November

26, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 23

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Near the end of 1991, a handful of men from southern Ontario

decided they had a responsibility for urging men to speak out about violence

against women. They decided a white ribbon - worn the first week of December

leading up to the anniversary of the massacre of fourteen women at the

Universit de Montreal engineering school - would be a symbol of men's

opposition to men's violence against women.

The White Ribbon was chosen as a symbol of opposition to

men's violence against women because of its visibility and availability. The

colour white universally represents images of peace, and most people, without

even knowing it, have white ribbon available somewhere in their homes.

After this initial success in raising awareness, the group

decided it wanted to carry out in-depth educational work to reach boys and men

everywhere in the country. The goals of the White Ribbon Campaign are to help

stimulate reflection, discussion and analysis leading to personal and collective

action among men to take responsibility for working alongside women and

contributing to ending men's violence. To accomplish this goal, the group has:

1. Embarked upon conducting the White Ribbon Campaign to

increase public awareness of the issues of men's violence, and it is also

2. Supporting the work done by women and women's

organizations on the issue of men's violence against women.

The recent release of a report on violence against women by

Statistics Canada re-emphasizes the importance of these goals.

This year, between November 27 and December 3, the White

Ribbon Campaign will once again attempt to get as many men and boys as possible

to wear white ribbons during that week. The group is encouraging men to get out

and talk to men in schools, workplaces and places of worship about the problems

of violence. This campaign of men is aimed at men. At the same time, women are

encouraged to wear ribbons as a show of support and to offer feedback on the

group's actions. On December 6 itself, the organizers of the White Ribbon

Campaign are asking men to step back and listen to the voices of women on this

day of grief, anger and remembrance.

Today I urge all members of this House of Assembly to endorse

the activities of the White Ribbon Campaign, and also to participate by wearing

a white ribbon during the week of November 27 to December 3.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We join with the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations today in endorsing the White Ribbon

Campaign. We also urge all members of the House of Assembly to become more

involved in educating themselves on the issue of violence against women, and

once again we encourage all members of the House of Assembly to become more

involved in the White Ribbon Campaign itself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

some questions dealing with the proposed sale of Newfoundland Hydro. A quick

check with the records of the Toronto Stock Exchange looking at how Fortis has

performed over the past number of months, in fact back to July, shows that

average daily trading was about 2,500 shares per day on the average, obviously

it varies each day, then all of a sudden, starting around October, we had some

considerable trading taking place, as much as 10,000 shares trading on October

18 and similar amounts on the 4 and 12 of November, some increased activity, and

you know this is probably natural in view of the speculations surrounding the

proposed sale.

We also note, however, that the value of the shares have

increased by more than three dollars per share, that is over 11 per cent

increase in the last four months; that is a pretty handsome return on

investment. Obviously those who have shares in Fortis have benefitted greatly.

Would the Premier like to tell us what action he has taken to ensure that those

who are involved in this proposal, namely, obviously, officials of government

and officials of Fortis who are the only people who know the intricate details

of what is being proposed and what the ramifications might be down the road,

will he tell us what action he has taken to ensure that none of those people use

that information to benefit themselves or associates by getting involved in

trading in shares of Fortis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have taken all the action I could take.

When the question first arose within the Hydro Board of Directors and they made

a recommendation to the Planning and Priorities Committee, I instructed P & P

immediately: everybody here consider yourself an insider; do not buy or sell,

either one, Fortis shares because they are traded on the public stock exchange.

You would be an insider and it would be inappropriate for you to be trading at

this point in time without disclosing all of the information you know as being

the basis for your trading.

When it was brought to Cabinet and the proposal was brought

to Cabinet, I made exactly the same statement to Cabinet: if anybody here has

any Fortis shares, as of now, you ought not to trade, buy or sell, Fortis

shares. Then when I asked the five individuals who I asked to give me advice to

consider these recommendations, I said to each one of them: I remind you

gentlemen, that as of now, you have inside information and any trading would

leave you subject to charges in respect of insider trading. It would be

inappropriate for you to trade, buy or sell, Fortis shares.

Everybody who came into any kind of information prior to the

public statement being made, on every occasion that I was responsible for giving

information to anybody, I cautioned anybody that if they had any shares, or had

any interest in Fortis shares, not to be involved in any trading of Fortis

because it could leave them susceptible. I have no idea what, if anything,

people directly with Fortis did. The stock exchange would monitor their actions

and they would be responsible for anything they did in connection with Fortis

shares.

I was concerned in terms of the initial statement that was

being made and I wanted to make sure that it was made in a cautious way and that

it did not create any idea that Fortis was going to get any great benefit from

this, because they are not. This is going to be a totally fair proposition, if

in fact a merger does take place, and it may not take place. There is no

agreement to get beyond stage one yet with Fortis, I have to tell members of the

House, so a merger may not take place. It may be a stand-alone privatization,

depending on whether or not agreement is reached, but I was concerned that

people not give the impression that Fortis is going to somehow be a great

company to invest in and cause people to invest, and then when they realize

there is no windfall for Fortis and shares go back down again, cause people to

lose. I am concerned about anybody making outrageous statements that would cause

people to invest in Fortis when there is no point in doing it, except for the

smart people on the stock exchange who might invest for a moment, get out right

away, and leave innocent people holding the bag and taking the loss. I was

concerned that that not occur and I tried to make sure that everybody act

cautiously.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, I accept what the Premier said, that he did not

want to make any inflammatory statements, but nevertheless the facts support

themselves, that there has been an 11 per cent increase in the value of those

shares over the past four months. If that were to continue that would be 33 per

cent in one year, a very handsome increase in value, in addition, I assume, to

any dividends that would have been payable, which average around 13 per cent I

understand on those particular stocks. So it is fair to say that anybody who has

had shares and who has disposed of them in the last number of weeks obviously

has benefitted very greatly. The Premier said he had directed P & P. What

direction has he given the rest of the ministers of Cabinet? What direction has

he given the rest of his caucus? What action has he taken to discuss with Fortis

the same possibilities and what have they taken? Would the Premier table any

directives that he has issued or that he may be aware the senior people of

Fortis have issued to their staff?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Every group that I met with, Cabinet,

caucus, the individuals I asked to give the government advice on the matter, I

alerted each one in time. And most of them knew, didn't need my telling them

that, but I felt I had a responsibility to do it anyway. I sort of felt guilty

telling fellows like Gordon MacDonald or Vic Young, but I told them anyway

because I felt it was appropriate to do so. My recollection is we advised caucus

before a public statement was made and I advised caucus of the same thing. As to

a formal position with respect to Fortis or anybody outside of government, the

only parties to whose attention I have drawn that matter are governmental public

servants and political people in government. I mean, I can't issue a directive

to people at Fortis. I can issue, and I don't need to do it - I can make the

statement to the senior people at Hydro, but I have no basis for doing it to

people at Fortis or anybody else. They have to answer to the stock exchange

regulation, that is, the company that is listed on the stock exchange, and they,

in particular, would be scrutinized for any insider trading if they were

involved.

Now, as for the value of shares - and I apologize to the

member, I had sort of forgotten about that part of his question when I answered

his first question. As to the value of Fortis shares, since July what has been

the general increase in the stock exchange, 20 per cent?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, 20 per cent - utilities -

PREMIER WELLS: Thirteen per cent, more than the general

increase in the stock exchange.

MR. ROBERTS: Fortis is yielding - not as well as other

utilities is the answer.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't - pardon me?

MR. ROBERTS: It has not done as well as other utilities.

PREMIER WELLS: Fortis hasn't done as well as other

utilities. So there has been, as the hon. member is aware, since July, quite a

significant increase in the stock exchange average of the share prices and I

suspect the overall has probably been as much as or more than Fortis. I don't

know, I would have to look at it, but it doesn't appear to be inordinate. Now,

if there might be a bump in any one day of, say allotted shares, 10,000 instead

of say 2,500 which might be the daily average, I suppose you could go back

numerous times last year and find a similar occasional bump like that when

somebody may have been buying or selling a larger block of shares.

I don't think there has been any inordinate trading - I have

seen no indication that there has been, and I suspect the increase in Fortis

shares - I must have it checked, as a matter of interest - but my guess is that

it probably hasn't been significantly out of whack with the normal.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been a couple

of bumps. In fact, there have been three or four bumps in the last month, and

they certainly are very significant when you look at what has happened over the

past four or five months. I only went back, I admit, to June, but the average

was around 2,500; the maximum would be around 4,500 shares. All of a sudden you

get three or four days of over 10,000 shares being traded. The question needed

to be asked; let me put it that way.

Can the Premier tell us then - he has made these statements -

are there any procedures in place to monitor what might be taking place? I

accept what he is saying, that the stock exchange monitors private corporations,

but I think it behooves Fortis to monitor their own staff as well, and it

certainly is the responsibility of the Premier to monitor what may be taking

place within his own caucus. Are there any procedures in place to monitor what

might be done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As to the public announcement, of course,

everybody had the information, but anybody who is involved, anybody who is in P

& P or in Cabinet, should not be trading in any share listed on the public stock

exchange that could be affected - not only in this transaction - by any

transaction. That is improper inside trading and most people know it.

Now, I don't go and check the private bank accounts and the

private stock accounts of people every day, but remember, we have a Conflict of

Interest Act and everybody has to report to the conflicts commissioner their

shareholdings, every year, and the conflicts commissioner will be very much

aware of who owns what shares, who acquired them and when, because that is part

of the reporting, so that if any of that occurs, the conflicts commissioner will

ultimately be aware of it, and it is the conflicts commissioner, not I, who does

the monitoring.

There is a requirement for individuals to report if they

acquire new assets; or if they dispose of assets that they have, there is a

requirement to report to the conflicts commissioner, and failure to do that

brings the penalties of the act; and if it happens to be somebody sitting in

this House, it could probably mean the loss of the seat in this House, if it

contravened the act. So the system is there. It is inappropriate for me to be

thinking about monitoring that on a personal basis. The conflict commissioner

does that. He is the one who should do it.

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

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

to return to the Minister of Justice and his conflict of interest declaration,

an issue that I pursued yesterday. According to the minister's statement he is a

director and equal shareholder, I think with his two brothers, in a company that

has controlling interest in Elizabeth Drugs, which in turn is the sole owner of

Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited. I want to ask the minister, have these

interests been placed in a blind trust, or is he still active and continuing to

participate in the direction of those companies?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for

giving me a chance again to deal with these matters. My brothers and I, being

the only children of our parents, twenty-five years ago set up a company called

Pond Head Limited, which is a Newfoundland company. That company bought the

controlling interest from my father - and for an appropriate price, given that

it was a non-arm's length transaction - twenty-five years ago bought controlling

interest in a company called Elizabeth Drugs Limited, which then owned and

operated a number of retail drug stores around St. John's.

