June 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 14

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly fifty-one Grades X and XI students from Fatima Academy, St.

Bride's. The students are accompanied by their principal Hubert McGrath and

teachers Barbara King, Kay King and Daisy Dohey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this statement was supposed to

have been read by the Premier but he is on Her Majesty's business and he is

unable to be here, hopefully he will be here later. So, I am going to read it on

his behalf.

Today I am pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Len

Williams as Deputy Minister in the Department of Education. Dr. Williams

replaces Cyril McCormick who retired from the position in April of this year.

This administration is pleased to have attracted someone of

Dr. Williams' calibre for the position of deputy minister. He has a wealth of

knowledge and experience in the educational field, having served in several

capacities since his teaching career began in 1958. From 1973 to 1975 he served

as president of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. Since 1978 he has taught

in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. During his tenure at the

university, he also served as the Director of the Division of Student Teaching

in the Faculty of Education.

Dr. Williams has served on numerous provincial educational

advisory committees including, the General Advisory Committee to the Minister of

Education from 1971 to 1973; External Provincial Advisory Committee on Education

to the Government, 1974 to 1975, and the Denominational Education Committee. In

1988 Dr. Williams served as a member of the Department of Education Committee to

report on ideas of concern between the Pentecostal Teachers and the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association. In 1990, he chaired the Provincial Conference on

Denominational Education. Dr. Williams has been an active participant on the

national education scene, having served as President of the Canadian Teachers'

Federation and a director of the Canadian Education Association. He chaired the

National Committee and Conference of Teacher Education at Simon Fraser

University in British Columbia. On the international front he has represented

Canadian teachers and presented papers at a number of international gatherings.

Dr. Williams' most recent undertaking was on behalf of the government as

Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and

Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education which produced the report

Our Children: Our Future .

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of an individual of Dr.

Williams' competence to the position of deputy minister is further evidence of

this administration's commitment to enhancing the quality of education in our

Province and ensuring that our education system is administered in a responsible

manner.

It is because this administration is committed to ensuring

that our education system is managed properly, that I am today also announcing

that Dr. Robert Crocker has been seconded from Memorial University to take

special responsibility for facilitating the implementation of the

recommendations of the Royal Commission. We have done this, Mr. Speaker, because

it would not be doing justice to the report, or to the Department of Education,

to ask the senior officials to take on this task in addition to the day to day

running of the department.

Dr. Crocker has been a member of the Faculty of Education at

Memorial since 1969 and has served as the Dean of that faculty since September

of 1990. Dr. Crocker has written extensively on science education, curriculum

and classroom teaching and acts as a consultant on various aspects of education

in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as elsewhere. His most recent program of

research involves a comparative study of teacher thinking and classroom

processes in Canada and England. Over the past few years, Dr. Crocker has also

worked on program evaluation and policy analysis. In 1988-89 he chaired the

Provincial Task Force on Mathematics and Science Education which resulted in a

widely cited report entitled Towards an Achieving Society . Dr. Crocker

has served as President of the Canadian Educational Researchers' Association and

recently served on the Advisory Committee for a study of education being

conducted by the Economic Council of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with Dr. Williams and Dr. Crocker working with

the Minister of Education and the staff of the Department of Education, I am

confident that the future direction of education in this Province is in very

capable hands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise and to

agree with the minister that the department is very fortunate to have attracted

two eminent educators to the Department of Education. Dr. Williams has eminent

qualifications that have earned him respect, not just in this part of the

Province but throughout the entire Province and indeed throughout the entire

nation.

I have known Doctor Williams for twenty-five to thirty years,

have served with him on the staff of Mount Pearl Central High School, where he

was the first principal of that school. I have also known him in my church.

Certainly, I can assure you that Doctor Williams is one of the most eminent

educators in our Province today.

I would like to also add to the credentials that have been

offered by the minister, and point out that one of the Outreaches that Doctor

Williams did, which is not mentioned here, is he set up the Uganda Project. For

hon. ministers and members of the House, this is a project connected with the

Health Sciences Centre and Dr. John Ross, whereby school children and other

interested groups in Newfoundland and Labrador can provide medical services to

the people of Uganda. He was the inspiration behind that and still is one of the

directors. He also has a lot of background with the Canadian Bible Society,

having served as the Newfoundland president.

Mr. Speaker, Doctor Crocker is known for his research

capabilities, for his ability to be able to complete research that is respected

in the teaching profession, and also, of course, in other fields of research.

I am delighted to be able to support the appointment to these

particular positions. I am sure that the youth of this Province and the

post-secondary schools of this Province will benefit from the appointment of men

of this calibre.

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

have leave of the House on this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

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

in support of the appointment of Dr. Williams to the position of Deputy Minister

of the Department of Education - I think it is a very good appointment. Dr.

Williams is a man of tremendous calibre and experience in the field of education

in this Province. I support, also, the appointment of Doctor Crocker. Both these

appointments give me a sense that the government is serious about looking at the

recommendations of the Royal Commission and seeing that they are implemented. I

think it is a good opportunity in the wake of that report, and with these

appointments, to see substantial progress in education in this Province. I look

forward to seeing the work that these individuals are able to do on behalf of

the education system and the future of our children in this Province.

Oral Questions

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

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

In the absence of the - oh, the Premier is coming. I was

saying, in the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier is coming.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I can see the Premier coming there.

I want to ask the Premier: Can he confirm whether or not

there have been additional members appointed to the Board of Directors of

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? If so, can he inform the House as to who

they might be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would rather take it as notice. I can

tell the members of the House that we intend phasing out the ERC involvement in

it as quickly as can reasonably be done, and to get more people from the private

sector involved on the board.

The original objective of having the ERC constitute the board

of ENL, was to build it to provide services in the different regions of the

Province. The objective of government now is to phase that out as quickly as it

can reasonably be done.

Whether or not there have been formal appointments at this

stage I don't know, but I will take it as notice and I will get the answer for

the hon. member.

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

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

I thank the Premier for giving the answer as best he can

under the circumstances. I am wondering, while the Premier is at it, as well,

would he check to see if these additional appointments are going to cost any

additional money, because I have received the information that there is going to

be an additional cost of approximately $100,000 for whatever government is

entertaining to do. I will wait for the Premier to get his answer for that, but

while he is getting it would he at least, as well, undertake to seek information

to see if, indeed, what is being undertaken by government is going to cost in

the vicinity of another $100,000?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is

any fear of that, so I can put that suggestion to rest right now. It may involve

some additional travel expenditure and things of that nature, I am not quite

sure, because we want to make sure that we have representation from different

parts of the Province.

The members who are on the board now, being members of the

ERC, of course, there is no additional compensation for any role they play as

members of the board, and there is no travel expense as they are all here in St.

John's and they can hold a board meeting at fairly low cost.

So I would expect that appointing representatives from other

parts of the Province would necessitate some additional expenditures of that

nature, but I am quite confident it wouldn't be $100,000.

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

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

I would like to ask the Premier another supplementary.

Is the Premier aware of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador

having purchased new cars recently? I have been informed, as well, that there

have been at least two new cars purchased for Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador, one for the Gander office associated with Mr. Lush, and one for the

Labrador office associated with Mr. Marshall. I am just wondering if the Premier

is aware of this? The information is that those two cars are luxury cars, and

from my understanding as well having raised the topic, I think, less than two

years ago, there were new cars bought then. Is the Premier aware of this, and

how can Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and the government, justify such

expenditures when we are here today facing another bill, Bill 10 and asking the

public servants and employees of the Province to take drastic wage constraint

measures?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I do not know

and I am not about to speculate on whether they have or they have not. I will

take the question as notice. I have no indication that any new cars have been

bought for anybody. Whether or not they have I can only assume that it would

only be done if it were an absolutely essential move. They have to live within

the budget that was provided anyway and their budget was, like everybody else's,

cut. I suppose if a car is essential in order to carry out his duties then I

will have to leave it to them to decide that it is the best thing to do, but

again I will take the question as notice and determine whether or not there are

any such purchases.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the report of the task

force on Agri-Foods. Early in the Premier's administrations first term, back in

the Fall of 1989, the administration appointed the task force, chaired by the

present Liberal Member for St. George's. The task force gave the government its

final report in February of 1991, that is twenty-eight months ago, and we

discovered the other day that government paid close to $1 million for the

document. What is the faith of the report? Has the government accepted its

recommendations, or, as it appears, is the government simply allowing the

document to gather dust on some shelf?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I thank the hon. member for her question. She

is right in the fact that the task force report was received in February 1991.

There were in excess of 200 recommendations and I am proud to tell the House

that we have implemented at least sixty of those recommendations in little over

a year, sixty of 200 have been implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Sixty more are ongoing because some of the

recommendations were not such that you would implement them immediately. It was

advice from the task force as to how to approach a certain program in

agriculture. At least sixty of the other recommendations are ongoing, and

approximately sixty, Mr. Speaker, haven't been acted on up until this point in

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the

minister. Why haven't we heard about the implementation of any significant

recommendation of the report? Why is it that all the people of the Province have

heard of is government action to do the exact opposite of what the task force

report called for for the hog industry? The Province is strangling the hog

industry and cancelling the swine breeding program. What commitment does the

government have to the report recommendations? Will the minister table an

item-by-item report of the status of the recommendations in the report,

indicating what action has been taken, what action is pending, and what

decisions the government has arrived at with respect to each recommendation?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the people I suppose who depend

mostly on the Department of Forestry and Agriculture - the farming community -

is well aware of what we've implemented. I can suggest to the member that we are

in the process of announcing and implementing in September, been working on it

for the past seven or eight months, a red meat inspection program recommended by

the task force. We have a very successful school milk program, again recommended

by the task force. We are in the process - one of the major recommendations of

the task force is that Newfoundland would increase its forage production. The

record shows that we're putting all kinds of effort into doing that.

As I say, the farming community, the people who look to the

task force recommendations, are well aware of what the Department of Forestry

and Agriculture is doing. What's interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the task

force report was presented, as she says, in February 1991. This is now June

1993. One has to wonder why the questions come two years after we received the

task force report, and after two years into the implementation of that

particular report.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister

once again, check Hansard for questions that have been raised consistently by

Official Opposition members about the status of the task force report.

