December

6, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 48

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the House of Assembly

today twelve business management students from Keyin Technical College,

accompanied by their instructor, Bill Norman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

I bring forward the statement today on behalf of my

colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance in Action on

Violence Against Women and the anniversary of the murder of fourteen women at

Montreal's cole Polytechnique engineering school. This date is a stark reminder

of the many women in Newfoundland and Labrador who are beaten, sexually

assaulted, and in some cases, murdered, every year. We must also remember that

there are many more women in our Province who live in fear of violence every day

of their lives.

A study on violence against women conducted by Statistics

Canada in 1993 found that one in three Newfoundland and Labrador women reported

experiencing physical and/or sexual assault since the age of sixteen. The study

also found that only 14 per cent of Canadian women surveyed reported the violent

incident to the police, and only 9 per cent sought support from social service

agencies.

In commemoration of the women who lost their lives in the

Montreal Massacre, and those who are victims of violence in our Province, you

will find a display in the main lobby of the East Block and outside the

cafeteria of the West Block of Confederation Building which I invite you to

visit today. Each display provides a listing of the names of the women who were

murdered in Montreal, statistics and press clippings on violence against women,

and copies of a bookmark published by Women's Policy Office which provides tips

as to how we as individuals can do our part to eliminate violence against women.

You will also find buttons at each of these displays which are being used to

raise funds for the Provincial Association Against Family Violence.

Some of you may also wish to attend the commemorative program

which takes place this evening at Memorial University Engineering Lecture

Theatre at 7:30 p.m. The evening will feature a service commemorating the

fourteen young women slain in Montreal and a discussion of anti-violence

activities to be undertaken by organizations and individuals in the coming year.

As many of you know, last June we announced the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador's Provincial Strategy Against Violence. The five-year

Strategy, entitled Towards the Year 2000 , was developed by the Women's

Policy Office and the Departments of Social Services, Health, Justice and

Education in consultation with the community. Prevention of violence and the

provision of quality service to victims of violence are the two main goals of

the Action Plan. Some of the most recent initiatives undertaken by the

Strategy's Co-ordinating Team include the establishment of regional

co-ordinating committees, the initiation of pilot projects for service delivery,

and the development of a public awareness campaign. You may have noticed some of

the radio advertising surrounding today's date. A more extensive media campaign

will be held in February, which has been designated as Violence Prevention

Month.

This is one way government is showing its commitment to

eliminating violence against women. At the Provincial Women's Lobby in October,

government also committed to becoming better educated on the issue of violence.

The Premier has written each government member recommending he or she meet with

community groups to learn more about violence against women, and discuss how we

may show leadership in raising public awareness. I would encourage all members

to do the same.

While we are not responsible for the actions of men who

commit violent acts against women, we are responsible for what we say and do

every day that hinders equality and encourages violence. As we remember these

women today, let us commit to daily actions that we will make a difference in

women's lives. Each and every one of us has an important role to play in

eliminating violence in our Province, both "Towards the Year 2000" and beyond.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while we mourn the forty young women who were so

viciously and cruelly murdered in Montreal, we can best remember them today by

dedicating ourselves to remember also that violence against women is happening

every day in our communities in our Province and in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I note sadly and with remorse that the violent

situations faced by women in our Province has not improved significantly in

recent years, as noted by the statistics that the hon. the minister just

commented on.

Mr. Speaker, every day, when women are afraid to walk alone,

are fearful in their relationships or victims of physical, emotional, sexual or

verbal assault, all of us fail in our mandate to more than one-half of the

Canadian population. We need to be more supportive, more understanding, more

reflective and more compassionate in our outreach, and I commend the minister

and this government on the initiatives which they have recently undertaken.

We need to listen attentively to the viewpoints of women,

always remembering that the men of tomorrow are the children of today;

therefore, we should resolve that our sons and our grandsons see in us, as men,

examples of personal security that does not depend on the depreciation of

mothers or daughters, or other females.

Mr. Speaker, not to overuse an expression, let me say only

that when men are prepared to give back the night, that will be the only time

when women are able to take it back. Let us therefore resolve each day in our

own lives and remember less the offender and concentrate more on the victims of

violence. Only when that happens will we have really helped make the lives of

the fourteen young women who died at cole Polytechnique more meaningful, and

make their lives a positive force for good in our Canadian society.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the minister and the Opposition House

Leader in recognizing this day as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on

Violence Against Women.

While we note that the public massacre of fourteen women in

1989 was a spectacle of national and international proportions, we have to

recognize that the continuing violence against women is a problem that we must

seek to eliminate as quickly as possible.

In the last two months, in this city alone, two women were

murdered violently in their own homes. As the minister indicated, education is

important, but action is equally important.

While, as the minister says, we individually are not

responsible for the actions of men who commit violent acts against women, we are

responsible as legislators here in this House, and you on that side, as

government, are responsible for working towards eliminating the causes and

conditions which contribute to violence against women. We must have safer

houses, we must have safer streets, and we must have policies which deal with

these problems effectively, and I urge us all to recommit ourselves to move

forward on these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I omitted to say that I have buttons here to commemorate

today's event, and I would like to offer them to the Members of the House of

Assembly who are not wearing them.