Elizabeth Drugs Limited subsequently went into the wholesale

drug business through a subsidiary called Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited. I had

an active

part in the management of that until I accepted the Premier's

invitation to join his Cabinet. I resigned as a director of Elizabeth Drugs. I

still hold shares in Elizabeth Drugs. I am still a director of Pond Head

Limited, which is simply a holding company, and I take no active part. Elizabeth

Drugs and Pharmaceutical are run by professional management, as they have been

for years, a gentleman named Mr. Ed LeDrew who is an extraordinarily capable

business person and has done a very good job.

That was one question. The second is, the shares are not in a

blind trust. There's no requirement they be in a blind trust, they are not in a

blind trust. I can say to my hon. friend, if he thinks about it for a moment,

there's no point in putting them in a blind trust because there's no way to

dispose of those shares. This is a private company in which, as I say, my

brothers and I hold a controlling interest.

There's no secret in that again. If he goes back to my

previous stint in the House, back in the '70s, or the '60s, he will find that

one of his predecessors, a man named Mr. William Marshall, who is now a judge in

the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, raised the matter in the House one night. I

dealt with it then, as long ago as sixty - sorry, not sixty years ago; it seems

that long - twenty-five years ago, and we dealt with it. I was then the Minister

of Health.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess as the

minister is aware, each year government purchases approximately $9 million by

public tender, or standing order - most of it by far by standing order - about

$9 million value or worth of pharmaceutical supplies. About $6.3 million of that

$9 million over the last number of years has been purchased from Pharmaceutical

Supplies. Most of it by standing order.

I want to ask, and say to the minister, that's an unusually

high volume of business that's going every year to a company that's owned

outright by the minister and his family, in which he himself is a principal

shareholder and active director, as he really basically just told us.

How is it possible for the minister to participate in policy

decisions on virtually any aspect of our health care system when he himself is

such a substantial beneficiary of government decisions about the health care

system?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is possible because it is:

a) proper, and

b) lawful. That's the full answer but let me go on to try to

remove the cloud of innuendo that slithers across the floor of the House again

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. ROBERTS: Resign? I will resign only if I have done

something wrong. If the hon. gentleman had had the courage to resign when he was

part of a government that refused to meet the House and yet consistently kept

pledging the credit of the Province but never dared bring it before the

Legislature, as one of his colleagues at the time had courage to resign - Mr.

Power - then he could speak.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the situation. I have no

idea whether Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited buys one dollar or $1,000 or

$100,000 or $1 million, I have no idea - I'm sorry, supplies, one dollar or

whatever to the government of this Province. Any business that is done by

Pharmaceutical Supplies with the - there's none done with the Department of

Justice, I can tell him that. There is none done with the Department of Justice,

or any agency for which I report or answer to this House.

Any other business that may be done between Pharmaceutical

Supplies Limited and the government of this Province is done in accordance with

the Public Tender Act and the proper and appropriate and lawful procedures.

I have no idea where the hon. gentleman gets these numbers.

They may or may not be correct.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't doubt it. I don't know. The truth of

the matter is, I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check it out.

MR. ROBERTS: Why would I check it out? I am not running

Pharmaceutical Supplies. Is the hon. gentleman running the fish plants? I do not

know if he is or not, and I do not care. What I do know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I own it.

Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the real offence, of course,

that I have committed, is having the effrontery to have, over the years, been

part of one or two business enterprises founded by my father forty years ago -

forty-five years ago. Now what a terrible, shameful thing that is, I say, Mr.

Speaker, to the House, and to the people of this Province - a terrible, shameful

thing.

My father managed to start a little business with the then

partner, Mr. Elwood MacDonald, who has since been deceased, and it has become

quite a successful company.

I was looking the other day at a magazine called Atlantic

Business , I think it was called, and Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited had

become the fifty-first largest company in Atlantic Canada, ranked by sales. Now

that is a terrible crime and a scandal. It is a terrible shame, to hear the hon.

gentleman opposite speak.

Mr. Speaker, Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited does business

with the government - does business lawfully, properly, openly, and in

accordance with the Public Tender Act adopted, I may add, by a previous

administration, a Progressive Conservative administration, and reinforced and

applied properly by this administration.

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

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

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a shame that the minister's father

started a business that was successful. What is a shame is that this minister

sits at the Cabinet table making decisions about the health care system of this

Province, by which he is going to benefit directly, I say to him. That is what

is the shame, and that is what is wrong with this whole situation.

Now the minister did not say, as he said yesterday, about

Fortis and NEWTEL, that he excuses himself from discussions about those other

matters, so I take for granted that the minister does participate, and sits at

the Cabinet table, talking about health care decisions that he benefits directly

from himself because of the amount of business his company is doing with

government, of which he is a minister.

I want to question the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the

Premier is very familiar with

Section 21 of the House of Assembly Act, the

conflict of interest legislation, where it says: A member shall not make, or

participate in making, a decision in his or her capacity as a member where the

member knows, or ought reasonably to know, that in the making of the decision

there is an opportunity to further, directly or indirectly, a private interest

of the member or the member's family.

Now that is the

section of the act that should come into

effect here, where the Minister of Justice is sitting, being involved in

discussions about the health care system is benefitting himself, as I have just

shown; $6.3 million of $9 million goes to the minister's company, and

consequently the minister gets a share of that.

Surely, I say to the Premier, he can see the fact of the

conflict in this situation - not the potential conflict, but the fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will get to the question, I say to the

Premier. Just relax a bit, now.

I want to ask him, Mr. Speaker: In light of the revelations

put forward yesterday about Fortis, the minister's interest in Fortis and

NewTel, and the situation portrayed to the Premier today, about the minister's

involvement in Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, will he now take the appropriate

action, enforce his own conflict of interest regulations, which he defended and

was so proud of just a few short months ago, because I say to the Premier: This

is a test of your integrity, Mr. Premier, and will you demand the minister's

resignation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The simple answer is, `no', but I have to

correct the terrible wrong statements made by the hon. member. Now that they

failed to make an intellectual argument on merit against privatization, they

have turned to character assassination, and this is what this is - nothing any

more than that.

The conflict of interest regulations are enforced to the

full, which was not done when the member sat in the former government - when

they were not done - when the Minister of Finance sat and had an interest in

companies renting directly from his (inaudible). They were not done. They are

enforced to the full.

No minister sits at the Cabinet table and makes any decision,

or participates in any decision, that benefits him or her. If they do, their

resignation is required immediately.

Now, the mere fact that the hon. member says it was such a

decision does not make it so. That is where the falsity is. His position is

quite simply wrong, and it is terribly wrong for them to now seek to try and

head off privatization by character assassination. Have they no sense of

integrity at all? Do they not realize the responsibility they have not only to

individual members about whom they are speaking, to the House as a whole and to

the Province as a whole, to act and speak responsibly when they stand on their

feet and make statements in this House? I mean, the mere fact that it is

protected against attack by libel and slander laws, that we have the freedom to

speak, places on each of us an even greater onus to make sure that what we say,

we can justify, and it is quite improper for any member of this House to seek to

assassinate; it is quite improper for any member of this House to seek to

assassinate the character of any other member for the purpose of furthering

their political objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Abery.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I expressed with respect

to Mr. Abery, my lack of confidence in his judgement. I reaffirm my lack of

confidence in Mr. Abery's judgement. I did not have any great level of

confidence in him when he reported and I met with him, I have a similar level of

lack of confidence now, that I had then. I say nothing about Mr. Abery's

character, it is a question of my confidence in his judgement and it is not at a

high level, I can assure hon. members, and I have every right and responsibility

to express that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I would say about 85 per cent of the

people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to know if any

minister sits at the Cabinet table and makes the decision in respect of any

matter that confers a benefit, because I want that minister's resignation

immediately. It is only the hon. member's false statement that the member -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is not a false statement

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It is a false statement and it is

irresponsible for the hon. member to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

Does he plan to hold public hearings on the act, "An Act To

Amend The Labour Relations Act," throughout the Province, and if so, when does

he plan the hearings and how long will the process take place?

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

Labour Relations.

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

appreciate the question from the hon. member.

The direct amendments that are on the Order Paper have now

been referred to the Legislative Review Committee, and that review committee is

chaired by the hon. Member for Trinity North, I believe?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: I understand from the chair that the

committee has met and they are planning to publicize and seek the wishes of the

people as to who would like to come and make a submission about those specific

changes. Then there is the further issue to be dealt with in the next week or so

I understand, and then there is the issue of what further review of the

legislation the Province overall - that will be conducted later on and maybe the

hon. member might like to ask about that as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh.oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I say to the minister, I am fully aware of the committee's

meeting yesterday and the decision made to hold public hearings. I guess the

real point of this discussion is that this legislation will have significant,

significant impact into the economic relationships of employers, employees, both

with government and in the private sector; it will have significant impact into

the social and economic relationships between rank and file union members,

whether it be from large public sector unions or small construction unions and I

say to the minister: is it his plan and his government's plan to bring this

legislation in this House before this sitting is over, to have it passed, or is

he committed to having a full scale review which would allow the maximum public

input in this very important issue?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The immediate issue which addresses the idea of ballots

relating to certification, decertification and strikes, it is clearly the

intention of the government that after the review committee finishes its work

with it that we expect that it is going to be possible for the committee to

bring its report back to the House before we leave for the Christmas break, and

that we will have an opportunity to debate the merits of the case, the pros and

cons in the Legislature before Christmas, and that we expect further that it is

in all likelihood that the bill as it is now worded or amended in some fashion,

it is our expectation that it should pass this Legislature before Christmas.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I submit to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations that I have discussed this particular issue with both employers

and employees and they are unaware and are not fully aware of the impact that

this legislation will have on the relationships governing the employer and

employee relationship. So I ask the minister, I implore the minister, will he

say today that he will hold public hearings across the Province? Will he hold

them in January, February and March, and at the next sitting of the House bring

this legislation back so that the public can have a fuller impact into this very

controversial and very important legislation? Will he commit to the House and to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today to do that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member

mentions relationships, there is nothing in the proposed amendments that has

anything to do with relationships. The proposed amendments deal specifically

with procedures. As a matter of fact in our opinion it is pretty well impossible

for the government to legislate relationships. They are built on trust,

understanding and dialogue. We can only put in place the legally required

procedures that are to be followed. The relationships that flow out of people

going through those procedures are usually of their own making and I think there

may very well be a discussion some time in the future as to the relationships

that exist and the need to further revise some of the labour legislation in the

Province to try and make sure that people feel that they are being treated

fairly by law and there will be an opportunity for that discussion but we

certainly feel in these specific procedural amendments that will come before the

House in a week or so, that this is not of such significance as the hon. member

points out or is trying to point out this time, that this is not the major type

of thing that some members have been saying, some members of the public, some

members of the unions and so on, have been suggesting that maybe this is one of

the most critical pieces of legislation ever to affect labour relations in the

Province. We don't share that assessment and I am sure that as the debate goes

on, in terms of these procedural changes that we are bringing forward, that we

will all get an opportunity to fully explore that kind of issue in the debate.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is for

the Premier. The federal government through ACOA has completed a study of how

the assets at the Argentia base can be put to use to stimulate new investment

and job opportunities in the area. The former federal government had agreed to

begin implementation of the reuse plan almost immediately. Has the Province

agreed to participate in this plan and how much is the Province prepared to

contribute?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to confess that my attention was

diverted when the hon. member stood up first and I did not get the full impact

of his question but I understand it to be: Has the present government agreed to

implement a reuse plan that had been developed some years ago in respect to the

Argentia naval base when it is closed out?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) a reuse study. Some people from

the Province, the federal government and some local people in the district.

