraud on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am looking at the perpetrator. Let me tell him that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let me say to the Premier that it is very ironic, would he not think, that you have a Quebec shipyard which filed an objection with the federal/provincial offshore petroleum board because they did not get the work and here we, the Province that let the work leave, did not file an objection. Would the Premier instruct the federal/provincial Offshore Petroleum Board to formally inquire into this decision and will he ask HMDC to keep the drilling modules in Marystown until the board reports back to him and the government, and through him to this House? Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is again continuing to put forward this false propaganda about the rights of the board, the rights of the government and so on. The government has no right to interfere with that decision, none at all.

MR. TOBIN: They do! The federal minister caused (inaudible) for MIL, she told me herself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The federal minister did not alter the decision. She couldn't alter the decision and this minister couldn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we can ask the board to look at it and they can look at it, but they cannot direct a different decision. They have no legal right, and it is pointless, therefore, to ask them to direct a different decision.

For the Opposition to put this forward, that either the government or the C-NOPB can alter that decision, is a massive political fraud for which they are going to have ultimate responsibility. Mr. Speaker, no wonder they have no credibility in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Look who is talking about lacking credibility in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier carefully avoided the question. Any owner, and you are an owner in this situation, can file an objection with the federal/provincial Offshore Petroleum Board, asking for a formal inquiry into this whole situation. A Quebec company, a shipyard, has done so, and the board is looking into their objection. Now, isn't that very ironic - a company that didn't get the work, and here we are giving the work away and we can't get the board to have a look at it and file an objection with the board. Why does he not do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the Leader of the Opposition knew what he was talking about he would not make that representation. What the board has the right to determine and what they are being asked to inquire into is whether or not that company in Quebec had a fair opportunity to bid on this work. That is what they are asking, whether the company in Quebec had a fair opportunity to bid on the work? Now, in the past we have asked the board to examine, on a couple of occasions at least, that I am aware of, whether or not Newfoundland companies had a fair opportunity to bid on the work, or were included. That is the basis of MIL's complaint, that they did not have an opportunity to bid on the work that went to Marystown; that is the basis of their complaint to the C-NOPB. Now, Marystown had the work, and do you think that if HMDC were taking the work out of Marystown because they were not confident Marystown could complete it on time, that they would give them another opportunity to bid? How stupid, Mr. Speaker, how utterly stupid to even suggest it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to put some questions to the Premier as well. I happened to be at the meeting with the Offshore Petroleum Board when they were told that it was caused by the minister. The minister told us herself; the federal Minister of Natural Resources wrote to MIL and said: By copy of this letter, I am asking the Offshore Petroleum Board to look into your complaint. Now, that was done by the federal minister for the people of Quebec. When is the Premier of this Province going to do it for the people of Marystown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition just understood the explanation that I gave him. Obviously, the Member for Burin - Placentia West doesn't even understand it now. Now, let me repeat again for him: what the C-NOPB has the right to do is cause an inquiry to be made, to determine whether or not any company in Canada had a fair opportunity to bid for the work. That is the basis on which MIL asked the minister to inquire, and Port aux Basques, St. John's shipyards could make an equal application, Marystown could not, Mr. Speaker. If HMDC were taking the work away from Marystown, they already had it, by what stretch of the imagination does anybody think that HMDC could give Marystown an opportunity to bid on the same work again that they were taking away? Now, Mr. Speaker, to make those kinds of representation to the public of this Province is politically fraudulent and the member ought to be criticized for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the way the Premier plays with the truth it is no doubt that anyone would be confused by what he says. Now, the fact of the matter, basically, is that HMDC is taking the work from Marystown under false pretences. I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, to tell us in the House today when the work will start in Saint John, New Brunswick? This is the key question, when? When will HMDC have the work back from Saint John, New Brunswick delivered? We know when Marystown is going to deliver it, in the Fall of 1995. When is Saint John, New Brunswick going to deliver it?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the multitude of questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked and I just lost track of it. The answer is, HMDC refuses to accept Marystown's judgement that it could deliver the work by the first of December. They told me very clearly - I disagree with them - but they told me very clearly, their judgement, that they had no confidence it could be delivered until into the next year. Now, I disagree with them, Marystown disagrees with them, I have told them so. But I cannot substitute my judgement for theirs, I have no right to do that, and I certainly wouldn't even think about trying to substitute the hon. member's judgement for theirs. I wouldn't substitute his judgement for anybody's, as a matter of fact.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, they have no - I don't know that they have any firm date from New Brunswick.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble -

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the answers and, at times, the questions and I just ask the House to come to order so that we can finish this answer.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hull told me that he was confident that Saint John's shipyard could deliver the work in time so as not to cause a delay to the project. I told him that I was confident Marystown could do it, too. He said: `I disagree' - all of our judgement and experience with it - disagree.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have this to say also, and hon. members should be aware of it: the government wants to protect, to the maximum extent that we can, the reputation of Marystown. I am satisfied that HMDC is, itself, concerned about the reputation of Marystown. They don't want to do anything to harm Marystown.

All the Opposition are doing by this kind of false and fraudulent representation, is they are doing more and more harm to the reputation of Marystown. It is not going to help Marystown any to keep berating it in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the successful completion of the Hibernia project is critical to the future participation by various other industries in this Province in future offshore oil development.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a bit of quiet so I can answer the questions and the issues they have raised.

The future of this Province, in terms of offshore oil development, is critical to the economy of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WELLS: It is important that we make sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer with this constant harangue from the other side.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we make sure we have a reputation that will enable us to participate to the maximum possible. We are not helping this Province by berating Marystown in this way. It is important that we go forward from here with the maximum possible level of activity we can cause to be created in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what a gigantic bluff, to get on with that today and not even answer the questions.

Let me ask the Premier, then: Why, on September 26, I believe it was, did he go to Marystown when he should have known that Mr. Ken Hull had already done a deal with St. John, New Brunswick? Why did he go to Marystown and seek concessions? Was he not involved in the public relations scam to divert the attention away from HMDC, and try his best to lay it on the shoulders of the workforce?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I went to Marystown on that date - September 21, was it?

MR. TOBIN: September 26.

PREMIER WELLS: September 26. I went to Marystown on that date because I had previously had a meeting in my office with the executive members of the union, when I pleaded with them for the future of Marystown. I pleaded with them, `Please let the company bring in workers without imposing this additional penalty on them,' and they refused. They were the author of their own misfortune in that regard. Now, I sat in my office and I pleaded with the executive of the union to do that, and they didn't do it, they wouldn't do it. So I went to Marystown because I knew it would be no good to ask the executive of the union to do it. I went and asked the full membership, and the membership agreed to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I went in good faith, believing that if they did that it would resolve the problem at Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Mr. Speaker, I went to Marystown in good faith, and I got the consent of the union to make that adjustment in the future. It was a week or ten days later that representatives of HMDC came to see me again and said: `Premier, we still have this concern. We don't think it can be done at Marystown.'

My words to them were, at the time, `You can't do that. Having asked me to go down to Marystown and get the consent of the union and I have done it - now you are going to come back and tell me you are going to do it anyway? That I consider to be an abuse of me.'

Now, those were my words to them at the time. That was the position the government took at the time. So they went back again, and two weeks or so later, they came back to me again to tell me that they had given my request or my comments to them every consideration and they saw no alternative.

Mr. Speaker, we had several meetings, by telephone, meetings in my office; the government did everything we could to persuade them to do otherwise, but we would not take the responsibility for substituting our judgement for theirs. We had no legal right to do it anyway, and I wouldn't bring undue pressure to bear on them to cause them to do what the government wanted them to do, for fear that it would risk the integrity of the overall project. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. members this: As important as the jobs at Marystown are, as important as every last one of those jobs are, the overall future of the Province is more important, and that is what we work for.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to draw to members' attention that, during Question Period, some phrases were used that, in my view, were unparliamentary, among them: `fraudulent', `perpetrating a fraud', and suggesting that someone has uttered a falsehood. I refer members to Beauchesne in that regard; it wasn't objected to, it didn't come up previously, but just so that members are aware, in future, if a member uses those comments I will call on him or her to withdraw them.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with section 32, subsection 4 of the Auditor General Act, I am pleased to table the Auditor's financial report and statements of the Office of the Auditor General for the financial year ended March 31, 1994.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its desire for reforms to address the need for better quality, higher achievement and greater efficiency in our school system;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House request government to bring in legislation to enact changes recommended in the 1992 Report of the Royal Commission on Education, that can be dealt with entirely within the Legislative jurisdiction of this Legislature, and further urge government and denominational representatives to negotiate an agreement for greater co-operation and co-ordination among denominational school systems, in the delivery of educational services; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that affirming its desire that the negotiations between government and denominational representatives proceed in good faith, this House give its solemn pledge to the holders of the educational rights and privileges protected in the Constitution, that it will not arbitrarily remove or amend those rights and privileges without their consent.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled: "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act."

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan Guarantee Act.

I also give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Teachers Association Act," and a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees Association Act."

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, " An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act."

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

MR. CARTER: (Inaudible) department (inaudible) ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in any quantity or form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is an indignity to our people and our Province and should not be seen as a potential source of economic development for this Province; and

WHEREAS any such initiative would have a negative impact on the image of this Province and be detrimental to other forms of industrial and economic development, including and especially the development of our tourism and aquaculture businesses; and

WHEREAS the overwhelming majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are opposed in principle to any such initiatives;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House take such action as may be necessary to enact legislation that would effectively prohibit the importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in any form or quantity for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to give notice for the introduction of a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the issue of fire safety among the residents and owners of property in the older row housing units in St. John's is of prime concern; and

WHEREAS many of the row houses in this area have inadequate fire blocks between attached houses, in some cases with common attics and no fire blocks at all between houses; and

WHEREAS there is currently a lack of effort on the part of the provincial, federal and municipal governments to address this problem;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the provincial government begin immediately to devote more of its financial resources to instituting programs and policies which would assist in the refurbishment of existing units and buildings, both privately and publicly-owned, in the downtown core of St. John's and other communities with similar safety problems with row housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS advances in information technology are revolutionizing business, government, academia and society in general; and

WHEREAS the growth of the information technology sector is important to the economic development of this Province; and

WHEREAS potentials exists for cost-effective access by the public to government information;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognize the importance of development in the information technology sector and support the establishment of local public access computer networks or FREE-Nets in this Province, is committed to being an information provider for such networks, and to allowing public access to government information in this way, and support the continuation of the STEM-Net and related computer network activities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS there has been worldwide growth in the importance of aquaculture; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is a province with extensive coastlines and a history of leading the way in marine-related industries;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognize the potential of the aquaculture industry in this Province and encourage government to continue its focus on this growth industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the fishing industry has been and will continue to be the cornerstone of this Province's culture and economy; and

WHEREAS the fishing industry in this Province is in crisis; and

WHEREAS the crisis demands a new sense of direction and strengthening; and

WHEREAS the submersion of the Department of Fisheries into the new Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than strengthens efforts to revive the fishing industry in this province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Premier to reinstate a Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fishery-related matters, strengthened and revitalized, and separate from the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture announced by the Premier on August 26 1994.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill No. 40)

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Advanced Health Care Directives And The Appointment of Substitute Health Care Decision-makers."