Thank you.

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the

Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries' bid to attract Software '98.

Software '98 is an annual international conference sponsored by the Information

Technology Association of Canada, which brings together information technology

executives from around the world. This conference will focus on strategic

alliances in the areas of investment, marketing, distribution, research and

development, and acquisitions and mergers, all related to the IT sector.

Today, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will join

forces with the City of Aberdeen, Scotland in a partnership agreement to support

NATI, in conjunction with the Scottish Software Federation, in their efforts to

attract this world class event. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome

Councillor Margaret Farquhar, Lord Provost of Aberdeen City Council as she joins

with the Premier in signing this partnership agreement.

This union follows Newfoundland and Labrador's successful

participation in Software '96, held in Halifax earlier this year. Over sixteen

organizations and twenty-one delegates from the Province attended the

conference, which featured an address by Premier Tobin to the Information

Technology Association of Canada Board of Governors, which included sixty

Presidents and CEO's of major Canadian IT companies.

Mr. Speaker, an event of this magnitude would attract 1,000

delegates from over thirty countries to the City of St. John's, providing the

Province with an opportunity for significant spin-off. The budget for the week

long event is expected to be in excess of $750,000. This venue will allow us to

establish this Province as an Information Technology leader internationally. On

behalf of all the hon. members, I commend the Newfoundland Alliance of Technical

Industries on their endeavour and look forward to the future announcement of a

successful bid.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I just received the minister's statement. I

just read it, and by just listening to the minister we, too, also wish the

Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries good luck with their bid. We

realize that last year it happened in Halifax and there was quite a good

delegation from Newfoundland. I understand the Premier spoke at that particular

conference, but it is good in investment and marketing. It helps all business,

and also, of course, it is nice to attract such a thing to Newfoundland and

Labrador. It shows we are leading the way in that way, and I assume that more

people in Newfoundland and Labrador in business will avail of the opportunity to

participate when it comes here in 1988. I wish them well, and we hope to see

them here in 1988.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today,

December 6, to mark the 25th Anniversary of an important event in the history of

our Province. On this day in 1971 one of the most colossal and fantastic

engineering feats ever realized, the Churchill Falls hydroelectric development,

generated its first unit of power to be fed into the continent's North

American's energy grid.

Over these twenty-five years, the windfall profit Quebec has

reaped from that power has indeed on occasion plagued every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. We have come to view Churchill Falls as a symbol of great injustice

and we know that this injustice must be addressed, indeed this government is

committed to addressing it. But I stand in this House today not to mark an

inequitable arrangement and an unfair deal, but to celebrate the success of a

project that stands as a monument to the tenacity, ingenuity, the skill and the

extraordinary ability of the people of this Province. On this day, we celebrate

an engineering wonder constructed at the hands of 12,000 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians over five years; completed five months ahead of schedule. The men

and women involved came from all over the Province, just as the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs did, lived and worked in the camps at the

Churchill Falls job site and they stayed there until the job was done.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the words of Pierre

Elliot Trudeau, who often sought to match the endeavours of Canadians with the

scope and grandeur of this great country, Canada. Churchill Falls, Trudeau said,

was a "testimony of man's desire to see the remote, to explore the hidden, to

achieve the difficult. The Churchill Falls project represents for every Canadian

in every part of Canada one of those proud achievements in our history; it is a

strong beat of the country's adventurous heart."

Well, Mr. Speaker, the challenge that faces us on this 25th

anniversary is to address the injustice and the inequity of the Churchill Falls

contract -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to ensure that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians receive their fair share of the benefits of this great development;

to resoundingly commemorate the efforts of those 12,000 men and women with a new

arrangement, a new contract worthy of their achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this problem cannot and will not go

away unless we turn our minds to solving it; unless we muster the same energy

and determination that drove those sons and daughters of Newfoundland and

Labrador twenty-five years ago. Renegotiation of the Churchill Falls agreement,

a rebalance of the sharing of benefits in a fundamental way - not a minor way -

is what is needed now. Renegotiation of the agreement can also be the key to

unlocking the much further riches of the Churchill Falls River. Downstream from

Churchill Falls there are two sites, Gull Island and Muskrat Falls. Together,

these sites can produce 3,100 megawatts of power.

It has been estimated that the cost of construction at Gull

Island and Muskrat Falls stands at roughly $10 billion, and these developments

could create 12,000 person years of work in highly paid engineering and

construction jobs. These developments could provide secure and stable power for

Labrador, further industrial development in Labrador itself, and indeed further

power and development on the Island part of the Province, and they would also

yield, in addition to that, significant amounts of new power for exports

throughout North America.

