December

8, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 72

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

I was in the middle of oral questions. The minister was

asking me did I bring back his questions, and I was telling him, yes.

Having said that, I suppose we have a quorum to proceed. I

had a question for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, so I will ask the

acting Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, if he is there, or the Government

House Leader.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) you're supposed to ask me

questions.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But you're the acting minister of

everything else, certainly not Finance as well.

I want to ask - it is a concern over severance packages and

the amount of money being paid out. I just wanted to ask whoever is going to

answer over there, can they confirm that severance packages of up to sixty-two

weeks pay are being provided to many displaced workers, including those with

years of service, to be fully pensionable? I'm just wondering if somebody over

there can confirm that. Because certainly, that is going to have a big impact on

the projected $60 million savings.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague,

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, I will answer as much as I can at

this time. There may be some matters that one would have to take as notice.

We are under an obligation to pay severance, which comes, in

my understanding, from two sources. Many, if not all, of the collective

agreements have provisions in them that oblige the government to pay severance

in certain situations. There are stated policies that have been in effect for

many years with respect to non-collective bargaining groups, the so-called

management employees, that also call for the payment of severance. I do not know

the detail as to how many weeks one can get. My understanding was, it was one

week for every year, a week a year -no -

MR. SULLIVAN: For every week worked up to a maximum of

twenty except that in (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend, the Member for Ferryland.

He may even have got it right. I have to tell him, he was late again getting in

this morning. When I got here he wasn't here. Now that the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board is here, he can take over and answer, but I would make two

other points with respect to the severance packages.

The first is that my colleague - when he takes up the ball

that I am about to throw laterally to him, my colleague will confirm, as he said

the other day, that in doing our sums we have taken into account the effect of

severance, because it is a real factor. And secondly, the obligation to pay

severance is there and must be honoured until such time as the obligation is

changed, and that is a matter for collective bargaining and so on. Now, with

that said, my colleague, having arrived here, may wish to make the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a

supplementary.

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

I would like to welcome the Minister of Finance. Can he

confirm that the $4.7 million in savings from salaries will be unattainable due

to severance packages that are being paid, some in the range of $75,000 and

higher, to displaced workers? Can he confirm for the House that indeed the $4.7

million will not be saved because of severance packages, or payments, some as

high as $75,000, which are being paid out?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of points: one is, I haven't seen any individual

severance packages that are determined in accordance with a formula that has

existed for some time. Secondly, the $4.7 million does not include severance,

but we expect that it will not exceed $1.5 million. As I said earlier, I think

so, but do not hold me to that figure because there a complicated process of

bumping in the bargaining unit which makes it difficult to ascertain at this

time. We also expect that most of that money will be found in departmental

budgets, so we expect that we will save by far the greater part of that $4.7

million.

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

supplementary.

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

It seems that the minister, to some degree, is confirming

that perhaps the $60 million saving might be off by about $1.5 or $2 million

because of severance. I am just wondering, has the minister, since his

announcement, firmed up any areas where he is going to achieve his $11 million

saving, the $11 million figure that he said he had not firmed up and was not

sure where it was going to come from? Has he now identified areas where he is

going to save that $11 million or will he indeed save the $11 million?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those figures are already confirmed by the departments. When

they made their submissions, they indicated they would save amounts from their

various operating accounts, whether it is their telephone accounts, travel

accounts, purchasing accounts, purchased services, consulting fees, a whole

range of items. In this particular case, we know exactly where that $11 million

is coming from in each department.

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

supplementary.

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

A final supplementary for the minister.

Each year, in February or March, we see adjustment in federal

payments to the Province. Can the minister confirm that the Province will be

receiving an upward adjustment in transfers from the federal government in the

new year and has the minister any indication from the federal government as to

how much it will be increased and if such is the case, if the minister achieves

the $60 million in savings now, and balances his Budget, will we then have a

surplus in this fiscal year, in the Province's Budget?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.

We receive an adjustment or we get an indication every three

months. The figures are done every six months; we don't necessarily receive an

upward adjustment in February, it very much depends on the strength of the

equalization formula and how it is working in the other provinces. It could very

well be a downward adjustment. What we are doing is we are monitoring our -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No. We get them roughly every three months. We

found in August a preliminary estimate where the national economy was standing.

I expect that about late January early February, we will have some indication

but we won't find out until year end, say at the end of the next six-months

period what our equalization is likely to be for the year, but as regards the

surplus, I would be delighted to see one, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it is our

objective to balance the Budget should we be fortunate enough to achieve a

surplus I would be more than happy.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

The cutbacks announced Tuesday have effectively decimated the

urban and rural planning division of the department. This division has a number

of municipal plans in various stages of completion, and I want to ask the

minister what arrangements he has made for the completion of those municipal

plans that were initiated by the division of urban and rural planning over the

past year or so?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is correct; there are some plans that have

not been completed. We are assessing those now and we are going to continue to

work on those plans if possible. I still have a

section of the urban and rural

planning division left in my department, albeit, there is a small

section left.

We are hoping to finish up those plans that are close to being finished and we

will have to address the others that we have, basically just started in the last

little while, so it may mean at the end of the day, we will have to notify some

communities that their plans can't be done by my department.

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

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Effectively, the planning processes for the municipalities

have been I guess, abandoned at the worst and I guess privatized at best, since

most municipalities have no planning expertise at all.

To avoid uncontrolled and haphazard growth and to avoid urban

as well as rural sprawl, and to assure that residential and commercial interests

live in harmony together, I'm wondering if the minister plans to introduce

legislative amendments that will make municipal planning a mandated function for

each community as is the case in many other provinces.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty hearing the

last part of the hon. member's question. At least I will answer the first part

for him.

Because the urban and rural planning division of my

department has basically been eliminated, with the exception of some workers

that will be looking after provincial issues and provincial issues alone, I'm

assuming that a number of private companies in Newfoundland, particularly in St.

John's, that are in the process of doing urban and rural planning anyway and

have been doing it for some years hopefully will pick up a number of these

people who we have laid off. Then it becomes the responsibility, yes, of the

municipality to pay for these plans through an independent company or business.

At the end of the day it is a question of the government

getting out of urban and rural planning as it relates to municipal town plans.

Ultimately, if town councils want planning done in their communities they will

have to seek and pay for that service through the private sector.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could return to the latter

part of my previous question. It centred on, I guess, the proposed amendments to

the municipalities act. I'm asking the minister if he intends to do what is the

practice in many other Canadian provinces, whereby planning is a requirement, a

mandated function, for the municipality. At the moment it is an optional thing

that municipalities may do and only about 120 have plans in place. In other

provinces it is a mandated function. If he is not going to do it in his

division, is he going to require by law that municipalities have plans in place?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think if I answer the question I

would be guessing. From a personal point of view I can't see where the

government would mandate or compel a community to formulate a town plan, one

that has no town plan at the present time. Those towns that have town plans in

place now, I would imagine that we will insist that those town plans be abided

by.

If the hon. member is asking me to legislate that all

communities in the Province be compelled to have town plans, then I, as an

individual, would certainly not recommend that to my government to introduce. It

would put an extra burden on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: It would put an extra burden of financial

responsibility on a lot of communities in the Province that do not have town

plans now, and if as late as late 1995 there are towns in the Province that

don't have town plans, I would suggest to the hon. member and this House that

they probably have no intention of looking for a town plan per se, so the answer

to the final

part is: No, I don't have any intention at this particular time of

introducing, or trying to introduce, such a piece of legislation.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister knows, all municipal plans must be updated

every five years, and only about 120 municipalities actually have municipal

plans, as I said before. One of the reasons for having planning is to avoid

uncontrolled residential and commercial development, and saving dollars today is

going to cost us probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future.

Is the minister not concerned that his budgetary measures,

and the measures he has taken in dropping the planning division, are going to

result, in the long run, having a devastating effect on orderly municipal

development in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who tries to

stand and defend or justify actions, but I have to say quite honestly the hon.

member is correct and we had to deal with that particular problem.

I do admit that because of the lack of funding in urban and

rural planning in this Province, at the end of the day the work is not going to

get done. That will mean that sooner or later, be it five years or ten years,

there will be some government, be it this one or another government, that will

definitely have the trouble and the problems, and I suppose the schemozzle, that

will be created in the next number of years, because I can honestly say that I

believe that most municipalities will not - the larger ones will, the St. John's

and the Corner Brooks and the Carbonears, but the vast majority of communities

in this Province will not - be able to afford to employ a town planner, be it on

a contractual basis or permanently. At the end of the day, yes, these town plans

will probably disappear and we probably will end up with the situation that the

hon. member is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much conversation, general conversation going

on, it is very difficult to hear members when they speak.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Will the

Minister of Health confirm if the position of Director of Human Resources in the

Department of Health has been eliminated? If so, who or what position will now

take responsibility for human resources?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the twenty-six positions we eliminated last week, it

seems to me, was the Director of Human Resources or in traditional terms I would

call it Director of Personnel. That position was held by a person with

thirty-seven years service and I believe he retired. As a result of that, the

duties that he performed will obviously be assimilated by others in the

department such that - as a result of his position being eliminated, I say to

the hon. member, the duties that he performed will be reassigned to other people

within the department such that there will be no lack of service on that

account.

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

Ferryland.

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

direct my next question to the Minister of Finance.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that in addition to the

normal maximum of twenty weeks of severance pay, there are enhanced packages of

an extra forty-two weeks for a total of sixty-two weeks being provided to some

displaced employees?

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

MR. DICKS: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker. If the hon.

gentleman could be more specific I will certainly brief the House at the end of

this as to what the exact severance payments are in terms of for each employee

of government.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I asked the

minister is would he confirm that there are employees being displayed getting

sixty-two weeks severance pay? That is a simple question that I am aware of,

that there are people there.