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all work on the drilling modules M71 and M72 is completed by Vinland Industries in this Province at Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 3,000 residents in the district of LaPoile. The letter accompanying the petition containing the 3,000 names is signed by the President of the St. James PTA - Parent Teachers Association, and they are writing on behalf of the parents of the Port aux Basque school district concerning recent cutbacks by the government, the Department of Education, in particular. The member is fully aware of this - he has a copy of the letter. As a result of the cutbacks, there are going to be a lot of program losses and positions eliminated in a number of schools, as outlined in the letter, music programs, resource unit programs, physical education programs, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I have to put this on the public record, and I am sure the member would be surprised if I didn't. The final comments of the letter accurately describe why I am presenting this petition. They say, `I request that you have these petitions tabled in the House of Assembly. The documents have been forwarded to your office, as we feel we have not received proper representation from our government member' and I won't - well, they mentioned his name, Mr. William Ramsay, just to make it official.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member will have to respond to that and deal with that question raised by 3,000 of his constituents. I will leave it up to him. However, I will fulfil my responsibility in presenting the petition and ask the Minister of Education to take this petition seriously, because I understand that this particular area served by the five schools is really a model of the integrated system that the Minister of Education is advocating for the entire Province, yet, it is being forced to cut out five teaching specialists in the areas I mentioned, music, physical education, and learning resources.

In this area, there is only one school system in the whole area serving students of all denominations, as it turns out. Several years ago, I understand, the Roman Catholics made arrangements with the Integrated School Board to take care of their students, and the Pentecostals have not set up a school in that area. So, there is one school system. There is only one school bus system. Many years ago community schools there were consolidated. There is a regional senior high, a regional junior high, and elementary and primary schools have been reduced to a minimum, short of busing very young students over long distances where we know weather conditions aren't appropriate and can get hostile.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a compact school system, one that the minister is advocating for many parts of the Province, as efficient as any school system in this Province is likely ever to get, yet, it can't have music, and it can't have physical education teachers and librarians in its schools. Channel - Port aux Basques is one of the largest communities in the Province and if they can't have music, physical education, and librarians, what hope is there that the smaller schools in the smaller rural parts of this Province will hang onto their programs? And how long will it be before communities maybe just a little bit larger, like Gander, I don't know if Port de Grave is a little bit larger or not, and Grand Falls, for example - what chance is there, and how long will it be before larger communities will probably have to give up their programs?

So the question the people are asking in Channel - Port aux Basques, representing the schools in Rose Blanche, Burnt Island and Port aux Basques, is to the Minister of Education and Training: Is the government turning its back on eliminating equal educational opportunities for children wherever they live in this Province; and does the quality of education now depend on numbers rather than on equal opportunity?

Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition. I refer it to the Department of Education and Training and its minister in the hope that the minister will respond and look seriously at this criticism, because 3,000 signatures on a petition in a small area such as this is not to be scoffed at.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Just with respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I received a copy of the letter to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I might note that this activity was undertaken at the height of the negotiations prior to the election last year. It is just that right now it has managed to come forward. If you note the date on the petition itself, it was collected around about that time, and it was held on to, of course, over the summer, with the House of Assembly not being opened until this time.

I have made my views known publicly on the issue, with a copy of that particular letter and a copy of my response to that letter to The Gulf News.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, the letter was dated this September, but the actual activity in having the petition circulated about the community was prior to the provincial general election that we all participated in, so that is the activity of that time.

Anyway, notwithstanding that, I might point out that -

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

MR. RAMSAY: I never said it was a non-issue. I said the activity of collecting the petition was, at the time, prior to the previous election.

The electors of the district of LaPoile, in general, did see fit to elect me to the Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: - and, at that time, I might add, prior to the teachers strike situation, which we all experienced, we now have a situation where the issue has been dealt with insofar as the numbers of teachers who will be distributed to the various school boards, is concerned, and also to note that the district of LaPoile did receive an additional teaching unit for isolated schools, which is a problem that is there in the overall allocation of teachers.

Now if you look at the program loss in the district of LaPoile, no different from the program loss in any given area, we have a few factors, in that we are a very isolated district from others, isolated by about 100 miles from the other major areas of the West Coast, and therefore, we operate a completely integrated school system with the strongest percentage of the population in the area being of the Anglican faith, and the majority of the balance are Protestant, with some Roman Catholic involvement in the school system there as well.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I might point out that the programs that have been deleted from the overall choice in the district for students to partake in physical education, in some cases, in other cases, it is the resource room aspects of teaching, all very important to a child's overall development, but the school board in the Port aux Basques area, along with the educators at the school level, decided that these particular programs were such that they favoured others, and that these programs would be no longer maintained in the area.

It is unfortunate, and I feel there was a bit of a play at the time to put the maximum amount of pressure on the government and, of course, our children, my own children included, are the ones who suffer in this case. I think that those priorities have been dealt with by the professionals at the district level. This district does receive adequate funding in comparison to other districts throughout the Province. Now, with the changes to the school tax situation, they are receiving more funding than they have at any time in the past, and really, it is a matter of declining enrolments.

The declining enrolment throughout the Province last year, was 4,000 less students than there were the year previous. So, if we look at that, this year we are dealing with 4,000 less students. It is obvious that we have to have fewer teachers in the overall system mix, and we have kept ourselves in check with respect to the application of the 2 per cent rule. As a result of teacher negotiations, that will now be applied over a three-year period, so we are not taking the maximum number of teachers out of the system this time as was originally purported to have been contemplated by the government. So we are bridging the gap over a period of three years, and I think this will do much to help us adjust in light of the declining enrolments and the problems associated with the programs.

Again, I might add that I find it unfortunate that the Parent-Teacher Association in Port aux Basques have put this forward in this manner but I have dealt with it publicly in the local newspaper and the people of Port aux Basques and throughout LaPoile District are very well aware of my position on the issue. Also I do not think there is any fear of repercussions for myself politically or otherwise, if there is then I will wear that crown at the time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the Member for LaPoile would attempt to slough off this issue as being a non-issue because this morning at 10:30 when I talked to the superintendent he certainly did not feel it was a non-issue at that time. In fact, the superintendent of the Intergraded School Board in Port aux Basques this morning told me that this is a very real issue, that they had been obliged this year to cancel classes in physical education at the high school level.

Mr. Speaker, he tells me that music as a course at St. James Elementary is no more. Mr. Speaker, what is even more amazing is that at St. James Junior High School they have had to cancel one of the resource units. Now, as the member knows, the resource unit referred to is a special education resource unit, and when we start to balance our budget based on withdrawing services from those children who are most at risk, which is special education students, then, Mr. Speaker, we have come to a very sorry state in this Province.

I want to say to the member that there are 3,000 signatures. Now, Mr. Speaker, last year there were only 1,983 students in that entire school system and this year, this current year, there are 1,878 students and keep in mind we are not talking about all the schools in this system. So therefore if you can get 3,000 signatures when the total population of all the system is only 1,878 students, Mr. Speaker, we have a pronounced demonstration of a problem in the viewpoint of the parents and, Mr. Speaker, they are saying to their member they want greater representation.

Mr. Speaker, this school system last year lost nine teaching units and I am amazed that the member would stand and minimize that. He stood in his place and said that that is a minimum issue. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the member that when you have a school system like this and you are taking out nine teaching units, it is a dramatic change. Mr. Speaker, with the loss in school students this year, the declining enrollment that is, we know that they will lose another four to six teachers in the next school year.

What we see here is a consequence of the Minister of Education and his cut, cut approach to his restructuring proposals. What we are talking about is a threat to the integrity of programs, a threat to the quality of educational opportunities and how it dramatically affects rural Newfoundland. I expect all members on the other side, from rural Newfoundland, to stand and say that rural Newfoundland students need more teachers. They need new and comprehensive programs and we cannot stand to have any more of these cuts.

What we have here is the Minister of Education telling educators you have got to do more with less but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do better with less, that is the issue. The minister says, do more with less but we cannot expect educators to do a better job with less. When we talk about improving standards of excellence we are saying to the school system you have got to do better and we want to encourage teachers and parents to do better.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that on the graduating requirements, last year, 1993, the graduating rate, success rate in the Port aux Basques system was the fourth lowest in the Province as a percentage, looking at the minsters data which he tabled a few days ago. What Port aux Basques needs is an infusion of new money, keep the teachers they have, keep the programs they have, don't take out the physical education courses at the high school level, don't drop the music programs and more important than all of that, let us not threaten the educational quality in the Port aux Basques area by going and taking away learning resource centres. Mr. Speaker, that is the very worst thing you could do particularly since the resource centre we are talking about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - is for special education students and they need more, not less.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 23, dealing with the need to have a debate on a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 23, I would say to the member that I do have that right and I do so, Mr. Speaker, ask for an adjournment of this House because of the loss of jobs that have taken place at Marystown and are moving to St. John, New Brunswick; and the reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask for it, is because it is such an important urgency to debate it today for several reasons.

There is going to be in excess of 300 job losses; the equivalent on a population and economic impact basis to the losses of 6,000 jobs in Ontario. The loss of that many jobs in Ontario would cause an emergency debate not only in the Legislature of Ontario but in the Parliament of Canada. The transfer of high tech and electrical enrichmentation work out of the Province will damage the reputation of this Province and will be a major setback to our hopes for greater participation in Hibernia and other offshore projects.

Newfoundland's unemployment rate in October was 20.5 per cent, nearly double the unemployment rate in New Brunswick. The unnecessary loss of 300 jobs in Marystown will be a major blow to the economic recovery of this Province. The issue, Mr. Speaker, cannot wait. The issue has to be dealt with immediately. There is a narrow window of opportunity for government to prevent or moderate the loss of work on the drilling modules.

Transfer trucks will be arriving in Marystown tomorrow to remove some of the components for the drilling modules and barges will be arriving this weekend to take away the two steel towers. Whatever can be done must be done quickly, we do not have the luxury, and if we as legislators are concerned about protecting the jobs of 300 to 400 Newfoundlanders, then, Mr. Speaker, we have to move on this today. We cannot wait because the trucks are going to be rolling in tomorrow and a barge is on its way to Marystown this week, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will see the necessity to have this debate put today and for that, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly, under Standing Orders 23, move, Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing this matter of urgent public importance.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the matter that falls to Your Honour to decide in response to the request for leave made by my friend from Burin Placentia - West, is the question of the urgency of debate. It is not a matter of the importance of the issue, it is not a matter of the importance of debating the issue, it is a matter of the urgency of debating the issue at this time.

My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, agrees that that is the issue before the Chair, so the issue accordingly is, whether the House should interrupt its regular order of business to deal with this issue. My submission is that it should not do so. Mr. Speaker, the matter is important. We spent all of Question Period today on it. We may spend all of Question Period tomorrow on it. That's for members, Mr. Speaker, to decide when they decide what questions they wish to ask. We may spend part of today or tomorrow on any number of matters but, Mr. Speaker, the issue is, whether we should interrupt the regular business of the day to do that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is on the Order Paper - and I can refer you to any number of precedents - there is on the Order Paper, still the Address in Reply which would afford a debate on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. gentleman's concern. I, too, am concerned and I would say to him in all candour and all humility that he should accept that members who sit to Mr. Speaker's left are as concerned with this issue as those who sit to Mr. Speaker's right. We are all concerned but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we should interrupt the order of business of this House today to debate this issue. I say in my submission we should not do so and the reason for this, as the Premier has explained, is there is nothing the government or the House can do to deal with this.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite may or may not like that state of affairs. I accept that they may not like it but that does not change the reality of the situation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, my submission is that the hon. gentleman should not be given leave because the debate is not a matter of urgency and there are other matters before the House which can be dealt with. The hon. gentleman could arrange to deal with this at the appropriate time and at the appropriate place.

Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to rise to support the motion put forward by my colleague for Burin - Placentia West and I want to say to the Government House Leader that indeed the matter is very urgent and it is very important. What we have on the Order Paper presented to us today has been here since June and if it were all that urgent in the order of business of government, then certainly we would have been back here after Labour Day and had some of this stuff dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every single piece.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The situation in Marystown cannot wait. We have 300 jobs on the line in Marystown today. It is urgent, it is important, and we cannot delay the situation. It is an extreme emergency. I say to the Government House Leader that 300 jobs are certainly more urgent and more important than the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation standing in his place today, as important as the minister's bill is, to reduce the alcohol blood level from .08 to .05, as important as that is, I say that this issue, the loss of contract work to the Marystown Shipyard, some 300 jobs to St. John, New Brunswick, is far more urgent and far more important, which are the two key words, Mr. Speaker, to allow my colleague's motion to stand and that we do have an emergency debate on this issue. We cannot wait. We are running out of time.

This is the first day this House has sat since the middle of June and all the government business on the Order Paper has been lying there ever since then. The first order of business is Bill 30. That is the most urgent thing this government is going to deal with, obviously, in this sitting of the House, between now and Christmas. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that my colleague has done very well in the statement he has prepared and sent up to you, and that indeed this is very urgent and very important.

I submit to Your Honour that you give it due consideration and that you rule in the member's favour.

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

MR. HARRIS: I rise to support the motion or the request for leave by the Member for Burin - Placentia West on this matter of urgency for an emergency debate. There could be few things that qualify as being more urgent for a debate of this nature. As the member has set down quite adequately we are dealing with something that cannot be dealt with on other orders of business. The fact that a question can be raised in Question Period surely is not a sufficient answer, as we have heard from the Government House Leader. If that were the case there could never be an emergency debate in any legislature because any matter can be raised in Question Period. That is not the point. It is not a question and answer period. What we want is an urgent debate on this issue.

It cannot be dismissed by the Government House Leader saying there is no point to debate because the Premier has already said there is nothing the government can do. Surely that in itself gives rise to the need for debate, to have that issue, as to whether or not other measures could be taken by the government in this urgent situation to deal with that issue.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this issue, the sense of urgency that surrounds this issue throughout the Province, given the fact that, as the member has said, the trucks are on the way, the barge is prepared to leave, this work is ready to go, if this debate does not take place now, a debate at a later date under some other order of business would be totally futile - totally futile. The sense of urgency brought to this House on this first day of opening is important.

The request for an emergency debate deserves the serious consideration of you, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances that are arising here. The reputation of Newfoundlanders is at stake. The message that is being sent not only to our own workforce but to other provinces and indeed to other countries is that the Newfoundland workforce is not sophisticated enough to do this kind of work, and I wonder, is that the message that the Premier was preaching in China when he was there? Is that the message he was preaching there, that the Newfoundland workforce cannot undertake this kind of work?

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a sufficient amount of time to properly debate this issue here so that the Premier and the government can be told the kinds of things they could do to try and solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I support wholeheartedly the motion of my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, and I ask Your Honour to accede to that request and give it the urgent consideration that it needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess briefly to consider the motion put forward by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour addresses the point that led you to recess, perhaps I could inform you that in Your Honour's absence from the Chair my friend for Grand Bank and I spoke behind the Chair, as it were. We had not had an opportunity to do this beforehand because I had not any notice that they would raise this Standing Order 23 matter today.

My understanding - and my hon. friend can confirm it if I state it correctly - is that we are prepared, both sides are prepared, to have a debate on this matter this day, subject to the understanding or the condition, if one wishes, that there will be no more than two speakers from each side, and that each will speak for no more than half an hour. At the end of that the House will then vote on the motion before us which would be to adjourn for the day. If the motion carries we would then adjourn for the day. If it doesn't carry we would go on with our normal business.

If my hon. friend will concur that I have correctly stated the arrangement, we on this side are certainly prepared to debate this matter. Whether it be considered urgent or not in a parliamentary sense, we are prepared to debate it and we would certainly speak to the points at issue.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Government House Leader that it is nice to see that he saw the light, at just how urgent and important this debate is. That is not what he said when he first stood in his place. Anyway, what the Government House Leader has stated is indeed what we've agreed to, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: That being the arrangement and agreement that the House Leaders have entered into, I guess we can now proceed with the debate.

The ruling would be academic at this time.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much. I feel very strongly that the ruling would be in favour of it. I think that the Speaker would have probably seen the fact that there are people down there to be unemployed.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is very important. I think it is also very important that members of this House understand what really is involved in all of this. Marystown Shipyard back some years ago entered into an agreement with Kvaerner - or sorry, at that time they entered into an agreement with Moss Rosenberg of Norway - let me say the government as the owner of the yard, together with the then-president, Tom Whelan, went out to see who could be the best possible group to get involved with, in terms of doing a joint venture for the offshore. It was quickly concluded that the best people to do an arrangement with would be Moss Rosenberg from Norway.

As a result of that arrangement there was put in place a company called Vinland Industries. From that perspective there was a transfer of technology agreement put in place as well, whereby there was money put up and people from Marystown were able to go to Norway and work, first-hand, on the mechanical outfitting. Then the previous government in this Province that fought for jobs, that believed in jobs for Newfoundlanders, unlike this government, put in place the Atlantic Accord. Included in the Atlantic Accord was a training component but also funding for infrastructure. Together with my colleague for Grand Bank and the then-Minister of Natural Resources, I believe it was called, the Member for Mount Pearl, and the hon. John Crosbie went to Marystown.

MR. GRIMES: You had that many departments you didn't know what to call it. Something like forty departments.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that this is too important for me to get sidetracked by him. He can laugh and joke about 300 jobs going out of Marystown but I would say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - to the minister that the people of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - the Burin Peninsula and the people of this Province are not laughing and joking at 300 jobs going out of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we announced, together with John Crosbie representing the federal government, an agreement to put in place the Cow Head fabrication centre. First of all, the first phase was completed under a federal/provincial agreement. The first phase of Cow Head was done, there was a building and all that. It was under a later agreement that we put in place another $30 million to bring the total to approximately $40 million. From that, Mr. Speaker, Marystown had a joint venture with Rosenberg that was later sold to Kvaerner and became Kvaerner Rosenberg but they put in place that system. They put in place that system, Mr. Speaker, whereby Marystown would benefit from the mechanical outfitting contract and everyone in the oil industry knew that that was Marystown's intention with Kvaerner.

The Norwegian people came over and moved to Newfoundland, became directly involved in the bidding and everything else. Mr. Speaker, the bid was put in place and submitted. When the final bid was submitted and the tenders opened, Marystown did not get the contract. Marystown was unsuccessful. Marystown's bid was $114 million, somewhere in that area and M & M, their bid, Mr. Speaker, was $104 million. So there was a $10 million difference and the Premier of this Province got up and attacked the Norwegians. He said they were greedy. I am sure we all remember that. That it was greed that kept us from getting the bid. The minister of development went to Marystown and he said sharpen your pencils on further bids. The Premier did not tell us that he learned on a fishing trip with Bob Kimberlin some weeks before, that we were not going to get the contract. He kept that quiet. He talked about people being fraudulent today - Mr. Speaker, he kept that quiet. We did not get the bid, we sharpened our pencils.

Now just let me get back to the mechanical outfitting bid again. Whoever is responsible - I think it is the Minister of Natural Resources who has the responsibility and I challenge him to become involved in some thing. He has been involved in absolutely nothing so far. We have not heard a peep or a whimper, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Natural Resources. He has not become involved in this issue at all, which he has a responsibility for, but I challenge the minister - I should not challenge him, I ask him, and I think that is the right - we should demand that the minister table in this House what arrangements have now been done on the mechanical outfitting because I have been led to believe that the mechanical outfitting has now gone cost-plus and the cost, Mr. Speaker, is $120 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not the $114.5 million Marystown bid.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be sidetracked by the Member for Eagle River either, who is slavishly brown-nosing on the eighth floor. Mr. Speaker, this is very serious business. I say to the member, you can table what you like. This is very serious. It is only fools, I say to the Member for Eagle River, who would consider this to be foolish.

Mr. Speaker, what happened is that Peter (inaudible), the owner of M & M, became one of the key players out in Bull Arm. Now what you have is a situation where Peter (inaudible) and M & M, the same company sits on both sides of the table when they are discussing the issues, the supervision and everything else.

MR. SULLIVAN: A scam, that is what it is.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he will table in this House what the cost of the mechanical outfitting contract has gone to. Will the minister give some indication that he will undertake to table that contract? I hope the minister is listening. I don't know if he is listening or not.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You are? I hope you will undertake to find out how much that mechanical outfitting contract is now gone to. Is it gone cost-plus, I would ask the minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, more than Marystown bid. They will pay more than Marystown bid on it, they can count on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: We've been told, I would say to the minister, that the contract has now gone to $120 million. It was $104 million, Marystown's was $114 million, and we now have been told that the contract is now gone to $120 million. I'm sure that all members in this Legislature, indeed all Newfoundlanders, will have no tolerance for that if that is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who scuttled the hon. member's head, but there is not very much left in it.

We got a consolation prize. We didn't get the $200 million contract, we got a consolation prize. We got a $35 million contract. The Premier now asks - and why - make no mistake why this contract is gone, I say to members opposite. There is only one person responsible for that and that is the Premier of this Province. The Premier of this Province is responsible for that contract being gone.

Why? Because he is going to save a few dollars. The Premier talked about an overrun of $6 million to $7 million. I tell members here that when the tender was submitted they were told by the partners, namely Vinland, that: Your bid is $6 million less than what it is going to cost you to do it. The government and the board of directors were warned that it would be $6 million less than what you are submitting your bid for. As a matter of fact, I've been told by one board member that there were people who walked out of the meeting when they decided that they were going to proceed and bid $6 million less than the cost. I've also been told that the next lowest bidder was $9 million in the difference.

If that was the case the $6 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. TOBIN: Wrong. How would you know? If that was the case, $6 million. As a matter of fact, we were told by the Minister of ITT - if he was here today I'm sure he would confirm it - in a meeting that we bid it at a loss. So why should the Premier be concerned or be alarmed to the extent that he was going to let 350 jobs leave Newfoundland because we are between $6 million and $7 million overrun, when he knew he was bidding it at a loss? Why shouldn't he be alarmed, Mr. Speaker?

I will tell you what happened. Ken Hull from Hibernia went in - no, I'm a little bit ahead there, now, I want to go back.

MR. GRIMES: Don't get it mixed up (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No I won't, I would say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I won't get it mixed up. I know the issue very well. When this bid was being submitted and put together, after we were told to sharpen our pencils and go look for the work, the Norwegians were greedy and everything else, the Premier and this government made one serious mistake. That mistake was to let Kvaerner go. Instead of forcing Kvaerner out, which the government did, the government should have kept the Norwegians and their expertise and put them in in some sort of a management contract of that operation. I can tell you, we would be better off than we are today.

That was not to be because the Premier on his high and mighty horse decided that the Norwegians were greedy and had to go. Yet they submitted the real bid and the best bid was submitted by Vinland for the mechanical outfitting.

So along comes Ken Hull and says to the Premier that we have to move the work from Newfoundland to St. John, New Brunswick. The work has to go. Why does the work have to go?

