November

30, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 72

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

Speaker's Gallery Mr. John Nolan a former member of this House and Cabinet

minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the public

galleries fifty Levels l,11, and 111 students from the Canadian Issues and

Democracy class at Discovery Collegiate, Bonavista, accompanied by their

teachers Gary Broderick and Stephanie Matchim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On Monday, November 28, 1994 and again on Tuesday, November

29, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir rose on a point of privilege. The hon.

member claimed that his privileges had been infringed by the manner in which the

Department of Justice had handled the provision of legal counsel to him in a

civil suit pending before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.

In reviewing what the member has said it is clear that the

matters and issues before the court concern, not his duties as a member of this

House, but rather his duties as a former Cabinet minister. The manner in which

legal counsel was provided and its timeliness is therefore beyond the

jurisdiction of the Speaker and this hon. House which may only determine

privileges vis--vis members in the performance of their parliamentary duties,

and member's rights, privileges, duties, and obligations when acting in a

capacity other than as a member of this hon. House, even when it is closely

related to those duties as that of a Cabinet minister, is therefore beyond our

jurisdiction and any complaint or remedy must be lodged or sought elsewhere.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the lawyers for the government tabled in the court

a copy of a memo, signed by me, in relation to the Build/Lease proposals for

Health Care Facilities.

That memo has been subject to much

interpretation and

mis-interpretation, but these are the facts, as completely as I can recall.

Cabinet decided to call for general build/lease proposals for

the following reasons:

Our normal process was taking too long, and construction

projects were taking years, especially in the health-care field, to get started.

Our normal process was resulting in costs that would end up

being double or triple our original estimates.

We were in a recession, and we wanted, as quickly as

possible, to start construction projects to generate much-needed work.

We had several construction projects that needed to be done

immediately.

We had been told that, given a change in the normal process,

the private sector could be innovative, avoid escalating prices, and speed up

the whole process.

So government decided to initiate a very general call for

proposals, and a Cabinet Committee was appointed to oversee the process.

The Committee did encounter resistance within the public

service to the change in procedure, as the public servants were uncomfortable

with making the subjective judgement that the process required. However, the

Committee ensured that the process was proceeded with, and that a fair analysis

was done of all the proposals presented. Cabinet ultimately decided that two of

the proposals merited detailed examination: namely;

(1) Trans City Holdings and

(2) 10189 Newfoundland Limited.

The Department thought it necessary to meet with both bidders

in an attempt to quantify the value of the major differences between the two

proposals. This process led to the conclusion that the Trans City proposal

represented the best overall bid.

When the Cabinet paper was presented to Cabinet, some concern

was expressed that there was no legal opinion attached regarding the compliance

with the Public Tendering Act, so the discussion on the paper was postponed.

The Committee then examined the legal opinion. The opinion

summarizes the process. Its conclusion is that - amongst other things - Cabinet

does have the authority to award these contracts to Trans City Holdings Limited

under

section 8 of the Act, however, this would require tabling the reasons for

the contract award in the House of Assembly and there were some other matters

dealt with in that legal opinion.

After reading the legal opinion, a suggested position was

developed for the committees consideration. This was done on or about October

30, 1991 - it could have been a day or so before that but around that date - and

this is the memo in question at this current time. The memo was not presented to

Cabinet, because, after due consideration, by me and by the Committee, it became

apparent that:

(1) To re-tender would cause us to go back to our usual method

which would cause untold delays in construction activity, and

(2) It was our

experience that this would cause a major escalation in costs.

When Cabinet consideration was give to this paper on November

13, I recommended, on behalf of the Committee, that, in spite of some problems

in perception, the right procedure would be to proceed with the award, and that

should we decide to pursue this method in the future, some minor changes be made

in the process to answer the perception problem. Cabinet accepted this

recommendation, and the contracts were subsequently awarded.

The end result, Mr. Speaker, was that work did start

immediately, we got three high-quality buildings at a cost to the taxpayer that

was far below what we could have done by following the usual process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, to quote Sir Walter Scott:

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave\When first we practice to deceive!"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: If ever there was an example of digging the

hole deeper, Mr. Speaker, we just saw it here today, with this weak explanation

from the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Now, there are lots of questions that arise from the

Statement, that we won't have an opportunity to ask today, perhaps; just a few I

would like to flick out to him first of all:

Where did this legal opinion come from that he talks about?

Who were these lawyers? Were they from Halley Hunt, were they Justice Department

officials? Who were they, and will he table in this House, a copy of their full

and entire legal opinion explaining everything? Will he do that? That is one

question I would like to ask him.

Secondly, the point I want to make this, because I only have

a couple of minutes to respond to his Statement: Even though the Minister signed

the Cabinet paper on behalf of a Cabinet committee, recommending that the

contract be reconsidered and recommending that tenders be recalled, he is here

today trying to convince the people of this Province, trying to convince the

members of this Legislature that he was prepared to ignore all the legal

warnings, that said, the approach used complicated the determination of the low

bidder, that there is a possibility of legal action by unsuccessful bidders.

It is quite clear we wouldn't be acting within the spirit of

the Public Tender Act, but our decision would be difficult to defend within the

House of Assembly. Our decision would be impossible or difficult to defend

within the Public Accounts Committee. He is prepared to ignore all of that for

these two little reasons here that he gives in his Statement? What nonsense! No

one in his right mind would ever believe what he had to say here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of privilege.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege

today, relating to a matter that I raised in this House a number of months ago -

I don't have the exact date with me - and it relates to this same matter. I

brought it up, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, in reference to

actions taken by certain members of the Public Accounts Committee, at a duly

constituted meeting of that committee, when this particular issue which had been

referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and which had been placed on our

agenda...

As the House will recall, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation refused to appear before the committee at the time. I reported to

the House of Assembly and subsequently, in fact, I believe in a special report

to the House on behalf of the committee, I advised the House that members of the

committee had voted not to proceed with the hearings on this issue because the

matter was before the courts, and that no items of discussion could take place

surrounding this issue.

In spite of the fact that I gave a lengthy presentation in

this hon. House, citing many references from Beauchesne, many precedents, many

statements of legal opinion whereby in civil matters such as this no prejudice

to the case could be caused as a result of discussion in the House since the

remedy available to the court would be a financial remedy in any case, or not a

matter of character, and that many precedents had been set whereby matters of

this were discussed in the House of Assembly, or at Public Accounts Committees,

on these types of issues when the matter was even before the courts.

At that particular time the matter was not before the courts.

There had simply been a statement of claim filed before the court. No

proceedings had taken place, no discoveries had even been filed with the courts

and, in my view and in my presentation, I think I showed clearly that there was

absolutely no reason that the Public Accounts Committee should not have been

entitled to and should not, in fact, have proceeded with debate on this

particular issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises from today

seeing the minister making statements relating to this particular matter while

the matter is, in fact, before the courts. There may well be a case made at this

point in time, that the minister's Statement might prejudice this matter in the

courts. My point of privilege is, Mr. Speaker, that the privileges of the

Members of the House of Assembly were violated in that the Public Accounts

Committee was not allowed to proceed with it, that the members on the Public

Accounts Committee representing the opposite side obviously were directed by the

Premier. We can see, the Member for Eagle River, who was vice-chair at the time,

has his reward now as parliamentary secretary to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on that matter. I would be

prepared to make the appropriate motion if you so rule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government -

Order, please!

I would like to hear the hon. the Government House Leader on

the point of privilege of the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may make a

brief submission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to hear the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may make a brief submission with

respect to the point raised by the gentleman, the Member for Mount Pearl. My

recollection of the discussion on the point of privilege and Your Honour's

ruling last Spring - and I think it was last Spring, if memory serves me - is

that Your Honour ruled the Public Accounts Committee was the master of its own

affairs. It had dealt with it and so on. That is a matter that will be apparent

from the record when Your Honour deals with it.

My submission is that there is no point of privilege arising

from anything that happened in this House today. It hardly behooves any member

of the Opposition to raise the so-called point of privilege raised by my friend,

the Member for Mount Pearl, given that, I won't say he, his colleagues have

repeatedly asked questions in this House - I suppose we have had at least one a

day for the last two or three weeks - dealing with this health care centres

matter. That is fine. The questions have been asked, they've been answered, more

questions, more answers, that's fine. So there is no breach of the privileges of

the House. All my friend is doing, I suggest with respect, is re-fighting a

battle that he fought and lost last Spring.

There is one other thing. My friend, I'm sure unwittingly,

cast most unfair, unwarranted and unjustified aspersions on the Member for Eagle

River. Mr. Speaker, we can make this House into a bear pit if we wish. We will

not serve ourselves well, we will not serve the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador well, if we get on with this kind of thing: that the hon. the Member

for Eagle River becomes the parliamentary secretary to the Premier because he, I

think the words were, `got his just reward', or words to that effect. If ever

I've heard an aspersion cast upon -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: If ever I've heard an aspersion cast upon

the motives and conduct of a member, Mr. Speaker, that is it. I suggest to my

friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, who is an experienced parliamentarian and

knows how to give it and knows how to take it, which is part of the

parliamentary life, that is part of why we are here. My friend, the Member for

Mount Pearl, I'm quite sure, was just simply led astray in the heat of debate in

that phrase and perhaps would be good enough to withdraw the aspersion and take

it off the record.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, if Your

Honour wishes to rule that, I will certainly take direction from Your Honour,

but not from the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I will simply point out, Mr. Speaker, that I

am bringing in this matter now simply because the document referred to by the

Minister of Finance states quite clearly that: our decision will be difficult to

defend within the House of Assembly and at the Public Accounts Committee. I

submit to, Your Honour, that that precisely is why this matter was not debated

at the Public Accounts Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the matter under advisement and

rule within the next couple of days.

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

public gallery, Mr. Robert Aylward, former member and minister of the

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday after the questioning

in the House related to the Trans City Holdings issue, the health care centres

issue, we learned on the public airwaves of this Cabinet document, this paper,

this appendix or whatever, the 9191 that the minister talked about in his

statement earlier. Now in that document it says: at our last Cabinet meeting on

October 22, 1991, you approved the award of the above noted structures. Now we

find out that that was approved: subject to further consideration by a committee

of ministers that I would head and that committee of ministers was headed by the

Deputy Premier, by the Minister of Justice of the day, the Minister of Health -

now finally brought into it - and the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is this, since three of

those four ministers were already members of the first committee that had

recommended Trans City for the contract in the first place then why was this

review, this further consideration ordered on the same day that full Cabinet

approved the contract? Can the Premier answer that question?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is in the statement that I just read. There was

some concern expressed I believe, that there was no attached legal opinion.

