November

3, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 49

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members of the

House are aware, the government is currently assessing its mid-year financial

position. In our March Budget we presented to the Legislature the first balanced

Budget since Confederation. During the first half of the fiscal year several

developments have occurred which have caused our fiscal position to deteriorate

by approximately $60 million. Our net expenditures have increased by

approximately $15 million while our estimated current account revenues have

declined by about $45 million. This revenue shortfall results from lower federal

estimates of payments under the major transfer programs, particularly

equalization, and personal and corporate income taxes. Taxation and other

revenue sources administered by the Province remain on target.

Mr. Speaker, this government remains committed to achieving a

balance of revenues and expenditures this year as well as next. The current

problem must be addressed. At the end of this month an action plan will be

announced to eliminate this projected shortfall. Our objectives will be to do so

without borrowing or raising taxes. To this end all departments and agencies of

government have been directed to review their expenditure programs and to

identify immediate savings that will offset the $60 million shortfall for this

year. These actions will allow us to deal decisively with the fiscal pressures

we are facing this year and contribute to achieving a balanced budget in

subsequent years. These structural adjustments, combined with medium term

improvements in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, will ensure the fiscal

stability of government and its ability to provide essential public programs on

a sustainable basis.

Mr. Speaker, the challenges we face in Newfoundland and

Labrador are not unique. With predicted slow down in our provincial economy over

the next two years and increased restraint by Ottawa, we must commit ourselves

to continued prudent management of our fiscal resources. This approach can only

serve to strengthen our economy and the future well-being of our people. Thank

you.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first erroneous

statement the minister makes here is that the government brought forward a

balanced budget last year. We told them at the time it wasn't balanced, and the

minister I thought was on the right track a week or so ago when he said the

Budget was smoke and mirrors. He was right then, but he is starting to fall now

into the ways of the former minister and pretend that it was a balanced budget

which we all knew back last March certainly was not balanced and the facts now

have proven themselves. I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was wrong. I said

last week we had a $50 million deficit but we actually have a $60 million

deficit. I was being too kind to this government. I thought maybe they had been

able to keep it down to $60 million.

Mr. Speaker, the problem here is going to be trying to

correct this. The minister is trying to indicate that he is going to do that

without borrowing or raising taxes. Now, that is a commendable approach, Mr.

Speaker, but it is going to be very, very difficult to save $60 million in the

next four months for this current fiscal year. If he is not going to borrow or

raise taxes then he can only do two things, he can cut expenditures, and that

means cutting social programs because by far the bulk of our expenditures that

the minister has any kind of control over are in the social programs, health and

education once again, so here is where we are going to see the people of the

Province suffer, or he is going to attack the public servants. He cannot do it

by lay offs because he would never get any benefits at all by laying people off

immediately with severance pays and everything else. He would see no benefit

this year so the minister has to be looking at a wage roll back which is about

the only way that he can possibly save any amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a very dismal four months and

we are more concerned about what we are going to see next year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In keeping with government's commitment to reducing its

expenditures I rise today to inform hon. members of our decision to begin the

process of phasing out the John Cabot 1997, 500th Anniversary Corporation. It is

government's intention to dissolve the corporation at the earliest possible

opportunity. The planning and managing of the John Cabot 500th anniversary

celebrations for 1997 will become the direct responsibility of the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, this government entered into preparations for

these anniversary celebrations with the anticipation of a multimillion dollar

contribution from the federal government. This contribution has not materialized

to the extent anticipated and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

found itself in the onerous position of fully funding this project.

In recognizing the economic realities of the day, Mr.

Speaker, government has made the decision to take over the operations of the

corporation in an effort to reduce government expenditures without sacrificing a

successful and quality event in 1997. I would like to assure every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian that we will celebrate in 1997 the 500th

Anniversary of John Cabot's landfall in this Province. The work that has been

accomplished by the corporation will be carried forward into the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the diligent

efforts of the staff of the corporation and the volunteers who have been working

to make this event a successful one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this government again, scuttled another ship and

this one is called The Matthew , anyway this is more bad decisions and

backtracking by this government which has a legacy of such efforts. This

government was told, Mr. Speaker, starting two years ago about creating an

entity that did not have any accountability. They were told that they should be

accountable for public funds they were spending. I hope this is not a measure to

get rid of some employees and replace them with the temporary Liberal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister today if he would make

a full disclosure of the money spent to date on this co-operation.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier.

Everyone now knows that his Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture abused his ministerial position, to extort money for his district

Liberal association from fisheries and farming businesses all over the Province

that depend for their existence on decisions of the minister and the minister's

department.

What's the Premier going to do about this? Is the Premier

going to fire the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I am going to

do, is do a full assessment, and I am not prepared to judge anybody or their

actions on the basis of outrageous allegations that the Opposition Leader is

prepared to make.

Now, there may be substance to the claims. If there is, I

will act, if there isn't, I won't but the first thing I will do is do a full and

complete assessment. This was raised less than twenty-four hours ago, less than

twenty hours ago. I have been doing other things, the process has started; I

have had some preliminary information but I do not yet have complete information

and when I do, I will deal with the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why the double standard, I ask the Premier? Why is the

Premier treating his Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture differently

from the treatment he afforded the current Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, when that minister transgressed a few years ago, or other

members of the Premier's Cabinet and caucus, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island? Why the double standard, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There isn't a double standard, not at all.

I told the Leader of the Opposition I am having the matter assessed. I expect,

certainly by Monday, I would think, that I will have complete information,

enough to make a decision as to what, if anything needs to be done. Once that

information is complete I will take whatever action is appropriate in the

circumstance. It is not a double standard; it is following precisely the same

standard.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture: Why did the minister lie to the

House yesterday when I asked him whether he had used his ministerial position -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows full well that she cannot accuse

another hon. member of lying in this House. I ask the hon. member to withdraw

the statement.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the word,

`lie', which I accept, is unparliamentary. I will rephrase the question: Why did

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture mislead this House of Assembly

yesterday when I asked him a straightforward question, when I asked him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: She didn't say `deliberately' mislead -

what the member said is alright - `deliberately' mislead is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member can complete her question.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why did the minister mislead the House yesterday when I asked

him whether he had used his ministerial position to direct his ministerial staff

using departmental stationary to request or solicitor funds for his District

Liberal Association, this summer, from businesses all over the Province which

are regulated or financed by his department? When I asked him that question

yesterday, the minister, after a pause, replied, `No, I did not.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS VERGE: Why did the minister mislead the House

yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I just finished telling the House that I

am doing an assessment of this matter and I am not about to let the Leader of

the Opposition run a kangaroo court to destroy the reputation of this minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is shocking behaviour, Mr. Speaker. I

will do a full assessment of it and when the matter is assessed I will answer to

this House and through this House to the people of the Province for what has

occurred. I am specifically asking the minister to allow me an opportunity to do

that and not be railroaded into this kind of a kangaroo assessment by the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier: Premier what is there to

investigate? You, with your own ears, heard the minister mislead the House

yesterday. You, with your own ears, heard the minister contradict himself after

I produced incriminating evidence. You, with your own eyes and ears, heard the

minister on radio and television say that he indeed, out of his ministerial

office, solicited funds for his District Liberal Association from businesses

that his department regulates. What is there to investigate, I ask the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The full allegations will be investigated,

including the Leader of the Opposition tabling a fax in the House that was

concocted and put together, and not a fax that was there. Now, I do know that

much, but I am not about to make a judgement on the whole matter until I have

done a full assessment. When I have done a full assessment, I will report to the

House, and not before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier to confirm that he knows about the St.

George's District Liberal Association booklet, in which the Premier himself has

a message, containing the paid ads from fisheries and farming businesses located

all around the Province that are regulated by the minister's department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many of

those I sign a year, perhaps one for every district - I don't remember - and I

sign a message in every such booklet that is done. I intend to continue to do it

because it is a fair way of providing for funding for political parties.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, it was this government that brought in

the legislation that cleaned up the mess the former government would not address

for seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we intend to see that it

is continued in a clean and acceptable way. If anybody has transgressed an

acceptable standard it will be dealt with, but I don't intend to do it by

character assassination, by allegations in this House, unless and until a full

assessment indicates that those allegations are valid. If they are, they will be

addressed. If they are not, they will be exposed for what they are, invalid

allegations.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Government has indicated its intention to build a new

regional hospital for Labrador in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Now, will the

minister tell the people of Labrador what is the planned time frame to build

this approximately $30 million structure, and what is delaying the architectural

plan that had funding approved in last March's Budget?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware

that government has made a specific announcement to state an intent within any

specific time to build a hospital in Labrador. What I am aware of is that

government last year in the Budget process allowed some money for programming

purposes.

Programming is the first of about three stages that occur in

determining and eventually leading to the construction of a facility. It really

only details what it is we need in a new facility in terms of the mixture of

infrastructure and that sort of thing. There has been no announcement made with

respect to the building of a hospital in Labrador, and I can only tell the

member that when such an announcement is appropriate it will be made, and he

will be amongst the first to hear it.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wouldn't it be kind

of irresponsible if you have no intentions to spend $2 million on programming, I

say to the minister? Will the minister confirm that the Labrador board recently

purchased a new house for its executive director?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the

question. We have not spent $2 million on programming. We had approximately

$500,000 in our budget last year, if the member would take the time to check, to

cover planning for three facilities. Cover programming, that is to say, for

three facilities. It was Melville, it was some additional work in the Notre Dame

hospital in Twillingate, and it was also for a facility planned at Harbour

Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula. The figure of $2 million is factually

incorrect and I want to have the record clear on that.

As to the other question, in recent time, during the last

month or two, the new Labrador health care board disposed of a property that it

owned for about $97,000, $98,000 in Labrador. It sold it to one of the doctors

who is working there, which is a normal thing to do if you don't have use for

it. They did also purchase a property in Labrador for $182,000 for use of the

new CEO who went there. I've been aware of the situation for a couple of months.

It was not something that was done in the un-ordinary course of events, but

given government's policy that was annunciated in 1991 which was in effect this:

that beyond normal pay or normal salaries that are appropriated and applicable

to positions, boards were directed not to enhance or to provide additional

benefit to employees of hospital boards, that is CEOs and the like, and I had

some indication that this House had been purchased and that the CEO was living

there without paying the normal rent which would be the commercial rate.