PREMIER WELLS: The matter of Argentia is under - I was

going to say active consideration but that is not so - it is under active

handling and the government is extensively involved in several aspects of it

right at this moment. One of which involves proper compensation for the

employees that will be terminated. Another involves clean up of the environment

and for many adverse environmental usage that occurred during the period of the

time the Americans were there and making sure that there will remain future

responsibility for that clean up.

A third aspect of it is title to the property and getting it

in such a manner that we can use it for effective economic activity in the

future and that takes us into the reuse plan that has been developed and

discussed. We have put proposals to the federal government. We put it to the

former government, we have since made a similar proposal to the present

government, I discussed it with Mr. Tobin and Mr. Mass when I met with them

about two weeks ago about the possibility of developing a foreign trade zone at

Argentia. We think it would be an ideal site to develop a foreign trade zone

because of the harbour, the airfield facilities, because of the other buildings

around, and it would be an ideal time to do that. We are endeavouring to get the

use of the property to an extent that will enable us to develop such a foreign

trade zone if we can get the approval of the national government to do it. We

were not able to get the approval of the former Conservative Government and I

don't know whether there will be a change in national policy now.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present the report of the Government Services

Committee. The committee met on November 25 and we approved the following bills

for passage through the remaining stages of debate here in the House of

Assembly:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill No. 25)

A bill,

An Act To Revise The Law In The Province Respecting

Rail Service." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991."

(Bill No. 32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act." (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No.

37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act." (Bill

No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill

No. 34)

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, could we proceed with the Address

in Reply, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The Address in Reply. The hon. the Member

for Humber Valley, I believe, was the last speaker.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few short comments on the Throne

Speech, 1993. When one of my colleagues got up yesterday he said, `What in the

heck am I going to speak on for half-an-hour? I won't mention his name. He was

writing notes for two days and then he got up, never looked at a note, and spoke

- I think the Speaker let him go over his time by five or six minutes - he spoke

for thirty-five minutes. That is one of the things you gain when you come in

here. I remember coming in in 1985, and if you got up to speak for a couple of

minutes you were red-faced, sweating, and got the heck down out of it as fast as

anything, but now it seems like you come in with no wind and you go out like a

windbag!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: What do you call those - Gordon Sinclair

used to use them -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which?

MR. WOODFORD: - that musical instrument.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, most members in

the House at some time during their debate on a money bill, the Throne Speech,

or whichever, like to take a significant amount of time talking about their

districts, and rightly so. I think the Member for Port au Port has given two or

three speeches since he came into the House in the spring of the year, and I

have to say that I was really impressed. They were very constructive, and he

came up with some good ideas. If he can only get some of his colleagues on the

other side of the House, especially the people up front, to go along with him, I

am sure we will all be the better for it, and not only his constituents but

other people around the Province, as well.

I think, what we all get caught up in, in this House, is

politics. The ultimate aim of all, I suppose, is power, and that I say to

members opposite as well as members here. I said before and I will say again,

that there is never anything done in the House of Assembly, the work is in your

district. I am convinced that the people of the Province - if this Assembly were

ever televised, I would say we all would have run for the last time, because if

the people of the Province ever saw what was going on in this Chamber, as far as

I am concerned, we would never get elected again; and not only us, but anybody

who ever ran, because I don't think people would vote. It is one thing to

criticize, it's another to criticize constructively, and the sad thing about it

all is that when you do criticize constructively and come up with some good

ideas, just because you're in Opposition, or because you're in the back benches

or outside, nobody listens.

I don't think it's all really - because I can speak from both

sides of it; I was in government, and I have been in Opposition much longer - I

don't think it's all intentional. I think it's simply because of the fact that

ministers get caught up in the everyday affairs of government and don't have

time to deal with the idea brought forward by the Member for Port au Port or the

Member for Humber Valley, and so on. And it is sad, because the whole Province

suffers.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the 1989 campaign

manual of the Administration today. A lot of promises were made, very few of

them kept. Then I talk about another so-called red book of just a few weeks ago,

a month ago yesterday. I looked at a red book for about three weeks all during

the federal campaign and I said to myself - it was no good to say it publicly,

it was useless. Because elections, as far as I'm concerned, and issues, become

emotional things and you can't fight emotion with logic.

I say to members opposite today, as well as members on this

side of the House, and everybody else, especially in this Province, just take

the red book and in a couple of short years - I won't even say four, I say two

or less - that not 5 per cent of those promises will be kept. Hon. members

opposite and members here, too, can note the day and the time that I am making

these statements.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You will see.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I will see, I say to the Member for

Eagle River. I was talking to a good friend of his this morning from Eagle

River, a good businessman down there, quite aware of what is going on in the

district. I say to the member opposite, yes, we will see, on the federal part of

it, but I have seen on the provincial part - five years now, sitting down and

waiting for the great, for instance, decentralization that is going to be done

by this government. Where is it? What has taken place with regard to

decentralization in this Province pertaining to government departments? Tell me.

One thing was done, and that really wasn't decentralization,

because that was there. Through Enterprise Newfoundland and the minister

opposite under development and trade - the rural development authorities around

this Province were out there anyway. The difference is that everything was put

in to Enterprise Newfoundland. I said when the bill came in, and I say today,

that I agree with it, it was the right thing, one-stop shop. The sad thing about

it all, and I suppose a part of it has to be due to the times and circumstances,

is that not a heck of a lot of people today out there - and it can't all be

blamed on Enterprise Newfoundland, but a good portion of it can.

I was interested the other day in the Premier's statement

pertaining to the banks, or the Atlantic Premiers in Gander. Rightly so, it is

about time. All of us should, as members, take on the banks, insurance

companies, and those big monopolies out there that put me in mind of

Newfoundland Light and Power and NEWTEL and so on. They have no social

conscience, none. You go into the bank for $100,000 and you want four times that

to get it. Big deal! They are looking at physical assets. They never look at the

intellectual asset of an individual when he walks into that lending institution.

Neither do government departments. The ministers don't see an application coming

in from anybody in rural Newfoundland and Labrador or any urban centre in this

Province. The bureaucrats see it. They come in with an application. Big deal! A

sawmill licence, and a new sawmill company going up in Roddickton or Cormack, or

Terra Nova - how is he going to make it on that?

I remember back in 1971, I walked into an office in the

Department of Agriculture in this Province and asked for a $10,000 loan on 100

acres of Crown land. Now, you want to see the look on the face of the individual

on the other side of the desk! He asked, "Where are you from?" I said, "I am

from Buchans." He didn't laugh, and it is a darned good thing he didn't, I tell

you that - but that is all he didn't do; he did everything else. I knew - it

clicked. All of a sudden it clicked and triggered and everything was turned off

- like that. I got no further, simply because as soon as he found out I was from

Buchans - and the hon. the minister responsible for forestry and agriculture

knows exactly what I am talking about because he is from the community. He is a

former Buchaneer - not a buccaneer in the real sense, now - I am not talking

about pirates, or anything like that.

And that attitude! I started a business back in 1971, in

spite of government. I succeeded, in spite of government, and the same attitude

is there today. An hon. member, I think, the Member for Port au Port, brought it

up here the other day about attitude. That is still there, if you get an

individual who is in there - a lot of individuals have the mind-set and have the

idea for business, but they can't put it down on paper. They can't do up the

business plan, but they can certainly run the business and they certainly have

the ideas, and they get turned off before ever they get a few feet into the

office and, Mr. Speaker, that is still the way it is today.

The Member for Port au Port mentioned a good point yesterday

about oil exploration. Now, I understand - and the hon. member is in a better

position to check it out than I, or get the proper answers - that the Department

of Mines and Energy in this Province doesn't have a royalty scheme in place yet

for the oil companies. Now, that is one of the reasons, and I got that from a

fairly good source, that they are not doing what they should be doing today, and

the one that they are recommending is not acceptable to the oil companies.

There are three tracks of leases in the Province ready to go,

companies ready to go. Hunt Oil is out in the Port au Port Peninsula -

Stephenville area. They are ready to go. We have two other tracks, one on the

back of Deer Lake and one in the Parson's Pond area - three leases that are

ready to be exercised today, and there is no scheme in place.

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, and other

ministers opposite, they should get off their butts and put something in place

so that those companies can get started. Now, I am talking about the royalty

scheme for oil companies in the Province, on land, drilling. I understand that

is not in place yet. There have been some recommendations back and forth from

oil companies and so on, and the department, but they are not satisfied with the

recommendations coming from the Department of Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dairy business.

MR. WOODFORD: The dairy business is good, hon. member,

and I say now, `Great - good question'. I was just waiting for it. Because I say

that within a few months, this administration will be doing something to make

sure that it goes the other way. They are famous for it. If it is not broke, fix

it. Go back since 1989 and name some of the things in this Province there was no

point whatsoever in touching. If it is working, fool with it. Do everything in

your power to fool it up, because it is creating jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in the dairy industry.

MR. WOODFORD: No, not now. I don't know what the minister

will do over the next little while, but I tell you this -

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, simply because the people in

it - government, including every Cabinet minister over there, can't get over

their time. They can't get over their time, I tell you that. They know what they

are talking about - everybody in the industry knows what they are talking about,

and the minister knows what they are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Sure, good people, and the minister would

be the first to take them. One fellow, in particular, the minister would be the

first to take, and I know that he would, someone who has been very, very closely

associated over the past few years. Any man who is associated with success, the

minister will latch on to.