There was one in the process of being compiled or something and there was

neither one attached to the Cabinet paper so we were sent back to have a look at

that and do a further evaluation, simple.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I submit it is not simple.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, I submit it is not simple and that

is why I am asking the Premier to answer on behalf of the Cabinet. That does not

explain to anybody, Mr. Speaker, why in fact the decision was made to approve

the contract, yet on that same day you decided to send it for further review by

another committee of Cabinet. That does not explain why that was done. Can the

Premier explain it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall when the

committee of Cabinet was put in place. I do not know if that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Tell members to hold on, if they want to

answer the question with jeers and laughs then that is the answer the members

will get but if they want my answers that I am prepared to give, I am quite

prepared to give it to the House, Mr. Speaker, but not in this context.

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember whether there was a committee

in place from the beginning or the committee was put in place at this time. I

just do not recall but as far as I know there was only one committee, or was

there two committees? I do not remember to tell you the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can answer that.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister knows, he can better answer

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. We have the

Premier standing in his place trying to give the appearance that he does not

know what is going on with all of this issue and all this fuss. There has been

news media reports for months, there are court cases going on, we have been

raising questions in the House, yet the Premier has not even called anybody in

to give him a full briefing on this situation? He does not know what is going

on? The Cabinet document that was made public last night states clearly: at our

last Cabinet meeting on October 22, you approved the tender subject to further

consideration by a committee of ministers that I would head. There is a separate

committee as I read it. The first committee did not have the Minister of Health

on it. He told me that in the House himself the other day.

So can he tell me again why, on the very day that you

approved the tender, the contract, awarded it in Cabinet, you would ask that

another committee of Cabinet review it again? Wouldn't you hold off on the

approval until you got the report back from the committee of Cabinet? That is

the question I'm asking the Premier. Surely the Premier was in the Cabinet room

when this was done.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The explanation is

fairly simple. There was a committee in place for some time that was

specifically dealing with construction projects. I would like to point out to

hon. members that at the date in question, which I believe was October 22 or

October 23 - the hon. member has the date there - but somewhere around there, in

1991, at that point in time the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

had resigned from Cabinet. I think the only change in the committee at that

point was to put one more member on, which was the Minister of Health at the

time. It was simply a change of one member on the committee. There was nothing

unusual about that. There was a vacancy on the committee and there was one

member appointed to fill that vacancy. That is precisely what happened at that

point in time to my recollection.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That is why it is so hard to get answers out

of this government, Mr. Speaker. The Premier refuses to respond to questions on

this issue for some strange reason. By the way, if the Premier hasn't thought to

ask for a copy - the document that the minister talked about or made public or

gave to the courts yesterday - I will send you over a copy of it. Because you

should see it. If you are surprised, and surprised and surprised, which I doubt.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) first time (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: First time reading it?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Wait now, listen to the words, please. I ask

my colleagues to restrain themselves. Listen to the words he used. It is the

first time he read it. Okay? First time he read it.

PREMIER WELLS: First time I saw it (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, right. Okay. Now listen to the words. We

will get to that a little later on. What I want to ask him is this, Mr. Speaker.

This Cabinet committee that you approved, your Cabinet approved, on October 22,

drafted this paper for the Cabinet, other members of the Cabinet, dated -

notwithstanding his statement here today. It was signed by the Minister of

Finance, the Deputy Premier. It is a two-page statement that recommended against

proceeding, reconsidering the tender and putting it out for re-tender in

February. That is what the paper says.

I want to ask the Premier this: Why didn't that

recommendation, that report from the Cabinet committee, go to the full Cabinet

for consideration? Why didn't that happen? I don't believe the answer that was

given here today by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board because it

doesn't make any sense. It should go to the Cabinet and then you should have

that information at your fingertips, if you want to make a decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the statement I gave earlier I

explained what happened there. This was a suggested memo or a note to Cabinet

that was done for me for a discussion within the committee. That is one aspect

of them. Certainly the process was such that it was a different process and

there were a number of questions that required subjective judgement. It was

different from the normal process, no doubt about that. The committee considered

it.

Then the committee also considered many other things, and two

of the main things were outlined in my statement. The fact that to do anything

else would perhaps delay the whole process by a year or two and would result in

tremendously increased costs. On balance I recommended on behalf of the

committee that the project be proceeded with, and that is the only

recommendation that Cabinet considered because that is the only recommendation

that went to Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board would expect anybody in their right minds to

believe that explanation. It just doesn't wash, I say to the minister.

Let me get back to the Premier. Because he is the one who

should be answering the questions for the government on this issue, this major

scandal. You are the one who should be responding!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: If you haven't the courage to get up and

answer that is one thing, but don't try to slough it off to somebody else. Let

me ask the Premier this. He says the first time he saw or read this paper was

yesterday. Was he aware of the contents of the paper? Was he briefed on it? Did

he talk to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, his Deputy Premier? Did

anybody tell him about any of the concerns outlined in this Cabinet paper or

not? Was he aware of any of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know that the answers that

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has given are not what the hon.

members opposite want. I know they are not what they want. I know it disturbs

them that it does not lay a foundation to allow them to make their unfounded

allegations they have been making. I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I know

that it does not suit the Opposition, but it happens to be the full and total

information, and I have total confidence in the Minister of Finance,

unrestrained, total confidence, that he is telling this House exactly what he

knows and exactly what he did. I have no quarrel with any single thing he said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated from my seat without

formally addressing the House that I saw that document for the first time

yesterday, and that happens to be the truth. The Minister of Finance told me he

found this document and he brought it to me to show me, and the obvious decision

was that it had to be made available to the court process immediately so I think

it was made available within hours. It was made available immediately, so, Mr.

Speaker, the correct and proper procedures were taken and I commend the minister

for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection specifically of anything

that is in that. I have never seen the document before until yesterday. Now,

whether or not any individual statement that is in it was brought to the

attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, but I am quite

prepared to take a look at the document and see. All I know is that Cabinet

dealt with the issues as they were brought to Cabinet and Cabinet made its

decision.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was: Was the Premier aware of any of it, not the

Cabinet? I asked him, quite clearly, if he was aware of the issues, the major

concerns outlined in this paper that was drafted by his Deputy Premier? Was he

aware of any of those issues? Secondly, since the Premier avoided answering the

question directly, let me get back to the Minister of Finance because I want to

ask this question either of the Minister of Finance or the Premier. When, and

how, did this Cabinet paper, all of a sudden, come to the minister? Does the

Premier know the answer to that question, because I want to make sure that the

minister's memory here is accurate? After all he said yesterday evening that he

had forgotten about the paper altogether until he came across it by chance,

recently. Will he tell us where he got this Cabinet document? Well he tell us

how he came upon it all of a sudden, where he found it, and when he found it?

Will he tell us that?

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

MR. BAKER: I am trying to get the days sorted out, Mr.

Speaker. I think it was on Thursday or Friday of last week. I asked one of my

secretaries to go back through, because of discussions that were ongoing and

because of the news, the reporting and so on, to go back and check through all

of my files to get out all the information related to this proposal. I left

Friday afternoon and went to Gander. I was in Gander over the weekend and when I

came back Monday morning all the files were on my desk. I looked through them

and saw this. This is in my files so I immediately took whatever steps needed to

be taken.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Does the Minister of Finance know how it came

to appear in his files? Is he aware of that?

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

MR. BAKER: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker. It was in my

files as an attachment, I believe, to the Cabinet paper, WST 9191. It was in

that file anyway as an attachment to that. As the hon. member realizes, he has a

copy of it there, that is how it was written up in the first place, as supposed

to be an attachment to that file and I suppose that is how it got there, my

secretary having it in my office attached to that file.

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

MR. SIMMS: I ask the minister then: he is not aware if

somebody else provided that attachment, or that copy to him, to his office?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with Mr.

Gilbert, I believe it was Thursday, somewhere in that week, where he indicated

that there was a paper that was not produced in evidence in the courts. I then

had my files searched. So whenever that was I asked my secretary to search the

files, and apparently that was done on Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: So what the minister is saying now, he

searched and asked for his files to be searched after the Member for Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir made him aware of this, which is not exactly what he told us

earlier in the House. That is why I am asking the question, because I want to

get the answer correct.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier this question, because

we have many, many other questions on this issue and we won't get them all in

today, but I want to say this. We have been asking questions on this issue now

for the last two weeks, almost day after day. Everything that I suggested, as

far back as three years ago, and particularly in the last couple of weeks, all

of the concerns we have raised are contained in this very paper that the

minister has written. I could have written this Cabinet paper myself. There is

one exception. I would have excluded that you would be in technical compliance

with the Public Tender Act, because I believe you are breaking the Public Tender

Act technically as well, but that is beside the point.

Now we find not only the Premier and the minister accusing me

of being wrong, and that I am wrong about this, we now find not only was I

right, but the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board agreed with everything I

was saying, which is really rather ironic. Now he is the one who has been chosen

to try to defend this mess in an effort to keep the Premier out of the picture.

That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: The Premier knows what is going on here,

because if he doesn't know I can tell him everybody else in this Province knows

what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question.

MR. SIMMS: I have a question for the Premier, a

straightforward question for the Premier, that only he can answer. This may be

the only way to get him on his feet. Only he can answer this question. The

evidence is mounting. There is enough evidence now that has been building for

the last three years at least, and particularly the last few weeks. I want to

ask the Premier, who is head of the Cabinet, head of the government: Will he

order a public inquiry now to deal with this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is no at this time, Mr.

Speaker. There is a full, open public inquiry dealing with the issue now. I have

total and complete confidence in the judges of the Supreme Court, and I am not

about to do anything that is going to interfere by having another judge

appointed to conduct a public inquiry into the same matters that are at issue in

the court. Let the court proceedings take their course, and I give this

commitment to the House: If, at the conclusion of those court proceedings there

is any basis whatsoever for the conduct of a public inquiry, I can assure the

House that one will be ordered, but I will not interfere with the process of

justice now to satisfy the political whims of the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that what is happening outside

here, down on Duckworth Street in the court house, has nothing at all to do with

the public inquiry we are looking for. It deals with the political interference,

the political manipulation and political tampering. A civil case is not looking

at that matter, and the Premier knows it full well.