So I will go on to my next question, Mr. Speaker. Will the

minister confirm that while hefty severance packages are being provided others

working for only one-third the amount of that severance package are being let go

and this is causing considerable stress within departments, thus resulting in

the provision of stress counselling? Will the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: What are you asking about it for? What's your

point? What point are you trying to make? What are you asking the question for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the hon. minister yet.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the government provides severance

in the same way that an individual who has a contract of employment with his or

her employer is entitled to what is known at law as a reasonable period of

notice. It is calculated primarily on two things: one is the length of time that

you've worked for the employer, the second thing is your age at the time you are

dismissed. The reason age is a factor is that it is considered at law that once

you pass a certain age it is more difficult to find placement in the workforce,

and secondly you often forego substantial amounts of money that would normally

come to you by way of pension.

What government has done is it has a table that it uses, and

it matches up a person's years of service and age to yield a certain severance

package. That is calculated on a person's base salary. So that for example,

someone who has worked for government for twenty-five years who is fifty years

of age would receive - and I don't have the table before me - but we certainly

pay in excess of a year at times. If that person's salary is $60,000 then they

would receive in excess of $60,000. So that may very well be the case.

How it is applied in each circumstance - hon. members can

appreciate that until we know exactly who is being terminated, what their length

of service and age are, and the amount of salaries, it is very difficult to give

a comprehensive figure. It may very well be that individuals who've worked for

us for twenty-five years, thirty years, are receiving a severance package that

is equal to or more than a year's salary. That, Mr. Speaker, is more than fair,

and in some cases frankly somewhat less than the individual might receive at law

if they were to sue government and weren't bound by the severance package.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the

Minister of Natural Resources. I've had concerns expressed to me from the mining

industry - certainly the mining exploration industry - that its current upsurge

in business over the last year or so, I think reaching the $50 million mark in

this particular year, may be negatively impacted by proposed tax changes that

the government is considering bringing in. The industry is concerned that it

hasn't been consulted and there is a great deal of uncertainty. Will the

minister indicate whether or not the companies concerned can have some input

before this matter is finally brought before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about tax

legislation that will be handled by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

He will speak to the details of that in due course, but the question was put to

me. I would say that I've had lots of discussion with representatives of

industry since last May 24 when we announced that we were going to be reviewing

our tax legislation and making some appropriate adjustments. We are going to be

prepared to sit down and talk further with industry once the details are laid

before the House. We are not going to sit down and review the detailed figures

with anybody before it is made public generally. But at any time anyone is

welcome to come and give us their opinions on changes to tax legislation.

As for the hon. member opposite and his question, I would ask

him and his party to get their own position straight. Since last May 24, weekly,

he has been on his feet, or his Leader has been on her feet, or some of their

friends on the open line show have been on their feet, saying: Come on with your

tax changes, why are you so slow with your tax changes? Get their position

straight, Mr. Speaker.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons

we've been asking about this over and over for a long period of time is that

there is no certainty as to what the government is about. Is the minister not

concerned that bringing in changes this late in the year at a time when

companies are scouring the capital markets for funding for next year's

exploration program, is he not concerned that the timing and the time for

consultation are inappropriate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we've been telling the industry

and we've been telling the public since last May that we were evaluating,

assessing, the options for any potential changes that we may make. We still have

not tabled that before the House because we are still working on it but, we

understand what is being said. We will consult further when the details are made

available. We are, in the meantime, hearing from people regularly, I know I have

heard from a number of people in recent days who are concerned now because they

know, like everybody knows, that we have been saying by the end of this session

we would like to deal with the issue and we will talk to them as time is

appropriate.

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

West.

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

regarding the marvellous changes as the Premier described, the marvellous

changes to the UI Program. I don't know if the Minister of Education and

Training is going to respond to it or if Peter O'Brien's cousin is going to

respond to it, but in any case, Mr. Speaker, from these marvellous changes,

under the program, the fee- payer program, which is people who are in training

under the UI Program and which is literally thousands to my understanding, at

the end of the school year, that fee-payer will be over, will be cut. If someone

is there right now on a three-year program, if they have two years finished,

that program is going to be immediately cut.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Government of this Province going to

do to insure that these people are not left out in the cold and they will be

allowed to continue and complete the programs that they are presently enrolled

in?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is talking

about the government to government transfer and what is referred to as the

manpower seat. That program started to phase down last year. At one time it was

a $7-million transfer; it was cut to $5 million last year and it is going to be

phased out over the next two years, therefore, that explains that the students

who are already in will be looked after for the next two years.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, our caucus was briefed by people

including the Regional Director, Mr. Sellars, and we were told that it is going

to be ended this year, the fee-payer assistant, which has literally thousands of

people in training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is not over two years

(inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. Member for -

MR. TOBIN: It is going to be eliminated this year and it

is over thousands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Eagle River that he is not

permitted to interject when we are in Question Period or when another member has

been recognized.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River might

not be concerned about his constituents who are under this fee-payer system but

we on this side of the House are very concerned.

Mr. Speaker, that has been confirmed by the Regional Director

that this program will end, I say to the minister. Now let me ask the minister,

Mr. Speaker, about what we always call the old manpower seat, which he presently

referred to, that public schools and private schools in this Province have been

depending upon, that will be eliminated, will be phased out over a period of

time under this marvellous program. Under the present system, the HRDC accepts a

program and selects people to go into it to be sponsored. Mr. Speaker, that is

no more.

Now I understand that what is going to happen, is that,

people will be allowed to apply for these programs, may, Mr. Speaker, may get

some funding and indeed it may be a loan. It may certainly be a loan from HRDC,

it most likely will be a loan. What is the minister going to do, to insure that

the people of this Province who cannot afford to have training because of family

commitments and otherwise, who presently occupy such seats will be allowed to

continue to have these types of programs?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was advised

that the government to government transfer is going to stop this year, he was

ill-advised, that is not the case; it is going to be phased out. What will

government do? Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member must know is that of the $200

million which government spends in postsecondary education, only about a third

of that used to come in by way of established programs financing. We will

continue to deal with the needs of our people as we always have with our

postsecondary education and we will spend the money that we have to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't know very

much about what he is saying, I would suggest to him, because we were briefed

very clearly by the officials and we know all about what is going to happen to

the fee-payer system.

Let me ask the minister: will he insure that the present

number of people in this Province who are on the manpower seats and fee-payer

programs, that that same number will continue after this program is eliminated?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, he is asking an impossible

question because I don't have the ability to see into the future. There might

well indeed be more students or there might be fewer, but there will be many

factors which will determine that. One of the factors is certainly some changes

to the Unemployment Insurance Program as we know it, and other changes will have

to do with the ability of the Province to pay and the need of the Province for

various kinds of training, so it is extremely difficult to answer that kind of

question because I am by no means clairvoyant, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Social Services.

Last week I asked the minister questions concerning an internal investigation

going on at the Whitbourne youth centre by the facility's operations manager

into allegations of sexual harassment and other allegations. I would like to ask

the minister: Is this investigation complete, does she have a report and, if so,

will she be reporting to the House?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member has his facts mixed up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to answer a question,

but I do not have the opportunity to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked a question. I ask all hon. members

to do the courteous thing and let the hon. minister answer.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the hon. member asked the question last week I checked

into all of the information he provided - or misinformation I should say, and

there was a situation where a staff member was concerned that there were, I

guess, acts of intimidation against that staff member by another staff member.

It was investigated and it was unfounded.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a quick supplementary. The

hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is she satisfied with the investigation?

Also, the investigation concerned some other allegations at the Whitbourne youth

centre. Is she satisfied that all these allegations have been put to rest?

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

MS YOUNG: Any investigations that have been ongoing at

the Whitbourne centre, as far as I am concerned, they have been clued up and I

have no reason to believe there is need for any further investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Before continuing with routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome to the gallery, on behalf of all hon. members, sixty-five Grade VI

students from Bishop Abraham Elementary, accompanied by their teachers, Glenn

Cake, Gary Morgan, and Lorna Walters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table the public accounts of the Province for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 13 of the Auditor

General's Act, I hereby table the Annual Report of the Auditor General for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises

Act is an essential and integral part of government's efforts to diversify our

economy and to generate new employment opportunities for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS EDGE status has already been granted to twenty-four

companies with the potential to create close to 600 new jobs and $100 million in

new investment in the Province; and

WHEREAS closure of the groundfish fishery by the Government

of Canada has had a negative effect on the economy of this Province, which could

be partially redressed through the Federal Government's participation and an

expanded EDGE program;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly endorses

government's efforts in aggressively marketing and promoting the EDGE program as

a mechanism of encouraging new business growth in the Province, and thereby

providing new employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports

the Province's request that the Federal Government participate in the EDGE

program by mirroring the corporate income tax provisions of it in an appropriate

manner until such time as the full-time equivalent jobs that were lost due to

the federal closure of the groundfish fishery have been recouped.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that so many members

are here, and that they heard the announcement on the radio that Mr. Snow's

class would be called to order today, notwithstanding the weather.

We have three bills we are going to ask the House to address

this morning, if we should be so fortunate as to get through all three. The

three are the ones I spoke of yesterday when we adjourned and when members

opposite, and on this side, too, asked if we would be meeting today given the

prospect of a degree of inclement weather.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He wants to do Bill 4 first; is that okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

I earlier told the House we would deal in order with Orders

28, 29 and 30, but there has been a request from my colleague, the Minister of

Finance, to see if we would do Order 29 first. If that is agreeable to the

House, I would ask that that bill be called first. It is a fairly minor

amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act, but important in its own right. If

that is agreeable, perhaps, Your Honour, we could deal with Order 29 and then

Order 28, and then Order 30, and if we get through that then we will see where

we go. We will not sit beyond noon today, as we earlier agreed.

With that said, we will ask Your Honour to please call Order

29, Bill No. 4, Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Workers' Compensation Act". (Bill No. 4)

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before debate begins on Bill No. 4, "An Act To Amend The

Workers' Compensation Act", I would like to make a brief statement. The subject

matter of this bill relates to an issue which affects me personally, and I have

taken no

part in consideration of this bill at either the official or Cabinet

level.