The government spent close to $1 million for this report.

Paid the chair, who at the time was on the public payroll as a professor at the

University, some $136,000 plus $23,000 in expenses. How does the minister

explain or excuse that extravagance? Was that expenditure intended simply to

promote a candidate for the Liberal nomination in St. George's to knock off the

previous member?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker. That was an attempt by the

government to secure the most qualified man possible to head up the task force

on agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: I might also point out to the hon. member

that yes, we paid in salary approximately $135,000. I would remind the member

that Dr. Hulan was employed as chairman of the task force for sixteen months. If

one would take that and look at it you would find that his salary was roughly

comparable to a deputy minister level which, by the way, my department checked

with Treasury Board. Every expenditure concerning the agricultural task force

was cleared. We made sure that it was within the guidelines as approved by

Treasury Board.

Let me suggest to the hon. member something that I'm aware of

that happened, and it's comparable. I recall when a senior advisor to the

previous premier, Premier Peckford, was into a job whose salary was $62,000 a

year. For some reason, an arrangement was made for that particular senior

advisor's position to be declared redundant and he was hired on the next day at

$150 an hour, which gave him the potential to earn about $700,000 a year, if he

decided to work that many hours. So they dead-ended a $62,000 position and took

the same man back on the next day at $150 an hour, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you

that's not nearly as blatant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I will ask the hon. minister

to come to the end of his remarks.

MR. FLIGHT: - the task force situation is not nearly as

blatant as that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Back in mid-1989, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount at that time brought in the so

called amalgamation process in the Province where there were so many groupings

going to take place over the next number of years to amalgamate quite a few

communities in the Province. At that time both the minister and the Premier

stated that there would be no up front money given to any municipality in the

Province in order to get them to amalgamate. Would the minister tell the House

if his department has ever broken with this statement made by the Premier and

the former ministers - because both former ministers made that statement - has

ever broken with that statement and given any municipality in the Province

special considerations in order to amalgamate?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I think the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is

referring to a number of amalgamations which took place that we needed to do

studies into prior to making the commitments to the towns to amalgamate. In his

particular area for example, there are three towns now wishing to amalgamate or

were talking of the possibility of amalgamating and they are asking for a study

to be done on long-term or future planning. I think the department has sort of

agreed that we would fund the study to the tune of around $25,000. If that is

the up-front money he is talking about, the answer is yes, we have done it on a

number of occasions. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that I can answer for all the

amalgamations. I am not in a position right now to be able to answer the

question and say if there was other monies, other than study money, put into any

of the amalgamations that have been done in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. No, I say to

the minister, I am not talking about studies. There was money put into

feasibility studies and so on for different groupings around the Province and I

am not talking about the studies that are about to be done today, if there are

any. I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister if he could he

confirm it, and I guess it is obvious anyway, the Premier should know about it

and other members, that back in October of 1990 the administration opposite gave

considerations and special considerations to the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor

and that included a transitional rate of tax incentive grant. It included

capital funding in the amount of $1.25 million for three years, new property

assessments for next year, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

to maintain snow clearing and so on and it goes on and on. Could the minister

tell me, if it was done for one grouping in the Province why were other

groupings not told about it and why were they not considered when they were

amalgamated the same as Grand Falls - Windsor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, from this minister's point of

view, for this government or any government to have to come out and buy an

amalgamation between communities, I am certainly not going to promote it. The

principle of amalgamation is to help communities provide better services for the

residents who live there. I do not intend to entertain a bribery and that is

what you are getting at. Now, you were talking a few minutes ago about Grand

Falls and Windsor and from what I remember, in this House and prior to becoming

a member in 1989, Grand Falls and Windsor separately at that particular time,

was a unique case. They had come to government on numerous occasions and said

that their infrastructure was in such a situation that they needed funding. They

were looking for funding from this government and from the previous government

before 1989, to help them with the infrastructure. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it

happened that after the amalgamation or sometime during the amalgamation this

money was provided, I would say 'thank you' to the government for providing it

because the people of Grand Falls - Windsor were looking for that money for such

a long time, and for this government to come along, and through the mechanism of

amalgamation to be able to provide that money to those communities, I would say:

Thank you very much to the government that provided it.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I say this to the minister: If

it can be done for one grouping in the Province it can be done for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: And I say to members opposite today,

especially the minister involved, that it is one of the problems we have with

amalgamation today - the approach, not the concept - and this is one of the

reasons why it could work.

So I say to the minister, when he is looking at the area, my

area - Spillway, Nicholsville and Deer Lake - would he, in view of the fact that

it was done previously with other groupings in the Province, could he do the

same thing and afford those municipalities in my particular area - namely

Spillway, Nicholsville and Deer Lake - and any other groupings in the Province,

the same consideration so that they would probably go along with the

amalgamation process that the minister has instituted?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely no.

As Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I will not be bribed into

amalgamating communities around this Province. I say: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not

think it is right. Amalgamation is something that is created to make things and

life better in a community, and if we as a government have to bribe people into

making the basic services in a municipality right for groups of people around

this Province, I do not think we should be at that.

The answer to your question is: No, I will not provide

funding, money up front, to convince those people in your district to

amalgamate.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: My questions, Mr. Speaker, are also for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

One of the cuts to third parties in the Budget is a cut of

$15,000 to pay for an annual dinner for volunteer firemen. In the estimates

committee ministers have said that most, if not all, third party cuts are being

reviewed. I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs if the decision

to eliminate a government dinner for volunteer firemen is being reviewed also?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it was just, I think, on Monday

that the President of the Newfoundland Volunteer Fire Fighters Association

called me and asked me would I look at the possibility of reviewing it, and the

answer is: Yes, I am in the process of reviewing it right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: There are over 300 volunteer fire

departments in the Province, and over 6,000 volunteer firemen. If it was not for

the services of those volunteers, some level of government would have to pay

millions of dollars for fire protection. Do they not deserve some show of

appreciation from the provincial government? Is a dinner once a year too much

for them to expect in exchange for vital services they provide as volunteers?

The government is sponsoring a dinner for the Association of

Maritime Fire Chiefs. There are only two fire departments in this Province that

are members of that association. I do not criticize the government for that

because there is some value to the tourism industry in having the association

convention here in Newfoundland, but does the minister understand the resentment

that many volunteer firemen feel? Does he understand their feelings when he

honours professional fire fighters and does nothing to show appreciation for the

volunteer fire fighters who provide most of the fire protection in this

Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I neglected saying that not only

did I have a call from the President of the Fire Fighters Association, but the

hon. Member for Harbour Grace paid me a visit Tuesday morning after our

estimates committee and explained his position as it related to the fire

department. It was really through his efforts and encouragement that I have gone

back to revisit the question of providing the dinner for the fire fighting

service.

I want to make another thing clear here. It was not only the

fire fighters who we had to cut this year because of financial restraint. It was

the administrators, the municipal administrators, and the Federation of

Municipalities.

It is true that we are providing funding for the Maritime

Fire Chiefs Association, of which only a small number - and two is not correct -

of our population are members, but that was a decision that was made some

two-and-a-half years ago for them to have their annual meeting down here in

Newfoundland, and when we made the decision to cut out our provincial ones, we

had to honour the commitment that we made some two years ago to those federal

ones that will be coming into the Province this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I thought you missed me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker misses nothing.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

President of Treasury Board.

The government has now gone back to public sector employees

with a new proposal which I understand deals with reducing payments to their

pension plan - government's contribution - by some 4.5 per cent.

That is essentially the same proposal that had been rejected

before. Can the President tell us, Mr. Speaker, is this the entire package or

are there other public sector units being asked to make other concessions in

order to accept this proposal to roll back on pension plans?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the various unions have accepted

different - or are going to their membership with a variety of proposals, some

of them involving the pensions option that we had explored last - well, many

months ago and some of them with other options, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend

to comment on these options and the details of the options until the votes have

been taken. This is by agreement between ourselves and the union.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the government's proposal on

cutting back on pensions is in fact a wage rollback by any other name. Any way

you call it, it is a reduction to the overall compensation package to employees,

it is simply a matter of deciding how they will do it, so it is a reduction in

their take home pay or they can have an option I am told, of reducing their

pension income when they retire. In other words, at some point employees will

lose take home pay as a result of this measure. Will the minister confirm that?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As we indicated before we

started discussions with the various public sector unions, we were seeking to

reduce the public sector compensation package by - an estimate was $70 million

in order to achieve a $51 million deficit on current account, and yes, Mr.

Speaker, no matter which way you look at it, if the options are accepted this

will be a reduction in the total compensation package for the employees. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member on one point. This is not

government's proposal, they are proposals that have been reached after long

sessions of consultation, discussion, talking with the union teams.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

final supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well the President of Treasury Board confirms that in fact it

is a wage rollback.

The Premier said a few days ago that there was no social

contract, no quid pro quo in exchange for concessions from the unions, yet, the

President of NAPE is saying that there is some language changes in relation to

job security. Would the President confirm that there is in fact a social

contract and that we have made those concessions in order to gain the wage

rollback he is talking about?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know, it

is a little trick that the Member for Mount Pearl is learning from the Leader of

the Opposition, where he gets up and starts a statement by saying: well, the

minister admitted to something that the minister had no intentions of admitting

to and in fact did not admit to.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a wage rollback, it is a

reduction in the total compensation package and there is a tremendous amount of

difference in that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman opposite wants to consider

this to be a social contract, I am not the one who used these terms, I believe

the governments in Ontario and BC talked in terms of social contracts with the

public sector workers in these provinces and, Mr. Speaker, what they were trying

to achieve is what we have hopefully now achieved, if the voting goes as I

expect it will go, so if the hon. member wants to talk about us achieving a

social contract with our workers, we are very pleased to accept that.