Let me ask him this final question, because it is a matter

that I have raised twice over the last week and I want clarification of it. I

want the Premier now to tell us, or ask him if he would at least confirm, that

the reason given by the Premier to me on two occasions now for the hiring of a

private lawyer for the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir - the explanation he

gave me on two occasions now - was the wrong explanation, after hearing what the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has said publicly, and will the Premier

therefore admit that he was misleading the House when he gave those answers to

me?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not misleading the

House. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has made his position. I don't

quarrel with the statement that he has basically made; that is what motivated

him to do it. I had my understanding of a concern that he had. I don't quarrel

with the statement that the member made. I accept his statement. If that is his

explanation as to why he came and why he requested that position, I can only say

to the members of the House that I had no reason to believe that anybody was

doing any harm to the minister, or treating the minister unfairly. The minister

had his reasons to believe it, and he stated the reasoning for it, and I think

the members of the House ought to accept the member's explanation. I can only

say to you, what made good sense to me was the answer that I gave the House

after consultation with the man who was Minister of Justice at the time, I

approved of proceeding in that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister of this country became involved

in the decision by HMDC to rob Marystown of the $16-million tender. He wanted

the Quebec shipyard, MIL to be given an opportunity to bid on it. I don't know

where the Prime Minister has been for the last two months when they were trying

to rob the work from Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, today, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick has

become directly involved in it; he is basically ready to go to Ottawa and demand

the contract go to Saint John, New Brunswick and not to MIL Davie; the

Government of Quebec has become involved in it, the Premier of that province. I

want to say, that our Premier, Mr. Speaker, has let us down badly, has let down

the people of the Burin Peninsula badly, has let down Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier has decided not to support the

officials of Vinland Industries who said they could deliver the work in the Fall

of 1994; he has decided not to support the workers of the Marystown shipyard. I

ask the Premier: After what has taken place now, will he follow the example of

Premier McKenna, Premier Parizeau and the Prime Minister of this country and

become directly involved and demand HMDC leave the work in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that

preamble is all stuff

and nonsense and there is no merit or accuracy in it at all. All he has to do,

is ask -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: All he has to do, Mr. Speaker, is ask the

Mayor of Marystown if he is satisfied with what the Premier of this Province has

done, and the Mayor of Marystown will tell the member who just raised this

issue, that he is completely satisfied that the Premier and Government of this

Province took all of the action within its power to take and led in taking that

action, so the whole basis for the question is without merit, Mr. Speaker.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Burin Peninsula

know full-well that this Premier did absolutely nothing except support Ken Hull

in his decision to rip the jobs away. That is what he did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, will he do what Frank

McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick is doing; will he stand up for the people

of this Province, will he defend the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

and will he now, Mr. Speaker, insist that public tenders be called and the work

remain in Marystown?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, everything that is possible,

reasonable and legal has been done. Now, I don't know what he is suggesting that

Premier McKenna is doing. I can stand up and roar and demand and make a loud

noise that has no substance either, but what good does it do? I prefer to act on

the basis of intelligent judgement, not loud, roaring noises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a final

supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: I don't think the Prime Minister of this

country or the Premier of New Brunswick needs any lecture on intelligence from

this Premier here, and I don't suggest your standing up ranting and roaring.

What they are trying to do is, they are trying to create work in their

provinces, not drive it away, as you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier has had a pat answer, every day,

that he could not substitute his judgement for the judgement of HMDC. Well, now

that the Prime Minister has substituted his judgement, that Premier McKenna has

substituted his judgement for HMDC, will the Premier not come on board and

substitute his judgement and demand that the work stay in Marystown or, is he

saying, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen don't know what they are talking

about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that the member

is totally wrong when he says, first, that the Premier of New Brunswick has

substituted his judgement for that of HMDC, or that the Prime Minister of Canada

has substituted his judgement for that of HMDC, that is totally and completely

wrong; therefore, there is no foundation to the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

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

and it concerns information contained in sworn documents filed in provincial

court to obtain a search warrant to search for records of Pharmaceutical

Supplies Limited in St. John's, Newfoundland.

Now, this investigation relates to secret commissions

allegedly received by an Ontario sales representative of a national drug

company, who dealt with Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and Armbro

Pharmaceutical. He received cheques and cash from Pharmaceutical Supplies

Limited, Armbro and others, and has made small deposits totalling $500,000, and

has had an additional $775,000 in cash seized by the police as a part of that

investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the document also implies something else, that

this man was somehow part of an interprovincial price fixing operation in which

drug companies would realize windfall profits, and consumers be effectively

overcharged.

I want to ask the Premier whether he has, as Premier, or as

Attorney General, caused any further investigation to be made so as to determine

whether consumers in this Province, including individuals, nursing homes and

hospitals, may have been overcharged for drugs as a result of the activities

referred to in these court documents?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as a lawyer,

would know that any inquiry set up by this government or any other government

into matters that the police are already investigating -because such activities

would be breaches of the criminal law, as the hon. member knows - any inquiry

set up could only have the effect of preventing the appropriate prosecution,

should prosecution be the appropriate result of the inquiry already being done

by the police.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be responsible for preventing

anybody who ought to be prosecuted from being prosecuted because of a

precipitate action the government has taken.

To the extent that the inquiries that are being conducted by

the police will provide full disclosure, no further inquiry would be necessary.

To the extent that they don't, then a further inquiry may well be necessary, but

that is a judgement that could only be taken at the time.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not asking for an inquiry, I am asking for an

investigation by the Department of Justice into what has been going on in this

Province, not what Mr. Moyer is alleged to have done in the Province of Ontario

vis--vis an employer, which is what this search warrant is all about. This

document here also reveals that the drug pricing in this Province, as well as

Ontario and Nova Scotia, are based on an honour system whose integrity is solely

reliant upon the honest reporting of pricing, including discounts and credits

offered by the manufacturers or wholesalers, and that if this system is not

followed, the type of activity would result in the consumer paying more for the

pharmaceutical product than they should, and the wholesaler realizing a

substantial profit.

What I am concerned about is not this police investigation in

Ontario, but whether this Premier has caused an investigation to be done to

determine whether drug prices in this Province had been substantially raised,

causing windfall profits to the drug companies and also to the shareholders of

those drug companies.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the action of

an official of Pharmaceutical Supplies, or of the company, and I don't know

which, in relation to this matter has been referred to the police for

investigation. Now, it may well be that that investigation will say there was no

criminal activity, in which case we will be free then to conduct a full inquiry

as to everything that occurred, if there was no criminal activity, to determine

whether or not there was any inappropriate activity that adversely impacted the

price of drugs in the Province.

If, after the conclusion of the police investigation, it

becomes clear that is necessary, such an inquiry will be made. What I will not

do is do anything to cause another investigation to occur at a time when the

police investigation is under way, only to have the courts rule that it is

illegal and they can't proceed with prosecution against somebody who ought,

perhaps, to be subject to prosecution.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, as a lawyer, will know that two investigations

going on at once don't cancel one another out. The Premier is talking about

public inquiries vis--vis police investigations.

I want to ask the Premier: Is the reason there hasn't been a

separate, independent investigation into what has been going on in this Province

which would, if it were true as set forth here, result in windfall profits to

the benefit of these companies and their shareholders, to the detriment of

consumers and the people of this Province - is the reason there hasn't been an

independent investigation because one of these shareholders, in fact, is still

sitting in the Premier's Cabinet? Is that the reason why he doesn't want to have

an independent investigation here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really knows

the difference of that, and I think it is improper for him to make an assertion

that is contrary to something that he knows to be fact. He knows to be fact that

certain information came to the knowledge of the minister, and that it was

forthwith turned over to the police. Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge,

he knows that to be fact. It has been stated publicly. He knows that to be fact,

so I don't quite understand what the member is driving at. The information has

been turned over to the police, and to the best of my knowledge, they are at

this moment conducting such an inquiry.

Now, I am not about to interfere with that inquiry. And if

they aren't conducting an inquiry, then I invite them publicly now to do so. But

I believe they have been conducting an enquiry ever since they have had the

information made available to them. The inference in the hon. member's comment

is really unworthy of the hon. member in the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one final question, a

short one from the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations who has stood repeatedly in this House over the past two weeks and not

been forthcoming with information dealing with an emergency employment program.

In the news today, the MP for Gander - Grand Falls, Mr.

George Baker, said that a $21 million emergency employment initiative had been

negotiated between the Province and the Federal Government. He went on to say

that this program would be cost-shared 50-50. Now, two questions: Can the

minister confirm this to be so? And, if he can, will the program be offered to

only those people who will be kicked off TAGS program by December 31, or will it

be offered to all Newfoundlanders who are in desperate financial shape today?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me first of all

say to the hon. member, to my knowledge, what the MP for Gander - Grand Falls

had to say is totally news to me. I know nothing about any arrangement between

the Federal and Provincial Governments. As a matter of fact, I say to the hon.

member, we are still talking to the Federal Government and we will be again

tomorrow. I can tell the hon. member, if we do come to an arrangement or we can

reach an agreement whereby we have a cost-shared program, the hon. member won't

have to ask the question - this hon. member will be on his feet very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

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

present the report of the Government Services Committee. The committee has

reviewed and approved for passage without amendment through the remaining stages

of the House of Assembly the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act" (Bill No.

43);

"An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of

Mount Pearl Act" (Bill No. 40); and,

"An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act" (Bill No. 35).

On motion, report of the Government Services Committee

received.

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

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to table the

report of the Social Services Committee respecting Bill No. 5, "An Act To

Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Act," and Bill No. 34, "An Act To Amend

The Waste Material Disposal Act".

On motion, report of the Social Services Committee received.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was on

Friday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked some questions about the

lease arrangements with the health care centres. Subsequent to that question, I

have asked my officials to prepare an answer, and I would like to table that

answer.

Petitions

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

Bay.

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

present a petition on behalf of the district of Baie Verte - White Bay:

`We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte

- White Bay, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency

employment program. With the economic conditions which exist, we find ourselves

in a desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show

compassion and understanding to this urgent matter.'

