Legislative Assembly

began to question and they were told what to do in no uncertain terms and on the 20th it was nine. They involved the contract of January 20th, 1966, between the Fisher- men’s Loan Board, Bathurst Marine Limited and Gulf Garden Foods Limited for the construction of nine trawlers at a cost of 7.8 million.

Three constructions were begun by the shipbuilders and monies were advanced to them under a payment schedule most favorable to the shipbuilder. It is now a mat- ter of record via Touche, Ross, Bailey, and Smart, external auditors, that advances to Bathurst Marine Limited for the construction of these trawlers greatly exceeded the cost of construction. When it was possible to obtain some information on the condition of Bathurst Marine Limited, at October 3lst., 1966, the deficit between the amount advanced by the Board on the three hulls and the amounts which could be related to the construction of these hulls or to the inventories provided therefore, has variously been estimated at eight hundred to nine hundred thousand dollars. Therefore they were ahead of the Government by nearly three-quarters of a million dollars. They were six progress payments ahead of them. It is also a matter of record that, due to the insolv- ent position of the company, it became impossible to pass any more money to the ship- builders and the Board was forced to exercise it’s right, under clause No. 9 of the building contract, and go in to complete construction of the hulls. To go on a little further in these examp es of the disastrous consequences of this great omission, we must point to the refusal by Mr. Moe to complete the corporate steps promised in his telegram of December 31st., 1966. Now we have had the terrible fire at the ship y,ard with Mr. Moe intensifyin his obstructive tactics. By now he will be certainly demand- ing, what could be this g aring omission. This was the deletion in the contract of Jan- uary 20th, 1966, for a performance bond Mr. Speaker, so that all these activities would be guaranteed. This common safeguard, I am advised, is characteristic of any sizeable contract involving the expenditure of public monies. Normally it simply states that they will first beg provided the performance bond in an amount equal to the total con- tract price. The cost of this,‘ in the case of the Fishermen’ 5 Board, would be considered an extra to the contract. If this performance bond had been allowed to remain in the contract all the vicissitudes which attended this sorry business would, at least, have had less impact on the public pocketbook whether or not the shipbuilder became in- solvent, whether or not monies advanced for the construction of the vessels were ex- tended instead of to affiliate truckmen, whether or not the shipyard might have been incapacitated or destroyed. No matter which of these things might have hap ned, at least public monies would have been intact, would have been repaid throug the in- surance bond and reorganization would have been so much more simple. The deletion, this deletion of a performance bond on a 7.8 million dollar contract is but one of the examples of the increditable bungling which attended this whole business.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the proper attention had been given to the control and the implementation of that plan which was submitted August 16th, 1968, to the Honourable Premier and Cabinet of that day, the people of Georgetown would not to- day be the victims of frustrated hopes, and a very understandable sense of im in respect to the solution of these problems. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the George- town food processin plant had not become the vehicle for the wild exercise in corpor- ate promotion and inance, if it could have escaped the incredible example of Moe's passion for organizing new empires, if it could have escaped a few of these and other disasters, then honourable members, we might not be here today, expasperated by the very effrantry of those two members of the Opposition, who would spare no effort to confuse the public and the workers concerned, to frustrate efforts of absolution, to ob- struct the transaction of the orderly business of this House with clouds of idle quest- ions. The Opposition are curious to know if the Gulf Garden Food plant might be used as a 1i uor store for Geo to.wn The learned Doctor, the honourable member from Fifth ,demanded to eow the travelling gexpenes of Mr. Baisley, how long he has worked for the government of Prince Edward Island, and as well, for his employ- ment with previous employers. Question No. 22.

Evidences of irresponsible financing are seen in the Maurice Evans rt on Bathurst Marine Limited tabled in this house. He noted a great discrepancy tween the practical building time and the actual time for trawlers in this yard. He describes this in a graph on page nine (a) of his report and goes on to state that the loss in man hours during the short operation of the Georgetown shipyard was the equivalent of one and one-half ships. He reasons, page ten, that the answer lies in the management field. He found no production schedule as such and the ssibility of delive dates running almost a year behind schedule as in the case of hu eighteen. These d' iculties he found all the more puzzling against the background of the schedule of progress

—-864—