June 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this morning, quite a number of

people from both sides of the House, all three parties, attended a very

important legislative breakfast. This, as the Speaker knows, is National Access

Awareness Week and we were delighted this morning to be invited to participate

in a very important event in the development of equality of opportunity in our

society. It is not just a matter of access awareness, Mr. Speaker, I think we

are all convinced now that the time has come for action. Awareness is important

but action is essential, and I want to pay tribute to all the people who are

involved in organizing this morning's breakfast and assure them that government,

with the Opposition's support, will do everything possible not only to make

people aware but to set realistic goals and to act, and to encourage communities

to act, to ensure that all people in our society are treated fairly and

equitably.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We want to endorse

the remarks of the Minister of Education. This is the second year that a number

of members have taken

part in that particular activity. I think, last year, we

had nine members from this House who attended and this year it was up to thirty.

We want to endorse what the minister has said. It is a very pleasant experience

to sit down with such a wide range of people, all with varying disabilities, and

have them discuss frankly their concerns.

I ask the Minister of Education, on the social policy of

Cabinet to hopefully over the next little while address some of these remarks,

minister will convince his Cabinet colleagues to put in place a major effort on

behalf of these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the words of the

minister in saying that all of us who attended the breakfast this morning were

pleased to participate. I think we also all have to acknowledge that each and

every one of us has something to learn, and did learn something today, from the

people who have to try to live a life without the kind of access to services,

education, transportation and other needs that many of us take for granted.

I think that the time is now for action. There are so many

areas of government activity and societal activity that are at stake here, but

there is almost no one focus. Perhaps the government, in responding to the needs

of people with disabilities, ought to put together a comprehensive position

paper on what needs to be done in the so many areas of governmental action that

government can influence for review by the people with disabilities. That, Mr.

Speaker, should give us a starting point to review what this government's

position is on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going to routine proceedings, I would

like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the public

galleries today, of representatives of the Access Awareness Week Committee. The

representatives are: Kelly Heinz, Debbie Prim, Lucy Stoyles, Nancy Lear, Carol

Clowe, and Keith Clowe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to bring to the attention

of hon. members, the presence in the galleries of thirty-five students from St.

Anne's School in Dunville, in the district of Placentia. I would like to welcome

their teachers, Mr. Ray Murphy and Mr. Jack Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise this

hon. House that I am now in receipt of the Initial Report of the Advisory

Committee on Training Services, (VRDP). This document was sponsored by the

Department of Social Services and co-authored by officials of the Division of

Developmental and Rehabilitative Services and representatives of the various

disability groups within the Province. I might add that representatives from

those groups are in the gallery today.

The Training Services Program within the Department of Social

Services is designed to provide persons with disabilities access to funds and

services which will enable and enhance opportunities for the attainment of

post-secondary education. Its primary function is to assist persons with

disabilities acquire and develop marketable skills, and thus be able to enter

the workforce. This program is cost-shared with the federal government through

the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreement.

During the past several fiscal years this program area has

been faced with ever increasing consumer demands and expectations, significant

increases in costs of tuition, adaptive equipment and supportive services. These

factors, in combination with the reality of our provincial economy, and thus the

non-availability of increased funding, had caused significant financial

difficulties within the Training Services Program. This review, initiated by the

Department of Social Services, was an attempt to streamline and enhance service

delivery, yet, with the support and direction of the Consumer Groups, do so in a

manner which would not impinge on the integrity or effectiveness of this

service.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that this

process has been a tremendous success. Not only have we been successful in

introducing measures which will ensure more efficient and cost-effective

delivery of service, with the assistance of the Consumer Groups, we have been

able to do so with little or no disruption or adverse reaction.

Due to the dynamic and interactive nature of the Department

of Social Services, many of the recommendations contained within the report have

already been incorporated into departmental policy. To illustrate, policy

revisions have been made to endorse and encourage the optimal usage of our

community college system, limitations have been placed on allowable

transportation costs, funding has been appropriately reserved for full-time

students only, and revised policy reflects an increased focus on the use of

generic resources whenever practical and feasible. These measures have been in

place since April 1, 1991 and have proven acceptable to the consumer groups.

This review also witnessed the elimination of the Regional

Training and Selection Committees, with the approval process now being vested

with officials of our Regional Offices. This action has ensured prompt and

streamlined processing of all requests and applications, and has also increased

our accountability to the clients we serve. This action is also in adherence to

a commitment of de-centralization of decision-making within the entire

department, thereby ensuring that our structure is more responsive to the

demands of our consumer groups.

The entire application process for Rehabilitation Services

and the Appeals procedure were also reviewed within the context of the report

and significant changes were recommended to make it more responsive to the need

of consumers. These recommendations have been reviewed, deemed acceptable, and

will be implemented within the very short term.

The report, which was formally presented to me as Minister of

Social Services on May 25, 1992, will now be given a full and comprehensive

review by officials of the department, to determine the practicality and

implications of adoption of the remaining recommendations. The report will also

be shared with the full constituency of the Consumer Groups for their

information, feedback and input. I will keep the House advised of developments

in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to sincerely and

publicly acknowledge the support and collaboration of the disabled community.

The Department of Social Services, through its Division of Developmental and

Rehabilitative Services, is committed to the development of services and

supports which are sensitive to, and reflective of, the needs of persons with

disabilities. More importantly, this department is resolved to the initiation of

program development based on prior consultation and input from consumers.

This report, and its associated policy changes, is indicative

of the type and extent of proactive action possible when government and the

community work in partnership to ensure the maximum usage of our limited

resources.

I would therefore respectfully remind the House and my

Cabinet colleagues that all policies of this government should be developed in

full consideration of our fellow citizens with disabilities, who represent a

significant population within our society, and whose needs must be ever foremost

in our actions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to

thank the minister for a copy of the ministerial statement.

I should say as well that I have not seen a copy of the

report, but I certainly would like to see one. As well, I would look forward to

receiving comments from the various disability groups across the Province as to

the recommendations of the report as well as the implementation of the report

both, as the minister says, those that have already taken place and those that

will take place.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly seems that the report is a positive

one and that it has worthy recommendations. But I would say to the minister that

cuts in funding to assist persons with disability in the attainment of

post-secondary education is regressive, I would say to the government, and that

funding is required if you are going to train people. Any cuts would be a

backward step, but as far as the report is concerned, we on this side have not

had a chance to see it. We look forward to seeing it. We look forward to reading

the recommendations, and I do hold with the minister's final comments when he

reminds the House and Cabinet colleagues that all policies of government should

be developed in full consideration of fellow citizens with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question. Yesterday the Premier told the media he

did not really want to see imported garbage being dumped into the Province. I

have a question for the Minister of Environment. I would say to her, if the

government is really opposed to the importation of garbage on any terms, why

does the government not tell straight out this particular decision and position

to North American Resource Recovery, who propose to import garbage for

incineration at Long Harbour? Why does the government not tell this to the

proponents, and why is government so indecisive and wishy-washy on this issue

now?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. acting

Leader of the Opposition we have not as yet received the proposal for the Long

Harbour project. As Minister of Environment I am required to review any project

that does come before me. I am obligated, in fact, to do that. So if a project

does come, then indeed I will have to see that it is put through the

Environmental Assessment Act.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the

minister why really is government so reluctant to take a stand on this issue? I

want to remind the minister that in September of 1988 the Liberal party, led by

the now Premier, opposed very strongly the storing of imported garbage in Bell

Island mines. I want to quote for the minister what he said then. He said: It is

offensive to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be opposed to any

similar proposal for dumping industrial and toxic or potentially toxic waste in

any part of this Province. That is what the leader of the Liberal party said in

1988, the now Premier. I want to ask the Minister of Environment, what has

happened to make you so ambivalent on this issue now?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I have faith, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the

acting leader, in the environmental assessment process, just as indeed did the

hon. Ron Dawe in a ministerial statement of December 19, 1980 when he said: 'The

Environmental Assessment Act is a major item of legislation. It is the most

far-reaching statute ever passed by this hon. House in the area of environmental

protection and resource management. The act has changed government's whole

approach to the making of major decisions affecting the environment. I must

hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of the public are also

recognized and addressed throughout the environmental assessment process. This

means that the proponents impact statement,' in this case if we get one, 'must

address pertinent issues related to social structure, economic conditions,

historic and cultural background, population numbers and distribution,

facilities and services and so on. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this

government,' and I am talking about the old one, 'by instituting the

environmental assessment process has taken a fresh approach to decisions on

resource use and environmental problems.'

Now it is their legislation that is going to be applied to

this. They had tremendous faith in it in those days. As I indicated the other

day in paying a most unusual compliment to the Opposition,which is something

that doesn't seem to be what we normally do in these particular question

periods, the environmental assessment is a good one. We do need to take a look

at it to see how it dovetails into the new federal environmental assessment

process. But I have confidence that if this project is brought to our attention

in the Environment Department, it will be gone over using every aspect of the

environmental assessment process and it will not go ahead if it is not

acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

A supplementary to the minister: I want to ask the minister -

and I refer to the news release of Clyde K. Wells of Friday, September 16, 1988

- why were you not concerned about environmental impact studies then, in 1988?

At that time you were straight-out against importation of garbage, I say to the

minister. So if you are still against it, why go through the expense and the

turmoil of an environmental impact study? Why don't you just say no to the

project now, I ask the minister? How can she lecture about environmental impact

studies when in 1988 she was categorically against it?

MR. TOBIN: And asked us not to support it.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Throne Speech of 1980, the then government, in

addressing problems of this particular nature, said that there would be - I will

just paraphrase it first - a lot of new and potentially dangerous stresses on

our environment, potentially dangerous stresses on our national and social

environments over the next few years. "However - this is an exact quote - "we

must be careful in each instance, first to evaluate both the benefits of

resource and economic development and its consequential environmental, social

and economic impacts. Only then should we decide on a rational,

r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-e, rational basis, whether the resource or economic development

in question is justified." I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think I know now why the

minister is so indecisive. She didn't even spell the word correctly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: She didn't even spell it right.