Mr. Speaker, this is, I think, the twelfth or thirteenth day

in a row now that myself and my colleagues have risen in this House to present

petitions on behalf of these people. With the confusion and rumours that we keep

hearing through the media and now with the minister again today, it is obvious

that this government is not acting on what this is called, which is an emergency

response program. It is not something to deal with in coming months, or for that

matter, in coming weeks. It is a situation that I said yesterday, and I will say

again tomorrow and the day after that, that has to be addressed immediately.

The people who are waiting to feed their families, Mr.

Speaker, cannot wait for a minister of this Province to be transporting back and

forth to Ottawa, to Halifax and everywhere else, looking for answers. The

answers should come from this government, Mr. Speaker, that is what the people

of this Province expect. They do not expect him to travel back and forth to talk

to Mr. Axworthy, Mr. Tobin or anybody else. I say to the House today, Mr.

Speaker, that this government and this minister should start thinking about how

they are going to act on their own because if the delay is this long coming and

it was going to be coming for months before the response was made, I say to the

minister in the House today, Mr. Speaker, that it is too late for these people.

Now I do not know how much it takes for the message to get through to the

minister here today, that this situation is here, it is now and it is today. It

is not coming in months and it is not trips back and forth to Ottawa. It is

incumbent upon this government, Mr. Speaker, to react to the problems that

relate to the people in this Province right here, right now.

When it was heard in the media by people in my district, with

what the minister said about the coming months, they said: the coming months? I

do not know if I can survive the coming months. How we will make it through

Christmas and every other day. They keep saying, Mr. Speaker, they realize - we

have heard it time after time everywhere for the last three, four or five years

- they realize this is not the answer to our problem. They realize it is not the

answer to our long-term fiscal debt that it keeps bringing up, Mr. Speaker, but

when a man cannot figure out how he is going to feed his family for the next two

and three weeks, then he has to have an answer immediately, not in the coming

months, not in the coming weeks. So that is why the people of this Province -

and not just in my district of Baie Verte - White Bay because I know I have had

the support of hon. colleagues on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, they are

getting the same calls.

In 1990, Mr. Speaker, a response from the minister then of

Employment and Labour who is now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation: while government reaffirms that its long-term strategy is crucial,

we are very much aware that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need the help

immediately. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was said by the former minister three years

ago when the situation was not so bad. Now the situation is worst and we have a

minister who keeps saying, `in the coming months,' it does not make sense, Mr.

Speaker. If the feeling was there then by the former minister it should be here

by this minister now. The support had to be within the government to say from

his colleagues in Cabinet and the Premier of the day to say: yes minister, you

have a problem. You come to us with a problem. It is the reality in this

Province today and it has to be acted upon immediately. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. private members' day. The first motion on

the Order Paper is that of the hon. Member for Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on November 14, I gave notice of

a private members' resolution having to do with the importation of garbage. Now

the resolution, the

whereas's are;

WHEREAS the importation of garbage and/or industrial wastes

in any quantity or form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador is an indignity to our people and our Province and should not be seen

as a potential source of economic development for this Province;

AND

WHEREAS any such initiative would have a negative impact

on the image of this Province and be detrimental to other forms of industrial

and economic development, including and especially the development of our

tourism and aquaculture industries;

AND

WHEREAS the overwhelming majority of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are opposed in principal to any such initiatives;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House of Assembly take

such action as may be necessary to enact legislation that would effectively

prohibit the importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in any quantity or

form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a Newfoundlander I feel very strongly that we

must never, never allow this beautiful Province of ours to become a dump site

for international garbage, irrespective of the circumstances or the perceived

economic benefit. With the enactment of more stringent regulatory laws in

industrialized countries, especially the United States, the disposal of garbage

and industrial waste has become a very serious problem. In fact as a result of

increased transportation costs, and more strict regulatory constraints waste

disposal companies in the US are desperately looking to other countries for

potential dump sites.

For example, at the present time, I am told - and I expect

the minister, if this is not accurate, will correct it, but I am told there are

four proposals from American waste disposal interests now before the Province,

seeking approval to dump approximately 12,000 tons of garbage a day in this

Province. In terms of volume these proposals amount to, and just listen to this,

fifteen times our own garbage production. In other words the four proposals that

are now being considered by government amount to fifteen times the garbage

production of our entire Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this sudden interest in Newfoundland and

Labrador as a potential dump site for international garbage at a time when our

economy is depressed, when jobs are scarce, when money is scarce, is not a

coincidence. It is obvious, I believe, to most people, certainly it should be to

most Newfoundlanders, that because of our current economic problems we have been

targeted by the international garbage disposal industry as a potential dump

site, just as they have targeted other economically depressed regions in the

world, including black communities in the southern United States and other poor

regions in parts of the US.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that sanctioned by

an act of this

Legislature the word must go out to these would-be polluters of our Province

that under no circumstance, or set of circumstances, will garbage ever be

permitted to enter this Province for final disposal, or simply put, Mr. Speaker,

the word should go out and as quickly as possibly, that Newfoundland and

Labrador is not open for that kind of business. We are open for business, yes,

but we are not open for the garbage business.

Unless and until that kind of legislation is enacted by the

House of Assembly, the kind of legislation I am proposing in my Private Member's

Resolution, there is always the danger that one day the bureaucratic process

that is now in place to deal with such matters will fall apart. Mind you we are

dealing with human beings. The process that is now in place is being dealt with

by human beings with all their weaknesses and frailties and it is almost

inevitable that some day the system will fail and we will end up with garbage in

our Province.

All it will take will be one project to be approved, one

single project to be approved, and we will have set a precedent for massive

garbage importation, and having done that, Mr. Speaker, other such projects will

be difficult, if not impossible, to stop. It will only take one such project and

then the run will be on and we will end up with garbage all over this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if that is allowed to happen, this Province will very quickly be

perceived by outsiders, especially people involved in the tourist industry, as a

dump site for international garbage. The Robin Hood Bay of North America, the

ultimate Newfie joke; the ultimate Newfie joke.

Mr. Speaker, the rural garbage disposal industry is the

fastest growing and by far the most profitable industry in the world. In the

world today, no country wants someone else's garbage. To their credit, Mr.

Speaker, countries that are traditionally looked upon as being amongst the

poorest countries in the world such as Haiti, Jamaica, Africa and many others,

are resisting the temptation that is being offered them by the international

garbage disposal industry, offers of substantial sums of money and everything

else.

These countries, some of the poorest in the world, have

resisted that temptation. The reason of course, that they do not want the

garbage is because they realize that garbage and tourism are just not

compatible. You cannot have a lucrative tourist industry and at the same time

entertain garbage proposals. The two just do not go together.

Tourism depends on the image, Mr. Speaker, that people have

of a country or a province or a city, and with garbage strewn around, how can

they have a good image of a province or a country or a city if that were to

happen. Mr. Speaker, already we have a number of impediments that serve to

discourage tourists from visiting this Province. We would like to think that

Newfoundland is a mecca for tourists but we have to be realistic, Mr. Speaker,

we do have a number of impediments.

Transportation costs for example, the fact that we have to

travel ninety miles of water to get from the mainland of Canada to the Province

of Newfoundland at a considerable cost. The cost of gasoline, weather, high

taxes; there are a number of impediments that keep tourists from coming here

but, Mr. Speaker, efforts are being made now by this government to overcome some

of these problems but it will take a long time, and by allowing garbage to come

here now, will certainly make it that much harder and that much longer.

If garbage is allowed to be brought into Newfoundland,

Newfoundland and Labrador will quickly get the reputation of being the world's

dump site. All of these plans to import garbage except one, Mr. Speaker, involve

the use of open pits. Water fills these pits and must be pumped out and material

in the garbage will dissolve in the water and eventually enter rivers and

streams and pollute them.

The 1 per cent asbestos containing material that will be

dumped in the Baie Verte mines for example, will have 99 per cent sewerage

sludge, radio-active waste from closed atomic bomb factories and incinerator

ash, which is loaded with enough arsenic to poison a whole town. Just imagine,

Mr. Speaker, allowing that sort of thing to be brought into this Province and

buried abutting a major town in our Province.

Two studies of the mining potential of the Baie Verte

asbestos deposit reveal that there are some 10 million tons of asbestos waiting

to be mined by large-scale underground mining methods using a wet-milling

process and this could be operated at a profit or at least a break-even

position. These studies show, Mr. Speaker, that the 10-million-ton deposit

underlies both pits and the hills of waste between the pits; so putting millions

of tons of asbestos waste in the pits, would put an end for all time to any

possibility of an underground mining operation. It is obvious then, Mr. Speaker,

that underground mining and wet milling would provide many more jobs than any

asbestos waste dump. In fact, it would provide over 200 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, yes, Newfoundland is desperate in many ways. We

have an economy that leaves a lot to be desired, we have high unemployment, it

is difficult to attract industry to this Province for a variety of reasons; it

is difficult to attract investment dollars, it is extremely difficult to attract

the investment dollars for example for tourism, and I am told that already, now

with the talk of Newfoundland becoming a garbage dump, that attracting tourist

dollars to the Province, investment dollars, is becoming much more difficult so,

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, to allow this to happen would be nothing

short of the biggest Newfie joke of all time, and those of us who stand by and

see it happen will have something to answer for, and what a legacy to leave to

our children and grandchildren. A legacy of a Province that at one time was

noted for its pristine waters and clean air, clean soil, to leave a legacy of

garbage, toxic waste, and all other kinds of undesirable trash that would be

dumped here by outsiders.

Mr. Speaker, the irony of it is that a lot of the companies

that are now trying to find a haven for their unwanted garbage in this Province

are provinces and countries which have laws within themselves that do not permit

the importation of garbage, so they are willing to foist off on us things that

they are not allowed to keep in their own province. That, in my view, is totally

unacceptable and should not even be entertained.

My view on the situation is that there should be a law in

place, as my motion implies, that imposes a complete ban on the importation of

garbage, garbage that is for final disposal. I don't see the point of leading

people on, who come here with proposals to set up garbage disposal places,

leading them on by having environmental impact studies when at the end of the

day we will find that these studies prove that the methods being employed, or

the type of garbage being used, is certainly not acceptable.