I now make a declaration under

section 33 of the House of

Assembly Act, and will ask the Clerk to make an appropriate notification in the

House records. My colleague, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, will

carry the bill to its various parliamentary stages in the House. Thank you.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members are aware, several years ago this government

introduced changes to the Workers' Compensation Act that helped stabilize the

liabilities that had accumulated in the plan. Essentially, this related to a

rearrangement and the diminishment of amounts of entitlements of individuals who

were working. In some cases it was seen that workers were being paid their full

pay which resulted in a net benefit to them since taxation does not apply to

compensation payments.

In reviewing the decisions that were earlier made, it was

policy decision of government to continue some workers at a higher rate then

this new amendment would have allowed. This

Section 81.2, that has five

subsections, deals with that particular situation. The key one is subsection 1

which continues any worker who is injured prior to January 1, 1993, and in

receipt of that compensation for thirty-two continuous weeks prior to December

31, 1992, and where the worker has continuously received the compensation from

that point forward. However, subsection 2 goes on to deny those benefits to

someone who is receiving extended earning clause benefits. The reason being of

course, that extending earning clause benefits are comprehensive and in fact

substitute for the benefits under subsection 1. I believe that most members are

familiar with the Workers' Compensation Act from the many concerns and requests

we get from constituents from time to time. I am sure members have as well, had

to deal with the particular situation which differentiates between that class of

people injured prior to January 1, 1993, and the thirty-nine weeks of

continuance payments. It is an amendment that I believe is fair and warranted

and I commend it to the House for consideration in second reading. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief comment, maybe the minister might be able to

clarify it. My

interpretation is that it is going to allow now an employer to

give an amount or a top-up, not higher then the adjusted amount in the

legislation I guess two years. Normally you could top-up, so you could get

equivalent to full earnings but with the limitations that were brought in, I

think, in 1993, if I remember correctly, under the act, it reduced the amount

proportionally down. So now they are only allowed to continue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but now they are going to allow

top-ups up to the limitations set now and for an amount they are now receiving.

Is that basically the purpose for this? For example, if you are getting 80 per

cent, I will use that figure, 80 per cent before your top-up could give you up

to 100 per cent, now if you are limited, let's say to 75 per cent but the amount

you were receiving, let's say, is less then that they will allow you a top-up

now up to the highest limit now that is set under this new legislation. That is

my

interpretation. The top-up cannot be above, I say to the minister, cannot be

above the limits set by the government. I think in their '93 legislation, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was the minister at the time. Would

that be it? No, I think it can kick up to - can it kick into eighty on the long

term or something I believe is the maximum now? So I think the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation knows the question I am asking, maybe if I could

get an answer to that because I am not sure. That is my

interpretation of this.

I want to know if it is right.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and with the

permission of the hon. member, not meaning to speak in the debate. Again, the

gist of what the hon. member proposed, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the effect of the

legislation, that it will not permit again the opportunity for a person to be

topped up to a full 100 per cent. The reductions in the basic benefit level do

apply even to these long term injured workers who are being reduced by 1.5 per

cent or so a year down to 80 per cent over a period of five years. Basically

what this bill does, it says that the top-up that they were receiving, in terms

of a cash value, can stay in place so that their total package benefit will

decline by 10 per cent over a five year period, but the dollar value of the

top-up is allowed to stay in place for this select group of long-term injured

workers. But it cannot go back to a full 100 per cent like before. It is limited

by the other restraints in the legislation. So the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is

basically correct in his portrayal of it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon.

member's question has been explained by my hon. colleague. There being no

further debate on the matter I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently. (Bill No. 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 28.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No. 26)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I'm introducing

a bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act. Really these changes are basically

house-keeping, but nevertheless some of them are substantial changes to change

the vehicles according to the changes to be made to accommodate school buses and

some other amendments under the

definitions of vehicles which provide clearly

the meaning of various terms. Administrative procedures dealing with suspended

drivers which will be enhanced, and the law respecting stopping for school buses

in St. John's will be clarified. I'm going to go through them so there will be a

clear understanding of all the different clauses, what we are doing to the

Highway Traffic Act to compensate for the changes being made.

In clause 1, this clause will repeal and replace the

definition for bus, commercial motor vehicle, school bus, and a trailer. There

are two problems with the existing definition of a bus. Buses are currently

defined as vehicles with a seating capacity of seven or more in addition to the

driver. This means that any van that you would buy or rent for personal use

could be considered as a school bus, requiring you to have a class 04 driver's

licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is right. That is only seven in total,

that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Okay, let me start again. The buses that are

currently defined as vehicles with a seating capacity of seven or more in

addition to the driver. You would be talking seven plus one. Seven or more in

addition to the driver. This means that any van, as I just said, is potentially

a school bus. That presents a number of problems. Private individuals wishing to

rent a passenger van are required to have a class 04 driver's licence, a bus up

to twenty-four passengers. It doesn't make any sense that an individual wanting

to rent a van or to purchase a van would have to have a class 04 driver's

licence, the same as if you were driving a bus up to twenty-four passengers.

We are changing the existing act to delete that requirement

and to extend that. A bus would be a van or a vehicle with a minimum seating

capacity of ten. So to try to get rid of - not to try, we are getting rid of the

problem that an individual experiences in having a driver's licence, a class 04

driver's licence now, would be a class driver's licence driving a light vehicle

or a personal vehicle. This is in addition to the national standard. Most

provinces across Canada have those changes.

Number two, buses are currently defined as vehicles being

used for compensation. Again in this clause this presents a problem, because we

have the example of where you would use a bus for commercial reasons,

transportation of children, but at the same time a bus being used by an

organization, such as a church organization, bringing kids to Sunday school, are

not required to have a commercial inspection the same as a commercial bus. That

doesn't make any sense. Because if you are transporting children, passengers, on

a school bus, whether you are doing it for profit or whether you are doing it

free of charge, doesn't make it any less necessary to have that bus in a safe

condition.

The act is now being changed so that the transportation of

all passengers, whether it be on a commercial basis or a charitable basis, or in

the case of Sunday school children being transported for whatever reason, the

bus will be required to have a commercial inspection. And it is the same way

across Canada. So we are trying to bring it into line, keeping in mind that

safety is the number one issue here. The issue we are dealing with is the safety

of carrying passengers, whether it be for money or whether it be free of charge.

The next part we are dealing with is the commercial motor

vehicle. The current definition of a commercial motor vehicle is contradictory.

It includes vehicles carrying more than six passengers but excludes buses and

school buses. The definition also differs significantly from the national

standard, and it is proposed to change the definition to eliminate the

contradiction and to conform to the national standard format. Again, we are

trying to eliminate where one part of the act contradicts another, and we are

also trying to bring in the same standards in Newfoundland as are nationally

accepted, right across this country.

For example, the current definition of a school bus contains

a minor wording inconsistency which causes confusion to some readers. It is

proposed to change the wording which sets the minimum seating capacity to be in

the same format as other

definitions. No change to the minimum seating capacity

for school buses is being proposed, although a change is recommended for buses

to ten passengers, a similar change to school buses, which would result in over

100 school buses not being required to have a semi-annual inspection, flashing

lights or stop-arms. The wording changes from `more than six passengers in

addition to the driver', to `seven passengers in addition to the driver'.

There is a problem there with the licensing of trailers. At

the U-Haul rental company, for example, there are a number of tow dollies which

are used to tow cars with one axle resting on the dolly. The tow dollies are

normally towed by motor homes from point to point, moved within North America,

and are not returned to the rental office from the originating Province or

state. It is almost impossible for the rental companies to keep track of which

dolly is given in any jurisdiction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you reading that?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I am. I want to make sure that the hon.

member clearly understands it, and if I get up and speak without reading it and

talk in the usual political norm, he will not understand the issue and it is

important that he should, because I think in a few minutes he is going to have

to stand up and understand what I have just said.

It is almost impossible, as I just said, for the rental

companies to keep track of which dolly is given in any jurisdiction, making the

annual licensing of these dollies equally difficult. For example, you rent a

trailer from out on Kenmount Road, from that agency. It has a Newfoundland plate

on it and you can drop it off in any province in Canada - Quebec, Alberta,

whatever; therefore, it is in Alberta with the license plate and is registered

in Newfoundland. Newfoundland is the only jurisdiction in North America

requiring these dollies to be registered. It is proposed that the definition of

a trailer be amended to exclude these dollies. In other words, we are saying,

that small trailer which is used to transport a vehicle, with two vehicles on

top of the dolly, will not now have to be registered, and when that trailer is

dropped off in any given point then there is no problem with the registration in

any particular province.

Clause 2: This clause will amend

Section 42 to more clearly

outline the offenses under that paragraph by equating the level of the offence

of driving an unregistered semi-trailer to the registration fee for the trailer.

When I give you the explanation as to why we are doing this, it will be clearly

understood why it has to be changed. The registration fee for a combination

truck-trailer and semi-trailer is based on the minimum gross mass for the

combination of the two vehicles. The fee paid for the tractor includes the right

to haul a trailer. The registration fee for the semi-trailer is $38 annually and

it is only a fee for the plate on the trailer.

Section 42 creates an offence for the operation of an

unregistered vehicle, and this is where it gets to the point of why we have to

make changes. An unregistered semi-trailer could be issued a $900 fine. Now,

here we are talking about a $38 fee to register the trailer and yet, if it is

not registered you have to pay a $900 fine. That is a bit unfair so what we are

doing it changing the actual registration fee to permit the towing of a trailer

which has already been paid in the tractor fee, and the fine for operating an

unregistered semi-trailer will be $45, so we are bringing the fine down from

$900 to $45.

Now, I say to hon. members, I am doing this for a reason,

because I understand that my critic on the opposite side does not understand the

highway traffic very well, and unless I make those few notes, I will get into a

lot of political things, and the reason why this government never did this, and

the reason why I have to do it. Then he is going to get all confused, and when

he stands in his place, he is not going to understand what I have said, and

therefore, he is going to make a `you know what' of himself.

