March 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 18

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

galleries fifteen students from the Swift Current Integrated School, Bellevue

district, accompanied by their teacher, Cyril Rogers, and Pastor Alvin Peddle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome two

Improving Our Odds classes, one from St. Bride's, eighteen students with

their co-facilitators, David Eddy and Caroline Pike, and the second group from

the districts of Trinity - Bay de Verde and Bellevue, accompanied by their

instructors, John Cumby and George Brown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome Mr. Ewart Hall

from Musgravetown, from the community district.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

for the Premier. While the Premier was away in Toronto on March 15, eight days

ago, I asked in the House of his Minister of Mines and Energy, if the

government, in fact, was planning to ask or give New Hydro the management

responsibility for the operation of CF(

L) Co. The minister said, no, that CF(

L) Co. would continue to be managed by Old Hydro. I guess maybe the minister might

have been following the Premier's instructions, which he admitted last night, to

hide the truth about the deal from the Legislature and from the people.

Yesterday evening, C.B.C.'s Here And Now quoted the Premier as saying

that New Hydro would take over management responsibility for the operation of

CF(

L) Co., the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation. So, if that is true and the

Premier was correctly quoted, can I ask him how much New Hydro will be paid to

manage CF(

L) Co. and where will that money come from? Will it come from the

profits of CF(

L) Co., which are quickly and rapidly going broke or will it be

charged out to the electrical ratepayers of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, from what I heard of the

comments of the hon. member, there are a great deal of inaccuracies in it. What

I did say to the media in a scrum yesterday is that to the best of my knowledge

- I don't know the detail of it at the moment, but to the best of my knowledge,

what is being looked at by the people concerned is the best and most efficient

way to manage CF(

L) Co. after privatization of Hydro. It will remain a Crown

corporation, 65 per cent-owned by this Province, 35 per cent-owned by Quebec, so

in total it is only owned by the two governments, in effect, of the two

provinces, and the question is, which is the best way to manage it?

Now, essentially, the Board of Directors of CF(L)Co have to

make that decision - the Board of Directors of CF(L)Co will make that decision.

One possibility is to enter into a contract with Hydro to continue to provide

some or all of the services they provided in the past; that may or may not be

the case, those things are not yet finalized, to the best of my knowledge; I was

simply being frank with the reporters who asked me questions. As far as I know,

that's under consideration. I don't know what the final outcome will be. It will

be subject to the decision of the Board of Directors, but don't forget, it is

not just nominees of the Government of Newfoundland on that board, there are

also nominees of Hydro Quebec on the board, so the decision can only be made by

the Board of Directors in the end. But what they will be looking at is putting

forward the proposal that would be most cost-effective and most efficient in

terms of managing CF(L)Co.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to get this clear now. The

Premier did not say last night or did not suggest last night that New Hydro

would take over management responsibility for the operation of CF(L)Co, is that

correct?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That's correct. What I did say is one

possibility that they are looking at is asking New Hydro to contract some of the

services, that's only one possibility; I don't know what they will decide. They

are looking at that as a possibility that they would contract with New Hydro to

continue to provide certain services, certain management services.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There certainly seems to be some confusion between what the

minister had said in the House back on the 15th, as I said, at least from my

understanding of it, and what was reported last night; but let me move on.

In that Here And Now story last night, the report also

said that: Hydro Quebec expected the private owners of New Hydro would play a

major role in future negotiations for development of the Lower Churchill. The

Premier, I believe, came on and said they were barking up the wrong tree or

something along those lines, I am not quite sure what his quote was. But in this

new atmosphere of truth and honesty, since there is no New Hydro yet, and since

Hydro Quebec obviously didn't dream this up, isn't it true, they must have

gotten that expectation from you or your government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely not. I don't know why Hydro

Quebec would say that. All I can suggest is that you speak with them. Maybe they

are thinking in terms possibly of New Hydro having some contract in terms of

providing management services. I don't know on what basis Hydro Quebec would

make that statement, you would have to ask them, but I say to the House, at

whatever time in the future, negotiations with Hydro Quebec or the Province of

Quebec are restarted, the government will, at that time, make the decision as to

how and by whom those negotiations will be carried on.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will

take the Premier's advice and we will call Hydro Quebec, or maybe some

enterprising young journalist or reporter will ask. I would like to know where

they got that impression. In any event, let me ask him another question on a

related issue, I guess.

It now seems, from everything we have heard, that new Hydro

will have - well, if what the report is, that new Hydro may very well - may very

well - as he said himself, it's a possibility, management control of CF(L)Co and

maybe some other Labrador properties. He just admitted that was a possibility.

He is shaking his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an option.

MR. SIMMS: An option. He said it was an option, so if

that is the case, then that new company would have all the technical expertise

that the government would need to rely on for future development, so wouldn't

New Hydro, in fact, be the new BRINCO, calling the shots on both the Lower

Churchill and the Upper Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It's hard to believe that they could so

convolute things to come to those - it's hard to imagine.

I didn't say New Hydro would have management control, or

could have management control. What I said was one possibility. The Board of

Directors are going to be in control of CF(L)Co. The Government of this Province

nominates the Board of Directors, and one would hope that if we nominate the

Board of Directors, they would follow the basic policy guidelines in terms of

managing the company, subject to their obligation always to protect the basic

interest of the company, that they would follow the basic policy guidelines that

are acceptable to this government, otherwise, we can remove and replace any

director at any time. So I don't have any quarrel with that proposition.

I think 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the board are nominees

of this government, and the Quebec nominees have been working diligently and

faithfully with the Board of Directors to work well to make the company work

well, so I have no problem with that. It is the Board of Directors that will

manage CF(L)Co in the future.

I didn't suggest for a moment that New Hydro would have

management control. That's the hon. member's

interpretation of it. What I said

was one possibility is that they would enter into a contract with New Hydro to

provide certain of the services that they are providing now. That is a

possibility, but control remains with the Board of Directors, and will continue

to remain with the Board of Directors.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier suggests its

hard to believe us when we say something that is really a mouthful coming from

the Premier after his admission last night on Province-wide television. Let me

test the boundaries of the new honesty approach once again. I would like him to

answer this question directly. I hope he will listen to it because I know how he

loves to play with words, and how good he is with words. I want to ask him a

specific question, and listen to the wording of the question, because I know he

likes to do that. Will new Hydro, or Newfoundland Power, be permitted to buy

shares in any of the existing Labrador power corporations including LCDC or in

any other company that might be set up to develop the Lower Churchill in the

future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We have never given it a moment's thought,

Mr. Speaker. It has never been considered. At the moment the company that set up

to develop Lower Churchill is LCDC, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation,

government of this Province. Now, I can only say to you that the government of

this Province has never considered for a moment selling any portion of its

shares in LCDC to a private development corporation. I cannot say what the

of the agreement are that they could not do it without the consent of the

Government of Newfoundland because I believe the Government of Newfoundland has

the option to purchase those shares in certain circumstances. I would have to go

back and look at it, but I think it is the Government of Newfoundland who has

Government of Newfoundland is concerned I can only say to you that the

government of this Province has never considered it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the government has brought in, we are told by the

Minister of Mines and Energy publicly, the Rothschilds to advise on the Hydro

sale. Now, they were the great benefactors who delivered the Upper Churchill

contract that was accepted by the Smallwood Cabinet, the Cabinet in which the

Premier served, and now we are again dealing with the same people who gave away

the Upper Churchill. Is It any wonder, I say to the Premier, why people want to

know what is going on behind closed doors. Last night he admitted there was

something going on that he would not tell us before, but does he really think

that the people of this Province, hearing those kind of things, can be

manipulated in believing that the Hydro sale is anything more than another

BRINCO, a massive give-away of our natural resources on the Upper Churchill, and

the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the member could apply those kinds of

principles to the laws of physics he could jump to the moon. It is so unrelated

and so totally removed that it is all utter nonsense, and when he speaks of

manipulation what he is clearly doing is manipulating the whole situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, manipulating the whole situation to

try and promote the political interests of the party he represents. He is

putting the interests of the people of this Province so far behind him that they

bear no relationship to them at all.

Mr. Speaker, a number of financial advisors have been

involved in terms of the advising on the privatization process. First we

consulted, and Hydro consulted, the Province's financial agents. The Minister of

Finance can correct me if I'm wrong - RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod.

They are the financial agents of the Province. I don't think that we appointed

them. I believe the former government did. I believe. I'm not really sure of

that, but I believe it was the former government, and I believe we continued

with it. In any event they have for years been the financial advisors of the

Province. They were also the financial advisors of Hydro. Who better to advise

on these matters and the advisability of it than the financial advisors of both

the Province and the Hydro corporation? They provided most of the advice. They

were engaged by Hydro to provide the initial advice to the Hydro corporation and

they did.

You go along a certain way and once you start on the path to

privatization there comes a point in time when the interest of the Hydro

corporation and the interest of the provincial government can be different. So

if you've got advisors advising the Hydro corporation, we want to make sure that

we have independent advice for the government. We looked at what happened in

Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia the power commission in Nova Scotia had engaged RBC

Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod, the same two, to advise the Nova Scotia

Power Commission.

When they got to a certain point they realized that they

needed independent advice for government just to make sure that there would be

no question about it. Who did they look to? They looked to Rothschild Bank of

Canada, or Rothschild Canada. I forget what they are called. That is who they

looked to. They are familiar with providing this kind of advice to government.

They just got through giving it to the Government of Nova Scotia.

When the government of this Province wants somebody, who

would we look for? Rothschilds is an obvious one to choose. It is a very simple

explanation. Besides, Mr. Speaker, they are a highly reputable company and one

very capable of giving this advice. They gave advice I think on PetroCanada to

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier as

well. Last night on the Province-wide address the Premier confessed that he made

a deliberate decision to hide the real reason for the sale of Hydro from the

Legislature and from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, he

even admitted that he had forced his Cabinet and back-benchers to participate in

a deliberate conspiracy to deceive the House and the people.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, are his ministers and his

back-benchers now permitted to tell this House, and their constituents, the

whole truth, nothing but the truth, regarding the Hydro deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, no member of the Cabinet, or

no member of the back bench, deceived anybody in this Province; nobody did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't deceive them either, but I admit

that for what I thought at the time was good reason, my view of it now is that

we ought to have followed a different course, that it was an error on my part,

and I have readily admitted that, but I wanted to avoid some of the kinds of

statements that we have been hearing since about the Upper Churchill and Hydro

Quebec. I wanted to avoid those kinds of passionate, emotionally charged claims

and statements in the House that many of the members opposite made during the

earlier debates when there was an attempt to deal with the problem. I wanted to

avoid that.