I think we should let the word get out today to all of North

America, Canada, that Newfoundland, we are open for business, yes, but we have

no intention of exposing ourselves to garbage from their countries. Garbage will

be a detriment to the development of not only tourism, but our aquaculture

industry and many more aspects of our economy.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of Baie Verte,

for example, and my hon. colleague over here, because I suppose anything that

offers a few jobs carries with it a certain attraction, but I commend them for

the position taken. I understand that he is not altogether sympathetic with the

proposition of having garbage dumped in the pits in Baie Verte. I commend him

for that, and I hope that he will join forces with the powers that be and make

sure that doesn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, before we were in government, I

had a visit one day from a certain gentleman who, at one time, held a very

highly paid job within the provincial civil service. In fact, I believe he was

of a deputy minister status. He came to see me, and asked me if I would lobby

for him with the ministers and the Premier - Premier Peckford, I believe, was in

office then - and help him achieve what he was setting out to do, namely to fill

up the pits, the mine shafts under Bell Island and Conception Bay, with

municipal garbage. This fellow came to my office -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't lobby for him?

MR. CARTER: No. This fellow came to my office with a

great deal of promise and a great deal of flair, and tried to give the

impression that this would be the salvation for Bell Island and other parts of

Conception Bay. So I asked him what he was going to do with all the garbage. He

said: Well, we are going to run it into the open pits underneath, and these

pits, by the way, run out under Conception Bay three or four miles. He was going

to fill in all of those shafts with municipal garbage.

I asked him, not knowing very much about geology or the

nature of rock or whatever, but I asked him what would happen some day if a leak

developed, or a small earth tremor, and all of this garbage suddenly floated to

the top of Conception Bay. Of course, he was quite a glib speaker and it didn't

take him long to explain to me what would happen, none of which, of course, made

sense or was satisfactory, but at least he thought he was getting through, I

suppose.

Subsequent to that we had another gentleman, one of the

promoters of the company that wanted to bring municipal garbage into the Long

Harbour area. He briefed a number of us, government and caucus, on this great

new industrial venture that he was imposing on our people. This was going to be

the godsend for Newfoundland, the beginning of a brand new industry, garbage

disposal.

He started telling us, and he had flow charts and he had

overhead slides, about what profits we were going to make and how clean it was

going to be. He had me convinced - I was Minister of Fisheries at the time -

that the trucks that they were bringing this garbage in in, that we could use

them to bring raw fresh fish out of the Province into New York somewhere. That

is the kind of a line he gave. He was extolling the virtues of this great

proposition and telling us how lucky we were in Newfoundland that that company

he represented chose Newfoundland as a possible site for this garbage disposal.

Thirty-five hundred tons of municipal garbage, I think it was, a day. Telling us

that there were cities in the U.S. and the Eastern Seaboard which would give

their eye teeth to have access to this kind of business. It would be a Mecca for

the provinces and the towns involved.

I asked him would he entertain a question. I was reminded of

an incident that happened a few months ago when a barge loaded with garbage left

port. When it left port of course the word went out. Consequently they weren't

allowed to come back to any port. The result being that they were drifting on

the high seas. A barge chock full of garbage drifting around on the high seas

without a port to go to to tie up. There wasn't a city or a port on the Eastern

Seaboard of the U.S. or Canada that would even allow them to come within 100

miles of their shores.

I asked my friend who was outlining this grandiose plan for

development: How come, if these cities are so interested in getting garbage and

developing an industry based on garbage, they allowed that barge to be floating

on the high seas for two or three months? That threw him completely. He didn't

expect that question. In fact I think I can take some credit for destroying

whatever chance he had of winning friends and influencing people in that

meeting. He was completely at a loss to explain why it is that all of this, the

great interest in the garbage in those cities, and this vessel that was loaded

with garbage wasn't allowed to come to their shores. He was obviously trying to

pull a fast one, and I take some little credit, I guess, for cutting him off at

the pass.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland has had to suffer many indignities

over the past years. We've had the newspapers, The Globe & Mail , others,

columnists, radio commentators, literally dumping on this Province, making us

look somewhat less than good citizens, making us look silly in some cases. Never

hesitating to accentuate the negative when it comes to Newfoundland. I can tell

you now, that if we allow them to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: - bring garbage here -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

MR. CARTER: To dump their garbage in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, if we allow them to do that, then we will become the ultimate

Newfoundland joke. I can tell you now that that is not the kind of a legacy that

I want to leave my children and grandchildren. I think it would be nothing short

of a tragedy that we would allow any garbage - it doesn't matter how innocent it

is, or how clean. It could be discarded house flowers. It is garbage. When the

story appears in The Globe & Mail or in some sports magazine in Canada

there will be no explanation about the kind of garbage it is. Garbage is garbage

is garbage. Our image will be gone.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give serious thought to

this resolution. I'm doing this, by the way, not in any way to embarrass my

friend the minister, or to cause him any problems. I have a lot of faith in the

new Minister of Environment. In fact, I wrote him I think a day or two after he

was elected congratulating him on his appointment and bringing to his attention

some of the concerns I am having with respect to the possibility of importing

garbage. I believe the young minister has the right ideas and I have every

confidence, Mr. Speaker, that he is going to put something in place that is

going to address my problem, my concerns and those of a lot of other people.

I know that the proposal having to do with the Baie Verte

Asbestos Mine, would have been another tragedy that we would have had to live

with for the next 200 years. That proposal came dangerously close to being

approved, even without an environmental impact study but, to his credit, when

this young gentleman assumed office, he immediately saw the need to pull in the

reins and have a second look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: I am looking to him now, Mr. Speaker, for the

ultimate remedy for the importation of garbage, and that is a total ban on the

importation of any kind of garbage irrespective of what kind it is or what

economic benefits are perceived by people who are trying to foist the garbage on

us in this Province. So I will wait with great anticipation to hear what the

minister has to say, because it might well be that he is going to be telling the

House things today that will go a long way towards allaying the fears of people

as to the importation of garbage. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

Well, it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for

Twillingate was allowed to stand in his place and present his resolution to this

House. Mr. Speaker, I basically support his resolution with respect to the

importation of garbage into this Province.

I stood in my place on a number of occasions and asked for

similar legislation but, of course, the Premier continues to refuse, saying

there is a system in place, the system will work and we should give it the

opportunity to work; but as the Member for Twillingate mentioned a few moments

ago, the application for the Baie Verte project came very close to being

approved. Maybe the system that is in place today doesn't work, will not work

and will not protect us in the future.

The Premier says that each application has to be accepted on

its own merit, Mr. Speaker, but the people of this Province are tired, fed up

and they don't want to be having to fight the same battle over and over again in

the years to come as they have in the past couple of years.

We have seen in the papers, letters to the editor on this

issue about the importation of garbage. They are probably numbering into the

hundreds now, Mr. Speaker. We have heard people phone into The Open Line Show ,

I have done it myself. Read the editorials, Mr. Speaker, and they are all, all

against the importation of garbage -I think I saw one that spoke in favour of

the importation of garbage into this Province, and that, probably from a person

in the business himself or herself.

Mr. Speaker, I have had personal contact with many people in

this Province - I deliberately bring up this very subject - and I have yet to

speak to one person who spoke in favour of the importation of garbage into this

Province for any reason. I believe that this resolution is a good resolution and

that government should give some serious consideration to what is being asked

here.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few phrases in this resolution that

I want to refer to, that I think are key; `the importation of garbage and/or

industrial wastes ... should not be seen as a potential source of economic

development for this Province'. I know we are in desperate shape in this

Province when it comes to jobs, but I don't think we should sell out our

Province for the sake of a few jobs. It is very far-reaching. Also it says, `any

such initiative would have a negative impact on the image of this Province' -

that is, the importation of garbage. I agree wholeheartedly with that, Mr.

Speaker, and I will get into it later on.

The last of the resolution: `necessary to enact legislation

that would effectively prohibit the importation of garbage and/or industrial

waste in any quantity or form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.' How can we disagree with that statement, Mr. Speaker? I can't,

and I fully support it.

It was obvious last week in this House that the Premier and

the government did not want to discuss this matter for political reasons and I

have had some problems with that. The Member for St. John's Centre, I believe it

was, stood in his place and said that government was being very childish on this

issue, the Cabinet ministers in particular, and I agree with that. I have to say

it is good to see now that members opposite agree, basically, with the policy

that the Opposition has been putting forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not totally.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not totally. I will get to that later on.

They basically agree with the policy of the Opposition, in that, before, during,

and since the last election, we have been saying that we oppose the importation

of garbage. This resolution comes close to what we have been saying, but not

exactly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read our policy: `We would, and

we believe that this government should, ban the importation of domestic or

industrial waste for incineration, storage, or other methods of disposal in this

Province.' It goes on to say that `waste products imported for use as raw

materials in manufacturing would be subject to the review and approval process

required under the Environmental Assessment Act.' For example, if we were to

recycle paper in our pulp and paper mills, or cardboard, we could easily support

that, but the importation of garbage for final disposal in landfills cannot and

will not be accepted by the people of this Province.

Just in passing, I was sorry to see that some members

opposite couldn't bring themselves to agree to this policy when they were

sitting in Cabinet. When I asked for legislation to be brought forward on this

before, they were quite silent. I am wondering if they were willing to sell out

the Province for a position in Cabinet - I sincerely hope not. It seems to me

that maybe the credibility of the resolution may be questioned for that very

reason. But this is a very serious situation, a very serious resolution, and

again, I wish to say I support it.

I asked the Premier in this House on a number of occasions,

would he bring in a bill to ban the importation of garbage, but the Premier

always geared his answer to the creation of jobs, new industry, and I have a

serious problem with that, especially in light of the fact that the history of

this government when it comes to creating jobs is very poor indeed. I certainly

wouldn't want to see the importation of garbage used to create jobs when

basically this government has created no jobs in any field or any industry since

they became elected in 1989.

Let us just look at some of the policies that government have

introduced in this House and have passed and approved as legislation. The first

thing they did when they got elected, Mr. Speaker, was cut 1,600 to 2,000 jobs

from the civil service. Now, what is seventy or eighty jobs going to do for the

economy of this Province when they look at these kinds of cuts, Mr. Speaker?

Then they brought in amalgamation, and again there were jobs gone.

Actually, we have an individual now, down in my town, who is

suing the government because he lost his job through the amalgamation fiasco.

Then the government were going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

another 400 or 500 jobs gone. Now, what are fifty or sixty jobs compared to

another 400 or 500? The Marystown shipyard, we asked questions on it again

today, another 350 jobs gone, and it doesn't seem to be any big deal with this

government.

