November

30, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the House

that an Order in Council has been passed that will move administrative and

financial responsibility for the operation of the Electoral Office from the

Department of Justice to the House of Assembly. This change will become

effective on January 1st. Then, and thereafter, the responsibility for

supervision and direction of the work of the Chief Electoral Officer and his

associates - insofar as it is not directly governed by legislation - will rest

with the House, and be exercised through the Internal Economy Commission.

This move has been made after consultation with the Chief

Electoral Officer. As members will acknowledge, it represents the implementation

of a policy adopted by the government some time ago, and approved by the House

in the new Elections Act, which was adopted in June 1992. We have proclaimed

major portions of the new legislation, and it is hoped that the remaining parts

of the new act will come into effect in the near future. The Chief Electoral

Officer has been working diligently to ensure that he is in a position to carry

out the duties under the new provisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment.

Mr. Speaker, we commend the government on this action and

this initiative. It is one of the major initiatives of their five-year term in

office and it is one that we supported a year-and-a-half ago when the

legislation was passed. We think that it is the right thing to do, so we agree

with it wholeheartedly and congratulate the government for finally issuing the

Order in Council.

While I am on my feet, if I might mention another matter to

the Premier that I wrote him about one time and that was the issue of the

commissioner of members' interests, also being the person responsible for the

elections legislation, in other words, the Chief Electoral Officer. Even though

at the time the appointment was made I agreed with the Premier wholeheartedly in

the selection of the individual, in hindsight, it appears to me that there may

be occasions when that particular individual might be drawn into some

controversy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I am hoping that the Premier might take the

opportunity to comment on that. I think we should have another look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed and you

appear to be raising a question rather than replying to the statement. I don't

know if - under the circumstance I will just give the Premier a moment to reply.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it introduces a totally new

matter. I don't know if the House wishes me to express an opinion on it now - I

am quite happy to do so. In the context of the Leader's statement, it might be

more appropriate to do it now than at some other time. It is just simply to say

I disagree with his view. I respect it. I think he, I, and the Leader of the New

Democratic Party made the correct decision in the first place. The Chief

Electoral Officer is a servant of this House, answerable to this House; the new

legislation will be fully in effect very shortly, and that is the way it ought

to be. We have agreed that under the new conflict of interest regime we need

somebody to whom we can report. If we were a large province like Ontario, or if

we were the size of the whole of Canada, we could have a separate commissioner,

but we can't afford to place that burden on the taxpayers of this Province, so

the most sensible and appropriate way to approach it is to ask the Chief

Electoral Officer to take that responsibility. Because, don't forget, between

elections the Chief Electoral Officer will have a more limited responsibility.

He will have greater responsibility now than before in terms of policing party

financing and so on - he will have that duty - but between elections he will not

be overburdened, so we have maintained that position and we feel that we should

give this approach a test before any change is considered.

MR. SPEAKER: The only comment I have is that we appear to

be in Oral Questions and replies rather than Statements by Ministers, and if we

are going to do this, it seems to be something of a radical departure from the

normal process of the House. If members wish to have leave to do it then it is

fine with the Chair and I will put the motion.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) to the Premier (inaudible)

respond.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in effect, I have just

responded to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition. He made his position

and I made my response - it is done now. If we want to deal with it in Question

Period we can, but not now.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: The Premier issued a Ministerial Statement and

I responded to it. Now, he may not have liked the fact that I threw something

else out, but that is another issue. He then stood up to respond to what I said

- that is not provided for in the practices, the Premier doesn't get up again.

But we allowed him to do it, and when he did, then there should be an

opportunity for a minute or so since I would like to make a further comment to

what he sugqested. If we let him speak then surely he is going to let us speak

for an extra minute or so. It is not a big deal, is it?

PREMIER WELLS: Well, then you see, I will want to speak

and respond again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I think the best thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is

that none of us speak at all, including the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Either that or we can follow the rules we

have in place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we were on a point of order for the

moment. I don't know if the member is going to make a point on the point of

order or not. The point of order is that we are out of order.

MR. HARRIS: I wasn't speaking to the point of order, it

is just that when members rise, certainly when this member rises, the Speaker

asks whether there is leave. I noticed the Premier speak and revising his

speaking without such question being asked and I would expect the same courtesy

to be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Does the hon. member have leave to

address the House on the Ministerial Statement by the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Ferryland says no leave.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), no leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SIMMS: You are entitled to do that you know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

visitor's gallery, the former member, Mr. Robert Aylward and would also like to

welcome to the galleries, seventy-five Grade XII law students from Queen

Elizabeth Regional High School in Conception Bay South, Harbour Main, Mount Scio

- Bell Island, accompanied by their teacher Darrell Cassell, and also, thirty

students from Point Leamington Academy, Exploits District accompanied by Mr. Bob

Elliott and Miss Burt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a favorite

topic of mine dealing with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

and as each day goes by we are slowly dragging out the truth about this Hydro

deal, unfortunately not from the Premier but from other sources, for example:

the credit rating agencies, who clearly say it will not improve the Province's

credit worthiness as the Premier says, and from a top Fortis executive who now

says: the real logic behind this merger is to eliminate jobs, he makes it very

clear, but there is another issue that remains rather foggy and vague and that

is: who gets control over Hydro's $1.6 billion assets?

Now, if I understand it correctly, the Premier says that a

new company will be formed consisting of Fortis with about 30 per cent of the

assets, and of Hydro with about 70 per cent of the assets. Is it then the

intention that government will sell its 70 per cent interest in this new company

through a public share offering, is that what he has been saying, I believe it

is, but I would like him to at least explain it for us clearly, and secondly, I

believe he has also said something to the effect that the Province will limit

the sale of shares so that no company or individual will be able to own more

than - I think the number used is 15, he may have said 16 per cent - 15 per cent

or 16 per cent of the new company. Is that what the government intends to do as

well? Have I quoted him correctly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to get the truth

out despite the misrepresentations of the opposition that has created such havoc

in the Province as a result of their misrepresentations on this issue. The

proposal is that the two utility companies be merged into a single one. Not that

Hydro be sold to Fortis, or Hydro as is be sold to anybody else. That there be a

merger.

Now whether that merger will be by means of creating a

totally new corporation, transferring the assets from Hydro and the assets from

Fortis or Newfoundland Power into that new corporation and then selling the

shares in the new corporation, or whether it will be, say, the corporation that

is Fortis and Hydro merge together as a single corporation by a statute of this

House, all of those things are what are being explored. Nobody knows at this

moment exactly how it is going to be or how would be the best way to do it. The

proposal is to create a merger of the total electrical utility assets in the

Province. If you take those ultimately owned by Fortis in the name of

Newfoundland Power, and those owned by Hydro, give or take, Hydro is about 70

per cent of the total asset value. The Newfoundland Power - Fortis component is

about 30 per cent of the asset value.

So those are where the figures seventy and thirty come from.

They are rough working figures at this stage. The idea is to create a

corporation, either by putting together two existing corporations, or by

creating a single new corporation and putting the assets into that new

corporation. The idea is to merge the two operations, the assets, the operations

and the personnel. Bring it all together.

Out of the total the existing Fortis shareholders would hold,

give or take, 30 per cent of the shares, the government would hold, give or

take, 70 per cent of the shares. It is the government's intention then to sell

that 70 per cent on wide public distribution. Not to sell it to Fortis or to

anybody else. To sell it for the best price that we can get. So when those

people, some members of the House, ask the question, if you're going to

privatize why not sell to the highest bidder instead of to Fortis? Well, that is

precisely what the government is doing. Putting it together and we will sell the

shares for the best price that we can get in the general share market.

Now you can't call bids for individual shares, each

individual share. Shares in the marketplace are sold, as hon. members know,

through the financial institutions and the brokers and so on. These are the

agencies that will sell the shares, but in the public market for the best price

that we can get at the time. We don't know at the moment precisely what that

price would be. If it is not a good deal there will be no deal. It won't go

ahead. If it is a good deal for the people of the Province, we propose to go

ahead with it and ask this House to approve it and proceed with it. If it is not

a good deal, we do not propose to ask the House to do it.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am not quite sure what his answer was to the

second portion, when I asked him about the 15 per cent limitation. I do not

think he really alluded to that.

PREMIER WELLS: I can do it now.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I would like to know the answer.

PREMIER WELLS: The government would propose that any

privatization act that we pass would also contain limits so that no one person

or corporation, or group of persons or corporations, associated together could

hold more than 15 per cent. Maybe it should be 10 per cent - we are prepared to

take the advice of the House on it - but 15 per cent was the number used, say,

in the case of FPI, and it is the number, I believe, that was used in the case

of Nova Scotia Power; but if 15 per cent is not the right number, maybe 10 per

cent is the right number, that could hold more than 15 per cent of the new

corporation is what we propose, and that would be done by legislation because

the new corporation, we would hope, would be structured under the privatization

act, and limitations on the voting powers and the share ownership and any other

limitations on it would be set in a statute of this House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

Premier for clarifying it. I wish he would get off this kick about accusing

everybody who asks questions, or dares to criticize him or his policy. If I

remember it all, first we had Cyril Abrey, who was incredible. I am

irresponsible. The Leader of the NDP has a concrete mind-set, and then yesterday

he tells us that the credit rating agencies are wrong and he is right. So get

off that kick and just answer the questions with whatever facts you have.

Now let me ask him this, in a supplementary to the original

question I asked. He confirmed the government, in fact, intends to sell off its

70 per cent interest through a public share offering, and he also confirmed

there would be some limitation on the number of shares that any individual or

company would be permitted to hold. I want to ask him this: Will that mean,

therefore, that Fortis will start off, in fact, by owning 30 per cent of the new

company? Will Fortis start off by owning 30 per cent of that new company, or

will they be forced to reduce their ownership down to this 15 per cent or 10 per

cent level that he just alluded to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with the first matter he

raised first, Mr. Speaker. If he does not want me to comment on these other

things, he should not ask questions or raise issues with respect to them.

My comment related specifically to his comment: finally we

are getting at the truth. The comment was related to that, and his expansion of

that. As long as he continues to do that I will be responsive to issues that he

raises.

With respect to the question that he asked -

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm responsive to the issues the Leader of

the Opposition raises.