Now, clause 3 would amend

section 43 - and I am saying it

slowly so that the hon. member will understand it - to allow the evaluation of a

driver.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It is quite obvious that this piece of

legislation is not important to members behind me and on the other side, but I

can assure you, if I get criticized for not making sure that our highways are

safe - I am going to do everything in my power to make it safe and more safe and

more safe, and this is what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot safer, not more safe.

MR. EFFORD: More safer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, safer.

MR. EFFORD: Safer - unbelievable!

Mr. Speaker, clause 3 would amend

section 43 to allow for the

evaluation of a driver whose licence has been suspended under the demerit point

system. And here again, the problem with the act is that a person who has lost

his licence through the demerit point system cannot go through an evaluation

process under the education program because his or her driver's licence has been

suspended, and the proposal has been received from the driving school authorized

to present the driver reinstatement clause to include an on-road driving

evaluation as part of the course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, so the hon. member can understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, the driver reinstatement clause is

mandatory for drivers whose licence has been suspended, as I just said, because

of the accumulated demerit point system. An on-road evaluation would be a

definite enhancement to this clause; unfortunately,

section 43 of the act does

not allow a person to take an on-road driver's course while his or her licence

has been suspended under the demerit point system.

What we are doing now is changing the act so that a person

who has lost his licence, accumulated twelve points under the demerit point

system, will be able to take an on-road evaluation course through a driver

education program or whatever while his or her licence is under suspension. So

they can go through that, and when their suspension date is up, they can get

their licence and go right back on the road.

We know some members on this side, and some members around

the House of Assembly, have gone through that process. So what you would be able

to do, if it happens again to certain individuals who are smiling, it would help

you get your licence, go through an evaluation course while your licence has

been suspended because of the demerit point system - in other words, through a

driver training program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, what you would have to do now is go and

AN HON. MEMBER: After the suspension date.

MR. EFFORD: After the suspension date expires you go

through the program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, you will get it back more quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly. So we are doing the right thing for

those people who have been so callously driving the excessive speed limits as to

lose their licence, and now we just want to make sure they get the opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: What can I say? The more you do, the more

they criticize, so we will just keep on doing what is right.

Clause 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) back to haunt you, now.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I have two now; I got caught the other

day.

This clause would amend

section 48 to allow an unlicensed,

suspended driver to be treated as if they held a valid driver's licence. It is

proposed to amend

section 48 to require that where an unlicensed person has had

his or her driving privileges suspended, he or she will be treated the same as a

licensed driver under the act and regulations with respect to reinstatement

requirements, and this is the reason we are doing it. This could consist of

completing an education course, being road tested, and having to pay a

reinstatement fee.

As well, it is proposed to amend the act to require under-age

drivers to serve the period of the suspension commencing when they reach

sixteen. In other words, a young man or a young woman, fifteen years of age,

takes a vehicle, drives the vehicle, gets caught, gets a fine and goes under

suspension for a period of time, you can't do much to them when they are fifteen

years of age, but what we are saying is that when they become sixteen and they

would be eligible to get a motor bike licence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: A dirt bike licence, or whatever, then their

suspension would start when they come of age to get a driver's licence. And the

act prohibits the issuance of a driver's license to a driver while under

suspension. The act does not deal with the issue of unlicensed drivers who have

had their driving privileges suspended in the case of someone who loses his

license under the .08, so they go out and take the vehicle, they don't have a

driver's license, they have been suspended, they are now driving, and now the

act will allow them to go under the same fines and suspensions as if they had a

driver's license. So, anybody caught driving while his license is suspended,

would, under the Criminal Code of Canada, be subjected to the same fines and

suspension as they would if they had a driver's license.

MR. SULLIVAN: Even if he is caught under .05 (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, under all suspensions.

MR. SULLIVAN: And on a 24-hour suspension, does it apply,

too?

MR. EFFORD: Under all suspensions.

MR. SULLIVAN: All suspensions. If you are caught under

.05 (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, if you have a .05 and you have already

lost your licence under the Criminal Code of Canada, you get stopped, you have

you licence suspended for whatever reason -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but wait now. You have your licence

suspended for any reason, for whatever period of time and you are caught under

the .05 during that period of suspension, then you will do without your driving

privilege for a period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Now, clause 5, would amend

section 71,

subsection 7 to allow for the road testing of drivers whose licences have lapsed

or expired while under suspension. So there is another change, the same as we

talked about previously on the (inaudible) of the clause would allow people to

get a driving test while their licences are under suspension.

Section 71 of the

act, currently allows the Registrar to conduct a road test of a driver whose

driver's licence is under suspension. Drivers whose licences have lapsed or

expired while under suspension or otherwise are not able to take a road test

without first obtaining a driver's permit, paying the fees etcetera. This is

especially onerous for drivers under suspension for medical reasons, so we are

going to change the act to allow people to take a road test while under the

driver's licence suspension.

Clause 6, would amend

section 137 subsection 1, to require

drivers within the City of St. John's to stop for school buses when the red

lights are flashing. The act currently requires all drivers to stop for school

buses when the red lights are flashing, except in the City of St. John's. It is

strange, I don't understand why this wasn't changed before. What we are saying

here is, anywhere outside the City of St. John's, when the school bus is

stopped, all vehicles must stop. The exception is in the City of St. John's -

the act did not require people to stop when a school bus stopped. We are

changing the act for all of the Province now, and in the City of St. John's,

when a school bus stops with a flashing red light and the stop sign is out, all

traffic must stop to allow the safe movement of schoolchildren off that school

bus.

Clause 7 would amend

section 178(3), to remove an exemption

allowing drivers to not wear shoulder belts. When the legislation was brought

in, as well as the belt across the waist, you had to wear the shoulder belt, but

now, it is separate. Some of the newer vehicles have the belt in two sections,

and what we are changing in the act now is that you can drive your vehicle with

the waist belt only and not have to wear the shoulder belt.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Only if they are separate. That is what I

was going to read and I want to make it clear. The act currently provides an

exemption from wearing the shoulder belt if the lap and shoulder belts are

separate units which have to be fastened separately. This exemption was put in

place to deal with poorly designed seat belts dating back to the early 1970s.

The system was very inconvenient, using seat belts which did not retract. Now,

some of the newer cars - this is getting to the point - some of the newer cars

with automatic seat belts have re-introduced a separately buckled shoulder belt.

It is proposed to remove the exemption allowing drivers to not wear - that's

what I said, and I want to emphasize this to make sure that it is clearly

understood -to not wear the shoulder belt, as the Province experienced

twenty-five years ago, no longer applies. So that's clearly understood, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Repeat that again.

MR. EFFORD: Let me repeat it again.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not all of it, just the end of it. What is

permitted (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Okay. Some of the newer cars, with automatic

seat belts have re-introduced a separately bucked shoulder belt - separately

buckled. You have your waist belt and you have your separately buckled shoulder

belt. It is proposed to remove the exemption allowing drivers to not wear the

shoulder belt, as the problems experienced twenty-four years ago no longer

applies. They changed the design of the belt and now you don't have to wear - to

not wear the shoulder belt.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're wrong on that one.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member can argue.

Clause 8 would amend subsection 210 to clarify the state that

the owners of vehicles are responsible for non-moving violations and drivers are

responsible for moving violations.

Section 210 of the Highway Traffic Act makes

the owner of a motor vehicle responsible for violations except where the vehicle

was in motion or had just stopped. The wording is flawed and that

section does

not apply to trailers. Therefore, the word `motor' is eliminated, because in

some instances there is no motor in a travel-trailer which you are towing. The

word `motor' is eliminated. The word `vehicle' includes a trailer.

The previous wording made the driver responsible for a

violation if the vehicle had just stopped being in motion. In other words, had a

motor and is in motion. In the case of a trailer which you were towing and there

was no motor in it, it was still in motion, but under the act, because the word

`motor' was there, nobody could be charged for the violation. The cause of

problems for the police was knowing who to charge. The new wording clarifies

this point.

Mr. Speaker, those clauses will bring the Highway Traffic Act

up to standard, making accommodations to the satisfaction of drivers, in some

cases, with a suspended driver's licence, safety of school buses, inspections of

school buses where there is a charge of a commercial rate or it is a free

service provided by an organization, just to keep up to date with the national

standards to try to make the operations of our vehicles, all types of vehicles

on our highways, safe for the motoring public and the travelling public in

general, and especially to the schoolchildren of our Province.

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

Extern.

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

I would like to say a few words on this bill, Bill No. 26, An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

Actually, we met in committee on this bill and there was a

fair bit of discussion with respect to the bill. But the first thing I want to

address is clause 7. I think the minister may be confused, or I was certainly

not interpreting correctly what he was saying. Clause 7 of the bill, the

Explanatory Notes say: "...would amend

section 178 of the Act to remove an

exemption allowing drivers to not wear shoulder belts if lap and shoulder belts

are separate units." To me, that clearly says now, that you are required to wear

both the lap belt and the shoulder belt. There was permission allowed before,

that if they were separate, it was not required to wear both, but now, you are

required to wear both.

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, sir, definitely, there is no doubt

about it. That is what was clearly explained at the committee meeting, was it

not? The Member for LaPoile will confirm it. You have that one wrong. Read it,

you can see it there quite clearly.

MR. EFFORD: Read (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen to this now, just listen. Under the

Explanatory Notes it says: "Clause 7 of the bill would amend

section 178 of the

Act to remove an exemption allowing drivers to not wear shoulder belts if lap

and shoulder belts are separate units."

MR. EFFORD: That's what I said, to not wear shoulder

belts.

MR. J. BYRNE: You removed the exemption to not permit

them to wear it. You are reading it wrong.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't need to. You can explain it, go on,

get up. `John', you are wrong. Get up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, I will answer his question. Now, listen:

I just read from the Explanatory Notes. I said that you do not now in the future

have to wear your shoulder belt. That is what I said.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You don't have to wear the shoulder belt, in

the cases of where the vehicles are automatic retraction. Clause 7(1) reads:

"Subsection 178(3) of the Act is amended by striking out the words and commas

`but, where a seat belt assembly comprises a pelvic restraint and a torso

restraint which are not joined, the driver shall be required to wear the pelvic

restraint only,'" and that is what I said. Now, can't you understand? Only.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is because one might (inaudible) the

other might not (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

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

Extern.