Now, I may be getting off the topic somewhat but it is all

relative to this resolution, because I believe the Premier firmly believes that

we should be considering the importation of garbage for the creation of jobs,

and it is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Again, another policy, the motor vehicle inspection policy,

jobs gone again. People who own small garages in rural Newfoundland will end up

losing their jobs, or sons and brothers may end up losing jobs because of motor

vehicle inspections out the window. The debt retirement policy for the

municipalities, again, jobs gone.

The list goes on and on, and on, Mr. Speaker. The payroll

tax, $300,000 down to $100,000, jobs gone again because of the attack on small

companies, who could not hire, or would not hire, to keep below that level of

$100,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Good job. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on.

The Premier and the government can't be serious, the number of jobs here, when

you are looking at the negatives of importation of garbage versus the jobs that

we would lose. How many jobs would we lose if we import garbage into this

Province? How many existing jobs would we lose with respect to tourism? How may

jobs would we lose in the potential tourism industry? We are talking about

promoting tourism in this Province, adventure tourism and the like. How many

jobs would be out the window there? I can't answer that but I'm sure they would

be numerous. Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the cleanest water, cleanest

air and the cleanest land in the world. We are promoting this in our brochures

for tourism all over the world. Again, if we import garbage into this Province

all that would be out the window.

We have a number of applications here before the Province

about the importation of garbage and waste in this Province. The Member for

Twillingate addressed that. He mentioned four applications which would basically

see us bringing in 12,000 tons of garbage a day into this Province. This is

unreal, Mr. Speaker. We had the application for Long Harbour in the past, we

have Baie Verte, and I want to address the Baie Verte issue in particular.

One of the things I have to say, if it is good for the people

of this Province, why is it not good for the areas from which the garbage is

originating? Why are people in the business in those areas not fighting and

grabbing to have the opportunity to take the garbage and to manage the garbage

that people are asking us to take, if it is that good a deal? I don't know. I

can't see it myself.

Shipping of waste halfway around the world - we would have to

look at the cost involved in that alone. If you take garbage from Europe, for

example, or wherever, and ship it across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, then

handle that garbage, dump it into the mines in Baie Verte, cover it, and it is

going to be feasible for us to take it and to handle that. Well, how feasible

would it be for Europe to do it? Yet they won't do it. I have to ask the

question, why? Because of the inherent dangers involved, yet they are still

heading our way.

We, in Newfoundland and Labrador, at this particular point in

time, have problems handling our own garbage and waste. We have 550,000 people

in this Province. Why do we need to take more? Why should we even consider

taking more? Do we really want to become the dump site for the Atlantic Seaboard

or the dump site for North America? I say no, as do most Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Presently, we have a study being done on the Northeast

Avalon, and it was first started - it is being done for the region of the

Northeast Avalon. When I was chairman of the Northeast Avalon Towns Joint

Council, we were asked by the then minister, to oversee this study. I believe it

was Mr. Hogan. Basically, we have Robin Hood Bay in the Northeast Avalon, and we

can't even handle our own garbage.

I have a note here somewhere where the present minister, back

in September, was calling on the Province to have Province-wide meetings with

respect to solid waste disposal.

We have 240, I believe, municipal landfills in this Province

today, and we are looking at how to find out how to manage the garbage that is

being produced by 550,000 people. It is ludicrous to even consider bringing more

garbage into this Province when we don't even know what to do with our own

garbage at this point in time. We are talking about regional landfills. The

minister, to his credit, says that we should be looking at including recycling,

re-using, reducing and composting with respect to the landfills and the amount

of garbage going into our landfills in this Province. He says we have to become

more environmentally friendly, and the municipalities have to probably come up

with regional sites, become more feasible in the disposing of garbage within our

own Province. Yet we are still considering bringing in garbage here from outside

Newfoundland, outside Canada, outside North America - as I said, nothing less

than ludicrous!

I have to compliment the minister, though, in passing, in

that he did ask for an environmental impact study on Baie Verte. Then again, I

have to temper that with common sense, because when did he ask for this

environmental impact study? He came out of a caucus meeting, a government caucus

meeting - not a Cabinet meeting now, a government caucus meeting - when the big

kerfuffle was on the opposite side with the Premier having come back from China

all upset. He made a statement. He left the caucus meeting and came out and read

a hand-written statement about the Baie Verte issue, and he called for an

environmental impact study. Obviously, the members on the opposite side are

getting a lot of calls. They are not supporting the importation of garbage, and

they put the pressure on and the Premier finally agreed to an environmental

impact study, and rightly so - so he should - and so should the members opposite

put the pressure on in this situation.

Now, the Premier says that we have - this blew my mind,

really - a moral responsibility to take asbestos back. It is laughable. We have

been shipping out asbestos for thirty years, and we have the moral

responsibility to take it back. What a joke, Mr. Speaker! What a foolish,

irresponsible and illogical argument from an educated, or so-called educated,

individual, Mr. Speaker.

If you use that line of argument, according to that logic,

how many car wrecks should we take back from all over the world? How many car

wrecks should we take back and produce from our iron ore? How much cardboard and

waste should we take back from the paper that was produced by the mills in

Newfoundland? And what other garbage should we take back from the materials

produced from our mining industry? It is laughable.

I would like to remind the Premier that only 1 per cent of

the garbage that is being proposed to come back into this Province, to be dumped

in Baie Verte, only 1 per cent, has to be asbestos. What will the other 99 per

cent be, Mr. Speaker? I can't answer that. If you look at the environmental

preview report produced by the people proposing this, only 5 per cent has to be

checked. I have explained that, and I have done it here in the House before, and

it seems to hit home to the people out there, when this hits them, that if you

have containers coming into this Province on ships filled with garbage, those

big containers, only one in four containers will be checked. Each container

itself contains 600 bags. Now, how would you put, for a start, or get asbestos

containing material into these plastic bags without breaking them open in the

first place, if you are looking at different kinds of metals, or whatever the

case may be? Each container contains 600 bags. Only 120 bags out of 600 will be

checked, out of one container. Therefore, 120 bags out of 2,400 bags will be

checked. I think that explains quite realistically the situation we are setting

ourselves up for with respect to the importation of garbage and the checking

system itself.

The project in Baie Verte is often referred to as a recycling

project, I say to the minister. To me, if you have a recycling project, you take

something, you reuse it, and you come up with another product. This is not a

recycling project, by any stretch of the imagination. The materials that will be

brought back to Newfoundland would be put in a pit and covered and not reused,

so by any stretch of the imagination it is not a recycling project.

I have a lot of notes here, Mr. Speaker; I am going to have

to skip some of them now.

With respect to bringing asbestos into this Province, or

asbestos-containing materials, we have TV ads running in the States now raising

fears of asbestos contamination. Now, why would the people who were looking to

come here on vacation, for tourism purposes, or whatever, come to Newfoundland

if this was the situation, if we were a dump site and asbestos-containing

material were dumped here?

Mr. Speaker, Baie Verte is compared to California in the

environmental preview report. It is not a good comparison, it is not a fair

comparison, because of the size of the project in California. It is much

smaller. We have 15,000 tons per year versus 150,000 tons per year that would

come to Newfoundland.

Another factor with respect to the California project - it

has only been in production for two to three years, and I believe that is too

soon to say whether or not it is a safe project. So I don't think we should be

comparing this project to the California project.

We talk about reclamation of the site. The site is a

disaster, Mr. Speaker, and some money should be spent in cleaning up the Baie

Verte mine site. I have to say that governments in the past have neglected that

area, but again, that was the policy; the mines were started and they had their

own way, they could do what they wanted basically, in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

But we do need to spend some money on cleaning up that site.

There have been recent petitions with as many as 10,000 names

signed, opposing the importation of garbage into this Province - 10,000 names

from all over the Province. I, myself, presented a petition of 268 names from

the Baie Verte area opposing the importation of garbage. The minister, himself,

recently visited the site, as I did in November of 1993, and as I said, I agree

with the minister that it is an environmental disaster and has to be cleaned up.

But, on September 16, there was an ad in The Evening Telegram and the

minister, in reading that ad, seemed to be favouring the project, when he was

talking about cleaning up the site, how this project would actually do that. But

I have to say: two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Speaker, and the fact of the

matter remains that this project will not reclaim that site.

The whole site, Mr. Speaker, I think, is something like 900

acres, and very small portions of the site would be reclaimed, only the areas

that are being utilized by the project itself and the asbestos going into that

mine, so even if there are areas being reclaimed, it would be at a very slow

rate and I don't see anything positive whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. There are two

large pits out there, five large piles of materials, the tailings which will be

used to cover up the asbestos, and all over the 900 acres, we have various dump

sites, tires, used and abandoned equipment, old vehicles and other waste

material.

There is a brook flowing through that site that is polluted

now, get the word, `polluted', with asbestos, flowing into the ocean. Now, in

the environmental preview report they are saying that the river is polluted with

asbestos, yet asbestos is not supposed to be -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: - a contamination product.

By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. GRIMES: You want some leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Well, then, carry on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on, we are enjoying every minute of

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, at five o'clock, I will see what I can

do.

Mr. Speaker, I had meetings in Baie Verte; I went to Baie

Verte back in November of 1993 and had meetings with the Baie Verte Council and

they were in favour of this project. I can understand where they are coming

from, I am a former mayor; I mean, they have infrastructure out there that they

need to support and this, they feel, would give them some tax dollars to do

that, and they believe, honestly believe, that the proponent would clean up the

site. I don't think that is going to happen - and to what extent, as I mentioned

earlier.

Baie Verte, the arena itself is closed out there. I know they

need the tax dollars but, Mr. Speaker, they say that this project will create

twenty to seventy-five jobs, I question that, and when you read the report you

can understand why. The council feels that it is a safe project and the

monitoring system is a safe monitoring system. I questioned that in the past and

I question it now.

At the public meeting I held out there - the Member for Baie

Verte -White Bay was there - we had sixty people in attendance. They had a

number of concerns, some spoke in favour and some spoke against. At that

meeting, to be honest, it was split 50/50 for and against from my record but,

when we got the petitions from the area, you could see that the actual fact it

is not a 50/50 split for and against, it is actually probably something like

90/10.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Twillingate mentioned that

economically depressed areas are always targeted for these types of projects and

no doubt this is the situation here now with respect to the Baie Verte project.