I have taken the issue in hand. I have spoken to the board

chair. I have discussed the issue and I have asked him to provide me with all of

the information regarding the sale of the former property, the purchase of this

property, the basis on which it is being used by the CEO, and I have indicated

clearly to him that if it is outside of government policy that the board will be

required to take appropriate action to correct that situation. You have to

understand it is a new board in Labrador; they have never existed before. They

were created last year. They were put in business, and I am of a comfort level

that the chairman may not really have known about the policy that was enunciated

in 1991 - he was not working in the health care system - but that does not make

it right, and if it is outside of government policy we will address it and we

will see that it is corrected. I have also directed all of the other hospital

boards and CEOs to ensure that they are abiding within government policy on

these very sensitive and critical matters of providing benefits that are outside

of what is policy by this government.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area have to wait from

three to six months for a dental appointment, and this government is hoping to

solve the shortage of doctors in rural Newfoundland by offering them from a

minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $10,000 per year. Yet, it is willing to spend

almost $200,000 for a house for its executive director. I know it is important

to have a capable executive director, but I ask the minister: Is this government

more interested in keeping doctors in rural Newfoundland or keeping executive

directors in rural Newfoundland?

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

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

I think I covered the answer to that question already. This

government is not more interested in providing anything that is outside of what

we would provide to everybody who works in the public service in terms of

benefits or salary perks or anything else. Our priority is to provide quality

health care in an efficient manner at the appropriate point of delivery at the

most efficient and cost-effective way, and if any particular board or any agency

of the Department of Health that is representing this government has acted

either innocently or with knowledge outside of government policy, that action

will be sought to be corrected, and it will be corrected, and we will do what is

right and appropriate by the people of the Province, the taxpayers of the

Province, and the health care system of the Province that we have primary

responsibility for.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also

to the Minister of Health.

Much has been said, and a lot of comments made in the last

while, concerning health care cuts in the Province. Some twenty-two beds have

closed at Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, the closing of the Grace in

a couple of years here in St. John's, moving the Janeway, and it goes on and on

and on, but more specifically I wonder would the minister be able to tell the

House and the people of the Province about the very serious problem that exists

now at the Health Sciences Complex with regard to by-pass surgery?

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

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

Cardiac by-pass surgery is one of the critical programs that

is delivered at the Health Sciences Complex on behalf of the Province. During

the last four years this government has made available increasing amounts of

money on a progressive basis to address the cardiac by-pass heart surgery

program at the Health Sciences Complex. The reality is that having increased the

budget last year by $800,000 to that program alone we are still facing today, or

at least the last time I saw a count, a waiting list as long as, if not greater

than, it was before we put the extra resources into the program. The CEO and the

appropriate people at the Health Sciences have asked independent analysts in the

health care system to come in from Ontario, I believe, two individuals, to

assist the basis and criteria on which that program is operating.

It is not readily apparent that what is happening is a norm

or should be the situation at the moment. When you put extra money toward a

program normally it seeks to address the need and reduce waiting lists. I can

tell the hon. member that at the moment the program for cardiac surgery at the

Health Sciences is running at a level of about 10 per cent higher in terms of

procedures then say the Province of New Brunswick.

So we have a concern as to number one, why we are probably

doing as many as, if not more than the normal number of procedures per capita.

If we find out that we indeed need to dedicate more resources to that program,

in the interest of quality health care, we will address that situation in the

most timely fashion. I have had no request for additional funding from the

Health Care Corporation to address that program. I have to tell him again that

the program is under review and we are as concerned about it as you or anybody

else in the community. It is not acceptable to have people waiting an undue

length of time but we do acknowledge that in all programs there is some length

of waiting time.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister

has admitted that there is a real serious problem at the Health Sciences Complex

and in this Province, as a whole, with regards to bypass surgery in this

Province. I have constituents on the West Coast of the Province, the Northern

Peninsula and other areas of the Province, travelling to St. John's for such

surgery, only to be told after five minutes in the office that they must go

home, there is no room at the inn. Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that

there is a problem. Why spend more money on consultants? Why doesn't he put

money into this program to have something done about this very serious problem?

Now, would the minister tell the House that any bypass surgery, and explain to

the House, any bypass surgery is considered an emergency? Why should doctors at

the Health Sciences Complex play God and pick and choose who is going to have

surgery day after day after day? Could the minister explain that to the House?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The hon. member makes the assertion that

every candidate who is on the list of 180-200 for surgery is an emergency. I

guess, depending on your definition of emergency, that may be a reasonable

assumption but there is a prioritization of waiting lists in hospitals for all

types of surgery and they range from things that have to be done today, because

of a circumstance that occurred, that some people can wait for a little bit of

time further down the line.

What I have said to the member is that we have put extra

resources into the program. We have increased the numbers of procedures such

that this year we will do 420 procedures. Two years ago we were doing in the

mid-300 procedures and not withstanding the extra dedication of resources we

have put into the cardiac program, we have longer waiting lists. We are doing

more work that appears to be beyond the norm on a national average basis, so we

need to address that. Criteria for all surgical programs always need to be

re-evaluated when there is a significant change in either the volume that is

going through the system or the number of cases that are being put on the list.

Probably we are not as healthy as we were. It may have something to do with the

aging population but whatever the reason is, if there is a need for dedicated

resources, the Health Care Corporation will come to us, I am sure, and ask for

those resources. We will address it in as timely and as appropriate a fashion as

is reasonable to do.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has admitted to the House this morning that

there is a very serious problem with regard to bypass surgery at the hospital.

He did not mention the numbers put I say to the minister that there is somewhere

in the vicinity of 200, probably 200 plus, people waiting in the Province for

bypass surgery. The physical pain, Mr. Speaker, can be addressed through other

means. The mental and psychological pain cannot be addressed. I have people in

my district - more specifically, Mr. Speaker, maybe today on Midday I

think CBC has done an interview with some people across this country and

especially in the Province that will be aired today, I think on Midday

concerning this problem. Would the minister now stand in his place and tell the

House, the people of this Province and the people who are out there waiting for

such surgery - he has admitted that he has identified the problem, he knows it

exists - tell the people of the Province and the people who are waiting for this

surgery, this most important, as far as I am concerned, emergency surgery, that

he will do something in the very near future, not wait for consultants to bring

in a report or anything else. Those people do not want a consultant to tell them

that they may only have so long to live. The minister should act now on this

very serious problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the health care system in

the Province, for the most part, is run by health care professionals. We do have

administrators who may not be doctors and that type of thing but have great

capabilities, but in all situations, we defer in the first instance, to the

good, sound and credible advice that physicians offer us and give us in the

health care system, and as I have said to the minister, I have described the

increased resources we have put into the program; I have admitted and

acknowledged that there is still a significant waiting list whether it is 180 or

200 it varies, but that's an aside almost; there is a waiting list and if it is

inappropriate we will take the action that is recommended to us by the people

who deliver the services in the health care system and we will defer and we will

seek the direction of the medical people and the administrative people in the

Health Care Corporation of St. John's to address this problem.

I indicate and underline again, that they have not come

seeking additional resources. They do have a concern that notwithstanding the

considerable amount of extra resources we have put into the program, the list

continues to grow and the number of people who are getting procedures continues

to increase each year and we have to do what is appropriate, we will do what is

appropriate to address our needs on a reasonable and a proper basis.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education and

Training, I will direct a question to the Premier.

The President of Memorial University has said publicly over

the last few days that he would like the provincial government to stagger budget

cuts over a three-year period to soften the blow on the university.

I would like to ask the Premier: has there been a formal

request to government to spread the cuts over a three-year period or, has there

been any discussion between government and the university along those lines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: In the absence of the Minister of

Education and Training, Mr. Speaker, I can only say I am not sure if there has

been that kind of conversation; I can only say to you that the proposal hasn't

been brought to my attention. I too saw the comments and it would be nice to

stagger things over three years if you can control them. We can't control our

shortfall of revenue. We can't control the federal government's reduction of EPF

transfers from which the university is in part at least, funded. To the extent

that we can stagger it, we are happy to stagger it but I suspect what we will be

doing as far as the university is concerned, is essentially flowing through the

reductions that the federal government has made, would just simply flow right

through, and we don't have the financial resources to make up the difference and

pay, in addition to what we have to pay anyway, the shortfall that the federal

government is causing.

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

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

Dr. May's reasoning for the suggestion is that they need a

sufficient period of time to redesign the university, I guess recognizing that

we are looking at a smaller university, leaner and more efficient. I am

wondering, has government had any discussions with the university administration

along the lines of redesigning of smaller, leaner, more efficient or, if it

hasn't, would there be an initiative taken by the Minister of Education and

Training soon, to get talks started with the university's administration, with

the CSU and with MUNFA along those lines of redesigning MUN so that it is

viable, affordable, accessible for future generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the hon.

member can be sure of is that the government will co-operate fully with the

university to assist the university in coping with the shortfall of funds so as

to cause the least possible adverse impact. The university is very much aware of

that and there have been discussions along those lines.

Now whether or not they have been specific discussions on the

specific point, I can't say at this moment. I will have to wait until I speak

with the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago or I think last week sometime I

raised a question of a suggested task force, made up of all interested parties

to look at the university and to work towards a solution.

I am wondering, can the Premier inform the House, whether or

not there has been any further thought given to that concept of a task force or

a working group, comprising all interested parties to look at the future of

Memorial University.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe that's the course that has been

suggested by the head of the Students Union, and a meeting is being set up. I

don't know if is arranged yet with the head of the Students Union, Mr.

Thornhill. I was speaking with him very briefly, at convocation I believe on

Friday last and a meeting is being arranged with Mr. Thornhill at his request.

That matter will be addressed; his proposition will be addressed then. I don't

see that as a likely solution to the financial problem that is imminent, that is

looming right away.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. On many occasions we've heard

the Premier and the Minister of ITT and other government members refer to the

hundreds of communities spread over hundreds of miles of coastline in this

Province. I would like to ask the minister, how many of these communities have

no official community status as they are not local service districts or

community service districts? Can the minister give me an approximate number if

not an exact number?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: It would have to be an approximate number, Mr.

