June 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine business for today I would like

to welcome on behalf of all members thirty-five senior citizens from Seaside

Senior Citizens Club in Hants Harbour from the great and historic district of

Trinity - Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of a

significant announcement made today in Baie Verte by my colleague the Minister

of Mines and Energy. This morning in Baie Verte, the minister, together with

senior officials of Richmont Mines, announced the start of construction of a new

gold mine and mill at Nugget Pond, near the community of Snooks Arm.

Construction will start immediately on the new mine/mill and

related facilities and will employ approximately 100 people during the

construction phase. The total capital investment for the project by Richmont

Mines is $15 million.

The mine has a projected life of four years and will employ

ninety people on a full time basis during the entire period.

Richmont and its business associates are conducting an

aggressive exploration program in the region which has the potential to extend

the life of the Nugget Pond project.

Richmont's Nugget Pond Project is one of three new mining

projects for the Baie Verte peninsula. The others, Ming Minerals and Raymo

Processing, are already in production.

The mining industry is becoming a growing force in the

renewal of our economy and is particularly important in rural regions of the

Province such as the Baie Verte Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, Richmont's Nugget Pond project was one of the

first mining projects to be designated an EDGE project. The EDGE status was a

major factor in enabling Richmont Mines to obtain financing

for the Nugget Pond Project at this time.

I wish to congratulate Richmont Mines on this successful

launching of the Nugget Pond Mining Project today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House want to join the minister in

offering congratulations to Richmont Mines, and we want to thank the minister

who was in Baie Verte this morning for arranging for the Member for Baie Verte

and my colleague to my right to be there as well.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the minister, and to the

government, that this is the kind of initiative that we on this side want to see

in this Province, want to see more often, and we want to note the 100 people who

will be employed during the construction phase and the fact that there will be

ninety people employed on a full-time basis for four years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good news announcement, and we join

the minister and the government in saying that these initiatives are to be

encouraged, and also it is proof the success of the EDGE legislation which this

party on this side of the House was very supportive of when it came before the

Legislature last year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, wish to join in congratulating the developers of this

project on the start-up of the mine. There was a time a couple of years ago when

the minister used to be called the Minister of Mine and Energy, singular, but we

now see there are other developments taking place which we are pleased with.

We would like to see as well, Mr. Speaker, from this

government some new amendments to the Mineral Tax Act, to straighten up the

problems they created, so we hope that the minister in his enthusiasm for the

new mine will not forget that we have to look after the whole mineral tax regime

before we can go any further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health, maybe the

acting minister, or possibly the President of Treasury Board. Will the minister

confirm that the University's Board of Regents is being asked to approve medical

school tuition fees this year that will see our students pay the highest fees in

all of Canada in medical schools, in fact almost 50 per cent more than the

second highest, which is Dalhousie University?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: My hon. colleague is away today

conducting business on behalf of the Province, and as he mentioned the other day

that decision will be made on behalf of the students by the Board of Regents who

will be meeting on June 13.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The average fees in first and second year medicine at

Dalhousie are jumping this year from $4,000 to $5,500 this year, but Memorial

has been asked to go from $3,000 to $8,000.

Will the minister tell us how they hope to entice students to

apply to medical school when the fees are as high as that?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do believe that the fees could be as high as indicated and

we do believe that positions in medical schools are ones that are sought after,

and while the price may be high, the quality of the medical school here, the

quality of the products are second to none, and we believe it will not impact on

the number of applicants applying to the medical school.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, to the President of Treasury

Board.

The minister would have us believe that the government does

not directly control medical school tuition fees.

Now, will the minister confirm that the medical school

budget, worked out in association with the Department of Health and Treasury

Board earlier this year, called for increasing the fees for tuition to $6,250

which is by far, the highest in the country, and will he confirm that since

then, the department's Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and the Department

of Health, under direction of Cabinet, intervened directly and essentially put

the gun to the medical school's head by demanding a fee increase of $8,000 a

year, well out of the reach of most students?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I previously mentioned, that decision and others related

to fee structure, is belonging to the decision-making Board of Regents. They

will be meeting, they will have to meet the requirements and they will make

those decisions and any others required, based on tuition fees when they meet

tomorrow.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister confirm that the

correspondence was received from the ADM of Finance and the Department of

Health, indicating an $8,000 tuition fee?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my hon. colleague, who is not here today, I

would not be able to confirm whether or not that letter has been received. I can

certainly pass the information on to him and he can confirm it on his return to

the House tomorrow.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister confirm that the current

assistance levels for students will not cover the cost of the proposed tuition

fee increases? In fact, won't the minister admit that students receiving the

maximum assistance available, will still have to find from $25,000 up to $30,000

by some projections, over and above, beyond what they would need and would

obtain through student loan programs. Where does she propose that students will

get that kind of money? And what does she feel financially stressed students in

medical school are going to do as a result - drop out?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Until we find out what the cost of the tuition will be, until

we find out the exact needs of the students, whether they are from out of the

Province, in the Province, their special needs, I am not able to comment on the

specific needs and requirements of each student. I suspect they will have to

apply for student aid, and will be granted student aid based on the requirements

in the guidelines set down.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware that schedules have been

done, and they have looked at the unmet needs of the students. That has already

been done and prepared and I am sure the minister, as a member of Cabinet, has

seen that, and seen the projections, and to indicate otherwise is not being

fully up front on the issue.

I understand that fifteen students are scheduled to attend

from the United States this year at a cost of $30,000 each. Now, isn't the

minister concerned that with enormous increases in tuition this year, well above

the second highest in Canada, 50 per cent higher, we are not only discouraging

students from applying to medical school in the future but, in fact, may be

scaring off students set to take spaces that are already reserved for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Does the minister have a death wish for our

medical school? Is she pricing it out of the market in preparation for closing

it down?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of the House of Assembly, I would like to say

that we are very proud of the graduates of the medical school of Memorial

University. They are of the highest quality, and they are second to none.

I also believe, as I have said with respect to the member's

comment about a Cabinet paper, we are not at liberty to discuss a Cabinet paper

which at this point in time has nothing to do with what the Board of Regents

will decide tomorrow when they meet.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are also very proud of the quality, and we hear back from

many students in the United States and other parts of Canada who compliment the

medical school, but we want the same here in this Province.

Why is it, then, if there are no plans - the medical school -

why is it, then, that the Board of Regents this year is getting a three-year

tuition fee plan for all other faculties and schools at Memorial University, but

they are only receiving a one-year plan for the medical school?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suspect that would be a question that would be very well

asked of the medical school, because I suspect that the Minister of Health has

spoken with them and asked them to identify a plan, just like we have asked

other groups in trying to meet the fiscal needs of the Province. When they put

forward a plan that is acceptable, then we will go on with the future two years

of the Budget as it relates to health.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want assumptions, I want answers. With tuition fees

well beyond what is covered by loans and bursaries, with the fees well out of

reach of the vast majority of families in this Province, how does the minister

hope to allow students from this Province to go into medical school, especially

students from rural areas, where the collapse of the fishery and economy means

parents just can't afford to put up those costs any more? Now won't she admit

that the government's greed in grabbing more tuition fees will actually

undermine our attempt to attract doctors to rural parts of this Province, since

rural students most likely practice back home and they won't be able to afford

to attend medical school now?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not see that this

will in any way impact upon rural students in applying to medical school any

more than it would impact upon any other group, if, in fact, it would impact on

them at all from this perspective.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what I am hearing from officials in the medical

school and also in the department. In fact, there are financially distressed

students and they are trying to look at a plan to deal with those. The minister

is not cognizant of that. Now, I charge the minister, she is out of touch with

reality, with the people they are elected to serve in this Province, if she

believes that. I ask the minister, how can she justify making education of a

medical nature a privilege only to the wealthy?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Time and time again in the House of Assembly we have

addressed the issue of a $300 million deficit. The choices we made were not easy

choices, they were difficult choices. On one hand we hear: Don't cut back on the

services we deliver to the patients of this Province, to the clients, to the

citizens of the Province. We have listened to the issues that were raised in the

pre-Budget consultation, we addressed the issues, we addressed the priorities.

We feel we are working within the mandate that has been given to us, and we will

continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask that of

the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did!

MR. SULLIVAN: Since May 16! I say to the minister, would

it not be more responsible to lower the barriers to education so that all of our

people have the opportunity to pursue the career of their choice, and so that

our Province can benefit from having physicians and medical specialists that we

badly need in this Province?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think there is an impediment to students picking the

career of their choice. While the medical students may in fact have to pay more,

I think it is fair to say, and you can verify it with Dr. May, that the cost of

university education on average, after increases, will still be the lowest in

Atlantic Canada.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are 50 per cent higher than

the second highest in Canada. We are triple to other schools in Canada and there

is documented evidence within the department, within the medical school and it

is general knowledge that students will need $25,000 to $30,000 extra in an

unmet need because of this. I ask the minister now, will the minister update

this House on what is being done to deal with that $25,000 - $30,000 of an unmet

need, when you consider loans, for financially distressed students? Can she tell

us what is happening from a departmental perspective to meet with those needs?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The general nature of

the whole issue is that the government, on behalf of the taxpayers - because we

have recognized the importance of education at the post-secondary level in the

University - gives a grant to Memorial University for all of its functioning,

including the medical school, in excess of $100 million per year and that should

not be lost on anybody. Over $100 million per year, from the taxpayers of the

Province is granted directly to Memorial University so that they can keep their

tuition as low as possible.

In the medical school, Mr. Speaker, the question that the

Leader of the Opposition might better ask is that while tuition for Newfoundland

and Labrador based students are being considered for increase, those decisions

will be made soon and finalized appropriately by the Board of Regents rather

than in this Legislature because that is not where it happens. They have their

grant from the government, Mr. Speaker. While it might be $7,000 or $8,000 for a

Newfoundland and Labrador based student, he might ask why it is that in other

seats that are available - because there are a lack of applications from

Newfoundland and Labrador based students for all of the spaces at the medical

school - that students from outside the Province, students from the United

States and other countries, Mr. Speaker, are willing voluntarily to pay $30,000

a year tuition to come to the same medical school in St. John's, Newfoundland

because that is the norm in universities and medical schools in the United

States, in other countries and they are coming here paying those tuitions

willing.