In the U.S. alone, Mr. Speaker, asbestos abatement is costing the Government of

the United States more than $3 billion a year, that is $3 billion a year to

clean up asbestos in the United States. Can you imagine the amount of asbestos

that would come into this Province if we even give the business people who are

proposing this, any indication that we would favour such a project!

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we should not consider any

applications to import garbage. We should find ways to handle our own garbage

and waste material, and I encourage the minister to do that.

For example, we have raw sewage flowing into the harbours and

bays of Newfoundland. I brought this up before. Maybe we should start

concentrating on that. Maybe we should create some jobs there cleaning up that.

Look at the situation in St. John's harbour, itself - millions of gallons a day

going into the harbour, raw sewage. I don't know how long the harbour will be

able to continue flushing out the bay - no treatment at all.

I think we have to take seriously the environmental problems

in our own Province before we start spending dollars importing garbage into this

Province. I called for similar legislation in this House in June 1992 and in

November 1993. That is not correct - I have to correct myself. I wasn't here in

June 1992. But there was a call for legislation in June 1992 and I called for it

in November 1993. The Premier refuses to listen.

In conclusion, maybe his caucus is starting to listen. I

believe we should start - or you people over there should put pressure on him.

Obviously, he reacts to pressure. We saw that when the minister came out of the

caucus meeting and announced an environmental impact study on the Baie Verte

project. I encourage all members to support the resolution and to pressure the

government to bring in legislation to ban the importation of garbage. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure

today to rise to debate this resolution put forward by my colleague, the hon.

the Member for Twillingate.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are delighted he got it on.

MR. AYLWARD: I am delighted that he has it on. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm one who would never shy away from a debate. I'm

glad he put it on. I think it is healthy for the debate in the Province on this

issue. And I think, as we move towards policy development within government,

that it is going to help the policy development of this minister and of the

government, itself.

First off, I welcome the fact that it is on the House paper

today for open debate in the House of Assembly and say that the government has a

policy to protect the environment. It doesn't have a policy to go out and

attract garbage projects to come to this Province. It has a policy for

protection of the environment. We are presently evaluating all of our policies

within the Department of Environment. We are redoing them, we are going over

them, and we are evaluating whether or not, in certain policy areas, we have

enough legislation in place. Do we have the right policies in place? Do we have

enough mechanisms in place that can deal with the concerns of people in this

Province?

When it comes to this issue, we are reviewing the policy as

we speak. It is a little more complex than what is put forward here today, but

we are reviewing it as we speak, and we are evaluating what are potential

options.

This issue is one that has created a lot of public debate. It

is a sensitive issue, not only at this point in time. It has always been

somewhat sensitive. Since the Environmental Assessment Act was brought in in

1980 and amended afterwards, there has never been a need from the previous

government or the government which took over in 1989 to put forward any further

types of policy to deal with this matter.

We have been looking at different options. The government in

the past further put in place a mechanism by requiring any proposal for waste

importation to go to Cabinet for a final decision. That wasn't part of the

legislation. It was brought in to allow for another mechanism to allow for the

full Cabinet and government to make a decision on any project regarding waste

importation.

So that was put forward. That means that it wasn't just the

Minister of Environment, whoever he or she may be at the time, to deal with an

issue and a proposal coming from a proponent on waste importation. That was put

in place as another mechanism along with the Environmental Assessment Act

further, to allow for the process to get full debate and full decision-making

authority from government.

Now, that process was in place and, in the case of the Baie

Verte proposal, which has generated a great deal of debate in the Province, this

allowed for the proponent to bring forward their proposal. It was evaluated by

officials, brought forward to the minister, and then the minister had to bring

that proposal to Cabinet for a final decision. As we saw in September, that

decision was to go to an EIS and also a public board which will hold public

hearings after the EIS is completed.

The question of whether or not you need a further process in

place, and a further mechanism in place, is one that we are reviewing at this

time. When it comes to waste importation, we have an Atlantic Environmental

Accord amongst Atlantic ministers and Atlantic governments in Atlantic Canada to

deal with waste within Atlantic Canada. So if we are going to develop a policy -

and we are evaluating different policy options at this time - we have to make

sure to incorporate that we are able to deal with waste within our boundaries in

Atlantic Canada. It is an initiative that means taking stewardship of what we

create in Atlantic Canada and in this Province. We have to find a way to deal

with our own waste here in this Province, and we have signed an accord with the

Atlantic Canada Provinces to deal with that issue in a together manner.

As a matter of fact, there was just recently in the paper, a

proposal call for a waste tire strategy to deal with waste tires in Atlantic

Canada. We generate over 500,000 annually in this Province, and in the other

provinces I think it adds up to be over two million. The Atlantic Provinces are

looking at a way to deal with that issue and to figure out how we can do it

amongst our boundaries here.

When you are talking about importation for final disposal,

you have to ensure that you take into account all of the issues that are

involved here. It is a sensitive issue that has come about in the last couple of

years, and I think a lot of people have expressed strong views on it, there is

no doubt about that. I still get those expressions of views in my office on a

weekly basis.

The government has never let a project which is, as has been

described, come into the Province. The government has never let that happen. Two

or three of the proposals that are in existence at this point - and you are

going kind of far to say that they are really in existence but, at the present

time, that were originally submitted, the two in Labrador have been told by the

government that yes, under the Environmental Assessment Act you can bring

forward a proposal, but your chances are not very good of getting any approval

because of the public regard for the type of proposal.

Under the Environmental Assessment Act, it covers the whole

gambit of concerns that have to be met in order for a proponent to bring a

project forward in this Province. The legislation is very good. It has worked

thus far. The question is, do we need a further policy initiative? That is

something that is under consideration by government at this time in our review

of policy that we have been doing since September. It is a question of which I

think this debate will help maybe generate even some solutions and some

suggestions. The one generated by the Member for Twillingate is more than of

passing interest to this government and to this minister. We have, as I said,

been reviewing potential options and are in the middle of doing that right now.

There is always a concern, when you have proposals coming in,

of what the impact can be on this Province. The Environmental Assessment Act

allows for not only a public process of consultation, but it allows for a public

board to be set up. In the Baie Verte situation, a proposal that was brought

forward, we see that for the first time going to be put in place. The question

of whether or not that will even happen hasn't been decided upon because the

proponent for the Baie Verte project has not decided whether to go ahead. They

will make that decision sometime in the near future, but if they do, then there

is the EIS process, and then a public hearing board that will deal with the

issue.

The policy that presently is in place meets, I think, certain

standards, and has so far prevented from occurring, a proposal that I think is

not acceptable to the people. Whether or not we need something else is a

question that we are wrestling with, Mr. Speaker. A lot of members on both sides

of the House have expressed a view that we need, I suppose, a tougher policy but

probably a more detailed policy in dealing with waste importation. I say to

members today that we are undertaking and have undertaken a review. We are

proceeding to evaluate that amongst our caucus and amongst the government

ministers, and we will see whether or not there will be a stronger or a more

detailed policy put in place. I think the debate today again, helps generate the

thought processes of people in the Province, it helps generate some possible

suggestions and I am looking forward to listening and seeing what comes out of

it as we are, as I said, in the middle of our review.

The government has a policy to protect the environment and we

are intent on making sure that that policy is acceptable to the people of the

Province. When you are in politics you always try to figure out whether or not

you have an acceptable practice in place or not. We are in the middle of doing

that right now and this minister and this government have no intention of

allowing projects of the type described, to come into this Province to be an

economic saviour, because they are not going to be.

We have identified and the government has identified tourism

to be one of the lead economic industries of this Province. We are going to

promote that industry, and if we are going to do that, we should have a policy

that reflects it. That is something that we are also taking into account as we

review what policy initiatives we may decide to come forward with in the very

near future.

What we do need - as we are looking at this and as I have

been evaluating this problem in the last few months - we do need, I think, a

comprehensive evaluation done and we have been doing that within the Department

of Environment to see what other provinces are doing. Some other provinces have

put some policies in place regarding final disposal when it comes to waste

importation. We are reviewing those and we have looked at those. They are

amongst a number of options that are being evaluated by my office right now in

government. We will see where that takes us in the very near future.

Some of the initiatives that we have to be aware of are,

again, dealing with our own waste within the Province and within Atlantic Canada

so that we can show stewardship and show that if we are going to generate waste

that we are able to find a way to deal with it. One of the things, I think, that

should be included in a waste management strategy - which we are now doing

within the Province, carrying out some public consultations on, and a

comprehensive waste management strategy - we should be dealing with waste

importation but we should also be looking at ways to deal with our own waste and

also help small industries who are attempting to set up to deal with waste,

environmental industries that are right now contributing employment in the

Province and helping clean up problems that we have in this Province. That is

something that can be a major benefit to us.

We have the strongest environment industries association in

Atlantic Canada. They are doing superb work in this Province, they are

developing technologies, they are using existing technologies and they are

helping clean up sites in this Province and are doing a good job of it. They are

creating employment in the economy and they are showing a lot of us what can

happen if you undertake a decent waste management strategy. They are helping

lead the way, and as we form a waste management strategy, which I believe will

include a policy to deal with waste importation for final disposal - I think we

are evaluating that at this time.

As we evaluate the waste management strategy we are also

looking at, at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, a sustainable development

strategy for the Province. Right now, the Province doesn't have one. The Round

Table on the Environment and the Economy has been asked to help develop a

sustainable development strategy that would include - and I believe it will

include - some public consultations. And again, it will generate some more

debate in the new year as to a whole range of issues when it comes to the

environment in this Province and how to deal with development and so on. It is

something that is overdue. It is something that is high on the agenda of this

government. It will, we hope in the new year, start to get more than a life and

that we will be able to undertake it.

I think in a sustainable development strategy, we are working

to put that in place, but this issue again, or these types of issues, will be

able to be put forward, options will be able to be put forward, and that maybe

by that time, and maybe even sooner, that we will have, when it comes to this

issue, on waste importation, we may have a policy that may be changed from what

we have now. We are not sure yet. We are still evaluating that possibility. We

are looking at all the information that is available. We are trying to evaluate

whether or not the present act is strong enough. We are trying to evaluate

whether or not stronger regulations or policies or legislation are required. I

think the debate today and next Wednesday will help that situation within

government as we try to decide where we go on this matter.