Now I want to tell all hon. members a little story here. You might be interested in it, and the Minister of Natural Resources knows what I am going to talk about, because I talked to him when the House was open the last time. There was one day I didn't raise it in this House; I went and dealt with the minister. The minister knows what I am going to talk about - I went and raised it with the minister - was a contract regarding the pontoon barges that Marystown had, and HMDC was beating Marystown over the head with a stick, saying: You are behind schedule; you are this and that, and you are over budget and the whole bit.

I went to the minister and said: Everything I have been told is that HMDC are not right, but what HMDC did was force Marystown Shipyard, or Vinland, to have people working twenty-four hours a day, costing the shipyard a fortune, because it was bid on eight hours a day, to work so many hours, whatever way it is calculated. They forced Marystown and Vinland to spend a fortune in overtime alone on that project, and directly it cost the taxpayers because obviously the government owns the shipyard and it cost the taxpayers because there was an overrun. The pontoon barges were built and constructed in Marystown, tied on for months - four months - before HMDC were ready to accept delivery. Now does that cause anyone concern about the credibility of HMDC? The Minister of Natural Resources knows what I am talking about, because I raised it with him, about why the shipyard is being forced for overtime and everything else.

Mr. Speaker, four months tied on in Marystown, waiting for delivery. That is the kind of a game that HMDC has been playing with Marystown. Why are we in the mess that we are in today? Because the Government of Newfoundland, the Premier, wimped out, gave in, when Ken Hull came to see the Premier and said: We have to take the work out of Marystown. The Premier said: Why? Because, he said, there is going to be a large overrun. It is going to cost the Province a fortune.

The only ones who saved money in this debate, in this issue, was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are 300 men and women going to walk out through the gates of Cow Head.

AN HON. MEMBER: Already gone, some of them.

MR. TOBIN: One hundred and ten gone, thirty-seven more - 147 - but there are going to be 300 people walk through those gates, never to return. Most of them will never return, and I say to members opposite that what is really sad about this is that people thought they had work for up to two years, and people went out and spent and borrowed and did all accordingly, to the fact that they were going to have work for that period of time, but that was not to be.

This government turned their backs on 300 Newfoundlanders, and the Premier caved in and crushed like a marshmallow under pressure. The Premier wimped out, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wimp.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he is a wimp, the same as you have been since the dockyard in St. John's lost a $200 million contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shouting and bawling.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell you the people of the Burin Peninsula are shouting out loud and clear, to try to be heard by this Premier, because this government has the right to do something about the work leaving. Make no mistake about that.

Don't listen to what the Premier said today, because I have never seen anyone being as careless with the truth as what we saw displayed here today - never before. When a rat gets cornered it will do anything to get out.

Well, I can tell you one thing, this government is trying desperately to starve 300 people on the Burin Peninsula.

Yesterday, I attended a rally in Marystown -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people were there?

MR. TOBIN: Close to 2,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are they doing it Glen? That is enough of rallies.

MR. TOBIN: They had one yesterday, I can tell you that and we have had a couple. Yes we have. We had to fight, Mr. Speaker, to try to protect our health care system where we had 3,000 people out because this government tried to destroy that. We had another one, Mr. Speaker, to try to save our college system. That is all we can do. We are always fighting this government; this government has to be taken on day in and day out because of the way they are trying to destroy rural Newfoundland, but I can tell you one thing, the people of the Burin Peninsula, will not roll over on this.

The Premier got up today in the House and blamed it on the union. Mr. Speaker, that was not the truth. What the Premier said in this House today, let the record show clearly, what the Premier said in this House today was not the truth. He did not tell the truth on that issue. The union went back to Marystown when they met with the Premier and met with the management of the shipyard and worked out an agreement, whereby the welders could be brought in, and the Premier knows that, Mr. Speaker, yet today, he would not state it in this House.

The Premier knows that the management of the yard at the time worked out an agreement with the union to bring in welders, that was not an issue; that was a non-issue and what the Premier said today were not the facts. We were at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I, when he attacked the union for no reason. It was pointed out to him then that he was wrong and he is wrong again today. The Premier of this Province should have stood up for the 300 men and women who are going to lose their jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not long enough, not long enough. The Premier of this Province should have stood up for the 300 men and women in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not long enough, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this Province sold out on the Marystown Shipyard. The Premier of this Province is involved in a scam, a scam. Let there be no mixing of words or mincing of words, this is a scam, and I hope and pray that the Premier's role in this scam will be exposed because he is right to his neck in it, make no mistake about that, right to his neck. This is a conspiracy to get at the Marystown Shipyard and there is an underlying attempt to discredit the Marystown Shipyard for the benefit of some other people. That is what is going on in this Province, I say to members opposite. Mr. Speaker, it was the biggest scam that was ever cooked up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Like Hydro, a hidden agenda.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a hidden agenda. Why is the work leaving? Nobody has told us; the Premier today, in this Legislature, got up, and what did he say? He said: I don't know when the work is going to be brought back from St. John, New Brunswick. Now, Mr. Speaker, isn't that startling? He knows when Marystown is going to be done; by the fall of 1995, is when Marystown will have it ready to deliver, but I can tell you one thing, the President of HMDC, Mr. Hull, told us at a meeting, he said: how can I tell you when I am getting it back when I do not know when it is going to go, and that day he did not know anything.

Now, the Premier knew nothing when he came to Marystown on September 26; Mr. Hull, we met with him in the latter part of October and he said: I can't tell you anything because my team today is in St. John, New Brunswick negotiating a deal, yet, Mr. Speaker, the President of St. John, New Brunswick was speaking at a service club in St. John a few days ago and said he signed a deal with HMDC on October 12.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: He signed a deal on October 12, the week of October 12. Mr. Speaker, who is telling the lies, who is the liar? That is the question that has to be answered. Who is lying to the people of this Province? I can tell you one thing, Marystown Shipyard and Vinland Industries are owned by the Newfoundland government. What has happened? Where is the CEO who was brought in some months ago? What has happened, is that the Premier of this Province has tried to take over the operation in Marystown, he has tried to become the CEO of Marystown Shipyard and Vinland Industries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The Member for St. John's South can try what he likes but he will not distract me on this issue.

The Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, has the power to do what needs to be done. I was at a function the other night in Marystown and one of the members on this issues, from Salt Pond in Burin, one gentlemen got up and said: I wish we had Brian Peckford back to fight this one for us; because he said, what would be leaving Newfoundland would not be the work, but would be whomever is responsible for taking it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, one of the people who said that happened to be involved with the closure of the Burin fish plant and spoke from experience, because Brian Peckford who was the Premier of this Province stood shoulder to shoulder with the Town of Burin and fought and fought and fought -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - and fought, and fought and fought, Mr. Speaker, for the Town of Burin. Mr. Speaker, what we had then was a Premier who believed in jobs for Newfoundlanders and in Newfoundlanders.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for Eagle River that like everyone else, I choose to ignore him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is immature.

MR. TOBIN: Well everyone knows he is immature. What has happened here, is that there is a government that owns the Marystown Shipyard, a government that owns Vinland Industries and are not prepared. Can you imagine that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Board has been meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland for two weeks, discussing why the work did not go to MIL Quebec as opposed to St. John, New Brunswick? For two weeks, asking the question as to why the work did not go to MIL Quebec as opposed to St. John, New Brunswick and this government has not done anything about it, has not even asked the Offshore Petroleum Board to investigate?

Mr. Speaker, there is one other very interesting factor in all of this. Where has the federal government been and why has not the Premier gone to the federal minister and ask for a point of clarification?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can the Member for Eagle River and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation have their conversation outside rather than shouting back and forth?

Mr. Speaker, the federal government holds the shares of Petro Canada and the federal government hold their own shares that went in when they bought out with Murphy Oil, the Gulf shares. What have they done as an owner of HMDC to protect the jobs in Newfoundland, and has this Premier once spoken to the federal government? He introduced the president or someone from China to someone else in China, but has he introduced this problem to the federal minister or to the Prime Minister who holds shares in that project? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier of this Province is the man solely behind, together with Ken Hull, but more responsible for the work leaving Marystown than anyone else in the Province. This Premier is the man that is solely responsible for that work.

He went to Marystown and asked for concessions, and the biggest surprise the Premier got was when they granted the concessions because did the Premier ever want the union to say, no concessions, and he would have been on the radio for the last month saying, I told you so. If he had listened to me he would have kept the work. The union is smart enough for that Premier. They have watched him and listened to him playing his games long enough. Now, we all know why he sold out.

What would you call 300 jobs from the Burin Peninsula, the South Coast of this Province, with the highest unemployment of anywhere in the country? A disaster. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that there are 300 more jobs going. The Premier was on a jaunt to China looking for work, the second time in as many months. What a joke.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of being able to participate in this debate and I hope that all members will put pressure on the Premier to do what is right and proper and to move immediately, today, to correct that situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this subject today, and I would like to speak on it in such a way that we lower the level of rhetoric and emotion on this and try to get down to some of the facts on this situation. Let us get down to the reality of this situation and what is in the best interest of the people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula, and the people of the Province. Let us get away from the rhetoric and the emotion because I have heard enough of the rhetoric and emotion today and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the people of this Province and the people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula.

Let us get down to the facts. Right now, today, as we speak and debate this issue, there are over 5000 people in this Province working on the Hibernia project with a bit of a decrease. We are in a little bit of a lull at Bull Arm because the gravity base is being towed out today. We are at a milestone today in this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Today as we speak the 4000 or so people who have worked at Bull Arm have met a milestone and they are getting the gravity base towed out to its deep water site. We should be pleased and we should praise them all because they have done a great job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have some numbers.

DR. GIBBONS: I can give you the numbers as of October 31. As of October 31 there were 3,739 people working at Bull Arm, 766 people working in St. John's with the various management and engineering companies, and at Marystown, primarily at the Cow Head site, 409, and that does not include the approximately 500 others at Marystown Shipyard who are working on two of the supply boats for this particular contract. We should not be looking at the negatives here and laying blame. Nobody on this side of the House, nobody in this government, has sold out anybody on this case, let alone the Premier. The Premier stated in the Question Period today how he has fought for Marystown and Cow Head, how he has fought for it and how we have fought for it.

We can go back to when in preparation for winning a contract for Newfoundland we helped get the Cow Head facility completed. The initial announcement might have been one thing but it was this government that saw it through. It was this government that did all the encouraging of the Cow Head people, the Vinland people, to bid. They did bid. Unfortunately, in a fair and full bidding process in Canada - because this particular project had to be bid for Canada - in a full and fair bidding process for the mechanical outfitting that the hon. member opposite talked about, Cow Head lost. It is unfortunate. We all wanted it to win. We invested $45 million in Cow Head for it to win. It lost in the fair and full bidding process.

MR. TOBIN: What is the cost today?

DR. GIBBONS: I'm not getting into the cost today because anything that you want to talk about about the cost today is pure speculation about the cost today. You don't know and it is not out there. It is a private contract and it is not to be argued about and debated about publicly.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

DR. GIBBONS: It is being done.

MR. TOBIN: Why are they covering it up?

DR. GIBBONS: There is nothing being covered up at all. The key thing for us to consider today is that the Hibernia project and the construction related to it worldwide, but especially in Newfoundland, is proceeding well. The job is getting done and it is being done by residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are working at the site at Bull Arm and elsewhere in this Province. Right now about 5,500 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are working and are making good money on this project, and they will continue to work on it more into the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be 5,850.

DR. GIBBONS: I would like to see it be about 1 million, or 580,000. Unfortunately the job is not that big.

