June 3, 1992                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLI  No. 49


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this morning, quite a number of people from both sides of the House, all three parties, attended a very important legislative breakfast. This, as the Speaker knows, is National Access Awareness Week and we were delighted this morning to be invited to participate in a very important event in the development of equality of opportunity in our society. It is not just a matter of access awareness, Mr. Speaker, I think we are all convinced now that the time has come for action. Awareness is important but action is essential, and I want to pay tribute to all the people who are involved in organizing this morning's breakfast and assure them that government, with the Opposition's support, will do everything possible not only to make people aware but to set realistic goals and to act, and to encourage communities to act, to ensure that all people in our society are treated fairly and equitably.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We want to endorse the remarks of the Minister of Education. This is the second year that a number of members have taken part in that particular activity. I think, last year, we had nine members from this House who attended and this year it was up to thirty. We want to endorse what the minister has said. It is a very pleasant experience to sit down with such a wide range of people, all with varying disabilities, and have them discuss frankly their concerns.

I ask the Minister of Education, on the social policy of Cabinet to hopefully over the next little while address some of these remarks, particularly those on accessibility, which is so important to them. I hope the minister will convince his Cabinet colleagues to put in place a major effort on behalf of these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the words of the minister in saying that all of us who attended the breakfast this morning were pleased to participate. I think we also all have to acknowledge that each and every one of us has something to learn, and did learn something today, from the people who have to try to live a life without the kind of access to services, education, transportation and other needs that many of us take for granted.

I think that the time is now for action. There are so many areas of government activity and societal activity that are at stake here, but there is almost no one focus. Perhaps the government, in responding to the needs of people with disabilities, ought to put together a comprehensive position paper on what needs to be done in the so many areas of governmental action that government can influence for review by the people with disabilities. That, Mr. Speaker, should give us a starting point to review what this government's position is on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going to routine proceedings, I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the public galleries today, of representatives of the Access Awareness Week Committee. The representatives are: Kelly Heinz, Debbie Prim, Lucy Stoyles, Nancy Lear, Carol Clowe, and Keith Clowe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to bring to the attention of hon. members, the presence in the galleries of thirty-five students from St. Anne's School in Dunville, in the district of Placentia. I would like to welcome their teachers, Mr. Ray Murphy and Mr. Jack Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise this hon. House that I am now in receipt of the Initial Report of the Advisory Committee on Training Services, (VRDP). This document was sponsored by the Department of Social Services and co-authored by officials of the Division of Developmental and Rehabilitative Services and representatives of the various disability groups within the Province. I might add that representatives from those groups are in the gallery today.

The Training Services Program within the Department of Social Services is designed to provide persons with disabilities access to funds and services which will enable and enhance opportunities for the attainment of post-secondary education. Its primary function is to assist persons with disabilities acquire and develop marketable skills, and thus be able to enter the workforce. This program is cost-shared with the federal government through the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreement.

During the past several fiscal years this program area has been faced with ever increasing consumer demands and expectations, significant increases in costs of tuition, adaptive equipment and supportive services. These factors, in combination with the reality of our provincial economy, and thus the non-availability of increased funding, had caused significant financial difficulties within the Training Services Program. This review, initiated by the Department of Social Services, was an attempt to streamline and enhance service delivery, yet, with the support and direction of the Consumer Groups, do so in a manner which would not impinge on the integrity or effectiveness of this service.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that this process has been a tremendous success. Not only have we been successful in introducing measures which will ensure more efficient and cost-effective delivery of service, with the assistance of the Consumer Groups, we have been able to do so with little or no disruption or adverse reaction.

Due to the dynamic and interactive nature of the Department of Social Services, many of the recommendations contained within the report have already been incorporated into departmental policy. To illustrate, policy revisions have been made to endorse and encourage the optimal usage of our community college system, limitations have been placed on allowable transportation costs, funding has been appropriately reserved for full-time students only, and revised policy reflects an increased focus on the use of generic resources whenever practical and feasible. These measures have been in place since April 1, 1991 and have proven acceptable to the consumer groups.

This review also witnessed the elimination of the Regional Training and Selection Committees, with the approval process now being vested with officials of our Regional Offices. This action has ensured prompt and streamlined processing of all requests and applications, and has also increased our accountability to the clients we serve. This action is also in adherence to a commitment of de-centralization of decision-making within the entire department, thereby ensuring that our structure is more responsive to the demands of our consumer groups.

The entire application process for Rehabilitation Services and the Appeals procedure were also reviewed within the context of the report and significant changes were recommended to make it more responsive to the need of consumers. These recommendations have been reviewed, deemed acceptable, and will be implemented within the very short term.

The report, which was formally presented to me as Minister of Social Services on May 25, 1992, will now be given a full and comprehensive review by officials of the department, to determine the practicality and implications of adoption of the remaining recommendations. The report will also be shared with the full constituency of the Consumer Groups for their information, feedback and input. I will keep the House advised of developments in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to sincerely and publicly acknowledge the support and collaboration of the disabled community. The Department of Social Services, through its Division of Developmental and Rehabilitative Services, is committed to the development of services and supports which are sensitive to, and reflective of, the needs of persons with disabilities. More importantly, this department is resolved to the initiation of program development based on prior consultation and input from consumers.

This report, and its associated policy changes, is indicative of the type and extent of proactive action possible when government and the community work in partnership to ensure the maximum usage of our limited resources.

I would therefore respectfully remind the House and my Cabinet colleagues that all policies of this government should be developed in full consideration of our fellow citizens with disabilities, who represent a significant population within our society, and whose needs must be ever foremost in our actions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the ministerial statement.

I should say as well that I have not seen a copy of the report, but I certainly would like to see one. As well, I would look forward to receiving comments from the various disability groups across the Province as to the recommendations of the report as well as the implementation of the report both, as the minister says, those that have already taken place and those that will take place.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly seems that the report is a positive one and that it has worthy recommendations. But I would say to the minister that cuts in funding to assist persons with disability in the attainment of post-secondary education is regressive, I would say to the government, and that funding is required if you are going to train people. Any cuts would be a backward step, but as far as the report is concerned, we on this side have not had a chance to see it. We look forward to seeing it. We look forward to reading the recommendations, and I do hold with the minister's final comments when he reminds the House and Cabinet colleagues that all policies of government should be developed in full consideration of fellow citizens with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question. Yesterday the Premier told the media he did not really want to see imported garbage being dumped into the Province. I have a question for the Minister of Environment. I would say to her, if the government is really opposed to the importation of garbage on any terms, why does the government not tell straight out this particular decision and position to North American Resource Recovery, who propose to import garbage for incineration at Long Harbour? Why does the government not tell this to the proponents, and why is government so indecisive and wishy-washy on this issue now?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. acting Leader of the Opposition we have not as yet received the proposal for the Long Harbour project. As Minister of Environment I am required to review any project that does come before me. I am obligated, in fact, to do that. So if a project does come, then indeed I will have to see that it is put through the Environmental Assessment Act.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister why really is government so reluctant to take a stand on this issue? I want to remind the minister that in September of 1988 the Liberal party, led by the now Premier, opposed very strongly the storing of imported garbage in Bell Island mines. I want to quote for the minister what he said then. He said: It is offensive to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be opposed to any similar proposal for dumping industrial and toxic or potentially toxic waste in any part of this Province. That is what the leader of the Liberal party said in 1988, the now Premier. I want to ask the Minister of Environment, what has happened to make you so ambivalent on this issue now?

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

MS. COWAN: I have faith, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the acting leader, in the environmental assessment process, just as indeed did the hon. Ron Dawe in a ministerial statement of December 19, 1980 when he said: 'The Environmental Assessment Act is a major item of legislation. It is the most far-reaching statute ever passed by this hon. House in the area of environmental protection and resource management. The act has changed government's whole approach to the making of major decisions affecting the environment. I must hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of the public are also recognized and addressed throughout the environmental assessment process. This means that the proponents impact statement,' in this case if we get one, 'must address pertinent issues related to social structure, economic conditions, historic and cultural background, population numbers and distribution, facilities and services and so on. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government,' and I am talking about the old one, 'by instituting the environmental assessment process has taken a fresh approach to decisions on resource use and environmental problems.'

Now it is their legislation that is going to be applied to this. They had tremendous faith in it in those days. As I indicated the other day in paying a most unusual compliment to the Opposition,which is something that doesn't seem to be what we normally do in these particular question periods, the environmental assessment is a good one. We do need to take a look at it to see how it dovetails into the new federal environmental assessment process. But I have confidence that if this project is brought to our attention in the Environment Department, it will be gone over using every aspect of the environmental assessment process and it will not go ahead if it is not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

A supplementary to the minister: I want to ask the minister - and I refer to the news release of Clyde K. Wells of Friday, September 16, 1988 - why were you not concerned about environmental impact studies then, in 1988? At that time you were straight-out against importation of garbage, I say to the minister. So if you are still against it, why go through the expense and the turmoil of an environmental impact study? Why don't you just say no to the project now, I ask the minister? How can she lecture about environmental impact studies when in 1988 she was categorically against it?

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

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Throne Speech of 1980, the then government, in addressing problems of this particular nature, said that there would be - I will just paraphrase it first - a lot of new and potentially dangerous stresses on our environment, potentially dangerous stresses on our national and social environments over the next few years. "However - this is an exact quote - "we must be careful in each instance, first to evaluate both the benefits of resource and economic development and its consequential environmental, social and economic impacts. Only then should we decide on a rational, r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-e, rational basis, whether the resource or economic development in question is justified." I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think I know now why the minister is so indecisive. She didn't even spell the word correctly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: She didn't even spell it right. Unbelievable! Unbelievable! I see her writing it down now to get the right spelling.

MR. TOBIN: Rex is writing it for her.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Energy just corrected the minister.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister another question. I want to ask the minister: Does she agree with this statement made by her leader on behalf of her party in September 1988 with reference to a proposal to bury waste in the Bell Island mines? At that time the Premier said: 'Newfoundland would become known not as an environmentally safe relatively pollution free area, a reputation which it now enjoys, but a place which is so impoverished and so desperate that it has to take in other people's garbage. Do we really want to become North American's garbage dump for the sake of a few jobs?' I ask the minister: how does she react to that? Does she agree with her leader's statement of 1988?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

I would say that the Leader of the Opposition, as he was at that time, was doing his duty as he still continues to do it today, considering the opinion of the public, taking it into play and into the decision making process. Certainly during the environmental assessment review there is always opportunity for public input at every step of the way, so I do not think that really the then Leader of the Opposition was speaking out of line or out of question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, before I put my final supplementary I would like to refer the minister to a news clipping of September 27, 1988. The bottom paragraph says: 'The next day Newfoundland Environment Minister James Russell killed Canadian Ecologies application for a feasibility study,' I say to the minister. Now, I want to ask her a simple question. Why not say no to imported garbage? Say it loud and clear and say it today in this House for the people of this Province. Say, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, again let me say that we are trying to approach this in a very rational manner. I have an obligation as Minister of Environment and Lands to review every project, I wait until they are brought to my attention, but every project that is proposed for development in this Province. It would be untoward for me to dismiss this out of hand. The government could in fact find itself in court by refusing to examine a proposal. I believe there has been precedent set for this in Canada re the Oldman Dam in the western part of the nation, so it would be most untoward for me to refuse to have a look at any request that comes before my department regarding a new development here in the Province.