Unbelievable! Unbelievable! I see her writing it down now to get the right

spelling.

MR. TOBIN: Rex is writing it for her.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Energy just corrected the

minister.

MR. TOBIN: Rex had to write it for her - all the students

in the gallery.

MR. MATTHEWS: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to

ask the minister another question. I want to ask the minister: Does she agree

with this statement made by her leader on behalf of her party in September 1988

with reference to a proposal to bury waste in the Bell Island mines? At that

time the Premier said: 'Newfoundland would become known not as an

environmentally safe relatively pollution free area, a reputation which it now

enjoys, but a place which is so impoverished and so desperate that it has to

take in other people's garbage. Do we really want to become North American's

garbage dump for the sake of a few jobs?' I ask the minister: how does she react

to that? Does she agree with her leader's statement of 1988?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

I would say that the Leader of the Opposition, as he was at

that time, was doing his duty as he still continues to do it today, considering

the opinion of the public, taking it into play and into the decision making

process. Certainly during the environmental assessment review there is always

opportunity for public input at every step of the way, so I do not think that

really the then Leader of the Opposition was speaking out of line or out of

question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, before I put my final

supplementary I would like to refer the minister to a news clipping of September

27, 1988. The bottom paragraph says: 'The next day Newfoundland Environment

Minister James Russell killed Canadian Ecologies application for a feasibility

study,' I say to the minister. Now, I want to ask her a simple question. Why not

say no to imported garbage? Say it loud and clear and say it today in this House

for the people of this Province. Say, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, again let me say that we are

trying to approach this in a very rational manner. I have an obligation as

Minister of Environment and Lands to review every project, I wait until they are

brought to my attention, but every project that is proposed for development in

this Province. It would be untoward for me to dismiss this out of hand. The

government could in fact find itself in court by refusing to examine a proposal.

I believe there has been precedent set for this in Canada re the Oldman Dam in

the western part of the nation, so it would be most untoward for me to refuse to

have a look at any request that comes before my department regarding a new

development here in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

My question is also to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Yesterday in this House the Premier told us that toxic effluent was not being

pumped into Placentia Bay. Yesterday the Premier said that toxic effluent was

not being pumped into Placentia Bay from the phosphorous plant at Long Harbour.

Now, in view of the fact that an official from Environment Canada said on the

CBC Morning Show that it was being pumped into Placentia Bay, could the minister

now advise if their officials are sure that no toxic effluent from the

phosphorus plant has been pumped into Placentia Bay?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain amount of

phosphorus that is allowed to go into the Placentia Bay area, .5 parts per

billion, which I am told is a very, very low, almost non-existent amount. I have

asked my officials to tell me the standard on which that is based and they are

now looking into that. I will certainly be glad to make the House aware of that

information once I receive it, but at this stage it is .5 parts per billion of

phosphorus daily that is allowed to go into the bay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

According to Environment Canada officials it is 40 parts per

billion. So I say to the minister that she should check her figures.

Furthermore, this plant closed down shortly after this government came into

power. Could the minister advise what agreements were made with Albright and

Wilson to clean up the mess that they left in Long Harbour? Could the minister

advise and lay on the Table of this House what agreements have been in place

with Albright and Wilson to clean up the mess in Long Harbour?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I feel like repeating my "my

goodness" of the other day. These people are sitting over there, hypocrites that

they are, who allowed Long Harbour to reach the levels that it is today. They

should be ashamed!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Within one month, Mr. Speaker, of this

government being elected we had put in place for the first time in the history

of the Canadian nation an environmental assessment process that would monitor

the de-commissioning of that particular job site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: The hypocrisy of that group is absolutely

appalling, Mr. Speaker. I find it difficult to even look at them as I stand here

today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was in

the year of 1969 when that plant opened in Long Harbour, it was also the Premier

of today who was in that Cabinet at the time. I say to the minister, also it was

the Premier who was campaigning in the last election who shook hands at the gate

and said: you take care of me, I'll take care of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: Now I would also ask the minister, would she

kindly do the honourable thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Would the minister kindly do the honourable

thing. Lay on the Table of this House the documents that were signed between her

government and Albright and Wilson with the clean up of the mess that is in Long

Harbour? Would she kindly do that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Those particular documents, Mr. Speaker, are

not available for public circulation at this time. I can however provide -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I will again remind them that

this government was the one that ordered the assessment process to take place.

If we had been like the last government we would have shut our eyes and gone on,

hoping that nobody would ever notice that there was a mess out there. But we did

not. We addressed it. I am very proud to be part of a government that is that

concerned.

I would be glad to provide some briefing notes to the

Opposition. There are certainly briefing notes that have been given to me, so

that in no way would there be misinformation. They were given to me for my

benefit as the minister. I would be glad to pass those along to the Opposition

when I get copies of them. At this particular time I would have to get

permission from the Department of Justice to hand out anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary. Why is

the minister hiding this particular document from the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador? That is the question that has to be asked. The minister is hiding

something from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Come clean and place it

on the Table of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a good one to say "come clean"!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MS. COWAN: We are indeed trying -

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you. We are trying to come clean. I am

trying to get rid of all that litter in the ditches, I am trying to get rid of

the phosphorous that is piled up out at Long Harbour, I am trying to get rid of

ATV tracks, I am trying to get rid of waste oil, I am trying to get rid of sixty

municipal garbage disposals. I could go on and on. Garbage fill sites that are

overflowing. There are a lot of things that this government has to come clean on

in environment because of that particular crowd.

Now if the critic over there - my hon., I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker. I am not being very polite. The hon. member, if he would like to define

exactly for me what document he means, it might be of some help to me. I am not

sure at this stage whether he wants every single piece of paper that has ever

passed between us and Albright and Wilson or just what it is. But I would feel

that what I said at first stands, that most things would have to be run through

the Justice Department. But I can certainly make available briefing notes that

have been given to me as minister.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Environment and Lands. The minister for some time now, and again

today, has been making reference to legislation and regulations with respect to

the use of ATVs. The minister is obviously aware that environmentalists and

users alike are quite concerned about this matter. The minister has publicly

discussed it for quite some time. Who has the minister consulted with and when

does she intend to release some information to the public of this Province with

respect to ATV legislation?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Here we

go again. Here is a government that has decided to address the problem.

Thirty-six thousand ATVs are now on the rampage around this Province destroying

bog lands, destroying wetlands, destroying archaeological sites, destroying

fens, destroying meadows, destroying you name it.

I was out again on my famous helicopter trip of last Saturday

not only looking at garbage, but looking at what that past government allowed to

happen to the bog land on this Avalon Peninsula. I will tell you right now that

it doesn't stand well with that government that they allowed it to happen. Yet

they have the gall to stand up and act as if: Oh, my goodness, I should have

just rushed into the department, waved that wonderful magic wand that everybody

over here is supposed to possess and change the whole order of history.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that I am extremely concerned about ATVs. What I saw on that short

helicopter ride Saturday made me even more convinced of the incredible damage

that that group allowed to be perpetrated upon this beautiful Province. As soon

as we can get regulations that meet the particular needs that we have right now

to address the bogs and wetlands - do you realize that some of those bogs and

wetlands may take hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years to regenerate? It

is incredible to think that that was allowed to happen by people who didn't have

the intestinal fortitude to take the bull by the horns. I have had no complaints

from anybody yet, Mr. Speaker, not one person in this Province, about the

proposed ATV legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the only thing incredible about this is the

incompetence of the minister. Doesn't she realize that she has been a minister

for a number of months, she has talked about it and she has done nothing.

Let me ask the minister this then -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, can you silence the Minister of

Health? He is gone crazy this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that

there is some problem with the indiscriminate use of ATVs on the wetlands and

marshes of this Province. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister that it is

continuing while she sits as the minister. She might want to blame it on the

last seventeen years, but it still continues.

My question is: With the approach of the summer season and

the increased use of ATVs, can we expect legislation or regulations that will be

in effect for this summer?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, those particular regulations are

not ready yet. However - and just to show how ready I am to listen and how

broad-minded - just because something has been mentioned to me by a member of

the PC party or the NDP, I don't immediately dismiss it. The hon. Member from

Humber East asked me at the hearings we had regarding our estimates some time

ago that if there were some really vulnerable areas that could be addressed this

summer before the regulations come in, would I do so. Frankly, I thought that

was a good idea. So I instructed my officials to look into that area, and they

are doing it. I have the authority as minister to actually say that certain

areas can be declared reserves. I thought it was a good idea, quite frankly. So

that is being looked at at the moment and, hopefully, we will be able to have

something forthcoming from (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

or Environment and Lands. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, despite the answers of the

Premier in the House on the Long Harbour project, the Premier expressed outside

the House his personal opposition to the project. I want to ask the Minister of

Environment and Lands: Does she have a personal opposition to the project as

well or is the Premier the only person allowed to express his personal view?

Does the minister have a personal view on it and have the personal views of the

Cabinet Ministers been discussed on this, and can she tell us the collective

wisdom of the Cabinet's personal views on this matter?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Oh would, Mr. Speaker, that I was in a

position. I always seem to get portfolios where I can't give any personal views.

First I was the Minister of Labour, so I always had to take sort of a middle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if they wish to hear my

answer they could be quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: There are certain portfolio positions where

the minister has to remain in an unbiased position in order to see that

assessments or arbitrations or whatever are taking place are done in the fairest

possible way. I could not, under any circumstances, in fact I would not be a

proper minister, if indeed I gave my personal opinion about something that might

come before an environmental assessment process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously the Premier, in the Cabinet, has a personal view

and has expressed it. What is going on here? Is the government trying to have it

both ways as some sort of PR gesture?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Are they going to put this company through

some sort of charade, and force them to go through this environmental process,

and then say, no? Is this a charade? Why do they not be honest? If they have a

policy on importing garbage why do they not tell the people of this Province:

Yes, we will permit it or no, we will not. Make up your minds. You cannot have

it both ways. You cannot have the Premier saying: Oh, I am opposed to it, but my

government could well permit it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry I cannot continue with the light entertainment to

the Minister of Environment and Lands.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and

Energy. He is undoubtedly aware of the infamous contract between CF(L)Co and

Hydro Quebec on the Upper Churchill contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to continue with the question.