Right now today at Marystown we should be thinking more about what else is being done down there, what is remaining at Marystown, and how we can complete this. Let's not put this in jeopardy. Right now there are two supply vessels being worked on down in Marystown.

MR. TOBIN: Is that a threat?

DR. GIBBONS: This is not a threat, no. This debate certainly does not help the situation. We have $75 million worth of work approximately still continuing to be done at Marystown, and it will take another year and a half to complete that work. We have to make sure that work is done. We have to make sure that work is done properly to good quality and done on time to meet the deadlines. Unfortunately, with regard to the project at Cow Head, it was the Hibernia management company that had lost confidence that this could be completed in time to meet their schedule, and a very serious schedule.

The gravity base has to go to sea in 1997. The gravity base has to go to sea during that short weather window in 1997. It has to be ready to sail away at that time. What is being done now, in the best view of the company, in the best assessment by the company, is everything that needs to be done to get it to sea on time. If it does not go to sea on time, and if you miss that short weather window, well, you are going to have another year of not producing oil. That is when it is going to cost us not just millions of dollars, friends, but hundreds of millions of dollars for that delay. In the opinion of the Hibernia management company they believe they must make this change to do that.

The Premier stated clearly today: we did not accept that, that was not our opinion. We know that the Marystown people did not accept that, it was not their opinion. It was the opinion of the company that this had to be done or else the schedule was threatened. And they could not do it because they had to meet this schedule. They have taken (inaudible) to meet this schedule.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), tell us that. (Inaudible).

MR. GIBBONS: They are quite satisfied that they will get it back from Saint John, New Brunswick and meet the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: When? When?

DR. GIBBONS: Without regard to the specifics, they will get it back and meet the schedule. The Premier did not say a specific date because he said he did not know a specific date. I don't know the specific date either, but the company is satisfied that they will have it in time to meet the schedule, and that's what is most critical here, to meet the schedule.

In the meantime, what we are looking at, what Marystown - Cow Head is looking at, as a facility, with Hibernia management, is whether or not there are some other smaller things that can also fit in there, that we can get more people working in Newfoundland. We know the quality of the work was excellent, there is no question about the quality. The problem was the timing, and the timing kept changing. Friends, it was a year ago, November 1, when this contract was awarded - November 1, 1993.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: It was awarded November 1, 1993. It wasn't until the winter that we really got going. By the time the project really got going in the winter of 1993, the concern was already there that they could not meet the original schedule of May 1, 1995. It was not long after that that Hibernia management was approached and told, `we're sorry, no, we can't make May 1. What about September 1, 1995?' And Hibernia management said, `Sorry, that's too late. We cannot accept that date. The latest we can accept, as a sail-away is July 1. We need it by July 1, 1995 to meet our schedule.'

Later on, Cow Head went to Hibernia management saying, `Well, we can't even make September 1.' Earlier today, the Premier talked about December. Well, it is getting way beyond even a drop dead date for getting things done to meet that window in 1997.

It is critical for the project to meet that window in 1997 because, as the Premier said in Question Period, what is most important for us, as a Province and as a people at this time, is to get Hibernia done; to get Hibernia's gravity base platform at sea, to get the wells drilled and get the oil flowing by December or thereabouts in 1997. Let's get this project going, because it is only after Hibernia that we are going to have an industry. It is after Hibernia that we get Terra Nova moving, we get Whiterose moving, we get Hebron, Ben Nevis moving and the others, and the discoveries that I believe, personally, will be made out there in the future. We have to get on with this and start our industry.

Hibernia is just a starting point of it and let's not kill Hibernia by causing us to miss a year. Let's not do that. Let's make sure Hibernia is on schedule and let's not cost us the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would cost somebody if there is a delay in Hibernia. Let's get it done. That is what it means to miss the window. That is what it means to not get it out to sea in the middle of 1997. That is what it means to miss a year of not producing oil. And the project can't take that, our future industry cannot take that. We have to get the job done.

Right now that is part of it. So for the small number of jobs, for the small part of this project that is not done, let's make sure it is done. It is unfortunate, it is sad, we wanted to see all of these people work, too, but let's get on with it, with the 600 people approximately that will continue to work at Marystown and some of them will continue to work at the Cow Head facility for the next eighteen months or so as they complete their work. Let's get on with that and let's try to get from Hibernia management some other contracts, smaller ones that will be available at this stage, that can fill in the space that is down there and get some more people working. Let's look at the positive side of what we can get from this, not the negative side. Let's build on what we have right now.

A lot has been said today about what the two governments could do and what the federal minister could do, what the federal minister has done, what is being done by the C-NOPB relative to the MIL question regarding whether they - because they didn't get a chance to bid. Well friends, if you look at the facts, if you look at the Atlantic Accord Act, if you look at the contracts, it is quite clear that with regard to this specific contract, there is nothing in the Hibernia plan that requires the C-NOPB or gives the minister any room relative to this specific contract. This specific contract is not mentioned in the benefit plan. It is not mentioned in the benefit plan. What the benefit plan does say is that M-71, M-72 and M-73 have to be built in Canada, and M-71, M-72, M-73 are being built in Canada. What the benefit plan does say is that relative to the pipe rack, the M-73, a best effort must be given to see that that is done in Newfoundland. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is staying in Newfoundland, it is not moving to Saint John, New Brunswick. The pipe rack part of this contract is staying here.

Two other components, and only parts of the two other components, the seventy-one and the seventy-two drilling derricks, only parts of these are going to St. John, New Brunswick. All of it is being done in Canada. As long as all of it is being done in Canada, there is no way that the federal minister and I can say anything. There is no way that the federal minister and I can give a directive to the offshore board on this issue.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to be done? I know (inaudible) so where is it going to be done now?

DR. GIBBONS: The construction will be done in St. John.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to take place?

DR. GIBBONS: The final commissioning obviously has to be done in this Province. The final commissioning of everything related to the gravity base for Hibernia is going to be in this Province. The final commissioning is going to be at Bull Arm, where all components that are being built for the Hibernia gravity base and the top sides eventually come to Bull Arm and they get installed on the rig at Bull Arm. That is where all of it is finally done.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the contract take place at Marystown of M71, M72 (inaudible). What about that?

DR. GIBBONS: As I said, the final commissioning of everything is done at Bull Arm. It is put together at Bull Arm and it gets towed to sea from Bull Arm in the summer of 1997, and I want to see that happen. The people of this Province want to see that happen and should see it happen, and it is all in our best interest to do it. All the facts are here. I can read right out of the legislation for you.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the commissioning going to take place (inaudible) the contract in Marystown? Where is it going to take place?

DR. GIBBONS: The final commissioning has to happen from Bull Arm. It all gets put on the rig at Bull Arm.

MR. TOBIN: It is not at Bull Arm in the contract.

DR. GIBBONS: Anyway, we will see.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Obviously, there will be testing at various sites.

On the MIL question that was raised - the question that MIL raised was: Why didn't we get a chance, as MIL Quebec, to bid on this work that is being moved? That was their question: Why didn't we get a chance to bid? That is the question that has been put to the offshore board, and that is legitimate. That is a legitimate question, because under the benefits plan for Canada, all companies in Canada are to be given fair and full opportunity to bid. They raised that question and it is being reviewed by the board, but what the board cannot do is interfere with a private contractual arrangement that is in place between Hibernia management, the company that is running Bull Arm, and Vinland. The offshore board cannot interfere with that private arrangement. There is nothing that the offshore board can do about that private arrangement, and there is nothing that either I or the federal Minister of Energy can do about that in terms of directives - nothing at all, according to the legislation that is in place in the Atlantic Accord - nothing.

So, as I said earlier, what we should be doing is looking forward from here, not beating the negatives around. We are all doing everything we can for this, for Newfoundlanders. Most of the people who have worked on this project from day one have been Newfoundlanders. About 70 per cent of the working time to date has been by people in Newfoundland, and let's hope that continues. And that's the way it is, let's let that continue. And the quality of work being done in Newfoundland is second to none.

Unfortunately, with this particular contract, not the quality, but the timing, is what became a concern of Hibernia management. We said to them: `We want you to leave it there.' The Premier said it loudly. `We want you to leave it there,' but they have the right to do what they are doing, and no government can tell them what to do; and if we were to do it, then we have to be concerned about that financial liability. If we were to force them - in any way, if it were possible, if we were to force them to leave it at Marystown and then if the sail-away in the summer of 1997 were delayed and it missed a year of production, then that is when we, as a people, and taxpayers, have to worry about the hundreds of millions of dollars of liability for delaying this project for a year, and there is no way that I want to be part of that. I want it to be done on time. I want it to go out to sea on schedule. I want it to flow oil on schedule, so that we can then share the benefits of that and get on with the other developments that are to follow.

What we should be emphasizing right now is the future, not the past and the errors of the past. I am not going to go over and over the errors of the past year or two in the bidding process because there is not point, but I would hope that all of us who have in any way monitored this, or played a role in this, in the future will say let us not repeat the errors we made at Cow Head in the past. Let us go forward and make sure that everything we do in the future is going to be positive.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to take a few minutes to participate in the debate. It is a very important and very urgent debate for all of us, because it is not only people from the Burin Peninsula who are employed at the Marystown Shipyard, Cow Head and Vinland Industries. Skilled tradespeople from all over this Province are employed on the Burin Peninsula. That's why it is important to every member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, has referred to the fact that indeed the government did tell the Marystown Shipyard and Vinland Industries to sharpen their pencils after they lost the big main outfitting frame, the MOF contract. Sharpen your pencils and do whatever you have to, to get work. Yes, that has certainly been a part of this problem. There is no doubt about that. The contract was probably under bid to get jobs, but don't blame that on the workforce of the Marystown Shipyard who had no control over it whatsoever.

HMDC has admitted quite openly that they have contributed to the problems at the Marystown Shipyard and the Cow Head facility, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources. They have openly admitted that they have contributed to the problems with the contract at Marystown in a number of areas, one being the design work, the drawings - in excess of 1,000, up to 1,600 changes; HMDC has admitted that. They have contributed to the problem, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources and other ministers opposite.

Now, I say to ministers and members opposite that even if I were to believe HMDC, even if I were to believe the Premier, that the taxpayers of the Province are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars if the total Hibernia project were delayed and over-run, even if I were to believe that, which we have now shown and exposed not to be true, there is no penalty clause, there is no consequential clause in the contract. The first statement that came from the Premier was that he could not put the taxpayers of the Province on the hook for possibly hundreds of millions of dollars, which is not true. It is false. There is no penalty clause or no consequential clause in the contract, which today, he admitted. I said to him across the House, `You finally admitted there is no possibility of liability.' So, even if I were to believe that, HMDC, if I were to believe the Premier, how can I believe that this work is now going to be completed in Saint John, New Brunswick, and sent back to Bull Arm on time? That is the biggest problem I have with it all.

I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, how can Saint John, New Brunswick give HMDC a guarantee on delivery time when they don't know when they are going to receive the work? They don't know the scope of work that is left to be done, so how can you confirm a delivery date? That is the biggest problem I have with this whole issue. And they can't guarantee it. They don't know when they are going to get the work. If the work is on the barges next week, it may not get to New Brunswick for a month or two, depending on weather, so how can someone give you a confirmed delivery date when they don't know when they are going to get the work? If I were to ask a contractor to build a house for me, how can he tell me when he is going to complete my house when he doesn't know when he is going to begin work? It is as simple as that. If he doesn't know when he is going to begin, how can he tell me when he is going to finish? And if I change the plans fifteen times while he is at my house, that is certainly going to delay the contractor. Now, that's the problem, and members opposite should listen, because that's how simple it is. And we have 350 jobs on the line because of that, because Ken Hull went into the Premier and bluffed him out of his clothes. He said, Premier, `If this is delayed, you could be on the hook for all this money.' And do you know what the Premier said to him? `Please, take it. Please take the work out of this Province and give it to St. John, New Brunswick.' That's what happened in this case, and the Offshore Petroleum Board knows it. The Offshore Petroleum Board knows the sentiments and the feelings of this provincial government about this work.