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

MR. HARRIS: A question to the Minister of Education

concerning Student Aid in the Province, could the minister explain why it is his

department allocated $21.8 million for the Student Provincial Grant Program but

only spent $18.9 million, some $3 million less? And will the minister say that

he is prepared to give that $3 million that he saved from students last year

back to students, either to the university to reduce tuition or to the students

directly?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Budget had $21 million for

student aid. In order for students to receive that student aid there are certain

rules that have to be met. Their income has to be taken into consideration, the

income of their parents, and whether or not they worked. There are a whole lot

of rules and regulations which determine whether or not a students is entitled

to receive student aid. At the end of the day, after all the students who

thought they qualified for student aid made their applications and went through

the process, it was discovered that we had more money in that vote than we had

qualified applications. Now, Mr. Speaker, that happens quite often and it means

that we came in under budget. It doesn't mean that every single student in

Newfoundland and Labrador got every cent of money they ever asked for, but it

means that students qualified to receive some $20 million-worth of student aid.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not admit that

his rules are too stringent or too stingy with respect to students? A recent

study done at the University shows that in the Province of Newfoundland, 10 per

cent fewer students than in the Province of New Brunswick receive student aid

from the government and, in fact, the amounts of student aid received by

students in New Brunswick, for example, are far greater than the average amount

received by students in Newfoundland. Will the minister not review and revise

his Student Aid program to meet the real needs of students, so that at least we

are making the same amount of money available to students as does the Province

of New Brunswick?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the rules we abide by are

similar to the rules that the other provinces use. I don't know if the hon.

member is confusing this with the provincial student loan program that New

Brunswick has, or not, but I can certainly look at our rules and regulations.

The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to have rules; otherwise,

the fund - instead of saving $1 million we would probably be spending $10

million or $25 million on top of that. So you have to put rules in place and try

to abide by them. In my estimation, the rules that we have are fairly standard

to those across the country. I hope the member is not confusing it with the

provincial student loan program, which is a little different from the student

grant program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I just want to get back to the

President of Treasury Board again with one final question as it relates to the

public service collective bargaining system. This proposal to take $70 million

by way of reduced paid contribution to the pension plan is a one-shot deal, it

is a quick-fix solution. It doesn't solve the problem, it is an aspirin to it.

Will the minister confirm that next year we will also have to find that $70

million plus the $51 million deficit and whatever increase there might be on

that over the year, and how does the minister propose to do it next year? Are we

saying we are going to ask the public employees to reduce payments to the

pension plan by $70 million again next year, in addition to what might need to

be found?

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

MR. BAKER: The first part of the member's question - his

analysis is absolutely correct in the sense that this is simply a solution to

get us over a difficult time that we are having this year. Whether next year is

as bad as this year remains to be seen, and obviously, the solutions that are

being discussed now in the Province amongst some of the unions simply solve the

problem this year. Obviously, we have to get back to collective bargaining as

early as possible in the Fall to reach collective agreements that can begin

starting in the next fiscal year. So, obviously, we have to do that and we will

deal with these problems when they come. I don't know at this present time if,

in fact, our problem is going to involve the $70 million, plus the $51 million

next year. The problem my be greater than that, or it may be less than that, but

I am hoping that we can work with the public sector unions to solve whatever

problem we are faced with in the Fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as required by the Mineral Act, I am pleased to

table the Report of Mineral Licences and Mining Leases issued for Newfoundland

and Labrador for the fiscal year April 1 1992 to March 31 1993. Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move amendments to the

Standing Orders in the form of a new Standing Order 54.1 and a new Standing

Order 54.2.

There has been consultation with my hon. friend opposite. I

understand each of us has spoken with our colleagues in the caucus. I won't read

the Standing Order now - it is quite lengthy - but let me say for the benefit of

those who wish to know that this Standing Order addresses the situation with

respect to legislation that is referred to Standing Committees of the House,

either before it has been introduced, in the case of 54.1, or after the

legislation has received second reading, which is addressed by 54.2.

I hope we will be able to adopt these next week, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked a

couple of weeks ago of the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture about the fate

of the genetically superior swine that were produced at the Western Swine

Breeding Station.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment. There is no point of order. I

don't need to hear from the minister on it, thank you.

MR. FLIGHT: I am prepared to provide the answer if the

hon. member is interested in the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to be seated. I want to make a ruling on

the point of order first. The member is taking advantage of the House in raising

a point of order, and knowing the difference, that this is not a proper matter.

So there is no point of order apparent on the face of it. If the minister wishes

to give an answer to a question for which notice has been given, he may do so.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, that is fine, Mr. Speaker, I will defer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we propose to deal with the

Concurrence motion of the Resource Committee report. The same arrangements will

apply today, in my understanding, but perhaps we could be sure we all have the

understanding. The House will not rise at 5:00 p.m., it will rise at the later

of 5:00 p.m. or the conclusion of the debate on the Resource Committee report.

To that end, I will move the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that particular motion was put on

Friday past so I don't think we need to put it again at this point in time. At

this point, we will launch into concurrence debate in accordance with Standing

Orders.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: if the debate is limited to three hours, then

5:00 p.m., we don't need to not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., because it will be over by

then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the motion was that the House

do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

PREMIER WELLS: He acknowledges (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, okay. In that case (inaudible), Order

3(a), that confusion resolved, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now deal with Concurrence Motion No.

3 for the Resource Committee. I recognize the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, indeed, a

pleasure for me to rise in this hon. House today, as it was a pleasure for me to

have chaired the Resource Estimates Committee. It was an honour to have been the

chairman of this particular sector of the Estimate Committees, because in these

days of fiscal restraint we must recognize the importance of the departments

that came under our review. We reviewed the estimates of the departments of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy, Tourism and Culture, and

Industry, Trade and Technology.

I would, at this time, like to thank the members of the

Committee who served with me, particularly, the Vice-Chairman of those

Committees, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, who was very co-operative

with the Chair, as were the other members of the Committee: the hon. members for

Baie Verte - White Bay, Fogo, Harbour Main, Kilbride and St. George's. It should

be acknowledged at this point that the members for Port au Port, Eagle River,

Fortune - Hermitage and Green Bay, as well, filled in on one or two of the

evenings that we were doing the estimate reviews, filling in for some hon.

member who could not attend at that time.

I think it would be only fitting that we recognize, as well,

that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and the Member for Burin - Placentia

West attended and took

part in the proceedings by asking questions of the

minister.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee for the

manner in which they allowed the proceedings to go. Our proceedings were done

thoroughly but smoothly. We reported yesterday that the estimates of all of the

departments reviewed passed without amendment, and I would like to thank hon.

members who served on the Committee for that.

If I may take just a few minutes to touch on some of the

departments whose estimates we reviewed: the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology - it was recognized by practically every member of the Committee that

this department is not only an exciting department, I think the expression was

used that it is probably one of the more exciting departments in all of

government. This was acknowledged by members on both sides of the House, as they

said through the meetings.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there were times during the

evening that the Chair had to bring the hon. the minister to order because of

the length of time he gave to the answers. It was just a reflection of the total

enthusiasm he had for his job. It is understandable, of course. The Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology was quite excited about what he is doing, and he

has a right to be. Other hon. members who served on the Committee will

acknowledge that, I am sure, when they stand to speak.

The Department of Mines and Energy, as well - it must be

recognized that we, as Newfoundlanders, are now entering a new era for this

Province. We are introducing probably a new industry that is going to lead us

into the next century. Let us look at what has been accomplished at Hibernia

since the Liberal Government took power in 1989. Negotiations that had stalled

and were off the rails, we got them started again and, in a matter of no time,

the agreement was signed. Construction has begun.

It was interesting that during the election campaign a few

weeks ago, as the concrete was supposed to be ceremoniously poured, that their

friends in Ottawa - at least one of their friends in Ottawa, saw fit to put a

stop to that. But, whether the ceremonial pouring was stopped or not, we have

seen construction begin and we have, in fact, started heading into a new era for

this Province with a new industry, and we will see the same thing as we get into

Hebron, White Rose and the other reserves out there.

What we will be doing is changing the level of unemployment

that we have seen in this Province, and we will be increasing the level of

skills, and I think Newfoundland will lead the way in this particular industry

across this continent.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I was especially proud to

Chair this particular sector of the Estimates was because of the Department of

Tourism and Culture. I think we must all recognize -and it is interesting that

Tourism and Culture should be grouped under Resource, because I believe that

tourism is probably the untapped resource of this Province. It is the resource

on which the future of this Province lies.

I think we have all come to recognize that we are living in a

part of this country that still enjoys a pristine environment. We have something

that probably the inhabitants of Europe would give their left arm to enjoy, and

we take for granted. It is about time that we started marketing it properly, and

I am delighted to see that the minister - the new minister of this new

department - recognizes that potential and is working toward that end,

particularly in my district of Lewisporte. We are right in the heart of what I

believe will become the tourist capital of this Province within the next few

years. We are right in the center of the beautiful Bay of Exploits, the Notre

Dame Bay area. That will become, in my opinion, without doubt, the tourist

capital of this Province.

The minister has agreed to accompany me to my district again

as the House closes in a few days, which will be his third or fourth trip to my

district since becoming minister. He acknowledges that it will be his fourth,

and I am pleased with that.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Department of Fisheries

estimates was chaired that night by my hon. colleague from Eagle River. Because

of a previous commitment, I could not attend, so my colleague from Eagle River

filled in for me. I have no doubt that when the opportunity presents itself, he

will stand here in the House and he will explain to us some of the things that

happened that night.

I would like to make a few comments about the proceedings

when we did the estimates of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. We all

recognize that our forest is a renewable resource, but some concern was raised,

Mr. Speaker, about the rate of consumption and whether, in fact, the resource

can renew itself at the rate that we are consuming it. There was also some

concern raised as to whether we should allow our hardwoods, particularly our

birch, to be used for firewood. The minister elaborated that maybe we should put

our hardwoods to some better use than firewood and we should re-allocate

sections of the resource. Mr. Speaker, the questions were very thorough, very

good questions, very substantive questions, particularly on the other

section of

his department, agriculture. It was recognized, as well, that Newfoundland

doesn't enjoy the climate that we have in other parts of this country,

nevertheless, we can become more self-sufficient in agriculture than we are. It

is nice to know that we have a minister who recognizes that and is working

toward that end.