MR. A. SNOW: The minister is undoubtedly aware of the

infamous contract between Hydro Quebec concerning the Upper Churchill power

sales to Hydro Quebec. I wonder if he can tell me if CF(L)Co is subsidized by

the taxpayers of the Province, or its operational expenses paid for directly

from the earnings of this hydro to Hydro Quebec?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co is not subsidized by

anybody. It operates from profit.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the

President of Treasury Board: Are any employees with CF(L)Co paid directly or

indirectly from the current account expenditure of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I will check into the matter and get back to

the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all aware that

CF(L)Co is a Crown corporation. Since the purpose of Bill 17 is to reduce

government expenditures for a specific period, why does it apply to the

employees of CF(L)Co whose wages have no effect on the current account

expenditures of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in doing up Bill 17 it is not

easy to come up with a definitive list of companies and organizations that come

under the scope of Bill 17. There are many groups that are not entirely one or

the other and so on, so what we have done is we have included a number of groups

whose expenditures do not come directly out of the public purse in terms of the

current account expenditures of the government. So this is not the only group.

There are a number of other groups that are included exactly the same way.

The list was meant to be all-inclusive in terms of people who

were relying on the public purse, either directly or indirectly in some way, for

their income.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister responsible

for Mines and Energy has confirmed to this House in a previous question that

CF(L)Co is a profit making corporation and turns a profit into this Province.

Since Bill 17 is shameful legislation in any terms, but to apply it to groups

whose wages have no effect whatsoever on the current account position of this

government, will this government exempt CF(L)Co employees from this terrible,

obnoxious legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I assume that the hon. gentleman is referring

to Bill 17. I did not recognize it otherwise, but I assume that is what he is

referring to. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, we will not.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Social Services.

Due to the action or the lack of action by this government in

closing down basically all industries in this Province in terms of fish plants,

hospitals, mines and everything else, there is an increasing number of people

who are turning to social assistance in this Province. Will the minister provide

me with the number of households, and, indeed, the number of people who are on

social assistance, and would he also confirm that it is the highest number since

Confederation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I was asked in this House about

two weeks ago now to provide statistics over the last few years on all

categories of social assistance and, indeed, all departments, as well. I did

that, and I tabled it in the House. Those statistics are available. They were

tabled in this House about a week ago.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the statistics. I

ask the minister, Would he now provide the House with the statistics?

AN HON. MEMBER: They were already tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, social assistance, in my mind,

is a broad category including people on direct social assistance from a monetary

standpoint, people with mental and physical disabilities, and the list goes on,

of categories of assistance. I provided to the House documentation for the last

three years in all those categories. So to expect me today, off the top, to come

up with three pages of statistics is a little unreasonable. It has been tabled,

Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, presiding over the department

that has the worst unemployment statistics, and the highest caseload since

Confederation, I would be a little embarrassed to have those results made public

again, too, I say to the minister. There are more people on social assistance in

this Province today that there have been since 1949, I say to him.

Let me ask the minister if he will confirm this, then, Mr.

Speaker. There are people in this Province on social assistance today, adult men

who can't find jobs, receiving from his department $2.93 a day to live on. Will

the minister confirm that's what is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, $2.93 a day sounds about

correct for one category of single able-bodied social assistance. Mr. Speaker,

when asked that question in the House previously, I said we would be reviewing

that particular category and other categories of social assistance. The previous

question asked of me drew a comparison of people on single able-bodied social

assistance and others who required special care and received substantially more,

and why, in fact, they were receiving substantially more. I have asked that the

whole category be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and I will report back to the House

when I receive the report.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for a short supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that people on

social assistance were receiving more than they are today, and it is not this

minister's fault. This minister needs the support of Cabinet. Let me ask the

minister then, Mr. Speaker, since the regulations have been changed will he

confirm that there are married couples in this Province today who have to live

on $6.02?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you spend?

MR. TOBIN: More than that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the point being made by that

question - I can't confirm that. I would have to do the calculation, but

certainly, it sounds like it might be in the lowest category of assistance for

family support.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say the thrust of his

questions are: Are we having great difficulty with the economy with the times we

live in? - the fact that we have people on unemployment rolls greater than ever

before in the past. I think that is a fair comment. People are coming to social

assistance as the last resort, and we are having difficult times. No doubt about

it, Mr. Speaker, our caseloads have increased. We are up 50 per cent - and I

gave those stats to the House - 50 per cent since three years ago. Over three

years it has gone 50 per cent. And 22 or 24 per cent, I believe, was the

statistic over the last year.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are having great difficulty. There is no

question about that. I don't think it is any secret. Difficult economic times

mean that unemployment, growing unemployment, I might add, and particularly our

problems with the fishery will continue to increase our caseloads, I would

think, for some time in the foreseeable future until we work our way out of this

recession and certainly solve our problems with the economy, particularly the

fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, since this is National Access

Awareness Week, I would like to ask for permission of Your Honour and leave of

other members, to make a short public service announcement on behalf of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have consent of the

House to leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MS. VERGE: The Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee,

which, as I think all members realize, is a provincial organization providing

public education and information about the prevention of aids, as well as

providing advocacy for people with aids or people who are HIV positive, tonight,

in St. John's, is having a benefit concert. Eight o'clock tonight at Holy Heart

of Mary Auditorium on Bonaventure Avenue, there will be a fabulous concert with

all kinds of Newfoundland and Labrador artists. The name of the concert is,

'Save the Future', and I would like to encourage members and people in the

galleries to take in an evening of great entertainment and, in the process,

provide some financial assistance to the Provincial Aids Committee.

I think all of us realize that the Newfoundland and Labrador

Aids Committee is having financial problems at present, problems which were

unforeseen and which have caused a particularly great burden on them now. The

tickets are on sale. If any of you would like one, I have some available. Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order or

whatever it was, I should also encourage our members to buy tickets. I already

have mine; I bought them earlier in the day. I think some of our members have. I

consider it a worthy cause and I would certainly encourage it.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report

of the Public Accounts Committee for the period January 1991 to February of

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the imposition of a tax on tobacco.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on Monday, the

House Leader of the Official Opposition asked me a question concerning the

Belleoram fish plant, and at the time, I indicated I would get the information

and table it.

The plant, Mr. Speaker, is owned by the Department of

Fisheries and is being purchased by Daley Brothers under a ten-year

lease/purchase agreement, which will end in September of 1997. The selling price

for the plant was $102,600, with a yearly lease/purchase fee of $13,652,

including a 7 per cent interest rate.

On January 28, Mr. Speaker, I met with the member for the

district and a delegation from Belleoram to discuss the status of the plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: January 28?

MR. CARTER: January 28, yes. The committee subsequently

met Mr. Daley, who advised them that he is not interested in terminating the

lease/purchase agreement on the plant. Meanwhile, he is unable to secure

sufficient groundfish for a viable operation, and I am told there is no other

party interested, at the moment, in sub-leasing.

I believe, at the time, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that maybe

the agreement was entered into between the company and the town. That is not

correct. In 1987, I guess, the then government entered into that agreement, and

from what I am told, the owners are not interested at all in selling.

Mr. Speaker, I want, as well, to provide the House

information concerning a question asked yesterday by the gentleman from Humber

Valley concerning the crab fishery, and I am told that on Monday of this week, a

meeting took place in Gander, the Advisory Committee on crab, there were

twenty-nine full-time fishermen in attendance, and twenty-five fishermen out of

twenty-nine voted for the proposition that the crab quota be put on a boat

allocation. In other words, the 3,100 ton quota would be divided up among the

twenty-nine boats, and then they would be able to catch the crab when they were

ready to catch it.

Mr. Speaker, that recommendation came about as a result of a

problem that is now being experienced in the crab industry, in that, apparently,

last year there was an oversupply. There is already, I believe, now, an

inventory of crab from last year. Consequently, I believe, with the exception,

maybe, of Fogo Island, most of the other plants are reluctant to start

operation, given the fact that most of them still have an inventory from last

year. That is what prompted the fishermen to ask that the vessels be put on

allocation.

I think the way it is now, you have four vessels from Fogo

Island in disagreement with that recommendation and they are now, I believe,

fishing. Of course, the danger is that if the other twenty-five refrain from

harvesting crab because of the market conditions, that the four people from Fogo

Island could very well use up the entire quota.

So therein lies the reason for the recommendation. I can tell

the House that my department supports the recommendation made by the twenty-five

fishermen in Gander that vessels be put on a quota, certainly for this year,

while this situation exists.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) supplementary.

MR. CARTER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker - I am not sure,

quite frankly. This was a meeting of the full-time fishermen. I am not sure what

their recommendation would be for the supplementary fishermen.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I call on the Member for

Torngat Mountains to introduce and debate his private member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am

privileged today to introduce this particular resolution. The resolution reads:

"BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the

importation for disposal of garbage and industrial waste from any jurisdiction

outside this province."

Mr. Speaker, a number of weeks ago - in fact, I think I

should go back to probably five or six months ago, a company called and wanted

to meet with our caucus to discuss a project that they were proposing for the

town of Long Harbour. We viewed the film, we listened to officials of the

particular company. It was very educational, very well put together, and the

film showed us that there was very little concern for this particular project

not going ahead.

Since then, we have met with the company on another occasion,

and recently, our party formed a committee composed of the Members for Harbour

Main, Fogo, and myself. We carried out a process in which we wanted to involve

as many people as we could in the time period allotted to us. I am quite pleased

today to notice that we have the Mayor and some councillors from the Town of

Long Harbour in the gallery, because I think they have an interest in this

particular project.