In response to the additional question that he asked, it is

not expected that Fortis would own 30 per cent of the shares. The expectation is

that the corporation would be structured in such a way that the present Fortis

shareholders would own 30 per cent of the shares, and they are already

widespread. Nobody knows with certainty at this stage exactly how the merger can

be best achieved for a variety of purposes. There are a variety of issues that

have to be considered and the legal advisors, the tax accountants, the financial

advisors and all of the others will, we hope, come up with the best

recommendation.

In the end, however it is structured, no shareholder -

whether Fortis is some kind of a continuing entity or not, and at the moment it

is not contemplated that it would be - no shareholder would be able to hold more

than 15 per cent of the shares, or vote more than 15 per cent of the shares. If

Fortis continued as an entity and holds presently, say, 30 per cent of what

would be the merged thing, even though it may have owned it it could not vote

more than the 15 per cent. Those limitations would be passed by law in this

House.

Now exactly how it is going to be structured is unknown for

all of the reasons that I've given at this stage. This is a preliminary

proposal. This is what is really wrong with the debate that has gone on over the

last two weeks. You're trying to judge something that isn't put together and

identified as a proposal yet. Wait until it is fleshed out and people know what

it is, and then exercise your judgement as to whether or not what's proposed is

acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. It has to come to this House

before that can be done, so this House will have ample opportunity to debate all

aspects of it. For heaven's sake, wait until you find out exactly what is

proposed and what will be the nature of it before you attempt to pass judgement

on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The more the

Premier speaks the more confusing it gets. It is not because of us misleading

the people, it is because he makes it totally confusing. I think I heard him say

that Fortis might own 30 per cent of the company but they would only be able to

vote 15 per cent of their shares. Now I mean what shareholder who is holding 30

per cent of a company is going to sit back and let somebody, a minority

shareholder, call the shots? It just doesn't make any sense but maybe we will

flush it out and we will see. We will get some advice on it.

I want to ask him a totally separate question related to

something he mentioned in conclusion, in answering the last question. He says

this whole issue, if there is an agreement in principle, will come to the House.

We all know the government holds the majority, we understand how democracy

works, and all that stuff, but in the end the government will have its way. But

it will be too late, because it will be an agreement in principle. You will have

to defend that agreement in principle in the House, no question.

I ask the Premier, would he consider, if it goes that far,

making the agreement in principle available to a legislative committee to bring

it around this Province for public hearings to let the people have some input

before bringing it to the House? Is there a reason to rush it in the next month,

two months, three months? Why can't we take a year, if we have to, to do it? I

understand the financial situation in the Province, but it can be done properly

if he cares to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On the first point the hon. Leader of the

Opposition raised, it is not at all unusual that there should be limitation on

voting rights. FPI is in that position today. A shareholder may well hold more

than 15 per cent of FPI but they can only vote 15 per cent of it. That is not

unusual. That has been structured before. Limitation on voting rights is not at

all an unusual - it is not every company, or the majority, or a large number

even, but it is not an unusual event.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) 30 per cent (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Pardon me?

MR. SIMMS: Who owns the majority in the shares

(inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know, but the limitation is there.

The limitation is on the voting rights rather than ownership, as I understand

it. That is where the real effective control is, in voting rights.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) own (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know. There may be people -

MR. ROBERTS: The Bank of Nova Scotia recently did, I

don't know if they do now.

PREMIER WELLS: The Bank of Nova Scotia probably - they

did, they used to own more than 15 per cent. Whether they do now or not, I don't

know. They used to own more than 15 per cent. They probably have sold them

since. That is what deters people from wanting to own more than 15 per cent, is

the limitation on the voting rights.

On the second issue that he raised, yes, the majority

decides. It was so when the hon. members opposite sat in the majority on this

side of the House. The majority decided issues, that is not at all unusual. I

don't deny that that is what occurs and I don't deny that it frequently happens,

usually for political reasons, that all or virtually all of the members on this

side of the House will vote in support of a proposition and frequently all or

virtually all of the members on that side of the House will vote against it. Not

because all the members on that side of the House are intellectually so much

brighter or have such a great understanding and such great objectivity that they

all individually come of one mind but they vote as a political group against it

for political reasons. That is not at all unusual. Our parliamentary tradition

is replete with examples of voting in that way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason for having a - it is not a

deadline and there is no deadline. If this is not achievable by March 31, the

world is not going to fall apart. The objective of the government, if it is

possible to do so, is to try and achieve it by March 31, if it is going to be

done, it is best that it be done by March 31. There are several reasons for

that, first it is under debate and under consideration so it is best to have the

issue determined one way or the other - be decided and get on with whatever the

end result is going to be, either maintenance of the status quo or merger and

privatization or whatever, so it should not be hung out there for an undue

length of time. Secondly, March 31 is the end of the government's fiscal year.

April 1 of course is the start of the new fiscal year and we would like to have

the financial impact of the privatization of Hydro accrue to the benefit of the

government by the start of the next fiscal year. It would be beneficial, and we

believe in the interest of the people of this Province, to have the issue done

and determined by that time, if at all possible. If for good reason it cannot be

done by that time, then the world is not going to fall apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) consideration of that, I am

not going to pre-commit to that. I will give some consideration -

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago when the church

leaders presented the government with their model for restructuring the

elementary and secondary educational system, the minister and the Premier were

quick to voice their disagreement and disapproval. Last night I am led to

believe that the government presented its model entitled, `Adjusting the course

of restructuring the school system for educational excellence to church

leaders.' Can the minister today tell the House how its model was received by

the church leaders? Is there hope for an agreement to be reached or are we

facing deadlock and whether or not this proposal, by the minister to the church

leaders, is indeed the governments bottom line?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate somewhat in

explaining how the church leaders accepted the model because people tend to hear

things in different ways. So if the hon. member wants to get exactly what the

church leaders are saying, I am sure he has the right to talk to them directly.

However, I think it is fair to say that the church leaders were not totally

satisfied with the model. However, as the Bishop of the Anglican - Bishop Harvey

said in the newspaper he is quite certain that as long as the good will

continues to exist, which does exist between church and state at this time, he

is confident that there is still the makings of a consensus there and I share

the optimism.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the government and the church

leaders have been dealing with this issue for two years since the Royal

Commission Report was brought down in March 1992. In fact the Royal Commission

itself was in the process for two years before that. Now we have two concrete

proposals on the table. Will the minister expand the negotiations to involve the

direct participation of school boards, Parent/ Teacher Associations, teacher

representatives and others who have a direct interest in the management of

education and in the quality of educational services in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, government is being criticized

for doing two things. One, we are being criticized for moving too slowly. There

are a lot of people in the Province who are saying that it is time to move

government; it is time to move churches; the reforms are needed; let's do

something about it.

Another criticism which we are getting is that we are not

keeping people well enough informed, and government is very conscious of that,

and we want to make sure that people are informed, so last night when we met we

made a very conscious decision that we would let this particular model,

adjusting the course, we would let this go out to the public until early in

January. Now we will monitor the discussions; we will monitor the opinions and

all that sort of thing over the next month or so. I am not sure it is going to

be necessary at this time to go into a whole big amount of going out for public

discussions with different groups. Remember now, the Royal Commission for almost

two years did that, and did an awful lot of talking to different groups around

the Province, but if that is the wish of the public, that we must discuss with

more individual groups, we will make sure that this model is fully discussed.

What we are dealing with here is an attempt on the part of

government and church leaders to reform the educational system of this Province,

the educational system which has been underachieving for a number of years. Our

goal is laid out here on the first page of this, Mr. Speaker. Our goal for

education is to transform this society from one of persistent underachievement

to one whose achievement levels rank with the best in the nation. That is our

intent, and whatever it takes to do that, we will do, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

A democratic society accepts the legitimacy of democratically

elected leaders, and the classes of people who hold constitutional rights in

education have elected leaders - they are called school trustees - and these

leaders look after those rights and they represent them.

Does the government not believe that elected school trustees

are as legitimate in their constitutional rights as leaders of the classes of

people to which the minister has referred on occasion? And do you not believe

that the elected school boards have as much right to be at the table and

participate in these discussions as anyone else, and why will the minister not

invite them now to be active participants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: He asked the Minister of Education the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The government answers the question.

Whichever person the government decides answers the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now if the member has not been in the

House long enough to understand that, it is going to take him a long time to

learn the principles.

MR. TOBIN: We know how a dictator works; that is what we

know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a

constitutional question, and I felt I should answer it in constitutional terms.

The rights, under the Constitution, are for the classes of

people. The school trustees are not the elected representatives of those classes

of people provided for in the Constitution. What are the classes of people? What

does that phrase mean? Why did they use it?

The churches, in our discussions, have been very careful to

use the phrase `classes of people' and not `churches'. There may be some doubt

in people's minds. Maybe it will end up being a legal issue as to who are the

classes of people but, I think in fairness to the churches, it has generally

been understood ever since 1949 that what we were talking about were the rights

of the different religious groups within the Province in their capacity as

members of the Roman Catholic faith, as members of the United Church, as members

of the Anglican church, as members of the Pentecostal faith or whatever, that

those are the classes of people, not groups of school trustees. So those school

trustees, I do not believe, have a right to speak for the classes of people as

they are defined in the Constitution.

Now what government had to do when it got the recommendations

of the Royal Commission on Education, we recognized that those recommendations

could not be implemented without - could not be implemented fully - without

having some impact on the rights of the classes of people as defined in Term 17.

So, to whom should we speak - ignore the church leaders and deal with the school

trustees? No, you can't do that. Mr. Speaker, I don't see any place at the

bargaining table or negotiating table when we are talking about the government

dealing with the rights of the classes of people under the Constitution for

representatives of the school trustees. Now, that is not to say that there

shouldn't be a major place for input into the proposal for representatives of

the school trustees, the NTA, the Parent-Teacher Association, all other groups

having an interest, and that is why, as the minister explained and we agreed

last night, that the government's proposal is made known. It is a public

document. The proposal put together by the group of church leaders is made

known. It is a public document. It is available for public discussion and the

government, and I am sure, for that matter, the church leaders, too, would be

only too happy to hear from the school trustees. The Parent-Teacher Association

called and asked if they could meet with us. We provided for a meeting and they

met with us, and we are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to meet with any other

group that wants to meet on this issue. If they indicate to us that they want to

express their views, we would be happy to receive them.

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

Extern.