This is the choice we face twenty-five years later. We can

remain locked in the rigidities of the current contract as it brings the project

towards financial collapse, or we can seize as a province this opportunity to

address new realities that have come to light and work out an equitable

arrangement for now and for the future.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have waited twenty-five

years for the injustice of this contract to be addressed. But as we move

forward, we must never lose sight of the significance of this project, or the

accomplishments of the men and women who built it. I call upon every member of

this House in commemorating this occasion to be seized with the determination,

the energy, the skill, the will of the men and women who constructed Churchill

Falls in attempting to renegotiate this contract.

I make that call on behalf of the generation of young men and

women of this Province who were unborn when this contract was negotiated, and,

Mr. Speaker, who will retire and have lived their entire lives without any

benefit from it unless it is renegotiated. I call upon us to replicate the

spirit of those who constructed this magnificent engineering feat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too stand to

certainly pay tribute to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the people who

worked at that particular site. In fact, an individual from the place where I

live gave his life in that area back during the construction days of that

particular site. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid the price.

I recently had an opportunity to read this August, The

History of Churchill Falls by Philip Smith. It is a very interesting book

that outlines the history and development of Churchill Falls, the colossal

magnitude here, as the Premier says, of such a venture that included worldwide

engineering and technical skills. It was a first. The opportunity today to see

such a great project's minimized returns to this Province is shameful, and we

have to ensure that we never enter into such a contract again.

The Premier has indicated the opportunities are there, and

certainly I support endeavours. I am glad he makes reference to the fact that

renegotiation of the agreement can be the key to the unlocking of the future

riches of Churchill Falls River, because downstream we have up to 3,100

megawatts of power. When they looked at Churchill Falls, many people said it

could not be done. When we look at the Lower Churchill, the tremendous

potential, to see hundreds of millions of dollars going out of this Province and

we getting a pittance from it. We need to negotiate. We need to sit down. We

need winter availability. We should get billions back into this Province, and I

think there is a tremendous opportunity for new jobs in the development of the

Lower Churchill, tremendous opportunities to look at a whole total package in

negotiations with Quebec to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get a

return in dividends on a resource that we own; but also, in addition to that, to

ensure that we get jobs in the construction, in the design, in the engineering,

of that particular project.

I will make a very quick comparison. I think it is important

that right now we are on the brink of another tremendous development here in

this Province. We must get jobs, smelter and refinery, continued exploration,

but we must also get a return of royalty and dividends to the people of this

Province. We cannot make the mistakes of the past, but we will work to assist in

any endeavours to encourage a look at the overall picture, to get extra revenues

and agreements, side agreements on that, so we can be the true beneficiary of

our resources, and not another province reaping 95 per cent or 98 per cent of

the profits from our resources. That day should be over in our Province, and I

endorse efforts that are going to bring about a fair and equitable return to the

people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in recognizing the tremendous feat, the tremendous project, that was

Churchill Falls. In doing so, I was one of those young Newfoundlanders who was

so proud of the achievement, the greatest industrial engineering project of its

time, at that time, in the world, but it was with a bittersweet pride that it

was noted because it stands now, unfortunately, as a symbol of the kind of

development that takes place and leaves Newfoundlanders behind after the project

is finished.

The challenge in this Province today with other developments

is not to see them developed - they will be developed because the resources are

there - the challenge is to see they are developed in the interest of the people

of this Province so that we cease to be a Province with the kind of unemployment

we have, the lack of fiscal ability that we have to do the right job.

With respect to the Churchill Falls contract itself, we must

continue together to do whatever it is - whatever it is - that can be done to

insist that this unfair arrangement be changed. And if the government has any

particular initiatives in that regard then we should be all willing to stick our

necks out and fight to see that this contract is changed, because it has to be

changed if we are going to have pride in ourselves as part of this great

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health.

Doctor Peter Roberts presented a report to your department on

salaried physician service, and in that report he indicates that salaried

physician service has become dysfunctional and urgently requires restructuring.

He further states that they require a substantial infusion of new resources, and

government must define the resources available to support the salaried service.

I ask the minister: What have you done to rectify the problems since you

received his report, back in July?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report that was done by Dr. Roberts was done at the

request of the department to address some of the issues that we are attempting

to deal with amongst ourselves, the NLMA, the NHNHA and others, to arrive at

probably a more agreeable and more equitable compensation package for salaried

physicians. As a result of and subsequent to the receipt of the report, I have

had a number of meetings with the leadership, the Executive of the NLMA, Dr.

Mike Cohen and his executive group, I have met with some people representing

salaried physicians, and we are continuing to work on the issue. It is not an

issue however, that can be addressed in isolation of the big picture or the

total compensation issues regarding doctors.

The fact of the matter is, we have had in place for five

years a joint management agreement that expires next April and covers all the

issues to do with that of compensation for doctors. The NLMA's position, quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, is this: As the hon. member quotes quite accurately, the

position of the doctors is that the remedy lies in government putting in new

resources, putting in several millions of dollars of new resources. What I have

said to the doctors in the Province, through their association, is that, as a

Province, we do not have any more money to put into the MCP pot to pay doctors.