The Newfoundland and Labrador based students are paying much

less. Less than one-third of the amount if they wanted to go to a medical school

elsewhere. The fact that we have one of the best medical schools in the country

and that it is available to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, it gives

them an opportunity that they otherwise would never hope to have. We are proud

of the school and the fact that they have done the best they can to keep tuition

consistently as low as they possibly can.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If he is looking at

cost recovery, $30,000 is only a fraction of the cost of a seat in a medical

school in this Province. We are subsidizing 75 per cent of the cost of foreign

students going on the taxpayers of this Province, I say to the minister. I ask

him now, will he confirm that government has directly intervened from an initial

$6,250 that was worked out in conjunction with the Department of Health?

Treasury Board and the Medical School were aware of the $6,250 fee and that a

directive has come back from this government now that it is going to have to be

$8,000 to be able to make up the shortfall that you are not giving them of $1.1

million less than you budgeted last year. Will he confirm that?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely

inappropriate to suggest that any of the dialogue that has gone on between the

Department of Health and/or the Department of Education and the medical school

on one hand and the university, secondly, has any intervention. What we have

done clearly is indicated both to the medical school and to the University

generally, the limit of the financial contribution that they can expect from the

Province. It is in excess of $100 million and they have been told that their

choices, which are now to exercise, are to increase tuition or create other

efficiencies, Mr. Speaker. If, at the medical school, they are determined

through the best exercise of their judgement, appropriately the best exercise in

their judgement, that they cannot create other administrative efficiencies to

offset the reduction in the grant from the provincial government and if they are

convinced that the only choice is to raise tuition - but to have the ministers

of government suggest to them we make recommendations that they follow the

government's lead which is in every instance create administrative efficiencies

first and only as a last resort increase tuitions.

If that is called an intervention and if it is characterized

as such, then that is what the intervention has been, Mr. Speaker. It shouldn't

be seen as anything negative. It is a proper and appropriate dialogue between

the departments and the ministers responsible and the agencies providing the

educational opportunity to the students.

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

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

the Minister of Environment and Labour. This year as he knows is a mandatory

year for a legislative review of the Workers' Compensation act. Has the minister

made a decision when he will strike that committee, and when that committee will

go across the Province to conduct its review and to report back to the minister

on ways to implement changes that would be beneficial to the Workers'

Compensation act?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

member for his question. We have the terms of reference established and the

committee will be appointed very shortly, within the next week to two weeks. The

Cabinet has to authorize the appointments and that will be done in very short

order. We will then have public hearings around the Province and we would hope

the report can be finished late in the fall for government to consider for next

year.

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

Kilbride.

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

indicated that Cabinet has to approve the appointments. Am I to assume,

Minister, that you have appointments ready to be made? Can he indicate from what

groups, organizations or businesses those appointments are coming from?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have taken nominations

from a variety of groups. We have asked for nominations from the Employers

Council, from the labour groups in the Province. We have asked for nominations

actually from a whole variety of groups including members of the House and a

whole variety of organizations. That list is available to our government. We

will be making the appointments shortly from the list of nominations. It will be

a very credible committee. I'm looking forward to seeing the committee do its

work. It is very important work. We look forward to seeing the recommendations

that will come from the work that it does, and we look forward to seeing some

improvements made and making some good progress on Workers' Compensation as has

been made in the last annual report.

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

Kilbride.

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

that he is looking forward to the credible work that the credible committee will

do. Can he confirm today that the Injured Workers Association of Newfoundland

and Labrador either will be asked to make representation or sit on the committee

at the committee level to ensure that the Workers' Compensation act, which

ultimately affects injured workers in the Province, can he confirm that it will

either sit on that committee that he will, or his department will, ask it to be

one part of that committee? If it is not, can he inform the House of why not?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation

act affects all workers in the Province and all employers in the Province. We

have, and I have met, on two occasions so far with the Injured Workers

Association. A very credible group doing some excellent work. As a matter of

fact, some of the changes that it has recommended in the operations of the

Workers' Compensation Commission have been adopted by the Workers' Compensation

Commission. I'm again pursuing further meetings with them and an open dialogue.

But I say that the committee that will be appointed will be

done in very short order, in due course. When the committee is appointed

everybody will see that this committee is very much credible and will be able to

do its work. We will be working with the Injured Workers when the committee is

appointed to make sure that it has inclusion as we go forward to make sure that

it is able to make its representations in any part of the Province. There are a

number of groups that it has in different parts of the Province, part of its

organization. I've already said to it that I hope that it will take up the

opportunity to present its views at the different public hearings that will be

held.

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

for Kilbride.

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

indicated in the responses to questions that he has asked for a representative

to be brought forward from the Employers Council. I ask the minister: Why hasn't

he asked for a representative to be brought forward from the Injured Workers

Association of the Province? Ultimately the employers of the Province on the one

hand and the injured workers on the other hand are the two groups that have the

most to lose or the most to gain. Why has he not asked a representative from the

Injured Workers Association to sit on that legislative review committee?

Wouldn't he agree that it would make a beneficial addition to that committee?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have asked for

nominations from the Federation of Labour, which represents all workers of the

Province, including injured workers. As a matter of fact we have an injured

workers' advocate, an advocate hired with the Federation of Labour, paid for by

the Workers' Compensation Commission, to ensure that if any injured worker is

having a problem with the Workers' Compensation Commission, that they have a

place to go and get some advice, and that workers' advocate, by the way, has

been doing a darn good job, I have to tell you, doing a darn good job. So,

believe me, we will take into account what the member is saying and what the

injured workers are saying, but the Federation of Labour has given us

nominations as have other groups who are interested and involved in the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

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

allow one more supplementary.

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

Minister, the reality is that the Federation of Labour does

not represent all injured workers. The Injured Workers Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador represents injured workers and deserves a place,

deserves to be asked to have a seat on that Legislation Review Committee.

Wouldn't the minister agree that, in offering the Injured Workers Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador a seat on that committee would add to, not only the

credibility of the committee, but would add to the credibility of the

submissions that would come back from that committee?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that

the Injured Workers Association are going to make some strong representations to

the committee that will be set up independently to assess the presentations that

will come forward from a whole range of organizations. So there is going to be,

very much so, a major opportunity for injured workers of the Province to present

their views. That is what the committee is set up to do. If the member is saying

that the Federation of Labour does not represent workers in the Province, then I

am not sure who does, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is that they do, so we have asked the

Federation of Labour for nominations as we have, by the way, asked a whole range

of other organizations. So, in due course, we will come back with

recommendations and an announcement with respect to this committee. The

committee will do its work publicly, and we will come back with a report that we

will be bringing back to the Cabinet and to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Under the old Avalon Community College structure, the Seal

Cove campus paid its own way, but under the current Cabot College system the

Seal Cove College campus is being butchered. It has already lost its welding,

carpentry, auto body and auto mechanics courses and is now about to lose its

sheet metal and its Business Education Program.

Can the Minister of Education today, table the needs

assessment study and long-range plan that have dictated these cuts to the Seal

Cove campus, and then, lay out the course for the next five years, or will he

confess that the cuts are taking place arbitrarily in the absence of any such

needs assessment study or long-range planning?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't do what the hon. member asked in his question but I

would refer him directly to the Board of Directors for the Cabot College which

now has the responsibility for the Seal Cove campus.

I understand from the Board of the Cabot College that they do

have that kind of planning and mandating done for each of the campuses that

remains under their direction. Everybody understands as well, I do believe, that

the plan that will be unfolding in the next couple of weeks is for the whole of

the college system, including Cabot, to come under a single board which will

mandate the program in the plans for the nineteen remaining campuses that are in

the community college system, including the Seal Cove campus.

It is not the mandate of the Department of Education to run

the campuses or even to run the five separate colleges now. We again, Mr.

Speaker, fund the college system to the tune of $50 million a year so that there

are educational opportunities for post-secondary students in the system, and

each of the five current boards which will become one, make the plans and make

the decisions about the individual campuses like the Seal Cove campus and that

campus, Mr. Speaker is under the direction of the Board of Directors of the

Cabot College.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to then ask: Who is responsible for the

campuses? Who shut them down a little while ago?

Since the responsibility of the Seal Cove campus, Mr.

Minister, was transferred to Cabot College in St. John's, the decision-making

and the administration positions of the campus in Seal Cove have all been just

practically eliminated, and come September, there will be one secretary who will

be in charge to do the work for all the people or all the instructors who will

be now left at that particular institution.

Isn't the minister at all concerned in knowing that the

administration is far removed from the Seal Cove campus and are making rash

decisions that are destroying the high-demanding job- focused and very

successful programs in rural areas? Isn't he concerned about the consequences of

making post-secondary education less accessible than ever for the thousands of

people in and around Conception Bay South?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I understand from

the questioning, is that, the hon. member opposite, maybe, is reflecting the

view of the Opposition - would like for us to spend the money in the college

system on more administration in each of those campuses.

I am pleased, actually, that the Cabot College and others

have followed the direction of the government, which is to have the minimum

amount of money and effort spent in administration, and the maximum amount of

effort put into programming for the students, and I understand that is what they

have done in the Seal Cove campus.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I find that rather amusing

coming from the minister - funny in one sense, and certainly not funny in

another. The Seal Cove campus, as I said in my first question, was a campus that

paid its own way - paid its own way - and, at one time, was going just about

seven days a week offering all kinds of courses.