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

In the absence of the Minister of Environment and Lands - and

I am wondering if that has anything to do with the demonstration outside today -

I would like to direct my question to the acting Minister of Environment and

Lands, whomever that may be. Could that person give us an update on the status

of the Long Harbour, Schefferville, Baie Verte projects, and the situation at

Come By Chance?

MR. ROBERTS: An update on the what?

MR. J. BYRNE: On the Long Harbour application, the

Schefferville and the Baie Verte proposals.

MR. SIMMS: The garbage proposals.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is ill, which is

why she is not here in the House. I will take the question as notice and we will

have an answer for tomorrow.

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

Extern, a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe the House Leader could answer this

question with respect to the garbage. The minister must be aware of the growing

opposition to the importation of garbage to the Province. Would the minister

give this House the government's view and/or stance with respect to this growing

opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have an environmental

assessment process and so far it has worked very well. We can't take credit for

it - we didn't design it and put it in place, the former government did. Now,

there is a group called SNAGG, `Say No to American Garbage. They don't just want

to say no to American garbage. I, on a personal basis, would want to say no to

American garbage. I share their view. What I am not prepared to do is what they

want to do, and that is prevent anybody else from expressing their view. They

want us to pass laws to prejudice the points of view of anybody else. I don't

think this House should pass laws that say people can't do this or can't have an

opinion. There are people who feel that that is an appropriate course of action.

Let the systems that are in place decide whether or not it is an appropriate

course of action. That is what we are doing. The system is there. It will work.

Give it a chance to work, don't prejudge it.

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

for St. John's East Extern.

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

Being a new member in the House, I was always under the

impression that governments were to do the wishes of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I put this again to the Premier, seeing he

answered the last question. When will the Premier put an end to the turmoil

caused by the application for the importation of different types of garbage and

hazardous waste by listening to the people and bringing in legislation banning

the importation of garbage? When, and will he ever do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of

governments, and indeed, this House, to carry out the wishes of the people but

it is an irresponsible government that allows itself to be pressured by a noisy

group to do something against the overall interest of the larger majority of

people and prevent their views from being heard. We are not prepared to do that.

We will let the process work. The process is there and it will protect the

interest of the biological environment, it will protect the interest of the

social environment, it will protect the interest of the economic environment.

The system is there. Let it work. What the hon. member wants to do is prevent

anybody from expressing an opinion that doesn't conform to his own. That is what

the SNAGG group wants to do, prevent anybody from expressing an opinion that

doesn't conform to theirs. Let the system work and judge every case. Let the

system work and judge every case on its merit. Don't prevent people from

exercising their right to express their opinion in one direction or another by

passing laws. What will you want to prevent by law, next - the manufacture of

beer in the Province? There are many people who would like to that, too. Should

we do that because a noisy group may want to prevent the manufacture of beer in

the Province? I don't think so.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the minister responsible for

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In 1989, the department, then under a previous

minister, changed the MOG, which is the Municipal Operating Grant governing

municipalities in the Province - there were quite drastic changes, in fact - and

every year since then, there have been changes made to the MOG, especially

pertaining to the road component of the Municipal Operating Grant. Could the

minister tell the House now if he is contemplating any changes in the near

future, or this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in the

past three years, this Province has, because of financial restraint, had to

limit our commitment to municipalities to $41.5 million per year as delivered

through the MOGs. I am not at liberty, yet, to say, I suppose, and to be quite

honest about it, I don't think the decision has yet been made, as to whether or

not that cap of $41.5 million will be there for next year.

We are now in the process of doing the estimations and I

think, to be quite honest about it, I should be able to release to the

municipalities around the Province hopefully, within the next week, what, either

cuts or gains, they will receive. I am hoping, my hon. friend, that we can at

least maintain this year our level of $41.5 million and remember, with that

then, there would have to be some changes within the system because of changes

in the various municipalities; and I think you understand what I mean by that.

Last year, you mentioned the fact that we had done away with

the roads component grant. We had a proposal made to us earlier this year from

the Federation of Municipalities and from the administrators suggesting that we

may make some changes to some other elements of the MOG, so that we can

reintroduce some monies towards road component. We are looking at that

particular option and hopefully, in the next couple of days, I will be able to

either make an announcement in the House or, I will notify all the councils,

individually, of the necessary changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I give a notice on behalf

of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Certain

Resolutions to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 286 residents of

the Province of Newfoundland from the Deer Lake - Corner Brook areas, Steady

Brook, also from Whitbourne and Placentia Bay area, as well. These petitions say

as follows - they, the undersigned, are members of the Say No to American

Garbage Group. They say:

Whereas the importation of garbage for final disposition in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is an indignity to our people and

should not be seen as a future growth industry for the Province, and that the

final disposal of garbage in any quantity or form is destructive and hazardous

to our biophysical environment, and with the exception of established reasonable

obligations should not be undertaken on behalf of any jurisdiction other than

our own; also, that the garbage import industry is considered to be detrimental

to all other forms of industrial and economic development, including and

especially, our tourism industry, the petitioners request that the hon. House

take such action as may be necessary to enact or amend legislation to say no to

industrial schemes which have as their objective the importation of waste and

final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals - and I'm sure that this House

will be receiving a number of petitions over the coming days and weeks -are from

a group of people who have decided that this is a very significant issue for the

future of our Province. They are not interested in suppressing the freedom of

speech of those who wish to import garbage into Newfoundland and Labrador, as

the Premier seems to think. They want the government to prevent the importation

of garbage into this Province from America and other places.

If people who want to import garbage want to express their

opinions they are free to do so. They can go on the radio, they can write

letters to the editor, they can petition this House as they wish. What the

petitioners here want is to say no to the importation of garbage as the solution

to industrial problems. We are being picked on or picked off, or attempted to be

picked off, by a group of people and individuals who have decided that

Newfoundland is fair game as a waste disposal site for North America and other

places, for industrial waste and hazardous waste, wastes that can't be disposed

of in the countries from which they come because the people there don't want

them.

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario over the last number of years,

communities outside of Toronto were having great difficulty with the garbage

from Toronto, which garbage companies wanted to dispose of in Kirkland Lake and

other places in Ontario. The NDP Government of Ontario said to the community of

Toronto and the City of Toronto: `You look after your own garbage and look after

it within your own boundaries.' That is the kind of answer this government

should be giving to the Americans and to the others who want to bring their

garbage here: `You look after your own garbage problems.' Meanwhile, this

government should start making sure that we look after ours, and not take the

kind of approach that the Minister of Environment and Lands is taking,

particularly when it comes, as an example, to how she and this government are

handling the issue of disposable or non-returnable pop bottles and other soft

drink containers.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition wholeheartedly, I

endorse the position, I have signed my name to the bottom of it, and I present

it to the House for consideration. I think the simple solution to this dilemma

right now is not to require this group and others to go through all this whole

hearing process, to oppose it, but to have legislation in place that makes it

clear to those business interests, mostly outside of this Province, that want to

turn our environment into a garbage dump for the nations of the world. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a new petition to present.

MR. SPEAKER: A new petition. Are there any further

speakers on the first petition?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 2,798 people

representing mostly the constituencies or Districts of Grand Falls, which I

represent, and Windsor - Buchans, which my friend, the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture represents, but it also includes a number of names from a number of

other communities in the Exploits Valley - Central Newfoundland area: Badger,

Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Leading Tickles, Joe Batt's Arm, Lewisporte and so on;

representing several other districts, the District of Exploits, the District of

Fogo, the District of Lewisporte -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I say to the minister, the Member for

Carbonear, that is all they got, 2,798 names. I think that is a pretty

significant number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is

typical of his government's response and his leader's response. Anytime anybody

dares to open his mouth and oppose or criticize an action of this government

they kind of try to play it down and minimize the voice of the people. That is

their problem. They are not listening to anybody, that is their entire problem,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I would like to read the prayer of the

petition. The petition of the undersigned, Say No To American Garbage Group

states:

Whereas the importation of garbage for final disposal in the Province of

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

as a future growth industry for our Province; and

Whereas the final disposal of garbage in any quantity or form

is destructive and hazardous to our biophysical environment and should not be

undertaken on behalf of any jurisdiction other than our own; and

Whereas the garbage import industry is considered to be

detrimental to all other forms of industrial and economic development including,

and especially, our tourism industry; and

Whereas the adoption of such industry would signal the

destruction of all that we would hold dear about our Province; and

Whereas the overwhelming majority of the people of this

Province are opposed, in principle, to such industrial initiatives;

Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House

take such action as may be necessary to enact or amend the legislation that

says, `no' to industrial schemes which have, as their objective, the importation

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

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege today to meet the group

who appeared outside in the lobby of Confederation Building where this petition

was presented to me and where I was asked to make the presentation in the House,

and I told them I would be honoured to do so. One of the reasons I wanted to do

it is because of the fact that not only has our party gone through the process

over the last couple of years of having public hearings around the Province, of

raising the issue at an executive council meeting of our party, of having it

passed at a provincial convention of our party over a year ago, of having it

endorsed by our caucus and having it in our policy blueprint which we took into

the last general election, but now the Liberal Party has done something similar.

I understand the Liberal Party has recently passed a resolution at its

convention, 140 to 2 - and I know some people wonder who the two were - but the

Liberal Party, itself now has seen the light and suddenly come out pleading with

their own party, their own government. And I know that the New Democratic Party

is opposed to such initiatives. So, Mr. Speaker, this issue crosses party lines.

For the benefit of those in the gallery who do not understand

the process for debate in a petition, you are not really entitled to debate the

petition, you are supposed to read the prayer and list the number of names, then

you are given five minutes to say what you want to say. So it isn't possible to

go into a great deal of debate under this provision in the House rules.

One thing is for sure, I heard the Premier say in response to

a question from my colleague, our environment critic, the Member for St. John's

East Extern during Question Period, that `the system is there, let the system

work.' I say to the Premier that I believe what the people of the Province are

saying, represented by SNAGG - I mean, they do represent the views of an awful

lot of people; I just said 2,798 out my way, that is a sizeable number of

people. So we shouldn't dismiss their efforts, they have made some significant

efforts.