I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, now while

we are on the subject, the Member for Terra Nova brought up, yesterday, about

the great leaps and bounds taken in agriculture with this great Administration.

Well, let me remind the member - the Member for St. George's can certainly get

up and back what I am going to say next with regard to the task force on

agriculture. What did they do with the hog industry just a short while ago? One

of the things that I am talking about - not broke, fix it, and make sure of

that. One of the great technological advantages that we had in this country, one

of the few pertaining to agriculture, one of the few in the technological end of

it, one of the few advantages we had in the agricultural industry in this

Province was, we could have had an export. Granted, there were high subsidies

paid with regard to the pork producers in the Province, no question, but with

regard to the technological part of it, we had great success, and it would have

been a success, but that is gone. The minister, in just last year's estimates,

when I asked a question about extending the loan board maximums from $75,000 up

to $200,000 or $250,000, he told me at that time that by September it would be

done. We are now into almost the end of November and I haven't seen any changes

to the maximums in the Farm Loan Board. Now, maybe it is pretty close and maybe

not, but that would be a great catalyst - that would act as a great catalyst for

the department here in the Province.

We are talking about creating jobs. This is one of the areas

in agriculture - the Member for St. George's knows it, the Member for Port au

Port knows it - there are other members around - the Member for Exploits knows

it; that is one of the great areas that we are -the Member for Terra Nova said

yesterday and the Member for Port au Port said, as well, where we could expand.

In 1949 - the Member for St. George's had it in his report - we were

self-sufficient in everything. Just think of it today. And it is alright for

people to say, `Oh, yes, but we could produce it more cheaply on the mainland.'

Sure, we can produce it - you can take that analogy and go to the mainland and

say, `Well, we can produce it more cheaply in the States. We can go to the

States -

MR. HARRIS: Resettle the whole Province.

MR. WOODFORD: - and then we could say, `We can produce it

more cheaply in Nicaragua.' We can back that right on up, to where? Look around

the world today and look at the basic need, food. We can't turn on television,

we can't pick up the paper, we can't listen to the radio - all we are hearing is

that someone is starving to death. Isn't it a shame when we have a Province and

a country with an abundance of food and an abundance of energy? and all we hear

when we go and try to do something is, `Well, we can do that somewhere else.'

Sooner or later when there is nothing done here, and a prime example of it is in

agriculture because, as I said, we were self-sufficient in everything in 1949

and in very few things today. One example comes to mind, and that is in the root

crop industry. In potatoes alone, I think we imported last year something like

eighty-two million pounds of potatoes. Eighty-two million pounds of potatoes! We

don't have to go to anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any grade one potatoes?

MR. WOODFORD: Any what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Any grade one potatoes?

MR. WOODFORD: So, I mean, just stop there and look at the

possibilities without going into anything else at all. The possibilities are

unreal. You talk about creating jobs! Now, granted, no question, in agriculture

you are going to work. Anybody who goes into the agricultural industry and

figures that he is going to work eight hours a day and then go home and take it

easy, put his feet up, he can forget it. You have to put in before you take out.

You have to pay your dues in that industry as well as any other industry.

I have a great agricultural industry in the District of

Humber Valley, one of the best in the Province, and we are blessed with great

soil and a great climate for agriculture. The further north you go and the more

root crop you grow and the best root crop you grow, the better tasting it is -

and so it goes. We have great potential. You can go further west -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have the Sprung greenhouse

there. It might have worked there.

MR. WOODFORD: The Sprung greenhouse - I never backed away

from the Sprung greenhouse. I took on the Sprung greenhouse in 1989 and I never

backed away from it. I met it head-on and I said then as I say today, that only

one thing killed the Sprung greenhouse and that was where it went. Any industry

today, when it is starting off, whether it is small or large, if you put it

under the microscope - I won't say anymore - 95 per cent of the time it is going

to fail, but if you leave it alone and let it grow, like putting seed in the

ground, let it germinate, and every day go back and cultivate, you cultivate it,

nobody sees it, then all of a sudden you look and it is growing. It might get

set back every now and again. You might look and say, well, we have had damp

weather for a week and the growth is not there, but the next week it comes

twice.

MR. FLIGHT: They did that, (inaudible) dollars a year for

twenty years.

MR. WOODFORD: What?

MR. FLIGHT: They did that. They let it sit there and kept

pouring money into it.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, what was done, I am not talking about

that. What I am saying is that could have worked.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Sprung greenhouse?

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, and you have no evidence to

show that it couldn't except for a couple of horticulturists here in the

Province who put their ideas in before, and it was the first time ever they

stepped out under the overpass.

MR. SULLIVAN: Lots of these operations are working

elsewhere.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, elsewhere. I was there and I saw it

work. I saw it work in a lot of small and big operations. What is the thing to

do today when people are asking for food? They want it with no sprays, they want

it with no insecticides, no herbicides, no nothing. They don't want to have it

touched at all with that, and rightly so. Where is the food going to come from?

certainly not from the soils of this Province or anywhere else in this country.

It is going to come from a greenhouse and that is what is coming. That is the

way of the future and whether we like it or not it is coming. One thing we have

is a disease-free Province with respect to a greenhouse. What do they say when

you talk to anybody in the greenhouse industry in Ontario? You have a greenhouse

here, you have a greenhouse in the next province, and as soon as you come across

the border, one is infecting the other. That is one of the worst problems they

have and Quebec is famous for it. BC is famous for it. They have all kinds of

problems. That is one of the advantages we had in this Province. It was here -

that is something else I brought up before, and I say again to the minister,

another thing something should be done about is the CN ferry that goes across

the Gulf. We get there as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and you wouldn't

know but we were coming from the planet Mars. We are hosed down. The only thing

they don't do is take us in and change our clothes, and I would say if

Agriculture Canada had their way, that is not far away; that the humans in the

car will have to go through the carwash or shower. Now, when you are coming

across the Gulf, coming this way, you can do what you want to and bring in what

you want. I mean, isn't it hypocritical and isn't it demeaning? Every time I go

there I get into a row, simply because, human nature being what it is, I have to

try to unload what is on my chest on the poor individual who is washing the car

and I can't help it. But, I mean, it is wrong. It is another example of this

Province being put down and there is no need of it. We can show anybody across

the Gulf, anybody in another part of Canada, or anybody in the U.S. today how to

do it. We can do it, but one of the big things we have to do is change the

attitude - that is one of the big things. It is not only the attitude of

individuals out there today but the attitude of government ministers and the

people who make the decisions, and that is very important. My district, as I

said before, is blessed with that. My district is also blessed with a great

forestry industry, albeit, it is getting weaker by the day because of the

downturn in the forestry industry.

I talked about agriculture and some of the things the

minister is responsible for pertaining to the maximums, and I am sure he is

going to do that anyway; before he goes out of office, he is going to raise the

limits to the Farm Loan Board, I know that.

Regarding forestry, I have to say to the minister opposite,

that he is one of those who recognizes the potential of government getting

involved with paper companies in the Province, especially with respect to

putting in some access roads to help out the jobber, the person working with

Kruger or with Abitibi or the person working in the sawmill business. He

recognizes that, and he didn't care where it was around the Province, he did it,

and I have to give him 100 per cent - no question, I can't fault him at all on

his moves in the last four or five years to try to enhance the sawmill industry

and the forestry industry in my district and in other areas around the Province.

Because there is no question, it is happening in Roddickton, it is happening I

think, in the Member for Terra Nova's district, and I am sure she is cognizant

of what I am talking about when I talk about forestry, because she has some

great sawmillers in her district, successful people, I can tell you that. And

the roads and the work done by the Department of Forestry and Agriculture in the

last few years - and I always said, if I see something good being done, then you

will get the pat on the back, if I see something bad, I will say otherwise, but

I will do it constructively, and I must say, especially of the Chouse Brook one

now, in Hampden, the community of Hampden today would be dead only for the

continuation of Chouse Brook.

Granted, I will go back and say that it was an idea that we

had started in 1988-1989, but the minister put the first dollars in there for

the access road to start and he kept them coming. And everybody there today in

the sawmill industry (inaudible) agreement between Kruger and government, was on

a 60/40 basis that anything that is good for pulpwood will go to pulpwood and

anything for a saw log will go for a saw log, which is the way it should be

done. We have too much land and property tied up in this Province. I don't

think, and I would say that the paper companies in this Province should not have

jurisdiction and should not have first call on the wood, anyway.

We talk about giving away our resources, they have it. If I

want 10,000 feet of lumber or any hon. member in the House or any constituent

wants to cut, he has to get a permit from Forestry and Agriculture to cut 10,000

feet or five; nine chances out of ten, today you will not get it because of the

demand on the industry in the Province. But the paper companies - you can't

build a cabin, you can't go down by the lake and put in a wharf, you can't build

a house in a lot of communities. I have two communities in my district, that's

it! They are finished now unless they can get land from Kruger or Abitibi-Price

to build.

I have people who have no title to their property, absolutely

none, and Kruger tells them that they can't get it because it is all tied up for

collateral. Now, that is terrible, as far as I am concerned. So that is one of

the things that when I say that we have a deal with the paper companies, 60/40,

so they should, because the jobs today in forestry in this Province are in the

sawmill industry. The Member for the Straits knows what I am talking about as

well; he has a sawmill just started recently in Roddickton; well, not started,

they took over the Canada Bay Lumber. A company came in and took over the Canada

Bay Lumber in the Roddickton area and I understand now, they are doing fairly

well with it, they are doing some exports; and it is an export, that is the

thing. I mean, the new jobs, every paper company in the Province today, is only

going to use X number of cords of wood a year, period; whether there is 200,000

or 300,000 cubic metres, that is all they are using. Once it is cut, wherever it

comes from, that is it, but in the sawmill industry, we have great potential. We

are not touching it; 80-odd per cent import of lumber into this Province - we

have great potential. And this 60/40 deal with - I know the one we have with

Kruger in the Chouse Brook and in the White River Roads area in the Cormac area

is very significant with regard to jobs.

I have a community in Cormac where the unemployment rate is

very, very, very low. You go out and just about everybody has a job, some time

during the year they work. Now granted, in the forestry industry it may be that

some of it might be seasonal, not because they will not work in the wintertime,

they do work in the wintertime, but because the paper companies now, only take

on a quota basis, so that cuts them back. So there is some great potential there

in the agriculture industry and in the sawmill industry. In the mining industry

in my particular area now, Tiara Marble at Goose Arm, I think they are in the

process of doing an environmental assessment. That looks very positive. We have

people exploring in the Glover Island area of Grand Lake. It looks really good,

gold deposits there. In fact, they have found a couple of really good deposits

and now they're going to keep on drilling until after Christmas to see if they

can find a mother-lode on the island itself. If not, they just might have to go

back to the mainland part of the Deer Lake area. There are some great prospects.