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

Well, I say to the minister, you had better get it

straightened up with the people who put this together. Because it was clearly

explained at that meeting that both the lap belt, and shoulder belt were being

required. If this is here - I agree with what you saying -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will read it. I just read it, and from

what you are saying here, I agree with what you are saying, but at the meeting

it was clearly explained to us that it is not permitted, it is removing that

exemption. I think it is something that you should check out, I really do.

MR. EFFORD: The reason I read it more slowly was so that

you could understand what I'm talking about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Clause 7. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will

continue on, with that. As I said, we met in committee on this bill. There was a

fair bit of discussion, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to go through the clauses.

There was a fair bit of discussion on clause 2, and it does deal with the

trailer size with respect to the penalties -

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to speak to that? Okay.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give the House,

and the minister, my understanding of it. When we discussed it with the

committee, I think it had to do with cars of a certain design back a number of

years ago. Those cars, if you recall, used to have a separate seat-belt and

shoulder belt that was sometimes put up on the roof part of the car.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. RAMSAY: Back a number of years ago some of the older

vehicles used to have separate shoulder belts and some people would often cut

them out and throw them away, sort of thing. Now, it has changed somewhat, as

well, because cars now sometimes, as you know, you get in them and the shoulder

harness comes up automatically and the seat-belt part - you can disconnect both

of them, correct? So I don't know if the hon. member opposite there has the same

view of it. This is actually just trying to fix the older part, I think, as the

minister said, which was the part for getting rid of that aspect of it, where

people used to cut out the shoulder belt anyway, and also to make sure that they

just don't wear the shoulder belt without the pelvic restraint, as is now

possible. People can get in the car and don't put the lap belt on, with just the

shoulder belt on which can cause further injury. So it is just addressing that,

as the minister said.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I thank the member for trying to clear that

up. You did a better job than the minister did. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of

the bill deals with the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Clause 2 deals with the trailers and the

minister is correct, I say, with respect to fines being issued. The way it is at

the present time, if a person is caught towing a trailer and the trailer is not

licensed he gets a certain fine; if it is a very small trailer or a

tractor-trailer - and now he is making it more in line with the type of trailer

that they would be towing.

Clause 4 of the bill, I have a problem with the explanatory

note on clause 4 of the bill and the wording. I will just read it now and just

listen now, if you want, to the wording of this, it says, `Clause 4 of the bill

would amend

Section 48 of the act to allow the suspension of the license of an

unlicensed driver at a time when he or she first or once again applies for a

license where his or her license was suspended while he or she was not

licensed.' Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about something being

confusing, that certainly is confusing.

Section 4 is basically talking about

people being disqualified to drive before their legal age. Again, I agree with

the minister, that if a person is disqualified or is picked up for driving

without a license before the legal age, once he or she becomes of legal age then

that time can be added to their age. It might be a year or six months or

whatever the case may be, before they would be permitted to get a license. Now,

I have no problem with that and I agree with what they are trying to do there,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ask the Member for LaPoile, he will

straighten it up for you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can you repeat that, please? I cannot hear

what you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I agree with it, it is no problem. I agree

with the minister in what he said. You should pay attention to what I am saying.

Section 4, subsection 5, again, deals with the .08 and people

getting their licence returned. Again, I agree with that section.

Subsection 5 talks about a person being under suspension, and

they would be permitted to take a road test while under suspension. Again, that

is probably a good idea because if a person has his licence suspended for six

months or a year they want to get their licence back as soon as possible.

Now, I have never had the experience, and since the point

system came in I think I have lost maybe one or two points - the minimum, the

very minimum - once. I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

was talking about a few members on both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Going through stop signs. I heard about

you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Stop signs? No, I always stop for stop

signs, always. It wasn't for that.

Anyway, I agree with that section, that people should be

required to do a road test, depending upon the offence of course, and what the

registrar would believe to be the problem.

Clause 6 of the bill, Mr. Speaker - I am trying to read my

writing here, my notes. Again, this is concerning the red lights flashing on the

buses in St. John's. I always wondered why that was the case, why, if you are

driving up Torbay Road, you have to stop for a school bus, but once you are

inside St. John's boundaries you do not have to stop for a school. I thought,

especially in St. John's where we have two, three and four lane highways, that

this is a safety precaution. I would certainly support that. It is probably long

overdue.

I remember, even when I was going out twenty or twenty-five

years ago to get my driver's licence, I remember being with the RCMP officer at

the time driving through St. John's, and I stopped for a school bus to let

children off, and the RCMP officer said to me: There is no need to stop in St.

John's; you can drive by a school bus or a bus. That did not make sense to me at

that point in time, and it still doesn't, so I certainly support that clause.

I have a lot to go through yet. One thing I would like to say

to the minister, and he should pay attention to this because in the committee

meetings - clause 1, I suppose, paragraph 2, it says (inaudible) commercial

motor vehicle means a vehicle designed to carry goods, and includes a school

bus, a truck, a tractor... It means a vehicle designed - there seemed to be a

consensus at the table with everybody there that the words `designed and

designated' should go in there because you could have a vehicle that could, as

you say, meet the requirements with respect to the size and the capacity and

what have you, but is not designated as a school bus, or whatever the case my

be. Or when we are talking about vans, panel vans and that type of thing, they

thought that the words `and designated' should go in there, and I think the

Member for LaPoile will confirm that.

With respect to paragraph 3 under that same section,

section

1, I want to bring up something now that the Minister of Education should be

pleased to hear, and that is that a school bus means a motor vehicle designed or

used to carry seven or more passengers.

The other day when the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay was

up speaking about the bus going off the road -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now I would say to the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that what you

got into yesterday was a bit across the line. You know you crossed the line, so

why don't you just forget that now. It is low; it is beneath contempt, so forget

that and let's get on with the seriousness of this.

Now, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay brought up the

fact that there were eight people on the bus that went off the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, he didn't bring it up; he said that a

bus went off the road, with students on the bus. The Minister of Education made

the statement: Well, how many kids were on the bus?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He said no such thing. He said: There is a

school bus that went off the road, with children on it. The Minister of

Education said: Well, how many children were on the bus? - as if there was one

or fifty. Now, Mr. Speaker, how callous and cold can you get? Anyway, now we

have seven or more, so if there are more than seven on the bus it will mean

something to the Minister of Education. I thought that was a bit callous the

other day.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I heard the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation getting up talking about safety on the highway. I

believe there is a lot in this bill that will actually encourage safety and

protection of the people travelling on our highways, and I have no problem with

that.

I have to get back to the motor vehicle inspections. We have

the minister here who I find to be very inconsistent. He is talking about

bringing in regulations to promote safety on the highway. Then he drops motor

vehicle inspections last year, he cuts back on the services, and lays off people

in the department with respect to snow clearing and road maintenance in this

Province.

Yesterday apparently there were two roadblocks, or whatever

you would call them, set up in the Province, one up around Bay Bulls and one

elsewhere, and they apparently hauled in approximately 500 vehicles. I'm not

sure what the figures are but the minister could correct me. I think they had

twenty-eight vehicles that were pulled off the road or had some major problems

with them, and I think there were seven or eight that they actually would not

permit to go back on the highway.

That in my estimation is a direct result of the dropping of

motor vehicle inspections in this Province. The minister basically now talks

about the honour system and people will be required to go get their own vehicles

inspected - not required to, basically asked to go get their own vehicles

inspected each year before they get them licensed. If that was the case, if we

were always going on the honour system in this Province, in this country, or in

this world, there would be no need for lawyers, jails, police officers, no need

for anything of that nature. Actually, from my view, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation is a living contradiction.

Section 8 refers to the owners of vehicles and drivers of

vehicles receiving violations. Again the minister was correct in what he was

saying there. If we have a person who owns a vehicle and if the vehicle is

moving the driver is responsible for any infractions, say speeding tickets or

anything of that nature. Once the vehicle is stopped then the owner is

responsible for anything that may be wrong with that vehicle. I've no problems

with that, I support it. No problem at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: When we have to go, I will say to the

Minister of Education and Training - is that what he is? The minister of

something over there, anyway. He wants me to clue up and get this over with. The

thing is, we have to go to twelve o'clock anyway, and maybe we may go a bit

later, I don't know. It depends on what is being discussed, I would say to you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm just skimming this now and having a look at some of the

notes I made.

Section 3 deals with drivers' road tests again while the driver's

licence is suspended. There are a couple of sections here which kind of deal

with similar issues. Again I would support that, that the people would be

required or permitted to do a driver's test or road test while their licence is

suspended so they can get their licence back.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have much more to add to this bill now,

to be honest with you. I'm going to please the Minister of Education and

Training now in due course and sit down and let the minister respond. Maybe

there are some other people on this side of the House who would be interested in

speaking to this bill. I would encourage the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation if he is serious about safety on the highways to reinstate motor

vehicle inspections. He can get up and rant and roar all he wants and try and

back up his argument that people are genuinely responsible when it comes to

their own vehicles. But again, as I said earlier, if that was the case we

wouldn't need any police checks as we had yesterday, or highway inspections, or

RNC and RCMP officers or jails or courts or anything like that. I do not know

what world the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is living in but

it is certainly not the same world that most people are living in.

MR. EFFORD: I explained about that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Explained what?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Well, getting back to Clause 7, I

think the minister should check that out. Actually, if the minister is so

concerned about safety he should look at

Section 7 and probably require that the

shoulder belt and the seat belt be strapped in at the same time, especially if

they are in the car. He seems to support that and I would disagree that that

should be the situation.