The $138 million that we now pay for doctor services in the

Province is all we have for the next two years to work with, I have repeatedly

said to them I am prepared to discuss rebalancing that pot so as to put more

money into the salaried physicians' portion of it but, the position of the

doctors, quite frankly is that, no, we need to put $4 million to $5 million of

new money in, not touch the fee for service pot, increase the money that is in

the salary pot and I have had to say to them quite frankly, quite honestly and

quite openly, that is not on, we do not have the extra resources. We will work

with what we have to the best extent we can and we will seek to get their

assistance to re-allocate money as best we think, with their co-operation as

appropriate to deal with the salaried issue.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister referred to the NLMA. I had a release yesterday

and they are extremely concerned with the delays here. And just recently, the

Chair at the salaried physician negotiations, in his statement to all salaried

physicians stated that, physician recruitment and retention is in crisis in this

Province. Not only are there insufficient funds in the system to fill the eighty

unfilled positions, but MCP projections show that the funds currently allocated

for the filled salaried positions will run out before the end of this fiscal

year.

Now, will the minister admit that his department is not

actively pursuing recruitment for the more than eighty unfilled positions in

this Province, because there is not even enough funds to meet the commitments on

the ones that are already filled?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have always had in the Province, unfortunately, a number

of unfilled physicians in rural Newfoundland primarily in the primary care side

of it and in some of the specialties in some specialty areas as well.

Our intent, our ongoing activity through the health care

boards and now through there, the eight boards central recruiting agency is to

continue to actively recruit doctors for the Province so that to the best extent

possible, we can fill vacancies as they occur and address vacancies that have

been historically in existence for many, many years. But in terms of new

resources, we have to work within the allocation of $138 million that we have in

the MCP budget, and I say to the hon. member, it is simply not on to say we must

continue to add new dollars to the system to pay doctors more and more. If we

get more and more, we have to work with the dollars we have, and there is no

point in saying: Yes, we can find money in another part of the Budget.

The fact is the health care budget is on a very, very, tight

rein and we are having difficulties in all of the areas of the health care

sector, to address all of the needs that come forward and this is one area where

we are being challenged daily to insure that we have the appropriate number of

doctors, that we can get the job done in the context of the existing resources

we have.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, MCP is projecting there is not enough

there to pay the ones that are already filled.

In many instances, boards have to hire doctors to come in and

do locums in areas where there are no doctors or doctors not available. Now,

sometimes they will pay that full daily salary, that specific amount and, in

addition, in some instances, transportation, accommodations, and meals. Now,

does the minister realize that finding doctors to do locums is putting extra

strain on those boards, not only in manpower effort but also in a direct cost?

Can the minister tell this House how much money is spent annually on locums?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member is not too far off when he

says that we pay locums through our boards, pay doctors monies to come in and do

locums. The fact of the matter is that salaried doctors, like most other people

who work for salary for government, work under basically some terms and

conditions that are set out in agreements that we have in their contracts.

The basis for salaried physician contracts is really what is

known in the medical community as the Blue Book. It is sort of the contract, if

you like, that we have with doctors. The fact of the matter is that sometimes

doctors who work what they are prescribed to work, as per their contract in

their board jurisdiction, do go outside of their board jurisdiction to cover-off

shortages of services on weekends and that sort of thing, in other board

jurisdictions.

I am the first to agree that we would be better served

budgetwise, if we could come to an arrangement with the salaried doctors so that

the boards could probably employ them within their own board jurisdiction rather

than having them cross over board jurisdictions on weekends, meeting each other

on the highway to cover-off locums. But the situation at the moment is that the

contract we have with them, the Blue Book parameters that we work within, allows

this to happen. We are addressing that issue in the bigger context of all of the

other issues that have to do with salaried physicians and we hope we can sort

that out to the best advantage of not only the budgets of the board but also to

the best advantage of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - working arrangements with the doctor but

more importantly than anything, to ensure that we have better health care

services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am glad the minister does realize and made a statement

that possibly there are monies being used inefficiently because of this and he

mentioned that they are looking at it. I did ask, does he have a figure on how

much of these inefficiencies are in the system, it is certainly important that

we know that.

Now, doctors who go out to rural areas to do locums, I say to

the minister, they are generally not familiar with the area, the patients and

their history. Now, this often, too, results in extra costs because they order

more tests. They have to do more referrals because they want to follow a

cautious approach and we certainly cannot blame them for that. Now, has the

minister evaluated what impact this has on the resources within our system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologise for not completing my answer to the previous

question.

To the question of how much money is being spent in locums

and extra expenses within boards, not only for locums but providing other things

to doctors such as assistance with housing and that sort of thing, I am happy to

report to him that I wrote all of the institutional boards just last week and

asked them to provide that information, specifically and quickly to the NHNHA so

that we would have the benefit of that knowledge, to see what we are spending on

other areas of compensation in addition to the $28 million salary figure that we

know is there. So that information is being correlated and should be available

to me within the next few days for the NHNHA.