There was a topic that came up that night, Mr. Speaker, that

I must make reference to, namely, the issue of permitting the manufacture of

reconstituted milk in this Province. I must say, I was somewhat disturbed when

the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee,

stated unequivocally that, in his opinion, the manufacture of reconstituted milk

should be banned, effective immediately, it should be banned right now and put

the Notre Dame Dairies in Lewisporte, all of the employees of that plant, out of

work; that plant should be closed down because there should be no more

reconstituted milk allowed in the Province. I was somewhat surprised when I

heard him say that, because that certainly was not the position of his party

during the election campaign only a few weeks ago. That certainly was not said

by the candidate who was running for the PC Party in Lewisporte. That certainly

is not what was said by the Leader of his party when he visited Lewisporte only

a few weeks ago during the campaign.

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

MR. PENNEY: By leave for just a minute?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PENNEY: I am wondering if the hon. member was

speaking on behalf of his party or just speaking on behalf of his own personal

view. I am sure he will elaborate when he gets to his feet.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my time is up. I move concurrence of

the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few short comments pertaining to the

Legislation Review Committee on Resource, Mr. Speaker. I have to concur with the

Chairman of the Committee that, as far as I am concerned, it was a very

worthwhile exercise. I always found, ever since I became a Member of the House

of Assembly in 1985, that it was a great opportunity to learn and gain knowledge

in a specific department. One thing I found, when I came in here in 1985, was

that you may know of some things, whether they be agriculture, forestry or

whatever, but if there is something that you are needing information on, attend

an Estimates Committee. No matter whether it is government services, social

services or the resource sector, attend a Committee meeting and ask some

pertinent questions and, I have to admit, you will get honest answers. My

experience with the Estimates Committees is that if the ministers didn't know

the answer, at least they would go and find it and bring it back to you; they

will do that. It is different in the House. When we ask questions in the House,

I suppose, human nature being what it is, ministers have a tendency to try to be

somewhat evasive, but in the Estimates, there seems to be no hesitation in

answering the questions. Ministers, I will say, make every effort to try to give

a member an honest answer, and that to me, is what this is all about, what the

House of Assembly is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Pertaining to our Resource Committee, I have to say, I give

all members credit. I had two so-called rookies who served on the committee with

me, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Member for Kilbride, and

government members, the Member for Harbour Main and the Member for St. George's

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The Member for Fogo is no rookie. He is no

rookie but he is an old stalwart, back again, and he contributed to the

Estimates Committees; as soon as they start to get a bit dull, he used to liven

her up, Mr. Speaker, and keep the Chair on his toes, or I should say, another

part of his anatomy.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, it was, I must say, a well-spent

exercise and the questions and answers by all members - the new members, on both

sides of the House, I must say, had some very pertinent questions. And they

asked questions, which is what it is all about.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will make an effort now to

try to comment on some of the particular headings in the Estimates Committee. I

will make a comment to the hon. the Chairman of the Committee, the Member for

Lewisporte, pertaining to the statement I made the other night on reconstituted

milk. We have tried, Mr. Speaker, and it goes back a long way in this Province -

I remember, in 1970, in this Province, going to the Department of Agriculture

and asking them for some help to get into the dairy industry. They as good as

laughed at anybody then, especially myself, personally, with the idea of getting

into the dairy industry.

I fought long and hard to try to get into it and I did, but

it was in spite of government, not because of it, and it wasn't a Liberal

Government, it was a PC Government. And when Premier Peckford came out to me in

1985 and said to me: `Rick, they tell me that you have been fairly successful,'

I said: `Hold on; hold on, now, don't get too carried away by my success.' I

said, `I farmed in spite of you fellows, not because of you.' And the same thing

that was there in 1970-1971, is there today; it is there today, Mr. Speaker,

twenty-two years later; it is still there today. The roots are still there. And

I say to the Member for Lewisporte that the only reason that plant, the only

reason the `Recon' - not the plant, don't be confused now with the plant, and

`Recon', the 500,000 litres of reconstituted milk that is coming out of that

plant.

Businessmen being businessmen - or business women, will do

what they have to do to make sure that their enterprise will survive, so don't

be fooled by the threat of a plant closing down because of 500,000 litres of

reconstituted milk. You don't have to tell me about that. We are the only

province in Canada that is producing reconstituted milk, the only province. Why?

Because of agreements made between Brookfield Ice Cream and the former owners of

that particular plant some years ago. And there is one reason and one reason

only - and if the member wants to stand in his place today and say the real

reason why reconstituted is not being manufactured in Lewisporte today, that one

reason is political - no other reason. There is no other reason for it to be

manufactured here. We are bringing in skim milk from the mainland, mixing it

with Newfoundland water and manufacturing reconstituted milk.

The Member for Terra Nova says that Central Dairies and

Brookfield are owned by mainland companies. We all know that. That is no secret,

but who is producing the milk for them? Who is producing the milk for Central

Dairies and Brookfield?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: That is right. Only when the Newfoundland

producers cannot produce it, and the same thing is applicable in reverse. I can

understand why the hon. member is upset.

MR. TOBIN: Tell us.

MR. WOODFORD: I stand in my place today and say to the

hon. member, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition said during the

campaign in Lewisporte and I do not care. I do not know what the member who ran

there for the PC party in this election said and I do not care. I will stand up

for the principle of the thing, Mr. Speaker. Now, the member opposite might say

that 500,000 litres of reconstituted milk is nothing, it is only trivial, it is

only a small percent. It is a small percentage but what I am talking about is

the principle of the thing, and that is what you are going to see. Only for that

particular district today, is represented by the Member for Lewisporte, a good

member, I have nothing to say about the member, nothing whatsoever, that

particular

section of that plant, the reconstituted part, would be gone, and I

venture to bet that the AP&B who were suppose to be representing all

agricultural sectors in the Province today, except for the commodity groups, and

really after that represent the consumers in the Province, is about to make a

decision. It is very interesting what the AP&B are going to say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: I asked you the other night and you did not

tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (inaudible) right now because you will

forget it.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I did not hear what they said today.

I am only going on what the minister said the other night, but I have to make

reference to that because the member brought it up, about the reconstituted in

Lewisporte, and that is why I made reference to it. You know where I stand,

there are no backdoors. I tell you out-front and I told your people yesterday

when I met them. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) with Sprung in 1988.

MR. WOODFORD: I had nothing to do with Sprung in 1988.

When I had the opportunity to do something about Sprung I did it. Mr. Speaker,

to keep on talking about the agriculture estimates there were different

references made to different commodity groups, different headings under

agriculture. There are a lot of commodity groups. There is a lot to agriculture

because of the breakdown of the different commodity groups and the groups that

are not represented by marketing boards. There was a lot of discussion about

forestry. Ten minutes is not much to speak at any given time so as soon as you

get wound up on a particular subject there is no trouble -

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

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will only take a few minutes but I would like to address

some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Humber Valley. He said, I do

not know what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was in Lewisporte during

the campaign, and I do not care. But I would like to remind the hon. gentleman

that the management of the Notre Dame dairies plant know what they said. The

employees of Notre Dame dairies know very well what those two gentlemen said.

The voters in the Lewisport district know very well what they said. They also

know what the member said quite clearly, every opportunity that he had, that in

his opinion no marketing board, no arm of government, had a right to interfere

with free enterprise. This is a free enterprise system that brought Newfoundland

to where it is today, and there is no arm of government, whether it be a

marketing board or whether it be a department of government, that has a right to

interfere with that.

I would like to remind all hon. gentlemen and ladies here

that if there wasn't a market for the product that's coming out of Notre Dame

Dairies, if the consumer didn't want the product, they'd have been out of

business before this. They wouldn't need a marketing board to do it. The very

fact that that product is put into the supermarket shelves alongside their

competition, and the very fact that the consumer chooses it, is reason enough to

let it stay. It's reason enough to support the continued manufacture of that

product.

Mr. Speaker, if the boards have enough autonomy and enough

authority to close down an industry that the consumer wants then God help us,

there's something very seriously wrong. I suspect that what's happening is that

the members of the boards are protecting their own self-interest. Who's on that

board that's looking after the interest of the consumer? I would ask. What

percentage of the members of the marketing board is more concerned with the

interests of the consumer than the interests of the industry?

MR. WOODFORD: Same with your government.

MR. PENNEY: The hon. the minister has not yet made his

position. I was just reacting to the comments made by the Member for Humber

Valley who supports closing them down. It doesn't matter what the consumer

wishes to buy. That's where I have a problem. He states that his position is one

of principle. The principle of this, Mr. Speaker, is quite clear. As long as the

consumer wants to purchase the product and as long as we have somebody prepared

to manufacture it, nobody has a right to stop it. That's the principle of it.

He says: but we're the only province in Canada manufacturing

recon milk. Two points. Number one: that is not correct. Number two: so if we

are the only province in Canada manufacturing recon milk, so what? We're the

only province in Canada marketing coloured margarine too. We're probably the

only province in Canada that enjoys a good meal of seal meat too. Does he want

to stop that? Or does he want to see it get to the point eventually that when

Mr. Speaker walks into a supermarket and he wants to buy a particular brand of

something, Mr. Speaker is being told no, he has to settle for a different brand,

because some marketing board says so.

It's also interesting to note that the hon. member states

that it's because of the representation by the member for the district of

Lewisporte that that plant is still in operation. If that's the case, I take a

great deal of personal pride in that fact. I'm not a bit ashamed to have that

comment spread across the front page of the Lewisporte Pilot next week. That

it's been recognised in the House of Assembly that because of the actions and

the comments made by the member that the plant hasn't closed. But if members on

that side of the House had their way it'd be closed down. I think that's

basically what I've heard the Member for Humber Valley -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Basically what I'm hearing

now then is that this is only the view of the Member for Humber Valley and his

view is not shared by his colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: Sorry?

MR. SULLIVAN: He's (inaudible) his personal opinion.

MR. PENNEY: That's fine. I respect the fact that's his

personal opinion. Obviously then his personal opinion is not shared by the other

members of the Party and it is not shared by the Leader of the Party, and is not

the policy of the Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. PENNEY: Well, that's a marvellous thing what they're

doing to their colleague, Mr. Speaker. They're cutting him adrift. They're

leaving him out high and dry. Where's the support they're giving their colleague

for Humber Valley? Is that the kind of support he gets in caucus, I wonder?

AN HON. MEMBER: What support are you getting?