I think I will clue up and encourage the minister to clear up

a few of the points that I have brought up, and let me know where he stands with

respect to Clause 7.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not dare give the Member for LaPoile an opportunity

to close debate at this stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is there to say that he has not

already said?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, there are a few things I have to say.

It's hard to confuse us on this side of the House, but it is kind of confusing

when we ask questions - my friend here for Burin - Placentia West - and the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Minister of Education and

Training jump up and answer. When we ask questions of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation the Member for LaPoile gets up and answers, and so

on. He did not even need briefing notes I say to the Speaker, did not even need

briefing notes. The minister read from his script in the House, and I do not

know if he knows anything about it. He could not answer questions. We had to get

the Member for LaPoile up to answer questions on a bill of the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. No wonder he was called the Minister of

Social Services on radio this morning. That is what he was referred to. He is

still two or three years behind. That is what they called him.

I say to the minister, he was probably ashamed to introduce

the current Minister of Health, I suppose. I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, he said was recently caught twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, once, two points.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, once. Well, with the cutbacks now and

the shortage of patrol the few left out there are going to be coming after you

again. They will be watching for that person as he drives down the highway

toward Port de Grave with a snow plough in front, automated mechanical equipment

on all sides, big mirrors, switches and controls, that escorts the minister back

to his district on the weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why they put the mirrors on the

trucks, so they could see him.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why they put them on. They put

mirrors on the trucks so they can see the minister sneaking up behind them. They

used to have a guy on the lookout but the minister does not want an extra person

on the plough looking to see when the minister is coming. He wants to try and

sneak up on them and blame it on mechanical failure. That is what the minister

wants to do.

Now, we do have a few questions here. The minister said when

he stood in his place to introduce this bill - and maybe the Member for LaPoile

can come back and answer it - that a van today is a school bus. I say it is not,

because I have one of those vans that has a driver's seat and six passenger

seats, one in the front, two in the next row, and then three in the back.

According to this a van was only a bus if it had seven or more in addition to

the driver, but the normal standard van you see out there now only has six in

addition to the driver. So a van is not now a school bus if it is seven or over

and changes to ten. That is not correct I say to the minister. I drive one of

them, I have driven one of them since 1988.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, technically you are driving a

school bus.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not drive a school bus, I say to

the minister, and if I do not drive one soon there won't be any left to drive.

The minister will have them all taken off the highway. He is trying to put

triple-decker buses down in Labrador. That is what he is going to have. We are

going to call them `triple-Decker' buses.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. One for the people who go

to school at seven or eight o'clock in the morning when it is still dark, one

for those that go when the sun is coming up and one for those that go when it is

bright, on the different hours. With the kindergartens and people who have to go

home half through a day, no transportation to provide on our highways.

The minister said that - and he did state it, it is in

Hansard, we will find out when we see it tomorrow - he said a van right now is a

school bus. Does that mean, I say to the minister now, my van that is used at

school - my wife teaches school and the van is there. They normally take kids up

to a pond canoeing and various other things. They use the van and some students

get in that van. Now when you are transporting students right now that van is

technically a school bus and so we cannot use that anymore. Is that the

implication that I am seeing here now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No? Well according to what the minister

stated, it is putting limits on people to be able to use vehicles to transport

students and therefore it is going to eliminate, it is going to drive up the

cost -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well when I finish, as soon as I finish

this sentence, as soon as I get to the end of the sentence now, not the end of

the paragraph, I will let you answer. Does that mean that people who now are

using their vehicles - I have a van and several students get in the van and go

up canoeing. Does that mean that they are not going to be able to go now because

transportation of students now is going to come under a busing area and

therefore that cannot be done? Okay, I will let the minister answer that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I understand the point that the hon.

member is making but here is what we are doing. In the case of a bus, what was

considered a school bus was a passenger van that had seven plus one. Therefore

the driver of that van was required to have a class 04 license. We have changed

the designation to a passenger van, ten. Not saying that all vans have seven

passengers. In the case of the hon. member, he is quite right; I understand the

point you are making. But in the case where there is a seven passenger van and

the driver, they were required to have a class 04 license, if it was considered

a school bus. We are changing it now to be ten.

What I was talking about was the commercialization, the

transport of children on the school buses. The old Traffic Act says that in the

transportation of school-bus children on a commercial basis the vehicle had to

go under inspection. In the case of where - let's use the Seven Day Adventist

Church. If they had a school bus which they only used to transport kids to their

camp on a particular weekend, they were not required to have an inspection. What

we are saying now is, all buses that transport people, whether it is for

commercial or free, are required to go under the commercial inspection. That is

what we are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commercial inspection?

MR. EFFORD: Commercial inspection, yes, school bus

inspection.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I buy a vehicle and use it for my own personal use - and I

do have a number of seats which are going to be ten or more now. It was seven

but it is going to be ten or more now. If I want to carry ten students in that I

must meet the commercial inspection requirements. If I am just taking them from

the school up to a practice, whether it is a choir practice or a concert

practice just up the highway a mile or two, it now must meet the commercial

standards there. That is what the minister is saying

MR. EFFORD: If you are transporting (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten or more, if it is ten or more. If I

have a van and I have installed in that van so many seats, technically I cannot

carry them up that highway now, a half mile up to church or whatever, without

meeting the commercial inspection requirements, even though it is my own

personally registered vehicle. I probably can drive that myself without having a

class 04 but if I am going to carry ten students in that, I must have a class

04. Is that point clear? If I am carrying ten students in it, it must meet

commercial, I need class 04, but if I use it for my personal use, if I have a

family of ten or eleven who want to use it, not commercial just a family thing,

do I need a class 04 license?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't need a class 04?

MR. EFFORD: That is your own personal use.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. So if I use it for my own personal

use, go down the highway with ten in it, I don't need a class 04 but if I go

down with ten students in I need a class 04. Is that what the minister is

saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead, say it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is fine. So I can drive it on

Sunday, I don't need a class 04. I can drive it on Monday and I needs a class

04. I just want to get -

MR. EFFORD: If you own that vehicle for the purpose of

transporting people (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I'm clear. Yes, that's right. We are

on the one wave length there. The minister is saying, on Sunday when I take a

group of my family to a function with ten in that van I can do that on a class

05. On Monday if I take ten students up the highway to a church I need class 04,

I cannot drive that vehicle, I have to get someone else to drive it. That is the

implication of what the minister is saying there. I just wanted it clear so I

know, because there are situations that arise. I say to the minister, I know you

are confusing. Maybe the Member for LaPoile might be able to clear up the

confusion. That is what you indicated now, and I've repeated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will just say it once more, and if

the minister could tell me yes or no. On Sunday if I drive ten passengers plus

me as the driver and go to a particular family outing, whatever it is, a movie

or a hockey game or whatever, I can do that on a class 05 licence. On Monday if

I decide to take a class of ten people in a school to get ready for a concert or

up to a church choir, ten people, I cannot take them up in my vehicle even

though it is free - that is what this says - because it then becomes a

commercial vehicle and I need a class 04 licence to drive that. Is that right or

wrong? I will give the minister leave if he could answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a bus must pass commercial inspection

standards.

MR. SULLIVAN: And a bus must pass commercial inspection

standards. I would like to know yes or no. I mean, that is not a trick question,

it is legitimate -

MR. EFFORD: Sit down (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Sit down! Sit down!

MR. TOBIN: Sit down before I knock you down.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, protect me, I'm scared,

shivering out of my shoes. I have protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You were shivering yesterday (inaudible). If I

had been that teacher I would have (inaudible) hit you so hard that (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Disgusting! It is really taking the House of

Assembly down to a really low, serious....

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) the rats (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The rats. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a

couple of points. I take him at his word, that he is not playing with words. I

will explain it to the best of my ability, and if I can't do it I will call in

the Member for LaPoile. The gospel according to Ramsay.

Anyhow, there are two different things we are talking about

here. Number one, we are changing the number of seats in a van defined as a

school bus. We are changing that from seven plus one to ten. There is the number

one issue. In other words, a school bus will be now considered at ten or more -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I will read it slowly so the hon. member

understands it. Buses are currently defined as vehicles with a seating capacity

of seven or more in addition to the driver. This means any van is potentially a

bus, with seven or more passengers. Private individuals wishing to rent a

passenger van are required to have a class 04 licence, bus up to twenty-four

passengers. This problem will be alleviated by changing the minimum seating

capacity from seven to ten.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what, a bus or a school bus?

MR. EFFORD: Well, a bus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay. You said school bus. There is a

difference.

MR. EFFORD: To a bus. And will permit the rental of a new

multi-purpose van which is now very popular, which the hon. member is saying -

this will also bring our definition in line with the national standard in

(inaudible).

So what we are saying is that an individual, who has a van

with ten passengers or more for the purpose of a bus, will be required to have a

class 04 licence; for the purpose of a bus. If that individual wishes to have a

ten-passenger van, and requires it for the transportation of his children and

his grandchildren or her children and grandchildren, it is a different thing. If

you have it for the purpose of a bus it is classed as a bus.

In the case of commercial inspections, it is a separate thing

altogether. If you are transporting students, in the case of a school bus,

whether it be to day school or whether it be on weekend to a Sunday school or to

a camp, it is required to have a commercial inspection. It has nothing to do at

that stage with a class 04 licence. It is then used as a bus, and the operator

of that bus, because it is transporting students for either charitable or

commercial reasons, is required to have a class 04 licence, but you are also

required to go through a commercial inspection, because under the old act, you

can transport students to Sunday School in a bus that is not used during the

week for transportation of school kids to and from school, or people to a bingo

game, for commercial reasons or whatever, you are not required by that bus on

the weekend, for charitable organizations, to have a commercial inspection. We

are now changing the act so that you must have a commercial inspection.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I asked this, is because I have had a van since

1988. At school, in the phys ed program, they do a canoeing program two miles

from the school, and they use my van, or my wife's van or both of us, however

you want to look at it, to carry students up to canoeing. Normally, they go

almost every day and they use that van, they put students in that van. Now, as a

result, anybody who uses a van, comes to school, my wife drives to school in

that van and one of the other teachers would take the van, or she would,

whomever, I don't know who drives it, I would assume the phys ed teacher or my

wife would drive that van. Under regulations now, a van is potentially a bus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, ten or more. It is potentially a bus

if it has ten or more in addition to the driver, so any vehicle now that has ten

or more in addition to the driver requires -

MR. J. BYRNE: `Loyola', if you are talking about school

children, it is seven or more, not ten or more.