To the other question, yes, it would be better, obviously, if

patients could have access to a doctor ongoing, who has a full knowledge of

their file and their case history. The fact of the matter is that from time to

time we do have turnovers in doctors in rural areas which causes people to have

to see new physicians and we do have doctors coming in on locums that people

have to be familiar with. That is not a circumstance that lends necessarily, to

bad health care but it would be better and I think a more user-friendly

environment for doctors and patients if they could have a more ongoing and

historical relationship with each other.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: When will he release the

report that was done on the peninsula's health care board?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I already answered that question earlier this week. I won't

be releasing the report on the health care board that was done on the

Peninsula's health care board. That report was done, Mr. Speaker, as I have

already indicated, at the request of and for the Peninsula's health care board.

At what point they deem it appropriate to release the full content of the

report, I am sure they will proceed to do so, but the fact of the matter is that

they released the twelve recommendations that came forward from it, indicated

clearly they are moving forward to implement them and I believe that is an

appropriate course of action to follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Of course, my department was represented on

the committee. It would be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: What am I hiding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my

preamble today, I would just like to mention that it is

good timing with the Churchill Falls, when talking about that, Mr. Speaker, that

we talk about Voisey's Bay. Of course, we do not want to make the same mistakes,

and we want to make sure there is no stone unturned in covering every angle with

respect to Voisey's Bay. So I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy

a few more question.

Yesterday, in my questions to the minister, I wanted him to

confirm the numbers for copper production capacity in the Voisey's Bay

operation. Inco reported in their own documents some 250 million pounds in their

operation. Of course, the one from Argentia on Voisey's Bay reported again with

some 200 million pounds, so it seems the numbers change. Will the minister tell

us what his figures are for the annual copper production from Voisey's Bay, and

if they differ from Inco, and to prove it, will the minister commit to table in

the House the head assays on Inco's-Voisey's Bay copper find?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are leaving no stone unturned, and we are

leaving no rock unturned, absolutely no rock unturned, to ensure that we get the

maximum benefits from this development, absolutely none. A year ago in this

Assembly we brought in an amendment to the Mineral Act that stated we are

economically feasible in the future - further processing will be done in this

Province of any rock that is turned in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: We did that about a year ago, and that is

the standard that we work by with any resource, whether it is the nickel from

Voisey's Bay, the copper, the cobalt, the antimony from Gander Lake, or any

other resource in this Province. That is the standard that we work by. Where it

is economically feasible, it is going to be done right here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are insisting on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: In that regard, for the first time in our

history, 499 years since Cabot, the first time in our history we are going to

have a nickel smelter and refinery in this Province, smelting material in this

Province, including copper. Copper is going to be done as part of that. Twenty

per cent of the copper is going to be done as part of that. It is a going to be

a world class refinery project, the biggest in the Western world, the most

economical and up-to-date in the Western world, year 2000 technology, the

cleanest in the world. That is what we are insisting on as a result of this

development. We are going to get the maximum developments.

Now, if the hon. member wants me to table some analysis of

the ore from Voisey's Bay, I happen to have that with me today, and I will table

it when I finish with it. Right now, in the ovoid, 32 million tons and the grade

of nickel was 2.83 per cent, the grade of copper is 1.68, and the cobalt is .12

per cent; that is for the first five to six years of this development.

The grade in the eastern digs for the first 50 million tons

is 1.36 per cent nickel, 0.67 per cent copper, and 0.09 per cent cobalt. Nickel

is exactly two times copper in the first 50 million tons and that number will

obviously vary over time as we find out more, but that is the amount. In the

eastern digs for 270 million pounds of nickel you are going to get 135 million

pounds of copper. Already 36 million pounds of copper are going to be produced

in the smelter and refinery at Argentia, so that leaves about 100 million

pounds, about 50 kilotons of copper that will go elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

DR. GIBBONS: I am pleased to table the assays from

Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon the Member for Baie Verte on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I congratulate

you on the nickel smelter refinery for Argentia. I took that on, on advice from

the Premier, on congratulating him on the nickel smelter refinery for Argentia.

Now, let us deal with the question I just asked. I knew that the minister today

would have the assays and I asked that they be tabled so we would have proof. We

have been battered around with different -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. SHELLEY: I want to ask the minister: Who else besides

Inco - and, of course, they are interested in their shareholders - who else has

the minister assurance from besides Inco that it is not feasible for a copper

refinery in Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my department has some

expertise in mining and geology and have done some research on this issue. They

is monitoring it and doing more research. We are working with the Department of

Industry, Trade and Technology in doing economic analyses of this particular

issue. So we are studying the issue. I would say to the hon. member, he

shouldn't let copper go to his head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: We are going to assess (inaudible) we get

the maximum benefits from this development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I want to remind the minister that the copper top keeps going

and going and going, so I will continue to ask questions on the copper

availability.