Will the minister make a commitment today to sit down with

the administration of Cabot College and representatives of the Seal Cove campus

to get working on a needs assessment study and a long-range plan that will

enable the Seal Cove campus to get back to providing accessible post-secondary

education to the people in the Conception Bay South area?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly send a copy of the questions that were asked

today via Hansard, to the board of the college, and they can have a look at it,

but certainly to correct the information, I think, is important. The notion and

concept that any of the campuses, the nineteen remaining campuses, in the

college system, pays its own way is absolutely without foundation. The fact of

the matter is that this year we are providing, on behalf of the taxpayers of the

Province, $50 million to the college system to subsidize what is going on in

those campuses. There has never been, and the expectation of government was that

there would not be - that is why we continue to provide the funding. If the

campuses in Newfoundland and Labrador had to pay their own way, the answer is,

there would be zero of them; there would be absolutely zero. None of them do.

None of them have. Seal Cove never did.

Now, if somebody wants to put aside any of the funding and so

on that goes into the actual structure of the building, and the maintenance, and

the clearing of the parking lots, and the heat and light, and say, on the basis

of how many students we brought in, and how many fees that they pay, we broke

even, and call that paying your own way, well, we could all do that, but that is

the only circumstance in which any campus in Newfoundland and Labrador could

suggest that it is paying its own way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: I take the questions seriously, and because

it is on the mandate of the Cabot College board, I will refer the series of

questions to the board for their consideration.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are also for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, in the House last week, in fact on June 6, the

minister promised to convene a meeting very early this particular week to

determine whether the department will get involved in addressing the serious air

quality problems causing disturbing health care problems at Donald C. Jamieson

Academy in Salt Pond, Burin. Has the minister had that meeting, and has he

reached a conclusion about correcting the serious problems at this, and perhaps

other schools in our Province, in preparation for the coming school year?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was a meeting yesterday with respect to the issue. My

understanding is that within half-an-hour or so there is another meeting being

convened today with representatives from the area meeting with departmental

officials, and the matter is being dealt with appropriately, as I understand.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House what

policies are in place to deal in direct and immediate response to these

problems? We understand that the children in this instance are experiencing

severe headaches, nosebleeds, extreme fatigue, eye and nose irritations, upper

respiratory problems, and I am asking the minister: What policies exist in his

department to effectively deal in response to these concerns?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The recommendations that have been made with respect to not

only Donald Jamieson Academy, but also others that have similar related types of

problems, is that the real answer is in terms of installing appropriate

mechanical air exchange systems. Everybody then understands that immediately

requires an outlay of some capital, and the money this year in the budget for

that kind of work is $4 million. There are also discussions going on that the

hon. member might like to be aware of, and people from the Burin area and other

areas where we have these problems, with the denominational education councils,

to make sure that we find an appropriate mechanism to determine what the

priorities are this year for the expenditure of the $4 million, and how much of

that, if any, will be spent on air exchange systems in comparison to the other

priority needs that are in the Province for construction, reconstruction,

maintenance and capital development. So those discussions are going on. None of

the work was expected to begin until school closed, and it will commence shortly

thereafter.

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative

session convened. This is a petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power having made some $27.8 million in

profit last year is not in need of extra revenue from consumers; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power in passing corporate income tax

increases onto consumers would be defying government's intention of ensuring

corporations dip into their profits to help bear the costs of public fiscal

responsibilities; and

WHEREAS the expanding low energy use market is a situation

Newfoundland Power helped create by advising consumers to reduce their demand

for electrical energy, and it would be wrong for the Public Utilities Board to

try and alter this situation by penalizing the consumers who heeded the

company's advice; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland

Power delivered electricity to heat their homes and instead use wood furnaces

because they cannot afford to do otherwise; and

WHEREAS differential rate increases, while penalizing the

poor for not using electric heat, will do nothing to provide them with the money

they need to pay for electric heat so as to increase the company's

competitiveness, but will force many to dip into their food budgets to pay for

the electricity they need for lights; and

WHEREAS it is in Newfoundlander's interests, and those

Newfoundlanders on low and fixed incomes who use the smallest amount of

electricity, since they have the fewest electricity run amenities, and it is

therefore the poor who will bear the brunt of differential rate increase, and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from fish resource crisis,

the general economic downturn, and deep government spending cuts, can

ill-afford, Mr. Speaker, increases in essential commodities like electricity at

this time;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates, and as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a petition signed by approximately 150

or 175 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have expressed grave concern and

distress about the situation concerning the proposed increase in electricity

rates in this Province. Essentially, the prayer of the petition spells out in

detail exactly why so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians object to these

proposed increases, and because of the many cuts and the situation that many

ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find themselves in they just simply

cannot deal with further increases in any way, particularly when we are talking

about an necessity such as power increases and any increases with respect to

electrical costs.

Mr. Speaker, during a private member's resolution several

weeks ago there was discussion about the role that the Consumer Advocate would

play. I only hope that in response to that private member's resolution that the

government of this Province has freely given of its resources, has freely given

of its personnel, has freely given of its time, to assist this Consumer Advocate

in carrying out his role in accordance with the spirit of the wording of the

private member's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand to present this petition on

behalf of these Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who feel aggrieved by this

proposed increase, and feel aggrieved by the fact that this government has not

played a sufficiently active role in counterbalancing what the proposed increase

is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to support

the petition so ably presented by my colleague for St. John's East, and on

behalf of the 1500 residents in his district who took the effort and saw the

cause to go out and sign a petition. A petition that implores the House to

listen to the voice of the ordinary person, listen to the voice of those people

who live on very low incomes, listen to the voice of those people who are the

rank and file, the ordinary citizen, the family who have difficulty balancing

the budget at the end of the week. So, Mr. Speaker, we say to the hon. member,

who presented the petition, that is the kind of representation that we need in

this House, a member who goes out and says that he is going to consult with his

people and bring back their voice and present it to this Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have made, on this other side of the

House, many, many representations. Nearly every day and in fact, I do believe

every day, there has at least been one petition to this House on behalf of the

people of this Province who want to raise their own concerns about the

application by Newfoundland Power to increase its rates to their consumers. Mr.

Speaker, it is not a question of profit. It is not a question of Newfoundland

Power not doing that well financially. They made $27.8 million last year. Now

how many corporate people in this Province made $27.8 million in profits last

year? They are the rich of the richest. They are the elite of the corporate

community. So we say to all hon. members, we are not talking here about a

corporation that would qualify for EDGE status, we are talking about the very

rich of the very rich. These are the kinds of people who could afford to send

their children to med. school because obviously they are the wealthy of the

wealthy.

So, Mr. Speaker, we say to the hon. House, when we present

these petitions, and I can say to members now that we will continue to present

them. A few days time we will present the largest petition ever presented in

this Legislature. It is on its way now, the very largest one ever presented.

Larger even than the one presented at the Battle for Confederation in 1949,

bigger than that and there were 50,000 names on that petition. The largest

petition ever to be presented in this Legislature is on its way to this

Legislature now. What is it about? It is about the application by Newfoundland

Power. Bigger than Joey Smallwood's petition in 1948, more names signed to it

than that. So we say to hon. members of this House, if that does not make you

listen, if that does not make your ears kind of perk up, than what will? That

petition in 1949 was sufficiently good that it caused the British Parliament to

say, let's hold on here now, maybe Confederation should be put on that ballot.

So these 50,000 voices at that time, they changed the history of the whole

Dominion of Newfoundland and they made sure that the Confederation option was

put on the ballot.

So we say to the hon. House today, when we present in the

next few days a petition that is 30 per cent higher in number than that petition

in 1949, we are talking about a huge demonstration, a huge voice, a solid voice

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we want this House to be warned

of what people are saying. We will continue day after day and if given the

chance, night after night, to present petitions to this House because we want

this House to know firmly and strongly, consistently and we want them to know

every day that the people of this Province are saying to Newfoundland Power: We

want our voices heard. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague, keep going

with the good work, bring in your representations from your people in St. John's

East and all over the Province because we have not had much by way of

representation made on this issue by members of the government. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that they have the petitions, they simply have not had the nerve and

that firmness and commitment to get up and to say what they should be saying on

behalf of the people who elected them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to offer support to my

colleague and to offer support to all people of Newfoundland and Labrador who

want the government and the powers that be, be they at the commission hearings,

be they here in this House or wherever they are, they want people to stand up

and speak out because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in these severe,

constraining economic times don't want to have another single dollar increase

put on their cost of living. That is what this application by Newfoundland Power

is all about.

We say to hon. members we want you to listen attentively, do

all you can as a government to make sure that the voice of the ordinary consumer

is heard, and that when this application comes before the PUB don't -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - hide behind the protection of the

government, but make sure you are there to speak up on behalf of your

constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to take a

couple of minutes in response to members opposite presenting petitions to the

House on behalf of their constituents, which they have a sincere right to do,

and I guess an obligation to do, to speak on behalf of their constituents on any

issue in the Province.

In particular I want to talk about the petition today that

they are talking about in this House as far as the role of the Public Utilities

Board, Newfoundland Light and Power making a request to increase the cost of

electricity to home owners. If they are really serious about what they are doing

- because the hon. member is saying that - putting that onus on members on this

side of the House, the government, to work on their behalf to get the rates

adjusted to the satisfaction of the consumers. Basically that is what he is

saying.

But if he was really serious about the process and explained

to his constituents, or their constituents, what the process really is, and that

there is a forum, if you are serious, to go and make a representation on behalf

of your constituents in a formal manner that can fairly get that representation

made. What did this government do?

First of all, we know where the responsibility lies. Do we

have problems? Do people out there, the consumers, have problems with finding

money? Yes, nobody is going to disagree with that, but there is a process in

place to deal with it. What did this government do? We appointed a consumer

advocate to represent the people. Have the members who just spoke met with that

consumer advocate and made representation on a personal basis? I doubt very much

if the member who just spoke has spoken on a meeting basis, on a timely basis,

and sat down and said the same words and made the same representation on behalf

of constituents, whether they are from his district or not, but people in this

Province, in the manner in which he just spoke?... I suspect he hasn't. I will

listen and hear an argument or a point afterwards. But if he hasn't - and I

doubt it very much - I suspect what he is doing is playing political games.