We took the opportunity, after the delegation from Long

Harbour came back from visiting three of those particular sites - I think it was

three they advised us - we met with the town council of Long Harbour. I would

think we had a fairly good extensive meeting. We have a lot of information from

the Mayor and his officials. I think they have done - and I must compliment them

- a good job in trying to sell their proposal. Mr. Speaker, I must note here,

too, at that particular meeting I think the mayor and others in council said

that they were conditionally - I think the word `conditionally' was used -

supporting the particular project. When I reported to our caucus I advised our

caucus of that, that they did say there are conditions attached to any support.

I can appreciate the hard work and energy that the town council delegation from

Long Harbour put into this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, from there, we went to a public meeting in the

Town of Dunville and there were sixty-four people in attendance at this meeting.

Those who were for the project, by our count - and I believe my two colleagues

can correct me if I use the wrong numbers - there were two who indicated they

were for the project and two others who had some reservations. The others who

spoke were outright against the project.

From there, we attended a meeting in St. John's, where I

think there were either seventy-five or seventy-nine people who came out. I

might say, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't call or request any organization or any

individual person to come to our meeting. We announced we were going to have a

public meeting and we left it to anyone who wanted to to attend. It was left up

to them, and those were the people who turned up.

At this meeting in St. John's there were also two people who

thought we should go ahead with the DIS. They were concerned about employment in

the Long Harbour area where people naturally, as in other communities, need

employment. Again, there were forty-four people who expressed concern that the

project was not sound enough to go ahead in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, our party took a policy form and travelled

throughout the Province on other issues. In several communities or several

forums that we had, such as in Carbonear, Clarenville, and down in the Grand

Falls area, people expressed concern, other than with regard to fishing or

mining or social services, about incineration.

Mr. Speaker, we came back, and I think it is fair to the

delegation from Long Harbour that we advised we will be making our decision a

few days hence. After viewing the facts and weighing the consequences, I think

the big issue out there, Mr. Speaker, the big issue that was coming from

practically all those who opposed the particular project, was someone else's

garbage. Mr. Speaker, that was the underlying current in all of our discussions,

somebody else's garbage.

Mr. Speaker, from there I would like to go back to what the

Premier now, who was the Leader of the Opposition, on Friday, September 16,

1988, said. Mr. Speaker, I think it is right for me to read some of this into

the record, just to show that, as an official Opposition sometimes you have to

take stands that could be popular to some people and unpopular to other people.

Here is a prime example of the decision that we took a few days ago and a

decision that the Premier took when he was the Leader of the Opposition several

years ago: The Liberal Party is opposed to the proposal from Canadian Ecology

Limited, and will be opposed to any similar proposal for dumping industrial

and/or toxic or potentially toxic waste in any part of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, now my hon. colleague, my hon. friend, the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture said dumping. Mr. Speaker, let me say to

the hon. minister, if he is going to speak in this debate, get up afterwards and

advise this House what is going to happen to it when it arises here? It is going

to be burned, but what is going to happen to the ash? What is going to happen to

the ash, Mr. Speaker?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just quote more from what his leader

says, the leader that they vacated a seat for. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said at

the time: Mr. John Efford, the Liberal MHA for Port de Grave, was involved in

all these meetings because of his concern for the possible impact upon the

Conception Bay fishing industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WARREN: Mr. John Efford, Member for Port de Grave,

was attending all those meetings, and he was concerned about the potential

danger to the fishing industry in Conception Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, are we concerned about the fishing industry

in Placentia Bay? Are we concerned about the fishing industry in other bays

around our Province? Sure we are, Mr. Speaker. Sure we are. But, Mr. Speaker, I

am wondering if this particular government is.

Mr. Speaker, I find this very ironic, we get our Premier

going throughout Canada and the world talking about foreign overfishing on the

one hand, and here on the other hand he is allowing the foreign waste to come

into our Province. On one hand he is against any foreign overfishing, and on the

other hand he is allowing the foreign waste to come into our own Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier at the time said: from the

information given to us we have identified the following concerns. And you know,

Mr. Speaker, I did not see this statement when we released our findings to our

caucus, but I have to read those three or four concerns that the Premier at that

time identified.

Number one: the wastes to be stored are hazardous. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the waste to be burned at Long Harbour is hazardous. There are also

risks involved in transportation, handling and storage of these wastes. That is

exactly what we are saying, Mr. Speaker. There are risks involved in the

transportation, storage and handling of the wastes, and I don't think the

company has come clean. The company has not come clean on those questions.

The third one: there is the unanswered question of why a

company would want to go to the trouble and the expense of hauling industrial

garbage right across North America to dump it in Newfoundland. Now that is what

the Premier said back in 1988, and that is the same question that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are asking today. Why would somebody, if this is so

good and it is going to employ a number of people, and there are a number of

people unemployed in the United States, so if it is such a good project why are

they transporting it into our Province?

We have the reputation of being a healthy, friendly,

environmentally sound Province, but we also have the reputation of the Newfie

joke, Mr. Speaker. And to me this is beginning to be a big Newfie joke. I don't

know if I can quote correctly, but a person by the name of Mr. Squires, I think

he was a ham radio operator, he spoke to a meeting in St. John's, and I gather

from the statements that he made to us he has been having a lot of contacts

through his hobby of his radio operating - that he has spoken to many, many

people. He said that when they talk to someone, the first thing they say is:

Where is Newfoundland? So he will explain to them where Newfoundland is and then

the next day he would contact the Department of Tourism, or some other

department, to send literature to this particular person, whether the person was

in the United States, in England, or in Brazil. But recently he said, when he is

on his radio now talking to somebody, the first thing when someone says: Where

is Newfoundland? Someone else will bump in: That is where they are going to burn

the United States garbage. Already the word is out there. The word is out there

that Newfoundland is a place where you are going to burn the United States

garbage.

Back in 1988 the Minister of Environment at the time was the

hon. Jim Russell. We know, and those in the House, the Minister of Health, the

President of the Council, the Minister of Fisheries, that is about all that were

in here then, I think - oh, the Minister of Agriculture was here; we can

remember then the big racket, the big public meetings on Bell Island.

Let me say to my hon. colleague: Yes, there is a big

environmental mess in the district of Torngat Mountains, and this government is

not doing anything about it. It is the mess in Kitts Michelin where BRINEX has

left everything the same as Albright and Wilson has left it in Long Harbour.

BRINEX has done the same thing in Kitts Michelin. That is what is of great

concern for us, that this government is not attacking the environment problem in

our Province.

It is most interesting. My colleague from Grand Bank read

today, and I have to read it again because I think it is most interesting and

coincidental what the Premier said in 1988. Newfoundland would become not an

environmentally safe, relatively pollution free area, a reputation which it now

enjoys, but a place which is so impoverished and so desperate that it has to

take in other people's garbage. Do we really want to become North America's

garbage dump for the sake of a few jobs?

I want to say, that is the question that we have to ask

ourselves. That is the question that we have to ask ourselves in bringing this

debate to the Legislature today.

I cannot see how the government can amend this particular

resolution, because it just says,

BE IT RESOLVED and either we do it or we do

not do it. Maybe the government may come along now with their typical political

manoeuvres to amend this particular resolution. If they do, so be it, but at the

end of the day we will be calling division on finding out who in this

Legislature is for or against this particular resolution. We will know by five

o'clock this afternoon who is for or who is against this particular resolution.

Now let me continue by saying that since we made our

decision, I believe I heard the Mayor for Long Harbour on expressing his

opinion, which I think is fair and proper for the mayor of a municipality to do.

He has an obligation to his community and likewise we, as members of this

Legislature, have an obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, also

including the community of Long Harbour.

Since we made our decision we have, I will not use the word

'bombarded', but we have literally received hundreds of calls, and letters from

various groups. In fact, it was only just two days ago I got a call wanting me

to set up a meeting with the Federation of Wildlife in the Province. I would

think that in the next few days we will be meeting with them, and they have a

large, large membership in their organization.

I had a call today from a particular teacher who has a

petition now, with in excess of 17,000 signatures. It is ready to be presented

to this Legislature, but those petitions will continue to grow, because this is

an emotional issue. This is a very emotional issue that strikes the heart of

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It is the thought of us cleaning up United

States garbage. That is the big issue here. We have a job in our Province to do,

and that is to clean up our own garbage. I say to the hon. Member for Carbonear,

who is not in the Legislature now, that one of the biggest messes in our

Province today is the incinerator in Carbonear. That is one that this government

should take serious action on immediately. That is one of the biggest concerns,

and it will be talked about more in due course.

I say, at the same time, we took the opportunity to visit the

site at Long Harbour, to visit what is left at Long Harbour. The minister said

she went up for a helicopter ride a few days ago. I hope she went to Long

Harbour on her helicopter ride and flew over the phosphorous plant and the mess

that is left there. The Premier said in this Legislature it is going to take ten

to twenty years to clean up the mess. At the same time I understand from the

Premier's comments, and talking with the company, that North American Recovery

and Albright and Wilson, are not very far apart. They are intertwined. They need

this project in order to get money to help to clean things up. That is the

impression that the company left with us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, they have to

clean it up, but when? Twenty years down the road? They should be cleaning it up

now. Which they are not really doing. That is the problem. That have not put

enough effort in doing the clean up over there. There are many people in Long

Harbour who could be employed tomorrow in the clean up.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking

about.

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, I may not know

what I am talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, and I do not care who has said it. But I

say to my hon. colleague, I may not know what I am talking about, but I am

concerned about the environment of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to

have a few words to say about this particular resolution. Before I get started

on the resolution I would like to make something perfectly clear. Let there be

no doubt about what I am saying. We will not become a dumping ground for

garbage. We will not become a dumping ground for industrial waste or toxic waste

or anything of the sort. It will not happen. So let's make that perfectly clear

before we get started with this particular resolution. Let there be no doubt at

all in anybody's mind.

Now the resolution that is put forward here today seems to be

fairly simple. I do not think the hon. member read the resolution out, but I

will read it again, if I may. "BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project

that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and industrial wastes" -

and I assume the hon. gentleman meant 'and/or,' because simply putting both of

them together creates a problem - and/or industrial waste - "from any

jurisdiction outside this province."