I say to the minister, in all sincerity, these are

information questions to be sure that a refinery smelter is not - and the reason

for the questions is to be 100 per cent sure, not 99 per cent like Churchill

Falls, that it isn't feasible to have a refinery in this Province. I say that to

the minister in all sincerity. That is why I asked the questions on the assays

and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear in the second

part of the question on the assays, could the minister confirm that he said 135

million pounds from your assays? I couldn't hear you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. member that the copper top keeps beating

the same old drum.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are on top of this, we are

going to stay on top of it, we are going to guarantee to the greatest extent

possible we get the maximum benefits from Voisey's Bay. But where it is not

economically feasible we are not going to insist on it. Because, as the hon.

member's Leader said a little earlier today, we want to get some royalties from

Voisey's Bay as well, we want to get some taxes from Voisey's Bay as well. So we

don't want a subsidy of an uneconomic venture that is going to drag down the

other benefits that we are going to get. We want the maximum benefits to us in

this Province from this venture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I continue to beat the

same drum, and the minister keeps singing the same tune about nickel. I am not

asking about nickel. I congratulated you on that already, I say to the minister.

He said 135 million pounds. Kidd Creek just outside Timmins, Ontario also has a

copper refinery with about the same - the numbers are being batted around by

Inco, but about the same capacity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: - of the ore that is coming out of the

ground.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am asking the minister, that is the reason

for the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I am asking the minister to confirm it. Is

the capacity anywhere near the same for Kidd Creek as it is for Voisey's Bay,

and so therefore would it not be as feasible for a refinery in Labrador, Mr.

Speaker?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a little bit of

what I have said. We are refining nickel, we are refining cobalt, we are

refining, projected by the company, about 36 million pounds of copper per year

in association with that. That is leaving over only about 100 million pounds,

leaving over only about 50,000 tons of copper to go elsewhere. There are no

copper smelters in the world being built on that scale today. The Kidd Creek

smelter that the hon. member refers to annually produces about 130,000 tons of

copper. That is already about two-and-a-half times the size of what would be

required to do the copper from Voisey's Bay that is left over. It is not

economical to do a small smelter refinery. Other smelters in Canada - referring

to the one in Horne, Quebec, it is producing 240,000 tons of copper anodes a

year. That is five times as much. So you have to look at the economics of this,

not just the economics of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just economics in

Canada, but you have to look at the international economics. In this particular

case we are looking at the international economics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the hon. the Premier. Does the

Premier know if North Star Cement is on the bidder's list and therefore a

candidate for consideration for the supply of cement for the grouting operating

and the joining process which will bring together the Hibernia topsides and GBS?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, North Star Cement is not on that list. A few

years ago when their cement was tested, they did not qualify in terms of a

quality of material for the gravity-based structure. Then they were not

considered for the two-and-a-half thousand tons that are going to be required

for the grouting of the structure when it goes to the ocean floor.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are right, Mr. Minister, on the fact that during the GBS

project, their cement was not of the quality for that particular project, but

Northstar is a manufacturer of quality cement. They are a local company, and

they are quite capable of producing the cement that is required for this

particular process.

Does the minister or the Premier feel that they have the

responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that this Newfoundland

company is put on the bidder's list and given every opportunity to bid on this

process for this particular project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have already done that. We

did it the previous time when they were on the list and got considered. Their

product got evaluated. They were part of the process, with any other cement

producer in Canada or anywhere else that was asked. I, personally, have met with

Hibernia management on this issue. I have had discussions on it with

representatives of Northstar, and they have had detailed discussions with the

company on the issue, and I think everybody understands the particular situation

we are in today relative to this contract.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I spoke with an official of Northstar

yesterday, I say to the minister, and they feel that they do have the quality of

cement that is required for this particular process. They feel that they have

been locked out of the bidding process for this particular project. They were

not even permitted to have their cement tested for this particular project. The

specifications now - they are looking at a company from Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. OSBORNE: Does the minister feel he has the

responsibility to do anything and everything possible to ensure that Northstar's

cement is at least tested and that they are given the opportunity to be

considered for this particular project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this in

great detail with the company, with Hibernia management. I have had Hibernia

management in my own boardroom to review this particular issue. Hibernia

management had Northstar at the site the day before yesterday going over this in

great detail themselves, assessing this. At this stage, there is not adequate

time to test a new cement for this particular project, not adequate time at all.

If all other things were started today, it could not be done in that time frame.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services.

In order for child protection services to be effective, case

workers must be able to work closely and consistently with families and school

personnel. Case workers must be able to see a case through and do the necessary

follow-up. Turnover in personnel was a common complaint heard by teenagers and

others in care during the public hearing process of the Select Committee on

Children's Interests. What initiatives has the minister taken to reduce the

turnover in child protection personnel? And has she been able to follow up on

the commitments she made last Spring in the House on that issue?

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

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

As my hon. colleague knows, there are a number of issues

which may cause turnover of social workers on the front lines. One of those

might be the obvious reason, where people leave or are transferred from one

section to another. Of course, the other very obvious way is through the bumping

process, as part of the collective agreements that we have with the various

unions.