Getting up in the House day after day making the same issue

over and over again and pointing fingers opposite. It is just like we were there

till midnight last night doing what? Playing political games. Absolutely no

substance to the statements they made for four or five hours last evening, of

very little importance except to fulfil their own political needs and political

desires in the House. Like comments they made.

The people of this Province have spoken. The people know,

made the decision, they know where the best representation comes forth, and they

know what the role of the Public Utilities Board is, they know what the role of

the consumer advocate is all about, and members opposite should learn about it

too.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition dealing with Light and Power increases. Basically, to the

hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened - I won't

go through all of it. It says: Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray - and this

is important, Mr. Speaker - that your hon. House may be pleased to request the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do whatever is required - I say to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - to prevent an increase in

Newfoundland Power electricity rates.

The minister stands in this House and talks about political

games. There are five members on this side of the House who are making

submissions to the Public Utilities Board when the hearings are held. I sent a

letter six weeks ago to every minister and every member in this House and to

date I have not had a letter back from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

dealing with this issue.

Let me tell you what really is going on with the increase in

Newfoundland Power rates. We passed back in March an all-members resolution in

this House that would give the consumer advocate all the resources, financial

and otherwise, to represent the taxpayer and consumer in the Province. The

minister knows that, we know that, and that is what he talks about, that that is

what we oppose. We don't; we support that; but what we do oppose is that during

that private member's resolution government, in Cabinet, was discussing,

privately, with the Federal Government, tax harmonization. And what will the

impact of GST/PST have on electrical increases in this Province?

The fact of the matter is this, that the Provincial

Government - the Minister of Finance knows this; we have talked about it before,

that an increase in electricity rates based on harmonization of the GST and PST

will cause an 8 per cent increase in electricity rates. Now, that is beyond the

scope of the Public Utilities Board; that is beyond the scope of the Consumer

Advocate. As a matter of fact, the Consumer Advocate is not being asked to judge

that. The reality is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is Cabinet,

which is government, did not exempt electricity rates from the GST/PST

harmonization, and thus caused immediately, when that takes effect, an 8 per

cent increase across the board. Now, what will that do to the 35,000 to 40,000

families who are on social assistance, who have just been clawed back $61 a

month? What will that do to them? Has the government thought about that? The

Minister of Fisheries certainly has not thought about that. Is the Minister of

Fisheries going before the Public Utilities Board to make a presentation on

behalf of constituents in Port de Grave? I don't think so. Up until yesterday

his name certainly was not down as an intervenor, or he did not have intervenor

status at the board.

What we are asking is very simple, that government do

whatever is required, or government do whatever is in its power, to ensure that

electricity increases do not occur, or occur at the minimum level.

There are two issues here. What is before the Public

Utilities Board on the one hand is a request by Newfoundland Power for an

increase of 2.9 per cent. The Public Utilities Board, a quasi-judicial board,

will deal with that in due course. The Consumer Advocate has been appointed to

deal with that on behalf of consumers in due course, but government has before

it right now the full power to eliminate, to exempt, electrical power increases

from the GST/PST harmonization. They can exempt it if they so wish. They can

exempt it if the political will exists within the Cabinet and within the

government and members opposite for that to happen. To date we have not seen a

demonstration of that political will, and that is what these petitions are

about.

The Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, can stand up whenever he wants and talk about members on this side

presenting petitions, but let me assure him that as long as constituents in my

district are interested in presenting petitions to this House of Assembly on any

issue, then this member will stand up and present them, and the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture is not going to stop me or any other member on this

side from doing that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Party Whip, the

Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition so ably put forward by

my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. This is only one in a series that you

have seen presented here in this House of Assembly, and I understand from the

Member for Waterford Valley that there is another petition coming in with in

excess of 70,000 names.

AN HON. MEMBER: 75,000 names.

MR. FITZGERALD: In excess of 75,000 names. That can show

you the concern that is out there today, and it can show you the hardship that

is being experienced by many of our people out there in not being able to reach

into their pockets and come up with an extra $55 to $75 a month to pay a hike in

their electricity rates.

It is great for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to

get up and chastise the people on this side, and say: You are grandstanding;

there is no need out there; people are not hurting; you are playing politics.

MR. EFFORD: So you are.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is great for the member to do that,

because he can probably afford to write a cheque off every week and pay his

utility bill. God bless him for it! But there are a lot of people out there, I

say to the minister, who cannot do that. There are a lot of people out there

today who are hurting, and when you hear the Minister of Social Services stand

up and say there are in excess of 35,000 caseloads out there today on social

assistance, which represents over 70,000 people, those people cannot afford to

dip into their pockets, like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

bring forward a $55 or $60 cheque every month. They are not that fortunate, I

say to the minister.

What we are dealing with here, Minister, is a utility that is

already making $28 million a year -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible), are you (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I will represent my people, and I say to

the minister, I will write a letter when the time comes, and I will be there to

speak up for my constituents. And I hope you are there as well, not

grandstanding here because you want to be a player in Cabinet, not to

grandstand, Mr. Speaker, at the expense of the people who elected you. Speak

from the heart and speak for the people out there who are hurting today.

One of the reasons that this particular utility brought

forward why they were looking for a 4.9 per cent increase is that they haven't

had a rate increase since 1992. I know a lot of people out there today who

probably haven't seen a pay cheque since 1992, let alone an increase in what

they are making.

Mr. Speaker, when you see the utility in New Brunswick, the

biggest, the largest Crown corporation in Atlantic Canada, speaking out and

saying: It looks like we are going to have competition; we are no longer going

to have a monopoly here, now we will have to compete and the way we are going to

do it, is to be the utility of choice; we are not going out to look for our

utility to be privatized; we are not going out to look for a rate increase; we

are not going out to lay off people and those were three of the things that were

stated quite clearly. There would be no layoffs, there would be no rate

increases and we will not be looking to privatize this particular industry. What

we are going to do is, be a lean and mean machine and be a utility of choice.

Why can't Light and Power be like those people, I ask the

minister? Because it has the monopoly in providing this particular service. Why

can't it be like the utility company in New Brunswick and come out and show

where they can cut costs, show where they can trim management, if you would, or

whatever it takes in order to provide an essential service, an essential

commodity that is not a luxury any more today? And the people who will be

affected most of all are the people who use the least electricity. Those are the

people who will have to pay the highest cost.

It was only a few short months ago that they were sending out

little slips in the mail saying: conserve electricity, pin it on your

refrigerator, pin it on your light switch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

It is three o'clock, Private Members' Day.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad we had to interrupt the hon. member in full

flight but that is the rule, I guess, as Private Members' Day goes. I am not

sure how much attention was being paid to the theatrics. The content, we were

listening to, but the theatrics might cause one to be a bit testy after these

long, night sessions when we have had to listen to the hon. member at length.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to move

a motion to put a resolution before the House, on the packaging industry, I

suppose you could say, dealing with our environment. It is one that is very

close to home, I think, for everyone these days as we move from a society that

very easily disposed of anything and everything that came into your household

without a thought. Oftentimes, we wouldn't even give a thought to tossing a

piece of packaging material into the garbage can, with no worries or concern as

to where that would end up. And that is the way that the people, not only of

this Province, but people throughout North America and possibly throughout the

Western world, have looked at garbage in the past.

There has been a very, very strong shift with respect to an

awareness of the environment, an awareness that we can't continue to consume the

products that we consume, endlessly, and dispose of the waste created by the

packaging of those products, and even at times by the products themselves,

without some concern for where it goes, whether it will potentially be recycled,

or, in fact, if the amount that could be recycled can be increased, and the

amount that goes into landfills throughout the Province, and throughout the

world, is decreased. So there has to be some change, I guess. There has been a

significant change in the attitude, a lot of it brought about by our children -

children and young people who have recognized this probably en masse before we

have, through the education system, through the general greening of society,

where people are now much more aware.

It is a significant shift, but an important shift, because we

have gone from being a wasteful society to a better understanding of how we can

improve our lot and improve the future through preserving the environment and

the heritage of our wilderness areas and other parts of the Province and the

country that we leave as a legacy once we are gone from this earth, once we move

on and other generations take up the fight and take up the call to arms for this

kind of initiative.

Now, the resolution has been laid down, but I will put it on

the record officially. It says:

`WHEREAS the conservation and protection of our environment

is of paramount importance to our lifestyle and heritage in Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS it is the duty of government to implement and

maintain adequate regulations and enforcement to deal with the disposal of solid

wastes throughout the Province - ' and I do not think there is anyone will argue

with that.

`WHEREAS' - and this is something that is not often looked at

- `there is a stewardship requirement on the part of companies which package

consumer and other products consumed in our Province.' It could be a consumer

product, it could be an industrial product. It does not really matter, but

anything that has packaging material or the good or product itself that has to

be disposed of, does require a certain amount of stewardship on the part of that

industry in seeing to it that they have concern about where their product

packaging ends up. Because eventually - and this is happening also throughout

the Western world, you are getting a shift to responsibility for the waste

created by the producer of the product, not only by the consumer. It is a shared

thing by the producer.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution which states:

`THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED The House of Assembly,' those of us

here, elected members, speaking on behalf of our constituents, `encourage the

Ministry of Environment' - those discharging the responsibilities of looking

after our environment, `to implement a packaging waste program that will ensure

a reduction in the amount of solid waste committed to our landfills throughout

the Province.'

Now, if we look at the landfills, we only have to mention

here in this area, Robin Hood Bay. We have out in my own constituency a number

of these tepees which burn the majority of the solid waste garbage; the

exception of that can be put into the landfills, those items which are deemed

not supposed to be burned, certain plastics, and other items that the

municipalities and waste disposal committees are warned not to burn because of

some hazards associated.

In general, the burning of garbage is a waste. The heat that

is generated, and the smoke, and soot that is generated serves no useful purpose

other than adding to the overall pollution problem for all of us in North

America. It contributes to the depletion of greenhouse protection for our

environment and it also causes local environmental problems. I know you cannot

drive across the Trans-Canada Highway in this Province without the problem of

running into a given area where the waste, the soot and smoke from some of these

tepees crosses your nose as you drive through a given area.