It seems to be pretty straightforward. The hon. gentleman in

his speech referred specifically to one proposed project that some money has

been given to by the federal government to have a look at developing an

incinerator. That is what he spent most of his speech referring to, although he

did mention some other industrial development projects, past and present.

As we have said many times, in terms of this government, no

proposal has been presented. But I want to seriously point out something about

any such proposal. We are bound by the act.

MS. VERGE: You can change it.

MR. BAKER: I understand that. We are bound by the act,

and this particular act, Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Assessment Act and its

regulations, gazetted Friday, October 5, 1984 and brought in by the previous

government, Mr. Speaker, bound the Government of the Province to a process. It

absolutely bound the government, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact,

Section 5

simply says that the Crown is bound by this act. The hon. Member for Humber East

shakes her head, but I am just reading from the act. The government is bound by

the act and there is a process to follow. The Minister of Environment and Lands

today read out some of the comments that were made at the time the act was

introduced into the House of Assembly and it is a process to ensure that what

happens in this Province is proper from an environmental perspective. The reason

it was brought in was to ensure that, number one, there was protection of the

Province, number two, that the people of the Province were informed of all

aspects of a particular proposal, and number three, that government should not,

on the spur of the moment, make decisions that they might later regret for the

good of the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for this particular

act. It is there, and government is bound by the act. That is the first point I

would like to make.

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution - and I would like to say

before I go any further that a lot of the general sentiments expressed by the

hon. member, we agree with -

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course.

MR. BAKER: - as I indicated at the beginning. We will not

become a dumping ground for anybody. But we are in a changing world. The world

now is a lot different from what it was ten or fifteen years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Now, I am serious about this and the hon.

gentleman should listen if he wants to learn something.

We are in a changing world. Very recently, we had a

collection of toxic materials, toxic wastes, collected in this city. They could

not properly be disposed of in this city. These wastes were collected here in

this city and transported to Ontario for proper disposal. That is the type of

world we are in.

In this Province over the years we have had tremendous

problems with PCB's. We have had tremendous problems with lots of toxic

substances, and finally, there are agreements whereby certain centres will

accept materials from other centres. It is called helping each other out. It is

called cleaning up the environment. And we experienced that here recently. So we

are in a different world. We are in a different world in terms of what I will

loosely refer to as garbage because the hon. gentleman mentions that in his

resolution. Any project which involves importation or disposal of garbage, and

there is a problem with that definition, Mr. Speaker, because, suppose that -

and I am looking down the road now - suppose that a company were to come to us,

or there were to be some agreement amongst some provinces, let us say, that all

of the glass in the Maritimes would be brought to Newfoundland, all the garbage

that was glass would be brought to Newfoundland for recycling, and all the

plastics would be brought to PEI for recycling, and so on, what about if that

type of a development were proposed? That is garbage. I would suggest to the

hon. member that a proposal like that, if it were found, through the process, to

be environmentally safe, and if it were explained to the people, would be

acceptable. I would suggest to the hon. gentlemen that it would be totally

acceptable. So we are in that kind of world, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of

world we live in, a world of environmental awareness and a world of, hopefully,

more co-operation in solving our environmental problems and in solving our

recycling problems. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as worded by the hon.

gentleman, would prevent any government from ever taking

part in such a process.

Mr. Speaker, there are other things happening in this

changing world: the regulations that are now being developed all over the world

in terms of the use of paper; and it started in the United States, I believe,

but may spread to many other parts of the world, that paper companies, in order

to sell paper, must have a certain percentage of recycled paper. That is

garbage.

Why couldn't we bring in from Nova Scotia, or New York, as

the case may be, waste newsprint, newspapers, de-ink them and use them in the

process so that we are then capable of selling our paper on the world market, a

world market that is now insisting on having a certain percentage of recycled

materials? And we don't have enough in this Province to provide it - we would

have to bring it in.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would not allow even that to

happen, and we will dwell on that in more detail later. But this resolution

would not even allow that to happen, so this resolution is a short-sighted

resolution. I am not criticizing the hon. gentleman's intent, because we agree

with the intent.

This is a short-sighted resolution, a very poorly worded

resolution, a resolution that is indicative of a lack of long-term planning and

a lack of understanding as to what this resolution would actually commit this

Province to. Mr. Speaker, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, that if they saw a

parade that they want to jump in front of to lead, if that is what they are

doing, and that is what it seems to me they are doing, then at least, they

should have taken the time to think about the implications of any type of

resolution that they would bring into this House, that it would bind the

Government of this Province to. At least, they should have taken the time to

think about it and examine the meaning behind their resolution, instead of

simply looking at the surface and seeing this parade out there and saying I want

to jump in front of that parade so I am going to do it now. I am going to do it

now - Aren't I good? - jump in front of this parade.

Instead of doing that, they should have thought about this

sensibly, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to amend the resolution to fit the

reality of what I believe is the intent of the members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, help them out.

MR. BAKER: I am going to help them out. I move, seconded

by the Member for Twillingate, that after the word, 'Province', the following be

added: comma, if such a project is registered and evaluated as required by the

Environmental Assessment Act, and is found to be either ecologically unsafe,

socially unacceptable or contrary to the will of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, this amendment, if ruled in

order - and I am confident that it should be - would take into account: number

one, that government is bound to go through the process by law, by our own act

enacted in this Legislature, and that this will ensure that projects that go

against the will of the people of the Province, will not happen. So, Mr.

Speaker, what could be more democratic and what could be more all-encompassing

than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move this amendment and would

like Your Honour to have a look at a copy.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from what the

member has said that he is totally changing the intent of the resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the hon. member is on a point of

order?

MR. TOBIN: It is a point of order. Yes, Mr. Speaker, a

point of order, I said.

When one's intent is to change the intent of the resolution,

then I submit that it is out of order. The Member for Torngat Mountains wants

the resolution passed, because the resolution he submitted was to be passed

without any changes. Because what would happen here if what has been stated by

the amendment - I don't have a copy of the amendment yet that the member

introduced.

Mr. Speaker, what the member has said here is: "BE IT

RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland immediately reject any industrial

development project that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and

industrial waste from any jurisdiction outside the Province."

The intent of the resolution that is put forth by my

colleague was not to have any studies, not to have anything put in place, but to

cancel, as was suggested, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier of this Province back in

1988 when we, as a Province, decided that there would not be an environmental

impact study. The Premier of this Province, at that time, stated, "The

government's decision is the right move and the only sensible position. It is

exactly the position we have taken from the beginning," said Mr. Wells.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier states there, what my

colleague from Torngat Mountains has asked this House to pass is one resolution.

What the Government House Leader has asked the House to do is an entirely

different resolution from what has been presented there. I submit that it

totally changes the intent of the resolution, and I ask Your Honour to rule it

out of order.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member got up and spouted off for a couple of

minutes, but hasn't quoted a single reference or anything else. I suppose he is

saying he believes that we should not allow the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment, number one, even if he were

correct in his assumption, does not change the intent of the resolution to start

with. It simply brings the resolution in line with the law of the land right

now. The House cannot order government to break the law, in terms of the acts it

has to follow. It still says that this project be immediately rejected, Mr.

Speaker, which I assume is the intent of the hon. gentlemen opposite, to

immediately reject it, provided that it is shown to be environmentally unsafe,

socially unsound or against the will of the people. Now, if they don't want to

go by the will of the people or whatever, that is up to them.

Mr. Speaker, there are several Standing Orders about

amendments and we go by our Standing Orders before we go anywhere else. "A

motion may be amended: (

a) by leaving out certain words; (

b) by leaving out

certain words in order to insert other words; (

c) by inserting or adding other

words." In this case, Mr. Speaker, I have added other words. Then it goes on to

describe how Your Honour deals with each of the cases, Mr. Speaker. I have

simply added some words. This has been done many times over my seven years in

the House with Private Members' Resolutions, where words have been added, Mr.

Speaker, that adjust a motion.

I would submit to Your Honour that because of Standing Order

36 this motion is in order.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to concur with the remarks of my colleague from Burin

- Placentia West. Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if any project - it

doesn't have to be dumping of garbage into this Province - if any project of any

nature is found to be either ecologically unsafe, socially unacceptable or

contrary to the will of the people of the Province - who is going to determine

that, whether it is contrary to the will of the Province? Only the government

can make that determination. The government will determine that, whether it is

contrary to the will of the people.

Doesn't the President of Treasury Board think now that this

Long Harbour project is contrary to the will of the people of this Province?

What more proof does the President of Treasury Board and the government want?

There is overwhelming support against the Long Harbour proposal, I say to the

President of Treasury Board and to members opposite, and I submit to Your

Honour.

Now, this changes the intent of the resolution, Mr. Speaker,

and I don't think we need to say too much more about it. What the President of

Treasury Board is doing here is trying to squirm and pick a hole in the member's

resolution, and I don't think it is worth spending too much more time talking

about. It is just his way of trying to get about it now so that the members

opposite can vote for this amended resolution. That is what the President of

Treasury Board is trying to get, because they know full well, the right thing to

do is to reject this proposal outright. The government can do that, to say that

there will be no environmental impact study, there will be no feasibility

studies. The government can do it, the government before them did it, and why

don't they do it now and leave the member's resolution as put forward to this

House?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. I tend to

agree that the wording of the resolution is perhaps unhappy because it was sort

of hastily drawn up to coincide with a policy recently developed by the official

Opposition, but I still think that the intent is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker.

The intent is that there not be a process, there not be other conditions or not

be any soundings, but that there be a statement of policy by this House as to

the attitude towards the notion of importing garbage and industrial waste into

the Province. I think that intent is quite clear in the resolution. It should

have been, perhaps, supported somewhat to make it even more clear; nevertheless,

the intent is there. I think, to accept the resolution proposed by the President

of Treasury Board is, in fact, to change the intent of the motion, and it ought

to be rejected as being out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House briefly to take a look at the

resolution and to determine it's acceptability.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page

175, clause 567, first of all, which says: "The object of an amendment may be

either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to

present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original

question."