The point that has to be made to the Premier is, `Yes, you

can say that the system is there but you are the government, you have the

authority to change the system.' Most politicians look forward to the

opportunity to change the system. So if you, as a government, took the

initiative and made the decision that you do not want to even consider - don't

even want to consider proposals such as these in Long Harbour, Schefferville,

Baie Verte or wherever, if you didn't want to even consider them, that could be

a decision of your government to make. I think that would represent the views of

the people of the Province. In order to make that occur, you simply have to

change this system - the legislation. You can do that if you have the political

will to do it. I think that is all these 2,798 people are saying, that is all

your own party is saying when it passed the resolution at its convention in

Gander just a couple of weeks ago and that is what everybody else and all the

other political parties are saying.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. So I hope the Premier will

take a little more consideration then he seems to have done thus far on this

particular issue, maybe really give it serious consideration and change the

system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I rise in support of the petition, and I certainly don't mind

saying why I support it. I was opposed to the importation of garbage into this

Province long before I got involved in politics. I was involved with the group

opposing the importation of garbage for burning at Long Harbour, and I still

disagree with that.

I agree that the importation of garbage is an indignity to

the people of this Province. Why should we want to take something that no one

else on the Atlantic seaboard wants? Why should we be prepared to take it at

all? Why should we even be considering those applications? I am of the view that

we should be handling our own waste before we are prepared to take in other

waste products.

There is a study being done now, actively being looked at,

with respect to solid waste disposal on the Northeast Avalon, and here we are

now, looking at our own situation, and we are prepared to take in other garbage.

I think it is simply ludicrous.

Recently, I have travelled to Baie Verte to listen to what

the people in that area had to say with respect to the Baie Verte project, and I

came away with an armload of petitions of people opposing that project, and

today out here in the lobby we had another group opposing generally the

importation of garbage to the Province.

I don't know what it takes for this government to sit back

and listen to what the people have to say. Do you have to beat it into your

heads with a hammer? The same thing with the Hydro deal - people are not being

listened to. Well, the time will come when they will be listened to, in due

course, I would imagine.

With respect to tourism, the argument is being put forward

that there will be negative impacts upon the tourist industry in this Province,

and I honestly believe that there will be negative impacts. We hear that there

will be jobs created, but how many jobs will be created versus how many jobs

will be lost in the tourist industry? That is just one example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: And for how long?

MR. J. BYRNE: And for how long, exactly right.

How many dollars will be lost in tourism over the period of

time in the future? That is another major consideration.

With respect to tourism also, the government has been, in the

past few years, putting good commercials on television, advertising and trying

to promote the Province, to get people to come to this Province. What are we

going to do in the future, promote the biggest dump on the Atlantic seaboard?

`Come and see our big incinerators. Come and see our dump. Come and see our big

pits being filled up with garbage.' Is that what we want to promote? I don't

know how many people would be interested in coming to see that.

It is obvious, in my opinion, that the majority of people are

opposed to this. You can look at the Letters to the Editor; you can look at the

editorials; you can listen to just general conversation with people. I have yet,

honestly, to speak with one person who is in favour of bringing garbage into

this Province - even the editorials.

I noticed that the local newspaper - we have a person here

who writes favourably for Newfoundland Hydro. This person is even against -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that, Bill Callahan?

MR. J. BYRNE: Whoever. He is even against the importation

of garbage, I see from reading his editorials, so I don't know what it takes to

get that into the government's head. I believe that the government should bring

in legislation to ban the importation of garbage.

The Premier stated earlier, to my question in Question

Period, that I was trying to - this Member for St. John's East Extern was trying

to force or impose his beliefs on the general public. Well, the Leader of the

Opposition mentioned a few minutes ago that SNAGG is a group that represents a

large number of people in this Province. They have a lot of people signed up.

They have the petitions coming, and I am not trying to impose my beliefs on the

people of this Province. I am trying to put forward what I honestly believe the

public wants in this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, there will

be a number of petitions forthcoming in the near future on this issue, and I

stated publicly that in the long term, maybe, this issue is second only to the

Newfoundland Hydro deal being generated in this Province at this point in time.

This is the second most major issue in the Province today, and it will come to

be the number one issue in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon.

members opposite can't seem to understand this. Do they think they are the only

ones who are opposed to American garbage - importing any garbage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

PREMIER WELLS: People here - there are all kinds of

people on this side of the House who hold the same view. I can express the same

view myself, on a personal basis - I have no hesitation. What I am not against,

is fair opportunity to express an opinion, to take a position, to make an

argument, to have your position heard on any issue in this Province. I am not

against that.

Now, the hon. member talks about jobs and he tries to lead

the people of the Province to believe that there is going to somehow be a big

loss of jobs, because the government doesn't bring in legislation that

absolutely bars any consideration of anything that might be described as

importation and garbage.

MS. VERGE: What about the Hydro (inaudible)? Why don't

you consider that?

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member will listen, she will

hear what I have to say, then she can have her say afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about jobs and he tried to lead us to

believe there is going to be a big loss of jobs, because we don't bring in laws

that say you can't import or do anything that looks like importing garbage into

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he say that?

PREMIER WELLS: He just tried to lead us to believe there

are going to be big losses of jobs because we don't pass legislation to prohibit

the importation of garbage; it is going to affect our tourist sector and loss of

jobs.

MR. SIMMS: I didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did not say it.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, Hansard will tell us what he said. I

will rely on what Hansard says.

Let me tell the House, Mr. Speaker, I just had lunch with the

owners of the oil companies involved in Hibernia. I sat down and discussed it

with them. We talked about a number of significant issues that were of concern

to the government and the owners. It was a good meeting. During lunch we talked

about the financial situation in Canada, the deficit situation, and we talked

about what it is going to take to help get Canada out of these recessionary

problems and be able to deal with the deficit, and how important it is to get

the economy moving and going again; and two of them were Americans.

One of them said, as always, of course, with the impact of

the size of the U.S. economy, if they can really get the U.S. economy going,

that will have a significant beneficial impact in Canada. That is quite true;

everybody agreed with that and I don't think anybody in this Chamber would

disagree that, but another person made another significant point. The big

problem with trying to get the U.S. economy going is they can't get California

going, and California has always led the recovery in the U.S. economy. They

can't get California going because the California Legislature, acting in

response to groups like SNAGG and others, so locked up and tied down California

that you can't do virtually anything there.

MS. VERGE: Sounds like we're taking your garbage!

PREMIER WELLS: I was just passing on to members of the

House what a person who was a resident of California just said to me. Now, I

don't know whether he is right or not. I accept his judgement of the situation

far more readily than that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And he

said, you can't get California going economically because they have so brought

in prejudicial regulations and laws that really prevent being able to get an

economic impetus moving in California, and that is affecting the ability of the

United States to get its -

Oh, I know the members' technique when they are faced with

effective arguments, they make a lot of noise to try to prevent it from being

heard. They are at it again now, Mr. Speaker, but, anybody who stops to think of

it realizes -

MR. SIMMS: What about Malaysia? What did everybody do in

Malaysia? (Inaudible) over there, too.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member could only hope that there

would be the kind of technological economic activity here that is developing in

Malaysia at the moment. We could only wish that were occurring here at the

moment, Mr. Speaker. Now, the Opposition want us to bring in this kind of

legislation to prevent anybody from proposing any kind of economic activity of

this nature. They want to bring in legislation or they want us to stop

immediately any consideration of privatization of Hydro; don't even develop a

proposal to consider, stop it dead in its tracks. They want to bring the economy

of this Province to a halt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, to bring the economy of this Province

to a halt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

PREMIER WELLS: With the permission of the House, Mr.

Speaker, I will finish now and sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Premier have leave to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is what they want to do,

bring the economy of this Province to a halt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time is expired.

PREMIER WELLS: Fortunately, this government won't let

them do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we start, please, with

Motions 2 through 5?

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 2 through 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's

(Loan) Act, 1978," carried. (Bill No. 51)

On motion, Bill No. 51 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce the

following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Act, 1992" (Bill No. 47);

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act" (Bill

No 48); and

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991" (Bill No.

52).

On motion, Bill Nos. 47, 48 and 52 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we now deal with Order

10? That is the adjourned debate on

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook

Act. I think my friend for Humber Valley adjourned the debate, if memory serves

me correctly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We ended on the

`Efford Memorial Wall' in Corner Brook yesterday evening. There is no question,

there was quite a bit of fun, I suppose, and jest here yesterday evening about

the suggestion by the Member for Humber East, pertaining to that particular rock

wall or new road in the Corner Brook area.

We are talking about the City of Corner Brook Act, and this

takes in the area between Corner Brook and Marble Mountain, more specifically,

as it pertains to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with the people in the House, and

the minister, never have I seen in this Province, a highway job that lasted -

really, it has now been going on for four years, a piece of road between Steady

Brook and Corner Brook, the other side of Corner Brook, the Massey Drive one, we

are talking about now. Never have I seen such a miserable and bad job, slow,

agonizing for the people of the area, all up our way, Corner Brook area, down

the coast and so on. I mean, it's terrible!

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. WOODFORD: Now, the minister has no control over that

right now, but I'm sure - I talked to him the other day about this year as it

pertains to contract. This is an opportunity now to make a point on it,

especially as it pertains to that piece of road between Steady Brook and Corner

Brook - that next year, for the love of God, if there is any way of doing it,

get the contracts out early -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh. oh!

MR. WOODFORD: - and yes, exactly. Kick some you-know-what

and put them in their place. Because as far as I'm concerned they're getting

away with blue murder. The people of the West Coast of the Province did not

deserve what I and the people of my district and surrounding areas, have had to

go through for the last four years, between there and Corner Brook.

They bid on jobs, they go out and bid on everything under the

sun, they get them, there are deadlines on every one of them - it is usually

September 30 or October 30 - and none of them complete their work. Very few pay

any overtime to the workers in the summertime to try to do the job. Instead,

they will bid on eight or ten and finish two and everything else is left in

slings. Then, the minister, whether it is the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, has to

take the heat for the contractor. That is what happens and it is despicable!