That should not be, Mr. Speaker. It is not the kind of thing

we can change overnight, but we have to see to it that the amount of waste that

goes to these landfills is lowered, and that will enable us to be better

stewards of the environment. Really, we have to get the Ministry of Environment

to include and involve the producers of the products in this overall effort, for

us all to act as good stewards for our environment.

Just think for a minute what we consume as individuals. We

might not think of it, but the buying of groceries is something that is probably

instrumental in giving you evidence. You go out to buy your groceries in a

family. We have a family of six, my four girls and my wife and myself, along

with a cat. All of those consumables that you have - it could be a box of cat

food, it could be all of your grocery packaging - and you try to recycle what

you can, and the kids are getting into it quite a bit. I know, in our area, the

district recycling program is handled by the school board. They have implemented

it and have done quite handsomely, raised significant funds, through acting as

the local community stewards for this.

Again, there is still litter. Garbage has no value to people.

Unlike the old systems that they used to have in place where people would

recycle - the wooden crates for oranges would be used sometimes to build things.

A lot of that, the pallets on which they would bring in a variety of products

would be recycled and reused, the hardwood on pallets that would be brought in

for lumber and so on. These things were indicative because there was value in

the product waste.

These days a lot of things have no value although there is a

significant expense. I know, in some other provinces they have implemented

programs to create value in the garbage and that, in turn, translates into a

cleaner environment. That is possibly some of the route we will have to take.

Again, this is what we, here in the House, hope to do, encourage the Ministry to

implement a program that will help us act as better stewards of the local

environment.

Here in the Province, again to groceries, to think of the

amount - anywhere per individual, say $75 to maybe $150 per month per person

consumed in goods that are packaged, and that is a low figure - I use it on the

low side. Just to think of the amount of packaging. No one has ever sat down I

don't suppose, clear of someone who is an environmental activist, or some would

call some of us armchair environmentalists, and thought about just what it is

that we tend to throw away in the run of a month.

If you look at a company, and what does a company have in the

way of some sense of obligation on the product that it produces; if you go out,

say into the wilderness anywhere, on a hunting trip or whatever, there is no

trouble to find the name brands, the advertising or the packaging, the graphics

that are used - it could be Coca-Cola, it could be Pepsi, it could be any number

of the companies, not only in the soft-drink industry, it could be any number of

these companies, identified by the garbage that is in the environment. We have

to look at that and say to ourselves that it certainly is significant that even

though the product has been disposed of, the company's name is still there. In a

lot of cases, we can identify the companies that would put the packaging on the

material that we consume.

The companies try to do their best, I'm sure, and lessen the

amount of packaging. Some of them have implemented packaging mitigation schemes

where they lower the amount that you buy one unit and you buy refills that use

less packaging materials. But it isn't a very good science if you think about

it. Only to look at McDonald's, when McDonald's restaurants moved from their

former containers which were - I think there were problems with the number of

CFCs in the McDonald's packaging units. They then moved to supposedly the paper

type of products -

MR. HARRIS: A number of kids protested against that.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, at the time - just prior to that. It

wasn't realized. When they brought in the change, it was more environmentally

damaging. This they realized themselves, I guess. Through the process of a

proper environmental audit they realized that what they were doing did not have

the desired effect. Even though they were lowering their consumption of CFCs the

damage done through the other purchase of other materials for packaging and some

of the inks that were used, I think it was, could potentially cause more damage.

So it is not an exact science. It is something that we are learning as we go

along.

On our landfill sites, there was an example provided. I

travelled about a year ago I guess, about six months to a year ago, with the

Minister of Environment, at the time, to New Brunswick. An interesting program

that had been put in place over there by a company - a private company came in

and made a proposal to say that they could reduce the solid waste disposed of,

in a given area, by some 75 per cent. What they do is they separate and take the

garbage, using a separation area and all of the plastics are recycled, all of

the metals are recycled, all of the compostable items are put into a compost

area and they are sold. The basic solid waste that has no other recyclable or

reusable future would be put into the landfill and they have a very, very high

tech landfill and it is a money making proposition. A company is charging per

ton for access to this site and it is something that I think we have to look at,

given the quantity of garbage say here on the Northeast Avalon. Maybe throughout

the Province we have to come up with some variations on that as we try to lower

the amount of packaging waste.

The CSDA, the Canadian Soft Drink Association, recently

received government consent to go ahead with a program back a couple of years

ago, two or three years ago, and that would be an educational program where they

would try to lower the amount of packaging waste in the Province through

educating the public about the perils of littering, et cetera. The general

public, in my opinion, although responsible for a lot of littering - a shared

responsibility as I would put it with the industry - feel that this has not

succeeded. If you asked most people I think they feel that the program of

education and informing the public has not been a significant enough of an

incentive to enable us to keep the packaging from being strewn all over our

countryside. It is very, very disconcerting when you walk down the main street

of some of the communities and you see garbage in the ditches. A lot of it is

identifiable garbage of certain companies, other paper and other things like

that but again the garbage has not been made to be worth anything with the

exception of large quantities when recycled by a group, association or other

entity.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can I ask you a question?

MR. RAMSAY: Sure.

MR. FITZGERALD: Have you ever driven on the track from

Buchans Junction to Millertown Junction?

MR. RAMSAY: No, I never have.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is worth your while to go there. Rick

would probably know what I am talking about, between Buchans Junction and

Millertown Junction, the track there? I don't know how long it is, going across

there because you have to drive slow but there has to be 600, 45 gallon drums

thrown out in the bog, all the way along there. There is a hole or a couple of

holes in each one and they have been there for a long while. There are no

markings on them.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, and a lot of these things like you say,

it probably could be tracked or traced to a company or someone by some marking

somewhere or somehow to know who originally was responsible. That is probably a

key to it, I think, if we look at trying to make sure that industry stands up

and takes responsibility, in concert with the people who consume, for the waste

that is out there in our countryside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, Mr. Speaker, if I could have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can have leave, yes, go ahead.

MR. RAMSAY: I suppose the whole purpose of this

resolution, what is it we want to do? Well us, as the House of Assembly I

suppose, can do very little to protect the environment other than encouraging

the ministry of environment to implement certain rules, regulations and policies

which will help protect the environment. As I say, when your little

five-year-old comes back from Kindergarten and says: Daddy, we have to protect

Mother Earth, it makes you think that you have to do something, and encourage

the ministry to do something as well.

If what we have out there now in the way of enforcement, and

the policies that are in place with respect to educating our public, are not

working, we have to make some changes. We have to implement some better

strategies and some better policies that will see our environment protected, and

make it a pristine environment again for those tourists who come. You talk about

our beautiful Province; it is great for them to go to some areas and love the

landscape, and look at what we have to offer, but it is terrible when they see

the garbage that is out there in the environment when you go along any variety

of areas like that which the hon. member opposite just mentioned, and I think we

have to hold industry partly accountable. It is no longer just the individual to

be educated; industry must take responsibility for the packaging of their

products. They operate here in our Province. They sell their goods; we buy their

goods. There are two sides to any kind of contract. Our contract is to buy them.

They, in producing them, have a certain responsibility for the fact that their

goods were bought, to look after them.

Just as an example, in some states of the United States now

if they find abandoned wrecks, the manufacturer of that wreck becomes

responsible for retrieving it and taking it back, and the manufacturer of that

wreck becomes responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: We are doing pretty good with car wrecks

because they have value; they have scrap value.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, the teeth have to be there, but also, I

think, if you made our garbage worth something, through a deposit and return

system, or whatever might evolve, for some of it, or even a levy against all

packaged goods, then that particular area - the kids will scour up everything in

the countryside, or even all of us will, and that will certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well, they are right now, and I think they

are far ahead of us. They are better at computers than we are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Children are further ahead in this than

members of the House of Assembly.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, very easily. I would certainly support

the hon. member's statement there.

I will just allow other hon. members to have comments on

this. I think it is very important; it is very timely. We need to do something

about it, and I hope I can seek the support of all hon. members in putting this

forward as a resolution to get our Ministry of Environment hopping, and get them

doing some good things for the children, for our environment, and for the

future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and say a few words

on the Private Member's resolution put forth by the Member for Burgeo and

LaPoile.

Before I get into it, he just made a comment with respect to

the manufacturer of car wrecks being responsible in certain areas in the States,

I believe he referred to, where once they are abandoned, the manufacturer would

be responsible for cleaning up the car wrecks. I know that this Province has had

regulations in place now for some time where, once the serial number is

identified on a car wreck, the last owner can be responsible for having the car

wreck removed; so basically, I suppose, the Province is taking steps towards

that. I don't know how long it would be before they would decide to go that far

with it, to have the manufacturer responsible, but if other areas could do it I

would assume that this Province could do it also.

This resolution, to my mind, is basically a motherhood issue.

We all, I would imagine - although you would have to question it - would want

our Province to be nice and clean and tidy and pristine, but when you drive

around this Province sometimes you have to question that statement, that we all

want it to be nice and tidy and pristine. I have to say that nothing upsets me

as much as driving along the highway and seeing someone roll down their window

and throw out a fast-food package or what have you. I won't get into brand

names, but they are all on the highway; I can assure you of that.

It was only a few years ago that the former Minister of

Environment brought in a program basically to help educate the public with

respect to the problems of polluting our environment. We see ads on the

television now, and one of the very ads that is on television, of course, is the

situation I just mentioned, where you see a vehicle going down the highway and

somebody just takes a package, throws it out the window and it is left on the

highway. It is quite upsetting, I would say.

Along those lines, I know every summer when I was mayor down

in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove we used to have a clean up day. We used to

get the children in the schools to come along and we would give them garbage

bags and gloves and what have you on a Saturday, and maybe a couple of weekends,

and we would clean up the roads in our community. Next year, the exact same

situation. There would be nothing but beer bottles and packages and what have

you on the highways. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in front of my house

where I live in Outer Cove actually I go down and the whole length of my

property on both sides of the road I get a garbage bag and I go and pick up the

garbage on both sides of the road, the full length of my property, probably 300

to 400 feet along the road. As a matter of fact I've actually extended that now

to go to the adjoining road and pick up the garbage and put it in garbage bags

and put it in my garbage box and have it taken away.