Based on the principle of seniority, members are allowed to

bump throughout the system. This has been a historical relationship, and unless

you are suggesting that through collective bargaining the whole issue and

concept of seniority be addressed and eliminated, until such time, that is the

process which we have to follow with our front-line employees.

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

supplementary.

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

Madam Minister, on November 27 of this year you received a

letter from the Principal of St. Bernard's Primary School in Witless Bay. In

that letter the principal indicates there have been five changes in the child

protection personnel servicing that school in the past eight months. How can the

services of the department be effective, compassionate, and have the expectation

of success, when there is no continuity in a child protection team.

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

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

I have said before, in this House, that as a Department of

Social Services we are very concerned about the quality of care that we provide

to our children and to our other residents but I am very confident in the

quality of work that is being provided by social workers. While there may be

many reasons why people are transferred or why they are moved, personal choice

is certainly a very obvious reason, we do stand by the quality of our front line

staff. We will do whatever we can to work within the parameters that are set

down to try to eliminate those interruptions in continuity but we are bound by a

collective agreement and we are bound by an individual's choice who may want to

leave. I think we would all agree that if someone asks for a transfer or wants

to move from a very difficult and challenging area to another, I think in the

best interest of everyone we often try to comply with those requests. It is a

concern, I will not say it is not but we do have a set of parameters by which we

have to work within.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the public

hearing process we did last year, we had comments made that while one part of

the system was saying to children don't talk to strangers, at the same time

these young children say that strangers are often the social workers because

they change every month. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister would she do an

investigation in the situation at a turnover at the child protection workers at

the St. Bernard's Primary School on Witless Bay? Will the minister assure the

House that that investigation will be done promptly? Will she commit herself to

try to address these kinds of issues as they come to her attention, very

promptly because we remind the minister that it is young children, it is a

primary school and the integrity of the process depends on continuity of the

people who serve these young children?

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

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

processes which we have ongoing right now through our program reviews, through

the Social Policy Advisory Committee, from the report on the Select Committee of

Children's Interests, these issues have been raised time and time again. I will

commit to the House and to the member sitting across the House, that we will

work within the parameters which we have to work within. We will try to maintain

quality care that we have established in the front lines and we are looking at

every single component of how we deliver services to children, to families and

to the citizens of the Province. So in that respect I will commit to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In March of 1997, the five year

moratorium on the commercial Atlantic salmon fishery will end. Will the minister

inform the House what his recommendations will be to his cousins up in Ottawa as

it relates to fishing this particular species?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Keep conservation a number one priority in

making any future decisions, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like an answer

he gave us on the crab quota a couple of months ago.

Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly on Tuesday the minister

indicated that he is satisfied that a recreation salmon fishery will build the

economy of the Province. He did not mention the commercial salmon fishery. I

would like to ask the minister if he is going to be bringing in a recreational

salmon fishery quota or will a commercial salmon fishery quota also be part of

that recommendation?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this Province

who would like to see a full recovery of all species of fish any more than I

personally would. I grew up in a fishing community. I know how important it is

to the survival of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador but on all species

of fish, until we are totally satisfied that there is enough sufficient stocks

to have a commercial fish harvest, whether it is cod, whether it is caplin,

whether it is salmon, whether it is lobster, we will make no recommendations

until we are satisfied the resources are sufficient to have a commercial

fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister, if it

is not going to be an option for the commercial salmon fishery to be returned,

will those people - and I think there are approximately 100 in Newfoundland and

approximately 213 in Labrador - will it be possible for those people to take

part in another licence buy-back?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, any decision on a licence

buy-back will have to be a decision that will have to be discussed with the

there is enough money.

I would like to ask the hon. Member for Bonavista South: Are

you recommending a commercial salmon fishery in 1997?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome

thirty-five students from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Steve Hurley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and

Labour, I am pleased to table today the report of the environmental assessment

for the Newfoundland Trans-Shipment Terminal Project. You can tell by the weight

and volume of the report that we expected only to be exceeded by the weight and

volume of oil going through the trans-shipment terminal. On behalf of my

colleague, I would commend it to members of the House for weekend reading,

particularly the Leader of the Opposition so he does not further embarrass

himself with questions like he was asking yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do

this all in one brief statement, that we entertain Motions 2 to 7, the first

reading of some bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3 to 7.

MR. TULK: I am sorry; it is Motions 3 to 7.

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

following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting Education". (Bill No. 27); and

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of

Schools In The Province". (Bill No. 48)

On motion, Bills 27 and 48 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act". (Bill No. 31); and

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

49)

On motion, Bills 31 and 49 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act And The Liquor Corporation Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 50)

On motion, Bill No. 50 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday when we

adjourned the House we were at second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act", (Bill No. 42), Order No. 16.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Bonavista

South adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to drag this bill on much longer as far as my

few comments on it, but there were a couple of concerns that I wanted to raise,

and I raised some of them to the minister yesterday.