Don't members think it is quite ironic, don't you think it is quite ironic, that MIL Davie shipyard of Quebec has filed an objection with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board because the work didn't go to Quebec, and here the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador which owns the Marystown Shipyard, owners of a contracting partner, has not registered a formal objection with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board with this work leaving our Province and putting 350 people out of work? This Premier and these ministers and this government has not filed an objection with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. Yet Quebec is up there screaming blue murder because the work is not going to Quebec, it is going to St. John, New Brunswick.

Can you believe that? That the pressure on this issue I say to ministers particularly is coming from Quebec and not from your government. The bit of movement on this issue has come because the Bloc Québecois has stood in the House of Commons and created a fuss over this issue and has ruffled the feathers of the federal Minister of Natural Resources. That is why the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is looking at why the work is not going to Quebec. But here we have a government whose first responsibility is for the welfare of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that has not even taken the interest or the time to file an objection with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, I say to people, and every one of you over there, ministers, should be ashamed of yourselves.

You should be ashamed of it. To sit there and be party to it. You should all be ashamed. For someone to get up and say we should look to the future - we are talking 350 jobs here, millions of dollars to the Newfoundland economy. What a fuss there was a few months ago when five members over there lost their jobs, I say to members opposite. There was more fuss amongst the government over five ministers getting the boots than there is now over 350 getting the boots in Marystown. More fuss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is the truth of it. This government didn't have the interest to register an objection - an owner of the Marystown Shipyard, a contracting partner in the contract. Yet Quebec, MIL Davie, has filed an objection, I say to the Premier. Ken Hull frightened him to death. That is what happened to the Premier. He frightened him to death, he frightened him out of his skin, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Frightened him out of the country.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Frightened him out of his skin, drove him right clear out of the country. For some reason - because the Premier said it publicly, and it is in his statements - that the taxpayers of this Province are on the hook, and they weren't. The first two reasons the Premier gave for this happening were the lack of skilled tradespeople, which has been refuted in spades, and he couldn't put the taxpayers of the Province on the hook financially for those possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Those are the two reasons he gave and both of them have been knocked down, I say to him, and today we hear him admit a bit of it.

The people from the Marystown Shipyard are going to go to St. John, New Brunswick, and complete the work. That is what we are going to have to see happening. The very same people who they say are no good in Marystown and can't do the work are going to go to St. John, New Brunswick, and finish the damn work! The same people. The very same people who had to go to Bull Arm and set up shop out there. The very same supervisors, people with expertise in their areas, who went to Bull Arm, the same people who have been seconded to St. John, New Brunswick, to sort things out up there, are the very same people that you are taking the work away from. That is what we are doing here. I think members should realize it. That is what is happening here.

For what? Why? For the name of God, if somebody could only answer for me how St. John, New Brunswick, can guarantee the work is going to be back to Bull Arm when HMDC wants it when they don't know when they are going to get the work done, I will sit down and shut up. I will sit down and shut up and I will never open my mouth again about this issue. No one can tell me how that is going to happen. How can they? They don't know when they are going to receive the work. They've got to have start-up problems. It is new to them. They don't know how much work is going to be done before it leaves Marystown, how much is going to be left to do in St. John, New Brunswick. Yet someone believes Ken Hull and HMDC that they are going to have the work back in Bull Arm when they need it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are they going to have it by December?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the love of God.

MR. GRIMES: That is not the point.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is not the point. No, that is not the point, that is right. It is not the point when you don't want it to be the point, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. When you don't want it to be the point it is certainly not the point, but that is the point to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I missed the point. I see, I missed the point. Maybe I missed the point. I think the minister has missed the point, I think the Premier has missed the point, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has missed the point.

The other problem we have here is that when we lost the MOF contract the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said he was going to restructure. He was going to undertake to make the Shipyard more efficient, more proficient. He was going to change the board of directors. He was going to change management, do whatever else it took, and the next time we heard that same language was when HMDC said they were taking the work out of Marystown. We heard the very same minister and the very same Premier say the same thing.

It took us two losses from the Marystown Shipyard, about eighteen months apart, for the government to repeat what it had said eighteen months before, I say to the Premier, and you, Premier, and you, Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has full responsibility for appointing the board of directors, for changing management, you have to take the responsibility if things are as bad in Marystown as you say they are. As I told you in your board room, there is more to the problems than the workforce, but you want to lay it all in the lap of the workforce, and that is not good enough, as I told you in your board room.

There is more to this problem than that and you, as a Premier, head of the government, and your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, have to take responsibility. You can't slough it off. You have tried to slough it off, but it hasn't worked and washed with the people of the this Province, by the way, on this issue. It hasn't washed at all. The people of the Province haven't bought your line, and no more they should, because everything you said has been refuted.

As I said to Ken Hull in the meeting at Bull Arm, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation who shakes his head and smiles over there, that we are going to feel bad enough when that work doesn't come back from St. John, New Brunswick on time, we being the people involved down on the Burin Peninsula mostly, but I will tell you one thing; Ken Hull will have a few miserable days if the damn work doesn't come back on time, if that work doesn't come back from St. John, New Brunswick on time. Did you ever stop to think about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By the time Vinland Industries told them they could give it to them, but we are all so willing to give St. John, New Brunswick the benefit of the doubt, and we are willing to believe Ken Hull, someone who comes from away and takes the place over. This government is always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who come from away because they are supposed to know more, and they are brighter and smarter than we are. When the hell are we ever going to shake that stigma that is attached to us in this Province? When? We believed him, but we wouldn't believe our own people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is true, I say to the minister, it is true. What are we trying to do to the psyche of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What are we trying to do? and talk about reputation and what we have done to reputation and credibility. The one fatal mistake, as I see it, is that when the Premier went to Marystown and met the workforce, he should have known, if he had the concessions from the workforce, that he had the work in his arse pocket, that it was not coming out of Marystown; why else would he go down there?

Why else would the Premier of this Province go to Marystown and ask 900 people - wade into the midst of them, probably never done before by a Premier, and say I need this, which they gave him, without knowing if he got it that they were going to keep the work in Marystown? Come on, for the love of God, come on. Can you imagine any of you as Premier of this Province going down there and doing it without knowing if you got the concessions the work was staying in the Province? I wouldn't set myself up like that for Ken Hull or anybody else - and when I came back with the concessions and Ken Hull came into my boardroom or office and told me that he was taking the work, it wouldn't have been the work that was leaving the Province, Mr. Premier, it would have been Ken Hull.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Stupid, stupid!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is not stupid. That is having a bit of guts and standing up for the people you are supposed to represent, that's what it is, it's having guts and not being used, that's what it is; and I wouldn't tolerate it, I can tell you right now. I wouldn't tolerate it, I would have told him. And when you didn't know when they were going to bring the work back from St. John, New Brunswick, you accepted it? Don't tell me the Province doesn't have any role in all this. Doesn't the Province have any role in all of this at all?

Can you imagine the fights that have been in this Province over offshore oil and gas resources and benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and the Premier would like us to believe that - we are not really involved in this. Really? I can't accept that, I say to the Premier of this Province, I can't accept it and I will not. He should have put Ken Hull off the eighth floor, that is what he should have done, and said: That work ain't leaving this Province, Mr. Hull, I am sorry to inform you.' That is what I would have done; I don't know who else would have done it but he wouldn't have bluffed me out of my clothes and left me with only my socks on, I tell you that, for walking down in the middle of a workforce getting concessions, and then still take the work out from under your nose when, all the time now we find out they are up in St. John, New Brunswick negotiating beforehand.

I have been very involved in this from the time the announcement was made. I have tried to understand it. I have tried to be conciliatory. I have tried to think about the future of the shipyard and the workforce and the provincial economy; I have tried to do all of that, but there are too many things in all of this, stemming from our first meeting with the Premier, all the way through the process, that doesn't come together. It just doesn't make logical sense. And the people whom we expect, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect to stand up on their behalf, the government led by the Premier - and they went out. He rolled over from day one. Ken Hull bluffed him and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker. He should have been hard-nosed. He should have stood up for his people, but now the jobs are going to St. John, New Brunswick.

I say it is totally unacceptable. As one member of this House, I find it totally unacceptable. I find it revolting, that I have to watch 350 people go home with their lunch cans and perhaps never be called back to work again, when someone can't give me the answer, someone who has admitted that they have contributed to the problem in Marystown, namely HMDC. We have contributed to the problem, Mr. Premier, and no, we don't know when we are going to get it back from St. John, New Brunswick, because they may have more problems, but still, `You take the work and go to Saint John, New Brunswick.' I can't accept that and I am not going to accept it.

Of course, we won't know until the work comes back from St. John, New Brunswick, will we? And when it comes back, the very same people, I hope, not for the right reason, but I hope most of the same people are up there doing the work on it, because at least they will be employed. The other thing about it is that this work they were gearing up to do now at Marystown is the area of work that the workforce is most proficient in, electrical and instrumentation work. That is the work they do best. Management told them that and they said, we will do it on time, and they would have if they were given the chance. Most of them now will go off to St. John, New Brunswick.

MR. TOBIN: If time is the problem, why not give them half?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is the point, and we have asked that question, too. If you are so concerned about getting the work done on time, why not leave one in Marystown and take the other one to Saint John, New Brunswick, and then you will surely have it done on time, won't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Really? Yes, I believe in Newfoundland and - every time I hear that these days, I could - every time I hear that ad the last month, I'm telling you, I wish I had a big bucket next to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who knows more about disgraces than you do?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind about disgraces, I say to the minister. Yes, we believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe in it enough to believe others from outside, that they know better than we do. We believe in Newfoundland and Labrador that: No, we can't do the work, but someone up there can. That is believing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Oh, it is unbelievable!

I still say to the Premier, that yes, you could have objected at least to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board as an owner of the Marystown Shipyard. Vinland Industries was a contractual partner. You could have objected. You could have at least let them get into it, because all has not been told on this issue. I mean, even the federal Minister of Natural Resources said to us at our meeting - she said it would only be prudent if HMDC would leave things as they are, leave the work in Marystown, until the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has had a look at it. Now, that action and consideration was triggered by MIL Davie in Quebec because the work didn't go there. But she said it would only be prudent. She wasn't behind doors and saying it.

MR. ROBERTS: `Bill'?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do you want to move it?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, with leave. My understanding of the agreement is that instead of rising at 5:00 p.m. and coming back at 7:00 p.m. we will carry through. We will finish my hon. friend's speech and then a speaker from this side, and then the House, presumably, will adjourn. I would just like to place it on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So, you know, that sort of made us feel a little bit good as a committee; as a group, we felt good about that. It was a little bit of hope. But here we are, the government, that is supposed to be looking out for us, didn't even file a formal objection. Really, because - the truth was told. And the Premier can say it is stupid, but I will tell you what is stupid about it, Premier, it is that you agreed for the darn work to go to St. John, New Brunswick! That is the stupid part of all this!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You agreed for the work - you told Ken Hull,: Take it away from me; if it is going to cost me a few million dollars or a hundred thousand dollars, you get it out. You thought that Ken Hull was doing you a favour, that is the problem, and he wasn't. And we will find out. He wasn't doing you any favour. You thought he was. You believed him and you shouldn't have.