Speaker. There are approximately 800 communities in the Province, and out of

that 800 approximately 420 to 480, I believe, I'm not sure of the figure, are

either incorporated or local service districts, which are not incorporated. Now

when I say incorporated I mean community councils as well as town councils.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it may be somewhere

around 300 communities around this Province. I didn't think it was that high a

number, but maybe up to 300 communities in this Province which have no local

status as a local service district or as a community council.

Is it true that, for example, for community water service

programs, that these communities, because they have no local status, can't even

apply for such funding as community water service to improve their water system?

Is that true, I would like to ask the minister.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: My hon. friend behind me tells me that there

are some communities that have some, not incorporated, recognized, but they are

operated by boards. Not even an LSD situation, but are operated by community

water boards or garbage collection boards. Basically all they are as communities

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No they can't. The answer is no, there is

absolutely no way. I think the last time if I remember correctly that any of

those non-incorporated communities could apply was back, I think, in Mr.

Smallwood's day. That was done away with back, it must have been, in the early

1970s or late 1960s.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, from my information there are

at least 100, maybe 110 communities that have no boards, no local service

district, nothing. A case in point, and in referring to Mr. Smallwood's time,

the community of Purbeck's Cove in my district, which is one of these 110

communities at least, have applied for $3,100 to put in a water line. The last

time they got money, by the way, was in 1968 when they received $800 from Mr.

Smallwood's government. At least they recognized them. Now, just recently, they

applied for $3,100 to get the basic need of water in this Province, and I'm

wondering how many more of these 110 communities - they were told by the

minister's department not even to bother to apply because they are not even

existing as far as the government is concerned.

I tell the minister that these are communities, people still

live there. What will be their fate in years to come we don't know, nobody

knows, but they still are people in this Province. Is this another form of

resettlement? Isn't this the truth, that 110 communities have been totally

abandoned by this department and this government?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Totally abandoned by this government? If that

is the definition that the hon. member wishes to make he must also say not only

totally abandoned by this government, but totally abandoned by successive

governments since 1969. From what you said a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, totally abandoned -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. REID: Any community in this Province that wishes to

incorporate, any community in this Province that wishes to introduce the local

service district, all it has to do is make the request to me as the minister, to

this government. I haven't seen one that was turned down yet, I haven't seen

one, not since I've been minister. In the twenty years I've had in municipal

government I don't know of one. Maybe my hon. friend for Mount Pearl can name

one, but I don't know one that has ever been turned down.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this of course is not that

these people have been abandoned. This group of people that he is referring to

are looking for community services. They are not willing to unite to form a town

council. They are not willing to pay taxes that would pay for that particular

line. If the bill is only $4000 then why would we, or why would the hon. member

expect the government and the rest of the people of Newfoundland to pay $4000

towards -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of days ago Your Honour brought me to task on some

unparliamentary language, and quite properly, and referred me to

Section 494 of

Beauchesne, and, of course, in accordance with that I withdrew those remarks.

That

Section 494 says, "no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible"

by a member. That is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and, Your Honour, you were quite

correct in your ruling.

Yesterday, and again today, during questioning from the

Leader of the Opposition on the matter of gross misconduct on the part of the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, the Premier implied on two

occasions - yesterday and again today - that the documents that the Leader of

the Opposition had provided which show this gross misconduct had somehow been

changed or `concocted', I believe, was the word he used. Mr. Speaker, that

clearly implies that the Leader of the Opposition was producing falsified

documents to the House of Assembly. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious

charge, to impugn that the Leader of the Opposition was producing falsified

information, obviously, deliberately falsified information. In accordance with

Section 494, as Your Honour quite correctly ruled a couple of days ago, it is

totally unparliamentary and not permissible in this House or any other House.

The fact of the matter is, the documents that the Leader of

the Opposition tabled did have the names removed before they were photocopied,

to protect those people who had provided the information, because those people

are quite sure of very serious recriminations from this government, particularly

from the Premier. Anybody who would dare to cross the Premier will feel his

wrath in due course, you may rest assured, and obviously, we could not provide

to the House the names of the people from whom we were able to receive these

documents. But as far as the Leader of the Opposition knows, at least, Mr.

Speaker, the documents that were provided to her were tabled intact, unchanged -

with that exception. And the Premier tries to go on with a whole bunch of

foolishness about the fact that on one occasion the name of the original sending

fax machine is on the side. It is simply a matter in which, when you send

something, you turn it sideways or you put it forward; that is all. That

dictates which side the fax comes out on. The Premier should have a lesson in

how to use a fax machine.

This is a very serious matter. This is implying that the

Leader of the Opposition is tabling falsified documents, and I ask your Honour

to direct the Premier to withdraw those remarks forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to do a

full assessment of this question and report to the House. The Opposition is not

satisfied; they want to run a kangaroo court now.

I was simply explaining, and I don't suggest for one moment,

and did not suggest yesterday or today, that the Opposition Leader knew it. I

expect she has been taken in by it as well. That is the only position I take. I

don't suggest for a moment, and don't imply for a moment, that she had anything

to do with producing a fax that had two pages numbered 2 in it - two pages

number 2.

MR. WINDSOR: Two documents.

PREMIER WELLS: It is clearly not -

MR. WINDSOR: Two separate documents.

PREMIER WELLS: It is clearly not the fax as it was

originally sent. Some are on the side, some are across the top. It looks like...

I know I can tell the House, if they want, exactly to whom the fax was sent and

where it came from - it was fairly easy to find it out - and that is part of the

investigation. That has been found out. All of that will be disclosed to the

House in due course, but I have made no implication whatsoever against the

Leader of the Opposition. She has been taken in by this concoction, too, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point of order raised under

advisement. Am I to understand that the Premier is saying he is not accusing

anybody of falsifying documents, and do I understand, if that is implied, that

you are withdrawing it?

PREMIER WELLS: It never was implied. It was (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I never did, and I have no

basis for doing it, suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition tabled anything

that she knew was put together wrong. I never did. I don't suggest it now, and I

never suggested it before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the member under

advisement and have a look at Hansard.

Before we proceed, on a number of occasions during Question

Period today and on some other occasions, members are, I guess, using language

that probably is not conducive to good decorum and order in the House. I remind

hon. members, it has been consistently ruled that language used in the House

should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language

is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable, and a word which is

parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context and therefore

be unparliamentary. I noticed that on a number of occasions today there were

members who were using words that, I guess, are inflammatory, not conducive to

good debate, and I ask hon. members to take this into consideration and to be

careful with language in this House because we have to maintain good order and

decorum here.

Again, I am just asking hon. members' co-operation here, and

if it continues, of course, the Chair will have to take further action.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of the Social Services

Legislation Review Committee. The Committee reviewed and approved for passage,

without amendment, Bill 34, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act" and Bill

27, "An Act To Amend The Waste Disposal Act And The

Summary Proceedings Act."

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, the Member

for Green Bay has taken us aback. This must be the first day he hasn't had a

petition to present, whatever that may portend.

Your Honour, when we adjourned yesterday, or when we went

into the Late Show proceedings yesterday, my learned friend, the Member for St.

John's East was giving us a disquisition, as I recollect. I know the hon.

gentleman was finished, but he did adjourn the debate I say, Mr. Speaker, and if

he doesn't rise, fine.

I ask Your Honour, anyway, to call Order 17 which is the bill

my hon. friend was addressing, and if he doesn't want to carry on there may be

other members who wish to speak. We will then go on to Bill No. 27, which is

Order No. 20. My friend, the Minister of Environment will deal with that, and if

we get through that we will go on to Order No. 11, which is the Tobacco Control

Act that my friend, the Minister of Health will introduce, the Tobacco Control

Act amendments, and should we get beyond that, I understand that my friend the

Minister of Finance, the Member for Mount Pearl, and the Member for St. John's

East have put their heads together and overruled me, and instead of doing the

Credit Union Act which is a bill I gather they would prefer to deal with another

day, should we get that far, we will deal with Order 22 which is Bill No. 25,

amendments to the Public Service Pension Act, And The Uniformed Services Pension

Act. If that is in order, Your Honour, would you be good enough, please, to call

Order 17, Bill No. 34, the debate adjourned by my friend, the Member for St.

John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we going to do Bill No. 28 on Monday?

MR. ROBERTS: We are going to do the Regulatory Reform

Bill on Monday and I expect that will take the greater part of the day.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although I did adjourn debate yesterday, I had, in fact,

concluded my remarks and expressed by support for the principle behind the bill,

so I will take my seat and allow other hon. members to speak to that particular

bill. Despite the calls for me to continue with my remarks, I will pass and

defer to some hon. member opposite who wishes to speak.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I am very pleased to rise and support the

intent of this particular piece of legislation. It, of course, amends the

Children's Law Act by inserting the phrase, `a grandparent of the child,' and as

a grandparent of two young children, I am pleased to endorse this particular

amendment to this particular act of the Legislature, The Children's Law Act.

A couple of the comments that I have would perhaps be taken

in the context of giving some comment to the furtherance of the act itself and

to the

definitions. I do notice that in the notes that the minister has supplied

it says: giving grandparents of a child the right to apply to a court to obtain

custody or access to a child. On the other hand, I look at the

definitions to

the Children's Law Act and I don't find there precise

definitions of the word

"custody," for example.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) common law (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I know in other pieces of legislation, it is

more precisely written down. For example, the word "custody" is defined in the

children's act of the Yukon Territory as follows. It says:

"`Custody' in relation to a child, includes the right to care

and nurturance of the child, the right to consent to medical treatment for the

child, the right to consent to the adoption or the marriage of the child, and

the responsibilities concomitant with those rights, including the duty of

supporting the child and of ensuring that the child is appropriately clothed,

fed, educated and disciplined, and supplied with the other necessaries of life

and a good upbringing."

I note that our piece of legislation for this Province does

not give that kind of definition. The same thing would apply to the 1990 act in

Nova Scotia, called `An Act Respecting Services To Children And Their Families,

to the protection of children and adoption. Again, there are

definitions of the

word "custody." I just say to the House that if we are going to amend the

legislation here, the Children's Law Act, to give the right of grandparents to

apply to a court for custody or access, it might be appropriate if we were to

define the word "custody" and to define the word "access," and the word

"guardianship". Because these are terms that, probably, although they are

contained, as the minister has said, in the common law proceedings, it would be

clearer to the members of the general public and perhaps to the legal community

as well, if these things were more precisely defined. Certainly, other

jurisdictions have defined these terms.