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

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

My question is also to the Minister of Environment and Lands. Yesterday in this House the Premier told us that toxic effluent was not being pumped into Placentia Bay. Yesterday the Premier said that toxic effluent was not being pumped into Placentia Bay from the phosphorous plant at Long Harbour. Now, in view of the fact that an official from Environment Canada said on the CBC Morning Show that it was being pumped into Placentia Bay, could the minister now advise if their officials are sure that no toxic effluent from the phosphorus plant has been pumped into Placentia Bay?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain amount of phosphorus that is allowed to go into the Placentia Bay area, .5 parts per billion, which I am told is a very, very low, almost non-existent amount. I have asked my officials to tell me the standard on which that is based and they are now looking into that. I will certainly be glad to make the House aware of that information once I receive it, but at this stage it is .5 parts per billion of phosphorus daily that is allowed to go into the bay.

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

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

According to Environment Canada officials it is 40 parts per billion. So I say to the minister that she should check her figures. Furthermore, this plant closed down shortly after this government came into power. Could the minister advise what agreements were made with Albright and Wilson to clean up the mess that they left in Long Harbour? Could the minister advise and lay on the Table of this House what agreements have been in place with Albright and Wilson to clean up the mess in Long Harbour?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I feel like repeating my "my goodness" of the other day. These people are sitting over there, hypocrites that they are, who allowed Long Harbour to reach the levels that it is today. They should be ashamed!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Within one month, Mr. Speaker, of this government being elected we had put in place for the first time in the history of the Canadian nation an environmental assessment process that would monitor the de-commissioning of that particular job site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: The hypocrisy of that group is absolutely appalling, Mr. Speaker. I find it difficult to even look at them as I stand here today.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was in the year of 1969 when that plant opened in Long Harbour, it was also the Premier of today who was in that Cabinet at the time. I say to the minister, also it was the Premier who was campaigning in the last election who shook hands at the gate and said: you take care of me, I'll take care of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: Now I would also ask the minister, would she kindly do the honourable thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Would the minister kindly do the honourable thing. Lay on the Table of this House the documents that were signed between her government and Albright and Wilson with the clean up of the mess that is in Long Harbour? Would she kindly do that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MS. COWAN: Those particular documents, Mr. Speaker, are not available for public circulation at this time. I can however provide -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I will again remind them that this government was the one that ordered the assessment process to take place. If we had been like the last government we would have shut our eyes and gone on, hoping that nobody would ever notice that there was a mess out there. But we did not. We addressed it. I am very proud to be part of a government that is that concerned.

I would be glad to provide some briefing notes to the Opposition. There are certainly briefing notes that have been given to me, so that in no way would there be misinformation. They were given to me for my benefit as the minister. I would be glad to pass those along to the Opposition when I get copies of them. At this particular time I would have to get permission from the Department of Justice to hand out anything else.

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary. Why is the minister hiding this particular document from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question that has to be asked. The minister is hiding something from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Come clean and place it on the Table of this House.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

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

MS. COWAN: We are indeed trying -

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you. We are trying to come clean. I am trying to get rid of all that litter in the ditches, I am trying to get rid of the phosphorous that is piled up out at Long Harbour, I am trying to get rid of ATV tracks, I am trying to get rid of waste oil, I am trying to get rid of sixty municipal garbage disposals. I could go on and on. Garbage fill sites that are overflowing. There are a lot of things that this government has to come clean on in environment because of that particular crowd.

Now if the critic over there - my hon., I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am not being very polite. The hon. member, if he would like to define exactly for me what document he means, it might be of some help to me. I am not sure at this stage whether he wants every single piece of paper that has ever passed between us and Albright and Wilson or just what it is. But I would feel that what I said at first stands, that most things would have to be run through the Justice Department. But I can certainly make available briefing notes that have been given to me as minister.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Lands. The minister for some time now, and again today, has been making reference to legislation and regulations with respect to the use of ATVs. The minister is obviously aware that environmentalists and users alike are quite concerned about this matter. The minister has publicly discussed it for quite some time. Who has the minister consulted with and when does she intend to release some information to the public of this Province with respect to ATV legislation?

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

MS. COWAN: Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Here we go again. Here is a government that has decided to address the problem. Thirty-six thousand ATVs are now on the rampage around this Province destroying bog lands, destroying wetlands, destroying archaeological sites, destroying fens, destroying meadows, destroying you name it.

I was out again on my famous helicopter trip of last Saturday not only looking at garbage, but looking at what that past government allowed to happen to the bog land on this Avalon Peninsula. I will tell you right now that it doesn't stand well with that government that they allowed it to happen. Yet they have the gall to stand up and act as if: Oh, my goodness, I should have just rushed into the department, waved that wonderful magic wand that everybody over here is supposed to possess and change the whole order of history.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that I am extremely concerned about ATVs. What I saw on that short helicopter ride Saturday made me even more convinced of the incredible damage that that group allowed to be perpetrated upon this beautiful Province. As soon as we can get regulations that meet the particular needs that we have right now to address the bogs and wetlands - do you realize that some of those bogs and wetlands may take hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years to regenerate? It is incredible to think that that was allowed to happen by people who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to take the bull by the horns. I have had no complaints from anybody yet, Mr. Speaker, not one person in this Province, about the proposed ATV legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the only thing incredible about this is the incompetence of the minister. Doesn't she realize that she has been a minister for a number of months, she has talked about it and she has done nothing.

Let me ask the minister this then -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, can you silence the Minister of Health? He is gone crazy this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that there is some problem with the indiscriminate use of ATVs on the wetlands and marshes of this Province. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister that it is continuing while she sits as the minister. She might want to blame it on the last seventeen years, but it still continues.

My question is: With the approach of the summer season and the increased use of ATVs, can we expect legislation or regulations that will be in effect for this summer?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, those particular regulations are not ready yet. However - and just to show how ready I am to listen and how broad-minded - just because something has been mentioned to me by a member of the PC party or the NDP, I don't immediately dismiss it. The hon. Member from Humber East asked me at the hearings we had regarding our estimates some time ago that if there were some really vulnerable areas that could be addressed this summer before the regulations come in, would I do so. Frankly, I thought that was a good idea. So I instructed my officials to look into that area, and they are doing it. I have the authority as minister to actually say that certain areas can be declared reserves. I thought it was a good idea, quite frankly. So that is being looked at at the moment and, hopefully, we will be able to have something forthcoming from (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister or Environment and Lands. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, despite the answers of the Premier in the House on the Long Harbour project, the Premier expressed outside the House his personal opposition to the project. I want to ask the Minister of Environment and Lands: Does she have a personal opposition to the project as well or is the Premier the only person allowed to express his personal view? Does the minister have a personal view on it and have the personal views of the Cabinet Ministers been discussed on this, and can she tell us the collective wisdom of the Cabinet's personal views on this matter?

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

MS. COWAN: Oh would, Mr. Speaker, that I was in a position. I always seem to get portfolios where I can't give any personal views. First I was the Minister of Labour, so I always had to take sort of a middle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if they wish to hear my answer they could be quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: There are certain portfolio positions where the minister has to remain in an unbiased position in order to see that assessments or arbitrations or whatever are taking place are done in the fairest possible way. I could not, under any circumstances, in fact I would not be a proper minister, if indeed I gave my personal opinion about something that might come before an environmental assessment process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously the Premier, in the Cabinet, has a personal view and has expressed it. What is going on here? Is the government trying to have it both ways as some sort of PR gesture?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Are they going to put this company through some sort of charade, and force them to go through this environmental process, and then say, no? Is this a charade? Why do they not be honest? If they have a policy on importing garbage why do they not tell the people of this Province: Yes, we will permit it or no, we will not. Make up your minds. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have the Premier saying: Oh, I am opposed to it, but my government could well permit it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am sorry I cannot continue with the light entertainment to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy. He is undoubtedly aware of the infamous contract between CF(L)Co and Hydro Quebec on the Upper Churchill contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: The minister is undoubtedly aware of the infamous contract between Hydro Quebec concerning the Upper Churchill power sales to Hydro Quebec. I wonder if he can tell me if CF(L)Co is subsidized by the taxpayers of the Province, or its operational expenses paid for directly from the earnings of this hydro to Hydro Quebec?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co is not subsidized by anybody. It operates from profit.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the President of Treasury Board: Are any employees with CF(L)Co paid directly or indirectly from the current account expenditure of this Province?

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

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

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all aware that CF(L)Co is a Crown corporation. Since the purpose of Bill 17 is to reduce government expenditures for a specific period, why does it apply to the employees of CF(L)Co whose wages have no effect on the current account expenditures of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in doing up Bill 17 it is not easy to come up with a definitive list of companies and organizations that come under the scope of Bill 17. There are many groups that are not entirely one or the other and so on, so what we have done is we have included a number of groups whose expenditures do not come directly out of the public purse in terms of the current account expenditures of the government. So this is not the only group. There are a number of other groups that are included exactly the same way.

The list was meant to be all-inclusive in terms of people who were relying on the public purse, either directly or indirectly in some way, for their income.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister responsible for Mines and Energy has confirmed to this House in a previous question that CF(L)Co is a profit making corporation and turns a profit into this Province. Since Bill 17 is shameful legislation in any terms, but to apply it to groups whose wages have no effect whatsoever on the current account position of this government, will this government exempt CF(L)Co employees from this terrible, obnoxious legislation?

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

MR. BAKER: I assume that the hon. gentleman is referring to Bill 17. I did not recognize it otherwise, but I assume that is what he is referring to. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, we will not.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Social Services.

Due to the action or the lack of action by this government in closing down basically all industries in this Province in terms of fish plants, hospitals, mines and everything else, there is an increasing number of people who are turning to social assistance in this Province. Will the minister provide me with the number of households, and, indeed, the number of people who are on social assistance, and would he also confirm that it is the highest number since Confederation?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I was asked in this House about two weeks ago now to provide statistics over the last few years on all categories of social assistance and, indeed, all departments, as well. I did that, and I tabled it in the House. Those statistics are available. They were tabled in this House about a week ago.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the statistics. I ask the minister, Would he now provide the House with the statistics?

AN HON. MEMBER: They were already tabled.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, social assistance, in my mind, is a broad category including people on direct social assistance from a monetary standpoint, people with mental and physical disabilities, and the list goes on, of categories of assistance. I provided to the House documentation for the last three years in all those categories. So to expect me today, off the top, to come up with three pages of statistics is a little unreasonable. It has been tabled, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, presiding over the department that has the worst unemployment statistics, and the highest caseload since Confederation, I would be a little embarrassed to have those results made public again, too, I say to the minister. There are more people on social assistance in this Province today that there have been since 1949, I say to him.

Let me ask the minister if he will confirm this, then, Mr. Speaker. There are people in this Province on social assistance today, adult men who can't find jobs, receiving from his department $2.93 a day to live on. Will the minister confirm that's what is happening?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, $2.93 a day sounds about correct for one category of single able-bodied social assistance. Mr. Speaker, when asked that question in the House previously, I said we would be reviewing that particular category and other categories of social assistance. The previous question asked of me drew a comparison of people on single able-bodied social assistance and others who required special care and received substantially more, and why, in fact, they were receiving substantially more. I have asked that the whole category be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and I will report back to the House when I receive the report.