You go down there now - I went down there on Friday night and

again on Saturday and found parts of the road paved, other parts with a bump on

it six inches, signs in disarray. I mean, it is terrible! If there is anything

the minister can do to try to rectify that, especially now with the winter

months coming on, he should do it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have - the minister

when he gets up can clarify this for me. I realize that the City of Corner Brook

wants to put a bus system on between Corner Brook and Marble Mountain but what

bother me about it is it says: during the ski season. Now my understanding for

the Marble Mountain resort, and even in a release from the minister's department

just last weekend, a release by Dr. Sexton pertaining to Marble Mountain,

everywhere in it referred to a four season resort, and rightly so. My question

to the minister, and maybe he can answer it, is why just the ski season? I am

not saying that to be critical of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: There is also private transportation in

place now for the ski season and that is another point I will get to, but you

know how it is for legislation in the House, maybe they do not understand it,

but to try to get legislation through the House takes time and if next year they

ever go to another part of the season where this is needed they have to come

right back to the House of Assembly and put in, operate year round, or something

like that. They cannot be licensed for it and so on because it says: ski season.

Another point I would like to make concerns the private

operators in the Corner Brook area. What happens to those people? Do they

realize what this bill will do to all taxi operators and all private operators

who have those small buses and so on coming from Corner Brook to Marble

Mountain? Automatically then, I would say, because of the public transportation

sector that is always cheaper than the private sector, that is for sure, will

probably be put out of business. If not put out of business their income, for

sure, will be drastically reduced.

The other thing here,

Section 227 of the act is repealed and

the following substituted: the council may enter into an agreement with a person

for a period not exceeding ten years, granting to that person an exclusive right

to establish and operate a public transportation system within the city. Now I

am sure if the union people in Corner Brook saw that, because the transportation

system in Corner Brook today is a public transportation system, operated by the

city, so I do not know.

MS. VERGE: It is in the act now.

MR. WOODFORD: It is in the act now but the only thing

about it is it says it can be given to someone else. I do not know what the

intent is here but it is something that should be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the explanatory note in the bill

where they are looking for the right to operate a bus system between Corner

Brook and Marble Mountain, if there is ever a time it is going to be needed it

is now, because if nothing else Marble Mountain, as the minister knows quite

well, is not developed to the extent of parking. That is one of the biggest

problems they have up there, parking, and the bus system will negate a lot of

the problems they have with parking because a lot of individuals will take the

bus rather than take their cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does Chris park when he is out

there?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, there is no question that the

Minister of Education is quite an avid skier and from what I have been told he

is a good one. There is no doubt about that. But I hear that the Minister of

Transportation was over last weekend and he has a feeler put out to the hon.

Member for Humber East to check the weekend and see what the prices on ski

equipment at Marble Mountain is. I heard the minister was taking up skiing. That

is great for the area, it is good to see. You talk about spin-off when it comes

to Marble Mountain. As I always said whatever is good anywhere in the Province

is good for the surrounding area and whatever is good for Marble Mountain, I

tell you, is certainly good for any part of the Humber Valley because I have

some of the biggest rent-a-car operators in the Province. I am not going by

name, I am talking now primarily about cars itself, volume. I have one operator

in Deer Lake - I will not mention the name - one rental car operator, with 137

cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: One hundred and thirty-seven cars, one

operator, in Deer Lake, and the smallest one, I think, is a new one that came in

there last year, twenty-seven or thirty seven. Now anywhere from that to

eighty-five, to 100, to 137 cars, each operator - nowhere else in the Province.

St. John's is the only one that comes handy to it at all with regard to the

amount of volume, so just imagine what it is doing - what that airport, which

employs 101 people directly, and then indirectly through, for instance, rental

car companies, motels, hotels and so on, services to service sector, is really a

spin-off from Marble Mountain. So anything that is good for Marble Mountain, Mr.

Speaker, is good for everyone.

While I am on this subject now, I want to commend the

minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for starting the

grounds and the water services and so on, and getting ready for the lodge there

at the base of Marble Mountain. That is an excellent idea, as far as I am

concerned. It is one of the only ways that it will be developed, and developed

properly, because one thing about Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, when they

do something, whether it is a subdivision, or no matter what it is, they do a

good job. Usually they do a good job, I must say, and any of the subdivisions

around the city or around the Province today, when they are done, they have

always done a good job, so once someone goes in to take it over, they usually

take over something that is substantial and something that is of a great and

good quality.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is due to be started

during the winter months, but I do not know what they are going to do out at

Marble Mountain this winter. As far as I am concerned, very little will be done

this winter. They may do some clearing of brush and so on, but even that - even

if they can get it to go for next spring it would be great, because last year...

I had to laugh at the announcement made by the new federal

minister for the Province just a couple of weeks ago, and the Premier. He came

to Corner Brook, great hullabaloo, a great announcement on Marble Mountain, but

it was the same announcement and the same particulars and details that were

announced last January or February. It is just that the money was not spent this

summer, and one of the reasons it was not spent is because - ACOA was ready to

go with their money; that came through ACOA at that time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Enterprise Newfoundland (inaudible)?

MR. WOODFORD: No, the Province did not put anything in.

The hon. Minister of Tourism was called to the Bar last fall in Corner Brook by

the present President of Marble Mountain Corporation, Dr. Sexton, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I might not know everything, I say to the

member, but there are a few things I do know, and I will tell you - there is the

minister now. Yes, came out last fall and said: Now we cannot put any money into

this now the fall. We cannot put any money into Marble Mountain in the fall, in

the chair lifts or lodge or anything else. We will look at it later on because

we do not have the money.

Now ACOA had the money. The great ACOA that members opposite

criticized for years, that we had control over - we had a federal minister who

had control over it - now we have not. It is outside the Province now. There is

a Mr. Dingwall who has control of ACOA, so the problem is, Mr. Minister, that

the money should have been spent last summer. We are over there now with a lodge

that can accommodate 200 or 300 people and we needed the lodge, the one that is

proposed now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the money was there, but the

Province's money was not there. The Province's share was not there to be put

into that particular area - so the tenders were not called because of that

reason.

Now the minister can say all he likes. That is the reason

that particular job was not done this year. So the great announcement was made a

couple of weeks ago. People have short, short memories. The same monies

announced earlier will be spent - but granted, that money will be spent, and it

is going to serve the people of the area well and serve the Province as a whole,

because one of the things about Marble Mountain is that the great amount in

total revenues brought in through Marble Mountain are substantial. The minister

might have some figures on hand, but I heard the Premier say just about eighteen

months ago, that within two years it would probably be self-sustaining just from

the revenue coming in at the base in the wintertime.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are getting there.

MR. WOODFORD: We are getting there is right. After this

winter or possibly next winter they probably could run that operation on the

revenues that they are taking in there, the spin-off from the whole area, the

hotels, the taxi companies. You talk to a taxi operator - when you talk to a

taxi operator in St. John's or anywhere else around the Province, usually the

summertime is their best season but out our way the best time is the wintertime.

Talk to any operator, hotel operator, taxi operator or bus operator, the

wintertime is their best business. That is the time of their best business and

primarily because of Marble Mountain. I notice the government has backed a

development now in Baie Verte, which is good. The White Hills one in

Clarenville, is great, it is good stuff because the more people that get out to

do something and get out to ski, the more people will be going to Baie Verte,

going to Smokey Mountain and Marble Mountain. The more people get involved, the

more interest you got -

AN HON. MEMBER: People staying home from Florida.

MR. WOODFORD: I look at the number of people that came

across the gulf this year, Marine Atlantic, 14,800 and some odd more people

crossed the gulf this year then they did last and that is indicative that people

are staying home. People are travelling within the country, within the Province

and so on, and that augurs well for the whole area.

Mr. Speaker, the only concern that I had, as I said to the

minister, was pertaining to - I don't know, he can probably mention it to the

powers that be in Corner Brook - why the ski season? They might want to be back

here next year looking to operate it year round and maybe there is some

flexibility - it could be put there now with regards to an amendment before it

comes to committee or when it comes to committee. So I just say that to the

minister. Other than that it is just housekeeping with regards to - not

housekeeping really, I suppose it is a big change. That word housekeeping, we

have to be very careful with it because housekeeping sometimes can be perceived

as - we all, I suppose, are guilty of that at times and say that there are no

problems with it but all it takes is a word. You often see it sometimes - I

think we have seen it in a bill here today, fix and so on, just one word can

make the difference in what the real intent of a regulation or an amendment is,

especially as it pertains to legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on

this legislation because I think this does differ from the other act that we

passed second reading on yesterday. This particular act has to do with the

provision of bus services outside of municipality. My concern here is that this

is not just enabling legislation - it has to do with the transportation system

in and around the area of Corner Brook. While I agree that there would be an

interest in seeing the Marble Mountain area serviced by this particular bus

service, I wonder how the people of Mount Moriah, Halfway Point, Steady Brook or

other places around there feel that they are being served by the public

transportation of the Corner Brook region? Is it something that a private

operator would be able to operate?

I remember a number of years ago the Public Utilities Board

used to take great interest in people starting to provide the services because

they did not want to see someone making the investment. Some private individual

making the investment, setting up and committing themselves to a service on a

regular ongoing basis without - than rather have to be open to someone coming in

for the short season, for a few months or for special events to take over the

good business but not provide the service in the areas and in the time slots

when there was not so much traffic for the business.

I see that the minister is not in his place in the House but

I hope that when he rises he will respond to that concern. Has he considered

what affect the provision of this particular bus service by the city council of

Corner Brook might have on other transportation operators in the Corner Brook

area, taxi services, other bus services that might impinge on the amount of

business that is to be done? Will this affect negatively, anyone else who is

providing a similar service, is there a commitment from the City of Corner Brook

to extend their municipal transportation service to other areas such as were

proposed to be amalgamated to Corner Brook but have not been, are they going to

look after the area of Mount Moriah of Corner Brook or the Maple Valley area - I

forget the name of the community there that resisted amalgamation - is Corner

Brook transportation services going to start to become a regional transportation

service or do they just want this one shot deal?

I think these are considerations that, from a public policy

point of view, are potentially important to the residents of the Corner Brook

area. I have very high regard for the facilities at Marble Mountain. I see the

minister is back and I wonder when he rises to speak, can he address those

points of what about the transportation around the area of Corner Brook, what

about Mount Moriah and Halfway Point and other areas? Is the Corner Brook city

council going to include them in the transportation expansion that they are

proposing here, and are there other private businesses that might be pushed out

of viability by the Corner Brook city council getting involved in this?