Also, there is the question of who is a parent. Some of the

readings I have had in the last little while draw some statements relative to

who is a parent - meaning, of course, if you can't define who a parent is, then

you have difficulty finding the rights of a grandparent. In some cases, dealing

with matters that - for example, when we talk about artificial insemination, we

talk about the genetic mother or the gestational mother, and these things are

talked about in various sections of the Children's Law Act in Newfoundland.

There is a process there to go and clarify it in a court. However, these things

again are not clearly spelled out, not only just in the Newfoundland

legislation, but in some of the other legislation as well.

Also, in

section 3(1) it talks, in this act, about natural

parents. Again, the expression "natural parents" is not defined. Consequently,

we have difficulty in deciding whether or not the - if the term is not defined

it might cause difficulty in its

interpretation. That is my only point in

raising that. Also, the rights of parents, where the parent is declared mentally

or physically unable to raise a child probably needs to be defined again. As the

minister has said, there are common law practices that govern that kind of

thing.

The other thing I wanted to mention is also the expression

that is in

section 25,

part 3 of the Children's Law Act, the last sentence in

subsection (

a) where it says: that the purpose of the act is to be determined on

the basis of the best interest of children. I have read some commentary on that,

however, the act we have here does not say what is indeed the best interest of

children. On the other hand, if you were to look at some other legislation,

again I refer to the new piece of legislation that has been adopted for the

Yukon Territory and the one for Nova Scotia, and these expressions are more

clearly defined; in fact, the whole philosophy of the act is contained in what

we call substantive

preambles and the intent is to make the act more

understandable to members of the general public and also of course to make it

easier to interpret in court when you have the

preambles indicating that the

intent is fully expressed and is fully communicated before you get into the

details of the various sections and articles.

Mr. Speaker, with example in the case of the Nova Scotia

legislation, we find that there are, I think, fourteen clauses that define what

is meant by the best interest of the child, and when we are talking about

accessing guardianship, whether it be by parents or whether it be by

grandparents, we have to look at the one clause in the Newfoundland legislation,

section 25 of

part 3, subsection (a), where it is just one sentence and yet, in

other pieces of legislation, we have substantive commentary on what you mean by

the best interest of the child. I won't read all of these commentaries but a

good bit of it is contained in various parts of the Newfoundland legislation,

but it might do well for us to kind of put it together and have it all collated

so that it is clearly identified and again means for easier

interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments I am very pleased to support

this particular piece of legislation. In many cases I am sure that it would be

beneficial to the child to have the rights of the grandparents recognized in

legislation; again if it is in the best interests of the child to have

grandparents have certain rights to apply for custody, for access, for

guardianship, then certainly this would mean that this piece of legislation is

progressive, it's a statement of reality, and in society where families are

sometimes very dispersed from one part of the country to another, and also given

the nature that families are not as cohesive together as they used to be.

One time it was assumed that grandmother or grandfather would

take

part in the raising of a child and have a substantive role, nowadays,

because of the fact that families move and also in some cases, because of the

nature of society, grandparents do not always have either access or they

sometimes can't have it because of sheer distance in geography, but in some

other cases, there are circumstances which arise that maybe would not have

arisen many years ago but nowadays, they would lead to a child and his

grandparent or her grandparent not having access to each other.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the intent is what is best for the

interest of the child and I don't think anybody in this House would deny that if

it is in the best interest of the child to have access, to have the guardianship

to be in the custody of a grandparent, then that's the way it should be, and I

commend the minister and his department for bringing forward this piece of

legislation. It is not a lengthy piece but it can have substantive influence on

the lives of so many of our young children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he

speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as much as I might want to hear

my learned friend from St. John's East speak again, I can tell him that there is

even less enthusiasm for that then there would be for my making a lengthy

speech.

I want to thank the two members who spoke in the debate. I

want to acknowledge their support and tell them I appreciate it. I believe this

- well this is not a usually important bill in the overall structure of the

universe. I think it has merit in its own right and I appreciate their support.

With that said, sir, I commend it to the House and ask that it be read a second

time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 34)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Could we now go on, Mr. Speaker,

and ask my friend the Minister of Environment to deal with Order 20, which is

Bill No. 27.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste

Material Disposal Act And The

Summary Proceedings Act". (Bill No. 27)

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is a bill to introduce a fine for littering in the

Province. For a number of years we have had an identified problem and there has

been a number of efforts to deal with the littering problem, the littering

question. It was decided last year by government, through the Department of

Environment, to look at a fine for a littering offence, to make it ticketable

and make it an offence. Hopefully, that would reinforce to the general public

the idea that this is not the behaviour that we want to see occur, that we want

to support the idea of environmental efforts, the efforts for environmental

cleanup, the efforts for recycling and in keeping our wonderful place, that we

have in this Province, clean and keeping the roadways clean and so on.

This year also, only in the last few months, the Adopt a

Highway Program was brought forward by the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation along with our department, Environment. This is also a further

effort to get volunteer groups and organizations involved in the activity of

protecting the environment around the Province. That program is creating a lot

of good interest from organizations out there. I believe the first one was out

in the member's district, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

district -

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs district.

MR. AYLWARD: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs district, I am told. It was a Loin's Club I believe. I am told it was a

Loin's Club that undertook the responsibility. Works, Services and

Transportation are providing some of the equipment and garbage bags, a whole

range of things, signage, I believe, to also highlight the organizations that

are out helping clean up the environment. So that Adopt a Highway Program we

think is going to go a long way.

A number of organizations have inquired at both our offices

looking for information. We expect over the next year to two years that we are

going to see a whole range of Adopt a Highway Programs across our Province. That

again will help in the total effort, in the overall effort to help keep the

Province clean and to deal with some of the waste problems that we have. This

bill will again assist in bringing - it will bring a deterrent forward, one that

you would hope that you would not have to but in some cases you have to because

there are a few people out there who decide to ignore some of the rules that we

have in place. This will help, I think, reinforce the idea that it is not

acceptable to throw litter around the Province, around the highways of the

Province or around anywhere in this Province. So we think that this will help a

great deal. The fine is in the order of twenty-five dollars and the second

offence is $100, so I think it is a deterrent to people.

The other thing that I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, is the

waste reduction efforts that have been undertaken in the last year to two years.

Paper waste recycled in this Province last year, 13,000 metric tons; glass waste

recycled 56 metric tons; 225 tons of aluminium cans were recycled in 1994; car

wrecks, 36,000 tons were crushed or shredded and recycled, Mr. Speaker, 36,000

tons. This means that 40,000 car wrecks were diverted from landfills. Previous

to the last three or four years, car wrecks would be going into landfills, they

would be causing environmental problems, (inaudible) problems in landfills. We

see some of the remnants of that today in some of our landfills. But in the last

three or four years a major effort has been under way to get car wrecks cleaned

up. Also, I believe, the previous Minister of Environment had brought forward a

piece of legislation to deal with car wrecks. We have seen a lot of car wrecks

cleaned up. We still have a ways to go, but a great deal of work has been done.

I was talking, as a matter of fact, to a development

association only about two weeks ago. They told me they had cleaned up 400 car

wrecks over the summer. It is really something else!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: Yes, 1,400. We had 400 by one development

association in a geographic area. A number of them have gotten very heavily

involved locally in making sure that their local situations are dealt with and

attempts are made. But this is happening around the Province.

I was out to Argentia and visited the recycling operation out

there where they are recycling car wrecks. Car wrecks are brought in. There are

about twenty people working in the recycling of car wrecks now. A few years ago

people wouldn't have thought that was an opportunity, but it is working out

fairly well and we are seeing the clean-up of an environmental problem but we

are also seeing an opportunity created in an environmental industry, and that is

working out fairly well. So, as we add this bill to the list of other

initiatives in dealing with environmental matters, we think it will go a long

way; we believe it will go a long way, given the overall effort, in reinforcing

to the general public that we need to continuously be cognizant of what we

create in waste.

Batteries - 296 tons were diverted from disposal sites and

recycled. Grocery bags - 548 tons were recycled in 1994. It goes on. Metals -

Nova Recycling has two processing plants now in the Province, at St. John's and

Stephenville. They have a number of depot operations around the Province. Two

hundred and fifty schools are now involved in recycling programs in this

Province, and that says a lot for the teachers of the Province who have gotten

them very involved in their school systems. I visited a number of them, and I am

sure that a number of MHAs in this House of Assembly have been invited to their

schools and have been shown or have been given some indication of the level of

awareness and action taken by students. It is very impressive the number of

school operations that have initiated a recycling type of operation, recycling

depots that they put next to their schools, a whole range of activities that

schools have gotten involved in, and that has come about a great deal through

the teachers in the Province, who deserve to be commended, and the school

administrators who have gotten involved, parents in the local area who have

decided to take on this task and to build in a local area what is possible to

do.

The Member for LaPoile - we were down to his district and I

believe the name of the school, is it St. James?

AN HON. MEMBER: Grandy's River.

MR. AYLWARD: Grandy's River Collegiate, I think it is.

They were given a national award for environmental awareness for one of the

leading schools in Canada, all across the nation, for environmental awareness,

environmental initiatives. It is amazing what they have been able to do in a

small community, but with the help of their teachers and the help of school

administrators and so on, and local people, parents and so on, the amount of

work being done is really something else to see.

When you look at our rural population, it is hard to bring in

an expensive system of trying to deal with the collection of items, so it is

going to take a lot of effort, a combination of effort of both local -

MR. EFFORD: Effort and Aylward.

MR. AYLWARD: Effort and Aylward - a lot of local effort,

anyway.

It has taken a lot of effort by a lot of people in areas

where there is not a whole lot of money to do this, but a lot of effort is being

put in place by, I say, the schools systems and the youth of the Province who

are really interested in this issue, very, very, interested.

We are looking at initiating a Round Table in different parts

of the Province, periodically going and meeting with local youth. I have done it

once so far, and I am going to be doing it again shortly, just to get their

ideas about the environment, and some of the things that we could do, all of us

collectively and as a government, how we could see some changes happen. We need

to do more of that, but we are doing that now and initiating that.