MR. SULLIVAN: But isn't this going to change to ten or

more for school children now? It is going to become ten under this act, isn't

it, my

interpretation?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is seven or more now, but I understand

it is going to change to ten, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Isn't that the understanding?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, what paragraph is that, what clause?

MR. J. BYRNE: Subsection 1, paragraph 3: school bus means

a motor vehicle designed or used to carry seven passengers in addition to the

driver. School bus and a bus (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so for a school bus now, it is going

to remain as seven. In clause 1, subclause 3 which refers to paragraph 23, of

the act, they are stating that school bus means -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I won't.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is. They are two different

things, but I am saying though, if you are going to carry ten or more, you must

have a commercial vehicle inspection, if it is ten or more passengers, so the

minister stated, and now, if you want to qualify as a school bus, you must need

a class 04 licence, and whether it is free charitable or whatever, if I want to

take a vehicle of mine now and transport students, ten or more, or seven or more

- paragraph 23 of that, to transport them now, I would technically need, if it

is not for my own, personal, private or family use, a class 04 licence, and if I

have ten or more, I need a commercial inspection for that. Now, that is

basically what I am saying and that has implications, I say to the minister, in

transportation of school kids who have been getting free, back and forth now, to

school activities that are part of the curriculum in the program in the school

whether it be in music or in sports and those areas. Because I have done it, I

have driven buses with fifteen students right across this Island on dozens and

dozens of occasions. I would say probably over 100 occasions, I have driven

different parts of this Island in such instances, and I think this will have

implications on that aspect, I say to the minister.

Now, the minister mentioned that the school bus - in the St.

John's region now, you will have to stop when there are flashing lights.

Because, I guess, the safety of a person in St. John's is as important as the

safety of a person whether it is in the Goulds area or Port de Grave or wherever

it is. Normally, in the city anyway, we only see these buses usually in

instances when they are coming in from outside, because transportation from

inside the city is, I think, on the regular busing transportation provided here

by the City and there are no flashing lights, of course, on these because that

is the regular transportation system.

If somebody comes in here from Pouch Cove or wherever,

normally they don't stop en route anyway, I don't think, so there is not much of

this, I don't think, in the city anyway, and it shouldn't pose a transportation

problem or a traffic problem, I wouldn't assume but still, even if it does,

there have to be avenues, we have to look at the safety of a person who may be

crossing a street as being very important whether it is on a street here in the

city or outside, so that's something that I am certainly not opposed to. I am

not sure if the implications of traffic were looked at to make sure that

students are only discharged on a certain side of the highway so they don't have

to cross the highway and things. I would assume those are things that can be

worked out if problems arise within the particular regulations.

The separate belt issue was there, because on times every

unit in itself is separate, I say to the minister, and it is possible that the

shoulder harness might work and the other one might not, or the other one might

work and the shoulder harness might not, because when they are triggered they

may react differently if someone brakes a vehicle quickly or they are in a

collision. So that is really for a safety purpose there why you don't have to

put in the shoulder harness. I guess it is strictly for safety purposes, in case

one activates and one doesn't. I assume that has to be the rationale. I cannot

see - well, to make allowances where I guess any new ones now must meet a

requirement. In most instances, especially in the driver's instance, all new

ones, to my knowledge, must be all under the one harness system, I think. The

seat belt and the shoulder one are all in one in all the new ones, to my

knowledge. I don't think there are any new models coming out that have those

separate units. This will allow, I guess, until the expiration of those older

vehicles that have separate units there, that they will allow that during that

phase-out period, however long that is going to take, or however long that

vehicle meets standards to be able to operate on our highways.

Now, we do not have any big concerns, overall, with our

highway safety, I say to the minister. There are concerns with happenings on our

highways, with reference to cutbacks announced now. There are going to be

cutbacks in patrols on our highways, and the Minister of Justice stated that

having people out inspecting and people out giving tickets is not the most

effective way to control and enhance safety on our highways. He said that is not

the most effective method at all. In other words, he downplayed the importance

of having these people there.

The minister stated - I read it in the Telegram this

past week. Now, I know the most effective way is to obey the rules - I think he

made reference to that - and prevent this from happening, but, I say to the

minister, it is going to have an impact. People know if an area is patrolled,

and is heavily patrolled, and people are out, motorists respond by reducing

their speed limit when they know there is surveillance in areas. I mean, that is

a fact. That helps save lives, it helps in traffic safety, cutting down on

accidents, cutting down on insurance costs and the overall cost to the consumer

by having this policing there. I am not so sure, I say to the minister, that

cutting down on the policing and the highway patrols in this Province is going

to do one thing for safety enhancement in this Province. In fact, I think it is

definitely going... For anybody to say that reduced patrols is going to maintain

or enhance highway safety, it is not accurate. I don't think it is possible. The

higher the patrols, the more enforcement there is. I think it is a deterrent. It

is not the best way to have a deterrent, but it is a deterrent, no doubt about

it. I think that is going to impact on highway safety.

Those are areas that we should be very concerned with, too,

and from the perspective of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

there to ensure that. I don't think we can keep sustaining further cuts, because

we are going to have a free-for-all on the highways. A spot check like they did

yesterday with 500 cars, I think the minister said there were twenty-eight

people given summonses, tickets for faulty...there were seven, I thought I heard

on the news, taken off the highway altogether, twenty-eight that were given

tickets; that's thirty-five. There were about another thirty or forty given

warnings; that is about seventy-five out of 500. That is, over one-fifth, or

about 15 per cent, I should say - not one-fifth - roughly 15 per cent there, of

the vehicles operating on the highways, in the two checks they did yesterday,

did not meet the standards for driving on the highways in this Province. That,

in itself, does say something. It tells us that the regulation change we have by

not having inspections - and I asked the minister this question in the House

back last year:

Right now, a commercial vehicle that is 4,500 kilograms

category or less can now go into motor registration and get their licence. Then,

they can go out and get an inspection and go on the highway. Before you dropped

that, you had to go get your inspection, bring your slip in, and then go out on

the highway. Now, you can go in and get your registration. Then you go get your

inspection, if you want to, and go out on the highway - and you must have a

sticker to show if you are pulled in - but there is nobody to tell you that you

have to go into the garage anymore. You go in and get your registration. You

say: Well, I can't afford to go in now and get an inspection, not because of the

cost of the inspection, but the muffler system needs to be done, and probably

$400 or $500 worth of work. It's coming up to Christmas and I can't really

afford it now. I will wait until the Spring and I will do it then. I might get

by until then. And if you aren't one of those pulled in on the highway in that

ensuing period, you are driving a vehicle out around this Province now that

doesn't meet the standards set down, that we had in place.

They are concerns out there, and that is happening overall. I

know it is. It is human nature, you know. The family who need the money, who

probably lost their jobs recently, why would they spend $400 on a car when they

could put $400 into giving their kids something for Christmas or to put food on

the table? I mean, those are decisions that we are going to make. If I were in

that position I would probably make the same decision. I would probably go out

and look after the family needs first, and to heck with what happens to me in

the final analysis. They are the decisions we are having to make as the economy

gets tougher and they are impacting on safety, and impacting on all aspects of

society out there today. And there are concerns, I say to the minister, there

certainly are concerns.

Those are some of the points I think the minister - while

granted, some of this here makes sense. Maybe most of it makes sense. I will

admit to the minister, most of it makes sense, no doubt. I don't want to see the

highways any less safe. One death or an injury on a highway is one too many. But

we haven't really taken measures. We have eased up on restrictions. You can

drive a commercial vehicle of 4,500 kilograms or less without getting - you

aren't supposed to, but you can drive it without an inspection because you can

get your registration without an inspection. That didn't happen before, you

know. That definitely could be a concern. If the brakes give out on one of these

vehicles on a highway, there could be a kid crossing a highway or whatever, and

it could result in deaths. It happened with faulty vehicles, too.

The minister made reference to the reduction in fatalities in

this Province since the 1980s. Of course; a lot of fatalities in this Province -

we have divided highways, which is, I think, one of the big factors in reducing

accidents in this Province. You are avoiding head-on traffic. Head-on traffic

accidents are fatal accidents in a lot of cases, especially on the Trans-Canada

Highway, but by having divided highways and improved highways and so on, it

certainly enhances safety. That is one of the main reasons, I think, that we

have fewer highway fatalities on the Trans-Canada Highway than we had a number

of years ago. The highways are wider in areas where they are not divided, and

they are divided highways in large part now, in areas of higher traffic, and

those are areas of concern.

We are finding that safety now, with the recent Budget

announcement of cutting back on officers here, RCMP, a $1.9 million cut there,

it is going to reflect in the amount of patrols that are out on our highways. Do

we want our RCMP officers on our highways? Do we want them investigating

vandalism, whether it is murders and break-ins and all these? They have to make

decisions. They have to make the most efficient use of a resource. I guess, the

efficient use of resource, we have to prevent bodily injury and harm and things.

Criminal offenses are important. Sometimes they take precedence over spending

that extra two hours on a highway patrol, you know, if they are going to cut

back. There may be fewer on patrols. There are going to be shorter periods.

Instead of having them over a longer period they will focus where the busiest

time might be and they will send people out during that period. They have to

readjust their schedules, with the dollars that are not coming, on safety.

I think these areas impact every bit as much on safety. More

people are killed in traffic accidents and there are more injuries as a result

of some of those measures than by some of the measures (inaudible), even though

they are important and they all help in the process. I certainly don't

underestimate the impact of certain things that are mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, there are some of the comments I wanted to make

pertaining to the bill. I think safety is important. I think we have compromised

safety on our highways to a degree over the past while and I don't think we can

afford to compromise it any further.