Now I have explained to the people of the Province that that

was the sole reason. I don't want that to continue. I want people to realize

that the sole purpose of this legislation is not to set aside the Upper

Churchill contract, or gain recompense because of the terrible Upper Churchill

contract. The purpose of this combined (inaudible) is to enable us to provide

for the proper management of the electrical power resources so as to give us

priority access to what we need. We don't pretend for a moment that by this

contract you are going to get redress, or by this legislation you are going to

get redress of the Upper Churchill problem. It has nothing to do with that. The

Upper Churchill contract will continue on.

What this legislation will do is put in place transparent,

clear, objective, independent, management regime of the hydro power resources of

this Province to enable distribution companies to get access to the power that

we need to meet our own demand.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: It is somewhat of a contradiction, I say to

the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Premier asked the people of the

Province to forgive him for misleading them. Is he now prepared to ask them for

more than forgiveness? Will he ask them directly for their views on the

privatization of Hydro? Will he give them a voice? Will you, Mr. Premier, see

that this legislation is set aside and allow a committee of this Legislature to

hold public hearings throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't ask the people of this Province

to forgive me for misleading them, because I didn't mislead them. I told the

people of the Province exactly what occurred. I didn't mislead them.

MR. SIMMS: You just didn't tell them the truth.

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't explain fully that there was an

additional value to this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That's quite correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I answered it honestly. When the hon.

member raised the question in the Legislature, I said: Yes, it applies to all

power in the Province, no exception. We are not exempting Kruger; we are not

exempting Abitibi; there is no reason to exempt the Upper Churchill.

Those were my words. The member wasn't the only one. There

were one or two other members. I think the Member for Burin - Placentia West was

looking and nodding sagely, and I think he understood. I think he was perhaps

the only one over there who really fully understood the import of the

legislation, or at least observing him in his place that is the conclusion to

which I came, although I suspect the Member for Mount Pearl had a pretty good

understanding of it, too. I think I would have to say that.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask the people of the Province to

forgive me for misleading anybody. I explained the circumstances, and now I am

asking members of the House to put the interest of the people of this Province

first and foremost, and help the government proceed in an orderly way to the

proper passage of this total legislation in order to promote the best interest

of this Province, both from an economic and financial point of view and from a

point of view of managing the long-term hydroelectric interests of the people of

the Province.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I noticed he avoided the answer

regarding public hearings but let me ask him this question -

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Well then, Mr. Speaker, if he's not going to

have -

MR. SIMMS: I hope Hansard recorded the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has now stated

that he will not have public hearings in this Province, let me ask him: since

the member's of his government, Mr. Speaker, and his back-benchers, with the

exception of one, acted on his instructions and misled their constituents and

the people of this Province, will the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Since government members, Mr. Speaker,

particularly the Cabinet members, acted on the Premier's instructions to mislead

their constituents and the people of this Province: will the Premier, as his own

act of penance, now allow them to listen to their constituents and to vote on

the bill the way their constituents want them to vote? Will he, Mr. Speaker,

allow a free vote in the legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the members of this Caucus,

with the exception of the one member who has already expressed his opinion, are

as one on this issue and I can speak for all of them in the House without a

moments hesitation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: So nobody needs to go through this grand

standing that's being done. They are prepared to take this raving and ranting

that you get from the Opposition, this misleading representations that the

Opposition has been making to the people of the Province, the deliberate attempt

to distort the full circumstance to the people of this Province. They are

prepared to recognize that and, Mr. Speaker, they are determined to support this

legislation because they know that it's in the best long-term interest of the

people of this Province and they've expressed that without doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. In a ministerial statement yesterday the minister announced that the

federal government was still interested in the Income Supplementation Program.

The minister went on to say that a team of provincial and federal officials have

been established to look at the concepts developed there. I ask the minister,

can he tell the House when that team of provincial and federal officials was

established? Are they working under any time frames and what is the deadline for

that team to report back to their respective governments?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did feel it was important yesterday to update everybody in

the Province as to what exactly the situation is with the Income Supplementation

Proposal. That was the purpose of the statement, I think well served. These

groups have not started working at this point in terms of actual meetings. They

have agreed that there are twelve different elements - I spelled out in the

statement yesterday - that need further work and discussion in terms of whether

or not the components of the Income Supplementation Proposal, as released

publicly in the Province before Christmas, could be implemented.

The statement yesterday also indicated that there is no

prospect that that can be implemented in this year but that as part of the two

year process, the federal government is asking everybody in the country to

participate in, some work and the notions that were spelled out in the Income

Supplementation Proposal of shifting dramatically from a system whereby people

have clear disincentives - in terms of whether or not they go out and better

themselves because they might lose some current benefit - to a system where

there will be a maintenance of benefits that people need to maintain their

family incomes and therefore be encouraged to get any other money that they can

to a certain point until they can go beyond the point of dependence, that there

are a whole bunch of elements that were in that proposal because it was very

comprehensive, it was a major reform, it was not just a tinkering of the current

system.

The federal government has asked us over the next two years

to look at these components, to look at the details of how they might be

integrated countrywide as part of a national program. That's what was spelled

out in the statement yesterday, that those working groups will work over the

next period of time. Some of them have had a preliminary meeting or two but

they're not down to any specific details at this point in time on any of them,

other than the fact that the issue is still being proceeded with and will be

within the time frame of the two year review.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows

full well, and the Premier knows full well, that the Income Supplementation

Program and the implementation of it in this Province will be socially sensitive

and will radically change the social assistance to people in this Province. Let

me ask the minister this. He indicated yesterday that there were twelve elements

that the federal and provincial officials were looking at. Will the minister

table what those twelve elements are and how much work has been done on them so

that all the people in this Province and all the members in this House can have

an opportunity to look at it and be part of this discussion?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can check and see

actually what it is. I guess the reference to the twelve elements talks about a

work plan and it identifies twelve areas where further work review and study is

necessary and will be done some time in the next year or two to decide whether

or not these kinds of things should form the part of the overall social security

reform for the country, including Newfoundland and Labrador. As soon as I can

get someone in the office to compile that list we have no hesitation in

presenting that publicly to let everybody know exactly what the issues are. Some

of them are legal, some are financial, some are just administrative, but there

is a series of issues that need further work.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, in the minister's statement

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he alluded to the possibility of federal and provincial

- the team, or the federal and provincial governments - would be looking at

sponsoring public hearings in this Province on the implementation of the concept

or concepts contained in an income supplementation program. Can the minister

confirm today that public hearings or public consultation will take place? Can

he confirm when those public consultations will take place with the people of

this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just to point out, one

correction is necessary, I think. There was nothing in the statement about

hearings about implementation. Because as I pointed out we are nowhere close to

implementation. We are a year or more down the road. If I read it again, the

statement talks about the possibility of joint parliamentary hearings as a way

of ensuring effective consultation with the people of the Province on both the

broad social security reform agenda and the ISP proposal. There is no reference

to talking about implementation.

We will be notified as to when the federal parliamentary

group is going to visit this Province to discuss the issues generally of social

security reform in the country. What we've agreed to do provincially is rather

than have a group of provincial parliamentarians, legislators, go around

separately, that we would ask - in all likelihood it would be an all party

committee of the House - that members from both sides of this House would join

the federal parliamentary group, which are from both sides of their House, so

that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: That is the plan that we've agreed to with

the federal government. They will notify us as to when they plan to visit

Newfoundland. We will give notification and decide on which people that the

different parties represented here would like to have join that group. So that

we can engage in the general discussion on social security reform and also

provide an opportunity for anyone who wants to address any particular concerns

about the income supplementation proposal as part of that same process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the

Minister of Fisheries. We understand that the provincial government is involved

with consultations with the federal government with regards to the new fisheries

compensation package due on May 15. I've had several enquiries from my district

over the past week or so concerning an idea that whole communities may be taken

off NCARP for some reason or other. Mr. Minister, is there any reason why people

should have this concern?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of NCARP II is

now a matter of discussion between the federal and provincial governments and

people in the industry and the unions. There has been nothing firmed up yet but

I expect it soon will be firmed up, at which time I'm sure the appropriate

announcements will be made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago there was a

story in The Evening Telegram concerning the classification of bona fide

fishermen. I was wondering if the minister has any idea what the government's

proposal is in this regard.

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

MR. CARTER: I'm not sure I understood the question, Mr.

Speaker. The classification of -

MR. MANNING: Bona fide fishermen.

MR. CARTER: Bona fide fishermen. Again, that is a matter

that is the subject of discussion, Mr. Speaker, and at the appropriate time

there will be announcements made on it.

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

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder

if the minister would be able to tell us if there have been any discussions

concerning people training outside the fishery. If they so desire to train

outside the fishery, will they definitely not be allowed back, either in the

processing or as a licensed fisherperson?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the matter of training too, is a

subject that is now being discussed between both governments and people in the

industry and other stakeholders, and at the appropriate time there will be

announcements made on it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and it concerns the Electrical

Power Control Act. Under that act, despite the Premier's assurances that no one

could own more than 20 per cent of the new Hydro corporation, the Public

Utilities Board is given the power under

section 23 to allow an owner, a single

person or corporation to hold more than 20 per cent of the voting shares of a

corporation without any guidelines being given to the Public Utilities Board as

to how to determine that issue. Would the Premier confirm that, in fact, the

Public Utilities Board will be allowed to let the new Hydro corporation be

controlled by more than 20 per cent of a single shareholder as long as the

Public Utilities Board considers that it is in the public interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is contained in subsection 4 of

the

section to which the hon. member referred, here is what it says: An

application for leave under this

section shall be made to the Public Utilities

Board, which may hold a public hearing to decide the proposed acquisition,

holding or beneficial ownership is not in the public interest and may prescribe

beneficial ownership as it may determine and if the Public Utilities Board

decides that the proposed acquisition, holding or beneficial ownership is not in

the public interest, the Public Utilities Board shall disallow. So there is only

one criteria, is it in the public interest?... and if it's in the public

interest, then why wouldn't the Public Utilities Board, after an open public

hearing, where everybody who has wanted to, has an opportunity to make whatever

representation they want

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) public hearings.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Public Utilities Board holds public

hearings boy.