In the area, I must say that the whole District of Humber

Valley is very blessed. A lot of communities in the Province are one-industry

towns. Once there is a downturn in that particular industry they can't go any

further and they have to start looking around to try to diversify. We are

diversified. We have agriculture, we have forestry, we have the service sector,

we have the transportation sector with the airport in Deer Lake, crossroads to

the Northern Peninsula and everything going east and west. We have the

agricultural industry, like I said, forestry, we have mining. Every industry

that you can mention, we have it. Tourism, no nicer - you have to pass through

Deer Lake in order to get down to the Viking Trail. It is a great - one business

closes down in Deer Lake, and in a few days another has started up. That is a

great asset.

I suppose we would all like to have it. Every district would

like to have it. Granted, it is not throughout the whole district. The White Bay

South part - namely, the Jackson's Arm - Sop's Arm - Pollards Point area, the

Jackson's Arm area especially, is dealing primarily with the fishery.

The Member for Port au Port mentioned yesterday that he has

had a successful fishing season this year in the Port au Port area, and we did,

as well, in the Jackson's Arm (inaudible). There is a real irony in it, because

they were on the package, so to speak. Every plant had to have a 10 per cent

throughput. When they came to find out that the plant in Jackson's Arm didn't

have a 10 per cent throughput of northern cod, they were taken off the package.

And it was one of the most successful summers they had in that area, mainly

dealing with pelagics and so on. They put a lot of crab through there, they put

a lot of caplin through there, mackerel. They are the only plant in the Province

that has an offshore quota of squid for winter, 1,000 tons of squid. Whether

they are going to be able to take advantage of it this winter or not, I don't

know.

There are a lot of things happening there. I am hoping that

they will continue. With a bit of, I suppose, inspiration and help from members

opposite, and from the government departments opposite especially, those

industries will have a chance to grow and provide jobs and security for the

people, not only in my area, because there is always a trickle effect, there is

always a spin-off, and it helps everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with great

interest to the speech of my - I won't call him my seat mate, because he is a

little bit of a distance from me, but my colleague for Humber Valley. We may not

agree on philosophical points but I always listen with great interest to the

speeches of my colleague for Humber Valley. Because he is a very practical man

and he always speaks sense about matters involving his district, in particular,

matters involving agriculture, which he is very familiar with. He and I have had

a number of discussions about these matters.

I think the hon. member has every reason to be proud of his

success in the field of agriculture and in the field of management of the public

interest, which he took on as a minister of the Crown for a short period of time

prior to 1989. I know that what he says about his approach to the Sprung

greenhouse, which was a government fiasco of the day - his approach was quite

forthright and quite honest, quite open and he acted in the public interest in

dealing with that issue when he was faced with it.

I rise to speak in the Throne Speech Debate to bring to

members' attention a number of very serious turns that I think this government

is taking in several areas. I see a trend developing, and I will mention those

areas and some of the decisions that have been made in the past several months

that have to do with matters of government policy.

We see a decision on the Outer Ring Road to proceed with

that, despite the fact that there are very widespread and strong reasons, and

strong opposition, not to proceed with that. Done at the behest, at the last

minute, after an enquiry that was headed by a Grand Falls engineer, Mr.

Goodyear, called for submissions. Many submissions were made. After the deadline

was up we had a submission by a group of businessmen. I say "businessmen," Mr.

Speaker, because I don't think there are any women amongst them.

These were individuals, most of whom had a direct, personal

or company, pecuniary interest in the road going through. The Dobbins, Ches

Penny, a few others who are involved in the road building industry, some

involved in land development, others whose personal interests are affected by

this. They submitted a brief saying it was absolutely vital, a necessity of our

community, the business interests of the St. John's area, to have this road

built. The government decided to build the road. That's item number one.

Item number two is the continuing saga of the fish plant in

Curling, and Bill Barry and his attempts to prevent successful unionization of

his workers. That gave rise to a decision of this government to bring in a piece

of legislation through the Minister of Labour under the guise of democracy, to

bring in this new labour legislation which is supposed to be dealing with the

provision for votes in certifications to make things easier. Supposedly to

provide for the secret ballot so that all workers have a say.

It's really designed to support the employers and their

labour consultants who wish to have an opportunity to manipulate workers. It's

almost a licence to fire people for union organizing. I will get to that in

detail in a moment, but I want to pursue the theme first. So the Employers

Council and Mr. Barry - Mr. Barry himself defying the law, breaking the law

through unfair labour practices. Already he has been found guilty of that and

having to pay out $60,000 to fired workers. Breaking the law again and now

before the courts for contempt of court by failing to follow orders of the

Labour Relations Board filed in the courts.

He and the Employers Council want to see it tougher on

unions. They want to see it tougher on unions, and they, under the guise of

democracy, are providing a law which would allow employers to go ahead and

continue their unfair labour practices and be more effective at it because

they're guaranteed another kick at the can by the workers.

The third issue that we see the government responding to

employers in the business community is one which I haven't heard a peep out of

anyone about since it was made. A decision by the Minister of Environment and

the government to cave in to the lobby of the soft drink containers, to cave in

to Browning Harvey and say: no, we can't have a law in Newfoundland which is

going to protect the environment by insisting that there be returnable soft

drink bottles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could protect me

from the bleacher creature over there who seems to want to bellow out from the

bleachers every chance he gets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the soft drink manufacturing

industry has managed to tell the government what to do. No, we won't have

returnable soft drink deposits here. We won't have a deposit system. We won't

put up with it. We are issuing instructions to the government, we are lobbying

the government, we are deciding what our decision is going to be. We will have

an anti-litter campaign. We will say to people in this Province: don't throw

these soft drink bottles in the woods, don't throw them in the garbage, bring

them in your car or bring them in your truck and bring them out to Nova

Recycling and you will get, I don't know, a cent a pound - I am not sure how

many bottles it takes.

My wife and I brought a whole truck load of stuff to the Nova

Recycling last Saturday, a truck load. It was in the wind, we had to put the

tarpaulins on the truck and fill up the back of the pick-up - borrow a truck a

do it. We had cardboard boxes, we had soft drink bottles, we had any kind of

thing you could recycle that you could take, we brought it in, a whole truck

load and do you know what we got? One dollar and forty cents. We said to the

people who run Nova: put that on the account of Victoria Park recycling. I was

not going to put it in our pocket -put it on the account of Victoria Park

recycling in the Member for St. John's South district because at least that

organization is out there encouraging the recycling on their own because they

believe that it has to be done. They are doing it on their own because they

believe that there has to be a recycling program. What is this government doing

to help? They might help out an organization like that, and I have no doubt that

they will, but that is not going to solve the problem. I will get back to that

in a minute because I want to continue on my theme.

Number one, the businessmen of St. John's want to have an

Outer Ring Road despite the environmental arguments against it, the government

goes along with it. Browning Harvey and the soft drink manufactures say they

don't want to have a deposit system. The government goes along with it and

destroys any hope of us having a proper deposit system for return of bottles.

The employers of the Province do not like the fact that their workers might want

to bargain collectively, we want to make it tougher, let's have a new labour

bill, and the government responds. Apparently some businessmen in this Province,

associated with Fortis Inc., came to the government three or four times, they

came to the well three or four times all with the intention - we want to get at

the assets of Newfoundland Hydro, how about this part, how about that part, how

about something else? The government says no, no, no we will give you all the

assets. We won't just give you the rural part, the rural diesel parts, we won't

just give you this. We will give you it all. We will throw it all out to you. We

will turn around and say: you guys in the business community, we are here, we

are going to divest ourselves of this, divest ourselves of responsibility and

pass over all of Newfoundland Hydro, forget the public interest, we will let

that go to the private interest.

What else do we have? We have the garbage industry, the

international garbage industry. Waste management I think they call it, it sounds

nicer than garbage and they want access to Newfoundland as a dump. Let's not

call it anything else. They might have fancy names for it, hi-tech names for it.

They will call it a certain kind of landfill site, they don't even like that

anymore because people know what a landfill site is. They have fancy names for

it but they want a dump and they think Newfoundland would be a great dump for

all of these nauseous chemicals that they cannot seem to get rid of in the

United States. They don't seem to be able to get rid of them. So they want a

site for this.

Baie Verte is a good possibility, up in Labrador nobody is

going to see that - nobody will even smell that up there so they cannot complain

about it. The people down in St. John's don't even have to hold their noses. We

can dump all of the garbage we like up in Labrador West, a big pit, fill it all

up. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations can sit in St. John's and

does not even have to hold his nose but the business interests want that. They

have all kinds of proposals and they have more backed up. There are probably

ten, fifteen or twenty of them backed up just waiting for the first one to get

through. The first proposal to bring in garbage, to bring in chemicals, to bring

in waste in this Province, just waiting for it to get through, and what is the

government doing? They are responding to a call that says: no importation of

garbage, let us just change our environmental act. No, no, no, no, they are not.

The Premier says: we have a law, we do not have any choice, we have to allow

them to present their proposals, we have no choice, it is the law. Well, who

makes the law, who makes the law?

The law is made by this very government, who in response to

the needs and to the demands of the business community, not the public interest,

is saying: we will not change that law and we will force SNAGG, we will force

public interest groups, we will force local communities, make them do all the

effort, make them play the public watchdog role, force them to go out and try

and do combat, hand to hand, with the hired guns of these importers of garbage,

these people who desire to dump North America's garbage and industrial waste on

our shores, we force them to fight it out.

It is a simple matter to solve, Mr. Speaker. The government

just merely passes an amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act, to make it

clear that proposals which involve the importation of garbage into Newfoundland

and Labrador will not be considered. It is very simple. So there is a theme

here, wherein this government, every time it is presented with an opportunity to

choose between the public interest and some private interest, some special

interest group chooses that private interest, not the public interest.

In Wednesday's Globe and Mail, there was a very interesting

article about Hydro-Quebec, and it says about Hydro-Quebec, describes it as: for

the last thirty years the driving force of the Quebec economy and the

government's key industrial development tool. Hydroelectric power has been used

to create jobs for Quebecers in tough times and fosters a legion of home-grown

manufacturers and engineers. That was the role that Hydro-Quebec plays in their

economy.

Why does this government have no similar vision for

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Why are we prepared to divest ourselves from a

public role in hydroelectric generation distribution and all that goes with it,

as a large organization capable of generating profits, capable of acting in the

public interest, capable of being the engine of our economy, why is that?