I have that concern here, although I agree with the

minister's comments in introducing the bill that in general, the Province - and

this hon. member has very high regard for the decisions of municipal bodies

throughout the Province and we would like to leave the things that go on within

their boundaries to themselves as much as possible within the framework

established by good, sound planning. We ought not to let the City of Corner

Brook perhaps interfere with the transportation, other transportation

requirements of the Corner Brook area by just pinpointing this one, perhaps

lucrative location or lucrative route for them without providing a general

service to the region of Corner Brook.

As far as Marble Mountain goes, I am quite pleased with the

development of Marble Mountain. I have high regard for Marble Mountain as a

tourist destination, as a ski resort. It is a very nice hill, I have seen the

Minister of Education out there skiing down the hill, he enjoys it very much as

well and I have enjoyed that facility too, but I think we ought to be a little

careful about our public enthusiasm, for we ought to make sure that we don't,

for example with NLHC, have a new version of social housing, building

condominiums for the wealthy. I think that that would be a very big mistake if

that becomes the direction of our policy.

I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

no shortage of funds, he says he is not even concerned with the prices out in

Corner Brook, so I hope that this is not a new form of social housing, Mr.

Speaker, no more co-op housing, no more monies available for housing for people

who are desperately in need of housing, but the minister finds money for

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to develop a condominium project out in Corner

Brook. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is going to be the direction of social housing

in this Province, I for one, cannot support it, and I say that with all great

respect for skiers and those who want to ski, as I said, I skied there myself,

it is a fine place to ski and more people should be encouraged to ski there.

So I hope that the minister in doing this, when he turns

around the spring and sells this, that he is going to make money for the

Province, that he is not just doing this to provide social housing for the

condominium skiers like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation plans

to be, once he gets his skis wet up on Marble Mountain overlooking the John

Efford Memorial Wall, so I know that he will be visiting many, many times. I

suppose if he buys one of these condominiums, he will be able to look from his

window at the John Efford Memorial Wall every day after he finishes skiing or

before he goes in the morning.

MR. TOBIN: Jack, if it is a memorial wall, he won't be

able to look at it.

MR. HARRIS: Well, perhaps there can be a memorial wall

that would also have room for his ashes to be installed in between the bricks

somewhere, as I have seen in some other places where they have memorial gardens

and in the wall, they have little places for bricks - I do not know how the hon.

minister plans to do his skiing, whether he plans to do it in this life or in

the hereafter, but seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think the idea of a condominium

project out in Marble Mountain as a new form of social housing really strikes me

as a government that is out of touch with the real needs of the people of this

Province.

When the minister gets up and responds I hope he will tell us

that when he sells this land that he is proposing to develop, that he is going

to make sufficient money to start a true social housing project and perhaps put

some money into co-op housing, other forms of housing, that will benefit the

people who need good, solid, low-cost quality housing to live in, and not a

second home, or a condominium, or a ski resort for them to have a playground.

While I'm on that, let me sing the praises of Marble

Mountain. If I sing them loud enough perhaps the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation will put on his skis and go over to Corner Brook and try it out.

I'm sure the Minister of Education, over the Christmas season, will be sure to

take him over and lead him down the trails and the paths of Marble Mountain, and

enjoy a great deal of very interesting trails. There is a place called Garden

Path. The Minister of Education I'm sure will be happy to lead you down the

garden path, on the country roads, on the garden paths of Marble Mountain. I am

sure that he will enjoy it very much.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if the hon. member skis.

MR. EFFORD: I am not concerned about skiing (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if the hon. member skis, but I

suppose there are always a little aprs-ski activity that you might want to get

involved in.

Mr. Speaker, I support the thrust of the legislation in terms

of giving an opportunity for the City Council of Corner Brook to become more

involved in the transportation of the region. I would like the minister to give

us some assurance that they plan not to just high-grade the transportation needs

by running a bus service to Marble Mountain, but also meet the needs of the

Corner Brook region and the small communities around there which also have need

of transportation services. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spent all night

preparing for this afternoon. I never got an hour's sleep last night, I got that

excited about the conversation back and forth from my hon. friend for Humber

East that I spent all night preparing and have answers to the questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the wall? Is that the job?

MR. EFFORD: That is the wall. I have to get to the

comments just recently made. I will take the last first and then I will get on

to my hon. friend for Humber East.

Talking about the contractors out doing the contract work on

the area out around Corner Brook, the four-lane highway. I can't imagine how he

could possibly be so critical. It is going to be one of the best highways. Being

critical of the contractors building the new highway across Corner Brook - I

know there is some legitimacy in what the Member for Humber Valley was talking

about. But if you look at the weather conditions and the conditions in which

those contractors had to work under the last year, I think there is room to

understand the reasons why they had some delay in their work. There is one

contractor who sublet a part of the work in which he (inaudible) caused the main

problem.

Looking at the amount of money that has been spent over there

over the last few years and what is going to be spent in that area to complete

the four-laning from Deer Lake to west of Corner Brook, I think it is going to

be, as the hon. Member for Humber East suggested yesterday, it is going to be...

I just forget the terminology she used.

MS. VERGE: A superhighway.

MR. EFFORD: Super. Super four-lane highway. She is quite

right. It is going to be a super four-lane highway equal to those anywhere in

Canada, and it is going to run from Deer Lake to west of Corner Brook. That

super four-lane highway is definitely going to be second to none in Canada. She

addressed some concerns about the highway and I just want to take a minute or

two and address the concerns that she had.

One of the problems we've had to deal with out there is the

effect on businesses and people located on the side of the four-lane highway

because the idea of building this national transportation highway is to make

sure that we do not have any obstructions on that highway from point A to point

B, in order to go from point A east to west across Newfoundland and to get there

at the speed limit which is 100 kilometres per hour and have no service on the

highway. If you want to have services you take them off the main highway so that

it is much easier to run on the highway.

In the Marble Mountain area going from Corner Brook, up by

Marble Mountain and going back, there is going to be an underpass built there on

that highway and it is going to be second to none in Canada. It is going to be

obstructions whatsoever. There will be no obstruction turning off the highway,

going onto the highway, and going back to Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: I do not know what the hon. member said about

the people in rural Newfoundland. The amount of money that is going to be spent

on this particular part of the highway, as everybody knows, is a part of the

Roads for Rails Agreement. The latest engineering design is going to be used on

that highway. The other thing the hon. member pointed out yesterday concerned

the rock grades on the side of the highway. When you build up a highway you have

to leave a lot of rock. I have met with the individuals out in Corner Brook. I

have personally met with four families in one particular instance and on another

occasion I met with another couple of people in a different part of the town,

and I understand exactly what they were talking about as far as the depreciation

to their property and the rock walls placed right in their back garden. All of

that will be taken care of. Once the highway is completed from Deer Lake to

Corner Brook, the completion of the highway, all the paving, the guardrails, and

whatever else needs to be done on the highway, then there is money there for the

hydroseeding, not only the centre but all of the inclines and the grades off the

highway. All of that is going to be just as the hon. member requested, and only

because she has done a very fine job am I going to make sure that all is done.

MS. VERGE: What about the flowers?

MR. EFFORD: Well, we can talk about that when I come to

Corner Brook on that particular weekend. We can discuss the flowers and all

these other things that make you happy. We will see if we cannot find enough

money to make sure that the hon. member is quite satisfied. Never mind Marble

Mountain. I am not interested in Marble Mountain thing. That is something I will

leave to the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education?

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Education skis a bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: The other concern are the contractors out

there. Next year I am going to ensure that there is a time limit put on the

contracts and that those time limits are kept. That is a responsibility of the

department, too. If we do not get the contracts and the tenders awarded until

the middle of June or July, or whatever, then it is pretty difficult for

contractors, with the weather conditions they are working under, to get them

completed by a reasonable time in the fall.

The earlier we get the tenders out and awarded, as soon as

the frost comes out of the ground, those contractors can have all their

equipment ready to start work early in the year, and get a better completion

date. It is not just the fault of the contractors, but a little bit of fault on

both sides, and we hope to be able to improve that next year. If there is any

concern other than the design of the highway then they can talk to the engineers

but we have not had any major problems except with a few of the people living

close to where the actual construction is going ahead. Understandably, when you

are doing any major construction in an area you are going to get some

complaints, but we are very aware that these people have legitimate concerns,

they have a right to be concerned, and we are going to address them, hopefully

to the satisfaction of everybody.

MS. VERGE: What about the Lewin Parkway Interchange?

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not finished.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Humber Valley have

leave?

MR. WOODFORD: I have just a short question for the

minister. He mentioned the hydoseeding when the road is finished between Deer

Lake and Corner Brook. Usually in every contract there is money in for

hydroseeding. On that particular contract, is there money in this one for that

particular job?

MR. EFFORD: Is there money in the present contract?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: No. What we're saying is that after the work

is completed then the hydroseeding will be done in all those areas out there. So

it is not in this particular contract to do the hydroseeding and then do some

more. All the work will be completed first, and then the hydroseeding will be

done, and the flowers.

MS. VERGE: That might be seven or eight years.

MR. EFFORD: Oh no. No, it won't. We would estimate a

completion date, three years. That highway will be completed.

MS. VERGE: All the way to Deer Lake?

MR. EFFORD: No, no, no, not all the way to Deer lake, out

to Pasadena.

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

Provincial Affairs if he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if because of the

long debate that some of my hon. colleagues sort of got mixed up with this

legislation. I think probably that is what happened. Basically the legislation

is giving the authority to the City of Corner Brook to hire or to contract or to

put up on tender outside transportation services to places and areas. Mount

Moriah happens to be one of those places I believe he was talking about.

What they are doing basically, under the Act it restricts all

transportation in the Corner Brook area to their own transportation system. What

they are asking is for us to give them the permission to go outside to contract

out to private enterprise services that would be provided to Marble Mountain

from areas around Corner Brook. I think maybe there has been a little bit of a

misunderstanding. Some private companies will be accommodated, there are no two

ways about it.

In regards to one comment made about the selling of Marble

Mountain, or the selling of the land on Marble Mountain, and whether the Housing

Corporation should be involved in that, it is the Housing Corporation through

projects like Marble Mountain, through projects that have been going on in the

Province and Stephenville and in St. John's over the last twenty-odd years, that

the Housing Corporation generates its revenue so that then it can go back into

social housing programs. Where I tend to agree with the idea of the profits from

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing going into social housing programs, I'm not

sure if my hon. colleague across meant to say that the Housing Corporation

should or should not be in the business of development. I would think that being

a member of the party that he represents he would be more interested in the

Housing Corporation making money to put into social housing, rather than to

hinder in any way the Housing Corporation from actually being out there and

being involved in that type of scheme.