The other group I would like to highlight also is Evergreen

Recycling depots here in the St. John's/Mount Pearl area, two depots in the west

end, and they plan to open one in the east end of the city this Fall. Evergreen

is operated by the Waterford Hospital Foundation. Their clients of the hospital

sort recyclables, among other work activities, and are part of a productive and

revenue-producing work environment. Clients receive a wage for their work and

revenues for hospital programs and services - a very positive program.

I had a meeting with the Evergreen group just a little while

ago. They are working diligently. They will have, I expect, another depot open

in the very short term, I hear, in the East End and they are doing an amazing

amount of work. They are helping people who are trying to improve themselves

medically. They are providing a work-related experience for these people and it

is working really well. It has been a major success. When you talk about

partnerships in the private sector, the volunteer sector and the public sector,

we have an example there of that working extremely well and helping with the

overall collection efforts of the Province.

I was also provided with, from the Member for St. John's

East, a copy of an article, just last week, I believe, of a group which is

helping with local recycling by offering a household service to pick up your

waste at your house, a separation of - recycling articles and so on. I think

Atlantic Blue is the name of the company, recycling service. So there are small

operations starting up. Entrepreneurs are looking at opportunities in the

recycling area, and that is starting to expand a fair bit and it is coming

together quite well.

Government has also right now just about finalized - we are

looking at a further business plan for the recycling effort of the Province. We

have been negotiating with the CIPSI organization - the Canadian Industry

Packaging Stewardship Initiative group. We have had a two-year agreement with

them where they have been helping assist Nova Recycling, but also doing some

advertising, an anti-litter campaign across the Province. We have looked at

further, though, the business plan that we want to see happen in this Province

for recycling, the whole effort, and we are going to be coming forward with some

recommendations within a few days, in the next couple of weeks, actually, for

government to look at further as to where do we go from here.

We have to have an effective effort in this Province and we

have to have the industry which creates most of the waste in this Province

paying for it. We have been trying to negotiate an agreement. We have had

difficulty getting a full agreement.

MR. HARRIS: No more success with them than you had with

Churchill.

MR. AYLWARD: I say to the Member for St. John's East that

we are moving forward shortly. We have had a lot of progress made so far in the

overall effort on the recycling side. A great deal of progress has been made in

the last twenty-four months. This bill highlights the fact that it will be - it

is part of the overall effort, that by having a fine or a $25 penalty for

littering, we believe it will help reinforce dealing with people who

unfortunately do this offence around the Province. It is only a few people but

it will help reinforce, Mr. Speaker, the idea that we don't want to see this

happen in this Province.

It is extremely important for tourism that we have as clean

an environment as possible. This is part of the overall plan that we - and a

number of initiatives. As I said, we will be bringing forward further

initiatives very shortly in getting the packaging industry to help deal with and

get the volume of the collection effort up where it should be. We have been

discussing with Nova Recycling how that could be put in place in a better way.

As a matter of fact, only in the last two weeks. We are in the final throes of

that and we are bringing a further plan to Cabinet in the next few weeks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing any

thoughts or suggestions from the members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's deal first with what is in the bill. This piece of

legislation, in itself, is fairly brief and straightforward. Clause 1 amends the

Waste Material Disposal Act basically to broaden the application of the act to

include littering.

The Explanatory Notes attached to the bill state: "Clause 1

of this Bill would amend the Waste Material Disposal Act to create a distinct

penalty for the wrongful deposit of waste material in the form of litter. The

amendment would also provide for late payment penalties." The bill effectively

defines unlawful littering as the positive waste material in a place other than

at a waste material disposal site for which a certificate has been issued, or in

a receptacle or container placed or located specifically for the purpose of

collection.

If we are going to distinguish unlawful littering as an

offence then it seems to me that we do not want litter lying around in places

other than waste material sites or waste receptacles. We do not want litter

along the sides of our highways, in parks or wilderness areas, or we do not want

litter in our streets, sidewalks, public places, and front yards.

Mr. Speaker, waste material is defined quite broadly in

Subsection 2 (

n) of the Waste Material Disposal Act, and it means refuse,

garbage, rubbish, litter, scrap, and other discarded materials, including

tailings, offal, machinery, products, vehicles and other articles which are

dumped, discarded, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of; (2) a material or thing

that may be a danger to the health of human beings, animals, wildlife, or fish,

or is of unsightly appearance, and a substance designated as waste material in

the regulations.

Now, this is a pretty broad definition and no doubt applies

to everything from abandoned rusting vehicles, burnt down buildings on the

highways, chip bags, bar wrappers, shopping bags, fast-food containers, beer

bottles and even soft drink cans.

AN HON. MEMBER: And even Ministerial Statements.

MR. MACKEY: The minister might like to comment on whether

it applies to cigarette butts, chewing gum, apple cores, and pet droppings, all

of which can fit within the definition of waste material, all set out in the

act.

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising these things to be facetious,

but rather to underline my next point. It will be a challenge to enforce these

provisions in the context of littering. Police officers will have the authority

to deal with it, if they encounter littering or if littering is reported to

them, private citizens will have the power to stop their fellow-citizens from

littering, it will draw attention to the issue of littering and perhaps serve as

somewhat of a deterrent to those who might otherwise consider littering.

If it cuts down on littering, even a little, perhaps it is

worth it. Government, of course, must always be careful that the restrictions

they impose on their citizens are justified. If there are ways to accomplish the

same ends other than such restrictions some would say these alternatives are

preferable. Of course, few would defend the right to litter, especially in

Newfoundland and Labrador where the litter problem is serious, but how far will

authorities go with enforcing these powers as they pertain to littering? Will we

have convictions on what would be considered the lesser end of the littering

spectrum? If people are allowed to get away with dropping a chip bag here, or a

gum wrapper there without penalty, then would this not bring the entire

legislation into ill-repute and make it a subject of ridicule? Would people

simply ignore it? There is little point of having a law in the books if there is

neither the intention, nor the means, of enforcing it to a reasonable degree.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Do we have the

policing capacity to enforce this legislation to a reasonable degree? Again, how

much will it cost in administration associated with enforcing this legislation?

Will it demand the hiring of additional personnel? What other costs are

associated with the enforcement? What about the cost associated with people

appealing their convictions? What additional burden will this place on the

system? Has government determined whether these monies could be better spent on

measures other than the one under consideration now? Would the minister tell us,

whether and how he concluded a more intensive education program would not be

preferable? Would he tell us whether and how he determined that an expanded

recycling program would be better? Would he tell us whether and how he

determined an increase in funding for municipal waste programs would not be

better than the legislation we have today?

Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to clean up our litter problem

but it makes sense to do it right. The bill seeks to impose penalties for

unlawful littering offences. For a first offence, the fine will be twenty-five

dollars. For subsequent offences, the fine will be $100. These are hefty fines,

hefty enough that one trusts the government will do a very good job in

publicizing the new rules before they come into effect. People are not to be

littering in the first place, but they do have a right to know and government

has the responsibility to inform them that there are steep penalties for

littering. It is usual, of course, that people who are in default of payment of

their fines be imprisoned for a period of time. One can expect, Mr. Speaker, if

this legislation is enforced to the letter, that many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians hard hit by the economic downturn will be forced into what is, in

effect, a pauper's prison.

I note that the government has written what may be called a

little leniency into the bill allowing people sixty days to pay their fine and

tacking on a late payment fee of 25 per cent or 40 per cent of the original fine

if sixty days has passed. These are tough measures but I am sure the minister

weighed that fact in drafting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister spell out for the House what

will happen in the case of minors who litter? Will the minister indicate how he

arrived at the fine amounts of twenty-five dollars and $100? Did he calculate

the amounts by balancing the need to make the deterrent significant against the

recognition that penalties must not be unduly severe? Did he take

Newfoundlanders' economic circumstances into consideration? Are the figures in

any way based on the projected cost of administering the new rules?

Mr. Speaker, Clause 2, according to the bill's Explanatory

Notes, simply amends the

summary proceedings act to permit the initiation of

prosecution of persons wrongfully depositing waste material in the form of

litter by the use of the

summary offence ticket. But, does this bill truly

create new restrictions and new penalties? Would the minister - who is

noticeably absent - indicate whether, in this case, even without this bill, it

is an offence to litter in this Province and there is a fine associated with

being convicted on this offence?

The act goes on to say, in

Section 23, as amended in 1992,

that a person who violates this act or the regulations or the conditions of a

certificate or who violates an order made by the minister under Subsection 17,

paragraph 2, or

Section 19, is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary

conviction to a fine not exceeding $500,000 for every day or part of a day

during which the offence occurs or continues. Mr. Speaker, before the act was

amended in 1992, the maximum fine was $2,000 but even under the amended act

there is leeway in choosing the minimum amount of the fine and deciding whether

a clean-up is required. Does not the amendment have the effect of excluding

litterers from the provisions of the existing

Section 23? The amendment begins:

`Notwithstanding

Section 23...' Doesn't the act already prescribe littering and

establish penalties potentially greater than the ones set out in this bill? Why

then is this amendment needed? What more does it do? Is this a cosmetic change

or a substantive addition? After having dealt with what's in the bill and the

justification for the bill, we need to turn to the implications of the

government's decision to pursue this amendment.

Let me read from the Liberal campaign 1989, policy manual,

page 10: A Liberal government will ensure that the laws are in place that will

prevent a massive pollution resulting from the indiscriminate disposal of

non-biodegradable and non-reusable beverage containers. People were expecting

returnable bottle legislation. In the 1992 Throne Speech, the government said

they had and I quote: become increasingly concerned with the problem of general

litter and specifically the extent to which beverage containers contribute to

this problem. They said, and again I quote, Mr. Speaker: Government intends to

act definitively with the introduction this session, of legislation to control

the use of disposable packaging in general, and specifically to reduce littering

of beverage containers and to encourage their recycling where economically

feasible.

Mr. Speaker, the former environment minister was filmed on

CBC in 1992 saying, in response to a question about introducing returnable soft

drink bottle legislation, and again I quote the minister as saying: We would be

the last Province in Canada to institute such a policy as I think that it is

very, very important that we do this, and again, Mr. Speaker, that promise was

repeated in 1993.