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that people on social assistance were receiving more than they are today, and it is not this minister's fault. This minister needs the support of Cabinet. Let me ask the minister then, Mr. Speaker, since the regulations have been changed will he confirm that there are married couples in this Province today who have to live on $6.02?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you spend?

MR. TOBIN: More than that.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the point being made by that question - I can't confirm that. I would have to do the calculation, but certainly, it sounds like it might be in the lowest category of assistance for family support.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say the thrust of his questions are: Are we having great difficulty with the economy with the times we live in? - the fact that we have people on unemployment rolls greater than ever before in the past. I think that is a fair comment. People are coming to social assistance as the last resort, and we are having difficult times. No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, our caseloads have increased. We are up 50 per cent - and I gave those stats to the House - 50 per cent since three years ago. Over three years it has gone 50 per cent. And 22 or 24 per cent, I believe, was the statistic over the last year.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are having great difficulty. There is no question about that. I don't think it is any secret. Difficult economic times mean that unemployment, growing unemployment, I might add, and particularly our problems with the fishery will continue to increase our caseloads, I would think, for some time in the foreseeable future until we work our way out of this recession and certainly solve our problems with the economy, particularly the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, since this is National Access Awareness Week, I would like to ask for permission of Your Honour and leave of other members, to make a short public service announcement on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have consent of the House to leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MS. VERGE: The Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee, which, as I think all members realize, is a provincial organization providing public education and information about the prevention of aids, as well as providing advocacy for people with aids or people who are HIV positive, tonight, in St. John's, is having a benefit concert. Eight o'clock tonight at Holy Heart of Mary Auditorium on Bonaventure Avenue, there will be a fabulous concert with all kinds of Newfoundland and Labrador artists. The name of the concert is, 'Save the Future', and I would like to encourage members and people in the galleries to take in an evening of great entertainment and, in the process, provide some financial assistance to the Provincial Aids Committee.

I think all of us realize that the Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee is having financial problems at present, problems which were unforeseen and which have caused a particularly great burden on them now. The tickets are on sale. If any of you would like one, I have some available. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order or whatever it was, I should also encourage our members to buy tickets. I already have mine; I bought them earlier in the day. I think some of our members have. I consider it a worthy cause and I would certainly encourage it.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report of the Public Accounts Committee for the period January 1991 to February of 1992.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the imposition of a tax on tobacco.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on Monday, the House Leader of the Official Opposition asked me a question concerning the Belleoram fish plant, and at the time, I indicated I would get the information and table it.

The plant, Mr. Speaker, is owned by the Department of Fisheries and is being purchased by Daley Brothers under a ten-year lease/purchase agreement, which will end in September of 1997. The selling price for the plant was $102,600, with a yearly lease/purchase fee of $13,652, including a 7 per cent interest rate.

On January 28, Mr. Speaker, I met with the member for the district and a delegation from Belleoram to discuss the status of the plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: January 28?

MR. CARTER: January 28, yes. The committee subsequently met Mr. Daley, who advised them that he is not interested in terminating the lease/purchase agreement on the plant. Meanwhile, he is unable to secure sufficient groundfish for a viable operation, and I am told there is no other party interested, at the moment, in sub-leasing.

I believe, at the time, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that maybe the agreement was entered into between the company and the town. That is not correct. In 1987, I guess, the then government entered into that agreement, and from what I am told, the owners are not interested at all in selling.

Mr. Speaker, I want, as well, to provide the House information concerning a question asked yesterday by the gentleman from Humber Valley concerning the crab fishery, and I am told that on Monday of this week, a meeting took place in Gander, the Advisory Committee on crab, there were twenty-nine full-time fishermen in attendance, and twenty-five fishermen out of twenty-nine voted for the proposition that the crab quota be put on a boat allocation. In other words, the 3,100 ton quota would be divided up among the twenty-nine boats, and then they would be able to catch the crab when they were ready to catch it.

Mr. Speaker, that recommendation came about as a result of a problem that is now being experienced in the crab industry, in that, apparently, last year there was an oversupply. There is already, I believe, now, an inventory of crab from last year. Consequently, I believe, with the exception, maybe, of Fogo Island, most of the other plants are reluctant to start operation, given the fact that most of them still have an inventory from last year. That is what prompted the fishermen to ask that the vessels be put on allocation.

I think the way it is now, you have four vessels from Fogo Island in disagreement with that recommendation and they are now, I believe, fishing. Of course, the danger is that if the other twenty-five refrain from harvesting crab because of the market conditions, that the four people from Fogo Island could very well use up the entire quota.

So therein lies the reason for the recommendation. I can tell the House that my department supports the recommendation made by the twenty-five fishermen in Gander that vessels be put on a quota, certainly for this year, while this situation exists.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) supplementary.

MR. CARTER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker - I am not sure, quite frankly. This was a meeting of the full-time fishermen. I am not sure what their recommendation would be for the supplementary fishermen.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I call on the Member for Torngat Mountains to introduce and debate his private member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am privileged today to introduce this particular resolution. The resolution reads:

"BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and industrial waste from any jurisdiction outside this province."

Mr. Speaker, a number of weeks ago - in fact, I think I should go back to probably five or six months ago, a company called and wanted to meet with our caucus to discuss a project that they were proposing for the town of Long Harbour. We viewed the film, we listened to officials of the particular company. It was very educational, very well put together, and the film showed us that there was very little concern for this particular project not going ahead.

Since then, we have met with the company on another occasion, and recently, our party formed a committee composed of the Members for Harbour Main, Fogo, and myself. We carried out a process in which we wanted to involve as many people as we could in the time period allotted to us. I am quite pleased today to notice that we have the Mayor and some councillors from the Town of Long Harbour in the gallery, because I think they have an interest in this particular project.

We took the opportunity, after the delegation from Long Harbour came back from visiting three of those particular sites - I think it was three they advised us - we met with the town council of Long Harbour. I would think we had a fairly good extensive meeting. We have a lot of information from the Mayor and his officials. I think they have done - and I must compliment them - a good job in trying to sell their proposal. Mr. Speaker, I must note here, too, at that particular meeting I think the mayor and others in council said that they were conditionally - I think the word `conditionally' was used - supporting the particular project. When I reported to our caucus I advised our caucus of that, that they did say there are conditions attached to any support. I can appreciate the hard work and energy that the town council delegation from Long Harbour put into this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, from there, we went to a public meeting in the Town of Dunville and there were sixty-four people in attendance at this meeting. Those who were for the project, by our count - and I believe my two colleagues can correct me if I use the wrong numbers - there were two who indicated they were for the project and two others who had some reservations. The others who spoke were outright against the project.

From there, we attended a meeting in St. John's, where I think there were either seventy-five or seventy-nine people who came out. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't call or request any organization or any individual person to come to our meeting. We announced we were going to have a public meeting and we left it to anyone who wanted to to attend. It was left up to them, and those were the people who turned up.

At this meeting in St. John's there were also two people who thought we should go ahead with the DIS. They were concerned about employment in the Long Harbour area where people naturally, as in other communities, need employment. Again, there were forty-four people who expressed concern that the project was not sound enough to go ahead in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, our party took a policy form and travelled throughout the Province on other issues. In several communities or several forums that we had, such as in Carbonear, Clarenville, and down in the Grand Falls area, people expressed concern, other than with regard to fishing or mining or social services, about incineration.

Mr. Speaker, we came back, and I think it is fair to the delegation from Long Harbour that we advised we will be making our decision a few days hence. After viewing the facts and weighing the consequences, I think the big issue out there, Mr. Speaker, the big issue that was coming from practically all those who opposed the particular project, was someone else's garbage. Mr. Speaker, that was the underlying current in all of our discussions, somebody else's garbage.

Mr. Speaker, from there I would like to go back to what the Premier now, who was the Leader of the Opposition, on Friday, September 16, 1988, said. Mr. Speaker, I think it is right for me to read some of this into the record, just to show that, as an official Opposition sometimes you have to take stands that could be popular to some people and unpopular to other people. Here is a prime example of the decision that we took a few days ago and a decision that the Premier took when he was the Leader of the Opposition several years ago: The Liberal Party is opposed to the proposal from Canadian Ecology Limited, and will be opposed to any similar proposal for dumping industrial and/or toxic or potentially toxic waste in any part of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, now my hon. colleague, my hon. friend, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture said dumping. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. minister, if he is going to speak in this debate, get up afterwards and advise this House what is going to happen to it when it arises here? It is going to be burned, but what is going to happen to the ash? What is going to happen to the ash, Mr. Speaker?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just quote more from what his leader says, the leader that they vacated a seat for. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said at the time: Mr. John Efford, the Liberal MHA for Port de Grave, was involved in all these meetings because of his concern for the possible impact upon the Conception Bay fishing industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WARREN: Mr. John Efford, Member for Port de Grave, was attending all those meetings, and he was concerned about the potential danger to the fishing industry in Conception Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, are we concerned about the fishing industry in Placentia Bay? Are we concerned about the fishing industry in other bays around our Province? Sure we are, Mr. Speaker. Sure we are. But, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if this particular government is.

Mr. Speaker, I find this very ironic, we get our Premier going throughout Canada and the world talking about foreign overfishing on the one hand, and here on the other hand he is allowing the foreign waste to come into our Province. On one hand he is against any foreign overfishing, and on the other hand he is allowing the foreign waste to come into our own Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier at the time said: from the information given to us we have identified the following concerns. And you know, Mr. Speaker, I did not see this statement when we released our findings to our caucus, but I have to read those three or four concerns that the Premier at that time identified.

Number one: the wastes to be stored are hazardous. Now, Mr. Speaker, the waste to be burned at Long Harbour is hazardous. There are also risks involved in transportation, handling and storage of these wastes. That is exactly what we are saying, Mr. Speaker. There are risks involved in the transportation, storage and handling of the wastes, and I don't think the company has come clean. The company has not come clean on those questions.

The third one: there is the unanswered question of why a company would want to go to the trouble and the expense of hauling industrial garbage right across North America to dump it in Newfoundland. Now that is what the Premier said back in 1988, and that is the same question that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking today. Why would somebody, if this is so good and it is going to employ a number of people, and there are a number of people unemployed in the United States, so if it is such a good project why are they transporting it into our Province?

We have the reputation of being a healthy, friendly, environmentally sound Province, but we also have the reputation of the Newfie joke, Mr. Speaker. And to me this is beginning to be a big Newfie joke. I don't know if I can quote correctly, but a person by the name of Mr. Squires, I think he was a ham radio operator, he spoke to a meeting in St. John's, and I gather from the statements that he made to us he has been having a lot of contacts through his hobby of his radio operating - that he has spoken to many, many people. He said that when they talk to someone, the first thing they say is: Where is Newfoundland? So he will explain to them where Newfoundland is and then the next day he would contact the Department of Tourism, or some other department, to send literature to this particular person, whether the person was in the United States, in England, or in Brazil. But recently he said, when he is on his radio now talking to somebody, the first thing when someone says: Where is Newfoundland? Someone else will bump in: That is where they are going to burn the United States garbage. Already the word is out there. The word is out there that Newfoundland is a place where you are going to burn the United States garbage.