PREMIER WELLS: - which may hold a public hearing, yes

that's right, so they hold a public hearing and they make a decision. Now in the

end, Mr. Speaker, in the end, there is a safeguard because if they don't hold a

public hearing the government can always disallow it anyway, so there is a

safeguard there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I rise to present a petition from the people of the

district of Placentia, at one particular meeting, on the 13th. The prayer of the

petition, I will condense to: `Wherefore, your petitioners urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their

views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown

corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, after watching the Premier last night - lots of

times, being over here, I try to be as fair as possible and I try to take the

Newfoundland side, one side or the other. Last night, with as little bias as I

could, I watched the half-hour play, and certainly, more so than ever, I think

that people have to be consulted, because the Premier just didn't come across

properly to the people of this Province, last night. The sale of Hydro or any

talk about Hydro should be put to the people of this Province in meetings in

public places throughout this Province. What the Premier was trying to explain

did not come across. People have called me and asked: What he was on for?

Well, we have heard this for weeks and weeks. He was the man

who had the most information at his disposal - we had to dig up our information,

we had to obtain it from various sources. But we are attuned to what the people

of this Province want, and they want public hearings. They want public hearings

on this valuable asset and are not going to stop until they get them. The people

of this Province are not taking no for an answer, nor should they. They are the

people who elect the people of this Legislative body and they are entitled to

public hearings on what affects them.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented by my colleague, the

Member for Placentia, the petition against the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, government has been giving many reasons why it

is in the best interest of this Province to privatize Newfoundland Hydro, and

they attempted to tell the people of the Province when they submitted this

little pamphlet to the people last week. Some of the reasons being given don't

hold any financial argument whatsoever, and even a person who sits on the team

that rates the credit rating of this Province, in an address to On The Go ,

refuted the statement that our debt will be affected. In fact, it is contingent

and it is not on the direct debt of this Province and the credit rating agency

has stated so. The debt is not included in our estimates in total on this

Province. In fact, Stephen Defoe, in his statement, stated that it possibly

could have a marginal increase or actually a negative effect on the credit

rating of this Province. They are not in a position to be able to make those

statements at this point in time. It depends on the concessions and taxes that

are given to those new companies. It could affect it and it could drive down our

credit rating. He made a statement, in another paragraph: It is possible there

could be a marginal positive effect - he stated that. It would be premature and

improper for that person to state, and he has indicated it has never been a

consideration, and I say it has never been a consideration in the past in

setting the credit rating for this Province. And he cannot speculate on the

future any more than you, I, or anybody else can speculate definitively on what

is going to happen in the future.

As it stands now, it is having no effect on the credit rating

and is not an argument in favour of privatizing Newfoundland Hydro. It simply is

not. And if you think it is going to strengthen the economy of this Province by

giving an monopoly with guaranteed rates of return, who do you think you are

kidding? This company is regulated under the Public Utilities Board. In fact, it

will negatively affect the taxpayers and the ratepayers in this Province. I have

addressed many of these points and I will do it again in future debate when

there is more time to address each of these specifically. It will have a direct

negative impact on the taxpayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. SULLIVAN: How? Number one, we are going to take, from

the taxpayer, now, not the ratepayer - and put $15 million into a rate

adjustment fund. We are going to give back to Newfoundland Power the $9 million

to $10 million we have been getting back from the Federal Government in federal

corporate income tax, and the Premier states we are going to get provincial tax

to compensate; but also what we are doing is giving up the 85 per cent of the

corporate income tax of New Hydro.

The Premier admits, in his closed meetings with the media,

that it is $30 million we are giving up in tax concessions on the corporate

federal income tax. He has admitted $30 million.

MR. SIMMS: Those are his numbers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Those are his numbers. That is the minimum

number, when he gives numbers, and by his admission, or by his confession, to

the people of the Province, he declared last night that we was wrong, he misled,

he told his people not to give the real reasons. Why?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Covered up.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. He said he stymied his

Cabinet and back-benchers by not telling the whole story. That is what he

stated.

He said, it will provide cash for this Province. No doubt

about it! When you sell a company for $500 million, or whatever you get, it is

going to reduce your borrowing, and possibly save - his figure is $25 million. I

will accept that fact, but when you put your rate adjustment, your concessions

to the company, when you look at the cost of the unfunded liability that we will

have to face at some point in time, that we have made a decision to charge it

out to the taxpayers right now, and amortize over five years, that is going to

cost about $100 million; when you take, and I will address these, when you take

your fifteen years and amortize the unfunded portion of $25 million to $30

million, you are paying the actuarial rate of return, not the borrowing rate of

return on that, and amortized over fifteen years is going to cost an average of

$7 million per year, and that is out of the taxpayers, if the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation wants to know.

Not only those areas, it is obligatory for the Utilities to

give the investors in New Hydro a reasonable rate of return on their dollars.

That is expected; they deserve it, as investors. It is going to cost the

taxpayers of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition on behalf of fifty-three people of my district, in the community of St.

Mary's. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

Wherefore, your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to

whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation,

as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, I am glad today to have the opportunity to stand

and present this petition on behalf of the people of my district, especially

last night after the Premier addressed the Province. I had several calls from my

district concerning the address, and people asking more questions than ever. One

of my callers said to me that it reminded him of a song that was popular back in

the sixties, Shake, Rattle and Roll . So I guess some people are still as

concerned today, or cannot understand some of this as much as they did

yesterday.

It seems that a major concern of the people that I have been

talking to concerns the water rights, and the possibility that somewhere down

the road the Minister of Finance would have the right to give away any

undeveloped water rights in the Province. This is a major concern because of I

guess what happened with Upper Churchill back in the 1960s. People are concerned

that one person would have this much control. Without coming back to this

Legislature, without coming back to the House of Assembly, without coming back

to the people of this Province, one person can give away the water rights on the

Lower Churchill. This is a big concern.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, I refer back to an Evening Telegram

article on March 10,

where he said, I quote: I want to be part of something positive happening in

this Province. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if

you want to be part of something positive you shouldn't be part of what they are

doing to Hydro.

I'm also concerned - under the act - about the phasing out of

subsidies for rural electricity users by December of 1999. My district is 100

per cent rural. Back when this government decided to phase out the $30 million

power distribution district subsidy electrical rates doubled and tripled in

parts of rural Newfoundland. I believe that under the legislation they are

bringing forward now they will only increase again, and this is a big concern

for people out in my district, and I'm sure all parts of rural Newfoundland,

that are having trouble now to keep ahead of the electricity bills that they are

getting these days. Especially under the hard economic times that most people

are going through.

I also have a concern about exactly who is going to be buying

the shares in the new Hydro. There may be some people able to buy the shares in

the new Hydro, Mr. Speaker, but I guarantee you that the thousands of people who

are receiving fisheries compensation in this Province, and the thousands of

people who are on social assistance, and the thousands of people who are on

fixed incomes and low incomes, won't be buying shares in new Hydro. They are

having a job to keep the food on the table. They are having a job to keep their

children fed and put off to school. I guarantee you they won't be buying shares.

I'm also concerned about the Premier's admission today that

we won't have any public hearings. I mean, the Government House Leader said a

few weeks ago in this House that this was one of the most important pieces of

legislation ever brought forward in this House since Confederation. I believe

that the people should have a voice, as the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia

West put forward today, that they should have a voice on this legislation. That

this government should go out and hold public hearings and hear what the people

have to say. I also believe that many members on the other side of the House are

receiving calls from their districts, are receiving concerns from their

districts, and that they should go out and hold public hearings and let the

people of their districts have a say.

We talked about a free vote in the House as the hon. member

put forward also. People can vote with their conscience. They can vote on the

input that they have received from their districts instead of voting on

government policy. I think that would be at least a step in the right direction

for this government to give the members in the back benches and in the Cabinet a

right to vote with their conscience. I believe if they voted with their

conscience that they would defeat this piece of legislation that is coming

forward in the House to us.

I also want to touch on the fact of - we talked about what

happened over in Nova Scotia. They said that there would be no jobs lost with

the privatization of Nova Scotia power, but there was. There were around 400

jobs lost in Nova Scotia due to the privatization of Nova Scotia power, and

maybe more yet to come. Their credit rating has deteriorated, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

support the petition presented by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Those

petitioners are asking for a referendum on the issue. I guess the reason that

they are calling for a referendum is because they are concerned that the

government is not going to hold public hearings. When I asked my question in the

House today of the Premier about the issue that the Premier has made a big deal

about, that nobody can hold more than 20 per cent of the shares, he said that

the Public Utilities Board would decide whether it was in the public interest or

not, and they would hold hearings. They would hold hearings and hear arguments

back and forth.

If the Premier thinks that public hearings are such a good

idea for the Public Utilities Board to decide on one issue which he has been

bragging about, i.e., that there is going to be only 20 per cent ownership and

that the Public Utilities Board can increase that to 100 per cent if it sees it

in the public interest, why isn't he prepared to hold public hearings about the

very more important issue as to whether or not there should be privatization at

all?

No wonder people are calling for referendums because they

think that the government is about to advocate its own concern for the public

interest by passing it over to private enterprise. By passing it over to a

patronage appointed Public Utilities Board, by passing it away from the people

of this Province through their elected representatives, and giving it to

somebody else. The public interest of this Province should be determined in this

place, in this House of Assembly, by people elected by the electorate of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is where the public interest ought to be governed, Mr.

Speaker, not in a Public Utilities Board that's appointed by a government that

has no responsibility to the people directly. The people who have that

responsibility are the ones who are elected every four years or so and sitting

in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've heard an awful lot about the pros and

cons of the Hydro issue from some of the debates here in the House but the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador to the extent that they've had their say - I

know the members opposite don't get any more then two phone calls each because

they must have a quota on long distance phone calls but for some reason these

same people are able to get through to nineteen members over here in great

numbers, Mr. Speaker, and seventy-five people phoned the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation this morning. I find it hard to believe, Mr.