Because of the concrete mind-set of the Premier, a concrete mind-set that he

developed over the years, solidified I am certain when he became Chairman of

Newfoundland and Labrador Light and Power several years ago. A solid, rock,

concrete mind-set that electrical power should be in private hands not in public

hands, and he has taken the agenda of Newfoundland Light and Power with him to

this government and wearing his hat as Premier of this Province, is taking that

agenda to its logical conclusion and turning over our principal revenue

producing asset to the private sector, for no discernible benefit and to give up

control of our destiny for the future.

It is no accident, Mr. Speaker, that when the people of

Quebec, through what they call their `quiet revolution', when they talked about

being `matre chez nous', or `masters in our own house', when the people of

Quebec decided they wanted to control their destiny, the first thing they did,

and it was done by Ren Lvesque when he was a Liberal, as a matter of fact, the

first thing that they did when they wanted to be masters in their own house was

nationalize the hydroelectric resources of the Province of Quebec, and they

built Hydro-Quebec. They built Hydro-Quebec to be the engine of their economy,

to allow them to take control of their economy. That is what they did.

What do we need more in Newfoundland and Labrador today than

some control over our economy, some control over our destiny? What is this

government doing? Saying no, we have seen the example of Quebec. We have seen

how they have become powerful. We have seen them take control of their own

affairs. We do not want any of that. We want to turn it over to the private

sector. The Quebec and Ontario bond holders and shareholders don't own enough of

this Province yet, says the Premier. The fact that they control Fortis is not

enough. We want to turn over to them the control of all of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who owns the Hydro bonds?

MR. HARRIS: Now the bleacher creature over there from St.

John's South bellows out about who owns the Hydro bonds. Well it does not really

matter who owns the Hydro bonds, because the Hydro bonds are being paid for by

the people who pay for electricity, and they pay for the electricity which is

produced by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at the lowest possible cost

consistent with reliable service. That is what it says. The mission statement of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to produce electricity cheaply, not to make

money for bond holders; not to make money for stockholders, but to produce

electricity cheaply.

As any organization - it is a lot cheaper to feed bond

holders than it is to feed stockholders, I tell you that. It is a lot cheaper to

feed them, and the people of Newfoundland, I am afraid, might find out exactly

how expensive it is to feed stockholders. Look at the Minister of Justice. The

Minister of Justice has stocks and bonds - very, very demanding to make sure

that he keeps them. He has to make sure that every day he gets a good return on

his investment or he will not keep them; he will sell them and buy some others.

That is the way it works.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a government here who, with

one thing after another, when given the choice between the public interest, to

act in the public interest on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

acts instead in the private interests of special groups - the wealthy few in

Newfoundland and Labrador - but mostly, 95 per cent, 96 per cent, 97 per cent -

I do not know exactly how much. Fortis has not told us what their holdings are,

exactly. We know that Montreal Engineering is a substantial shareholder and

actor behind the scenes in Newfoundland Light - always has been. The head office

used to be in Montreal, at one time, I understand. I am not so sure about that,

but I have been told that.

These decisions that government is making are designed and

have the effect of serving interests other than the public interests. The

private interest of Browning Harvey versus the public interest for a clean

environment. I say to the Minister of the Environment: You have sold out. You

have sold out the public interest by refusing to establish a proper deposit

system so that if you want to contribute to recycling it is worth your while.

I remember when I was in the Province of Alberta, Mr.

Speaker, back in 1976, and we had in Alberta at the time - I was going to law

school, I was there for three years - the Government of Alberta, not known for

its socialist tendencies even then, but they had a deposit system that was

subsidized, organized, and insisted upon by the government. So that every

Saturday morning - I don't know whether it was more than half the people, but a

goodly number of the people - went to the bottle deposit. They brought back wine

bottles, beer bottles, they brought back every kind of bottle, and every kind of

soft drink and container were brought back to the depository. It was worthwhile

to do it.

If the Minister of Environment had the courage to tack ten

cents on to every soft drink in this Province, somebody might say she's taking

candy from babies. They might say that. Maybe the children would have less Coke

for a day or two or a week. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might

save some dental bills. That ten cents would be the value of the return of that

piece of plastic. That ten cents would recycle back and forth.

If every liquor bottle that the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation sold in this Province - and I notice they're now begging people to

buy legal with their advertizing - but if every bottle that the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation sold had twenty cents tacked onto it, the consumers of

alcohol might jump up and down for a week or two, but they will go and pay the

extra twenty cents. Every time you go to the liquor store and you see a ten or

twenty or a thirty cent increase on a bottle of liquor, I think people pay it

and they continue to consume it. That twenty cents that you pay at he liquor

store could be used and given back to the people who want to take them back at

the other end and find some use for them. That would support the system. That

would allow these goods to circulate. It would keep these containers out of the

environment, and it would provide employment.

Someone said, do we want to lay off people? No, we don't want

to lay off people. What we want to do is make sure this stuff stays out of the

environment. By making it worthwhile for this to be returned it will keep it out

of the environment. That's the incentive system. I thought the people over here

on the other side of the House believed in the incentive system. I thought they

wanted to build incentives to allow people to behave in a good and an

environmentally pure and sensitive way. Why are they not doing it? Because

Browning Harvey and the soft drink manufacturers have been successful in this

Province. Nowhere else in the country. They have found the weakest link in the

chain and they have finally found a government across this country which is

prepared to kowtow to them, to bow down and do what they ask. New Brunswick can

have a sensible system. PEI can keep them out altogether. Alberta has a deposit

system that is the envy of the country, but not this government. No. Browning

Harvey says: we'll close down our plant, we'll leave the Province, just like

Coke did. They won't leave the Province if - they're not going to take empty

containers over to Nova Scotia, fill them up, and bring them back, I will tell

you that.

There are ways, if the government wants to do it, to ensure

that either a bottle deposit system could work or refillable bottle. Every

Saturday morning there are thousands of people across this Province who bring

beer bottles back, or they go collect them for the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides

or the 4-H Clubs or whatever other organizations there are. They bring them all

back and they bring them back because they get ten cents a bottle for them. They

can make money on them. It's worthwhile for them to do it.

But no, not this government. Can't do that because we've been

lobbied, just as they were lobbied on the Outer Ring Road, just as they've been

lobbied by Fortis, just as they were lobbied by the employers on the labour

Bill. They respond to the special interests, the private interests, the special

interest. That is who is governing this Province, not the people sitting over

there.

I'm surprised at the men and women sitting over there on the

back benches allowing that to happen. Allowing that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

I only have a minute or two left so perhaps I shouldn't start

on the labour Bill because it will take too much time to explain how it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I will believe that when I see it. It's not

close enough to Christmas yet.

Mr. Speaker, I won't start on the labour Bill because the

people over there have been given some simplistic gobbledegook from the Minister

of Labour Relations, who should know full well that what he is doing is giving a

licence to the Bill Barrys of the future to fire people at will. As soon as they

get wind of a certification, start firing people. Pick out a few people, fire

them. Fire this one, a union organizer, fire that one, fire somebody else. Then

we will have a vote, then we will have a secret ballot. That is what Bill Barry

wanted.

MR. GRIMES: You're not standing up there saying that to

try to be serious, are you?

MR. HARRIS: That is what Bill Barry wanted and if I had

another half an hour I would explain to the hon. member how this works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. HARRIS: If I had another half an hour, Mr. Speaker, I

would explain how this works. Since my time is up I will have to speak again

when the Bill is out. We will have a number of opportunities in this House to

speak on that Bill. If the hon. member was serious about -

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't let you respond to statements

though, will they?

MR. HARRIS: No, they're frightened.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. They're frightened of your

2 per cent.

MR. HARRIS: They're down almost as low as we are, and

they're afraid that in the race for - I said, you know in the last federal

election I talked to the former Member for St. John's East. I said, you know -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What about the former former member?

MR. HARRIS: The former former member. I was talking to

the former member. I said: you know, Ross, your Party and my Party are going to

come fourth and fifth in this election. He said: oh no, don't say that. I didn't

realize that the order would be us fourth and them fifth. I thought it was going

to be the other way around.

In the race for the bottom the sixteen over here are really

worried that we might jump ahead of them. On the way back up we will go ahead of

them. So they're really worried. I'm not surprised that the Opposition House

Leader is afraid to have me speak, even on something like violence against

women. Even on violence against women he is afraid to hear me speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The sixteen man -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker? By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for St. George's.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's quite fitting I

think that I should share this debate this morning with my good friend and

colleague the Member for Humber Valley, who had some very good points that he

raised in his speech concerning the agricultural industry of this Province.

That's always of interest to me, as most of you know. I also share a comment

with the hon. Member for St. John's East who indicated that the Member for

Humber Valley is a very practical man. He is a practical thinker, and I have to

agree with that. After all, he is a farmer and that is where it all started for

all of us at some time.

The hon. Member for Humber Valley was indeed correct when he

said that his District is a major agricultural District as well, although I will

gently remind the House that prior to 1949 agriculture basically didn't exist in

that District. That says something for the people in that District for what they

have done since 1949. He also made reference to attitudes towards agriculture.

I'm going to touch on that in my delivery this morning.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to once again

take

part in this Budget debate. The Throne Speech clearly emphasized the need

for economic development and employment generation in this Province. I submit to

this hon. House that such is especially true in rural Newfoundland and

especially true in the district that I am proud to represent, the District of

St. George's. Having said that I also suspect that it will not be of any

surprise to you or my hon. colleagues on both sides of this Chamber that I

should develop a thesis this morning, that I should develop a sound argument

where the agri-food industry can indeed contribute to the economic development

and employment generation in this Province. That is especially true of the

District of St. George's because that district traditionally and historically

has been and is a major, and at one time was the major food producing district

in the Province. Before going into the main delivery this morning I want to take

this House on a brief tour through the District of St. George's, and in that

tour you will see some of the problems that we have and I will offer some

solutions.

The most easterly part of the district begins about twenty

miles south of Corner Brook at a place called Gallants. Now, Gallants over the

years was a major pulpwood industry town, but unfortunately most of the trees in

that area have now been harvested and the industry no longer exists. There is no

other major industry that has taken its place although it does have tremendous

potential in tourism.

We go down further south to Black Duck Siding and

Stephenville Crossing and both this village and town had its beginning as a

railway site. Of course you know what has happened to the railway. Stephenville

Crossing sprang up largely because of, in more recent years, the American base

at Stephenville and we know that no longer exists, adding further to the

problems in the area.

Next is Barachois Brook and Mattis Point, traditionally

fishing communities and, of course, like elsewhere in this Province the downturn

is there as well as far as the fishery is concerned. In fact the fishery this

year, including the lobster fishery, was almost a complete failure.