Clause 568 also says: "It is an imperative rule that every

amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed

amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or

amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself."

Also, and this is in line with our own Standing Orders,

clause 569 says: "A motion may be amended by (

c) inserting or adding other

words."

The last quotation I wish to make for hon. members is on page

175, clause 572: "An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a

proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be

moved."

This particular resolution doesn't go that far. It is just an

expansion of the resolution. For these reasons, I declare the amendment in

order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have a few words to say on this

resolution sponsored by my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains. As the

member pointed out, I was a member of that committee who heard approximately

forty-eight briefs. We heard somewhere in the vicinity of forty-eight briefs,

most of which were overwhelmingly against this particular concept that the

government is dealing with right now. I believe we had four briefs presented to

us, four verbal presentations, people who were in favour of it or who wanted to

wait until the environmental process had been completed. I want to commend the

people who presented briefs to us. They were very knowledgeable in what they had

to say. Everyone, almost without exception, when presenting their brief, you

could see from it that they had researched the issue quite extensively and were

expressing opinions that proved to be very knowledgeable.

We also met with the Long Harbour town council and I must say

it was a very good meeting that we had with the Long Harbour council as well.

They have taken a certain position on it which may not meet with the approval of

a lot of people. But we were encouraged with the fact that they did indicate

that their approval was pretty well conditional upon health and environmental

standards being set and met and approved. So we were encouraged by that fact,

that, while they did give approval to the project, it was not total outright

approval, that it was pretty well conditional upon health and welfare standards

being maintained.

Also, as the Member for Torngat Mountains indicated, we did

have the opportunity on that visit to Long Harbour to go down into the plant

area, to visit the Long Harbour plant area. Not officially, mind you. But we did

go in to the gate area and saw the environmental damage that has been caused

over the last twenty or twenty-five years. There are a lot of environmental

problems in Long Harbour, as the Member for Torngat Mountains has indicated. It

was a big surprise to me quite frankly. I had not been in Long Harbour for about

a five year period. To see the scar that has been left upon the landscape in

Long Harbour is quite... it's quite an eye-opener. It is quite a setback to see

actually the environmental damage that has been caused over that twenty or

twenty-five year period.

We were appalled really, given the fact that the plant has

been closed down now for a period of... what is it? Around three years the plant

has been closed down? It certainly appears, on the surface, that there has been

virtually no clean up in that area. Now there might be some that have occurred

that we were not aware of. But when you look at that monumental heap of slag

that seems to be dozed right out into the bay, you cannot help but be appalled

at what industry can do to a landscape, what industry can do to an entire area,

if it is not responsible in the way it is dealing with the environment.

Hopefully, that clean up will continue and hopefully some day Long Harbour will

be restored to its original form. Although to look at the plant area right now,

you would say that is almost impossible.

Getting back to the people who did present briefs to us, I

would like to say that the one common thread that I found all throughout the

briefs that people presented, the one common thread that seemed to prevail in

all presenters, was not only the health and the welfare, or the health and the

environmental factors involved in the whole thing. That was not the only concern

that people were expressing. It was not only the obvious toxins that are going

to be left as a result of burning garbage in Long Harbour, and the toxins that

have to be disposed of. That was not the only concern that people were

expressing. That was not the only concern at all. What they were really

concerned about, the one common thread that prevailed throughout all the

presentations, was the fact that they could not see Newfoundland importing

garbage from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. Or anywhere, for that

matter.

The importation of garbage seemed to be the big point that

people dwelt on. Not only because of the toxins and the various levels of

dioxins and mercury and lead that is going to be put off into the atmosphere -

even though there was an awful lot of concern associated with that - the one

common thing that people seemed to be mentioning was, why should we be importing

garbage from anywhere in the world, the United States notwithstanding.

So importing garbage does not sit well with people generally

around this Province. We do not want to become the dumping ground for anyone. If

the burning of garbage is such a good thing, then let Uncle Sam burn his own

garbage, and let Uncle Sam dispose of his own ash and everything else that is

associated with burning garbage. This is what people seem to be telling us. They

said, go back and tell the United States that we do not need their garbage. Let

the United States burn their own garbage, and let the United States dispose of

its own problems associated with that, being the ash and everything else.

Given the fact that we are getting a lot of our own air

pollution here in Canada from the United States, in the air, because of the

heavy industry in the United States - and it is blowing pollutants all across

Canada and probably a good portion of North America - it seems that we would be

adding insult to injury by taking in garbage from the United States of America

into our relatively clean - now we are not perfect either, but taking garbage

into our relatively clean, pristine environment here in Newfoundland and

Labrador seems to be adding insult to injury, and what for? Just to keep the

Americans happy, and just to deal with the problems that they have down there?

I was appalled, as a matter of fact, the other day when I was

listening to talk about preparations for the conference down in Rio de Janeiro,

which our leader will be attending some time next week. To hear that the

President of the United States, who is an individual apparently who is very high

on the clean up of the environment, was not all that anxious to sign the

environmental treaties that are going to be brought to the conference floor in

Rio de Janeiro. He was not very anxious to sign those environmental treaties,

and was not going to attend the conference unless they were watered down

somewhat.

That indicated to me the commitment, or the level of

commitment, that the United States has toward the clean up of the environment,

when they were not even willing to sign the existing treaties that they had

there - the very strongly worded treaties. The treaties actually had to be

watered down so they would be acceptable to the United States, and they could

then go to that conference and sign it up.

It is a very emotional issue. It is an issue that has really

gripped the hearts and minds of Newfoundlanders. I think it is an issue that the

Newfoundland government, notwithstanding what the President of the Council said

today, it is an issue in which the Newfoundland government has to take a more

active part. They have to demonstrate a little bit of leadership. I cannot see

for the life of me why this government is not demonstrating more leadership in

this regard.

The Premier the other day, under questioning here in the

House of Assembly, said he wanted to wait for an environmental impact study to

be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he wanted (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Well that could very well be; but let me

remind government, and let me remind all members, that there are nine hundred

and some odd thousand dollars allocated for an environmental study here. Nine

hundred and some odd thousand dollars that could be better spent in this

Province, believe me, given the fact that we have thousands and thousands of

Newfoundlanders out of work, going to the breadlines every single day. Why do we

have to waste nine hundred and some odd thousand dollars on an environmental

study when it is simply a case, or a matter for the government to enunciate

their policy; stand in the House of Assembly; say we do not need garbage from

the US; we are not going to have an environmental study, and that is it? It is

as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: It is the taxpayers money, no matter where it

is coming from. If it is ACOA, if it is the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, no matter where it is coming from it is the taxpayer's money and it

can be spent much more wisely than on a foolish environmental study for

something that we do not want and that the public are not going to put up with

anyway. Mr. Speaker, it is about time that this government took some kind of a

leadership role. I was very disappointed in the Premier the other day when we

made our position known, when the Leader of the Opposition stood and said: we

are foursquare against this. The Premier's response was: well, you had to find a

bandwagon to get on or a parade to lead. Now, that is a responsible statement

for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to make, that we were looking for a

parade to lead. Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken

quite loudly on this particular issue. They do not want to import garbage, not

for any reason, notwithstanding the health and environmental concerns there are.

I guess what we can deduce from what the Premier is saying is that if the

Environmental Impact Study proves to be okay we will go ahead -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. DOYLE: Oh, the members are saying, no. In other words

we are going to spend $900,000 so the government can say, no, we are not going

to go ahead. Why is the government not coming into this House and making its

views known and saying: we are against this and I do not imagine that the

proponent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make, as

difficult as it is to make any points in this chamber -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island if he

would restrain himself? The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Harbour

Main and that is the member who should be heard in the House at this time.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I am trying to make is that if the government would

come into the House, stand and say: we are against this particular proposal, we

are against the importation of garbage, then I do not image the proponent would

even bother to register this particular project, because if he registers it and

the thing continues on for another four, five, six, or eight months, however

long an environmental impact study takes, then we are going to have $1 million

of taxpayer's money spent on something that government had no intention of

approving in the first place. Is that the message we are suppose to be getting

from the government?

DR. KITCHEN: Crosbie money.

MR. DOYLE: Crosbie money says the Minister of Finance.

Well, let me remind the Minister of Finance that the Crosbie money is

Newfoundland taxpayer's money as well.

DR. KITCHEN: That is not our problem.

MR. DOYLE: That is not your problem. Oh, I see. Mr.

Speaker, I will be anxious to hear the Minister of Finance on his feet when I

sit down.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has to take a

more active role in this and say quite plainly, and quite bluntly, that we do

not intend to become the dumping ground for anybody, whether it is the Eastern

Seaboard or any other part of the Unites States or any part of the world. It is

a simple matter as well for government to come in with a piece of legislation, a

one clause bill which would get very speedy passage in this House, stating

exactly that government will not accept imported garbage. The Opposition has

taken a leadership role and have done the responsible thing. People are

concerned also on this particular project - and I was surprised that the

President of the Council did not deal with it when he stood. 3500 tons of

garbage daily is being burned in Newfoundland and Labrador. What does that

produce, Mr. Speaker? It produces 115 tons of toxic fly ash per day and it

produces 500 tons of bottom ash per day, some of which is toxic as well, 3500

tons of garbage a day for a twenty to a twenty-five year period.

I remember at one of the public meetings we had, one

individual got up and he said: do you know what kind of a pile that will be of

toxic ash in Newfoundland? Thirty-five hundred tons of garbage a day, for twenty

to twenty-five years? I cannot remember exactly what he said, but he said

something to the effect that it would be a hole about 123 or 125 feet deep. He

said: about the height of Confederation Building, the hole would be, and I

forget how long.

MR. WINSOR: A kilometre by a kilometre.

MR. DOYLE: A kilometre by a kilometre, I think it was.

Can you imagine a hole the depth of Confederation Building of ash, a kilometre

by a kilometre? Toxic material leaching into our environment, leaching into

Placentia Bay? That is what we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker. I have read

quite a great deal on this over the last number of weeks. An awful lot of

documentation has been given to us by people making presentations who have gone

through a great deal of trouble to get this documentation.