MR. PENNEY: I ask hon. members to be a little bit patient

for a few days and we'll see. The House will see exactly what support I've

gotten. Those are the comments I wanted to make on that particular topic right

now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, we can keep this going all

evening, I guess, arguing back and forth about the reconstituted and so on, but

one thing I will say to the hon. member, unlike members opposite, members on

this side can express this opinions and express them freely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I was elected, Mr. Speaker, by the people.

There is not one other member in this House of Assembly who voted for me - not

one! I was elected by the people of Humber Valley, and I will stand in my place

any day -

AN HON. MEMBER: The dairy farmers.

MR. WOODFORD: - and represent the people of Humber

Valley, whether it is a dairy farmer, whether it is a logger, whether it is

someone in the mining industry or any other industry, I will stand in my place

and represent them. I will not do anything other than that, Mr. Speaker. I will

say to other members - and I am sure the opportunity will present itself,

according to what I am hearing today, over the next two, three or four years -

to have some fun here in the House and ask some questions pertaining to

agriculture. I can see evidence of that here this evening. I can see evidence of

that here this evening, so I will refer to that in later speeches.

I did not, anywhere in my speech, I say to the hon. member,

say that plant had to close down. I said the reconstituted had to come out - not

the plant - and there is a big difference. I can understand, like I said before,

why certain business people are saying that the reconstituted went, that the

plant had to go. That is not so.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, in his

questions, I must say, was really forthright, upfront and honest about the

answers. Some of the questions asked and the answers given were pertaining to

the Report of the Task Force on Agriculture presented by the Member for St.

George's. It is an excellent, excellent report, a good job, no doubt about that,

but the implementations of the contents of that particular report, nothing has

been implemented.

The hon. minister talked about the sixty recommendations that

were implemented. I say to the hon. minister this evening that when I sit down,

stand up and tell me about them, because if some of the ones you mentioned are

implementations and recommendations that were made coming from the task force, I

say to the hon. minister that he is wrong. He is wrong.

He mentioned forage production. Forage production in this

Province has been going on since God knows when. It had nothing to do with the

task force. The ALFI agreement and the Agri-Foods agreement were in long before

the hon. Member for St. George's started his task force. That was in, and

absolutely nothing... The emphasis they put on it is right. It is true. It is

dead on that there should be an increase in forage production, but the actual

start of forage production under the ALFI and Agri-Foods agreement was started

long before the Task Force on Agriculture.

His recommendations were right, to make sure that we were

self-sustaining, to make sure that we were self-sufficient in forage, no

question - but to say that particular recommendation came out of the task force

on agriculture, Mr. Speaker, and that was a big implementation, is wrong.

One of the other things he mentioned was about the school

milk program coming out of the report on agriculture. I say to the minister that

that particular program was about to be instituted by myself in 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: The school milk program. Right when the

election was called in 1989 there was $250,000 allocated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) misleading the House.

MR. WOODFORD: Well if I am misleading the House, Mr.

Speaker, then the member who wrote this report must be misleading the House,

because on Page 113, on the second last paragraph, the member stated that the

Province was close to being - that providing cheap milk to school children

throughout the Province was close to being implemented in 1989, before the

provincial general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Now, it is here in writing. I didn't write

it, all I had to do was bring it up. But, I mean, it is there in writing. I

don't know who signed it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again, `Rick'.

MR. WOODFORD: - Mr. Bud Hulan. So, I mean, that is

nothing out of the report. Again, when the member referred to it in his report,

he did a good job. But to say that it came out of the recommendations of the

Task Force on Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, that isn't so. To say that it was built

on, yes. To say that it was increased with funding, yes. To say that it was a

better program, yes. Having said that, I have to commend the minister on what he

has done with the school milk program, on the department's $150,000 that they

put into it.

Having said that, there was absolutely nothing said about

what the producers and the processors put into the school milk program. The

producers, last year alone, put somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000, $450,000

into the school milk program. The Member for Terra Nova - a lot of the producers

out in her area, all agreed with it. The Farm Women's Association supported it.

It was an excellent program. I think, the other day, she mentioned in her speech

that the school milk program was a good program. I thought I heard her reference

it, anyway. It is a good program.

The $150,000 in seed programming put in by the Department of

Agriculture - I think that should be increased. I personally really think that

should be increased, because the producer is putting in such a large amount.

Now, the processors say they are putting in, I don't know, maybe $300,000 or

$400,000, but some of that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. That is what the producers are putting

in. The processors say that they are putting in something like $400,000 or

$500,000. But, directly, I don't think - I think it is coming off what they call

fifty cent milk. But, regardless of how they are putting it in, they say they

are putting it in, and it is a good program. I know, out in my area, and I am

sure I can speak for a lot of other areas around this Province, that that

particular school milk program has been accepted freely. The kids - one of the

biggest things that I have found it has done is it has done away with these

Pepsi-Coke machines in the schools. My wife is a teacher and she comes home

telling me about all those syrups kids have in their lunch pails and this

Kool-Aid rotting every tooth. It is the best dollars government ever spent, that

$150,000.

Because, now, the children are more alert, they can learn

better, they are on their feet more, they are more vibrant, because they have

this fresh milk in their little stomachs, and if they have nothing else to eat

in the morning - and a lot of them haven't - they could be sustained for the

day, on that particular lunch alone, that they get at lunchtime. And it is

affordable compared to other prices of that old junk, so to speak.

The other thing about it - and I have been a former dairy

operator - the first to admit is, it is good for the industry. It is excellent

for the industry, because two things are going to happen. The health of the

children and the money spent on the health care system, somewhere down the road,

has to benefit. Because milk is the first food, it is the prime food, it is the

most nutritional substance you could ever put in your body. You must have it to

sustain life, you must have it to keep a good solid bone content. It is an

all-round food, the best nutritional food you can consume today, Mr. Speaker.

The other positive thing about it is that it can increase

production all over the Province, and that will increase jobs. It will bring

jobs to other parts of the Province. It is an industry that can grow. The Member

for Terra Nova was quite right when she said that there were mainland companies

involved. There are. The milk comes in from the mainland when the Newfoundland

producer doesn't produce enough. But milk also goes out - we have to get to the

point where we can take on more producers, and the only way we can do that is to

raise the level of milk consumption. And the member also had that in his report.

When he wrote this report, I think the level of consumption was 57 litres per

capita in this Province. Do you know what the next was to us? The national

average was 105 litres per capita.

MR. HARRIS: How about Carnation milk?

MR. WOODFORD: Carnation? Well, I will get to that. That

is an interesting point,because the national average was 105 litres per capita.

The next province to us was P.E.I. with 100 litres per capita and we were

fifty-seven.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: May I have just a couple of minutes to

finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Humber

Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: I just want to finish on this particular

point and then I will sit down and give someone else a chance.

But that is the national average. Now that to me - the

Minister of Health alone, it is no trouble to look at his budget and say why,

because it starts from infancy and comes right on up through the system.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East just brought up an

excellent point about Carnation. Do you know that three years ago, we produced

$52 million worth of fluid milk in the Province? And I don't know if members

realize it or not, we imported $32 million worth of Carnation.

MR. HARRIS: What!

MR. WOODFORD: Thirty-two million dollars worth of

Carnation milk was imported into this Province.

MR. ROBERTS: There was a time when we consumed

(inaudible) Carnation milk.

MR. WOODFORD: In all of - I don't know if it is Canada

but I think it is Atlantic Canada.

MR. TOBIN: It is the best you can get.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, that could be. I did hear that

before, too.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Carnation.

MR. WOODFORD: That could be. Thirty-two million dollars

worth of Carnation and fifty-two million dollars worth of fluid - that was about

three, three-and-a-half to four years ago and we are wondering what is wrong

with our health care system, wondering what is wrong with jobs, wondering what

is wrong with lack of increase in agriculture. And that is fluid milk - when I

say fluid milk I am talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, I won't go on because I was only

given a couple of minutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to take only a couple of minutes, but there is one

thing I want to do - I want to put in perspective and lay before the House the

real story behind school milk, Mr. Speaker.

Now, it may well be, and I am sure the hon. member quoted the

report right and I am sure the hon. the Member for St. George's knows what he

wrote in the report but, Mr. Speaker, prior to the election in 1989, there was

no school milk program in this Province and there was no intention of a school

milk program in this Province. What happened, Mr. Speaker, was the hon. member

who was then the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, running his own campaign

and trying to get himself elected in Deer Lake, made a campaign promise, saying,

`If I am re-elected, I guarantee you that I will implement a school milk

program.' There is no record anywhere in the department, Mr. Speaker, where it

was the policy of the government, any intention, there was no record of the hon.

member when he was a minister, indicating that he wanted to start a school milk

program or that he intended to bring a school milk program forward to Cabinet,

nothing, Mr. Speaker, no school milk program. The only reference to a school

milk program in Newfoundland prior to our assuming office was that the hon.

member, during his campaign, made it a campaign promise. Now, Mr. Speaker, I

tell you that if all the campaign promises the Tories made in the seventeen

years they were in government were implemented, there would be a lot of changes

in this Province. Mr. Speaker, there was nothing. He hadn't moved, as Minister

of Forestry and Agriculture, he hadn't indicated to his colleagues, he hadn't

indicated to his executive or to his department. In Humber Valley, he simply

said, `I think school milk is a good program and if I am elected' - and he had

to assume also, I suppose, that he would be a minister - `if I am elected, I

will have a school milk program.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not implement a school milk program

because the hon. the Member for Humber Valley made it a part of his campaign

promises - I implemented the school milk program because the hon. the Member for

St. George's, in the Hulan Agri-Food Task Force report, recommended it. It was

not implemented because the hon. member decided that he would use it as a

campaign promise in 1989. And, Mr. Speaker, the first time there was any record

of the hon. member ever talking about a school milk program and discussing it

with the department and discussing it with his officials and indicating that,

`As a minister, I would like to see this happen' simply, one day in Humber

Valley, he said, `If I am elected, I will implement a school milk program,' and

that is the only reference that was made in this Province to a school milk

program prior to 1989.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, the record should be set straight,

because in 1989, after the government changed and I became the minister, and

discussions were held - and I must say that the industry, immediately, was

concerned.

Mr. Speaker, another fact should be made clear here, that one

only needs to trace the association that that hon. member had then and still has

with the dairy industry. The leaders in the dairy industry, the Milk Marketing

Board, the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, Mr. Speaker, these are the

people who were the biggest supporters of the school milk program, for obvious

reasons.