Back in 1988 the Minister of Environment at the time was the hon. Jim Russell. We know, and those in the House, the Minister of Health, the President of the Council, the Minister of Fisheries, that is about all that were in here then, I think - oh, the Minister of Agriculture was here; we can remember then the big racket, the big public meetings on Bell Island.

Let me say to my hon. colleague: Yes, there is a big environmental mess in the district of Torngat Mountains, and this government is not doing anything about it. It is the mess in Kitts Michelin where BRINEX has left everything the same as Albright and Wilson has left it in Long Harbour. BRINEX has done the same thing in Kitts Michelin. That is what is of great concern for us, that this government is not attacking the environment problem in our Province.

It is most interesting. My colleague from Grand Bank read today, and I have to read it again because I think it is most interesting and coincidental what the Premier said in 1988. Newfoundland would become not an environmentally safe, relatively pollution free area, a reputation which it now enjoys, but a place which is so impoverished and so desperate that it has to take in other people's garbage. Do we really want to become North America's garbage dump for the sake of a few jobs?

I want to say, that is the question that we have to ask ourselves. That is the question that we have to ask ourselves in bringing this debate to the Legislature today.

I cannot see how the government can amend this particular resolution, because it just says, BE IT RESOLVED and either we do it or we do not do it. Maybe the government may come along now with their typical political manoeuvres to amend this particular resolution. If they do, so be it, but at the end of the day we will be calling division on finding out who in this Legislature is for or against this particular resolution. We will know by five o'clock this afternoon who is for or who is against this particular resolution.

Now let me continue by saying that since we made our decision, I believe I heard the Mayor for Long Harbour on expressing his opinion, which I think is fair and proper for the mayor of a municipality to do. He has an obligation to his community and likewise we, as members of this Legislature, have an obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, also including the community of Long Harbour.

Since we made our decision we have, I will not use the word 'bombarded', but we have literally received hundreds of calls, and letters from various groups. In fact, it was only just two days ago I got a call wanting me to set up a meeting with the Federation of Wildlife in the Province. I would think that in the next few days we will be meeting with them, and they have a large, large membership in their organization.

I had a call today from a particular teacher who has a petition now, with in excess of 17,000 signatures. It is ready to be presented to this Legislature, but those petitions will continue to grow, because this is an emotional issue. This is a very emotional issue that strikes the heart of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It is the thought of us cleaning up United States garbage. That is the big issue here. We have a job in our Province to do, and that is to clean up our own garbage. I say to the hon. Member for Carbonear, who is not in the Legislature now, that one of the biggest messes in our Province today is the incinerator in Carbonear. That is one that this government should take serious action on immediately. That is one of the biggest concerns, and it will be talked about more in due course.

I say, at the same time, we took the opportunity to visit the site at Long Harbour, to visit what is left at Long Harbour. The minister said she went up for a helicopter ride a few days ago. I hope she went to Long Harbour on her helicopter ride and flew over the phosphorous plant and the mess that is left there. The Premier said in this Legislature it is going to take ten to twenty years to clean up the mess. At the same time I understand from the Premier's comments, and talking with the company, that North American Recovery and Albright and Wilson, are not very far apart. They are intertwined. They need this project in order to get money to help to clean things up. That is the impression that the company left with us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, they have to clean it up, but when? Twenty years down the road? They should be cleaning it up now. Which they are not really doing. That is the problem. That have not put enough effort in doing the clean up over there. There are many people in Long Harbour who could be employed tomorrow in the clean up.

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

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, I may not know what I am talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, and I do not care who has said it. But I say to my hon. colleague, I may not know what I am talking about, but I am concerned about the environment of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to have a few words to say about this particular resolution. Before I get started on the resolution I would like to make something perfectly clear. Let there be no doubt about what I am saying. We will not become a dumping ground for garbage. We will not become a dumping ground for industrial waste or toxic waste or anything of the sort. It will not happen. So let's make that perfectly clear before we get started with this particular resolution. Let there be no doubt at all in anybody's mind.

Now the resolution that is put forward here today seems to be fairly simple. I do not think the hon. member read the resolution out, but I will read it again, if I may. "BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and industrial wastes" - and I assume the hon. gentleman meant 'and/or,' because simply putting both of them together creates a problem - and/or industrial waste - "from any jurisdiction outside this province."

It seems to be pretty straightforward. The hon. gentleman in his speech referred specifically to one proposed project that some money has been given to by the federal government to have a look at developing an incinerator. That is what he spent most of his speech referring to, although he did mention some other industrial development projects, past and present.

As we have said many times, in terms of this government, no proposal has been presented. But I want to seriously point out something about any such proposal. We are bound by the act.

MS. VERGE: You can change it.

MR. BAKER: I understand that. We are bound by the act, and this particular act, Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Assessment Act and its regulations, gazetted Friday, October 5, 1984 and brought in by the previous government, Mr. Speaker, bound the Government of the Province to a process. It absolutely bound the government, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, Section 5 simply says that the Crown is bound by this act. The hon. Member for Humber East shakes her head, but I am just reading from the act. The government is bound by the act and there is a process to follow. The Minister of Environment and Lands today read out some of the comments that were made at the time the act was introduced into the House of Assembly and it is a process to ensure that what happens in this Province is proper from an environmental perspective. The reason it was brought in was to ensure that, number one, there was protection of the Province, number two, that the people of the Province were informed of all aspects of a particular proposal, and number three, that government should not, on the spur of the moment, make decisions that they might later regret for the good of the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for this particular act. It is there, and government is bound by the act. That is the first point I would like to make.

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution - and I would like to say before I go any further that a lot of the general sentiments expressed by the hon. member, we agree with -

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course.

MR. BAKER: - as I indicated at the beginning. We will not become a dumping ground for anybody. But we are in a changing world. The world now is a lot different from what it was ten or fifteen years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Now, I am serious about this and the hon. gentleman should listen if he wants to learn something.

We are in a changing world. Very recently, we had a collection of toxic materials, toxic wastes, collected in this city. They could not properly be disposed of in this city. These wastes were collected here in this city and transported to Ontario for proper disposal. That is the type of world we are in.

In this Province over the years we have had tremendous problems with PCB's. We have had tremendous problems with lots of toxic substances, and finally, there are agreements whereby certain centres will accept materials from other centres. It is called helping each other out. It is called cleaning up the environment. And we experienced that here recently. So we are in a different world. We are in a different world in terms of what I will loosely refer to as garbage because the hon. gentleman mentions that in his resolution. Any project which involves importation or disposal of garbage, and there is a problem with that definition, Mr. Speaker, because, suppose that - and I am looking down the road now - suppose that a company were to come to us, or there were to be some agreement amongst some provinces, let us say, that all of the glass in the Maritimes would be brought to Newfoundland, all the garbage that was glass would be brought to Newfoundland for recycling, and all the plastics would be brought to PEI for recycling, and so on, what about if that type of a development were proposed? That is garbage. I would suggest to the hon. member that a proposal like that, if it were found, through the process, to be environmentally safe, and if it were explained to the people, would be acceptable. I would suggest to the hon. gentlemen that it would be totally acceptable. So we are in that kind of world, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of world we live in, a world of environmental awareness and a world of, hopefully, more co-operation in solving our environmental problems and in solving our recycling problems. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as worded by the hon. gentleman, would prevent any government from ever taking part in such a process.

Mr. Speaker, there are other things happening in this changing world: the regulations that are now being developed all over the world in terms of the use of paper; and it started in the United States, I believe, but may spread to many other parts of the world, that paper companies, in order to sell paper, must have a certain percentage of recycled paper. That is garbage.

Why couldn't we bring in from Nova Scotia, or New York, as the case may be, waste newsprint, newspapers, de-ink them and use them in the process so that we are then capable of selling our paper on the world market, a world market that is now insisting on having a certain percentage of recycled materials? And we don't have enough in this Province to provide it - we would have to bring it in.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would not allow even that to happen, and we will dwell on that in more detail later. But this resolution would not even allow that to happen, so this resolution is a short-sighted resolution. I am not criticizing the hon. gentleman's intent, because we agree with the intent.

This is a short-sighted resolution, a very poorly worded resolution, a resolution that is indicative of a lack of long-term planning and a lack of understanding as to what this resolution would actually commit this Province to. Mr. Speaker, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, that if they saw a parade that they want to jump in front of to lead, if that is what they are doing, and that is what it seems to me they are doing, then at least, they should have taken the time to think about the implications of any type of resolution that they would bring into this House, that it would bind the Government of this Province to. At least, they should have taken the time to think about it and examine the meaning behind their resolution, instead of simply looking at the surface and seeing this parade out there and saying I want to jump in front of that parade so I am going to do it now. I am going to do it now - Aren't I good? - jump in front of this parade.

Instead of doing that, they should have thought about this sensibly, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to amend the resolution to fit the reality of what I believe is the intent of the members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, help them out.

MR. BAKER: I am going to help them out. I move, seconded by the Member for Twillingate, that after the word, 'Province', the following be added: comma, if such a project is registered and evaluated as required by the Environmental Assessment Act, and is found to be either ecologically unsafe, socially unacceptable or contrary to the will of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, this amendment, if ruled in order - and I am confident that it should be - would take into account: number one, that government is bound to go through the process by law, by our own act enacted in this Legislature, and that this will ensure that projects that go against the will of the people of the Province, will not happen. So, Mr. Speaker, what could be more democratic and what could be more all-encompassing than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move this amendment and would like Your Honour to have a look at a copy.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from what the member has said that he is totally changing the intent of the resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the hon. member is on a point of order?

MR. TOBIN: It is a point of order. Yes, Mr. Speaker, a point of order, I said.

When one's intent is to change the intent of the resolution, then I submit that it is out of order. The Member for Torngat Mountains wants the resolution passed, because the resolution he submitted was to be passed without any changes. Because what would happen here if what has been stated by the amendment - I don't have a copy of the amendment yet that the member introduced.

Mr. Speaker, what the member has said here is: "BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and industrial waste from any jurisdiction outside the Province."

The intent of the resolution that is put forth by my colleague was not to have any studies, not to have anything put in place, but to cancel, as was suggested, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier of this Province back in 1988 when we, as a Province, decided that there would not be an environmental impact study. The Premier of this Province, at that time, stated, "The government's decision is the right move and the only sensible position. It is exactly the position we have taken from the beginning," said Mr. Wells.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier states there, what my colleague from Torngat Mountains has asked this House to pass is one resolution. What the Government House Leader has asked the House to do is an entirely different resolution from what has been presented there. I submit that it totally changes the intent of the resolution, and I ask Your Honour to rule it out of order.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member got up and spouted off for a couple of minutes, but hasn't quoted a single reference or anything else. I suppose he is saying he believes that we should not allow the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment, number one, even if he were correct in his assumption, does not change the intent of the resolution to start with. It simply brings the resolution in line with the law of the land right now. The House cannot order government to break the law, in terms of the acts it has to follow. It still says that this project be immediately rejected, Mr. Speaker, which I assume is the intent of the hon. gentlemen opposite, to immediately reject it, provided that it is shown to be environmentally unsafe, socially unsound or against the will of the people. Now, if they don't want to go by the will of the people or whatever, that is up to them.