Mr. Speaker, that is all. My hon. colleague for Humber asked

why they were only asking about ski time, or the time of the year and ski time.

I can't answer that. I don't know but I will -

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: No, I didn't think it was. I don't think it was

there and I think it is a misinterpretation. I can't really answer why they do

or they don't, but I was led to believe - my understanding, as my colleague for

Humber said - is that it is basically giving them an open door type of policy

whereby they can do any time in the year, and they are not only restricted to

the ski time of year. Which would of course accommodate, down the road, other

development, the four seasons idea of golfing, and all that sort of thing. I

don't think there is a problem with that.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 33)

MR. ROBERTS: Could we now have Order 11, Bill 32? My

friend for Carbonear is on a roll down there, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, before we move on, not

wanting to take up time with moving on with the legislation we have. I just want

to bring to the attention of the Government House Leader that the members of the

Social Services Committee have just got a notice that there will be a meeting

tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. There will be a short meeting of the Committee at 2:00

p.m. tomorrow, December 1, in the Government Members' Boardroom. I just want to

alert -

MR. SIMMS: Misprint.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, no. We all know that 2:00 p.m.

tomorrow the House convenes and I'm just wondering if there is something we can

- why I do it now is because I want to get on with it and not wait till 5:00

p.m. to raise this and then we get into a bit of a snarl over it and so on, so I

think we should deal with this and perhaps if we can - even if the meeting was

rescheduled for three o'clock -

MS. VERGE: Or 1:30

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - or 1:30, if it is a short meeting, but

not at two o'clock when the House convenes because, quite naturally it is

Question Period, we consider it the most important time in the House and we

would like to have our members here in the House and as well, we would like them

to take

part in the committee, which they should be doing, but they can't do it

at two o'clock.

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

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason for that, was at the request of the members of the

Opposition on that committee, who wanted to have a meeting with the

chiropractor, Dr. Goyeche, I guess, and when the Committee was raised this

morning, it was with the instructions to the Clerk that the Committee would meet

at any time that the meeting could be arranged with Dr. Goyeche. Dr. Goyeche is

going out of town tomorrow and the only time that it could be arranged was at

two o'clock, a short meeting then, if the Opposition members want to meet with

Dr. Goyeche, if not, it is quite alright with us. We are prepared to forego

that. That is not a problem at all, so the reason for it was that I told the

Clerk to contact the members and see if it was alright that we have the meeting

at that time because it is the only time that we can meet with Dr. Goyeche, and

it was at the suggestion of the members of the Opposition who are on that

Committee.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Just further to the point of order. You

know, with all due respect to the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir who Chairs

the Committee, I think it is Dr. Goyeche - you know, while our members would

like to meet with him, I mean, it is the most inconvenient time, two o'clock-

AN HON. MEMBER: Her.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Her.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a her. Okay, well it is a her, Dr.

Goyeche.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is a her.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: She is not a he. It is not like the

song, he is a she or she is a he. But the point is that this is a very

inconvenient time and is there any possibility I wonder, that we could get the

doctor earlier?

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, to the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, first of all I am not sure that the hon. gentleman needed to have

raised it in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, out behind the Speaker's Chair is the

place. The committees are masters of their own schedule, their own timetable. My

friend, the Chair of the Committee, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has

addressed it, let us just let the normal processes work and I am sure an effort

will be made to accommodate the situation. There is no desire to restrict

attendance of members, in fact to the contrary, but really I think it is a

matter that can be worked out by the normal processes and my friend from Burgeo

- Bay d'Espoir and the gentleman from Grand Bank or whomever is Vice-Chair on

that Committee, perhaps could get together and work it out in the next little

while, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The order 12 -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is a

point of order or a point of privilege. As a member of that committee, I feel

that there is a responsibility to be at meetings of the committee, but also I

have a responsibility here as a member of this House to be here, to participate

in Question Period at two o'clock when the House sits.

Now, I think it is something that ought to be dealt with

here. You know, it is not fair to say that the Committee itself decided they

wanted to meet with Dr. Goyeche, she may be available this evening, I don't

know, but this meeting, being called at this time, and notice being given, is an

infringement on members rights to participate in the activities of the House

during Question Period and I think it should be ruled on, unless the Chair of

the Committee is prepared to say that this meeting will not be called. I won't

be there. I give him notice now I won't be there because Question Period is at

two o'clock and that is where I should be.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order raised by the hon.

Member for St. John's East, it is basically the same as the one raised by the

hon. the Opposition House Leader, and as the Government House Leader pointed

out, the committees are masters of their own houses and there is no Standing

Orders or regulations under which the Chair can rule or set a time for meeting

of these committees of the house. That is something that has to be agreed upon

by the Chairman and the members of that Committee and the Chair cannot rule on

that particular point of order.

The hon. Government House Leader called order 12?

MR. ROBERTS: Order 11, Sir, Bill No. 32. "An Act To Amend

The Fire Prevention Act, 1991."

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

Prevention Act, 1991." (Bill No. 32).

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say that this one is

of a housekeeping nature. There are certain deficiencies in our Fire Prevention

Act, and I want to present some changes to the House to accommodate some of

these deficiencies by rectifying some simple little problems that we have.

Amendments to sections 8-12 are necessary to clarify the role

of local assistants. The word `local' is not in the old act, so it leaves the

impression that the fire commissioner's assistants from St. John's or Corner

Brook are the only ones who can go out and actually investigate a fire, or

investigate and do inspections pertaining to fire safety.

All we want to do, basically, is put the word `local' in

there so that the fire commissioner has the right, then, to appoint fire chiefs,

or people from the area, to do that type of work. In a lot of cases they have

been doing it already, but doing it, I suppose, in relationship to the act,

illegally, and we want to clear that up. That is all we want to do, to add the

words `local assistants' there, and then local assistants will be the people who

live in the communities around the Province and are fire-fighters themselves,

chiefs, and so on.

Section 23(1), we want to change that because the mobile

fire-fighting training program basically in

Section 23(1), all it says is for

volunteers, and there are a number of paid fire departments who have made

requests to our department in the last year or so, saying: Why can we not avail

of this particular volunteer service? And we are saying they can. We want to

take that out, and make it available to paid fire-fighters as well as volunteer

fire-fighters.

The amendment to

section 24(1) would increase the maximum

fine for offenses under the act from $1,000 to $5,000. We are running into some

serious deficiencies out there, and when you think of $1,000 fine for someone

who does not put in the proper fire-fighting protection equipment in a public

building, in churches, in any buildings that are out there, in particular

accesses to businesses per se, or any buildings out there, and they are not

following the codes, they are not following the Fire Prevention Act by

installing smoke detectors and this sort of thing, we feel that offence should

be raised from $1,000 to $5,000 for a minimum amount. Maybe then that would

encourage people to be more particular in the work they do in the construction

of new buildings and, I guess the (inaudible) and renovations to old buildings.

That is basically all. I do not know if there are any

questions on it. I would think that my hon. colleague across will probably make

some comments on it, but I cannot see where there would be any problems. If

there are any problems at all, I would think they would probably be in the

maximum fine for offenses.

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that if the general public

are not made, and forced, into complying with the Fire Prevention Act, we will

continue to lose lives in this Province. To be quite honest about it, the

maximum fine of $1,000 for somebody who contravenes this act, and possibly could

cause a death, is very little in regard to fines.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am talking about the maximum fine for

offenses under the act right now. Under our Fire Prevention Act the maximum fine

is $1,000. What we want to do is raise that maximum fine to $5,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: In public buildings (inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for someone who violates the act.

MR. REID: Violates the act. Okay?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is all I have to say.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few

comments pertaining to the bill.

On that first one the minister, when he gets up to close

debate, especially: 1. Subsection (8)(4) of the Fire Prevention Act, 1991, is

amended by adding, after the words "need not be investigated by a" the words

"local or" -

MR. REID: Need not be investigated by an assistant fire

commissioner. Add the word `local' and it would mean, need not be investigated -

MR. WOODFORD: That is what -

MR. REID: Oh, my. You have me confused.

MR. WOODFORD: I know that is the intent, but -

MR. REID: Yes, it does not sound right, does it? It is

ambiguous.

MR. WOODFORD: Maybe the minister could have a look at

that. It does not sound right because it says right after that: "...and by

adding after the words "Circumstances of the Fire" the words "or the fire

commissioner considers an investigation is necessary."

That is okay, I suppose, but that: "...by a" the words "local

or". Maybe I am missing something there but it seems to me - anyway the minister

can take that under advisement.

Clause 3 of the bill would amend subsection 23 (1) of the act

by deleting the words, `all volunteer.' I can see the reason for that because

there is, I think, 95 or 96 per cent of all the fire-fighters in the Province

are volunteer fighters. The other few percentage are - there are only a very few

areas in the Province that have the paid fire-fighters. So they are mostly

volunteers anyway and this mainly pertains to the mobile unit that is going

around the Province with regards to training fire-fighters. On that note, I

would say that if the minister can do it at all this year, that is a very, very

- the regional office in Corner Brook I know goes out - they usually used to go

out on Saturday's and help the volunteer fire brigades around the area, do some

training. Especially as it pertains to - well they have that house, they used to

call it the smoke house there in Gillams, and I don't know if someone was

telling me here just lately that they are thinking about doing away with that. I

hope they don't because it is a great thing - I visited it last year. I went

down and spent a full day with all the volunteer fire brigades from around the

area, around Humber Valley, Bay of Islands and so on, spent a full day down

there along with the media. They went all through it, they had two sessions, one

in the morning and one in the evening whereby people could put on the tanks and

go right through the building.

They practised everything from taking bodies and finding

people in burning houses. They do the real thing, let's put it that way. It is a

very worthwhile training program for municipalities and volunteer fire brigades

especially because they do not have the money to do it on an individual basis

but by getting together and doing it collectively they can provide a very

worthwhile service to all the volunteer fire brigades around the Province. So I

say to the minister that if there is any way that he can do it - see any way

this year of putting a few more funds back into that service, it would be

greatly appreciated. Not only that, we will do a great service to the people of

the Province.