Maybe there is something along that line that we could do and

ask people to just adopt a highway type of thing that they had going somewhere

along - within the Province adopt a highway, and basically make people

responsible to clean up the roads in front of their properties. But then again,

is that fair? You have to question that. Because most of the people who have

their properties would want to keep their properties clean anyway. It is people

who are driving along who throw the garbage out in the roads, which is wrong. I

believe these people should be ticketed and ticketed hard, or fined, what have

you. I'm not sure if this is in place or not, but maybe there is something that

should be put in place that if I see an individual throwing garbage out through

the car window, or whatever the case may be, I should be able to report those

people. I would probably need to have a witness. I don't know how you could put

that in place or how you could enforce it, but something needs to be done.

Another factor too with respect to this Province is I travel

the Province a fair bit, I have travelled the Province a fair bit in my

business, in my work before I came to the House of Assembly, and since, and I've

travelled the Province with respect to going in through Central Newfoundland, in

the Granite Lake area and in around Meelpaeg and up the Northern Peninsula. You

can see pretty well dump sites, I will say, along the sides of the forest roads,

which is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't hear what you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ATVs.

MR. J. BYRNE: ATVs. I would say the former executive

assistant to the former Minister of Environment and Lands should know something

about ATVs and the mess that he caused with respect to the ATV regulations in

this Province which isn't straightened up yet. So I wouldn't be so smart if I

was him sitting in his place over there to start throwing out comments about

ATVs when he has caused nothing but havoc and job loss in this Province with

respect to ATVs.

Back to the Central Newfoundland situation. I've been in the

woods, Mr. Speaker, and travelled fifty, sixty miles into the woods and seen

garbage on the sides of the road. I will tell you one of the biggest culprits

with respect to creating dumps in our interior is not necessarily

Newfoundlanders. Because I know when I go in the woods I take garbage bags with

me, and any garbage that we have that we can't burn I bring it out. But there

are people who come in from other provinces and been up the Northern Peninsula,

down in the Buchans area, down in the Meelpaeg area and Granite Lake area, and

left messes on the side of the road.

I've been there, I've seen it. I've talked to them and I've

asked them to clean up the mess, I said to some of the people. When I see their

licence plates - I won't name any particular provinces or states that they are

from - but they did get word a few years ago that there was a good area here for

hunting and fishing and they came in and they did create really big messes.

This resolution I suppose is a fairly good resolution if it

means something, if the government will take some action with respect to this

resolution. We oftentimes see resolutions go through this House and they are

unanimously approved private members' resolutions, and we don't see any action

taken by the government. They are just forgotten about. Now this is a resolution

that has some merit, I would say, with respect to the packaging of products in

this Province, and the packaging of products that come into the Province. I know

from my own perspective in my own home - and the Member for LaPoile addressed

this somewhat - is the amount of garbage that we produce in the run of a year in

this Province.

In North America and in particular Canada, I believe

Canadians produce more garbage per person than any other group or any other

country, because we are so used to taking whatever we have out of the package

and just throwing away the package.

I grew up in Torbay, and back then, the city of St. John's

had their landfill in, I think, on Empire Avenue where the Taxation Centre is

now, in that general area, and they moved it to Robin Hood Bay. And all the

garbage from St. John's was dumped and still continues to be dumped there. A lot

of the garbage from the Northeast Avalon, from Torbay, Pouch Cove, Logy Bay, the

area all around, is dumped at Robin Hood Bay.

Years ago, in Newfoundland, a lot of the homes had their own

little dumps, and we saw people throw their cans, bottles and their waste

products in their dumps maybe 200 or 300 or 400 feet away from their house. And

anything that could be burned, they did burn, which was probably a good idea at

the time. Today, a lot of products that could be burned are not burned because

people now have electric stoves and microwave ovens and so on.

Some of the older people, of course, have their barrels

outside where they burn all their waste products and they just throw away their

cans and bottles, things that can't be burnt. So you have to wonder, you know,

about the wisdom of the day, what people are doing and how we are polluting our

environment. I, for one, have some concerns as does, I know, the Member for

Burgeo and LaPoile, with respect to that because, of course, he brought in this

resolution.

Another area, too, where we have been neglectful with respect

to our environment in the past, has been some of the mine sites in this

Province. I have mentioned this a few times before and one that comes to mind,

off the top of my head, is the Baie Verte Mine. There is a very big hole in the

ground. And I remember, a few years ago there was a group lobbying to import

garbage into the Province to fill up a hole in Baie Verte. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that was quite an issue of the day. A lot of people were very concerned and

upset that we would even consider that.

I remember asking the Minister of Environment of the day to

bring in legislation to ban completely the importation of garbage, because if we

can't handle our own garbage, how can we actually manage to adequately control

the importation of garbage into this Province for final dumping. Of course, the

people of the day saw that public pressure was on and they decided to back away

from that, although what did happen was, they brought in regulations whereby

now, if people meet the criteria, if groups or companies meet the criteria, they

could actually bring in garbage and have it disposed of within the Province,

which I disagreed with at the time and I still do today.

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, young people ask me: What courses

should I take, what job should I look at, what is the future? Where should we

go? Where will I get a secure job in the future? And I often have to sit back

and think about that. Maybe, one of the areas or fields of the future, from my

perspective, to have some security - and I would suppose if the train of thought

continues and younger people continue to think they way they are thinking, it

would be to get into the environment. Some people say become a doctor, others

say, well, you should look at computers and so on, but the planet that we live

on, it is something that we have to keep safe for ourselves, our children, our

grandchildren and great grandchildren. So what legacy are we going to leave, Mr.

Speaker?

I think what we have to look at and keep uppermost in our

minds is our environment, because if we continue to pollute our environment, it

certainly will not be a very safe place for our children in the future. I think

I heard on the radio today or yesterday, talk about air pollution in the larger

cities; and I believe Cairo is probably one of the worst in the world with

respect to air pollution. Some of the larger cities such as Los Angeles, among

others, is becoming a major, major problem. So air pollution is becoming a major

problem, and that, too, needs to be addressed.

Now, a city like St. John's, or cities within the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, do not have that problem, I would assume. Although,

sometimes on a hot Summer day when we see some kind of haze over the city, we

are often told it comes up from the Eastern Seaboard, from some of the larger

cities down there. If that is the case, then I think it has to be dealt with in

a very serious and very timely fashion in the future, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing we need to address besides packaging, and dump

sites, when we talk about waste in the Province, is hazardous waste. We all have

hazardous waste within our households. Out in our sheds or garages we have

paints, sprays for lawns, paint cans half empty or half full, depending on what

your view is, I suppose, if you are an optimist or a pessimist. But we have

these products and now the City of St. John's, I believe, has appointed one or

two days a year when people can actually come and dispose of their hazardous

waste. Again, that is a good idea, and we have to compliment the City and the

Department of Environment for that service. It is a good service, I think, Mr.

Speaker, and maybe the people of the Province will try to utilize all the

products they purchase to cut down on waste.

Another point I would like to make while I am on my feet is

about the clean-up of the Argentia site. We know there is a lot of pollution in

Argentia, as a result of the Americans having used the base since back in the

1940s, and they have recently left the Province. It is a major project to clean

up that site. I know there are a lot of people looking to turn the site back

into a good prosperous area. They are looking now for this smelter, and in order

for the area to obtain the smelter, they have to address concerns with respect

to the major clean-up in Argentia.

We hope there will be enough money put aside, from the

Americans, to pay for that clean-up. Personally speaking, I would like to see

the smelter put there, I suppose like everybody else. It was promised, during

the election, in every Liberal district in the Province. I will not say every

district, because they were hoping to get some of the good strong PC districts

like Cape St. Francis and other districts. I don't know if it was promised in my

district or not, but if it wasn't promised in my district, that is the only

district where it wasn't promised. I suppose the people who were running the

Liberal Party felt they didn't have much of a chance to win that district, so

they didn't promise it down there anyway.

Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I think my time has pretty

well run out. I have a lot of serious thing I can say here, if I could get off

the topic, with respect to the Liberal Administration, but that is not the

intent of this resolution, I am sure. I say, I have no problem in supporting

this resolution. I think it is a motherhood issue. As I said earlier, there are

a number of private members' resolutions that have gone through this House, and

most times they are passed and forgotten about. Maybe the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile, if this resolution passes, will see that the government he sits with

does something about it, and brings in some regulations to put in place what he

is requesting with this resolution.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

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

Lands.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take time to, first off, express support for the

resolution put forward by the Member for Burgeo - LaPoile. He has put forward a

resolution that, I believe, has very much merit, one that is directly

administered by the Department of Environment and Labour, one where the

department has been looking at the different options as to a policy in dealing

with packaging waste when it comes to the packaging industry.

There are a number of initiatives underway in the last two to

three years to really gather up our homework when it comes to the environmental

situation in this Province. Getting a reading as to the number of landfills was

one exercise that was completed in the last twenty-four months. Once that

homework was collected, the department then went out and put a consultant in

place to do some public consultations as to regional waste management, and as a

result of those consultations, there are some regions in the Province now that

are starting to be formed together to look at waste management on a regional

basis, looking at the landfills that they have in a region, looking at the

number of landfills that should be required, the ones that are not required,

also identifying landfills that need to be cleaned up and shut down. That whole

exercise has been ongoing now. That homework is pretty well getting done. These

are important issues in regions, especially as regions are forming now to do

economic development in areas. So, as part of that exercise, waste management is

an important exercise and, on the overall, that plan is coming together now. It

is difficult for some municipalities because of their financial situation to

make as rapid progress as they want to make, but collectively and on a regional

basis, we are looking at the possibility of seeing some new initiatives take

place for regional waste management.