Mr. Speaker, there are several Standing Orders about amendments and we go by our Standing Orders before we go anywhere else. "A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words." In this case, Mr. Speaker, I have added other words. Then it goes on to describe how Your Honour deals with each of the cases, Mr. Speaker. I have simply added some words. This has been done many times over my seven years in the House with Private Members' Resolutions, where words have been added, Mr. Speaker, that adjust a motion.

I would submit to Your Honour that because of Standing Order 36 this motion is in order.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to concur with the remarks of my colleague from Burin - Placentia West. Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if any project - it doesn't have to be dumping of garbage into this Province - if any project of any nature is found to be either ecologically unsafe, socially unacceptable or contrary to the will of the people of the Province - who is going to determine that, whether it is contrary to the will of the Province? Only the government can make that determination. The government will determine that, whether it is contrary to the will of the people.

Doesn't the President of Treasury Board think now that this Long Harbour project is contrary to the will of the people of this Province? What more proof does the President of Treasury Board and the government want? There is overwhelming support against the Long Harbour proposal, I say to the President of Treasury Board and to members opposite, and I submit to Your Honour.

Now, this changes the intent of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think we need to say too much more about it. What the President of Treasury Board is doing here is trying to squirm and pick a hole in the member's resolution, and I don't think it is worth spending too much more time talking about. It is just his way of trying to get about it now so that the members opposite can vote for this amended resolution. That is what the President of Treasury Board is trying to get, because they know full well, the right thing to do is to reject this proposal outright. The government can do that, to say that there will be no environmental impact study, there will be no feasibility studies. The government can do it, the government before them did it, and why don't they do it now and leave the member's resolution as put forward to this House?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. I tend to agree that the wording of the resolution is perhaps unhappy because it was sort of hastily drawn up to coincide with a policy recently developed by the official Opposition, but I still think that the intent is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker. The intent is that there not be a process, there not be other conditions or not be any soundings, but that there be a statement of policy by this House as to the attitude towards the notion of importing garbage and industrial waste into the Province. I think that intent is quite clear in the resolution. It should have been, perhaps, supported somewhat to make it even more clear; nevertheless, the intent is there. I think, to accept the resolution proposed by the President of Treasury Board is, in fact, to change the intent of the motion, and it ought to be rejected as being out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House briefly to take a look at the resolution and to determine it's acceptability.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page 175, clause 567, first of all, which says: "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question."

Clause 568 also says: "It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself."

Also, and this is in line with our own Standing Orders, clause 569 says: "A motion may be amended by (c) inserting or adding other words."

The last quotation I wish to make for hon. members is on page 175, clause 572: "An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved."

This particular resolution doesn't go that far. It is just an expansion of the resolution. For these reasons, I declare the amendment in order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have a few words to say on this resolution sponsored by my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains. As the member pointed out, I was a member of that committee who heard approximately forty-eight briefs. We heard somewhere in the vicinity of forty-eight briefs, most of which were overwhelmingly against this particular concept that the government is dealing with right now. I believe we had four briefs presented to us, four verbal presentations, people who were in favour of it or who wanted to wait until the environmental process had been completed. I want to commend the people who presented briefs to us. They were very knowledgeable in what they had to say. Everyone, almost without exception, when presenting their brief, you could see from it that they had researched the issue quite extensively and were expressing opinions that proved to be very knowledgeable.

We also met with the Long Harbour town council and I must say it was a very good meeting that we had with the Long Harbour council as well. They have taken a certain position on it which may not meet with the approval of a lot of people. But we were encouraged with the fact that they did indicate that their approval was pretty well conditional upon health and environmental standards being set and met and approved. So we were encouraged by that fact, that, while they did give approval to the project, it was not total outright approval, that it was pretty well conditional upon health and welfare standards being maintained.

Also, as the Member for Torngat Mountains indicated, we did have the opportunity on that visit to Long Harbour to go down into the plant area, to visit the Long Harbour plant area. Not officially, mind you. But we did go in to the gate area and saw the environmental damage that has been caused over the last twenty or twenty-five years. There are a lot of environmental problems in Long Harbour, as the Member for Torngat Mountains has indicated. It was a big surprise to me quite frankly. I had not been in Long Harbour for about a five year period. To see the scar that has been left upon the landscape in Long Harbour is quite... it's quite an eye-opener. It is quite a setback to see actually the environmental damage that has been caused over that twenty or twenty-five year period.

We were appalled really, given the fact that the plant has been closed down now for a period of... what is it? Around three years the plant has been closed down? It certainly appears, on the surface, that there has been virtually no clean up in that area. Now there might be some that have occurred that we were not aware of. But when you look at that monumental heap of slag that seems to be dozed right out into the bay, you cannot help but be appalled at what industry can do to a landscape, what industry can do to an entire area, if it is not responsible in the way it is dealing with the environment. Hopefully, that clean up will continue and hopefully some day Long Harbour will be restored to its original form. Although to look at the plant area right now, you would say that is almost impossible.

Getting back to the people who did present briefs to us, I would like to say that the one common thread that I found all throughout the briefs that people presented, the one common thread that seemed to prevail in all presenters, was not only the health and the welfare, or the health and the environmental factors involved in the whole thing. That was not the only concern that people were expressing. It was not only the obvious toxins that are going to be left as a result of burning garbage in Long Harbour, and the toxins that have to be disposed of. That was not the only concern that people were expressing. That was not the only concern at all. What they were really concerned about, the one common thread that prevailed throughout all the presentations, was the fact that they could not see Newfoundland importing garbage from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. Or anywhere, for that matter.

The importation of garbage seemed to be the big point that people dwelt on. Not only because of the toxins and the various levels of dioxins and mercury and lead that is going to be put off into the atmosphere - even though there was an awful lot of concern associated with that - the one common thing that people seemed to be mentioning was, why should we be importing garbage from anywhere in the world, the United States notwithstanding.

So importing garbage does not sit well with people generally around this Province. We do not want to become the dumping ground for anyone. If the burning of garbage is such a good thing, then let Uncle Sam burn his own garbage, and let Uncle Sam dispose of his own ash and everything else that is associated with burning garbage. This is what people seem to be telling us. They said, go back and tell the United States that we do not need their garbage. Let the United States burn their own garbage, and let the United States dispose of its own problems associated with that, being the ash and everything else.

Given the fact that we are getting a lot of our own air pollution here in Canada from the United States, in the air, because of the heavy industry in the United States - and it is blowing pollutants all across Canada and probably a good portion of North America - it seems that we would be adding insult to injury by taking in garbage from the United States of America into our relatively clean - now we are not perfect either, but taking garbage into our relatively clean, pristine environment here in Newfoundland and Labrador seems to be adding insult to injury, and what for? Just to keep the Americans happy, and just to deal with the problems that they have down there?

I was appalled, as a matter of fact, the other day when I was listening to talk about preparations for the conference down in Rio de Janeiro, which our leader will be attending some time next week. To hear that the President of the United States, who is an individual apparently who is very high on the clean up of the environment, was not all that anxious to sign the environmental treaties that are going to be brought to the conference floor in Rio de Janeiro. He was not very anxious to sign those environmental treaties, and was not going to attend the conference unless they were watered down somewhat.

That indicated to me the commitment, or the level of commitment, that the United States has toward the clean up of the environment, when they were not even willing to sign the existing treaties that they had there - the very strongly worded treaties. The treaties actually had to be watered down so they would be acceptable to the United States, and they could then go to that conference and sign it up.

It is a very emotional issue. It is an issue that has really gripped the hearts and minds of Newfoundlanders. I think it is an issue that the Newfoundland government, notwithstanding what the President of the Council said today, it is an issue in which the Newfoundland government has to take a more active part. They have to demonstrate a little bit of leadership. I cannot see for the life of me why this government is not demonstrating more leadership in this regard.

The Premier the other day, under questioning here in the House of Assembly, said he wanted to wait for an environmental impact study to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he wanted (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Well that could very well be; but let me remind government, and let me remind all members, that there are nine hundred and some odd thousand dollars allocated for an environmental study here. Nine hundred and some odd thousand dollars that could be better spent in this Province, believe me, given the fact that we have thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders out of work, going to the breadlines every single day. Why do we have to waste nine hundred and some odd thousand dollars on an environmental study when it is simply a case, or a matter for the government to enunciate their policy; stand in the House of Assembly; say we do not need garbage from the US; we are not going to have an environmental study, and that is it? It is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: It is the taxpayers money, no matter where it is coming from. If it is ACOA, if it is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where it is coming from it is the taxpayer's money and it can be spent much more wisely than on a foolish environmental study for something that we do not want and that the public are not going to put up with anyway. Mr. Speaker, it is about time that this government took some kind of a leadership role. I was very disappointed in the Premier the other day when we made our position known, when the Leader of the Opposition stood and said: we are foursquare against this. The Premier's response was: well, you had to find a bandwagon to get on or a parade to lead. Now, that is a responsible statement for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to make, that we were looking for a parade to lead. Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken quite loudly on this particular issue. They do not want to import garbage, not for any reason, notwithstanding the health and environmental concerns there are. I guess what we can deduce from what the Premier is saying is that if the Environmental Impact Study proves to be okay we will go ahead -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. DOYLE: Oh, the members are saying, no. In other words we are going to spend $900,000 so the government can say, no, we are not going to go ahead. Why is the government not coming into this House and making its views known and saying: we are against this and I do not imagine that the proponent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make, as difficult as it is to make any points in this chamber -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island if he would restrain himself? The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Harbour Main and that is the member who should be heard in the House at this time.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I am trying to make is that if the government would come into the House, stand and say: we are against this particular proposal, we are against the importation of garbage, then I do not image the proponent would even bother to register this particular project, because if he registers it and the thing continues on for another four, five, six, or eight months, however long an environmental impact study takes, then we are going to have $1 million of taxpayer's money spent on something that government had no intention of approving in the first place. Is that the message we are suppose to be getting from the government?

DR. KITCHEN: Crosbie money.

MR. DOYLE: Crosbie money says the Minister of Finance. Well, let me remind the Minister of Finance that the Crosbie money is Newfoundland taxpayer's money as well.

DR. KITCHEN: That is not our problem.

MR. DOYLE: That is not your problem. Oh, I see. Mr. Speaker, I will be anxious to hear the Minister of Finance on his feet when I sit down.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has to take a more active role in this and say quite plainly, and quite bluntly, that we do not intend to become the dumping ground for anybody, whether it is the Eastern Seaboard or any other part of the Unites States or any part of the world. It is a simple matter as well for government to come in with a piece of legislation, a one clause bill which would get very speedy passage in this House, stating exactly that government will not accept imported garbage. The Opposition has taken a leadership role and have done the responsible thing. People are concerned also on this particular project - and I was surprised that the President of the Council did not deal with it when he stood. 3500 tons of garbage daily is being burned in Newfoundland and Labrador. What does that produce, Mr. Speaker? It produces 115 tons of toxic fly ash per day and it produces 500 tons of bottom ash per day, some of which is toxic as well, 3500 tons of garbage a day for a twenty to a twenty-five year period.