Because of the school milk program today, roughly two million

litres of milk is being produced and, of course, one of the benefits of the

school milk program, was the increase in production, thereby allowing the dairy

industry, the existing dairy industry to 1976, to expand. And they had a vested

interest, in that sense, but they were also interested, as the hon. member said,

in the nutrition value of milk, in getting milk into the schools, as opposed to

soft drink.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member may have sat down during that campaign and in a campaign session, in a

strategy session, where he was getting advice from the leaders to whom I just

referred, Mr. Speaker - I mean, since they had, I would say, a lot to do with

his campaign organization; but I am only assuming that. But they were the

leaders in the industry and I know they are very much associated with the hon.

member, so I can see, some night after the member having been going door-to-door

all day, that they asked: Now, what can we say tomorrow that will sound good

from an ex-minister or from the Minister of Agriculture? and they dreamed up the

school milk program, and the next day the hon. member made a statement, saying:

`If I am elected' - well, you know, I am sure the hon. the Member for Baie Verte

- White Bay, said for three weeks - the previous hon. member - said, if I am

elected, I will do such and such a thing. Well, he didn't get elected.

What would have happened if the previous administration had

been elected and the hon. member had not been elected? Was there anyone in back

here - did he leave the idea with anybody back here that we should have a school

milk program? No, Mr. Speaker, no. The only thing that the hon. member can take

credit for with regard to the school milk program is that, one night, with his

campaign officials, looking at the possibility of something to announce

tomorrow, he said: if I am elected, I will implement, or we should implement a

school milk program. Now, Mr. Speaker, the school milk program comes as a result

of the initiative of this government, supported and recommended by the Hulan

Task Force Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: If I am elected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have all evening to speak

yet, we have three hours on this yet. Mr. Speaker, I have to again set the

record straight. The hon. minister, when he first got into his department,

didn't do very much research, or else he did an awful lot of shredding in the

first four or five days, one or the other.

Mr. Speaker, I say this to the minister, that I fought for

almost eighteen months in 1988 and 1989, trying to get a couple of ministers at

that time, namely, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education, because

those were the three line departments involved, to try to get them to produce

the funding for the school milk program. And if you go back - maybe I can go

back through my own Cabinet papers; I will go back.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You didn't look. I challenge the minister

on that. But, apart from that, it is a good program, anyway.

I have to get to the point where the minister said that in

the campaign, I announced in Humber Valley that there was going to be a school

milk program. I never, never uttered the words in Humber Valley - never, never

uttered the words - and I can say that categorically, Mr. Speaker. Where I did

say it, I say to the minister, was in Gander, when I spoke to the Federation of

Agriculture. I make no bones about it, and no back doors about it, I said, then:

`I am interested.' They knew I was interested, and I told them then that I had

requested funding to have the school milk program instituted. I had problems - I

do not mind saying it - I had problems with other ministers, two ministers,

specifically, who could not see the use of it. One of them was the Minister of

Health, I don't mind saying. My own colleagues at that time - I couldn't beat it

through their heads that the program was a good one. And I am glad that the

present Minister of Health wasn't there then. I don't know who the Minister of

Health was. Maybe the hon. the Member for the Straits was there then.

Well, I am glad to see it instituted, but to say that I said

it in a campaign promise in Humber Valley is wrong - I never uttered the words

there - but in Gander, I think it was in March of 1989, I did. I say to the

minister, in a speech to the Federation of Agriculture, I promised that that

particular program would be instituted - I didn't, other than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't make promises.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, that was one promise I made that was

kept. A good buccaneer, it had to take. That is what it had to take to make the

promise, and another buccaneer carried it out. There is nothing wrong with it.

I can remember the old days in Buchans when the hon. minister

there used to go from stope to stope and pillar to pillar and from pipe to pipe

when he worked in MacLean Shaft and in Rothermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The Minister of Mines and Energy, I

wouldn't say, knows what a stope or a pillar is. He might now, but I can tell

the hon. member what they are, from when we used to work underground at MacLean

Shaft.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few short

comments on forestry, as well. Forestry in this Province today is one of our

biggest and most important industries. The fishery, no doubt, is an important

industry, and the biggest. It is still the biggest, I would say, even with the

20,000 or 25,000 people who were displaced by the moratorium. But forestry is

another main part of the resource sector of this Province. We have to have a

sustained and viable and affordable, I should say, silviculture and forestry

program in the Province.

I say to the minister responsible, every time we hear a

member stand up, it is the Federal Government this and the Federal Government

that. They are cutting out this program, they are cutting out that program.

Well, I say to members opposite, if the Federal Government were going to fund

every program, what do we have a new government for? What are we here for?

Having said that, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

will have 100 per cent support in making sure that the Federal Government

extends that particular program, especially pertaining to forestry. It is not

their jurisdiction, is the first thing you will say, it is a provincial

responsibility. Yes, it is a provincial responsibility, but I say to the Federal

Government, regardless of who is going to be there as leader after next week,

that they are going to have to pony up and help out with regard to the forestry,

the silviculture program in this Province.

I think we are spending somewhere in the vicinity of $12

million a year in silviculture reforestation programs in the Province. That

includes thinning and planting and so on, and that has to be kept up because of

the sins of the past in forestry in this Province. Bowater, for years and years

on end, cut and cut, and slashed and slashed, and destroyed and destroyed, and

put absolutely nothing back, and that was the fault of previous governments -

governments. There was absolutely nothing put back until the last eight, nine or

ten years - nothing. Everywhere you looked, there was devastation. Everywhere

you looked - talk about clear-cutting, nothing all across this Province was

clear-cut, and nothing put back, absolutely nothing.

Today we have an excellent reforestation program, and we have

to make sure that particular program is kept up. We have to make sure that

particular program is sustained, and we have to make sure that the forestry

sector in this Province is kept alive and well. Despite what the paper companies

say, despite what Abitibi-Price says, despite what Kruger says, it is going to

be there, it is our resource. I say again, Mr. Speaker, as I said before in this

House, we talked about getting control of the fishery. We do not have it, we did

not have it, it was managed poorly. We do not have control of our forests. The

bit of Crown land that the minister has to deal with is a pittance compared to

what the Kruger and Abitibi holdings in this Province are. They allow a

management cut every year. The companies have to come to the Department of

Forestry and sign an agreement on a management cut, whatever their percentage

is, I think, it is every year, on where they are going to cut, how much spruce

they are going to cut, where they are going to cut it and so on. That is good.

At least we have control over that and we can tell them to go in an area where

there is bug killed timber that should probably be salvaged this year before it

is too late. We can tell them to go to another area where there is probably an

overgrowth or something like that, or over mature timber that should be cut.

In the past all they did was go into certain areas and cut

what was in close proximity to the mill. The cheapest and the best wood went to

the mills at bottom prices and today we are paying the price for that particular

sin of the past, as far as I am concerned. Abitibi-Price in another eight or

nine years are going to be short of wood. There is no question. I have no

arguments with Abitibi-Price or Kruger, or anybody else bringing in wood from

outside the Province, provided - and I have to qualify that, Mr. Speaker, in

saying this, that the loggers who are cutting wood on this island should be

looked after first. They can supply spruce, they can supply a high fibre product

to the mills. Some of the best fibre wood we have is in Labrador, as the

minister stated the other night. It is still in the Province, some of the best

in the world. The Abitibi plant, especially in Stephenville, has got the name

for having one of the best products in the world, especially in North America

anyway, because of the fact they have a good fibre content going to that

particular plant.

I say to the paper companies in this Province, yes, but take

from the locals first. I have a constituent now who was told he is allowed to

ship four loads of spruce in June and eighteen loads in July, and that is it for

the year. Now, that to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. I have calls into

Abitibi-Price and I am waiting for some reply back. When I confronted them with

it yesterday they could not understand where this came from, but they have got

it. The operators in my particular area got it, and as far as I concerned I was

told they are bringing in 30,000 metres of pulpwood from PEI, and 30,000 metres

from the Labrador

section of the island this year. Now, that is not a big lot

when you look at the total consumption of Abitibi-Price in Stephenville or Grand

Falls, but when you look at just the plant in Stephenville it is a sizeable

chunk, and like I said before I do not mind them bringing it in provided they

take from the loggers on the island who are supplying the product, especially

when it is the same type of product, namely spruce.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity and

privilege to sit on the Resource Estimates Committee and I say to this hon.

Chamber it was indeed a learning experience and it also provided a chance to

gain an insight into the workings of such a committee. It was also a chance for

a newcomer such as myself to become introduced to the various departments we

were examining the estimates on. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, right at the

outset, that I was indeed impressed with the knowledge each particular minister

demonstrated concerning his particular department. I say his because we had no

female ministers in our midst at the time. That was, I think, obviously

recognized also by the public as well and was no doubt a factor or a reason for

the vote of confidence that this government was given on May 3.

I want to just mention a few things on each of the

departments we had the opportunity to examine. In as far as Tourism is

concerned, I was pleased to see that Tourism and their effort to develop

adventure tourism in this Province, and to stress in particular in the future

four season tourism. That particular area of tourism, Mr. Speaker, has the

potential of creating many jobs in my district of St. George's alone, to say

nothing about the Province in general. I applaud the Minister of Tourism and

Culture in particular for his conviction and strong stance regarding the rates

charged on the ferry services to this Province. You may recall that I made

reference to that in my maiden speech here in this House, noting that such

exorbitant fares and rates are not only a deterrent and detrimental to the

tourism industry of Newfoundland and Labrador - especially here on the Island -

but it's also a hardship on our residents and those who want to leave the

Province, or those parts of our families who wish to come home.

Looking next to Fisheries, I am indeed thrilled with the

emphasis being placed on aquaculture production and development by the

Department of Fisheries. I am also pleased to see the foresight of the current

minister as evidenced by his real emphasis on commitment to aquaculture

research. It is indeed comforting to note that the minister recognizes the

importance of good, sound research and the importance of such to the development

of aquaculture in this Province. I, like other members of the Resource

Committee, was taken by the minister's factual remarks that the reproduction

biomass for the northern cod in our ocean is only a mere 70,000 metric tons,

when in fact a minimum of 102,000 metric tons, I believe, is the required amount

to maintain required production levels. That's serious indeed.