That is exactly what happened in this case, and that is the biggest disappointment of it all, knowing that we have a Premier and a Provincial Government that did not stand up for us and did not put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first. That's what is disappointing. And when those 350 people walk home from work - well, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, it is not going to be much consolation to them, as important as the message he gave about the future is, and I agree with all that. A lot of those people are very uncertain about their futures. They thought they had at least a two-year future working. That is very important and we have to take care of that.

But we won't take care of it if the government procrastinates for another eighteen months or twenty-four months before it does what it says it is going to do down there. If they are so convinced that there is so much wrong with the Marystown shipyard and the operation, why did you wait till we had a second tragedy before you attempted to deal with it? You can't explain that Premier, I say to you. It should have been dealt with. Now, whether it is your fault or someone else's, it should have been dealt with, and you know it. Because the last time that was said was when we lost the MOF contract just about a year-and-a-half ago, the same statement almost, only a different date. It should have been dealt with if it was that serious down there, and you are responsible for that. You can't blame the workforce for that, as much as you would like to. You have to take the responsibility for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is an urgent situation. I am glad we had the few minutes we have had to talk about it. There are some things that don't make sense about all this - I think I have explained them - or they do not make sense to me, and they don't make sense to thousands of other people out and about this Province. They just don't make sense. There are too many unanswered questions, and the biggest one for me is, you are taking it away from Marystown. They told you they would have it to you in the Fall of 1995 - Saint John, New Brunswick don't know when they are going to get it, so how can they tell you when they are going to get it back? If somebody could answer that for me, as I said, I would never utter another word about this matter. I would be shut up and finished with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would, but Ken Hull admitted to us in the presence of ten or twelve other people that he was taking a big gamble, that this indeed was a big risk. Those were his exact words, `a big risk, a big gamble' - taking it somewhere where the workforce does not have the expertise. Some of our people will have to go up there and gear it up. They don't know how much work is going to have to be done when they get it there and don't know when he is going to get it. That is the problem that I just can't handle, the problem I can't understand. It is the problems that I would have wanted answered from Ken Hull. I would have wanted the answers from him before I let him leave my office, before I concurred in any way at all, in any way, shape or form with the work going. That is the problem I have with it, that is the problem that the people of the Burin Peninsula have with it. And the other thing that we have heard about is the MOF contract. Marystown bid $104 million, I believe.

MR. TOBIN: $104 million, it went for.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. Oh, it went for $104 million, we bid $114 million. We were chastised - `we' being all of us - for being to greedy, wanting that extra $10 million bucks.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said that about the Norwegians.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, really, and now, from everything we can determine, that contract is now up to around at least $120 million. We got the pants knocked off us because we bid $114 million. And I go back again, that is part of the problem, we underbid the other contractor and the government gave the direction, sharpen your pencils. Having said that, it is a very sad situation and a very sad occurrence when you see this kind of thing happening. It doesn't make any of us feel good. I feel terrible about it. I feel terrible for the people who are being affected in all ways, not only those directly employed at the shipyard in Cow Head, but the indirect jobs as well, and the economy of this Province.

Some other things that we have to do when you talk about infusing money into this operation or that, you have to look at the net economic benefit to the Province. It is fine to spout off big figures of loan guarantees and infusion but look at the net economic benefit, if any, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!


 

November 14, 1994          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLII  No. 60A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to try and correct some of the total misstatements and misrepresentations that have been made concerning this whole matter.

First let me start with the government's objective with respect to Marystown. Rather than see work leave the Province or see jobs lost or save money, this government caused - now I agree that the proposal was already underway when we came into office, we did not originate it, I acknowledge that; but we agreed with the continuation of the expenditure at Marystown that would see the Vinland facilities built at a cost of $40 million, the objective being, to have work done on the Peninsula, to build the Burin Peninsula as an industrial area and we struggled with that to try and promote it.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we tried to promote bringing in international expertise and knowledge and connections through Kvaerner. We entered into an arrangement with Kvaerner, and had the arrangement all but complete for the sale of Marystown when Gulf Oil pulled out of the Hibernia project and scared off Kvaerner and they did not go ahead with the sale. We were within a week of completing it and Kvaerner decided they would not buy.

To achieve that sale, Mr. Speaker, this government wrote off $15 million in loans outstanding by Marystown Shipyard, guaranteed by the government. We paid it off in order to facilitate that, to create this special situation in Marystown. Earlier we had tried to cause a shrimp trawler to be built at Marystown. We were prepared with the federal government to put up $9 million to subsidize the building of that, but the union would not agree to give a duration of work contract. They refused to do it in order to get that work there, but the taxpayers of this Province were prepared to put in another $4.5 million, with $4.5 million that come from the Government of Canada to see that work take place in Marystown. That is the measure of the commitment of this government to Marystown. That is what it has been, and the union at the time refused to agree with the adjustment to the contract that would secure it, and the work was lost, and it went to Norway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It is not true.

PREMIER WELLS: It is true. It is absolute truth, they refused. The record is clear. That is the measure of the commitment, but, Mr. Speaker, under the term of office of the members opposite Marystown Shipyard, the management and the union and everything, got into the habit of leaving everything to the taxpayer, do what we want, protect our jobs, the taxpayers of the Province will pay it. That was the approach that members opposite who have been speaking today followed. That is what happened to Marystown. It got into that habit and was built on that basis because of their interference in the management and because of the approach that they took. That is what happened to Marystown. It is not the union's fault alone, I do not blame the union alone for this, I never have and I've told the union that; but, Mr. Speaker, they've played a major role in it as well.

This government has been committed to the rebuilding of the Marystown shipyard. We tried our best to get the mechanical outfitting contract. We instructed the shipyard not to be looking to make great profits out of it, to get the work for the shipyard, to bid in such a manner as to recover the costs involved, not to be looking for excessive profit or a high level of profit but to make sure that they knew they were competing with private industry and to bid in an effective way that would see that work come to Marystown. We didn't get it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

PREMIER WELLS: It was a big loss. We didn't get it because we bid $10 million more than the next lowest bidder.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is it now?

PREMIER WELLS: Every contract that has been involved has gone up, every one. I mean, additional work gets added to it or the manner of delay or whatever causes an increase. But on the basis of bidding, on the basis of that knowledge at the time, we were, I think, $9 million or $10 million ahead of the next lowest bidder. So we didn't get it.

If we had bid and got it at $114 million, it might have been $130 million. So, I mean, that proves nothing, absolutely nothing, other than that it is the nature of these kinds of contracts that there is probably going to be an increase before the work is complete. So that means absolutely nothing.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the workforce was down to 144 at the time, down to the lowest in a long time, down to 144. We instructed the people of Marystown, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that they bid as tight as was necessary to recover fully the cost of the M-72, M-73, the additional modules, but not to be looking for any profit. To try to get work for Marystown: That was the objective of the government, to try to get work for Marystown; and they got the work, Mr. Speaker.

We provided a guarantee of $68 million in connection with the trawlers in order to get work for Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trawlers?

PREMIER WELLS: The supply boat. In order to get work for Marystown, we asked the taxpayers of this Province to go on the hook for an additional $68 million. That is the measure of our commitment to Marystown. As a result, Mr. Speaker, last week there were 920 people working at Marystown, up from 144. That is what this government has done for Marystown.

I stood in the House today and heard one of the hon. members opposite say: The big mistake was the government forced Kvaerner out. What utter tripe! It is typical of them. They make these outlandish statements hoping they will stick.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that? What member?

PREMIER WELLS: Tripe! It is utterly false.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

PREMIER WELLS: They will just make any outlandish statement without regard to the truth or the validity of it. It doesn't matter, just throw it out. `Say the Premier said this.' It doesn't matter that I never, ever said it, just throw it out and then say it's a lie because I don't follow up on it. It is their statement, not mine. That is largely what they have been doing here this afternoon.

MR. TOBIN: Didn't you read the article in the Telegram (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: The government did not force Kvaerner out. Kvaerner went against the government's wishes. We didn't want them to go. We tried our best to persuade them to stay, were prepared to make concessions to them to stay. They didn't want to stay because they didn't get the mechanical outfitting contract. They didn't get, in their own right, any big work at Bull Arm, and they wanted to leave. We didn't force them out, but the members opposite will say anything so long as it furthers their political objective, and that is the approach they have been taking. They say anything so long as it furthers their political objective. Truth, validity, fairness, nothing matters. Even the long-term interest of the Province is thrown aside and cast aside so long as it furthers their political objective. They will say anything, and that is what they have been saying here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the 29th. of July I met in my office with the executive of the union and pleaded with them to allow Marystown to bring in specialized welders. Marystown would be bringing them in only for eight or ten weeks, pleaded with them to allow them to bring them in and pay those welders their cost of living, their room and board, and pay them their travel, and the Marystown union said: Yes, okay, provided you pay our members exactly the same thing.

Now what kind of selfish, self-centred approach is that, when you bear in mind that the taxpayers of this Province have put $140 million into Marystown to keep it going, to help the people of Marystown, and that is the gratitude that the taxpayers got.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: From the union, that's who.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is the absolute truth.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Memorandum of Agreement reached between the union and the management (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Because the union would not agree. They refused to agree. I sat in my office and pleaded with them. That is all the management could get out of them. They wouldn't agree to bringing them in.

What they said was: You only need twenty, and if you do this we will put eight more in from here, and eight more from there, but they wouldn't agree to their bringing in welders from outside and, Mr. Speaker, that contributed very significantly to the delay on this contract. It is not the whole cause of the problem. Let me emphasize again, it is not the whole cause of the problem, but it contributed very significantly to the delay on this contract.

Mr. Speaker, in September we were advised by the management at Marystown Shipyard, and advised by HMDC, that they had major concerns about the ability of Marystown to complete this project on time, without causing a delay. It was suggested that it would be helpful if I went to Marystown and asked the union to cooperate.

MR. TOBIN: Suggested by who?

PREMIER WELLS: It was suggested by the management of Marystown, and by HMDC apparently, that it would be helpful if I went to Marystown and asked the union -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I think they asked the management. They spoke to the management of it, and the management asked me to do it, and I agreed to do it.

It didn't work when I spoke with the union executive. It didn't work in the case of the shrimp trawlers; it didn't work in the case of the welders, so I went directly to the union members.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it did, and I went directly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well maybe they did set me up, but I acted in good faith, and it may be that they set me up

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) asked you to go down. They set you up but they already had a deal put through in St. John, New Brunswick.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, that is not true as nearly as I know. I have no basis for believing that, that's another of those statements that the Opposition are prepared to make without regard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in St. John, New Brunswick.