Newfoundlanders remember the commitment that the government

made prior to the May 1993 general election, to introduce returnable bottle

legislation as a measure to help remedy Newfoundland's litter problem. In fact,

it was evident under consideration even on May 28, 1993 and let me quote the

former Minister of Environment as saying, Mr. Speaker, she stated in a question

in the House on that day and I quote: Yes, we are looking at regulations now to

control the use of beverages containers and the deposit system is one of the

methods that we are looking at.

The Opposition welcomed that news, but in the summer of 1993,

with the election behind them, the government flip-flopped on their promise

announcing they were shelving the legislation and replacing it with an

anti-litter campaign, funded in part by the Canadian Soft Drink Association on

behalf of the soft drink companies and it cost I believe, a half-million dollars

a year over four years. Consumers of course, have borne that cost, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a government official admitted in a CBC

interview at the time, certainly I think, it is fair to say that there was an

intensive lobbying effort. There is no question, and I think all governments

across the country have experienced that. Mr. Speaker, the minister at the time,

said something very interesting in announcing the ad campaign. She was quoted in

the media as saying: This program will be run by the soft drink association and

the other group and we will monitor it and set certain targets and time frames.

If those are not met, then we will go back to our original idea which is a

deposit-refunding system.

MR. SULLIVAN: And she stated that in November on tv, she

is going with the return of the bottles.

MR. MACKEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three weeks after, she changed.

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Speaker, this campaign was quite

interesting. We have seen the ads; they talk about litter being seen around

every corner. They don't show a whole lot of soft drink containers though. Did

the public relations campaign work? Evidently, it worked in one respect; it got

this government to cancel its promise on returnable bottle legislation. Whether

it worked in terms of curbing Newfoundland's litter problem is indicated by the

fact that we have this piece of legislation before this House today. No, Mr.

Speaker, it didn't work. There are still soft drink containers and other litter

along our highways.

So, Mr. Speaker, is the government going back to the idea of

the deposit-refund system? No, instead, they are introducing anti-litter

legislation. Legislation which may well do nothing more than the existing

legislation does. Clearly, the best way to control the litter from soft drink

containers is to pursue the course that the government initially intended, and

that is to require the use of refundable containers.

Mr. Speaker, the environment was not the beneficiary of the

deal since the deal was less effective in controlling litter than returnable

bottle legislation. Evidently, the government is not the beneficiary of the deal

either since the $2 million contribution by the companies was for an ad

campaign, so we are left to wonder, Mr. Speaker, who in fact benefited? The fact

that we are facing anti-litter legislation suggests no one benefited expect

perhaps the companies which got their wish in escaping returnable bottle

legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

a few remarks on the bill and on the issues surrounding the disposal of waste

materials in this Province, and on some of the remarks of the minister in

dealing with the issue.

First of all, as to the bill itself, it purports to make

littering an offence. It already is an offence under the Waste Material Disposal

Act. It doesn't define littering, and leaves open to

interpretation all sorts of

things. I think the minister actually ought to have a serious look with his

officials at that issue.

Already waste material is defined in the act as refuse,

garbage, rubbish, litter, scrap, discarded material, et cetera, and there are

prohibitions against the disposal of waste material, including litter, in places

other than certified waste disposal sites. So littering has been an offence

already in this Province since about the early 1970s. That is not surprising.

I've always considered littering to be an offence, and maybe there are in fact

municipal governments which give tickets for littering, I'm not sure.

The first time I ever heard of littering being an offence was

an old song. I don't know if the minister was old enough at the time to be aware

of this song, a song called Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie, who

talked about being in jail for littering, and having dumped his garbage in the

wrong place. I think there has been an awareness -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is in the late 1960s. I know the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was a young teenager then, in the

late 1960s, and would probably have been a follower of popular music of the day.

This is not a grand initiative to come up with the idea that

we will finally make littering an offence, and when they do do it, not really

spell out what they mean by littering. What is included in that? We've had some

banter back and forth across the House. The Member for Grand Falls has quite

rightly pointed out: Are we talking about someone flicking a cigarette butt on

the street, is that littering? I think so. Flicking a cigarette butt out of a

car driving down a road, is that littering? I think so. A cigarette butt with

its filter, non-biodegradable, will probably remain in the environment for many

years to come.

What about other forms of litter? Are we talking about waste

material from pets? Are we talking about dog droppings? Is that litter? Is that

going to be subject to the fine? Maybe the minister can answer that. Do we have

now a provincial doggy-doo legislation? Is that what this is? If it is, then

tell us that and make sure the public knows that. Because it is only in certain

municipalities now that there are regulations of that nature. If a person from

St. John's takes his dogs up to walk them in Three-Pond Barrens is he littering

when the dogs do their business up in Three-Pond Barrens? Or if the Member for

Placentia takes his dogs in the woods to go after the rabbits, are they

littering?

These are not facetious questions, Mr. Speaker. These are

legitimate questions about whether or not this act is intending to regulate that

or is it not. Is it intending to regulate this type of activity or is it not?

A more important question, and I ask the minister to read the

Hansard. The Member for Grand Falls has raised a number of important questions

that have to do with the

interpretation and application of this act. I would ask

the minister to read - well, I don't think he heard the speech, but I would ask

him to read it in Hansard and ask his officials to read it. He has raised a

number of important points about how the act might be interpreted or

misinterpreted, applied, et cetera. I support his concerns. Because I don't

think that it is going to be very helpful to have a piece of legislation that is

open to misinterpretation, misapplication, and perhaps ridicule and

misunderstanding.

What is more important is: Where is this coming from? Is this

a part of the result of the propaganda campaign carried out by the Canadian Soft

Drink Association, paid for by a so-called environmental levy on every soft

drink that every child in Newfoundland buys, or ever adult buys in this

Province? Is this what it is, blame the people of Newfoundland because there is

littering and there is stuff on the roads and on the highways? Blame the people?

Where does the blame really lie? The blame really lies with the policies of this

government and the efforts of the Canadian Soft Drink Manufacturers Association,

amongst others, to prevent this government and any government from insisting

that they have a more socially responsible and environmentally responsible

packaging policy. That is where this is coming from.

The baseline studies that were done several years ago before

all of this environmental levy and the Canadian Soft Drink Manufacturers got

this government by the throat, before that happened, a study was done which

showed that littering, and litter in general, was not a significant problem in

this Province as compared to other provinces. Now I am not saying that there is

not a problem. One Pepsi can in the woods is a problem. I wish we only had one.

That is a problem; we should not have any - or Coke. It doesn't make any

difference whether it is Pepsi or Coke, or Big 8, or whatever they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I would be happy to hear what the hon. member

has to say.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks of

litter in the woods, let me give him the classic example of what I think is

litter in the remote parts of our Province.

This summer I had the privilege of standing on the top of

Mokami, the famous hill on the north side of Lake Melville, in the very famous

song. I got there in a helicopter, lest anybody think I suddenly became

athletic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, the public did not pay for it, I say to

my friend from Ferryland who knows all about how to do these things.

A broken beer bottle on the top of Mokami, some idiot had

carried up a bottle of beer, no problem, and presumably had drunk that bottle of

beer, no problem, and then took the trouble to take the bottle and smash it. Now

that is where litter really is in this Province.

I thank my friend.

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

MR. HARRIS: That is not confined to this Province, I say

to the member. I was on a canoeing trip in Northern Ontario about seven or eight

years ago. We went to Thunder Bay and drove about four hours north, and we were

ten days into the woods and we did not even know where we were; we got lost. We

needed maps and compasses to find out where we were, and on a remote and

isolated wilderness area we found a cache of disposable baby diapers. And we

took everything out that we brought in, I say to hon. members.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) you.

MR. HARRIS: Unfortunately, yes.

To take it to a serious note, as I say, one can of Pepsi or

one beer bottle in the woods is a problem, but I say to the minister that when a

study was done, before this policy of the environmental levy was done comparing

littering in this Province as compared to other provinces, this Province was far

and away ahead of other provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with it?

MR. HARRIS: It has a lot to do with it, I say to the

member, because what has happened in this Province is that you and your

government and this minister who has taken over responsibility for it, have been

held by the throat by the Canadian Soft Drink Manufacturers Association. They

have told you and convinced you to let them place an environmental levy on soft

drinks, take the money and use that money to propagandize the people of this

Province to say that littering is the problem, not them. That is what is going

on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We live in a very unique Province. There is

something very unique about Newfoundland. I will not call it a distinct society,

but it is a unique society. You know why? Because this Province is unique in

this country, there is not one, single, returnable soft drink container in this

Province that is used, not one - the only Province where the Canadian Soft Drink

Manufacturers have been successful in holding governments to ransom time after

time after time, and preventing them from implementing policies that require

them to refill containers.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice talked about a beer

bottle smashed on Old Mokami. Well, I will say to the Minister of Justice and

the Minister of Environment that 97 per cent of the beer bottles in this

Province are returned to be refilled.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Ninety-seven to 98 per cent of the beer

bottles in this Province are returned to the breweries to be refilled and

reused. There may one on old Mokami and there may be two or three more but I

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those beer bottles are returned and reused. The ones

that are not returned and reused are probably used for home brew. So those beer

bottles are not going into the environment at any appreciable amount because you

know why? Because they are worth ten cents each, that is why. That is why they

are returned. That is why 98 per cent of the beer bottles do not end up in the

environment but they end up back at the breweries for refilling and reuse. In

the process, Mr. Speaker, that money spreads around, goes into the hands of

kids, Boy Scout troops, boys and girls clubs, other people who use that

situation to have a little industry or a little side industry. So that is what

is going on. That is the distinction between beer bottles, Mr. Speaker, and soft

drinks.

Now, I will give you some other examples of what is wrong,

Mr. Speaker. Quite often you maybe go to the liquor store and you buy a bottle

of liquor. Do you know what you see on it? You see a little sign on it that

says, return for refund where applicable. What are we going to do, Mr. Speaker,

put them in a package and send them up to Quebec somewhere, Ontario or New

Brunswick where you can return them for a refund? No, Mr. Speaker. What does

this government do? The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation - I saw them in one of

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's monthly statements of

non-tendered contracts. The minister's department or the minister's purchasing

department for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation spent $165,000 buying bottles

from New Brunswick for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. Not one of them, Mr.