Speaker, that before nine o'clock this morning you've got seventy-five people

phoning the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If they did they

were probably phoning with howls of derision about the position taken by the

Premier last night, that there's something else on the go and that he couldn't

really tell us all about it.

Mr. Speaker, the public interest in this issue demands that

there be public hearings on the issue, demands that there be, if not public

hearings, the kind of testing of the waters that the petitioners of St. Mary's -

The Capes are asking for because, Mr. Speaker, the government is about to pass

over any decision making about the public interests to the private owners of the

new Hydro Corporation whose only interest is the bottom line on their shares,

the value of their shares and the maximization of profits at our expense and to

the Public Utilities Board which is going to be allowed to determine the public

interest and the public interest should be determined right here. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 130 people from the

District of St. Barbe expressing their opposition to the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this House are not too eager to

look at the real costs to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this Province. You

don't have to be a genius to realize that when you take a company that only has

a 5 to 8 per cent profit and turn it over to a company that's allowed to make

13.74 per cent there is going to be a higher degree of profit - not considering

that you are going to take the costs associated with the sale of shares, $15-$20

million, the costs associated with the transfer of debt, $15-$20 million, all

the costs associated, legal fees and others, with the defeasance over the five

year and the long-term defeasance, the two different defeasance agreements, and

look at who is going to pay.

The Premier sends out to this Province - well Hydro he

indicated - and spending over $100,000 to do a promotion and the people are

getting one flow of communication, from TV and from the mail out, they are not

permitted an opportunity - and he stated last night on TV and he stated to the

media in his closed session - the figures are in his media presentation and I

would like to take them and look at the Premier's own figures he presented and

let you know that on 700 kilowatt hours you are going to increase a dollar

twenty-five a month. Now fifteen dollars a year on a forty-five dollar light

bill is only, I believe, $6.54 per kilowatt hour times 700 kilowatt hours, if

you look at your light bill it's forty-five dollars. How many people really burn

only forty-five dollars worth of electricity in this Province? What about the

people who are going to burn - and I've indicated I have my bill from last month

at home, 5384 kilowatt hours? How about the people who burn forty, thirty and

twenty?

The elderly people cannot afford to supplement it with wood,

they have electric heat. The people don't have these opportunities. Now you will

look back and everybody here will curse this privatization bill in fifteen, five

and maybe two year's time. All the members are hiding behind the skirts of the

Premier, except one, and they are afraid to have the truth go out to the people

in the Province, that's what's happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And I tell the Member for St. John's South,

I've said in this House I'll debate you in public or anybody on that side, on

the costs to the ratepayers and taxpayers in this Province. The facts are there,

you turn it over to a utility and guaranteeing a rate on a company that is

operating now, there is only one way the ratepayer can benefit, and that is if

Newfoundland Hydro is operating now - it's terrible management, a very poorly

managed company - if they were, that's the only possible way we can achieve a

certain savings to the ratepayers and taxpayers of this Province.

On top of that, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, we are giving up our $10 million fee for guaranteeing the debt

on top of the $15 million rate adjustment, on top of the $30 million unfunded

liability we are assuming right now and we are charging it out - as soon as this

agreement goes through, if it ever goes through, it would be charged out

immediately to the taxpayers of this Province - that, I say, is what's

happening. Along with giving back to Newfoundland Power the $9.2 million we got

this year, we are giving it back for every future year and another $25 million

to $30 million to the New Hydro in tax concessions. That's directly to the

taxpayers of this Province, not considering the cost to the ratepayers, and

granted yes, the ratepayers will get a little benefit from the concessions, of

course, because if they don't get a break on the rate, it is going to be charged

out to the ratepayers if they don't get a concession to the taxpayer.

There are so many dollars to go around but, we have incurred

on top of that dozens and dozens of costs. I could list out dozens of cost to

the ratepayers in this Province and if you total them up, you look at the

Premier's admissions and you look at the figures that we are given in this

House, I have compiled them and kept lists, it would add up to 165 by the

government's admission and some say $200 million spread out to the rate payers

of this Province and amortized, just twenty-five years even will cost almost $20

million a year added to the rates of electricity in this Province, not counting

the fact that it is added to the taxpayers in this Province.

If they wanted the public to make an informed decision -they

don't want the public to see these numbers, they don't want the public to know

the real truth, they stymied public hearings, they want a one-line of

communication, the Premier has been able to get his members to carry on with him

except one, and he is still today - and backbenchers applauded and said he

speaks for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I tell you, they don't speak for the

people of this Province. You should open your ears and listen to the people of

the Province, because if not, you will pay a dear price for it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition

presented by my colleague, the Member for Ferryland. Now, the hon. the Member

for St. John's South says Calvert Math, but the figures quoted to the member and

to members opposite are the government's and Premier's own figures. The

government has failed to demonstrate what will be profits or what will be the

benefits of privatizing Hydro. Will there be new investment as a result of this

sale? No, Mr. Speaker, there will be no new investment as a result of this sale;

will there be new technology brought into this Province and to the people as a

result of the privatization of Hydro? No, Mr. Speaker, there will be no new

technology brought into this Province as a result of the sale or privatization

of Hydro. Will there be new jobs, will there be more jobs as a result of the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Again, Mr. Speaker, no, there

will be no new jobs as a result of the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the privatization sale and government's

explanation of the privatization of Hydro do not amount to a sound, financial or

business deal. It is beyond me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It now being 3:00, p.m., I call Private Member's Motion 4.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce and

speak to the motion which is being put forward by my friend and colleague, the

Member for St. George's. I know that he has developed a great interest in all

the issues related to agriculture since he chaired the Provincial Task Force on

Agri-Food, a few years ago, and he is very knowledgeable on all commodities and

all aspects of that particular industry.

Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today and I am going

to fulfil part of his duties to the best of my ability. The motion is as

follows:

WHEREAS the agri-food sector has the potential to play a

greater role in the economic future of the Province; and

WHEREAS all the elements necessary for a much expanded

agri-food industry are present; and

WHEREAS opportunities for the food processing "value added"

sector are largely untapped;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorses the

continuation of efforts of the present administration and the development of the

Agri-Food Public Policy.

My involvement in agriculture began over twenty-five years

ago when I married a farmer and went to live on a farm in Morley's Siding. It

was quite an eye-opener for me because I thought that farm life would probably

be as close to heaven as you can get, but I soon realized that along with all of

the beautiful countryside, and all of those wonderful animals - and I can look

over at my colleague across because he knows exactly what I am talking about -

there comes a lot of hard work and a lot of commitment.

I also have belonged to many farm organizations at the local,

the provincial, and the national level, and because of my involvement, I have

often attended meetings in all parts of Canada and have found them to be very

enlightening, especially as to my day-to-day life on a farm.

One particular thing that stands out in my mind is being

summoned to Ottawa for a meeting with the hon. Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime

Minister at that time. He spoke to all of the farmers there and we listened very

intently to everything he had to say, and then when it came time for the farmers

to speak, he sat back and cupped his hand in his chin, as best he could with

that chin, and he sort of dozed off. That said something to me as to how he felt

about agriculture. It was a very great disappointment to me because I really

thought that this man might have the best interest of the industry that I was

committed to - that he had that at heart, but obviously, he didn't.

Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister, who happened to be the

Minister of Agriculture, was talking about a level playing field. Now, that

wasn't very level to me. But I continued on, and I have great belief that there

is a future for the agricultural industry in Newfoundland and, indeed, in

Canada.

Some of the issues that we faced are not just local issues,

they are not just provincial issues, they are not just national issues, we are

into the global marketplace. We are part of that, and it is a very competitive

world there when we look at GATT, NAFTA, the intra-provincial trade and, of

course, supply and management is very much part of our way of life.

Newfoundland has a great attachment to the land and the sea.

People who came to Newfoundland, fished the oceans, but in order to survive here

they planted their little vegetable gardens, and that helped them get through

the winter. Gradually, this sort of, I guess, back garden farming, developed

into some what we would consider professional farming. Lands were cleared;

buildings were erected for storage facilities. Much mixed farming was carried

on. Then, of course, government suggested that we all specialize, so specialize

we did, and got ourselves into quite a heavy debt load.

After everybody had specialized according to what the Federal

Government had dictated, then we were told that diversification was the way to

go, so here everybody was trying to look at ways to diversify and supplement

whatever commodity they were involved in.

Family farming has become a part of Canadian life. Especially

on the Prairies, there was a rapid growth of family farming operations that were

passed down from generation to generation. We, in Newfoundland, are probably

almost to the homesteading stage as compared with our Western counterparts. When

people tried to farm here in Newfoundland they had to clear out the forests and

were blessed with a lot of rocks, and I am sure some of our friends would love

to have some of these for purposes on the mainland but they are very hard to

ship out. If we could get the bucks for them we would be well off down here.

Family farming has offered quite a bit to community life.

Farmers have been the backbone of many Canadian farming communities. They are

the people who go to the churches, their children attend the schools, they hire

the local people from the communities, and, I guess they are the volunteers, the

backbone of any small community. There is some fear across Canada that some of

the multi-nationals may get hold of it and certainly may take away that

particular aspect of rural life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: I think I can manage to take care of that

myself, Sir. We don't need any input from your side.

Then, we look at the cheap food policy we have in Canada. The

food that we enjoy here in Canada is the second cheapest in the world, and when

you consider that, there is a reason for it. A lot of it has to do with the

unpaid labour on many farms. It has to do with it being a family operation. Both

partners, if they work the farm, do not take wages in many cases, and many of

the children work there and they don't take a wage, simply because the wage

isn't there.

There is also something else that we have had to contend with

in this Province and that is marketing boards. Marketing boards are essential

and I have no problem with it, but they have a very, very important role and it

should be a role that they would take seriously. Unfortunately, that was not the

case with one of our boards that I am quite familiar with. They were more

interested in protecting the interests of a few, and the few they did protect, I

am sure, were for reasons that we can best speculate upon. One thing that seems

clear to me, they were intent upon keeping the smaller farms suppressed so that

these smaller farms couldn't obtain enough quota to make them viable, and then,

of course, they drove up the cost of production, and that was just great for the

people who owned the larger quotas.