Thank you.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to make a few comments, Mr.

Speaker, not to belabour the point or delay making progress on the bill. I was

hoping that the real Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would be

here to listen to the debate. I don't think it is appropriate, really, when a

minister is in the precincts of the House and is not here to listen to what is

said and to participate in debate.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you are the junior Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. Your

duties have been usurped by the Member for LaPoile. It is obvious what has

happened here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There we go. The minister now is

starting to sound like the Premier, in due course.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine though, seriously? It makes you

wonder what is going on on the highways. You are wondering what is going on on

the highways now, the problems on the highways; and then you see what is going

on in the House with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Someone

AN HON. MEMBER: A living contradiction.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a living contradiction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is copper top?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It used to be Hodder out there. The

Member for Baie Verte is gone to a funeral out in Baie Verte for Mr. Pike. That

is why he is not here. It is not that he is afraid of the Member for Eagle River

or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is gone out to a

funeral today. He is what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They should have a new department, the yap,

yap department, a new minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I must say there is one thing I

noticed in the House. Any time the Member for Eagle River goes and sits next to

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation there is a steady racket and

noise. Then it almost turns into a brawl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two peas in a pod.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is almost like they provoke and do

things there to get under members' skin.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are planning out Cashin's campaign.

That is what they are doing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, that is what it is. They are talking

about the Labrador Highway again, the Trans Labrador Highway and how they are

going to get Mr. Cashin over the top in Labrador. That is what it is, they are

planning a strategy for Mr. Cashin.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is his wingman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: His wingman. Yes, he probably is a

wingman, he (inaudible) the wingman. Knowing the person that the Member for

Eagle River is, I would say he is down boosting the minister's morale. He is

boosting the minister's morale because we can see the minister has been dejected

since last Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Subdued.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Very subdued. And now again today to

have happen to him - Friday is just a bad day for the minister, I say to him. He

should stay home on Fridays, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

He came in here last Friday and the Premier pulled the rug out from under him on

the Bell Island ferry rates and now the Member for LaPoile pulls the rug out

from under him on this bill here, Bill 26,

an Act to Amend The Highway Traffic

Act. I mean, showed the minister up for not knowing what he was talking about,

clarified the situation for the Member for St. John's East Extern. The poor

minister had to sit there, having read from his notes that were compiled for

him. He didn't understand the notes, he just read them. You can tell when

someone is reading from notes that they understand, but you can also tell when

someone just gets up and reads something, not having an understanding of what

they are reading. That was the minister's case.

I want to say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Point .05 was (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, .05 was certainly ill conceived, it

did not mean anything.

I want to say to the minister, I do agree with the provision,

the changes that he is making with regard to allowing a driver with license

suspension to do the driver education course, to enable him to get the license

as soon as their suspension expires. I certainly agree with that. I think that

is a positive provision in this bill. There is no doubt that it was wrong for

someone to have their license suspended and then on the day they were due to get

their license back they would then have to go and do a course, and sometimes, I

am told, it would take two to three weeks before they could do the course which

meant, in essence, they were without their license for a longer period of time

then they were suspended for. So I think that is a good provision and I am sure

that there are members of this House that wished that provision had been in

place before, Mr. Speaker. I am sure there are members of the House who wish

that that provision had been there before where they could go and do the course

while their license was suspended so that they could get their license back the

day after.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not mentioning any names.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not mentioning any names, as the

minister did not mention this morning. He said I see some members smiling on

both sides of the House.

That is a positive provision, I say to the minister but it is

a concern.

The Member for Ferryland talked about the inspections that

were done yesterday, the highway inspections, the road blocks. I guess it is

Safe Driving Week this week is it? That is why, I guess, they did that. Safe

Driving Week this week?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It ends today?

MR. SULLIVAN: So you're going to do this once every year

are you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I think the police indicated - I

watched the news last night - that they are going to do this periodically. I

would say that it will make a big difference because once people know they are

going to be checked and so on they won't be as lenient or free or whatever,

willing to drive their vehicles without their being in proper condition. There

is no doubt there is one thing that check did yesterday, was verify what we said

to the minister when he eliminated the vehicle inspections. We did tell the

minister that there would be an increase of unfit vehicles on the road, as the

minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There's not? How can the minister say

that in light of what the statistics were from those stops yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I hope you do. I mean, out of that

sample that they stopped yesterday, to have - what was it? I guess there were

thirty odd problems? Seventy odd problems?

MR. SULLIVAN: You had 15 per cent of the - about

seventy-some problems.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seventy-some problems from either

tickets with handbrake cables gone. Some vehicles were issued multiple tickets,

the news said. Then, of course, there were seven taken off the road altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is why they were taken off the

road? What is the minister saying now?

If you extracted that statistic and applied it across the

Province, with the number of vehicles that are here, I guess it would break out

to about the same, I suppose. I suppose it is almost like a poll.

MR. EFFORD: You said the other day polls don't mean

anything. Either they do or they don't.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I only say this to the

minister. The only way you can change an unfit car is to take it to a garage and

get the work done. People can change their opinion within a two second spread of

time, but cars cannot get repaired that quickly. If you apply it across the

Province, to me it seems like an alarming - how many cars are in the Province?

The minister said the other day the number of vehicles. Did he say a couple of

hundred thousand?

MR. SULLIVAN: A couple of hundred thousand, I would say.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A couple of hundred thousand vehicles

the minister said were in the Province, was there, 200,000? Did the minister say

that a few days ago, that there were approximately 200,000 vehicles in the

Province?

MR. EFFORD: Four hundred and twenty thousand.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Four hundred and twenty thousand.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is motorcycles and everything, right?

Is that motor boats?

AN HON. MEMBER: Licensed vehicles.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Licensed vehicles, okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: ATVs and everything.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So if you take - what was the percentage

yesterday of cars with problems?

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifteen per cent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Fifteen per cent of that is what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Over 60,000.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Over 60,000. Well, talking about cars

and trucks. Let's say 200,000. Let's say quarter of a million, $250,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty thousand of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thirty thousand vehicles that would have

some kind of a problem. To me that is pretty high. The minister doesn't seems to

think that is too high a statistic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I said, if you take 15 per cent of the

trucks and cars in the Province - let's say there are 250,000 of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are 420,000 vehicles.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is everything. That is not

just cars and trucks.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is ATVs, licensed trailers,

everything.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: All licensed vehicles.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but just apply it to, say, cars and

trucks, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Three hundred thousand.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Three hundred thousand, 15 per cent of

that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Forty-five thousand.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Forty-five thousand vehicles, if the

statistics broke out across the Province, if there is a correlation, would have

some kind of a problem. Does the minister think that is -

MR. EFFORD: We can play with number in any manner we want

to (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I know that. I am not trying to do

that, by the way. I am just trying to get back -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) on television one night playing

with numbers (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, but I am not on television.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't fool up the figures

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I tell the minister, I know my sums.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, you have some confidence in me,

don't you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), the only one over there; the

only leader over there (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is only one leader over here, and

he sits right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is confused. The minister

again is confused. He is talking about his own caucus again now. We saw it this

morning. We saw Premier Grimes getting up to answer a question for Premier

Dicks. They almost tore the coats off one another, wondering who was going to

get up to answer the question over there. Roger pulled on Paul's jacket and

said, `Sit down, Paul, I will answer it.' And Paul was saying, `No, Roger, you

sit down; I am going to answer it.' I watched it here this morning, tugging on

one another's coats, fighting to get up to answer the Workers' Compensation...

It was really hilarious to sit here and watch it. They were arm-wrestling to see

who was going to get up to answer the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: I got (inaudible) briefcase.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Whose briefcase?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Chris, pass it over. See if it jives with

the figures I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Member for LaPoile

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for LaPoile, I will tell you,

is an ambitious man too; there is no doubt about that. The Member for LaPoile is

ambitious, to see him come up out of that seat this morning clarifying Bill 26.

That is what is going on over there. The Member for Port de Grave thought he had

the support of the Member for LaPoile for the leadership race.

The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is back there banging

his chest and pointing at himself. I do not know what that is about. What is

that about? Then one day before we were talking about it, and shish kebab

himself was over there pointing at himself and banging his chest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's shish kebab?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, old shish kebab Bud. It is priceless to watch it over there. Then

the Minister of Education talks about us over here.

Can you imagine the Member for LaPoile and shish kebab, and

the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, banging their chests. When you talk

about leadership it is amazing. They are afraid they are not going to be

mentioned so they start pointing at themselves.

I hear the Member for LaPoile was downtown last night passing

out business cards. He asked some people who they were, and then he said, `Do

you know who I am?' I think they knew, but, of course, they would not let him

know they knew who he was. They were a little bit too smart for him really. He

said, `Well, would you like to have my business card?' He went and got it and

came back and said, `Here is my business card.' They looked at it, and like, you

know, `So!'. He said, `Well, maybe you saw me on TV.' That is a true story, by

the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was passing out Chuck's -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he was passing out his own. `Maybe

you have seen me on television,' he said. He went and got the business card, and

when he gave it to them they looked at him strangely, `Well, so what!'. He said,

`Well, maybe you have seen me on television.' So, I think he is ambitious.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

is supporting him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope that the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island is supporting the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

after doing what he did for him last week.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is supporting whoever he thinks is going

to win now, tell him the truth.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would hope he does. The Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island hopes to be the king maker. He hopes to throw his

couple of hundred delegates behind the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to put him over the top.

MR. TOBIN: The effortless minister does not have a

chance.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, 200 would never put him over the top.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If I could pursue the issue of

inspections with the minister now while I have a chance, because he seemed to

think that the statistic from yesterday was not too alarming. That is what it

seemed to indicate, that it was not too bad. Does the minister think that is

acceptable, that figure?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, but do you think it is

acceptable? Do you have anything, say, to compare it to, say when you had to go

to the garage to get your inspection slip to get your license or your

registration? Has he got anything to comp