Speaker, is refundable, returnable, refillable, not one. Why is that the case,

Mr. Speaker? Why can't liquor bottles that are being refilled - why can't they

be sent back to the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation to be refilled? They could,

the answer is they could. The Minister of ITT says they could. I agree with him,

they could. The Liquor Corporation bottles can be refilled and returned.

The success of beer bottles in terms of returning, refilling

is an ample example as to why soft drink containers should also be refillable.

When we talk about this, Mr. Speaker, and it is very interesting when you talk

about this, when you talk about this issue publicly the first group that you

have come banging on your door is Browning Harvey. Browning Harvey comes banging

on your door and says, oh you can't do that. You can't introduce refillable soft

drink containers because Browning Harvey will shut down. They won't have any

more Pepsi in Newfoundland and we will all lose our jobs. That is what you hear.

Now the logic of that, Mr. Speaker, has yet to penetrate my mind. The logic of

that has yet to penetrate my mind. There will be no Pepsi in Newfoundland, they

say. There will be no Pepsi in Newfoundland and there will be no jobs in

Newfoundland in the Pepsi business if this government were to force them to use

refillable containers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now there we are, that is what the minister

says, they will go to Halifax. Sure they will. They will go to Halifax. They

will take the bottles to Halifax and fill them up. Then they will bring them

back here and sell them, then they will bring them back again. That makes a lot

of sense. Is that what Coke is doing? What is Coke doing? Coke is not canning a

single can or bottle in Newfoundland, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) just said to the member.

MR. HARRIS: That is right. Now, why is that? I said, okay

they took seventy-two jobs to Halifax. Why did they do that? Because this

government let them get away with it, because if this government had forced them

to have refillable, returnable soft drink containers they would not do it. They

would not be taking their empties to Halifax and filling them up then bringing

them back here because it would not be economical, I say to the minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister says stay tuned. I heard him

say that. Not the Minister of Environment, I would rather hear him say it. I

would rather hear him say it because all we've heard so far from the Minister of

ITT about this issue is talk, talk, talk. I want to see some action because the

people of this Province are getting fed up to here, Mr. Speaker, with the kind

of bull that they are hearing from this government, the lip service to the

environment, the lip service that they are getting about how we care and we want

to see recycling. What about some action, Mr. Speaker?

I've got a document here: Mill expansion is good for Nova

Scotia. A $27 million expansion of a recycling mill in Nova Scotia will give it

the capacity to handle all of the old corrugated containers generated by the

Province. The (inaudible) pulp and paper company limited are constructing a new

6,000 square metre building to house a board machine. Where do we have examples

like that in this Province? One hundred short-term jobs in construction, fifty

jobs in the mill itself, and fifty more jobs in the province's recycling

industry. In Nova Scotia they are calling it a recycling industry. What are we

talking about here? We are still talking about school projects.

There is nothing wrong with school projects. But where is the

economic incentive? Where is something that is making this economical? Where is

something that is getting it beyond the do-gooder stage? Nothing wrong with

people doing good, but where are we getting beyond that and getting into

recognition that this is in other provinces considered to be an industry.

The minister talks about sitting down with the soft drink

container people and the other lobbying group for the packaging industry. What

do they want? They want something to happen that is not going to cost them

anything. That is what they want. They managed to get this government on the

soft drinks. They said: No, don't make us have refillable containers. Let us

take a cent from every buyer of soft drinks - no deposit now, just take a cent -

and we will use it to propagandize this Province to identify littering as the

problem. In the process, these same people using this same money are also

conducting a public relations campaign directed against the need for refundable

containers. It is a bit of a soft sell. They get on the radio and they do -

AN HON. MEMBER: The consumer is going to pay no matter

what.

MR. HARRIS: The consumer is going to pay no matter what,

says the minister. I think that may be the case, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that he should have a concern

about the number of jobs that can be generated if you have an environmentally

responsible system instead of one that just allows these companies to come in,

sell their goods and fill up our landfills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: I ask the minister, is he aware that 30 per

cent of the material in landfill sites is composed of soft drink containers? Who

is paying for that? The consumer is paying for it, taxpayers are paying for it,

government is paying for it. Who is reaping the profits? The profits are being

reaped by the people who are using these containers and putting them into the

environment. That is who is reaping the profit. That is who is paying for it.

The taxpayers are paying for it; the consumers are paying for it. This Province

is not participating in a responsible, environmentally sustainable process. We

hear this, the buzzwords of the day, the buzzwords of the hours: environmental

sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, let's get beyond the buzzword, and the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation getting his mug in the paper talking about

cleaning up the highways. Let's get beyond the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: His mug. Let's get beyond the buzzwords,

let's get beyond the rhetoric of environmental sustainability and free publicity

for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Let's get beyond that

and let's get to action that shows, like they did in Nova Scotia, 100 jobs -

fifty jobs in the mill, fifty jobs in the recycling industry. Because there is a

recycling mill being built, at a $27 million capital value, to recycle

corrugated cardboard.

When are we going to see something like that? I know the

minister is dying to speak again. The Minister of the Environment is dying to

speak again and he may even pre-empt his announcement and give us some hints as

to what he is going to do. We will wait and see, Mr. Speaker, exactly what the

minister and this government is about to do. They have not shown much guts in

the past in dealing with the soft drink industry. They have not shown much guts

to date in dealing with the soft drink industry and the lobbies that are coming

from the container industry. It is time to see a bit of a turnaround, and other

provinces have managed to do that.

When I was in Alberta in 1975 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you stay there?

MR. HARRIS: In 1975 I went to Alberta to get an

education. Why didn't I stay there? I had to leave Newfoundland to get an

education, I say to the minister, and in 1975 there was in effect in Alberta a

recycling policy and a refundable policy. You could take any kind of bottles or

cans -

MR. GRIMES: Subsidized by a heritage fund.

MR. HARRIS: There was no heritage fund in 1975. You could

take a wine bottle to a bottle depot, bring it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you praising the Tories of Alberta?

MR. HARRIS: What I am praising is the fact that twenty

years ago in other province they had in effect refundable deposit systems, they

had an effective system that encouraged recycling, that gave economic incentives

to it, that supported small businesses, that was effective, that was viable, and

that made a lot of sense.

That was twenty years ago, and here we are in Newfoundland in

1995 and the minister gets up and talks about what great progress we have made,

and we are now going to fine people for littering. This is progress twenty years

later. I am a tolerant man.

AN HON. MEMBER: The school kids are not doing enough I

say.

MR. HARRIS: I say the school kids are doing great stuff,

but we have to get beyond that. We have to make it economical, we have to get

into an economical sustainability, we have to provide economic incentives and

the one way to do that is to provide for a deposit system on soft drinks for

refillable and reusable bottles. We all mouth off the three Rs, return, reuse,

recycle. We all talk about these, but how can we reuse something if the

containers that are made say, not to be refilled, are thrown into the

environment, whether they are soft drinks, whether they are juice drinks, or any

other kind of drinks?

Let us see some action, Mr. Speaker, that is going to provide

some economic incentives. We have all kinds of groups around this Province, boys

and girls clubs in St. John's closing down because they cannot support

themselves but if you had a system in place where environmentally sensitive

policies were in place where you could have a deposit system, these

organizations could use it as fund-raising. Other businesses such as, the

Minister of the Environment mentioned, a recycling business in St. John's where

all this particular individual does is collect. It is just a collection service.

This woman provides a service to households and to businesses for a monthly fee

to pick up recyclable materials, bring them to Evergreen Recycling. That is a

little small business. That is good and we should have more of it.

The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes says you cannot find a

beer bottle on the side of the road now because of the deposit system. Every

beer bottle you see is worth ten cents and it is worth ten cents for someone to

pick it up.

MR. EFFORD: (inaudible) eyes open.

MR. HARRIS: But it does not stay there very long. I am

not saying people do not throw them there. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is making notes for his speech now. They may be there but they

will not be there for long because somebody will pick them up without having a

fine for littering, without having a campaign of school kids to go and clean up

the highway. Someone will pick up beer bottles and bring them back to get ten

cents each for them and create jobs in the process. Now that's the kind of

action we want to see, that's going to help create jobs and give some substance

and some meaning to this notion of environmental sustainability.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you get yourself all worked

up (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say I have the flu; I am speaking under a

handicap this morning as you can tell. If I didn't have the flu this morning you

would hear it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If I didn't have the flu this morning the

minister would hear it, I am being restrained by my illness, but I do say in all

seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that this is an area where I have hopes for the

Minister of Environment, I will say that for him. I didn't have much hope for

the previous minister, I did first but after two or three years of asking the

same kind of questions and getting nowhere and seeing no action, I gave up on

that.

I say to the Minister of Environment, we still don't have a

mandatory policy for recycling in the government services in this building. It

is all done on a voluntary - I have three minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I will

go on, with the leave of members I will go on, but we still don't have and I

invite the minister to talk about this - we still don't have a policy on

recycling and disposal of materials in this building, in Confederation Building.

MR. MURPHY: We have red boxes on order.

MR. HARRIS: We might have red boxes on order but I say to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the recycling efforts that go

on in the government services are voluntary, they are organized on a voluntary

basis by people in certain departments, the people in the environment department

have their own but it is unofficial, it is done by individuals who want to see

something in place.

I don't know what directives the minister has given; perhaps

he can tell us whether he is able to convince his seat mate next to him, the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to institute a policy for all

government buildings. When are we going to see some leadership, Mr. Speaker,

when are we going to see some leadership in this House of Assembly from the

government, in government departments, not just voluntary efforts by individual

public servants who have the best interest of the Province at stake? I compare

that to some of the efforts by the school kids. It is important but that's not

the answer, Mr. Speaker, the answer is to have the government, as a matter of

government policy, lead the way and show the way on environmental responsibility

on sustainability, on recycling and use of paper and paper products within the

government and on top of that, having a policy of returnable and reusable

containers in the soft drink industry and wherever else it can be done and not

to be kowtowed to the lobbying efforts of the self-interested industry such as

the Canadian Soft Drink Manufacturers. They have a job to do and they are doing

it well. Too well in my books, they have had this government on its back for the

last four or five years and it is time to stand up, Mr. Speaker.