It seems as though our current Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture is very much aware of what has gone on in the past and he has sort

of reined things in in that area, and for that I am very grateful. It is

probably too last for some of the farms who had to sell their quotas because

they couldn't make any plans and they never knew what their quota was going to

be. New entrants were told that their quotas could go up but as an old entrant,

our farm was told, `You put your request in and we will see what happens to

you,' which is certainly not the way a marketing board should operate.

Now, less that 1 per cent of our land is suitable for

commercial crops but we haven't reached our full potential. We can grow more

crops, especially vegetables and forage. We need storage facilities and I am

pleased to see that just recently some funding was made available in this

Province for storage facilities for the vegetable farmers. More and more farmers

are requesting grants for land clearing so that they can become self-sufficient

in forage, recognizing the fact that our growing season is shorter and it is

very difficult to get two crops, let alone three, as our Maritime counterparts

can get; thus it drives up the cost of production when you have to import hay. I

remember that about $3,600 covered a tractor trailer load of hay about four or

five years ago and $2,400 of that was for freight. Only $1,200 went for the

actual hay.

I'm pleased to say that there are many people along with me

who have the interest of agriculture at heart. We saw that in 1993 farm gate

sales of agricultural produce amounted to $63 million. That is a nice bit of

money when we look at the whole state of the economy in this Province. Also it

created 4,000 jobs that were directly or indirectly related to the industry.

We can grow things like cucumbers here. Yes, cucumbers. We

don't have to grow the big Sprung cucumbers, we don't have to get those big

greenhouses, but there were quite a number of small greenhouse operators in this

Province. They can grow some of the best cherry tomatoes and some of the best

cucumbers that I have ever eaten, along with green peppers, red peppers,

whatever. We are capable of growing all these things, although our growing

season is much shorter.

It is interesting how we look at our own produce here in this

Province. One of my neighbours decided that he would grow some cherry tomatoes.

He brought them to the supermarket and he offered them to the supermarket at a

price that was competitive with the imported tomatoes. When he went back a few

days later the price for his cherry tomatoes had actually been jacked up over a

dollar more than the imported tomatoes. They had a sign up saying: Newfoundland

grown. The store made the profit. The farmer didn't make the profit.

Even though our growing season is shorter and our climate is

cooler I have heard that people prefer our turnip, and it is because the flavour

is enhanced by the colder climate. If anybody has compared the taste of our

carrots and our turnips with mainland produce there is certainly a great

improvement in ours. Also, our cooler climates ensure that our sheep grow a

heavier coat of wool and it is a superior wool. As well, the pelts on our foxes

and other fur-bearing animals that are raised on our farms for commercial

purposes are also much more enhanced by the cooler climate.

One thing that I'm pleased about too is the greater awareness

of agriculture and its potential in this Province. It seems as though the

Department of Education is taking a role. They have developed a

chapter in the

Grade III social studies program which deals specifically with agriculture. I'm

really pleased that they feature Lethbridge, my home community, as an

agriculture community. It is very pleasant to see some people whom I know from

my community have their pictures there, and stories about them. It is presented

in such a way that the kids are very much taken up with how the social studies

book shows agriculture in this Province. We also have a

section in the Grade V

social studies program which deals with Newfoundland agriculture.

The Food and Livestock Show has been a great venue too to

promote our Newfoundland produce. I'm sure almost everybody here has had the

opportunity to go down to Memorial Stadium and spend a few hours browsing around

and checking out all of the wonderful things that we have in agriculture. I'm

pleased to say that our government has been very supportive of the Food and

Livestock Show. A lot of the urban children go there from their schools.

Children are bused in for the day from rural communities because even though you

may think that rural children know a lot more about farming then urban children

that's really not so because we do not have farms in every community in

Newfoundland.

That's too bad because I think that children could learn so

much by going out to a farm visiting, taking

part in the day and the life of a

farmer and a farm family. There are many farms in this Province who do encourage

farm tours. I know that when we were into dairy every year we had bus loads of

kids come through our farm and it was always a pleasure to be able to tell them

all about how the cows were milked and they were really excited about it because

most kids just think of milk as being in a container and that's it.

Our roadside markets too are certainly an enhancement for the

industry. More people are developing the roadside market so that they can go out

there and show their product. We've got a lot of people coming in from other

parts of Canada and from the United States and they stop and are very surprised

at what we grow way out here in the Atlantic especially some of the bedding

plants that we have.

Farming is a business today. One time I think people just

looked at it as just farming but I look at it as entrepreneurship. It's a good

example of privatization. People talk about Hydro - it's out birthright. Well

the land is our birthright if you want to take it that far. Why doesn't the

government take back all of the farmlands? Is that how we would like to have

this run? If we don't believe in privatization we would have to take back all of

the farmlands because that is an example of entrepreneurship and the private

sector is doing a good job with it.

There's also the environmental aspect on our farms. Most

farmers are good stewards of the land. They make sure that they have their

manure lagoons set up properly if they are into livestock. It's interesting

enough that if you have a combination, I guess, of forage and any kind of

livestock most of that manure can go back into the land. That's probably very

good because we're putting back what we're taking out to a certain extent.

I think too, that the organizations that have developed in

this Province to deal with agriculture have done a great deal in moving us

forward. The Newfoundland Federation of Agriculture, the commodity boards, the

associations and the farm women's movement of which I was part of for years,

these have all been very, very beneficial to the industry. Without them and

without the support of the government - both at the provincial and federal

levels - we could not have come as far as we have.

It would also be worthwhile if our farmers could support our

local feed mills because we expect our local people to buy the produce that we

produce on our farms. I think it would be very, very beneficial if we could

support our local feed mills. This is not a paid political advertisement but if

we're looking at trying to keep some dollars in our Province, I think that's one

way to go.

I think my time is just about running out and there is so

much more that I can say later on. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to have a few words on this

resolution put forward by the Member for St. George's and in his absence today,

the Member for Terra Nova.

As I look through the whereases in this particular

resolution, Mr. Speaker, it begs many questions. One of the questions that I

would have to ask, going back over the years involved in agriculture - I started

in 1970 myself back in Humber Valley. When I look at the report by the Member

for St. George's - at that time he was chairman of the inquiry or the hearings

and the commission as it pertains to agrifoods in the Province. That report was

submitted in February 1991, some three years ago. As I look down through the

recommendations in that report I see very little. In fact, I wish the member was

here today so I could tell him face to face what I thought, and what I think

today, of some of the moves by his Administration as it pertains to agriculture

here in the Province.

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that the "... elements

necessary for a much expanded agrifood industry are present...." The elements

are there, but farmers and potential farmers in this Province, the element that

they have to fight is nature itself. That is bad enough. When you have an

administration which is not putting forward the recommendations that we spent so

much money on and trying to enhance and stimulate an industry that has great

potential, excellent potential for jobs and excellent potential for spin-offs in

other areas in the Province, then that begs another question.

One of the whereases talks about: "...opportunities for the

food processing `value added' sector are largely untapped...." Yes they are

untapped. They are untapped and the opportunities are there. They've been there

for some time. Until we do something and try to - when I look at the money spent

by the Economic Recovery Commission going around this Province, and to have

meetings here and meetings there, and when I see the opportunities that could be

pursued in the agricultural industry in this Province, I ask why. Because all it

needs, really, is land and manpower. God knows we have lots of that.

The Member for Terra Nova mentioned the fact that only 1 per

cent of our land is suitable for agriculture. She is right. We've got a big land

area, a big land base, but only a small portion of it is suitable for

agricultural production. There is a lot more that could be suitable for

agricultural production if it was drained properly and so on. A lot more. In

fact, thousands of acres of land in this Province could be readied for

agriculture production with very little expense.

The member in putting forward the resolution mentioned - I

think the only drawback and the only pet peeve of hers is she doesn't like

marketing boards, and especially the Milk Marketing Board. I suppose she has

some reason for that (inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible) administration.

MR. WOODFORD: The administration of the Milk Marketing

Board. All I say to the member is this. In talking about the Milk Marketing

Board you are talking about quotas, and the persecution of the past or whatever,

all I say is that going back when I started in dairy I started without a

marketing board. I can give all the reasons why some people who went into that

industry when I went into it are not around today. One of the big reasons, Mr.

Speaker, is management. They got in, they figured they could take everything

out, put nothing back, including the monies that were taken from it, let alone

the work and the work habits that go with starting any industry, regardless of

what it is, in this Province today.

Anybody in business in this Province today knows full well

that you have to put in before you start taking out. I punched seven days a week

every day of the year, including Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Easter Sunday,

regardless of what it was. Four o'clock or four-thirty in the morning came -

that is one thing about a dairy cow, they couldn't put anything on hold. Twice a

day they had to be milked and when you are in business, like every other

businessman or businessperson around this Province, you milk whatever you are

into to the fullest, and in this case I could literally do it. You couldn't get

many people to get up in the mornings at four or four-thirty in those days and

you can't get them today - but you had to put it back in. You couldn't just take

out, as I saw many of my colleagues do, and go down and buy a Lincoln or go down

and buy a new pick-up every two years or buy a new tractor every three or four

years, you couldn't do it. You had to put it back in and then after so many

years, you could start taking out, and more so as it pertains to the dairy

industry.

The dairy industry in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, FCC

puts a value of somewhere between six to $8,700 on a per animal unit. Now the

dairy industry or dairy farmer around this Province today, usually carries

somewhere between seventy and 130 head of cattle and I don't have to tell

members opposite what that's worth, over a million dollars today, to set up and

run a profitable and efficient and viable dairy industry and that's big

business, Mr. Speaker, you are not talking about a small corner store, you are

not talking about getting into something whereby you have something else to fall

back on, it is big, big business and you have to be efficient, you have to be

viable and I say to the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for St. George's,

they should search their souls and go back a few years and look at what happened

to the industry some seven or eight years ago when there was absolutely nothing,

before the marketing board system came on the scene, in this Province.

I am rather fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that I

represent a district in this Province that has a very high agricultural

production and a very, very, very high agricultural presence. We have a

diversified district in the sense that we have forestry, agriculture, tourism,

mining, transportation and so on, but one of the biggest industries that we

have, is in agriculture. We have dairy, we have root crop farming, we have

people in the broiler business, we have layers and it goes on down the line, we

have small greenhouse operators in that particular area and the potential, Mr.

Speaker, is unlimited especially in the root crop sector and we are not taking

advantage of it.