Turning to the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology,

I am indeed impressed with the forward planning of that relatively new

department and the vision of its minister. I feel that I can speak for the

entire Committee in saying that this hon. Chamber, and indeed the Province, can

have confidence and pride in this Ministry. The minister and his officials

recognize the importance of hi-technology in the world today and the important

role it can and will play in the future economic development of our Province.

This is indeed an exciting department, as you have already heard from my hon.

colleague, with a great deal of dynamism. The emphasis the department is placing

on such things as information industries, environmental industries,

manufacturing and computer literacy bode well for our future survival and

development in a competitive world.

Last but not least I want to touch on the Department of

Forestry and Agriculture. In fact, I can say, and I should probably say, that I

kept the best till last. As in the case of other departments that we examined I

was impressed with the knowledge displayed by the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture of his Ministry. I am enthused with the initiatives the department

is taking in the area of silviculture and forest management, which was indeed

ignored by governments in the 1970s and the 1980s. Our forest resources were

largely decimated during those years and it was shamefully condoned by the

governments of the day.

The initiative this government is taking to expand the

private saw milling industry in the Province, and the steps they are also taking

to secure additional sawing logs through effective negotiations with the large

paper companies is commendable indeed. I am equally impressed, Mr. Speaker, with

the actions of this department in their effort to encourage, support and develop

private woodlot management in this Province and also to encourage the

development of Christmas tree farms. The department is indeed to be commended on

this type of forward planning.

Now, I want to turn my attention to agriculture and

agri-foods. Mr. Speaker, this government recognized early in their mandate in

1989, that agriculture and the related food industry of this Province have been

ignored by the business community, the public, the media and especially by

governments for the last couple of decades. In recent years, Mr. Speaker, the

public's awareness of agri-foods in this Province has been focused almost

exclusively on the hydroponic growing facility in Mount Pearl. That focus has

hurt the greenhouse industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, an industry worth in

excess of $7 million and it has also hurt the total agricultural industry,

itself worth $60 million plus, in farm gate receipts alone and the true value of

that industry in this Province is near $300 million. This government, Mr.

Speaker, also recognized the fact that a major constraint in the development of

an agri-food industry in this Province is the absence of a clearly defined

comprehensive public policy on agriculture. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the

minister commissioned the task force to inquire into the current conditions and

the future direction of the agri-food sector in the Province and to make

recommendations for a long-term policy on agri-foods into the next millennium.

Mr. Speaker, the ministers task force on agri-foods was

indeed the most comprehensive study of the food industry ever attempted in

Canada, as it examined each sector of the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: In case this hon. House does not know, it

examined every sector of the industry from primary production to consumption.

That has never been done in the food industry anywhere in this country before.

As an added bonus, the task force outlined in detail a public policy on food and

nutrition, a policy this Province has been lacking for 500 years. We are the

only Province in Canada, Mr. Speaker, without such a policy and yet it is well

documented that the cost for diet related chronic diseases in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador such as osteoporosis, heart disease, obesity,

hypertension and certain forms of cancer constitute a much higher proportion of

the total expenditures of Newfoundland's health care system than elsewhere in

Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, at a time when funding for health services

provincially is under tremendous pressures and recognizing that no society can

tolerate an unhealthy population, efforts must be made to institute preventative

health care. I challenge this House, Mr. Speaker, this hon. House by saying what

better way to achieve this than through the production of wholesome nutritious

food and at the same time generate needed employment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

DR. HULAN: - especially in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. I am pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and his department

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. The hon. member has leave of the

House.

DR. HULAN: Less than two minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that the minister and his department has

implemented or is in the process of implementing, I believe some 60 per cent of

the 210 recommendations of the task force on agri-foods. Such action, Mr.

Speaker, by this government is indeed commendable during these tough economic

times and will allow the future achievement of the goals outlined above and in

the task force on agri-foods. 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. First I will concur

with some of the comments made earlier about this particular committee, I was

glad to be able to sit on this committee. I will congratulate the chairman first

of all for keeping things organized and under control, also the Member for

Humber Valley who was the vice-chairman who did a superb job. I must say that it

was a new experience for me, and some of the members already pointed out it was

a learning experience. I didn't really understand until I went into the actual

first meeting how the whole thing went. It's a great opportunity for the extra

information that you don't get in the House, as we say, and to talk to the

ministers.

On that note too I'll also make the comment that the

ministers and their officials who attended those meetings were very informative,

very straightforward. I must say they were very cooperative in giving their

answers, and if they didn't have the answers on hand they were quite willing to

get those answers for us.

I heard a comment from some of the other committees before

about how everybody didn't ask questions, especially the members on that side,

during some of the committees. I must say that during our committees all

members, including the members for St. George's and Harbour Main - and

especially the Member for Fogo, who I call the Don Cherry of the Committee, he

kept us in line and kept us in touch with a few things and kept us on our toes.

Especially the Member for Kilbride who assisted me on this side. Overall the

Committee ran very well, very informative. I must say I look forward to doing it

again.

To just hit on some of the headings and try to keep them as

brief as I can, and touch on some very straightforward and simple facts, I

guess, of the Committee. First of all, the Tourism Committee. I'll concur with

the chairman who said a few minutes ago - and I've said it for a long time, so

it's not the first time - is that the tourism industry is what I call the

untapped resource of the Province. There's no doubt about it that down the road

I can see this Province, Newfoundland and Labrador - and I'll make a point on

the Labrador

section very shortly - that the tourism potential in this Province

is untapped. It is a resource that if we harnessed it right now and started

moving it in the right directions - and there are some good things happening in

tourism - that in the future, future generations of Newfoundlanders will look at

that resource as probably the biggest resource that will always be here, the

long term of tourism.

I'm very pro-tourism. I always have been. Because I've done

quite a bit of travelling myself, and the best travelling I've ever done is in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I've got no problem in saying that. After travelling

the world over - you know, you can travel for many miles on these big jets and

find these desolate islands in the south. But I'm telling you, there's nothing

as beautiful as a small cove in Newfoundland that's very quiet and talking to a

senior and getting stories off a wharf, or something to that affect. Or sitting

near a small quiet pond in the evening when you can have a chance to flick out

the fly and just sit back and relax. You can travel the world over and you won't

come across better situations in tourism than that.

Provincially, I told the minister during our Committee

meetings that I would with him support and lobby as hard as we can to make sure

the access to Newfoundland is there. More access through the Lewisporte area,

which is going hopefully to come around soon, after the Labrador Highway comes

through, and also that that access is cheaper. So that people are enticed and

encouraged to come to this Province more often. Because it's one of the problems

of Canada, it's so hard to get to. We've got to make sure that the access to the

Province is cheaper and more accessible and more encouraging, for not only

mainland Canadians to come, but also for people from the United States as well

as from other parts of the world. So I will be encouraging with the minister to

That's on the provincial scene, especially - the other part

of provincially I'm talking in tourism is promotion. It has improved over the

years but we've still got a lot of work to do in promoting tourism to

Newfoundland, on the PR fronts, in the bigger cities, and also right across the

country. Their brochures and the different literature that goes out now has

improved it, also the television ads and the radio ads. These things help. There

has to be more of it. There's not enough yet. We've got to improve on that.

Still on tourism, but moving into the local part, is the

point I really wanted to bring up here today. I mentioned it during our

Committee meetings, and I'll mention it again now. We have to work within the

Province to encourage tourism so that Newfoundlanders use Newfoundland for their

tourist sites. There are so many Newfoundlanders who I have to admit - and I'm

sure the hon. Member for Eagle River will concur with this - is that Labrador is

the untapped resource of all when it comes to tourism, the beauty of Labrador,

for some of you who may have visited the Churchill Falls area and those areas up

along there, where especially there's good fishing.

It is unbelievable what some people, once they get there and

see the sights and do the fishing, and see the natural beauty of Labrador, they

are just overwhelmed by it. I have heard it time after time, from even bumping

into people in places like Toronto. They say: You know, I was lucky enough to

have a trip to Labrador. It was unbelievable. They could not get over it. These

are people who travel all over the world, and here, right in our back yard we

have the tourism potential that has not even been touched yet. So through the

Trans-Labrador Highway, of course, and through the entrance through Lewisporte,

we are going to hopefully open up a new gate in tourism in the Province.

Also locally, and what I mean by locally is the districts -

and this is one I also touched on in the committee that I feel is very

important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I will be doing that.

I will have to give my example, I am sure, as it relates to

many other districts in the Province. I said during a speech during the

election, tourism for the Baie Verte Peninsula - if you do not know the

geography then I will explain it a little bit. It is a peninsula with twenty-two

communities with the most beautiful scenery - of course, even nicer than St.

George's, although he argues with me - but it is beautiful scenery, and we

should all think that of our districts. It is the right thing for us to do, as

MHA's, but I can tell you that tourism on the Baie Verte Peninsula, just for an

example, and you can all use it in your districts, is a sign at the Trans-Canada

which says: Baie Verte 63 kilometres. Then just a little bit further down the

road there is another sign that says: Eskimo sight 89 kilometres - and that is

all we have.

There are people in tourism, whether you believe it or not,

people who come to Newfoundland and start to drive in their big trailers and

their cars, and they decide where to go when they get here. There are not a lot

of them who have their agenda set when they get here. They come into this

Province like we do when we travel, and you see a big sign that says: My God,

okay, iceberg alley or cod jigging or whatever. Those are the things that

attract, and right now - I have brought it up to the minister and he will be

looking into that and investigating that - but the signage on the highway. What

is wrong with having a sign saying: Cod jigging, or fishing, or iceberg watch.

In Lewisporte, I think it was last year or the year before,

where the big slew of icebergs came into the harbour, there was an influx of

tourists like you have never seen, and there was a lot of money spent in hotels.

There was a lot of money spent at gas stations and services in towns because of

a natural thing that happened, and Lewisporte, which is so beautiful... The

point I am getting at is that the signs on the highway do not tell you these

things. That has to be changed.