It is an issue that is not going to go away. It is an issue

that we must face and deal with. I feel very confident, Mr. Speaker, that this

government which has faced issues head-on in the past is going to face this one.

We have been with our officials working, like I said, to develop and look at

what other provinces are doing. I think it is very important that we do that as

we look for an acceptable environmental policy for this Province, for its

people, so that the concerns of people - and they have deep concerns, especially

on this issue - are dealt with. We are working towards evaluating what those

options are.

We think it is important that this debate occur. Our caucus

has had a number of discussions on this matter over the last few months. I think

it will be beneficial and I look forward to seeing the outcome. It is quite a

challenge to be in this portfolio at this time, I can tell you. I can tell you

this, that we are also going to deal with the issues and try to reform our

legislation and reform our polices as needed, and to carry on the role that the

former minister carried on in a very excellent capacity, to try to carry forward

that role.

Because we are at this point in time - government is

reviewing the polices regarding this matter - we would like to move an amendment

to the resolution that has been put forward. I will do that. It is an amendment

that has already been passed by the government in a private member's motion a

while ago, a couple of years ago.

I would like to move the following. After "Newfoundland and

Labrador" in the resolution: Therefore

be it resolved that the hon. House of

Assembly take such action as may be necessary to enact legislation that would

effectively prohibit the importation of garbage and/or industrial waste in any

quantity or form for final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

if such a project is registered and evaluated as required by the environmental

assessment act and is found to be either ecologically unsafe, socially

unacceptable, or contrary to the will of the people of the Province.

I move that, Mr. Speaker, and I say that I'm looking forward

to hearing the views of people on both sides of the House as the minister. I'm

looking forward to seeing and to, as we review the policy, seeing where we head.

I say that this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear what the hon. minister has to

say.

MR. AYLWARD: As we move forward, Mr. Speaker. This

government is taking this issue, along with a whole range of environmental

issues seriously. We intend on making sure that the adequate policies are in

place to deal with the issues and look forward to this debate, and look forward

to the evolution of some further policy in this area and in other areas, as a

matter of fact, that we are looking forward to bringing forward.

I think this motion is seconded by the Member for LaPoile. I

put it forward, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair have a copy of the

amendment, please.

The amendment is in order as per Standing Order 36.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today to support the resolution put forward by

the Member for Twillingate. I want to note that intent of the resolution is

consistent with the Conservative Party policy. As my colleague just noted a few

moments ago the resolution is consistent with the blueprint that has been

followed by the Conservative Party, and I should note and read into the record

again, the part of our policy which reads as follows: the Conservative Party

believes in banning the importation of domestic and industrial waste for

incineration, storage, or other methods of disposal in the Province. They also

believe that waste products imported for use as raw materials in manufacturing

are subject to the review and approval process required under the Environmental

Assessment Act.

The minister a few moments ago made an amendment which

basically has the effect of modifying the resolution to make it acceptable to

hon. members opposite, and acceptable to the Premier and his government, and of

course it in many ways tampers with the intent of the original resolution, and

in effect it scuttles it. It is again an attempt, as was done a few weeks ago by

other private member's resolutions, when the government does not want to have

the matter addressed in the way that the private member puts forward, they will

make the appropriate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we want to draw attention as well to the fact

that his is not a new resolution in this House. In fact on June 1, 1992 the

Member for Torngat moved an notice of a resolution which was debated on June 3.

That resolution read:

be it resolved that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involved the

importation or disposal of garbage, industrial waste, from any jurisdiction

outside of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution by the Member for Twillingate is

not a new resolution. In fact on that very same day the Member for St. John's

East also put forward a similar resolution, a private member's resolution, so

therefore this is not a new issue. What has been happening is that the people of

this Province have been telling their political leaders that they do not want

garbage imported into this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it should be known that we as political

leaders should be saying, no, no, no, to the importation of garbage. We should

say, no, and mean it. We should not say, no, and then put out a whole lot of

conditions. We should say n-o, and when we get an application we should be

asking the proponents, what part of no do you not understand? Is it the `n' or

is it the `o'. Mr. Speaker, that is how firm we have to be.

I want to draw attention as well to the fact that on Friday,

September 16, 1988 the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Opposition at that

time, put out the following press release. It was from Clyde K. Wells, MHA,

Windsor - Buchans, Leader of the Opposition, and the subject was: Industrial

waste storage proposal

for Bell Island.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote some of the comments from that

particular press release. In fact, I will read extensively from it because it

goes to show what a variance the government policy we have in place today is

with what the Premier of the Province was saying when he was a member of the

Opposition party. It reads as follows: The proposal to establish an

international industrial waste dump on Bell Island is clearly unacceptable to

the citizens of that community, and I believe, and I quote: ..it is offensive to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He said: The Liberal Party is opposed to the proposal from

Canadian Ecology Limited, and will be opposed to any similar proposal for

dumping industrial and toxic materials, or potentially toxic waste, in any part

of this Province.

Then he mentions how he became involved in the issue, and he

mentions that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, Leo Barry, had arranged a

meeting with his constituents on Bell Island to talk about it. It says, and I

quote again: It quickly became clear that there were serious concerns over the

actual risk to the environment and the reputation of Bell Island and the

Province that would be created by the storage of hazardous waste in the mines.

He says: From the information given, we have identified the

following concerns with these types of applications. The wastes to be stored are

hazardous. This is borne out by the company's advice that Bell Island was chosen

over abandoned mines in Ontario because Bell Island was considered to be a safe

mine.

Number two, he wrote as well: There are also risks involved

in transportation, handling and storage of these waste. Apart from the obvious

danger of leakage from the mines themselves, the very real possibility of an

accident at sea that would involve a shipload of highly dangerous waste sinking

in Conception Bay or in other waters around our coastline.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he mentions that Newfoundland would become

known not as an environmentally safe, relatively pollution free area, a

reputation which it now enjoys, he wrote, but a place which is so impoverished

and so desperate that it has to take in other people's garbage. Do we really

want to become North America's garbage dump for the sake of a few jobs?

Mr. Speaker, in concluding he said the following. Again, I

quote: Surely, more positive programs can be developed to stimulate the economy

in this Province than to grab at any promise of a few dollars at the risk of

endangering our environment, the health of our people, and existing industry.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier of this Province said

in 1988. Today, of course, we have a resolution by a member of the governing

party which is saying: Would you please implement this policy?

We are saying to the government today, saying to the Premier

and his party: Would you please implement the policy that you released in 1988

when you were Leader of the Official Opposition?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote a few comments from people

who have had articles appearing in the local press. The Evening Telegram ,

on May 27, 1992, had an

article entitled: Area Residents Air Objections to

Incinerator; Motive is Profit Says a Resident of Dunville.

I will just read to you what that resident said, and this was

in relation to the proposal for the development of Long Harbour. Deborah Yetman

Wilde said her father had recently died of cancer after working for eighteen

years at the former Long Harbour phosphorous plant. No one can convince her that

an energy from a waste incinerator can be made safe, she said. A job is not

worth what the people of the area would have to go through, she said,

emphasizing no job is worth having to clean up someone else's garbage.

Dunville Mayor at the time, Ray Murphy, called the scheme a

quick-fix to a New York problem, saying it was simply a case of the Americans

trying to find a place to dispose of garbage they can't get rid of in their own

area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move to what is happening in Europe.

Because just a few months ago, on May 27 1994, in an

article in a paper called

The European , and the headlines that basically talked about the dangers

of the transportation of garbage, it said: Squads Track Toxic Smugglers. I will

read from the article. It said: Police from twelve countries in Europe and

America are mounting an international operation to track down criminal gangs who

are moving into the lucrative trade of toxic waste smuggling. It says: A

decision in March by the 127 signatories to the 1989 Basel convention to make it

illegal for industrial nations to export waste to developing countries has led

to fears that firms desperate to dispose of toxic waste will go to any lengths

to do so. Then you have a quote from Paul Johnson, who is a British scientist.

It says: The recycling which takes place in a lot of developing countries verges

on the criminally negligent.

The Member for Twillingate said today that we would be

importing twelve times as much garbage as Newfoundland would ordinarily generate

in a day or a month period. Therefore let me mention what is happening in Europe

and show you the concerns that people have. Germany, the world's largets

exporter of toxic waste, sent 1,370,892 tons of toxic waste and other hazardous

rubbish to non-OECD countries between 1989 and 1993. Some of this was legally

exported under the old rules for recycling to Indonesia and eastern Europe, but

much was shipped in under false labels or simply dumped by unscrupulous German

waste operators.

That is the concern we have. We are told that we will be able

to control a very low percentage of the actual contents of the proposals that

are put forward to bring waste into Newfoundland. For example, the proposal at

Baie Verte says that there is only a guarantee that 1 per cent of the waste that

was proposed to be disposed of in Baie Verte would actually be of the content

that was specified under, I guess, the guidelines put forth by the government.

What happens to the other 99 per cent?

Therefore in Europe they are saying that there is a lot of

falseness in the way in which this material is shipped. For example, Romania,

Albania, Poland and the other former Soviet Union countries are now the most

popular dumping grounds. In 1992, 500 tons of out-of-date pesticides from East

Germany were discovered near the town of Sibiu in Romania. They had been shipped

there illegally under a period of two years after being carried across the

border labelled as humanitarian aid for use in agriculture. Our difficulty is

that in importing garbage we have no control over the contents. We have

absolutely no control over it. It has been said that we would know approximately

and have a guarantee there might be as little as 1 per cent would be able to be

controlled. That doesn't make any sense, that we are going to go and put

Newfoundland at risk when we have that kind of problem.

It is time for Newfoundlanders to hear from their government

a definitive statement. They want the government to say that Newfoundland is not

a dump for American garbage, is not a dump for Canadian garbage, is not a dump

for any kind of garbage, European garbage included; and as I said before, we

want to go and to have a policy that says: we are not interested in your

garbage, we want the government to say no and we want the government to mean it,

instead, Mr. Speaker, of entertaining applications to go and to bring in more

garbage, we need a government that says: let's clean up Long Harbour, let us put

some money into cleaning up that former resource; let us go and do something

with the Baie Verte mine. We are not saying leave Baie Verte like it is, we are

saying we have to clean it up, we have to restore that facility.

Mr. Speaker, most of us have family or have members of our

families who have worked in the mines of this Province. We kn