St. George's is the next major town in the district going

south from Corner Brook and it is the shire town, the shire town of the district

where over the years the Holy See was located until more recent times and where

the courthouse was located, and so on. It is also a main railway town and this

has had a detrimental effect on it as a result of the closure of the railway.

The central region of the district hon. members is made up of

nine communities going from Heatherton to the Highlands. This is a major

agricultural producing area of the district over the years and still remains as

such. Prior to 1949, as my hon. colleague for the Humber Valley has referred,

this Province basically fed itself as far as agricultural products are concerned

and a major portion of that produce came from the central region of St. George's

district and further south into the Codroy Valley. Since 1949, however, there

has been a major disappearance of agricultural production in the district,

especially vegetable production. The reason behind that is because when we

became part of Confederation the tariffs were removed. As a result of that,

farmers in the area were presented with an onslaught of cheaper vegetables

coming in from the mainland, a lower quality product but cheaper product, and

that is why I asked the hon. Member for Humber Valley, earlier, how many grade

number one potatoes do you find in this Province coming in from the mainland. We

receive grade number two and grade number three but we pay for grade number one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

DR. HULAN: Indeed. Along with Confederation came the

social programs, the nice social programs, unemployment insurance, better social

assistance and so on. This had its effect on agriculture because it was easier

to get the money to live on than going into the fields from six in the morning

to eleven at night. In addition to all of that, was the construction of the

Trans-Canada Highway. You may ask how that had a detrimental effect on

agriculture in Newfoundland. Well the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway

started in 1951 and continued almost as a make work project until near 1967.

Farmers who were feeling the insult of the cheaper produce from the mainland,

found that they could get a ready paycheque by going to work on the Trans-Canada

Highway so they left their farms and went to work for six months on the

Trans-Canada Highway and then they qualified for unemployment insurance in the

winter time.

The boy on the farm, the son on the farm who was five years

of age in 1951, became of working age before the highway was finished and he

too, when he was sixteen years of age, went to work on the Trans-Canada Highway

and as a result of that we lost two generations of agricultural experts, people

who knew what they were doing with the soil in this Province and its climate and

how to work with it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, agriculture and the related

food industries of this Province have been indeed ignored by the business

community, the public, the media and even governments over the last couple of

decades, and as a consequence many opportunities for employment generation and

industrial activity promotion have been impeded or probably lost altogether, and

some of the reasons why agriculture has not been taken seriously are

understandable, and why it has declined I have just referenced.

One thing is the industry has never been able to throw off or

shake off the shackles of being a subsistent activity, subsistent to the fishing

industry.

Whereas that is true, there has been some fairly major happenings and

steps taken by the present government which will help indeed the agri-food

industry develop in the Province in the years to come. The School Milk Program,

will certainly add to an expansion to our already important and well-developed

dairy industry. I have said on the floor of this House in the past, Mr. Speaker,

that what the dairy industry has done in this Province in the last ten to twelve

years is a tremendously important success story and one of which we should all

take note. They have managed to increase their portion of the market share of

fluid milk to 100 per cent. We do have one problem, however. Our consumption of

fresh milk in this Province is only 55 per cent of the national average and

therefore we have a long way to go and grow in the dairy industry, and that will

be done with the introduction of the School Milk Program as the children educate

their parents into drinking fresh milk and that is going to happen and is

happening.

The provincial meat inspection program, which was recommended

by the Task Force on agri-foods and about ready to go into place in this

Province, I understand will greatly assist the development of the beef industry.

The dairy cattle industry: right now dairy cows have to be taken to the mainland

to be processed, basically. They have to be taken to Nova Scotia to be killed.

The provincial meat inspection system will overcome that for the most part.

I see with the provincial meat inspection, Mr. Speaker, a

Province-wide industry. Different than the hog industry of the past, but a

Province-wide hog industry, marketed in a different manner, with slaughtering

occurring right across this Province, inspected for provincial consumption, for

sale in the supermarkets. The provincial meat inspection system will also

provide the opportunity for a viable turkey industry, a viable heavy chicken or

roaster industry, which we don't have today.

In the past I have made reference in this House to the fact

that a revolution is occurring in agriculture around the world, and Newfoundland

is no different. Newfoundlanders included today are looking for low-fat foods,

they're looking for no-fat foods in many cases. They are looking for certainly

low-cholesterol foods. The whole world, the whole Western world at least, is

looking for foods with fewer chemicals, fewer insecticides, fewer pesticides. I

say to this House, Newfoundland has a golden opportunity to capitalize on its

own advantages, its uniqueness of having probably the cleanest air, water and

soil, in all of North America - some may argue with that, but indications are

that we have - and therefore probably the entire world. We have that. When I

speak of agriculture and the agri-food industry I am not only speaking of

self-sufficiency in this Province, but I'm thinking of the international market.

I want to go into that.

We have an opportunity to raise chemical-free beef and lamb

on this Island. Having said that, I want to give you a little story that I think

this House will be interested in. Everybody has taken their shots at the Sprung

Greenhouse. After Sprung moved out Cabot Produce took over that greenhouse, They

were producing cucumbers, of course. They produced other things, but cucumbers

as well. I was in Ottawa on December 13, 1989, when a tandem truckload of

cucumbers from Cabot Produce in St. John's Newfoundland arrived at the Byword

Market. They were put in the large bins and the price tag on them was $2.99. The

next bin to the Cabot Produce cucumber was a bin of American cucumbers from

California for $0.99, or $0.89. As fast as the bin of cucumbers from Cabot

produce at $2.99 was filled up it was emptied, while the $0.89 cent cucumber sat

there. Now I will tell you why. On each cucumber they had rightly stamped: Cabot

Produce, St. John's, Newfoundland, grown without chemicals, pesticides or

herbicides. They were capitalizing on what they could do.

I will also submit to you that we have the opportunity in

this Province to raise and put to the market on the world stage chemical-free,

pesticide-free, beef and lamb. We indeed can be, I am convinced, the lamb

capital of Canada. Why can we be? I challenge this hon. House that if we were to

put lamb that is from the Southern Shore of the beautiful Avalon Peninsula where

they are now growing lambs, in on the barrens of that beautiful area of this

Province, without chemicals at all, being reared on the natural reindeer and

other grasses that are there, and you put that leg of lamb in New York City with

a tag on it saying that it was grown with the sea breezes of Newfoundland

blowing over it as it grew, without chemicals or herbicides or what have you, a

natural product, indeed, $18 a kilogram is not out of the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

DR. HULAN: Eighteen dollars a kilogram.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine bucks a pound, approximately.

DR. HULAN: Yes.

Now, we have that opportunity. I would like to tell you this

other story. Right now, as we stand here, the farmers on the Southern Shore of

the Avalon Peninsula have their sheep herds, after they lamb in the spring, they

drive them in on the barrens. They do not see these animals any more until they

go in in September and harvest the lamb crop. They will take from those ewes,

two lambs, ranging around forty to forty-two pounds, that are better than the

Canadian average for lamb production on the mainland.

These farmers are not involved with the growing of this

animal. It just grows wild. It eats the wild grasses. They have no input in

fencing or anything. They have a natural product that has a market on the

international stage, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No predators, Bud?

DR. HULAN: Right now, very few predators. I could get

into that one later on with regard to the possibility, in the future,

unfortunately, of the coyote in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) coyote.

DR. HULAN: Right.

I want to also say that there has been a considerable amount

of money spent on the sheep industry in this Province in the seventies and the

eighties. A considerable amount of money was spent. Lambs and rams were brought

in from Finland and Russia and Australia and New Zealand, and we completely

ignored our native sheep that have been here for 350 years - our native animal

that has acclimated over 300 years. Most of us will acclimate in our lifetime,

but these animals have 300 years to acclimate, to be able to eat and survive and

thrive on the natural grasses that grow on the barrens of this land. We have

ignored that animal, and I say we should not have.

There are a number of major constraints, Mr. Speaker, that

agriculture and the agri-food industry in this Province is faced with, and one

of them is the mind-set and the perception that it is an expensive luxury that

this Province cannot afford, and that is so completely incorrect; but where does

that come from?

Number one reason, we always look at the losses at

Newfoundland Farm Products annually, and that bounces back on the producer, the

agricultural producer. We also consider the Sprung issue and, be that as it may,

the problem there comes right back to the agricultural industry itself, and

sceptics will then say: we cannot afford agriculture in this Province. I am

sorry to say that is so far from the truth. We have the potential of a

tremendous industry to create employment out in rural Newfoundland where

unemployment is the highest, and what better opportunity than through the

production of food? After all, it was basically alluded to already in this

Chamber this morning, and I will ask you the question: What is the largest

industry in the world, including here in Newfoundland? It is the food industry.

Yet, I will also tell you, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians consume almost a

billion dollars worth of food and beverage annually, and yet we produce a very,

very small amount of what we consume.

As far as vegetables, reference was made to vegetables this

morning. As far as vegetables are concerned, we produce about 5 per cent of what

we consume. Prior to 1949 we produced 100 per cent. These are some of the

problems. The other constraint we have, as I already referred to, is the

mind-set at every level of this Province that we are not an agriculturally

producing Province because we do not have the soil. That is wrong. We do not

have the climate. That is wrong. We have already proven it. We only have to go

back through history and look at the fact that prior to 1949 farmers on the West

Coast of this island took the prizes for grains, such as wheat, barley, oats,

and rye at the Atlantic Winter Fair. We took the prizes for these products and

yet we have the mind-set, and we have encouraged the media to educate our

children that we live on a rock. When I returned to this Province in 1989 I was

so upset when I first heard the radio station that announced itself the 'Rock of

the Rock.' If we start putting into the children's minds from the cradle that

you live on a rock, well, tell me, hon colleagues, what can you grow on a rock?

The other major constraint that we have for the agri-food

industry in this Province is the lack of organized marketing. That is a major

constraint. The vegetable industry in this Province right now is in the same

state of disarray as far as marketing is concerned as the vegetable industry was

in the beautiful Annapolis Valley fifteen years ago.

I will tell you a story that Lewisporte Wholesalers in

Lewisporte shared with me when I chaired the Task Force on Agri-Foods. This

gentleman went out into his field this morning and cut five tons of cabbage. He

had no order for the cabbage so he just put them in his truck and went to

Lewisporte Wholesalers. He got to the unloading dock and the chap at the dock

called upstairs and said: so and so from Brown's Arm is here with five ton of

cabbage. We did not order them so what should we do? The office said, take as

many as you can from the poor fellow. We cannot take them all but take whatever

you can. Lewisporte Wholesalers were able to take three ton and he still had two

tons left. What did that gentleman do? He went out in his truck and went to all

the retail outlets in the surrounding area and he loaded every retail outlet

with cabbage. He still had three quarters of a ton left so he went to the centre

of the town, set up his truck, and sold to the consumers right off the truck.