It is time to stand up and I see the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology nodding his head. Well, let's see how high they stand when

the time comes. I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation is anxious to tell the House what

directives he has given. He is anxious to tell the House what directives he has

given to his department for handling paper products and how recycling is carried

out in his department. I know he is anxious to speak so I will sit down and let

him speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin first by congratulating the

Minister of Environment for introducing this bill to the House of Assembly, "An

Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act", Bill No. 27. He is to be

congratulated because it is a step forward in addressing a problem that we have

in this Province, but after listening to the hon. Member for St. John's East, a

30-minute speech was it, I can understand now why the only way he can hold a

caucus meeting is to sit in front of a mirror. The only way he can have a caucus

meeting is to sit in front of a mirror and talk, because after a 30-minute

speech, a contribution that he made to a very serious problem that we have in

this Province, and took the whole time to pick holes and to criticize instead of

being more complimentary, more constructive to the whole issue.

While we have a problem in this Province it is not as serious

as in many other parts of Canada, many other parts of the world. But we do have

a problem with garbage on our highways, in our country, in our environment, all

over. It is not just one area of the Province. We've got to address it. We've

tried the educational process. We've tried encouraging people to take more

responsibility. We've worked with Lions Clubs and other organizations in getting

the message out that you must not litter no matter where it is. But it doesn't

seem to be working to the full extent that the Minister of Environment or

anybody would be satisfied with.

So what do you have to do? You have to put a determining

factor in place that if you wish to break the law then here is what the

penalties will be. You can't fault that. If you don't litter you don't pay any

fines. If you break the law it is like any other law that you break in the

Province. You must take the responsibility for it - you broke the law. It is

simply a deterrent that you must do to impact on people who are not willing to

obey the law.

I can't believe that when I drive over the Trans-Canada in

the morning or in the afternoon and when I'm going home to see plastic

anti-freeze bottles, paper cups, paper bags, plastic bags, beer bottles and

other stuff on our highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is driving right in front of

you.

MR. EFFORD: There is no doubt. What really bothered me,

Mr. Speaker, this year was we had a number of students working on the

Trans-Canada picking up garbage. University students who needed the money to

help them get back to university. We employed some students in the area to go

out. The last day of August is when we terminated their summer student

employment so they had to get ready to go back to university. A week later we

visited -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask. I can't hear

myself speak, there's so much talk going on.

A week after we laid off the students we went out on the

Trans-Canada in the same exact area. We covered about a kilometre. There was

just as much garbage in that particular divided highway

section as there had

been before we put the students to work. That didn't just happen. That just

didn't blow out of a car because of wind or blow out of trucks. That was caused

by human beings. People had to put that there. That is only one example.

You go into the country on any occasion, whether it be

trouting or blueberry picking or whatever, and you see the ashes of a campfire

and you look out around and you see the small Vienna Sausage cans, that is a

popular one that you see. You see somewhere else a beer bottle. You see

somewhere else some other garbage. It is just as easy for an individual to take

that can, squeeze it up, put it in a knapsack, bring it home and put it there,

as to throw it on the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many beer bottles?

MR. EFFORD: I don't care what it is. Whatever it is it is

garbage. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to sell this Province to

the tourism venturing people of the world, the people who want to visit a

pristine environment, we have to protect it. We have to take whatever steps are

necessary to ensure that when people come here they see the cleanliness of this

Province.

Not long ago I was down to the United States, just down to

Washington. Within a minute's walk from the White House on a Sunday afternoon I

saw more garbage on the streets than you would see in a dump here in

Newfoundland. It was absolutely unbelievable. My reaction was immediate: I would

never go back there again.

I make that point because if tourists are coming to

Newfoundland, whether it be from China, from Japan, from Germany, whatever, we

hope that our tourism is going to grow. When somebody comes to the Province and

they see something good they will take back a good message, and other people

will come. We cannot sell this Province on the hot temperatures that they do

down in the southern climates. But we can sell it on the hospitality and the

friendliness of the people and the pristine environment.

It is up to every citizen in this Province to make sure that

pristine environment remains, and the manner in which the Minister of

Environment is presenting this bill to the House is another step to ensure that

is going to be the type of climate or the type of environment that we live in in

the future. Whether you pick faults with it or not is not the issue. There is no

such thing as a perfect situation, but no matter what you do, you can always do

something else, but keep doing and adding on and one day we will get to the

point where we will have the most pristine, clean environment in the whole of

Canada. We are not far from that now, but another step forward is another step

to the good of everybody, and we have no doubt that the future direction of the

economy of this country and of this Province must be added to by tourism. It is

not going to be the be all and end all to answer all of our economic woes, but

it sure can go a long way in a contributing factor to creating a good economic,

viable situation for our future.

When a tourist comes to Newfoundland and drives into a

community and he or she has money and spends it, the results are left behind,

but if they come once and do not come back, or they do not spread the good word,

then we all suffer the consequences. So it is all our collective responsibility

to ensure that no matter where we go - the fines are only one aspect; education

is the best thing.

Yesterday I spoke here in the House of Assembly and

complimented the youth on the drinking and driving, that they are the most

responsible people when it comes to obeying highway safety laws. I will give

them another compliment. Of the evidence that I have been given and seen, young

people are still ahead of the middle-class generation in protecting the

environment. They are more aware of it, they are more responsible for it, and I

hope through the young people, through the education program, that they will

educate their parents, that they will educate their elders when they go home and

see their mom or dad, or someone older, throwing a piece of garbage, or a can or

a bottle, out the window of the car, or dropping it here or there, or dropping a

cigarette pack, simply say they should not do that. Evidence proves, facts

prove, that the young people are doing that today, educating the older people,

their moms and dads, and that is the reason why we have less litter in our

environment than we had compared to ten or fifteen years ago.

One of the most disturbing things that I see, in the leisure

time that I have, and almost everybody knows the fact that I do boat a bit, the

leisure boat, that when you see people, fishermen or a pleasure boat, aboard a

boat, and they take a can or a bottle, or a piece of cardboard, and throw it

over the side of the boat, there is nothing more disgusting than anybody doing

that. It is just as easy to take that piece of litter and put it in a plastic

bag and bring it home as it is to throw it in the water. It only takes the same

amount of exercise and the same amount of strength to do it, and it shows

responsibility.

It is incumbent upon all of us to point out to people who are

doing that not to do it. Protect our environment. Make sure that we have a

future. Make sure that our tourism grows. Protect our waters, protect our

environment totally, and we can all benefit, not to be critical of what someone

else is doing. Get the message right around this Province. Every time that you

have a chance to speak publicly, talk about the environment, talk about a good

positive attitude, talk about a future direction in developing this Province

into a pristine environment that we are all proud of. How can anybody stand up

and just play political points and try to be critical because it is not to their

liking?

Mr. Speaker, I do not bother with what the hon. Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes is saying. It is only a little chitter-chatter, and if he

wishes to chitter-chatter all along, it is quite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: What was that question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: All he has to do, if he wants to know how

much anybody donated to my campaign, is to go out to my association, look at the

receipt book, go to the Chief Electoral Officer, and I can tell you that I had

quite a lot of donations given to me, because they wanted to see somebody come

back who is going to contribute to the Province and not be a nuisance like the

hon. member opposite, so I have no problem. The biggest problem I have is

turning people away, not enough tickets, not enough chairs to allow everybody

coming in. At a dinner I just had 300 people come, and had another fifty that

same night turned away from the door. That is what a good politician is all

about, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here to speak on the Waste Material Act with

amendments that are being proposed here.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) everything else here.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I believe very strongly in maintaining

a proper environment in this Province. I say to the minister, I'm embarrassed,

going on the highways of our Province. I walk the highway of my district. One

day I walked sixteen miles along the side of the highway in my district and I

observed the litter on the side of that highway. I went back, and I either jog

or walk along the highway. It is embarrassing. We have school -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was your constituents who did it. Are

you embarrassed by your own constituents?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you tell them about it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do. And I speak in this House. I tell the

minister, we organized in our school, and we got a provincial award, I say to

the minister. Seven hundred bags of garbage on an annual basis we arrange and

get volunteer trucks. His department has co-operated in picking up some of this

garbage that is put in bags by students. I say to the minister, there are

certain things that will never get solved in terms of the environment until we

take some action.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It could be. That may be an answer. I'm not

disputing that. I would like to look at the issue there. I have been a Justice

of the Peace for twenty-one years and I have never had anybody come to me, an

officer of the law, to issue a ticket or a summons to somebody for throwing

litter out of a vehicle or litter on a highway. I have signed thousands of

summonses for other areas, whether it be search warrants or speeding tickets or

any other area, and it does not matter what the fine is. If there are no charges

and no convictions we are not going to solve this problem - you could change the

legislation - unless there are enough enforcement people out there to enforce

the law. We have gone through annual clean-ups on school programs over a

fifteen-mile range along a highway that is served by that school, putting

together 700 bags of garbage, 400 or 500 bags of garbage. You can go back two

weeks later and you will probably pick up 100 bags of garbage. The problem is

not getting solved.

We had an opportunity back in November 1993. The

then-Minister of Environment and Lands, it was at the time, stated on public

television in early November on CBC that they would be having returnable bottle

legislation in this Province. They were going to - with soft drinks. Before that

month ended the minister stated that they would not be going with it, they were

going with an education, a promotional campaign, a program that would solve this

problem. We know this program is in place and it has not been working. It is

just not working.

Now, returnable bottles - they looked at the impact on

business, I think, here in the Province, one of the things they mentioned at the

time, and the negative impact it would have.

As the government, as individuals, we have to be responsible

in balancing the economic aspect with the environmental aspect. We know that

whatever you do in this Province, it is going to have some impact on the

environment. Whether it is developing a hydro site, whether it is putting a

highway through Pippy Park or down the South Side into St. John's, the Harbour

Arterial road, whatever highway is erected in this Province or any (inaudible)

there is some negative environmental impact. Because you are taking away trees

that enrich the oxygen content of the environment and help deplete carbon

dioxide and other carbon-type gases. It is important to look at the impact, to

look at what the environment can sustain. What we need to renew, the cycles that

are in nature, to ensure that there is going to be an appropriate level of

oxygen in the air and there is going to be materials that can be recycled.

There are advantages in recycling, not only in terms of

removing things from the highway, but in the production of these new materials.

The glass and so on - the production of these again has come from a new supply.

We need an increased supply to go back into the la