This one, which is a very interesting one to read, and I

would recommend it to all members, the Environmental Research Foundation in

Washington. It simply says: incineration package. I will copy it for every

member if they would like to read some of the eye-opening things that are

contained in here. I wish I was a chemist so I could understand some of the

stuff that is in here. The amount of mercury that is going to be produced from

this, and the amount of lead and cadmium, I think they call it, and the toxic

fly ash that is going to be going off into the environment on a daily basis.

I have heard people who are in favour of it say: they have

scrubbers up in the stacks that will take all of this. One individual mentioned

to me today that: even if a scrubber in a stack was 99 per cent effective, with

3,500 tons of garbage per day, you would still have one ton of toxic fly ash per

day going off into the environment, blowing God knows where, eventually settling

down on the ocean and adding further chaos to the dwindling fish stock that we

have. Can you imagine? Even if a scrubber in a stack was 99 per cent effective

you would still have one full ton of that stuff going off into the environment

every single day.

So you have 115 tons of fly ash going out, you have 500 tons

of bottom ash that is going to be lying there for a period of twenty or

twenty-five years. We are told it would have to be encased, entombed. I was

reading in this particular document that I have here that even the encasement

that they put this stuff in has been known to break. The toxic leaching inside

has been known to break down the encasement that it is in. The stuff has a

tendency just to go wherever it wants to.

So what we are talking about here is very serious stuff. You

know, it is like cancer. Twenty-five years ago when people were talking about

cancer there was: cancer was caused by smoking and what have you. But now we

find that cancer - they are coming up with a whole lot of different things that

cause cancer. Asbestos, pollutants in the air, and what have you. This is a

relatively new technology. It is not all that old. So who knows what they are

going to come up with ten or fifteen or twenty years from now, that this stuff

is causing. I wish I had -

MR. MATTHEWS: The old environmentalist over there, the

old biologist, you would think he would be dead set against this, the way he

went on about the spray and everything; and now he is here trying to wiggle a

way through. It's shocking!

MR. DOYLE: But there was one little sheet here, Mr.

Speaker - I don't know if I have too much time left, it is only a couple of

minutes - but there was one little sheet here that really caught my eye. It

asked: Are there valid reasons for people to be worried about air pollutants

from garbage incinerators? The incineration of garbage, often called "mass

burn", " resource recovery" or "waste-to-energy", seem to produce the family of

toxic chemicals known as dioxins. The dioxins are partly released from the

smokestack of the incinerator, and they are partly retained in the ash, which is

eventually sent to a landfill.

Given that mass burn produces dioxins, whenever someone

proposes a mass burn incinerator for garbage, we need to ask ourselves whether

dioxins are really dangerous to humans. No one seems to doubt that they are

harmful to animals. The only unsettled question seems to be whether they are

harmful to humans.

On April 8, 1986, the Journal of the American Medical

Association, with a team of doctors and scientists reported on their study -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - of 154 humans, who had been exposed to that

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you finished?

MR. DOYLE: No, no. But if you give me just one minute to

finish off this paragraph?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DOYLE: They reported on 154 humans who had been

exposed to dioxins during a two-year period and their study of a controlled

group of 155 people who had not been exposed to dioxins. The exposed group had

lived for two years in a trailer park where dioxins had been mixed with waste

oil and sprayed on roads to suppress dust and what have you.

The doctors reported no difference in the medical histories

of the exposed and non-exposed groups; physical exams showed no difference;

studies of blood and urine chemistry showed no difference; neurologic tests

showed no difference, yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait twenty years.

MR. DOYLE: Now, that is the point I am coming to. - yet

doctors reported that protective cells in the immune system of the dioxin-

exposed humans were reduced in number or impaired, not operating at peak levels,

compared to the immune system of the unexposed controlled group. The results

were expressed in terms of impaired liver function, and in terms of impaired

T-cell characteristics, whatever that is, and it is the immune system in humans

that fights off disease, so an impaired immune system would expose a person to

risk of disease from this particular operation. So that is reason enough, Mr.

Speaker, to turn this down.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, please.

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

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take away from

anybody's time because the debate is quite interesting. There is good

information coming the debate, particularly from the Member for Harbour Main.

But I would like to ask where the Minister of Environment and Lands is; I mean,

notice was given of this motion. It is probably the most sensitive environmental

issue that we will debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) absence.

MR. MATTHEWS: Never mind about her absence, she is

probably hearing me, but all I am saying is, I think it is only right and proper

for the minister to come in and listen to the rest of this debate, because it is

very important, there is good information coming forward and the Minister of

Environment and Lands should be subject to that, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is very particular (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, it is

obviously not a point of order. The member is trying to get on with some kind of

a political tirade about whether a member happens to be in the House at the

particular moment or not, Mr. Speaker, and, Your Honour, knows that is quite an

improper kind of thing to do in this House. Mr. Speaker, if there is any point

of order, it is that the hon. gentleman opposite, is very seriously out of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will take the time allotted to

me, twenty minutes, however, I do want to make a few, what I consider to be

pertinent points in this debate. I want to take it back a year ago, when a

company called North American Resource Recovery made a proposal, suggesting they

would be interested in a project in Long Harbour. The proposal was referred to

as a "Waste and Energy" proposal'. Mr. Speaker, the word at the time was that it

would provide a use for a facility that was now closed down.

It may expedite the environmental clean up in Long Harbour, a

monumental job, a job that has been indicated, probably one of the biggest

environmental undertakings ever, certainly in the Western world. It might take

twenty years under normal circumstances and cost untold millions of dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was, in a sense, a precedent. I have

been in this House since 1975 and I had never heard a proposal coming to

government or anyone else to establish in Newfoundland an "energy-to-waste"

facility. So there was no precedent, I suppose, in that sense. I suppose the

government's position was that we have in place an environmental assessment act,

the strongest act, thanks to the previous government - Mr. Peckford's government

brought in an Environmental Assessment Act, the sole purpose of which was to

determine, in the better interest of the Province, in the better interest of

anyone who had an interest in the project.

So I would presume the government's reaction was simply: We

don't know if any of those things that you are saying are going to happen, will

happen. But register it, put it to the test, put it to the environmental

assessment test. Now what the Opposition should remember and the people of

Newfoundland should know, is that the Environmental Assessment Act does not

necessarily, or does not only, address the environmental issues. It addresses

the fiscal issues, social issues. Relative to the amendment, it addresses the

will of the people.

So we knew - totally, absolutely, completely confident - that

by referring this or telling the proponent that: if you are serious about this

proposal, register it with the Department of Environment and Lands, let it go

through the environmental assessment, and let's see what happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about

something being registered or not being registered in a few minutes, I tell the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, that was the government's position. It was easy. The

government gets all kinds of suggestions from people wanting to do things. I

have heard it said: It's too bad we don't have the technology to take the Island

of Newfoundland and drag it down to the Caribbean so it would be nice and warm.

Maybe, a thousand years from now, that technology will exist. Maybe someone will

come and make that proposal. The government of the day will have to say: Show us

how can you do it; use the Environmental Assessment Act.

The fact of the matter is that the Environmental Assessment

Act was there to protect the people of Newfoundland. Now, let me quote, as the

hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands did earlier today. Let's compare our

comparison. Before I do, let me talk about the federal government's role in

this. Let me talk about the fact that this project has been in the minds of

people and in front of us for a full year. Let me say that the $1 million that

Mr. Crosbie gave to this company was not for an environmental assessment - that

environmental assessment may cost millions of dollars - it was for a feasibility

study.

different position, and Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Reid were in a far different

position from what the Newfoundland Government was. You don't throw out $1

million of taxpayers' money for a feasibility study unless you are prepared to

let that project go if it is determined to be feasible. So where was the Leader

of the Opposition? He stood up here two days ago - and a year later he announced

asking them to take back the money, a year later, after a good portion of that

money has been spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you written them yet?

MR. FLIGHT: No, and we will not be writing them, because

we are not that silly. Because we are in control of what is happening in this

Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes! And that's what you are, there's no

doubt!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, where was the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition, as opposition from St. Anthony to Buchans to St.

Lawrence built? I will stand here and admit there appears to be opposition to

this project.

The Premier, yesterday in the House, in Question Period, put

it right spot on when he said this is not leadership from the Opposition, this

is push-ship - looking for a parade to jump in front of and say: We are heading

the parade. Where were they, if they were so concerned about the

"energy-to-waste" project? Why weren't they involved in the debate and providing

the kind of leadership a year ago that they want to pretend they are providing

now? It smacks of opportunism, it smacks a little bit of hypocrisy. And the

general public, as this debate rages, will see it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me throw something out to the hon.

House. Let me draw attention to the hon. House, and let the people of

Newfoundland judge our performance, in the "energy-to-waste", with the

Opposition's performance, when they were in government, with another major,

major undertaking, an undertaking that, in the end, cost this Province $23

million.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. John's East, on a

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. minister

is out of order. He is talking about something totally different. He is talking

about "energy-to-waste". What this project is all about is "waste-to-energy". He

keeps saying "energy-to-waste", so he must be talking about something else. I

think he must be out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Sprung greenhouse focused on

the mind of the general public of this Province more than ever the project we

are talking about now, importing American garbage, has focused to this point.

Letters to the Editor, groups, their own advisors were telling them they were

wasting poor Newfoundland's money. An environmental assessment of Sprung -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - would have dealt with the fiscal

possibilities of Sprung proceeding. It would have dealt with whether or not you

could have marketed and grown cucumbers in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We did it. I will tell you what the

government didn't do, and what we are doing, and you judge and let the people

judge our performance. They refused, the Minister of Environment of the day,

refused to have the project registered - would not permit the project to be

registered to come under the scrutiny of The Environmental Assessment Act.

When the hon. member stands up and wants to talk about The

Environmental Assessment Act, or the protection provided to the people of

Newfoundland, or doing the will of the people, let him explain with some

credibility how it was, in view of all of the concern that was expressed around

Newfoundland about the Sprung greenhouse, why was it that the Minister of

Environment of the day refused to register that project? - Why? - a project that

eventually cost this Province $23 million.