The sheep business, as well, is on a smaller level. There is

a story on sheep that I can relate to members, that back in 1971, when I was in

the root crop production at that time, you would bring down a load of vegetables

to the Northern Peninsula and on the way back you would pick up thirty-five or

forty lambs, at seven or eight dollars a lamb, you would bring them back and put

them in the field for a couple of weeks and you got top notch dollar after a

couple of weeks when you sold to one operation. It was coming in from New

Zealand, Australia and all those places and today, when you go down here, what

do you pay? I don't have to tell members what they pay for lamb around this city

today, it's a fortune. You pay a fortune and it is all imported except for a few

pounds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it imported because of quality or

price?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, it's a combination, but the only

thing about it, what I found and talking to farmers around the Province is that,

anything produced here, and the member just alluded to it, is that there is an

excellent, excellent source and its an excellent, excellent product of whatever

is produced but it is just not available.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Speaker, in every other industry, in root crops we have

the best product because of our northern climate; we have the best root crop,

bar none, today, in this country. It is the best tasting product because we have

a late spring which results in root crops being put in around the month of June

or so and we can take them out starting in September, October and the later it

is for turnips and cabbage, the better tasting product you have, and I don't

have to tell any member in the House, if you buy a head of local cabbage or

turnip or something like that in the fall of the year, carrots, beets and so on,

you have one of the best products on the market today and there is nothing to

compare with it.

Just about every industry - in the beef industry, I was told

at one time, I was told in 1969, that there is no way you could make a living at

dairy farming in this Province. I was told in 1971 that it wasn't viable to

produce beef east of Belleville, Ontario. I told them at that time, and I tell

them today, that is utter rubbish. You can do it. There is no problem doing it,

provided you have the land base to produce the feed, and that is something that,

especially in the last number of years, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have

taken advantage of. We are at a disadvantage in the Province in the sense that

we are mostly first, second and third generation farmers. We are not like our

colleagues in P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where they have been

farming for hundreds of years and they have, as the member alluded to, their

land cleared, and their fields all sowed down and it is not costing anything,

only for regeneration and recultivation.

The government here in this Province will give you what you

call 100 acres of land, out of which you have to cut a farm. They don't give you

a farm; they give you 100 acres of Crown land. You have to cut the wood, you

have to get a tractor in and bull off the land, and then you have to start

picking rocks, and then you have to start levelling it, and then you have to put

in lime, put in fertilizer, manure it, put it down and wait for the first crop.

Now whether it is in hay or whether it is in vegetables, you still have to wait

at least five or six months for that first crop. Then, especially in the

vegetable sector, you have to keep rotating because of the problems you have

with the disease that we carry in our soil today.

Mr. Speaker, in my area especially I would be remiss if I

didn't mention the strawberry festival that we hold in the Humber Valley area.

It is one of the best festivals, comparing it to pretty well anything else,

especially in the Province today, and I would say probably one of the best

festivals in eastern Canada. It is well looked after, well thought out. The

production is excellent. I think this year, for the first year in a long time,

the strawberry production is down because of the snowfall last spring. I think

it is the first year, if I am not mistaken, if you look at the stats in the

government's response on the economy, it looks like this is the first year it

was down in strawberry production, I think, for a number of years.

One of the things interesting to look at is partridgeberry

production. I often said that we have millions and millions and millions of

pounds of partridgeberry just left on the land, left in the woods, and it is a

shame, and we are talking about people on unemployment, people not working and

so on. Last year they got the best prices ever they got for that particular

product, and I would say one of the best years for demand ever we had, and

pollination was good and so on, for all the fruit groups and the berry groups,

and they were just left there to rot.

As it happened, I think we sold something like 333,000

pounds, an increase of 59 per cent in something that is just left to rot, so you

talk about potential in this Province, and we talk about the unemployment rate

and so on, we haven't got to look very far to look and see what we can do; but

if the will is not there, and the attitude is not changed, then we are not going

to do it. We've got to try to identify, and we've got to try to - some people

need to be led. Some people have good ideas and can't carry them out, can't put

them on paper. A lot of people have it in their heads, and have good ideas in

their heads and so on, but they just can't get it down on paper, and when they

do, and the attitude is still there today in government departments, it was

there when I was there and it is still there today, when they see an application

come in from someone to do something, the first thing a bureaucrat is going to

say is that he or she can't do it, and that is what stops them.

They have the idea, like I said, but unless you get someone

who is sympathetic, with a sympathetic ear, whether it's an agriculture rep on

the local scene, whether it's someone in the provincial department in here when

the applications come in, then they won't proceed. They are usually cut down

fairly fast before they get a chance to say anything, and before they get a

chance to do anything.

Mr. Speaker, another interesting thing as it pertains to the

dairy industry, is the School Milk Program. The School Milk Program is an

example of what can be done when government, industry and the processors

especially, put their heads together and try to do something for the children in

this Province. Thirty per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the children going to schools in

this Province today, go to school hungry. When you look at the Canada Food Guide

and when you look at the Department of Health regulations and so on, 30 per cent

of our children go to school hungry. I think my colleague, the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount, mentioned that this morning in some of the conversations

that we had.

MR. HODDER: In the Royal Commission on Education.

MR. WOODFORD: In the Royal Commission on Education,

that's right. That's exactly where it came from.

So this is an example of what they can do. Last year - when

it started, Mr. Speaker, prior to the program, to give you an example, there

were only 90,000 litres of milk sold in schools in the Province - currently

there are 404 schools representing 88 per cent of all students in the Province

involved in the School Milk Program - and today, Mr. Speaker, there's something

like one million litres of milk in the School Milk Program in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the farmers, the industry itself last year contributed a total

of $458,000 to that particular program. It came out of the pockets of the

producers in the Province.

That to me, Mr. Speaker, is money well spent because it does

two things; to buy that kind of advertising to try to convince children to drink

milk is one thing but when you have it in the schools and you get children

drinking milk at an early age then as they grow and as they progress in years,

they have a tendency to keep drinking milk. So it helps the child in the sense

that they are getting a nutritious and proper product to try to keep them going

through a school day that they wouldn't normally get at home and secondly it

enhances the sales of the milk product forever and a day, thereby sustaining an

industry that has an excellent return to the producer.

So, Mr. Speaker, my time is up I know but just a few short

comments, you can't say much in twenty minutes especially as it pertains to the

agricultural industry because you got so many commodity groups, you got so much

- the spin-off from that you can deal with - there's not much you can say in

twenty minutes except I would like to say that more so then ever, Mr. Speaker,

that a government - regardless of what government it is - and today the

administration opposite are going to have to be more cognizant then ever before

in looking after the agricultural industry in the Province especially as it

pertains to GATT - the Member for Port au Port is laughing and I can see why,

because I mentioned the dairy industry. I get a tendency sometimes to get caught

up in that although, like I said, I got all kinds of it in the district.

But the GATT agreement is one that in five or six years time,

Mr. Speaker, there will be no trouble to tell who are the most efficient and who

are the most viable - and what's the most viable industries in the Province as

it pertains to agriculture because GATT will weed out the inefficient operators

in the Province and unless and until they get their act together then a lot of

them will be history. A lot of them will be history - but with the tariffs in

place for the next five or six years and the maximum reduction in the prices at

the end of six years which will be approximately 15 per cent, then there is a

chance for the whole agricultural industry to get their act together and be

viable and be an efficient operation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to be able

to speak on this motion in the House today. For many years I've had an interest

in the agricultural industry. Certainly growing up in Newfoundland, especially

in our area of the Province, back in the 1950s where we grew and raised

practically 100 per cent of everything that we ate, including vegetables,

animals, chicken and everything else, you couldn't help but have an interest in

agriculture. At certain times of the year you would go into an individual's

house and there may be a few chickens in a box behind the stove that they were

trying to save. If there weren't a few chickens there would be certainly a pet

lamb there in the spring of the year. As kids certainly we were all enthralled

by that type of thing and we developed an interest in agriculture at certainly

an early age.

With regard to root crops, everybody grew their own. If you

didn't have any of your own grown certainly you had to help your uncle or your

aunt or your cousin or somebody with their potatoes. Whether it be setting the

potatoes or harvesting the vegetables or whatever. I suppose it is almost a

birthright that we in this Province have a certain amount of knowledge about

agriculture, and certainly a great deal of interest in it.

I must say that I'm pleased with many of the things that have

been happening in the industry over the past several years. The industry has

prospered in leaps and bounds and it seems to be a trend that is continuing.

There doesn't seem to be any slackening off. Indeed, the agricultural industry

has led practically every other industry in its rate of growth. There is every

reason to be optimistic that the agricultural industry is going to do well and

prosper and grow in years to come and certainly reason to be optimistic indeed.

However, I feel that we've only begun to scratch the surface

with the agricultural development in this Province. The dairy industry, for

example. We have made great strides in this area to the point where we are

practically self-sufficient. As other members who spoke already mentioned, the

potential for growth in that area - there is still reason to be optimistic about

this as well. One of the reasons, I suppose, is because we've developed or we've

provided the subsidization of milk products to schools in the Province, which in

itself opens up greater markets for the sale of milk. The promotion of milk

consumption in this Province certainly is a very positive step. Much has been

done, more must be done, and certainly more will be done.

One thing I feel should be addressed is the idea of

facilitating new entrants into the dairy industry. There I would have to agree

with my colleague and friend for Terra Nova in saying that there should be, I

suppose, certain considerations given for anybody who is trying to get into the

industry as a new entrant. I think one of the biggest impediments to new

entrants is probably the fact that the milk marketing boards have not been, in

the past, overly cooperative with new entrants into the industry. To me it seems

that they are protecting the larger, more developed and more established

farmers. Which I suppose would have the eventual effect of creating a handful of

large dairy farmers in the Province as opposed to numbers of smaller farmers who

may very well be able to carry on viable industries. As far as I'm concerned I

believe that they could survive. I think that the smaller industry is probably

less apt to the expenses that the larger industry has.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the possibility of a handful of

relatively large dairy producers in this Province is probably detrimental to the

Province as a whole. I believe it is a concern and one which should be addressed

with a view to seeing that the opportunity for other people to develop in the

dairy industry is addressed. All I'm suggesting is that they have a level

playing field. I think that they should at least be able to try to get in there.