As people drive along the Trans-Canada - that is not

Newfoundland. That is part of it, but let me tell you, the beauty of

Newfoundland lies out on the coasts and its small little communities of twenty

people, and on the little wharves and on the little stages. That is

Newfoundland, and that is what we have to be selling nationally and

internationally.

I am telling you, you get the best advertising, I have always

believed, by word of mouth. So if we get those people to come here in the

beginning, and they see the beauty, then they will come back, and they will tell

their friends and they will come. That has to be the resource that we have to

push. So I want to remind the minister again, while I speak here today, of that

particular issue on the signage, and I hope he will take it into consideration.

A couple of small things on tourism - tourism is a big one of

mine so I do not know if I will get all of the points out - but the parks and

facilities right now. The parks have to be upgraded. There is going to have to

be some private sector movement into the parks but also sustaining their natural

beauty - for example, hookups for the big motor homes that come into the

Province.

I just had an example again this past Summer of a big - I do

not know, there were five or six at the Trans-Canada at the branch of Baie Verte

- wanted to go down, and the first question was: Do you have hookups for motor

homes? We said, no. That was thousands of dollars that just packed up and they

said: We are sorry. We cannot go down - and just left - because we do not have a

hookup for a motor home. It is terrible. It is something that has to be looked

into immediately.

Of course other things in the park, for example they asked a

question - and I am sure you can relate to this if you are a tourist at all.

They said: Do you have showers in your park? I know it is the thing now. It is

the modern thing, but people say to you: Do you have a shower in your park? And

I say no, they say: Well, boy, I am not going there if you do not have a shower

in your park. It is a simple thing, but it is the simple things that attract the

tourists, and that is what we have to get out. I brought it up to the minister

before and I hope he remembers it.

The last thing on tourism is a small one, but it is very

important - the outfitters camps. There are licences now, as he agreed with me,

that are issued right now for outfitters camps which are a major attraction,

especially to some of the people in the bigger cities who want to come out and

hunt and fish. Is that a lot of these licences for outfitter camps are not being

used right now. As a matter of fact in my whole district there's not one

outfitters camp. I think that's a shame. There are outfitters who are not using

them. Meanwhile, in my district, there are people screaming for them and we

can't get one. So the minister agreed that we have to look into that and review

the whole issue of licensing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

MS. VERGE: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Just one minute on that particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Finish off the outfitters camp. I would

encourage the minister to continue with that -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'll just finish on the outfitters then and

I don't know if I'll even get to the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology and those things. The outfitters camps, I'd like for a review of

those licences, especially so that they're used to the best - so it'll enhance

tourism for the whole Province, not just sections of the Province. So they're

evenly spread out so that all parts of the Province can be seen in these

outfitters camps, which gives a great opportunity for tourists to get into the

wild and really see what Newfoundland is all about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if I can have leave

to respond to a question -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) speak in the debate. Just speak

in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. FUREY: There was a question asked, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to two new luxury vehicles that were purchased by Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. I wasn't here but I read the Hansard. The truth of

the matter is that we did buy one vehicle for Gander. It's a basic vehicle. A

very basic vehicle. It cost $15,300. We reduced the number of vehicles at

Enterprise from twenty-nine to nineteen, took the profits from the old vehicles

that we sold and applied it against the new. The total cost was $3,700.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to

have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes in the concurrence debate about

the estimates of the resource departments of the government. These departments

include Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy, Fisheries, Tourism and

Culture.... I don't know if I'm missing one. I think each of the committees had

about five departments. I would like to speak briefly on at least those four

resource departments.

In addition to departments the government has the Economic

Recovery Commission operating off to the side, outside the ambit of the Public

Service Commission, reporting directly to the Premier. It seems as though the

Economic Recovery Commission and the Premier's office are exercising most of the

power with respect to economic policy, such as economic policy exists. The

government made much ado about its so-called Strategic Economic Plan which was

published a year ago. It isn't a plan, it's more like an election manifesto, and

the chief author was the Premier's chief propaganda employee, the $100,000 a

year man, Edsel Bonnell.

It's a slick document. The government, I must say, is very

skilled at public relations. They've been poor administrators, poor managers of

the taxpayers' revenue, and with respect to the resource departments have a

dismal record.

In question period today I was asking the Premier about the

government's position on the Task Force report on Agri-Foods. The Premier has a

new policy, no doubt suggested to him by his chief policy advisor, of avoiding

answering as many questions as possible. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, who has failed to answer my question of a couple of weeks ago about

the fate of the genetically superior swine that were produced in the Western

Swine Breeding Station, which -

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't exist (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: No, it doesn't exist any more, because the

government did the dead opposite of what the task force recommended. The task

force specifically recommended that the government retain and continue to

operate the Western Swine Breeding Station. The government got the report on

Valentine's Day in 1991, withheld the document from the public until after it

brought down its Budget that year, in the Budget Speech in March announced a

decision to close the Western Swine Breeding Station. The report was released to

the public a month or so after that; at that stage, people discovered that the

government Budget decision was totally opposite to the advice in the task force

report. Now the task force report calls for a hog industry in this Province. It

talks about the natural advantage of our disease free environment; we are an

Island, we have laws restricting the importation of hogs and for twenty years

the government operated a small, efficient research station at Pynn's Brook in

the Humber Valley. Through those years of work, using artificial insemination

and successively breeding, the government succeeded in producing genetically

superior breeding stock, swine breeding stock.

The Minister of Finance, a former biology teacher, is telling

me that the swine were not genetically superior. I certainly do not have his

level of expertise in biology, so I would defer to him but, while I am talking I

will try to get the appropriate reference. The fact is that we have a swine

disease free environment on this Island of Newfoundland, and at the Western

Swine Breeding Station, over twenty years of operations, swine were bred which

were superior in quality. Perhaps I am not correct in calling them genetically

superior, but they were superior in quality and were attractive to the industry.

The report talks about opportunities for exporting the swine

produced here and the government seems to be squandering the opportunities

described in the task force report, and, Mr. Speaker, the economy of this

Province is in a worse condition than it has been at any time in my memory.

During the 50s, 60s and 70s - during the 80s, there were opportunities for

expansion, there was a positive feeling, but in the 90s, our main resource

industries have had serious problems because of the depletion of cod stocks, the

depletion of minerals and our forest industry so far, has not run head-on into a

resource depletion problem, although if we are not careful, that is what is

going to happen, but we have the reality of difficult world-wide newsprint

markets.

There is the recession throughout Canada and most of the

Western World that has hurt us, so this is a very worrisome time and it is a

time when the government cannot afford to squander any opportunity no matter how

small for economic advancement and productive employment of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are opportunities for productive activity

in agriculture. Presumably, the government had some notion of those

opportunities when in the fall of 1989 they appointed a task force on

Agri-Foods, they spent one million dollars getting a report from that body,

maybe the primary objective was to get a new Liberal member for St. George's but

nevertheless, in the bargain they got a report, now the questions is, why have

they virtually ignored the report?

The minister claims that they have implemented sixty of the

recommendations. The examples he gave were actions that were taken seemingly

quite independently of the task force report. We are waiting for the minister to

give a detailed accounting. I asked that, I asked the minister to table in the

House the government's position on each of the recommendations in the report and

I will not give up on that, Mr. Speaker. The minister has, so far, avoided

giving me an answer about the fate of the pigs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation having had a close encounter with a pig a few years ago is

smiling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there may well be a good

opportunity for Newfoundlanders, whether it's done in the public sector or the

private sector, or both, to continue swine breeding and to export the breeding

stock. That's not an opportunity to be laughed at and squandered. The Western

Swine Breeding Station at Pynn's Brook involved a small operation. It employed

three or four people and I believe at least a couple of them work only

seasonally. According to this task force report which one of the members

opposite wrote the results were superior. There is a specific recommendation

that that research station be retained by the government and operated by the

government with special attention being paid to opportunities for selling the

breeding stock outside of Newfoundland, for exporting.

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Economic Plan glibly talks about

various opportunities. It talks about the importance of adopting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: The chipmunk.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't tell the

hon. member my second name if he's going to refer to me as the chipmunk.

Although not being a Roman Catholic and particularly partial to french fries I

don't know if I could be called a `chip monk'.

On a more serious note I'd like to address the matter of the

resource departments. When I first went to work with the former administration

under Premier Peckford one of the first leaflets that I produced stating

government policy of the day was, Developing Our Resources: The Challenge Of The

'80s. Today we're in the '90s and we see the shrinking of our resources, and the

shirking of duty on the part of the provincial government with regard to the

development of those resources.

In my own particular area a park was started at Crescent

Lake, for instance, under the tourism department. A lake which, like the one in

Scotland, is renowned to have it's own private lake monster. The sort of thing

that tourists take tremendous interest in. In the dead of night, just after the

Wells administration took power, the park officers came out with their chain

saws and sawed down the signs that said: Provincial Park, No Cutting. To

eliminate evidence that a park had been started at Crescent Lake, a park which

could have been a tremendous tourist attraction to the area and added greatly to

diversifying the economy of the area. This is the type of economic planning that

was forthcoming from the Wells administration. A crass political move to kill a

bold new initiative in a PC district. That is reality as regards economic

planning in the resource areas with regard to the Wells administration.

They have given lip service to the area concerned by naming

the road leading to the area where the park was the Beothuck Trail, as it

follows the Spring-ward migrations of the Beothuck Indians to the sea every

Spring. But the bridge over South Brook at the beginning of the Beothuck Trail

is an absolute disgrace, it's an eyesore, it's a danger to the travelling

public. I've brought it to the attention of both the federal and provincial

governments yet absolutely nothing is done. So much for tourism development in

the Green Bay area.

I've heard many glowing things about tourism developments in

various parts of the Province but the Wells administration has certainly fallen

down on its promise not to be patronage oriented. The Wells administration very

much uses the politics of a given district in the way it dispenses monies in the

development of things like tourism industries.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation need not

be outraged because I can remember him sitting here in this House and yelling

across the floor: I would never hire a Tory, I would never hire a Tory.

MS. VERGE: What about the crab plant in Roddickton being

a tourist study?

MR. HEWLETT: Forestry, Mr. Speaker: one of the mainstays

of my particular district, loggers are being replaced hand over fist by

harvesters. One thing that is particularly galling that this particular

government should have no part of, and should be speaking loudly a