Mr. Speaker, there is no credibility in critics of this

government when they stand up and say they don't like the way we are handling

this. We are submitting this to the scrutiny of an Environmental Assessment Act

that will deal with the environment, that will deal with the fiscal situation,

that will deal with the social situation, and will, in the end, see that the

will of the people of Newfoundland is respected.

This is a broad resolution. I want to ask the Opposition how

far - and I am going to support, and I am sure my hon. colleagues will support

the resolution as amended, but I want to ask the hon. Opposition - and I am

sorry to see the hon. the Member for Humber East leave, because there is a very

pertinent issue for her to deal with here - How far is the Opposition prepared

to go with this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, today, in the paper milling

industry in this Province, in the production of newsprint, recycled paper is a

major issue. The companies' ability in this Province to stay in paper production

might be decided on their ability to import second-hand newsprint from the

Eastern Seaboard. Is that garbage? Is it? I want to know how far the resolution

goes. How do we know what is coming in with the tons and tons, with the barges

of paper? Will the Opposition go as far as to deny the people who make a living

in the production of newspaper the ability to import? Waste -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, up to this point in time, newspaper

waste was considered waste. It was clogging up the landfills all over Canada and

all over the United States. There is now legislation in certain provinces in

this country, and the United States says, We will not buy; if this sheet of

paper does not contain recycled newsprint, we will not purchase it.

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, in the district of the hon. the

member for Humber East: their major market is the United States. They are in the

process now of building a de-inking plant. They are in the process now of

putting in a facility that will cost millions of dollars, in order to recycle

paper. They cannot get that paper in Newfoundland, so will the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains, and the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for

Fortune, will they move and try to block what up to now has been garbage? Waste

newspaper in the world was considered garbage.

What about the mines? Was the hon. member from St. Lawrence,

when the St. Lawrence mine was going, standing up objecting to the fact that

hundreds of tons - trainloads - of hazardous goods was being (Inaudible) in this

Province in the separation process?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: I would like to see some of the hon. member's

speeches. Table where he opposed it. I grew up, Mr. Speaker, in a mining town,

fifty years nonstop production. Where millions of tons, trainloads a day from

Botwood, sulphur, reagents, cyanides, brought into Buchans for the separation

process. You know where most of it ended up? Well, where then was the Opposition

and the bleeding hearts that are suddenly saying: we will not permit?

What they want to do, Mr. Speaker, is they want to deny the

people of Newfoundland having a voice in this, having a say. They want to deny

the people of Newfoundland the right to the environmental assessment protection.

They want to deny them the right to have the thing aired, and at the end of the

day decide whether it is economically, environmentally, socially, or whatever.

The will of the people. So there is a lot of hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you call an election on it if

you're so (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the way you fellows operated,

you'd call an election about everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to have to

manufacture an Opposition. If you called an election in this Province this day

there would be no Opposition there. We probably would have to find a way to

manufacture one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: The hon. member from Conception Bay need not

worry if we decided to call an election today. Where he would be, he would be

out writing letters to the editor, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: He would not be here interjecting. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member for Conception Bay -

MR. DOYLE: Harbour Main!

MR. FLIGHT: Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker. Only he knows it.

I doubt if his constituents do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tells me I was

wrong on Buchans. Wrong about the fact that hundreds of tons of cyanide,

reagents of all kinds, sulphur, were brought in to Buchans and used in the

milling process and used in the separator - I am wrong in that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, but what else did you say?

MR. FLIGHT: Where it ended up. I will tell you what else

I said, Mr. Speaker. After it had gone through the milling process it ended up

in the Exploits River. Does the member agree with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: Where was all the - pardon me?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I did not refer to (Inaudible). I will tell

you where you were, Mr. Speaker. In 1981 you were presiding over the shutdown of

the Buchans' mines. That is where you were. You were presiding over the shutdown

of the Buchans' mines in 1981, if you want to know where you were.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) responsible (Inaudible). You

said -

MR. FLIGHT: I never said anybody was responsible. I just

stated a fact, Mr. Speaker. That there is hazardous goods coming into this

Province by the ton, and I want to know how far the hon. member - look, the hon.

member from Corner Brook is a farmer, and a very respected one. People will make

the argument about transporting hazardous goods. Whether it is a combination of

chemicals such as - how far will we go with this? How far is the hon. Member for

Humber Valley prepared to go? If the people of Newfoundland tomorrow decide that

waste being pulled off, the paper pulled off the Eastern Seaboard, to come to

the mill in Corner Brook or Stephenville, if they decide they do not want that

any more, where is the leadership here going to come from? Where is the hon.

Leader of the Opposition going to stand on that one?

I will tell you. I am going to end my contribution to this

debate now. I will tell you. If you ever had a situation of an Opposition

reeling in the polls - 12 per cent, I think, the last time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven!

MR. FLIGHT: Eleven per cent. The government, which is

dealing responsibly with these issues, at 70 per cent. Read the editorials. The

word that the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts looking for something to

grab on to. Trying to become relevant. Because they are irrelevant in the

(Inaudible) of this Province today, the Opposition is irrelevant. The Leader of

the Opposition is irrelevant.

I can understand - I say this with some respect. I can

understand the hon. House Leader and the hon. assistant deputy, deputy house

leader, and the hon. deputy, deputy, deputy - I can understand, Mr. Speaker,

their groping and looking for a reason for being. They need a reason for being.

The Opposition in Newfoundland today, Mr. Speaker, hasn't got a reason for

being.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. FLIGHT: And suddenly along comes an issue. Sensible

thinking Newfoundlanders, people who look at bringing in waste from the United

States, they see it as a stigma. It is bad. They say to me: It is bad, Graham.

They say: I know times are bad in this Province, but it is not that bad is it?

We don't have to import American or European garbage. I understand that, Mr.

Speaker, and I talk to them about it. I tell them: Look, we have in this

Province the greatest protection that any one people could ever have. We have

the Environmental Assessment Act, and that project is going to be subject to the

scrutiny of that act, Mr. Speaker. I would be willing to bet - No, I better not

say it, Mr. Speaker. I won't say that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I understand when this came along - a year!

It took them a year to recognize they had an issue. It took them a year, Mr.

Speaker, to recognize this might be something that somebody will say to us we

are on the right side of an issue. Let's run with this, and we will be seen. Mr.

Speaker, let me tell the hon. members opposite, and let me tell the hon. member,

my good friend from St. John's East, he has no issue here, Mr. Speaker. He had a

better issue when he tried to oppose low level flying. You think he would have

learned a lesson on that one, but it takes him a while to learn.

Mr. Speaker, by the time this debate is finished and by the

time the people of Newfoundland realizes exactly what is happening here and the

kind of protection they have under that act, and realize that their concerns

will be totally and absolutely addressed there will be no issue. You had better

find another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I tell the hon. House Leader if he is looking

for a star to attach onto, if he is looking for a parade to lead, if he is

looking for something that will bring him from 11 per cent to 13 or 15, if he is

looking for a reason to be relevant, he is going to have to find another issue

because he ain't going to win on this one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to support the

resolution as amended, and I want to congratulate the hon. House Leader for

amending the resolution in a way that will further protect and further clarify,

and further defend and protect the better interests of the people of

Newfoundland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and take

part

in this debate. After listening to the Minister of Forestry I am kind of amazed

as to where he is coming from. It reminds me of a story. I know it is a serious

issue, but it reminds me of a story that a geology professor told me back in

university a long time ago. The old expression 'a mad hatter' - everybody heard

the expression 'the mad hatter' and where it originated from. The theory, and I

don't know if it is true or not, the mad hatter came about from potters who used

to go around the countryside who had made up pots and pans to sell throughout

the country. Of course, they used lead as a solder to cement and hold the thing

together, and as a method of carrying them they quite often wore the things on

their head. Temperatures got fairly high on occasion, and there would be enough

lead in its form that would come out that eventually got into the system, and

because lead is cumulative it takes a number of years, they became kind of

foolish and became known as mad hatters. I don't know if the Member for Windsor

- Buchans was wearing hats for some time the way he ranted and raved in this

House today, Mr. Speaker. It made absolutely no sense. It contributed nothing to

the debate, absolutely nothing. The minister knows absolutely nothing about

environmental concerns because he is somehow - and I am surprised at the member

from Gander today who somehow tried to equate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: More than you did. He did more than tape

hockey sticks before he came in here. I will tell you that. That is the only job

you had before you came in here, wrapping up sticks.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) demand to take your money back if

you want to show some leadership instead of the foolishness you are getting on

with.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo. If the

hon. Member from Mount Scio - Bell Island wants to take

part in the debate he

can rise and the Speaker will recognize him. But I have recognized the hon. the

Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The same rules apply for the hon. Member for Harbour Main and

the hon. Member for Kilbride. There are no exceptions in this House.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed how the minister can

equate recycling and garbage. He seems to think that the two are the same. Mr.

Speaker, he seems to think that the ordinary household garbage, the batteries

that are collected, pampers and diapers, and you name it, Mr. Speaker, are all

lumped together into one thing with the pop bottles we take back from the

streets to the store where they have the blue boxes and everything else set up.

We are not talking about that, that is not the issue. We are talking about the

importation of garbage to the tune of 3500 tons a day with 20 per cent, if we

take the two of them, with 20 per cent of the fly ash and the bottom ash being

either hazardous or extremely hazardous, so much that for the fly ash the

proponents of this incinerator say that the fly ash has to be put in some kind

of a sealed container because it is so toxic.

They go on, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is going to be used

for making things like patio bricks. Now, Mr. Speaker, who would want to buy

bricks made from that fly ash or bottom ash? Mr. Speaker, it would be closely

akin to a situation a number of years ago when people all throughout the

Province, because they happened to have some good sand that came out of the

phosphorus plant, the slag, and they used it for softball fields throughout the

Province and discovered after, of course, all the radon gas came out of it and I

suspect those patio bricks would be similar.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of For