I know they can certainly try to get in but they don't have much success. It is

all controlled by a relatively small number of people.

It is my view that a larger number of small viable farms

would serve the Province better than a handful of larger operations. This

applies not only to the dairy operation but to the broiler and egg industry as

well.

Another matter of concern that I would like to express is the

idea or concept of land ownership. Back in the 1970s the government of the day

saw fit to introduce legislation which would eliminate the possibility of

anybody actually owning their land. They introduced the concept of leasing, as

opposed to the grant system. This I believe could only have a negative impact on

the way the farmers in this Province view their position with respect to their

property. There seems to be an overall impression that they never really will

own the property that they have. That, I feel, sort of negates any initiative

they may have to develop to the full potential the property they are leasing.

We have just witnessed the collapse of some very large and

potentially great countries. I speak of members of the Eastern Bloc nations and

certainly in particular I speak of Russia. In that country alone we have

probably the greatest potential for agriculture than any country in the world.

They have the best soil and the greatest number of acres for the development of

agriculture and still they are unable to feed themselves. The potential is

certainly there and they should have been able to do that. I suppose one of the

biggest reasons why they have not been able to do it is due to the lack of

initiative on the part of the people because they do not really own their own

land.

The possibility that their children may be able to run their

farms does not exist, and I can certainly understand them thinking along the

lines that if they will never own the land they are working they find it hard to

develop it to the full potential. I am trying to draw a direct parallel to the

two situations. I submit that the degree of interest would be somewhat greater

if a man or woman felt they actually owned the land they were working, and

perhaps productivity would improve to an even greater degree here in this

Province.

The estimated land mass suitable for farming is much less

than 1 per cent of the total land mass. Other members have just alluded to this

as well. To me this is a very strong argument for ensuring that as much of that

small percentage is preserved for agricultural purposes as possible. As a

government I would certainly hope that some type of monitoring system is

maintained to protect good agricultural land for the farming industry, and

protect it from other purposes such as cabin development. I am not trying to run

down cabin development as such, but I am strongly suggesting that areas used for

cabin development should not be areas that have great potential for the

agricultural industry.

The berry industry has always been an active one, and I can

remember as a young boy taking a lunch can, and taking a gallon can along with

it, and trekking off over the barrens in the middle of August, along with about

100 other people around the same age, and we were always able to make enough

money to buy our books and supply a certain amount of clothes. The industry may

well have a double-barrelled effect, Mr. Speaker. Many of the tourists who come

to this Province are here to take advantage of the abundance of all types of

berries. I spent some time in the northern part of Newfoundland and Southern

Labrador and was surprised at the throngs of people who flock to that area. I

suppose one of the reasons is the mystique that the world has about Labrador.

Many people go over there and just stand on Labrador, come back to the ferry,

and go on back to wherever they belong.

Another drawing card over there is the bakeapple festival. As

captain on the ferry that transported the people back and forth from Southern

Labrador to Northern Newfoundland the responsibility certainly got much greater

around the latter part of August because there were thousands and thousands of

people coming from all over the world, from places like England, France, Spain,

Germany, and all parts of the United States. There were certainly times when the

traffic was backed up beyond sight and we were forced to go night and day just

to get people over basically for the bakeapple festival. They were people who

came to Newfoundland with their pockets full of money. They went over looking

for a place to spend it and in a lot of cases they had to go back disappointed

because they could not spend it. There was no place to spend it.

The point I am trying to make here is the fact that the

agricultural industry certainly has far-reaching effects in that it affects the

tourist industry in this particular case. It has the potential for drawing more

money in than the agricultural industry in itself, if you get my point. The

humble bakeapple combined with the mystique of Labrador has certainly drawn

people from all parts of the world.

The potential for the berry industry does not stop there. I

have always felt that the success of this Province certainly lies in the

development of our secondary industry, the production of jams, pures, and all

types of pastries such as pies and cakes, which use our natural resources and

certainly could have room for expansion.

Mr. Speaker, this government over the past five years has

carried on an active program of developing storage facilities in this Province.

They have been educating farmers as to the best way to preserve vegetables for

longer periods of time so as to take advantage of the better prices that are

accrued later on in the winter.

There has been, over the past number of years, a

diversification of production with regard to root crops. Again, there is

tremendous room for growth in this area.

Development of better storage techniques may well be the

answer to the development of non-traditional crops such as broccoli,

cauliflower, various types of Chinese cabbage, and perhaps if approached in a

sane and sensible way the potential for growing cucumbers is still there, as

mentioned by the Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, the agricultural industry has such far-reaching

effects and diverse effects that the potential is phenomenal. The total

agri-food industry is worth approximately $3 billion. Obviously we have just

scratched the surface when it comes to development. That is why I feel we cannot

overemphasize the necessity and importance of promoting, at every opportunity,

in a very big way, the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am so pleased and so delighted

today to be able to speak to this motion. I believe that the continuation of

efforts of the present administration for the development of an Agri-Foods

Public Policy in this Province is very important.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise to have a few comments on this

particular motion. I have to say first off that I am disappointed that the

Member for St. George's couldn't be here today, because I am sure after so much

time and effort, and working on it, on such a report, he would be glad to be

here to respond. I guess the timing can't be helped, but I can say even prior to

this motion being handed that I talked to the member a few times concerning this

particular report, and had discussions on a few things.

The first thing to mention, as I read through the report and

as I talked to the member, it is noticeable right away that the comprehensive

study has been long overdue. As it was mentioned in the report, very early in

the report, I won't quote it, but I think it's since somewhere in the 1950's,

1952, was the last comprehensive study done of agriculture, agri-foods, in this

Province, so there is no doubt that it was long overdue and I was glad to see

the initiative of whatever government of the day, I think it was 1986, if I am

correct, the first time that it was mentioned as a possibility that a study

would be done on agri-foods in this Province. So to say that it is long overdue

is an understatement.

Since 1950 there have been lots of changes, obviously, in

agriculture in this Province, and indeed around the world, but since then, 1986

I think was the first move toward looking into a study on agri-foods and

agriculture in this Province. Of course now up to date as we look at this study,

then it finally has come to something, at least on paper.

Now the first criticism - I guess you have to give criticism

with the good and the bad - is that such a report, with so many good things in

it, as we will try to get some points, as I speak here now, there are a lot of

good things, a lot of ideas that are moving in the right direction, as the

Member for Harbour Main just mentioned, but as I read through the motion, a

couple of things like the hon. Member for Humber Valley mentioned:

Whereas

agri-foods has the potential to play a greater role in the economic future of

the Province, that is indeed true. We all know that and, as the Member for

Harbour Main mentioned, we have only scratched the surface on that, and to say

it is untapped, there is a lot of room for improvements in this Province for

sure.

It says: "Whereas all the elements necessary for a much

expanded agri-food industry are present;" and the third one says: "Whereas

opportunities for the food processing 'value added' sector are largely

untapped", that is the one I would like to stress on a little bit here today.

It says: "Be it resolved that the House of Assembly endorses

the continuation of efforts of the present administration..." Well, Mr. Speaker,

that is the point that needs to be put forward to, and I wish the Member for St.

George's was here. The fact that such a study, with so many recommendations in

there, has not been implemented is what I say is the whole problem here to start

with.

Now if government, if the administration of the day, would

read through this and take some of the things that were mentioned here as

recommendations, and say, `walk to talk' as they say, and implement some of

them, then I could see that the Member for St. George's - the money and the time

spent by this particular group, then I would say it was fruitful. As it stands

right now I don't think anybody, including the Member for St. George's, is

satisfied. They should not be satisfied. Neither should anybody in this Province

who is related to this particular industry.

I think I say that in all fairness. I think all government

members would agree. The Member for Terra Nova who put forward the motion today

would agree that the implementation of this report so far to date is far from

satisfactory. I think there are a lot of things in there that should be put

forward and done quickly so that we can act on it, not just talk about it for

the next two, three or four years. It is something that has to be acted on

immediately. I would like to see the government of the day take this report -

not just open and close it and put it back on a shelf for dusting. There was a

lot of money and time spent on it, there was a lot of research went into it. It

is basically a good report, I say to the members. I wish the hon. Member for St.

George's was here today so he could speak on it himself. It is just too bad for

the timing, that is all we can say on that. As far as implementation on it, it

is long overdue. We have to get moving on it.

The second thing I want to mention is the consultation

process which took place during the report. I can see from the numbers - I don't

have them directly in front of me - I think it was over 1,000 people through the

various meetings around the Province, which was good. Over 200 different groups

if I'm not mistaken from the report. Over 1,000 people and over 200 groups

represented at various public meetings across the Province.

I say to the members opposite, you should take a good lesson

from that one. There was consultation done, a good report was put forward. Of

course the problem, I say again, is the implementation and the slow process that

has happened there. There should be a good lesson learned from that one. There

was consultation, you did go to the people who were directly involved, you did

go to farmers, you did go to almost every group that was related to this

particular industry. Two hundred groups. Sat down, public consultation. That was

great stuff. I applaud the Member for St. George's and his committee for doing

that.

As far as privatization goes, I will just mention it for a

minute. The Member for Terra Nova mentioned it earlier. For example, right now

I'm still studying the proposals that will be put forward in the very near

future, as I understand from the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, on the

privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products. I will tie that together with this

because it is all considered in the report. Right now I'm studying also all

sides of that. I'm talking to every group, any person involved in that

particular industry. I'm hoping to have an open mind on exactly what is the best

thing for this Province. I can say to this date - and it is not a confirmation

of any sort - that what we've seen so far, and the people I've talked to,

including unions, including the people involved with Newfoundland Farm Products,

is that it could very well be the very best thing to privatize Newfoundland Farm

Products.

Again I reflect back to exactly what I read in here about the

consultation and the 1,000 people you talked to and the 200 groups involved.

That was great stuff, I say again to the members. That is exactly what needs to

be done for the Newfoundland Farm Products. Not to linger on and get off the

subject by no means, but that is what needed to be done with the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro. Same thing. But we can't get into that for sure. I do say

that the consultation process that has occurred with this particular report has

to be reflected back when consideration is given for Newfoundland Farm Products.