PREMIER WELLS: No, they did not have a deal.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) apologize to you.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. So I went to Marystown, Mr. Speaker, and I asked the members of the union to agree and within two or three days - they did not make all the concessions that the company asked for but they made two or three out of four, I have forgotten which. There were two or three concessions that the management of the company asked for that they made and there were one or two that they did not make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can get the detail but, there were a couple of concessions that they did not agree to. Anyway, they entered into an arrangement with the union to provide them. That, Mr. Speaker, was on the 26 of September that I went down to Marystown and by about the 28 or 29, they made an arrangement with the management.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on October 3, HMDC asked me for a meeting; within a week HMDC asked me for a meeting and I met with them and they told me that, notwithstanding this, their best judgement is that Marystown could not meet the time schedule and that they were now considering - and at that time, what they were talking about was, sending one portion of the work to another yard, probably St. John and another portion of it to Bull Arm. That is what they were talking about on October 3, and I said to them: You cannot do that to me. You, asked me to go down to Marystown and speak to the union and I did, in good faith, and I got the concessions and now, having done that, you are going to pull the legs out from under me in this way. That is grossly unfair to be proceeding in this way and grossly unjust; you have to find a solution to cause this work to be completed in Marystown. So they left the meeting and they said: okay, Premier, we will see what we can do, that was October 3.

On October 14, they asked me for another meeting and I met with them and they told me that they could not alter their position, and I told them at the outset of the meeting: I have to tell you that we, the government, takes the position that the integrity of this overall project has to be number one priority, but we disagree with your judgement that it cannot be done at Marystown, and, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table today, a copy of the letter that they gave me on October 14, and it starts out saying this: We cannot afford to let the slow progress of the work at the Cow Head facility jeopardize our overall project schedule, therefore I must respectfully advise you that after careful consideration, Hibernia Management Development Company has decided to remove a portion of the work on the M-71 and M-72 modules under fabrication at Vinland Industries to allow the instrument and electrical portion to be completed elsewhere; and then they went on to explain it. I won't go into the detail but I will table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: What legal cost?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: What penalty clauses?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't allude to any. That is another of the member's statements opposite, and attribute it to me and then call it a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will take responsibility for every word that I utter, but I will not take responsibility for the totally wrong statements that members opposite attribute to me. I will take responsibility for every word that I utter, but not for what the hon. members opposite say.

Mr. Speaker, the government tried all during that weekend - that was on a Friday, October 14 - all during that weekend we tried to get this changed, and tried to find ways that would see this changed and see the work completed in Marystown. By Monday it was clear that there was nothing that we could do that would change their minds, so I wrote them on Monday, October 17. I acknowledged receipt of their letter of October 14. I reaffirmed my advice to you at the beginning of our October 14 meeting, that government considers that maintaining the integrity of the project schedule must be the primary consideration, and I stated that must be the primary consideration. That is the responsibility of HMDC, and government will not do anything or take any position that would in any manner interfere with your ability to discharge that responsibility. There is no question whatsoever about the government's position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to make a statement on the issue. They want answers; I would like to be able to give them.

I also said, and I will table this - the letter goes on to say: While Vinland management and governmental advisors disagree that the completion of the work at Marystown would jeopardize the overall project - we stated clearly our disagreement; we did not disagree with it - at government's insistence, Vinland will not object to HMDC moving the electrical and instrumentation work to another yard at this time because overall priority must be given to the security of the project and the reputation of the Province.

I also told them about the impact on Marystown, and I told them about the extent to which I disagreed that they had used their best efforts, and we intend to hold HMDC responsible for any damage they have caused Marystown by their work. We told them what our view was.

Mr. Speaker, they went ahead. They told us their concern was such that they could not take the risk, and I made the statement at the time that I was not prepared to have the people of this Province responsible for causing a delay that could result in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, listen to what I say. I never at any time said that the people of this Province would be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. What I said was, I was not prepared to have the government of this Province cause delays that might result in that. That is not playing with words, it is honesty. It is the hon. members opposite who are twisting the words, claiming them to be my statements and saying it is a lie. It is clearly their only approach. They don't have the intelligence to deal with it properly. They have to resort to that kind of approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government on the issue is very clear, we give priority to the overall security of the total Hibernia project, not an individual component of it and we give that priority. No, not to heck with the job. It is to protect the jobs in the future that we do it. We can see beyond our nose, which the hon. members opposite can't do. That is their problem, they don't see the greater picture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important that we not do anything or allow to be done anything that would give this Province the reputation for so interfering with the orderly development of the oil fields offshore in this Province, or onshore as they come to be developed, that Terra Nova will withdraw and not proceed; that Whiterose will withdraw and not proceed. Hon. members opposite are prepared to make political hay. They are prepared to make political hay because they have no responsibility but, Mr. Speaker, we have concern for the future of this Province and we put the overall interest of the future of this Province first.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I know it too, I know what - but it wasn't what the management wanted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: That has been made public. It has been made public but let me tell hon. members it wasn't what the management wanted because the union refused to agree to allow to bring them in without - they refused to agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Because that's all they could get out of the union. That's all they could get out of the union. They refused to agree.

MR. SIMMS: Do you understand negotiations?

PREMIER WELLS: I understand negotiations but I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers of this Province cannot continue forever to subsidize those jobs at Marystown at the rate they have been doing it. They can't do it and I won't ask them to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, after those decisions were made this government kept pressing HMDC, we kept pressing HMDC to find a way to leave the maximum amount of work in Marystown. I wrote them again on October 25, Mr. Speaker, to tell them clearly that the people of this Province cannot see the logic in moving the contract to St. John. Let me also tell you what I told him, Mr. Speaker. I cannot explain it to the people of the Province because, as I indicated to you in our last meeting, I do not understand it either. I don't see the logic in it. I couldn't see the logic in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why did you agree. You said you were putting it in writing, didn't you?

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. What I agreed to in writing was that they had the unquestioned right to determine what was necessary to protect the overall integrity of the project, because the government and the people of this Province don't want responsibility for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same old words again.

PREMIER WELLS: They are the real words.

Now, I know hon. members opposite don't like truth. They have a very low level of familiarity with it. I understand that, I understand they don't like it. It doesn't suit their political purpose, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lecture us on truth?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, yes, yes, I'll lecture them on truth because they don't know the difference, Mr. Speaker. They have no respect for it.

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

I don't know if it is proper for members to cast aspersions on each other's honesty. I heard a member on this side say: He is being dishonest. I would ask members to refrain from those sorts of comments. On the same side I heard a comment to the effect that a member didn't have respect for the truth. I don't know if that is quite proper.

I just ask both sides to refrain from that type of comment. Thank you.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I listened in my office while I was preparing some notes and gathering some information and I heard nothing but allegations of lies and untruths and everything coming from the opposite side. Mr. Speaker, I have got to cope with the arguments that I hear. I must do that.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may, my point was that I don't think it is proper for either side to make aspersions about the other side's honesty. I think the rules of debate sort of encourage us to address the issues and not each other's integrity. I would ask both parties on each side of the House to respect that. Thank you.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I share your view, but I stand here and listen to the Member for Burin - Placentia say: That's not the truth. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to cope with what I hear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the letter of October 25 which spelled out clearly the government's effort in trying to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, let me sum up by saying that the government has acknowledged that this problem was not caused by the union position alone. I have said that in a meeting with the union officials and I have said it publicly. We need to revise the board, we need to revise the management that was built up over years, partly due to political interference, I might add, over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite knows what I am talking about. As a matter of fact, he has even boasted about it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that these things need to be corrected. The collective agreement needs to be corrected too, to give Marystown a chance to compete and to be successful. I am confident that given half a chance the workers of Marystown with good leadership, good management and a fair collective agreement to protect their interests, but also to allow the shipyard to work efficiently and cost-effectively -

MR. TOBIN: They have negotiated. They didn't negotiate by themselves.

PREMIER WELLS: Given correction of these inherent problems, Mr. Speaker, Marystown can be an effective, efficient yard that will produce hundreds of jobs for the people of the Burin Peninsula. But let me say that it cannot continue as it continued in the past - that must come to an end, and if they cannot do this we will be coming to this House, advising the House that we will not be looking for money to continue to subsidize the operation at Marystown, that there would be no alternative but to close. There would be no alternative but to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. the Premier, and he has (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The Opposition approach, Mr. Speaker, has been to try to make political hay of a very serious problem that affects the lives of a lot of people, to try their best to make political hay, to make any wild statement, true or false, it didn't matter, make any wild statement so long as it furthered the political objective, with a total disregard for the future of Marystown or, for that matter, for the future of the Province. And to listen to the Member for Grand Bank today say, `I would have thrown Ken Hull out of the Province' - stupid, political bravado - an example of how irresponsible they would be in government. They would wreck the reputation and the future of this Province to further their own political end - stupid, political bravado.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interest, not alone of Marystown and the people of Marystown, it is in the best interest of the people of this Province that instead of trying to make political hay out of this difficult situation, that the union and the management and the people of the Marystown area work with the government to try to improve Marystown and make it the best and most productive yard in Atlantic Canada. Then we will earn those contracts as a matter of right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Then, Mr. Speaker, we will keep those contracts as a matter of right because we are performing. That is the only thing that will make us successful. We have to build an efficient industry at Marystown.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time has elapsed.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sum up by saying that is the sensible approach that puts the interest of the people of Marystown and the interest of the taxpayers of this Province first, and that is the approach that this government will take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn. The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Before you put the motion to adjourn, perhaps I could indicate that tomorrow we shall, perhaps in Standing Order 23, Motions - I should say, successful Standing Order 23, Motions - we shall ask the House to deal with the bill that stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. That is the one to amend the Highway Traffic Act. Then we will go on to the Works, Services and Transportation ones after that.

Mr. Speaker, may I also, in accordance with the usual arrangement with respect to Private Members' Day on Wednesday - Wednesday is the day on which a motion will be called from this side of the House, Sir -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Wednesday is the day on which a motion will be called from those who sit to Your Honour's left. The request will be that the motion, in the name of my friend, the Member for Harbour Main, say that Aquaculture will be called on -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

I am sorry; I understand it is on. If I am not correct then it is the Opposition day but I was told by the table officers it is our day. Is it the Opposition day? Oh well, then they can tell us.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the situation, if my memory serves me correctly, that the last Wednesday before we adjourned for summer, we made an accommodation to allow the government to do government business and as part of that arrangement we allowed the Member for St. John's East to do the Newfoundland Pony resolution where, we had one speaker each?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me solve this by saying that if it is our day, the motion stands in the name of Harbour Main. We will ask the Clerk to check the records.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But there was an arrangement made that day.

MR. ROBERTS: It could be, I mean I am getting old and grey and scarred and weary and all that, but I mean if it is the Opposition day, then they will call the motion (inaudible) -

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

I think it is going to be hard for Hansard to determine who is saying what, so one at a time -

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, have you finished making your point?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No. The deal was, that day, Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate government business, because we were in the closing mode, I guess you would say mood, that we accommodated each other by allowing the Member for St. John's East to do the Newfoundland Pony resolution, as I understand it.

MR. SIMMS: First of all, we accommodated the government to allow them to do government business.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, okay, that was all part of it.

MR. SIMMS: In order for him to agree because (inaudible) -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, that's right. We agreed to government's business in order for the Member for St. John's East to agree, he wanted one speaker from each party on the Newfoundland Pony resolution and that is what we decided to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member for St. John's East has to do what he can to be heard in the House and we have no trouble with that. I will simply suggest, if I may, that we ask the Clerk overnight to check the record. My recollection is different. My recollection may fail me. If we made the resolution, we shall stand by it, in which case on Wednesday we will deal with the motion that stands in the name of my friend from Grand Falls, the Opposition Leader. If it should be a day that it is our turn to call it, we will ask the House to deal with the motion, my friend from Harbour Main, on Aquaculture. Is that agreeable?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's fine, that's fine. The hon. gentleman can get it when he wants it and we get it when we want it when it is our turn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will determine what the record is. I take it that, as the Government House Leader says, the motion will be debated; if it is the Opposition day, it will be the Opposition motion.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.