The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the

Department of Environment and Labour are working together to organize a plan

with the Federation of Municipalities to ensure that waste management becomes a

priority with municipalities in the Province. The Federation of Municipalities

deserve some credit, Mr. Speaker. This past year, for the first time ever, they

sponsored a conference on waste management on the West Coast, in Corner Brook,

where they invited community leaders to come and sit down and talk about

regional waste management initiatives and also to look at waste water

management.

So there is a lot of progress starting to be made. We are

getting our plans organized. These problems have been ignored for a number of

years in the past and we are into the mode of trying to figure now, where do we

go from here, and a lot of that homework is done. As part of doing that

homework, when it comes to regional waste management and looking at landfill

situations, looking at the recycling initiatives which have been underway for

some time now in the last two years, we have over 300 schools that have been

involved in recycling in the Province, from different parts of Labrador,

different parts of the South Coast, Port aux Basques - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Emerald School.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Emerald School, yes, one of three in

Canada who received the environmental award.

A lot of schools have been very much involved in getting

young people involved. If there has been anything for sure that has been

successful so far, is that recycling has definitely taken hold with young people

in the Province and it is starting to take hold at younger ages and in the

school system. As a matter of fact, a number of schools have moved into the

development of depots themselves to hand off recycled materials to the companies

involved, be it Nova Recycling or whoever else. So there has been a lot of

effort made in that area, recycling initiatives have been underway. Federal

funding has been available from Environment Canada to help with those

initiatives and that has made some progress for us in moving ahead.

As we see the recycling effort start to be picked up, the

problem that we have identified in moving ahead, part of the problem we have

identified, is stability within our recycling system. We need a stable recycling

system in the Province. We need a stable system that sees us in every region,

able to take up and get taken up, recyclable materials so that they can be taken

from landfills, diverted from landfills and recycled back. This will create

jobs, this will create a cleaner environment in this Province as we move ahead.

So we have been looking at and negotiating with the packaging

industry, for the last two years, as part of the direction of government to look

at a packaging industry and to negotiate to see whether or not they are going to

fulfil an obligation or fulfil a commitment that they had made in helping set up

and establish a recycling system in the Province, a collection system that would

collect materials that should be diverted from landfills and should be recycled

or reused.

Our negotiations with the PIAC organization, as they are

called, the Packaging Industry Association for Canada, were not successful, and

in December we decided to end negotiations with that organization, as did almost

all of the other provinces in Canada who were not successful.

Since we moved on from the point of no negotiation with the

packaging industry, we have decided now to bring forward some new policy

initiatives to deal with this issue. Over this spring and the intermediary time

we had an election, since then, the government being reformed - and I have been

lucky enough to sit in this portfolio again - we have moved on to develop a

further policy initiative and analysis that we will be bringing forward very

shortly now to the public, to government, to the House of Assembly. What we need

to do is get some stability in our recycling system in this Province. We need to

get some stability in the collection system. We need to see more involvement in

the system from private industry and from volunteer groups.

Mr. Speaker, I must highlight the Evergreen recycling system

that is set up here now by the Waterford Hospital in St. John's. They have done

an amazing amount of work. They are providing work for people who are trying to

rehabilitate. They have put forth a great deal of effort in recycling in the

Province, and they are now looking at expanding depots. We have been consulting

with them, along with a whole range of other groups, including industry,

including recycling groups and recycling companies, including a number of groups

in the public, as to where we should go from here.

As part of our analysis in the last 90 to 120 days in looking

at where we are going, we looked at what other provinces have been doing, other

provinces in Atlantic Canada, other provinces across Canada. We have looked at

what Manitoba has been doing. Manitoba brought in a levy system to deal with

packaging waste. They have had some success, but they also have a little bit of

a different set-up than we have in this Province, and we have done an evaluation

of that. We have also looked closely at New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. in

Atlantic Canada as to what they have done, and what they have brought forward,

and the results that they have seen, and the impact that they have seen. As a

result of that we have some options that we have developed for government's

consideration. They will be decided upon very shortly, and we will be making

some announcement further on that as we try to move ahead with a stable system,

to put some stability into our recycling system, in our collection system. So I

welcome the resolution brought forward by the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile as

we try to move ahead in this Province.

I was at a luncheon just a few days ago where Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador were doing a workshop with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Environmental Industries Association, and their topic of the workshop

for the morning was eco-tourism and wilderness tourism, and how both

organizations could work together. The results of the workshop, I am told, were

very positive, and there were some definite connections made as to opportunities

for the future. So there is that type of work being done by industry out there,

be it the environmental industry - which, by the way, the Newfoundland

Environmental Industries Association have been very active in the last two

years. They are the best in Atlantic Canada when it comes to environmental

industries. They have been promoting themselves quite well. We have well over

fifty or sixty companies in the environmental sector, and they have been doing a

very good job of it. They have been helping us, and we have been consulting them

with Round Tables every three or four months to get their views as to where we

go with environmental policy.

The other thing I would like to point out as we move forward

with environmental policy in the Province is that the Economic Recovery

Commission did a fair bit of work on environmental policy. As a matter of fact,

Adele Poynter, who is well qualified and did a tremendous job over there, she

did some very good work and produced a report which outlined the opportunities

and the problems, and we have looked at that carefully also as a consultative

document, along with other information that we have been provided and collected,

and that is also helping us in deciding where we go from here in the future.

You have to do your homework, and then you have to make some

moves to deal with the situations and deal with the problems. We have carefully

evaluated the options, and in due course, we will be providing some further

direction, I believe, which I think will be very acceptable - I hope it will be

acceptable - to the people in the Province and to our government. But we are

making some good progress, we have made some good progress, but we have also

identified that we have some problems in stabilizing our system when it comes to

recycling and collection, and also getting the whole effort taken up out there.

We need to see a higher percentage of return to our depots in this Province for

packaging waste materials. The percentages have not been good enough. We have to

find the mechanism and the policy that will see that increased; that is what we

have been looking at very carefully, and we will be very shortly moving forward

on that.

The resolution put forward is a timely one. It is one that

highlights also though very much the opportunities that will come out of new

changes and new policy changes that we can bring. In Nova Scotia I met with the

Minister of Environment just a few weeks ago. They have over 200 people working

in their recycling and collection system in Nova Scotia. It is working fairly

well, the new system they have brought in. We have looked at what they have

done.

So there are some opportunities there, especially in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and the urban centres, to see people get involved in

recycling and environmental opportunities. As we move ahead in a whole variety

of policy areas with the environment, be it in waste management, be it in

dealing with the landfill situation, be it in diverting from landfills packaging

waste, which we are now going to be looking at more seriously, we see

opportunities coming out of these initiatives.

We see in this day and age the environment has become more

important probably than any other issue that faces people on the planet. When

you look at it, we are blessed with, in many areas of the Province, very much a

pristine environment, but in some cases we haven't taken as much care as we

should have. But policies now today are reflecting the changes in attitude. The

Environmental Assessment Act reflects a change in that attitude. The act itself

which was implemented in 1980 ensures that protection of the environment is a

major factor in assessing any economic development. That act alone itself is

going to benefit and has benefited our people in the last number of years, and

it will benefit them in the future, because it puts the checkpoints in place for

evaluation of projects as we come forward and develop our economy.

Finding the delicate balance of sustainable development is

what we are all trying to do. We are trying to balance off very much the major

economic opportunity that is on our doorstep now, and look at also, as we move

ahead, how do we balance that economic opportunity, especially with the

development of resources, balancing it off with proper environmental monitoring

and environmental protection. That is the key point in sustainable development.

It is a delicate balancing act as you move forward. These are tough decisions to

make overall, but in the environmental sector, especially in the days of

deregulation in most government areas, we see that we may have to bring in some

cases more regulation. That is needed in some cases because of the fact that

sometimes industry does not respond as we hope it would, and we see that has to

take place in order to make changes.

I want to say too that the CSDA - the soft-drink association

- has done a very good job in its advertising efforts to deal with anti-litter.

It has put very many resources into that effort. It has also been involved with

the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Whose resources? It is the industry's

resources, so that is the industry resources. It is a cost of doing business,

you see. It is called stewardship.

Anyway, CSDA has put forward its plan of action which it has

performed, but we are also looking at the overall impact. We have to make some

policy changes that will reflect what we would like to see. The CSDA has

contributed to seeing the recycling system set up in this Province but

unfortunately it is not stable enough and we need to make some changes in our

policy to see improvements and see that system stabilized.

We give credit to what has been done in the past, the

attempts to do so, but we also have to move ahead, Mr. Speaker, to move forward

with environmental policy in the Province. It is important as we go forward with

1997 coming at us that we move ahead and create new opportunities in this area.

It is very important because many people also want to see change and they also

want to see improvements made. As I said, in this case regulation may have to

take place because it is one of the only ways that we can make it happen. We

look forward to seeing and bringing forward very shortly the changes in policy

that we believe will have an impact, that we see will have a very positive

benefit on people of the Province.

The adopt a highway program that was brought forward by the

hon. John Efford last year, former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, very much -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - a very positive effort. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I look forward to the other speakers in the debate. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to have

an opportunity to speak on environmental issues today. Although when I read the

resolution I'm a little bit shocked. It says: "Therefore

be it resolved the

House of Assembly encourage The Ministry of Environment to implement a packaging

waste program that will ensure a reduction in the amount of solid waste

committed to our landfills throughout the Province."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I've ever seen a weaker resolution

in this House of Assembly than this one that is presented today. I don't know

how it could possibly be any weaker. I don't know what need to be done to the

Minister of Environment and Labour, or the Ministry of Environment and Labour. I

mean, we have been giving them all the encouragement that we can. We have been

demanding they take action, we have been asking they take action, we have been

begging them to take action, we have been insisting they take action, and now

the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile wants to give them some encouragement.

What the minister needs is not praise and encouragement, he

needs a little bit of goading. Something of a sharper stick I think, because the

Minister of Environment and Labour could probably pass for the minister of good

intentions. The Member for Waterford Valley was just showing me a half an inch

thick of excerpts from Hansard of questions that were asked in this House since

1989 on one aspect alone of packaging, having to do with returnable soft drink

bottles. The minister in this House today gets up and praises the Canadian Soft

Drink Association for its wonderful work over the last two years in advertising

and literature.