Right now I've been talking to union people; I've been

talking to the people who work at Newfoundland Farm Products. I've been talking

to people from the Federation of Agriculture, the President. I've also talked to

the broilers association group. It is great when you go out and talk to the

people who are going to be most involved - what the implications are for the

people who are directly involved. Not just people in the top offices or in the

top brass or us as government people, but down to the person, right down through

the unions, right on down through the management down through the local Joe who

works and makes his living from any particular industry. Whether it be

Newfoundland Farm Products, whether it be any sector that is involved with the

agri-foods or agriculture of the Province.

So I guess the clear message is, that from the hon. Member

for St. George's report, that you indeed, sir, have done the right thing by the

consultation process which you took by going out and meeting with the people who

would be involved, meeting with the people who were going to be directly

affected, most affected; not us, the people who are going to make decisions at

the government level, not even the people who are going to make decisions at the

management level, but ask the average Joe who works at Newfoundland Farm

Products Corporation or works for any sector of the agriculture industry before

you make changes; before you make changes and I think that is a fair thing to be

said.

It is a fair thing to be said of any government initiative

whether it is fishing, mining, agriculture, agri-foods as we say, anything, and

I think all members will agree with that, that before we make changes at our

levels, let us make sure that we ask the person who is going to be affected by

these implications, the ramifications of the person who is going to be affected

here. The person who is going to finally decide if he is going to stay in this

industry or decide to move on to another industry. So as far as the consultation

process - and maybe, when the Member for Terra Nova stands later she can verify

it - I am not sure of the numbers but I think it was on the consultation process

that it was over 1,000 people who went to public hearings on this particular

report and there were over 200 groups, I am not sure, I read it last night but I

can't remember what page but I think it was early in the process.

MS. YOUNG: It's down in the back.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. As far as that goes, I am very pleased

with that and you don't mind giving the accolades or anything to something that

was done properly, and I say to the member that was done properly and I would

just like to reflect on it and hopefully it is done in all other government

initiatives as you sit in government today to make decisions in this Province.

Now, as we have all said, I am sure you will agree that this

was long overdue. As I said, the last time a comprehensive study was done on

agri-foods or agriculture as we know it in the Province, was in 1950, I think it

was 1952, '53 somewhere in that area and until 1986 when it was brought up again

to make moves to move a committee which we did in this particular case with

three people and the hon. Member for St. George's as the Chairman, to start the

study. The research they did and I will again compliment the member on the

research and the amount of research that he did for this particular study; there

was a lot of work put into it.

Now the scope of agri-foods in this Province, I don't think

that a lot of people realize how far-reaching it is. In my district in

particular, I mean, I have such a cross-section of industries, I go from mining

to forestry, which is very vibrant in the communities in my district, also the

fishing industry and I go right in to farming so I have the four of them in my

district and it is quite a cross-section of the industry. The people in my

district that I have talked to, the few farmers who are there, there are not a

lot but there are a few farmers there, they have asked me time after time when I

visit the district - and they have seen it, most of the farmers as most hon.

members know have seen this report and have read it, are very interested in it

and so they should be because as I just said earlier they were the ones who had

the input into the industry, those are the one who made recommendations that

actually came out in the report.

As a matter of fact, I had one farmer who said to me that

something that he suggested at one of the meetings actually came through in the

paper in the report and that is all due to consultation again, I would say, so

when I go to my district and talk to the few farmers, like I say there are not a

lot of them in my district but there are a few, and they say that they actually

had suggestions through public meetings that came out in the report, so now,

their question is, and my question is and I think everybody's question should

be, when are you going to implement the recommendations and the things put

forward in this report? That's the catch, and that is what the hon. Member for

Humber Valley mentioned earlier; it is not good enough for somebody to say we

spent x number of dollars on such a report. I can't remember the amount of

dollars now, it was tabled here in the House but I can't remember, it was a lot

of money -

AN HON. MEMBER: $800,000.

MR. SHELLEY: $800,000 to $1 million, somewhere in that

area, and I remember looking at some of the payouts to the hon. Member for St.

George's and his two other colleagues; I can't remember the exact number so I

won't quote them. Maybe I will ask the Member for Terra Nova to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The actual cost of the study, I can't

remember exactly, it was brought up but I didn't write it down for today, but I

just remember that it was a significant amount of money and I think it is only

fair that a farmer should stop somebody and say: listen, by the way, the million

dollars that the government spent on this study, in which I had a great say, and

of which they did such a great job of putting it together and in which actually

some of my recommendations came out, when are they going to put it into action?

MS. VERGE: It's too late for the swine industry now.

MR. SHELLEY: It is certainly too late for the swine

industry in Corner Brook and to the detriment of that, now that could be brought

up and of course we could spend the whole twenty minutes talking on that one

alone, but maybe the hon. Member for Terra Nova will respond to that when she

rises. I can say that there is nothing positive that I can see in that

particular move. You ask people on the West Coast and I think they will have an

answer for you that you will find very straightforward.

As for using and implementing these particular

recommendations, as asked by the farmers and the people involved with agri-foods

and agriculture in this Province, my message is very simple and clear. You have

to move your government now, push your government, encourage, whatever the word

is, as you as government members, and I would say to the Member for St.

George's, do whatever you can to make sure that your government, this government

of the day, moves to start to implement these recommendations before it is too

late and before this report gets so full of dust it is not worth taking off the

shelf again and we will have to do another ten or fifteen years down the road.

Because the changes in the technology in farming these days,

as we know, changes very rapidly. There are always new ideas, new technology on

farming every day. There are also some great changes coming in the international

- as we mentioned earlier about GATT - there are changes coming every day. My

message is very simple and straightforward. Get on with the job of implementing

such a study that costs us so much money, and took so much time, and did consult

with the people right at the grass roots level - pardon the pun - for this

particular piece of work.

The scope, as I mentioned earlier, of agri-foods and

agriculture goes so far you would never be able to get into it in the twenty

minutes that all of us have here to talk about it. It goes right from growing

crops right up through fox farming and berry picking and the whole gamut. There

is so much in there that you would never be able to talk about it unless we had

three or four days to sit down and go through one specifically. In general, I

think the consensus is that each one of these was broken down in the report, was

studied. Good recommendations were given on each section, as we talked about

each one. Now the job is for the government of the day to get on and do the

implementation.

Pages 3 and 4 - basically, breaking down in the scope

includes the primary level and the secondary level. The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main, I think, mentioned earlier, and so did the Member for Humber

Valley, about secondary processing. I'm not sure but I missed a little bit of

what the Member for Terra Nova said, about secondary processing. We can use our

analogy to the fishery to give an example here. I've said it, and the hon.

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I'm sure, has said it many times

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Harbour Deep (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: - has said it many times - I know Harbour

Deep loves me. I know that you mentioned it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) the fishery (inaudible). That is

important to Harbour Deep.

MR. SHELLEY: I know that the minister has mentioned many

times about the fishery and that we lose out on the secondary processing. Well,

I say to the members, too, that we also are losing out on secondary processing.

You've said it right in your motion - the "`value-added' sector are largely

untapped." I couldn't agree with you more - largely untapped. We are missing out

again. We have a renewable resource here. Right from the berry picking to the

farming to the dairy, everything you could mention here. Secondary processing,

bringing in the `value-added'.

Anything I could do to support you on that or encourage your

government to take

part in that secondary processing so that Newfoundlanders -

not somebody in Prince Edward Island, not somebody in Saskatchewan, or anywhere

in Ontario - but right here in Newfoundland, we tap into what we do here as a

renewable resource again. I mean, for god's sake, when are we ever going to

learn that all the renewable resources that we have here in this Province, from

the fishery to the forestry to agriculture, we can do it right here in this

Province. But we need the doers instead of the sayers - just to stand up and say

we are going to do that.

That is why again - I will keep repeating this as many times

as I can say it in twenty minutes - that we have to tap into this, and open up

this book, and don't let anyone close it until we've started implementing some

of the plan. The secondary processing - and the very words that you've put

forward in this motion today, I say to the hon. member - push, scratch, scrape,

whatever you have to do to make sure this book stays open, and we get on with

the job before we have to put it away and do another study, and another $800,000

or another $1 million, whatever it was, and have three more members from some

other government from some other side to do it all over again. Because if we

don't tap into it now it is going to be a lost cause - a lost cause, I say to

the member.

I hope it is not. I hope we don't have to waste this $800,000

that we have spent right now to go back over and redo the whole thing, the

process again, because we procrastinated on the whole thing as a government of

the day. Let's move on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Did you? Maybe you can tell us about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Did you? That is great stuff. I thank the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Fantastic!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SHELLEY: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I see that I'm running

out of time here quickly, and I did want to get into some other things. I had

quite a long list and I can't believe I have run out of time already, but I will

say -

MR. EFFORD: By leave. Carry on.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave? I could have a couple of minutes

to finish up? I won't go into the long list I have, but just a couple of things.

The berry picking for example, I'm going to relate this to tourism, I thought I

should make that point. You go through Prince Edward Island and you see the

U-picks, do you know how many tourists stop to go to U-picks of strawberries and

the bakeapples we talked about on the Labrador? They're fantastic catchers for

the tourist. You publicize them and market that right then I can guarantee you,

people will come just for that. Remember, as the minister has said many times,

that the best form of marketing or advertising there is, is word-of-mouth. You

give somebody a good experience in this Province and they'll tell somebody else,

then it goes 'round and 'round. Millions and millions of dollars in tourism

could come in just related to agri-foods alone, in this Province.

Another one I noticed in Ontario and Quebec and maybe some of

the other members have noticed, I know it's in P.E.I., too, that some of the

farms in those particular provinces, they market and advertise for tourists to

come and live on the farm for a week - great idea. How many times is it done

here in Newfoundland? It is great stuff, I say to the minister. I say to you, I

agree with you 100 per cent that these types of things are not even touched yet.

I'm telling you, if we were to market that and relate it all to tourism and say

to people from Toronto or New York City, come to Newfoundland and live on a farm

for a week or take

part in the farm process, farm living, it would be a great

thing. There are some in the Province I know, as the member mentioned, but I'm

just saying that's another one that's on tap.

The last thing I'll mention to try to conclude is the

education on this whole idea of agri-foods or agriculture as most people know it

but agri-foods. Let's get the idea out there that there's a lot more to this

industry than we have been given to believe over the last few years. There are

young people who do want to get involved in this who really don't know anything

about it. Th