I remember at one of the public meetings we had, one individual got up and he said: do you know what kind of a pile that will be of toxic ash in Newfoundland? Thirty-five hundred tons of garbage a day, for twenty to twenty-five years? I cannot remember exactly what he said, but he said something to the effect that it would be a hole about 123 or 125 feet deep. He said: about the height of Confederation Building, the hole would be, and I forget how long.

MR. WINSOR: A kilometre by a kilometre.

MR. DOYLE: A kilometre by a kilometre, I think it was. Can you imagine a hole the depth of Confederation Building of ash, a kilometre by a kilometre? Toxic material leaching into our environment, leaching into Placentia Bay? That is what we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker. I have read quite a great deal on this over the last number of weeks. An awful lot of documentation has been given to us by people making presentations who have gone through a great deal of trouble to get this documentation.

This one, which is a very interesting one to read, and I would recommend it to all members, the Environmental Research Foundation in Washington. It simply says: incineration package. I will copy it for every member if they would like to read some of the eye-opening things that are contained in here. I wish I was a chemist so I could understand some of the stuff that is in here. The amount of mercury that is going to be produced from this, and the amount of lead and cadmium, I think they call it, and the toxic fly ash that is going to be going off into the environment on a daily basis.

I have heard people who are in favour of it say: they have scrubbers up in the stacks that will take all of this. One individual mentioned to me today that: even if a scrubber in a stack was 99 per cent effective, with 3,500 tons of garbage per day, you would still have one ton of toxic fly ash per day going off into the environment, blowing God knows where, eventually settling down on the ocean and adding further chaos to the dwindling fish stock that we have. Can you imagine? Even if a scrubber in a stack was 99 per cent effective you would still have one full ton of that stuff going off into the environment every single day.

So you have 115 tons of fly ash going out, you have 500 tons of bottom ash that is going to be lying there for a period of twenty or twenty-five years. We are told it would have to be encased, entombed. I was reading in this particular document that I have here that even the encasement that they put this stuff in has been known to break. The toxic leaching inside has been known to break down the encasement that it is in. The stuff has a tendency just to go wherever it wants to.

So what we are talking about here is very serious stuff. You know, it is like cancer. Twenty-five years ago when people were talking about cancer there was: cancer was caused by smoking and what have you. But now we find that cancer - they are coming up with a whole lot of different things that cause cancer. Asbestos, pollutants in the air, and what have you. This is a relatively new technology. It is not all that old. So who knows what they are going to come up with ten or fifteen or twenty years from now, that this stuff is causing. I wish I had -

MR. MATTHEWS: The old environmentalist over there, the old biologist, you would think he would be dead set against this, the way he went on about the spray and everything; and now he is here trying to wiggle a way through. It's shocking!

MR. DOYLE: But there was one little sheet here, Mr. Speaker - I don't know if I have too much time left, it is only a couple of minutes - but there was one little sheet here that really caught my eye. It asked: Are there valid reasons for people to be worried about air pollutants from garbage incinerators? The incineration of garbage, often called "mass burn", " resource recovery" or "waste-to-energy", seem to produce the family of toxic chemicals known as dioxins. The dioxins are partly released from the smokestack of the incinerator, and they are partly retained in the ash, which is eventually sent to a landfill.

Given that mass burn produces dioxins, whenever someone proposes a mass burn incinerator for garbage, we need to ask ourselves whether dioxins are really dangerous to humans. No one seems to doubt that they are harmful to animals. The only unsettled question seems to be whether they are harmful to humans.

On April 8, 1986, the Journal of the American Medical Association, with a team of doctors and scientists reported on their study -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - of 154 humans, who had been exposed to that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you finished?

MR. DOYLE: No, no. But if you give me just one minute to finish off this paragraph?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DOYLE: They reported on 154 humans who had been exposed to dioxins during a two-year period and their study of a controlled group of 155 people who had not been exposed to dioxins. The exposed group had lived for two years in a trailer park where dioxins had been mixed with waste oil and sprayed on roads to suppress dust and what have you.

The doctors reported no difference in the medical histories of the exposed and non-exposed groups; physical exams showed no difference; studies of blood and urine chemistry showed no difference; neurologic tests showed no difference, yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait twenty years.

MR. DOYLE: Now, that is the point I am coming to. - yet doctors reported that protective cells in the immune system of the dioxin- exposed humans were reduced in number or impaired, not operating at peak levels, compared to the immune system of the unexposed controlled group. The results were expressed in terms of impaired liver function, and in terms of impaired T-cell characteristics, whatever that is, and it is the immune system in humans that fights off disease, so an impaired immune system would expose a person to risk of disease from this particular operation. So that is reason enough, Mr. Speaker, to turn this down.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, please.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take away from anybody's time because the debate is quite interesting. There is good information coming the debate, particularly from the Member for Harbour Main. But I would like to ask where the Minister of Environment and Lands is; I mean, notice was given of this motion. It is probably the most sensitive environmental issue that we will debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) absence.

MR. MATTHEWS: Never mind about her absence, she is probably hearing me, but all I am saying is, I think it is only right and proper for the minister to come in and listen to the rest of this debate, because it is very important, there is good information coming forward and the Minister of Environment and Lands should be subject to that, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is very particular (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, it is obviously not a point of order. The member is trying to get on with some kind of a political tirade about whether a member happens to be in the House at the particular moment or not, Mr. Speaker, and, Your Honour, knows that is quite an improper kind of thing to do in this House. Mr. Speaker, if there is any point of order, it is that the hon. gentleman opposite, is very seriously out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will take the time allotted to me, twenty minutes, however, I do want to make a few, what I consider to be pertinent points in this debate. I want to take it back a year ago, when a company called North American Resource Recovery made a proposal, suggesting they would be interested in a project in Long Harbour. The proposal was referred to as a "Waste and Energy" proposal'. Mr. Speaker, the word at the time was that it would provide a use for a facility that was now closed down.

It may expedite the environmental clean up in Long Harbour, a monumental job, a job that has been indicated, probably one of the biggest environmental undertakings ever, certainly in the Western world. It might take twenty years under normal circumstances and cost untold millions of dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was, in a sense, a precedent. I have been in this House since 1975 and I had never heard a proposal coming to government or anyone else to establish in Newfoundland an "energy-to-waste" facility. So there was no precedent, I suppose, in that sense. I suppose the government's position was that we have in place an environmental assessment act, the strongest act, thanks to the previous government - Mr. Peckford's government brought in an Environmental Assessment Act, the sole purpose of which was to determine, in the better interest of the Province, in the better interest of anyone who had an interest in the project.

So I would presume the government's reaction was simply: We don't know if any of those things that you are saying are going to happen, will happen. But register it, put it to the test, put it to the environmental assessment test. Now what the Opposition should remember and the people of Newfoundland should know, is that the Environmental Assessment Act does not necessarily, or does not only, address the environmental issues. It addresses the fiscal issues, social issues. Relative to the amendment, it addresses the will of the people.

So we knew - totally, absolutely, completely confident - that by referring this or telling the proponent that: if you are serious about this proposal, register it with the Department of Environment and Lands, let it go through the environmental assessment, and let's see what happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about something being registered or not being registered in a few minutes, I tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, that was the government's position. It was easy. The government gets all kinds of suggestions from people wanting to do things. I have heard it said: It's too bad we don't have the technology to take the Island of Newfoundland and drag it down to the Caribbean so it would be nice and warm. Maybe, a thousand years from now, that technology will exist. Maybe someone will come and make that proposal. The government of the day will have to say: Show us how can you do it; use the Environmental Assessment Act.

The fact of the matter is that the Environmental Assessment Act was there to protect the people of Newfoundland. Now, let me quote, as the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands did earlier today. Let's compare our comparison. Before I do, let me talk about the federal government's role in this. Let me talk about the fact that this project has been in the minds of people and in front of us for a full year. Let me say that the $1 million that Mr. Crosbie gave to this company was not for an environmental assessment - that environmental assessment may cost millions of dollars - it was for a feasibility study.

Let me tell you, the Government of Canada was in a far different position, and Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Reid were in a far different position from what the Newfoundland Government was. You don't throw out $1 million of taxpayers' money for a feasibility study unless you are prepared to let that project go if it is determined to be feasible. So where was the Leader of the Opposition? He stood up here two days ago - and a year later he announced to this House that he had just written a letter to the Government of Canada asking them to take back the money, a year later, after a good portion of that money has been spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you written them yet?

MR. FLIGHT: No, and we will not be writing them, because we are not that silly. Because we are in control of what is happening in this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes! And that's what you are, there's no doubt!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, where was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as opposition from St. Anthony to Buchans to St. Lawrence built? I will stand here and admit there appears to be opposition to this project.

The Premier, yesterday in the House, in Question Period, put it right spot on when he said this is not leadership from the Opposition, this is push-ship - looking for a parade to jump in front of and say: We are heading the parade. Where were they, if they were so concerned about the "energy-to-waste" project? Why weren't they involved in the debate and providing the kind of leadership a year ago that they want to pretend they are providing now? It smacks of opportunism, it smacks a little bit of hypocrisy. And the general public, as this debate rages, will see it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me throw something out to the hon. House. Let me draw attention to the hon. House, and let the people of Newfoundland judge our performance, in the "energy-to-waste", with the Opposition's performance, when they were in government, with another major, major undertaking, an undertaking that, in the end, cost this Province $23 million.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. minister is out of order. He is talking about something totally different. He is talking about "energy-to-waste". What this project is all about is "waste-to-energy". He keeps saying "energy-to-waste", so he must be talking about something else. I think he must be out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Sprung greenhouse focused on the mind of the general public of this Province more than ever the project we are talking about now, importing American garbage, has focused to this point. Letters to the Editor, groups, their own advisors were telling them they were wasting poor Newfoundland's money. An environmental assessment of Sprung -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - would have dealt with the fiscal possibilities of Sprung proceeding. It would have dealt with whether or not you could have marketed and grown cucumbers in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We did it. I will tell you what the government didn't do, and what we are doing, and you judge and let the people judge our performance. They refused, the Minister of Environment of the day, refused to have the project registered - would not permit the project to be registered to come under the scrutiny of The Environmental Assessment Act.

When the hon. member stands up and wants to talk about The Environmental Assessment Act, or the protection provided to the people of Newfoundland, or doing the will of the people, let him explain with some credibility how it was, in view of all of the concern that was expressed around Newfoundland about the Sprung greenhouse, why was it that the Minister of Environment of the day refused to register that project? - Why? - a project that eventually cost this Province $23 million.

Mr. Speaker, there is no credibility in critics of this government when they stand up and say they don't like the way we are handling this. We are submitting this to the scrutiny of an Environmental Assessment Act that will deal with the environment, that will deal with the fiscal situation, that will deal with the social situation, and will, in the end, see that the will of the people of Newfoundland is respected.