That was the biggest con job on the public and government in

Newfoundland that the industry has managed to pull. Because about two years ago

there was enough momentum around to force the soft drink industry to have,

perhaps, some returnable soft drink bottles. Recycle them like beer bottles. Do

you know that 97 per cent of the beer bottles that are sold in Newfoundland with

beer in them, the bottles go back? They go back to the breweries to be refilled

and sent out again. They don't end up in the landfills. They don't fill up the

landfills like plastic pop bottles do, or like glass juice bottles do, or like

all kinds of other soft drink containers.

I don't think soft drinks are the only problem. Don't get me

wrong. But when you look at the ads put out by the Canadian Soft Drink

Association over the last two years it is very hard to find a soft drink bottle

in them! Very hard. You see a big pile of litter, and maybe over in the corner

you would see something that might resemble a soft drink container. It was a

disguise, it was a con job on the people of Newfoundland, and they did it not

with their money or industry money, as the minister said when I asked him. He

said they used their own, but they didn't use their own money. They got this

government to impose an environmental levy on every single soft drink container

in the Province and gave it to the industry to spend.

What did they do? They did another con job, a PR job on the

people of Newfoundland. They had their official spokespeople getting involved in

every opportunity they could, and every open line program or public relations

program and all sorts of stuff, to talk about the big problem of littering and

how the people of Newfoundland were filthy rotten people and they couldn't look

after themselves and they weren't looking after the environment. What did they

do? They shifted the blame from the industry which produced the problem, had the

means of solving it, onto the people of this Province.

Now, we are no saints. This is not Ireland. Ireland is the

land of saints and scholars. This is Newfoundland. We aren't all saints here.

People throw things in the environment. But that is not the principle problem in

an industry that has the means, and the government which has the means, of

solving this problem.

The minister doesn't need encouragement, he needs more than

that. He needs to be told that he has a job to do that is not a public relations

job for industry. It is all very well. He has PR people to issue press releases,

he has people who can engage in public relations on behalf of his department and

say nice things about the environment and speak the rhetoric. There is no

shortage of rhetoric on the environment these days. As the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile says, even the school kids are far and away ahead of this government

when it comes to recycling, to insisting on reusing and recycling containers,

paper, matters of that nature. Because they see in their own naive way perhaps,

they can focus on a small item and say this should be recycled, this should be

refilled or this could be refilled.

Whereas the minister is overloaded with the

garbage that he is getting, principally from the industry, Mr. Speaker, which is

trying to avoid it's responsibilities and has been successful so far because

they have managed to talk this government around in circles for the last eight

or nine years, this government and the previous government.

Now the Minister of Environment and Labour expresses his

interest and concern in all of this. They are quite delighted with voluntarism.

Even in the public service we have voluntarism in this issue but we don't have

government action. Does the minister know for example that the Workers'

Compensation Commission goes through all the trouble of shredding all kinds of

documents and bags and bags and bags of shredded fine paper and what happens to

them? They get picked up by the garbage contractor and brought to Robin Hood

Bay. The Minister of Environment and Labour does not do anything about it. He

probably does not even know about it, I would be surprised.

I know we have these boxes here and they are not even blue.

We asked for blue boxes and it took us two years to get them from the previous

minister. I would be surprised if that stuff is recycled. I would be very

surprised. I would like to see someone do an environmental audit, follow the

paper that goes into these boxes and see where it goes. I would be very

surprised if it does not go to Robin Hood Bay, Mr. Speaker, because I don't

think this Minister of Environment and Labour is serious about environmental

recycling, about environmental programs. This Confederation Building should be a

model not a voluntarism. We are happy to have that and I don't have any problem

with that. School kids and everybody get involved in the environment but let's

see some example from people who have the responsibility to set policy for

environmental issues in this Province. We don't see it, Mr. Speaker.

We hear the minister talk, talk, talk and we have yet to see

any concrete action from this minister other than having ongoing consultations

and discussions with the industry who are filling him with baffle gab, Mr.

Speaker. Filling him up with it so much that even during environment week we

could not even have a statement in the House. Maybe he was afraid that if he

came in and made a statement about Environment Week he would hear it from the

Opposition. He would not have very much time, a minute here or half minute there

but he was afraid even to face that. He hoped that he could come in here today,

this afternoon and have a real low key speech on a more lower key resolution,

`Be It Resolved that the House encourage the ministry of environment to

implement a packaging waste program that will ensure a reduction in the amount

of solid waste committed to our landfills throughout the Province.'

Mr. Speaker, how is that going to happen? It is not going to

happen unless this government is prepared to take some action and prepare to

make recycled materials worth recycling. It is no good to say go out there boys

and girls, men and women and collect 5,000 aluminum pop cans out of the

environment and we will give you five bucks. That's no good. We have to make

these thing worth something and the only way to do that is not with the - you

need the cooperation of the industry but you don't need their consent, Mr.

Speaker, because if you are going to wait for their consent you are not going to

get anything going. They don't want to do anything that they don't have to do if

it in any way, shape or form may interfere with their market or with their

market share.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is the absolute bottom line. The Member

for LaPoile is right, it is a total bottom line orientation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well maybe the minister asked him for some

encouragement. It seems to me whenever I get up in the House and bash the

minister verbally in the House, he thanks me. He says: Good, good, I am glad

you're doing that. I don't know whether he is a masochist or whether he feels

that is going to give him some clout with the other ministers. Maybe he can go

into the Cabinet and say: Look Harris is beating up on me again. Look will you

agree to something? For heavens sake, let me do something! Maybe that is why he

likes me yelling at him and bringing this up in the House but he needs to take

the bull by the horns and take on this issue. Never mind all these backroom

meetings with the soft drink industry and the Canadian Soft Drink Companies,

maybe they take him out to lunch and treat him well, look after him and talk to

him and present him with briefs and show them this and show them that, I mean

they can go around the world for the next ten years and look at what other

people are doing, but let us look at our own backyard, Mr. Speaker, let us look

at the House of Assembly itself, let us look at this building, let us look at

government and what government programs there are and let us look at the

possibilities that can be implemented.

You know, I have raised this in the House on a number of

occasions. You know, you look at the minister, the Department of Public Works,

every month publishes the exceptions to the Tender Act, and you see $20,000 and

$40,000 or $30,000 spent to buy bottles for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation,

brought in from New Brunswick, buying bottles, filling them up with liquor,

putting them on the shelves at Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, thousands and

thousands and thousands of them, selling them with the liquor bottle, off they

go, consumed in the Province and thrown on the landfill.

They are not recycled, Mr. Speaker, they are not recycled and

some of them have labels on them that say: recyclable where applicable or return

for deposit where applicable, but it is never applicable in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, because the Province does not have a scheme or a plan in place that

makes these bottles returnable for deposit. That is the kind of program we need,

something that will, in fact, encourage, not the minister, I am not worried

about encouraging the minister, the minister is the one who should be

encouraging other people but he is going to have to do it not by PR programs or

the Bug Book, I saw a Bug Book going around, everybody last week, got a Bug

Book, fifty or sixty pages about backyard bugs, probably printed in New

Brunswick.

The minister says he didn't know. I got a pretty good guess

it was printed in New Brunswick and tons and tons of them brought here and

distributed all throughout the Province, probably in the landfill now, half of

them. I don't imagine very many of them were recycled and yet, in Newfoundland,

I think the only Province in Canada, there is not one, single, refundable,

refillable soft drink container produced, not one, not one. I am not saying

every one has to be refillable or refundable deposit and return, not every one

but this Province does not even have one, not a single one, not a single

product; not one single product and the soft drink industry has managed to

convince the government, don't just pick on us, talk about all packaging.

In other words, let us make the problem so big that we can't

resolve it, let us talk about all packaging, about all supermarkets packaging,

all food packaging about all kinds of containers, let us really make it complex;

let us mix it up as far as we can and that is probably part of the PR Program

that the Canadian Soft Drink industry has undertaken with their millions of

dollars that they got by this government allowing them to take an environmental

levy and use it for their public relations purposes. That is probably the end

result of that, trying to mold public opinion to not focus on the soft drinks

but focus in general on packaging so that the government has now bought into

that and they are forgetting the original focus of this recycling program on the

soft drink industry.

Why, Mr. Speaker, why was it focused on the soft drink

industry? Principally because, the soft drink industry, ten or fifteen years ago

was 100 per cent returnable, refillable containers, ten or fifteen years ago,

probably fifteen in this Province was 100 per cent and they have gone from that

to disposable, no deposit, no return, throw the glass in the landfill, throw the

glass in the woods, type of containers, that are worth virtually nothing from

recycling purposes if at all, so there has to be some changes made, Mr. Speaker,

and the minister needs more than encouragement I say. This is the weakest

resolution I have ever seen in this House, the weakest one.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: The weakest resolution I have ever seen in

this House. Encourage the minister, encourage the minister; goad the minister is

what we need, not encourage him. Ask him to do his job; that is what we need to

do, and when the Minister of Environment comes out with a program that isn't a

product of the dictates of the soft drink industry, the dictates of the

packaging industry, I will praise him in this House; I will be the first to

stand up and praise him. I will be the first to stand up and praise the Minister

of Environment when he comes in here with something more than just public

relations for the packaging industry. I will be the first one to praise him,

because I have been one of the ones who have been most vociferous in trying to

encourage the minister to do something positive about these problems.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to the member opposite, the

more I get disillusioned. Everything that could be possibly positive about this

Province, he has to find a reason why it is negative, and a reason why it cannot

work. Too much time down in that little coffee shop on Duckworth Street, that is

what it is, too much time down there in the morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is where it all comes from.

MR. EFFORD: That is where it all comes from. All the

negative blab that you could possibly think of comes from down there.

I would commend the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile for putting

forth the resolution, and I would certainly comm