Pertaining to the building codes, people not abiding by the

rules and regulations in communities pertaining to the building codes - the fire

codes I should say, building codes is another matter - because as far as I am

concerned, in communities around the Province today, councils do not have enough

backing to enforce, especially under the municipalities act, to enforce the

building codes in those smaller municipalities. They are doing, in most

municipalities, absolutely what they like. The council says no to a permit and

then the next day or a couple of weeks after you will see the building go up.

Now they have the right to issue a stop work order and even that is neglected.

People have a tendency to say: to hell with that. The minister knows exactly

what I am talking about and it is getting to be a real, real problem. I just had

a call the other night from one municipality that the mayor in the municipality

went ahead - the council turned down the permit and the mayor went ahead and put

up a shed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister did not hear that.

MR. WOODFORD: Built a garage. Went ahead and built the

garage anyway. After the council turned it down, the mayor went home, went down

and got the building materials and whacked up the garage. Now if that is not a

blatant disrespect for the council and for the rules and regulations of a

council. I just said that 95 per cent or 96 per cent of the volunteer people -

all of us members here in the House, most of us except members from the St.

John's area, all of us out in rural Newfoundland knows all about the volunteer

fire brigades and what they do for the community - and the councils are the same

thing. In fact most of the councils have members of the fire brigade on the

council. They are one and the same thing in a lot of small communities. The

disrespect shown for them is unreal. It is unreal with regards to not respecting

the rules and regulations pertaining to the council, especially when they are

guided by the Municipalities Act. Every council in the Province except for the

City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl and the City of Corner Brook, who

are governed by their own acts, they have their own city acts and it is

different from the Municipalities Act, everything else and everybody else are

governed by the Municipalities Act.

They are all volunteers working all around the Province,

working eight and ten hours a day. They come home in the evening and they go

into a council office and they try to do their best for their community.

Granted, you've got some areas in the Province where probably the council and

councillors - maybe some of it is questionable.

Most of it, Mr. Speaker, is done in concert with the

department, in concert with the people of the community, and for the betterment

of the people of the community. I say to the minister - and I think he knows

exactly what I'm talking about, through the Federation of Municipalities, and he

comes from a rural area. He knows what I'm talking about, especially when it

comes to volunteer fire brigades and councils, and the rules and regulations

being adhered to.

I just forget now if the Municipalities Act hasn't been

amended. There used to be a clause in the Municipalities Act whereby you could

put a lien, if taxes weren't paid and so on, against an individual's property

for six years, and you keep it there, and they could keep it.... I think it is

still there if I'm not mistaken.

Something is going to have to be put in place to try to give

the municipalities more clout. The bigger centres have no problem. St. John's,

Corner Brook, Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Gander, have no problem. They have all

kinds of staff. They have city managers, they have town managers, they have

full-time clerks, they have lawyers, they have accountants. All they have to do

is phone and they can take the works for them. You take a small municipality

which can't even collect the taxes, which has to go now - at least one good

thing has come in the last few years, and that is the small claims court. That

is excellent, that is doing an excellent job for municipalities. Especially last

year since they raised the limits. I think now it is $3,000 that you can - I

think it is $3,000. Maybe the Minister of Justice can - under small claims court

now, is its limit $3,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I think it is $3,000. That is after doing a

great service for small municipalities in the Province. Because they could not

collect. They just could not collect, and now they can. I must say, it is

working out fairly well, and it is the least expensive to the municipality.

Because they used to have to go get lawyers and get accountants and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the hon. gentleman have against

lawyers?

MR. WOODFORD: Lawyers. I remember back when I used to be

on council in Cormack, having to go down - we used to be able to go ourselves

then - and then say for instance you were taking down a company, a fair-sized

company in the area - you couldn't afford anything. You had to go appear on

behalf of council and here is the company there with their lawyer and their

accountant. It was very intimidating. Especially when you first got on it. After

you got your feet wet -

MR. ROBERTS: I don't believe the hon. gentleman was ever

intimidated.

MR. WOODFORD: No. After you got your feet wet then you

could handle yourself very well. Smaller municipalities can't do it, and I say

to the minister: now, the $1,000 fine to $5,000 for anybody who doesn't adhere

to the fire code in the municipality and does it, we will say, deliberately

against the building regulations and so on in the municipalities, as far as I'm

concerned I have no qualms with it. Because like the minister said, $5,000 is a

small price to pay for someone who is putting up a new home, they build a new

home or a new business, and they are not thinking about their families, they are

not thinking about the worth of the building or anything else. They just go

ahead, build a $100,000 home, and not even a smoke detector. Really.

The smoke detector is another matter. I would like to see a

law - I don't think it is in the fire code now - but the minister I think will

be getting representation on this. I don't think that under the fire code and

under the building regulation that a home has to have smoke detectors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that can

MR. REID: (Inaudible) you must have smoke detectors or

some sort of fire system in your house. There are towns that have introduced

that as municipal legislation.

MR. WOODFORD: As a bylaw.

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: I think that is one of the things that we

should all be cognizant of, because I'm finding it funny that the insurance

companies don't take it up. Some of them try it, but....

Mr. Speaker, while we're on this fire prevention act, I can't

help but mention that usually every fall I get to as many firemen's balls as I

possibly can. One of the ones that I went to this year they had the `Firettes'.

Usually all those volunteer fire brigades have the `Firettes' involved in their

community and so on. In Deer Lake this year the `Firettes' raised $1,500 for the

fire brigade in Deer Lake. They passed them over a cheque for $1,500. Reidville

did the same thing, $1,000. I went just the other night into Howley. You can

believe this now if you like.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What group gave the money? `Firettes'?

MR. WOODFORD: `Firettes.'

I went to Howley the other night - now, members opposite can

just imagine that this is what can be done in a small community. They have a

population of - well, there are 261 taxpayers there. The population, I think, is

432 total. I went there the other night and here was a volunteer fire brigade of

eighteen members, and the `Firettes' alone, in that small community, raised

$5,300, from that little community, the community of Howley, and passed it over

to the fire brigade.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) now you want them out of your

district.

MR. WOODFORD: I never said anything about taking the

community of Howley out of my district, in fact, I'm the one who said: `Leave

them in here, leave them in the district.' I just got up here yesterday and said

that.

Now, there are some reasons in Howley - the Flights in Howley

are good buddies of mine, and not only that, they're good PCs, close relatives

of the Member for Windsor - Buchans. But they're a different family altogether,

a different crowd altogether from the Flights.

MR. TOBIN: `Graham' is not a bad fellow, now, I have to

say.

MR. WOODFORD: No, sir, he is not a bad fellow at all. I

don't know how Liberalism got at him, to tell you the truth.

Mr. Speaker, what the government is saving on volunteer fire

brigades around this Province, there is no way of putting a dollar value on it.

Because there are millions of dollars involved in small councils and volunteer

fire brigades around the Province that are not costing the government one cent,

and not costing the municipality a cent, except for the fact they're providing

some service.

Mr. Speaker, with those few short comments I would like to -

the critic can go on for an hour, but I don't think in this case it's justified.

The critic usually has an hour. I would say to the minister that the comment

with regard to subsection 8(4) is the only thing I question. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I welcome

the opportunity to speak on Bill 32, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act",

an attempt to clarify the role of local fire commissioners, fire chiefs, in

conducting investigations and inspections.

This is a great step forward for government and I applaud

their effort in doing so. We all will gain by more emphasis being put on

inspections and investigations. We have to try to prevent as many casualties and

damages to property as we can. The amount of fire-related debts in this Province

is way too high, and I welcome any move by government to try to learn more about

the cause of fire in Newfoundland and Labrador. The doors must be open so that

local fire chiefs and assistants can conduct their investigations and

inspections without any hindrance by the act. The education gained from these

investigations and inspections benefits the whole Province.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of volunteer fire departments in

this Province can never be emphasized enough. In my district alone, there are

twelve volunteer fire departments with approximately 250 volunteer fire-fighters

and the task they perform is crucial to the safety and well-being of the people

of my district. I commend them for their efforts and I wish them all the best in

their future endeavours.

I call on government today to do more for volunteer

fire-fighters, especially in the line of proper coverage under the Workers'

Compensation Act. At present, there are many questions and concerns being

brought forward by volunteer fire departments throughout the Province. Our

volunteers must be protected. They are parents' sons, brothers, fathers, and

they need to be protected as they perform their duties for our citizens.

There was an example this past year in my district of a

volunteer fire-fighter who was injured during time working on equipment for the

fire department. There were no flames around him at the time, just nuts and

bolts and wrenches, still he was performing his duty to ensure the safety of his

fellow citizens; but when he applied for compensation, he was turned down

because he was considered by the commission not to be in the line of duty. I was

appalled by this decision and later I was very upset to discover that due to his

injury, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, deemed him not available to work

and therefore he was denied his U.I. benefits. He is a family man and this

occurred almost a year ago just before Christmas. It took the goodwill and the

charity of many people in our area to ensure this family had a happy Christmas,

food on the table and gifts under the tree, as you understand, Mr. Speaker.

I therefore call on government to expand on the coverage of

volunteer fire departments so that the unnecessary worry does not have to be

with our volunteer fire-fighters as they perform their many duties in providing

this service to us. A volunteer fire department in any community is a great

asset and many people sleep easier knowing they are around to be called upon at

any time - any hour, any day to protect them.

I would like to mention in

section 3, the amendment

concerning the mobile training units. These training units are a major asset to

the education of our volunteer fire-fighters and to paid volunteer fire-fighters

throughout our Province. Some cutbacks were made a couple of years ago

concerning how much training could be done by these mobile training units

throughout the Province and I believe government should find funds somewhere to

increase the budget for the mobile training units so they can reach the far ends

of the Province, especially those people who are not close to major training

centres.

In closing I say to government that parts of this amendment

are a positive step and I welcome the move. There is much room for improvement

in the present legislation and room for new legislation to ensure that people

who put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens in this Province are

protected and the families that, God forbid, would be left behind in the case of

a fatal accident will be secure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to refer very briefly to "An Act To Amend The

Fire Prevention Act", Bill 32, and I would like to ask the minister: in

section

4, where he is increasing the fine from $1,000 to $5,000, I am wondering what

his record has been in collecting the $1,000 in the beginning? It was there in

the bill as it exists today. There is not much point in raising fines and

putting higher figures on things unless we put some teeth