This is a broad resolution. I want to ask the Opposition how far - and I am going to support, and I am sure my hon. colleagues will support the resolution as amended, but I want to ask the hon. Opposition - and I am sorry to see the hon. the Member for Humber East leave, because there is a very pertinent issue for her to deal with here - How far is the Opposition prepared to go with this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, today, in the paper milling industry in this Province, in the production of newsprint, recycled paper is a major issue. The companies' ability in this Province to stay in paper production might be decided on their ability to import second-hand newsprint from the Eastern Seaboard. Is that garbage? Is it? I want to know how far the resolution goes. How do we know what is coming in with the tons and tons, with the barges of paper? Will the Opposition go as far as to deny the people who make a living in the production of newspaper the ability to import? Waste -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, up to this point in time, newspaper waste was considered waste. It was clogging up the landfills all over Canada and all over the United States. There is now legislation in certain provinces in this country, and the United States says, We will not buy; if this sheet of paper does not contain recycled newsprint, we will not purchase it.

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, in the district of the hon. the member for Humber East: their major market is the United States. They are in the process now of building a de-inking plant. They are in the process now of putting in a facility that will cost millions of dollars, in order to recycle paper. They cannot get that paper in Newfoundland, so will the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, and the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Fortune, will they move and try to block what up to now has been garbage? Waste newspaper in the world was considered garbage.

What about the mines? Was the hon. member from St. Lawrence, when the St. Lawrence mine was going, standing up objecting to the fact that hundreds of tons - trainloads - of hazardous goods was being (Inaudible) in this Province in the separation process?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: I would like to see some of the hon. member's speeches. Table where he opposed it. I grew up, Mr. Speaker, in a mining town, fifty years nonstop production. Where millions of tons, trainloads a day from Botwood, sulphur, reagents, cyanides, brought into Buchans for the separation process. You know where most of it ended up? Well, where then was the Opposition and the bleeding hearts that are suddenly saying: we will not permit?

What they want to do, Mr. Speaker, is they want to deny the people of Newfoundland having a voice in this, having a say. They want to deny the people of Newfoundland the right to the environmental assessment protection. They want to deny them the right to have the thing aired, and at the end of the day decide whether it is economically, environmentally, socially, or whatever. The will of the people. So there is a lot of hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you call an election on it if you're so (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the way you fellows operated, you'd call an election about everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to have to manufacture an Opposition. If you called an election in this Province this day there would be no Opposition there. We probably would have to find a way to manufacture one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: The hon. member from Conception Bay need not worry if we decided to call an election today. Where he would be, he would be out writing letters to the editor, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: He would not be here interjecting. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Conception Bay -

MR. DOYLE: Harbour Main!

MR. FLIGHT: Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker. Only he knows it. I doubt if his constituents do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tells me I was wrong on Buchans. Wrong about the fact that hundreds of tons of cyanide, reagents of all kinds, sulphur, were brought in to Buchans and used in the milling process and used in the separator - I am wrong in that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, but what else did you say?

MR. FLIGHT: Where it ended up. I will tell you what else I said, Mr. Speaker. After it had gone through the milling process it ended up in the Exploits River. Does the member agree with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FLIGHT: Where was all the - pardon me?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I did not refer to (Inaudible). I will tell you where you were, Mr. Speaker. In 1981 you were presiding over the shutdown of the Buchans' mines. That is where you were. You were presiding over the shutdown of the Buchans' mines in 1981, if you want to know where you were.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) responsible (Inaudible). You said -

MR. FLIGHT: I never said anybody was responsible. I just stated a fact, Mr. Speaker. That there is hazardous goods coming into this Province by the ton, and I want to know how far the hon. member - look, the hon. member from Corner Brook is a farmer, and a very respected one. People will make the argument about transporting hazardous goods. Whether it is a combination of chemicals such as - how far will we go with this? How far is the hon. Member for Humber Valley prepared to go? If the people of Newfoundland tomorrow decide that waste being pulled off, the paper pulled off the Eastern Seaboard, to come to the mill in Corner Brook or Stephenville, if they decide they do not want that any more, where is the leadership here going to come from? Where is the hon. Leader of the Opposition going to stand on that one?

I will tell you. I am going to end my contribution to this debate now. I will tell you. If you ever had a situation of an Opposition reeling in the polls - 12 per cent, I think, the last time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven!

MR. FLIGHT: Eleven per cent. The government, which is dealing responsibly with these issues, at 70 per cent. Read the editorials. The word that the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts looking for something to grab on to. Trying to become relevant. Because they are irrelevant in the (Inaudible) of this Province today, the Opposition is irrelevant. The Leader of the Opposition is irrelevant.

I can understand - I say this with some respect. I can understand the hon. House Leader and the hon. assistant deputy, deputy house leader, and the hon. deputy, deputy, deputy - I can understand, Mr. Speaker, their groping and looking for a reason for being. They need a reason for being. The Opposition in Newfoundland today, Mr. Speaker, hasn't got a reason for being.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. FLIGHT: And suddenly along comes an issue. Sensible thinking Newfoundlanders, people who look at bringing in waste from the United States, they see it as a stigma. It is bad. They say to me: It is bad, Graham. They say: I know times are bad in this Province, but it is not that bad is it? We don't have to import American or European garbage. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I talk to them about it. I tell them: Look, we have in this Province the greatest protection that any one people could ever have. We have the Environmental Assessment Act, and that project is going to be subject to the scrutiny of that act, Mr. Speaker. I would be willing to bet - No, I better not say it, Mr. Speaker. I won't say that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I understand when this came along - a year! It took them a year to recognize they had an issue. It took them a year, Mr. Speaker, to recognize this might be something that somebody will say to us we are on the right side of an issue. Let's run with this, and we will be seen. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. members opposite, and let me tell the hon. member, my good friend from St. John's East, he has no issue here, Mr. Speaker. He had a better issue when he tried to oppose low level flying. You think he would have learned a lesson on that one, but it takes him a while to learn.

Mr. Speaker, by the time this debate is finished and by the time the people of Newfoundland realizes exactly what is happening here and the kind of protection they have under that act, and realize that their concerns will be totally and absolutely addressed there will be no issue. You had better find another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I tell the hon. House Leader if he is looking for a star to attach onto, if he is looking for a parade to lead, if he is looking for something that will bring him from 11 per cent to 13 or 15, if he is looking for a reason to be relevant, he is going to have to find another issue because he ain't going to win on this one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to support the resolution as amended, and I want to congratulate the hon. House Leader for amending the resolution in a way that will further protect and further clarify, and further defend and protect the better interests of the people of Newfoundland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and take part in this debate. After listening to the Minister of Forestry I am kind of amazed as to where he is coming from. It reminds me of a story. I know it is a serious issue, but it reminds me of a story that a geology professor told me back in university a long time ago. The old expression 'a mad hatter' - everybody heard the expression 'the mad hatter' and where it originated from. The theory, and I don't know if it is true or not, the mad hatter came about from potters who used to go around the countryside who had made up pots and pans to sell throughout the country. Of course, they used lead as a solder to cement and hold the thing together, and as a method of carrying them they quite often wore the things on their head. Temperatures got fairly high on occasion, and there would be enough lead in its form that would come out that eventually got into the system, and because lead is cumulative it takes a number of years, they became kind of foolish and became known as mad hatters. I don't know if the Member for Windsor - Buchans was wearing hats for some time the way he ranted and raved in this House today, Mr. Speaker. It made absolutely no sense. It contributed nothing to the debate, absolutely nothing. The minister knows absolutely nothing about environmental concerns because he is somehow - and I am surprised at the member from Gander today who somehow tried to equate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: More than you did. He did more than tape hockey sticks before he came in here. I will tell you that. That is the only job you had before you came in here, wrapping up sticks.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) demand to take your money back if you want to show some leadership instead of the foolishness you are getting on with.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo. If the hon. Member from Mount Scio - Bell Island wants to take part in the debate he can rise and the Speaker will recognize him. But I have recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The same rules apply for the hon. Member for Harbour Main and the hon. Member for Kilbride. There are no exceptions in this House.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed how the minister can equate recycling and garbage. He seems to think that the two are the same. Mr. Speaker, he seems to think that the ordinary household garbage, the batteries that are collected, pampers and diapers, and you name it, Mr. Speaker, are all lumped together into one thing with the pop bottles we take back from the streets to the store where they have the blue boxes and everything else set up. We are not talking about that, that is not the issue. We are talking about the importation of garbage to the tune of 3500 tons a day with 20 per cent, if we take the two of them, with 20 per cent of the fly ash and the bottom ash being either hazardous or extremely hazardous, so much that for the fly ash the proponents of this incinerator say that the fly ash has to be put in some kind of a sealed container because it is so toxic.

They go on, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is going to be used for making things like patio bricks. Now, Mr. Speaker, who would want to buy bricks made from that fly ash or bottom ash? Mr. Speaker, it would be closely akin to a situation a number of years ago when people all throughout the Province, because they happened to have some good sand that came out of the phosphorus plant, the slag, and they used it for softball fields throughout the Province and discovered after, of course, all the radon gas came out of it and I suspect those patio bricks would be similar.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture got up he started to speak and said two important things. He said we are looking at energy from waste and we are looking for something to aid in the clean up of Long Harbour. That is how he started. That is what the minister said. The minister said those were two of the considerations. Mr. Speaker, the question begs to be asked, the energy is coming from where? The waste is coming from where? The Eastern Seaboard, the New York area. Who imports the most electricity from Quebec? Is it not that area? Then why in God's name would they not create electricity from their own waste? No one can convince me that it is cheaper to bring waste from Long Island or from Connecticut, or wherever, and bring it to Newfoundland than it is to take it and put it in your truck and move right to the waterfront if it is so safe. The very place that it leaves to come on this container-ship we will build an incinerator if it is that good, Mr. Speaker, but it is not good and everyone knows it is not good. Frankly, I think that the proponents of this deal and Albright and Wilson are for all intents and purposes one and the same. If we could somehow get back through the corporate setup I am not convinced that they are not one and the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: To talk about the motion the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture ranted and raved for twenty minutes and said absolutely nothing. What we should be doing in this Province, instead of looking to this project, we should have a study and I do not think $1 million is enough. I think we need several million dollars and what we need to do is look at something to protect our own environment to clean up the mess we already have here. That is what our study should be on, Mr. Speaker. We should then, at the same time, not be encouraging people to bring garbage here. We should be saying to the world: no, we are not in favour of it because we want people to recycle, reuse, and reduce, and use the three Rs, Mr. Speaker. We should not let it be known to anyone that there is a jurisdiction in this world that is willing to accept garbage, because that is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong to let people think that as a society, or as a group of people, that we would take any garbage from anyone. Frankly, I have grave concerns about any type of incineration, whether it is going into the dump, an ordinary land filled dump for the two or three months of the year when the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture gives a permit to burn. Frankly, I am concerned if even that is a very safe way of disposing of garbage. It causes me great concern, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I know people in the agricultural department who were very concerned about agricultural land being granted in areas that are adjacent to dumps. Ordinary dumps where burning occurs.

Now what we are going to do is we are going to concentrate 3,500 tons of garbage, or any amount of garbage. I have the same concerns, by the way, about the proposal for the city as well. The incineration of garbage. I am not sure that it is the best method we can use to solve the solid waste problem we have in this Province. I think we have to look elsewhere. I think we have to find better methods. I think we are wasting the time and the taxpayers' money of this Province to engage in any kind of study to determine whether or not we are going to bring garbage in, because we know now that we are having 600 tons of toxic waste a day, times 365 days a year.