Now, he had taken care of the wholesaler, the retailer, and the consumer, and

that is the disorganization I am taking about and it is very simply rectified.

It has been outlined in detail how to rectify it. It can be rectified and it

will be, hopefully, in the future.

I have not touched on another major area of the food industry

that is just begging to be developed in this Province and that is the further

processing industry of agri-food products. Today we further produce very little

of the agri-food products we consume.

I want to give you another little story. Newfoundland has the

highest quality blueberry in Eastern North America. We are the only area in

Eastern North America, hon. colleagues, that is blueberry maggot free, the only

area. There is a tremendous world market for fresh blueberries. Nova Scotia,

PEI, New Brunswick, Maine. Vermont, and so on will never get into the fresh

blueberry market because they have blueberry maggot and their blueberries break

down too quickly. Newfoundland has a maggot-free blueberry. Well, do you know

what we do with the $2 or $3 million worth of wild blueberries we produce each

year in this Province? We collect them very nicely, put them in very nice

containers, and take them over to Nova Scotia where they are mixed with the

maggotted blueberries and they are made into tarts, jams, jellies, pies, and

sent back to Newfoundland for consumption. That is what we do. Now, maggots are

a fairly good source of protein, I can tell you. I am a nutritional biochemist

and I can tell you that they are an excellent source of protein. Some people

like maggots, some people don't. I submit to you that that has to change, Mr.

Speaker and hon. colleagues, that has to change. The blueberry story is just one

of the many stories that I can allude to concerning the agricultural industry,

the agri-food industry of this Province where there is tremendous potential for

development in the future.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that the

agri-food industry, including the primary industries which are its most

significant element, is underdeveloped in this Province. In fact, some will say

that it is not developed. I firmly believe that the agri-food sector holds a

great potential for contributing to the future economic development of this

Province. Tremendous opportunities exist in the sector for economic development

and employment generation, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where

unemployment is the highest. We have not even scratched the surface, Mr.

Speaker, we have not even scratched the surface with regard to the development

of the agri-food industry of this Province.

I will give you an example as far as employment generation

goes, in the District of St. George's I have at least one farming enterprise

that employs fifty people, part-time and full-time year round. You try to find a

business in St. John's that employ as many. I would suggest that you will find

them but do you know where you will find them? You will find them in the food

industry. In the Clover Produces, the Blue Buoy Foods and the Purity Factories

of this Province. Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous opportunity but we will

never develop it as long as we tell ourselves that we can't. As long as we

always, as I have said before, Mr. Speaker, look at the glass as half empty

rather than half full.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: I was rather interested in the remarks of

the gentleman for St. George's. There would appear, according to his

calculations, to be a tremendous economic potential in the agri-foods industry

in this particular Province. However, I would submit that the hon. Member for

St. George's will be in these benches for quite some time and I am preaching the

same message because this particular government has an absolutely shameful

record of economic development.

My district, Mr. Speaker, Green Bay, is going through some

difficult times but not as difficult as you might expect because unknown to many

people outside the borders of that district, we have two fish plants that have

been going full tilt at Little Bay Islands and Triton for the last year -

probably more work associated with those plants then there has been in the past

number of years.

The forestry industry in the Green Bay area, the industry

that gave the district its name, is in decline. We are running out of trees and

what cutting we do have by small operators, Mr. Speaker, it is very distressing

to find that the product that they cut, they find very difficult to sell. This

particular government of course, in spite of all its promises with regard to

economic development, is allowing the paper mill at Stephenville to import wood

from the maritime provinces. The vegetables that the Member for St. George's

mentioned, that come into this Province from the maritime's, is also being

matched with wood products. We have cases in my particular district, Mr.

Speaker, where there are people who have the wood cut and piled but the paper

company, with the blessing of this particular administration, imports wood from

the mainland under the pretext that it needs fresh spruce. Well we have fresh

spruce in Green Bay, Mr. Speaker, that is lying by the side of the road going

stale as the docks in Stephenville unload wood directly from mainland Canada.

One gets no particular answer as to why the paper company

must import wood from the mainland unless it is purely on the basis of

economics, maybe this wood is grown on private woodlots and can be delivered to

Stephenville cheaper than a similar product from our own district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Port

de Grave is trying to get me going and heaven knows I would not want to get into

the Hydro scandal. This morning is an instance of the type of economic

development that this particular government is into. We must recall that this

was the party and the administration that when first elected in 1989 indicated

to the people of the Province that there was going to be such an economic boom

in this Province that there would be a reasonable prospect of every mother's son

coming home. Since then, Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem I found in my district

with regard to mothers' sons and daughters, is that the nearest place that they

can find any sort of employment is British Columbia. If they are coming home, it

is because they would rather live on welfare at home than welfare on the

mainland of Canada.

As I indicated, the only place that is hiring for most

Newfoundlanders, certainly with the level of skills that most people from my

district have, the nearest place they can get work is either in the mining

industry in the far north, or in British Columbia, which is one of the few

bright spots in the Canadian economy. Now this government, like all governments

in this country, is charged with the responsibility of economic development. At

the moment we have an economy in a shambles for the third year running.

According to statistics published, the economy of this Province has shrunk, so

we have a government that promised tremendous economic development and growth

when it first came to office but so far it is a government that seems to be

content to preside over decline.

There are no major economic developments ongoing under the

tutelage of this government with the possible exception of Hibernia, which of

course, is the child of the previous PC administration. This government has

embarked on several large and controversial programs of its own making but those

do not create any jobs except maybe among politicians or lawyers. I can recall

that the Wells government upset municipal government in this Province some years

ago with a massive amalgamation scheme. It spent the better part of its first

term in office dealing with such job creating issues as the Canadian

Constitution, where again, only people in public policy or law could find any

source of employment whatsoever.

We now have this government, its major economic initiative -

well I suppose it has two that we are going to deal with in this particular

sitting of the House of Assembly. One has to do with a major rewrite of labour

law in the Province, which by all estimation is going to be controversial and

probably lead to increasing tensions between labour and management in the

Province and the other of course, is the government's dogged determination, Mr.

Speaker, to privatize Newfoundland Hydro.

This particular privatization that the government is about

has no basis in public support, has no basis in electoral support from the point

of view of a mandate from the people. This government has made in the past, a

very general statement with regard to getting rid of certain Crown corporations

that are of commercial interest or serve no public policy purpose, but I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro still holds the public

policy purpose and I would like to get into that for a few moments if I may.

When we last had a major economic development regarding hydro

in the Labrador portion of our Province, it was done by a private corporation,

BRINCO. The outcome of that particular initiative on the part of the then

Liberal government, was a cheap product called electricity being shipped west to

Quebec for a period of sixty-five years, with no possibility of reopening the

sale price based on changing economic times. The water rights went to the

company BRINCO and when the Moores administration followed the Smallwood

administration in the '70s, one of the first things that the Moores

administration felt inclined to do, felt the need to do, was to buy back the

water rights already given away by the Smallwood administration.

So $30 million in 1970-odd dollars were spent to buy back

something that we had originally owned when we joined Confederation, but we had

to buy it back because the government of the day, in doing the Churchill River

development, gave away our water rights in addition to our rights to a sound,

economic rent from this particular development.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have Hydro having developed most of the

sites of any economic significance on the Island part of the Province. The next

frontier, in terms of hydroelectric development in our Province, would have to

be the development of the Lower Churchill River system. We have a Crown

corporation, that by all estimates, is one of the better run public utilities in

the country. It is on sound footing financially, and in terms of its management

and expertise, yet we appear to be ready - or at least the government of Premier

Wells appears to be ready - to give away, for nothing short of a song, the

potential of that particular corporation to be involved in further development

of hydroelectric resources on the Lower Churchill River system.

When we want to proceed with such a development, Mr. Speaker,

what are we going to do as a government, as a society, in order to facilitate

such a development, to ensure that the maximum interests of the Province are

protected and enhanced? We will not, if the government goes through with its

privatization of the Hydro Corporation, have a vehicle whereby the government of

the day can direct public policy, can direct economic development, in tandem

with a development of the Lower Churchill River system. We will have essentially

passed off to the private sector the expertise and technology required to do

that development, and we will be in the same position as was the government of

the sixties in developing the Upper Churchill River.

We will not have a vehicle that is publicly owned, that is

publicly driven by the interests of the Province, to develop the Lower Churchill

River system. We will be at the mercy of Fortis, expanded or whatever the name

of the new corporation will be. It will be the only vehicle inside this Province

to carry out an economic development in Labrador, and the last time that we had

an economic development in Labrador carried out by a private company, there was

an immense sell-out of our provincial resources, and we will not have a chance

to reopen that contract or to redress our grievances until the year 2041 - a

year, I would assume, that most of us will not be around to comment on, and one

wonders if a further development of the Lower Churchill River will be done in a

similar manner because the Province will have abdicated its role in public

policy as regards to hydroelectric development, passed that role off to a

private company -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the case. The Lower Churchill

(inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: The Lower Churchill River system, as I

understand it, yes, Mr. Speaker, does stay with the Province, but what about the

vehicle for development? We are about to get rid of the corporation best

designed and best able to develop the Lower Churchill River system. It will be

turned over in a share offering to the general public. It will become a publicly

traded company on the stock exchange. It will no longer be the property of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

will no longer own an instrument with which to effect development of the Lower

Churchill River system.

One has to ask, Mr. Speaker, why the all-fired rush on the

part of this particular administration to go ahead with this particular

divesting of a public interest. The public, as I see it, will not be well served

either in terms of future economic development along hydro lines. It will get

one small, quick shot in the arm of economic development in the terms of really

just cash to apply against our yearly current account deficit, or put a very

small dent, indeed, in the long-term debt of the Province.

The government has had much to-do about the fact that in

relatively short order the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be

retired, but from the point of view of the international financial community,

the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is self-financing. It is not

regarded as a drag on this particular Province. Indeed, if anything, in terms of

economic development levers, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is seen to be one

of the feathers in the cap of this particular Province.

The general public then, Mr. Speaker, will not only lose the

water rights, dams and transmission lines that they have on the island part of

the Province but they will also face, as a result of this sale, considerable

power rate increases. The Premier acknowledges that rates will increase. I think

he has publicly understated the amount that rates will increase. Over the past

five years, since I have been elected, I had a term of two or three years as

energy critic and had the opportunity to attend hearings of the Public Utilities

Board and due to policies on the part of the Wells government in