That is what the issue is. I think right now let's not lead the people of Long Harbour on into having them think that there is going to be some kind of an economic catalyst that is going to reappear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, five or six times this afternoon the Chair has had to bring the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island to order. He continuously interrupts in the debate here, not making any sense. I do not know how tolerant the Chair is going to be of this member but I suggest that it is time that you probably named the member and got him out of this Chamber, because he is interfering with the business here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a good point. It is unparliamentary in this House to interrupt another member when he is speaking. The Speaker does have jurisdiction to call members to order and take the necessary action to maintain order and decorum. This Chair will not permit it to go on.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. It's -

MR. FLIGHT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I did not, and Your Honour was in the Chair, in view of the vicious interjections, attacks and shouting, not once did I appeal to the Chair for protection. So I would say to the hon. Opposition House Leader, on a point of order, that if he was prepared to partake then, he should be prepared to put up with it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has a point. The rules of this House apply to both sides.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there is any one thing that has finally happened in this debate, I am finally glad to see that the Minister of Environment and Lands has now come back into the Chamber to listen to what goes on in this debate. Because she has chosen to, for whatever reason, stay out of the debate.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established tradition in the parliamentary tradition that we live under that members do not call attention to members who are absent from this House, especially when they are absent on Her Majesty's business, as the Minister of Environment and Lands was. I would suggest that you would call the hon. member to order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to that point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a long-standing tradition of this House, Mr. Speaker, that a minister will be in this House and speak to a matter that pertains directly to his or her department. All I am going to say is that it is obvious that members opposite told the minister to stay out of this House until the debate was ready for closure, so she could not take part in this very important debate today. She was kept out of the the House by members opposite until the Member for Torngat Mountains was going to rise and close the debate, that is obviously what has happened here today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: As to that point of order, there are two things I would like to say. First of all, I am under no obligation to report to this House where I was, but I shall do it. We have another very serious crisis in this Province - A crisis I should say, one that we know we have and that we are trying to deal with it and that is the fisheries crisis. I have been spending the last hour preparing with some of my officials for a conference that I have to attend this Saturday in Vancouver, where there will be about 4,000 environmentalists present. This is a parallel conference going on with the UN conference in Brazil, in Rio. It is another UN conference.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the opposition would be more than delighted that I am working towards helping many of their constituents regain a livelihood that has been lost due to overfishing by the European community.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has called for order, whether hon. members realize it or not.

It is a custom in this House and the rules of the House not to refer to the absence of members from the Chamber, and I would request that hon. members would refrain from doing that in the future, and now being 4:40, according to our Standing Orders, I call on the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains to close the debate.

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

I listened with interest for the last hour and a half to members on both sides of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, but I request that the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West and the Minister of Environment and Lands, stop talking across the House.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

It is worthy to note, Mr. Speaker, that the debate that was carried on from around three o'clock this afternoon until now had the speakers - I spoke first, the Government House Leader spoke second, the hon. Member for Harbour Main spoke third, the hon Minister of Forestry and Agriculture spoke and my colleague for Fogo spoke, and, Mr. Speaker, all this evening the Minister of Environment and Lands did not speak.

I think it should be recorded, Mr. Speaker, that the minister responsible for Environment and Lands in this Province did not speak, against or for, this particular resolution and that should go on record, Mr. Speaker, for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador to know, that she was in the confines of this building and would not take part in the debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Government House Leader brought in an amendment to the resolution, and it is most interesting that he would bring in an amendment because he wants to go ahead with an EIS study, that is basically what he is asking for and it is only just two short years ago or three short years ago, when those members over there, including the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fisheries, including the Government House Leader, all those people over there, two or three years ago, when the Premier and members of that Legislature over there, that crowd over there, went over to Bell Island and condemned a similar project on Bell Island.

MS. COWAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry -

MS. COWAN: I would certainly be delighted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: Oh, sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not recognized the hon. member.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: I would be only too delighted, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to speak on garbage. I would love the opportunity to talk about the mess that these people left the Province in. It would tickle me to death, so if they would like me to go ahead and take that time, from now until five, I would be very pleased.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Torngat is going to - I know he is not deliberately attempting to mislead the House, but he has to get his facts straight, Mr. Speaker. He just stated that two or three years ago when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier went to Bell Island, and he said the Minister of Fisheries was there, the Minister of Health was there (inaudible) implying, I guess, in the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the House that at that particular time I was enjoying three years or the best part of two years in relative quiet back in my district. I wasn't even a Member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition was the Leader of the Opposition in the House. So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we get the record straight here. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the record indicate the facts as they were, and that the hon. the Minister of Forestry was not in the House of Assembly at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, he wasn't in the House at the time because I understand he was paid off and gave his seat to the Premier. That was the reason, Mr. Speaker. The Premier paid him off to give up his seat in a by-election.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back in 1988 - I want to read for the record what the Premier said at the time when he was in Opposition. 'The Liberal Party is opposed to the proposal from Canadian Ecology Limited and will be opposed to any similar proposal for dumping industrial waste or potentially toxic waste in any part of this Province.' That was the Premier's stand in September 1988.

MR. REID: We still are.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Carbonear says they still are. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they still are surely goodness they will vote for the resolution that I presented today. Mr. Speaker, my resolution today was very straightforward, and I will read it for the record for the third time. It says: BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the importation for disposal of garbage and industrial waste from any jurisdiction outside of our Province. Now that is the resolution. If the hon. gentlemen would believe what they believed in 1988 they should vote for that resolution immediately. That is the way it should be, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleagues who continue to interrupt that I am concerned about the environment and the health of this Province, and if you are you will vote for this resolution. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me see some of the reasons why the Premier said we should not do it in 1988 and see if it is similar to what we are saying today. The waste to be stored is hazardous. That is what the Premier said in his statement. Now, my hon colleague from down in LaPoile, is shaking his head, yes. So he agrees that this waste is hazardous. He is shaking his head, yes, okay. That is number one.

The second thing. There are also risks involved in the transportation, handling and storage of these wastes. Isn't that the same thing with this project in Long Harbour? Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: According to what I have heard.

MR. WARREN: According to what you heard, yes. Okay. So far, we may get this member to vote for this resolution. So we have to keep him going now and just see if we can get him on this side.

The third part. There is the unanswered question of why a company - this is very important, Mr. Speaker - would want to go to the trouble and the expense of hauling industrial garbage right across North America to dump it in Newfoundland.

Now that is what the Premier said in 1988. He is saying all these things, and this government today wants to amend the resolution to go ahead with the study. The loudmouth from Mount Scio - Bell Island, was shouting all day, saying: go after Crosbie to cancel the money for the feasibility study. As we said earlier, that has been done by this party. We have asked him to cancel it.

But what we are doing, we are asking this government to cancel the EIS, which is going to cost millions of dollars. It is going to cost millions of dollars to complete an EIS. It is going to cost money if there is going to be an EIS study. But we are saying no. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying no. Why can't the twenty-seven or twenty-eight members on that side of the Legislature say no today? Is there some reason why not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Call your buddy Mr. Crosbie and tell him (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have already told Mr. Crosbie that we want the money withdrawn. As I said to my hon. colleague for Carbonear, I think my hon. colleague for Carbonear should be more interested in the environmental mess that is out in his district of Carbonear. He should be more interested in what is going on out there. I would suggest that he do a little bit of homework and check out what is going on in that particular incinerator in Carbonear.

At the beginning the House Leader said that it is in the act. It is one of the best acts that we have in this Province, the EIS act. I agree with the House Leader. But this government has done things in the past two years, and it can do it now, because they have violated the collective agreement act, they have changed it. So all they have to do now is, if need be, change the act that we presently have, the EIS act. So they can do it. It is in the power of this government to do it.

I think there is a lesson to be learned from a similar project that was proposed for Orillia, Ontario. A similar project was proposed for Orillia, Ontario, and I am sure many of my colleagues opposite do not know what the results were, but it was rejected. It was rejected when an enormous number of physicians, fifty-three or fifty-four physicians, came out against the project, and The Medical Association of Ontario came out against the project. The company first was going to sue those doctors, but once The Medical Association got involved they backed away, because they didn't have a leg to stand on, because they knew it was too dangerous to have that project in Orillia, Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I may have misinterpreted my colleague from Torngat Mountains, but I asked if the letter to Mr. Crosbie was tabled, and they led the House to believe that the letter was tabled. I have asked the officers at the table for a copy of the letter to Mr. Crosbie, and I understand that it has not been tabled.

So if the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains would like to retract the statement that he said the letter was tabled, it is fine, but I would not want Hansard to show that he was misleading the House?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, we said that we sent a letter to Mr. Crosbie, and we did. All I want to say to the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is that when we say we do something, we do it. We do not say we do one thing and do something just the opposite. We sent the letter to Mr. Crosbie, asking him to withdraw the funding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The member took advantage of the occasion to pose a question, if anything.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

It is most interesting. The hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island has been in this House now three years and he still does not understand the rules. It is terrible.

I want to continue in the few minutes that I do have left, and I just want to say that we are very serious. We listen to the people. We listened to the people in two public meetings. We have received letters and presentations from individual groups. Earlier today, while I was speaking, I got a note that there were more calls coming into my office from concerned people, hoping that this government would go along and support this particular resolution. Because if we are going to vote for the amendment, I say to my hon. colleagues opposite, and some of them, I think, are sincere. This is one time in the lives of you people, as politicians, to put the party second. Put the party second, and put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador first. That is what you have to do, and that is a decision that you are going to have to make in the next four or five minutes. Going ahead with an EIS statement, with an EIS review, shows that this government is willing to sacrifice the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the sake of doing anything to get their own way. That is basically what they are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of the Premier's statement in 1988 - I want to read it because I think it is interesting to note that this was said by the Premier just three short years ago. I read it so that everybody can understand what the Premier said: 'Surely, more positive programs can be developed to stimulate the economy in this Province than to grab at a promise of a few dollars at the risk of endangering our environment, the health of our people and existing industries.' Now, that is what the Premier said just three short years ago. I say to the members opposite now, and I will repeat that: 'Surely there are more positive programs to be developed for this Province than to grab at the promise of a few dollars at the risk of endangering our environment and the health of our people.'

I say to my hon. colleagues, let's vote against the amendment brought in by the House Leader and vote for the resolution in which we are saying, immediately no EIS, immediately, do not import foreign garbage into our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say - and it was said to us at one of our public meetings. One person spoke up, saying, 'Mr. Warren, I want to give you some advice. As surely as the Sprung greenhouse kept you people out of power, this Long Harbour Incinerator is going to kick the Liberals out of power.' Mr. Speaker, I tell you, that word is coming from many people in Newfoundland and Labrador. If this government agrees with this incineration at Long Harbour, I say, when they go to the polls in the next election, it will be good-bye, Liberal Party. It will be good-bye, Liberal Party, and good-bye to the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I ask all members in the House from the three parties -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I find it most discourteous to see a minister not sitting in his own chair and interrupting me.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members in this Legislature from the three political parties to put politics aside, to put the party aside, and vote with your conscience that should tell you that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want foreign garbage in our Province. Let us vote for this particular resolution. That is what I am asking everybody to do, put party aside and vote for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

On motion, amendment, carried.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.