Another item in this particular bill is the snow clearing of

roads. I do not know if this is an opening whereby the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation now will be flogging off their responsibility;

instead of just going into communities and ploughing roads that are deemed local

roads, to pass them on back to communities. I have seen this happen in my own

district last year whereby, because of a community council being unable to

support the cost of maintaining their local roads, the people in the community,

seniors and students alike, were left for the whole winter without their roads

cleared. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation cleared the main

road down through the community, and all the other local roads in that

particular community were left unploughed, unsalted, unattended to for the whole

winter.

So I do not know if this is another example, Mr. Speaker,

whereby now, through this particular bill, the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation sees fit to get out of snow clearing in communities, plow the

main road, open up the main thoroughfares and make community councils and town

councils responsible for - I think town councils are responsible for their local

roads now, but, Mr. Speaker, certainly, local service districts and community

councils have not taken responsibility for this particular service, and if that

is allowed to happen, then there will certainly be a severe downloading of

expenses and costs passed on to communities and for the most part, to most of

the residents in those particular communities who will not be able to afford

this.

The elections, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good move by

the minister, to move the elections back from November to September. It is a

time that will give new councillors coming in and it is not uncommon and I do

not think you will see it uncommon in the future, whereby you will see wholesale

changes in municipal elections. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, you have six

councillors and the mayor coming forward probably having no thoughts or no idea

of what the budget process is and what is entailed in that, and they should

certainly be allowed some extra time in order to be made aware of what the rules

and regulations of the municipalities act want them to carry out and they should

have time to bring in a budget that fairly and clearly reflects the

responsibility of the town.

Right now, I think the elections are held on the first

Tuesday or the second Tuesday of November, budgets have to be in prior to the

new year, and usually, Mr. Speaker, come December month, the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is calling: get your budget in, we want your

budget, get it in prior to the deadline, and this puts pressure if you would,

and puts an unfair chore, Mr. Speaker, on elected councillors at such an early

stage in their mandate.

Fire-fighters, the minister mentioned fire-fighters in

responding to emergencies. Mr. Speaker, responding to emergencies by volunteer

fire-fighters is nothing new in rural Newfoundland. This has been going on for

years. What you will find is, local volunteer fire-fighters responding to all

kinds of emergencies, whether it is someone lost in the bushes or someone lost

on a fishing expedition, whether it is a boat, Mr. Speaker, a boat fire or

people who are lost out boating; whether it is someone involved in an auto

accident, volunteer fire-fighters, Mr. Speaker, respond to all those calls. Most

of them are trained in first aid, some are probably not, and I think it might be

a good idea for the minister to encourage all volunteer firemen to be trained in

first aid. I think that is an excellent thought and that is in the legislation,

but I remind the minister once again, that there is a cost involved in that as

well, and if we are going to train fire-fighters, then somebody is expected to

pay the bill for providing that particular training.

Most of our municipal councils and all of our fire

departments today, Mr. Speaker, are certainly cash strapped, and I always admire

firemen for going out and putting forward so much time and effort in protecting

people's lives and properties. I have always admired them, Mr. Speaker, even

after doing all that and taking

part in that exercise and, Mr. Speaker, being

available for emergencies, taking

part in training programs, having their

regular meetings, then going out and doing fund-raising.

Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Bingo games and the

lottery booths are filled with volunteer firemen, earning money to put back into

their community, to buy a fire-truck, to buy firehose or to buy another piece of

equipment. It never ceases to amaze me, so that is one group of individuals, Mr.

Minister, that if something can be done to help them financially and to

encourage them to continue to be involved, then we should do that. I spoke about

it yesterday and the minister said no, and I would like clarification when he

gets up to speak. Because it is my understanding that a volunteer fire chief in

a community is not allowed to offer himself for council. That is my

understanding. If that is incorrect then the minister should certainly change

that.

Because I know of two communities, Mr. Speaker, where

volunteer firemen have refused to offer themselves for council, good firemen,

would make good councillors, because they were of the impression that they

couldn't offer themselves, they had to make a choice, one or the other. In many

cases in rural Newfoundland you will find there is only a certain number of

people who are going to take

part in volunteer work anyway. You will find that

the Lion's Club members and the Kinsmen members and the fire department members

and the town council members and the Knights of Columbus members are all the

same people. The minister knows what I'm talking about. He's from Carbonear, not

a great urban town. He knows what I'm talking about and he came up through the

process of being on council himself. He knows exactly what I'm referring to. If

that is there, if it is true that those particular individuals are not now

allowed to serve and become part of their town councils, then I think that

should be changed, and I think it should be changed and implemented as soon as

possible.

Firemen as well in unincorporated communities. Not all

communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are incorporated. Not all communities

in Newfoundland and Labrador want to be part of a town council or a community

council or a local service district, but a lot of people have seen a need for a

fire department. They have come together, they have recognized the need, they

have met as a group, and they have gone out and raised funds on their own to

build fire halls, to buy and make fire trucks, to buy equipment. It seems to me

that it is certainly unfair for those particular volunteer firemen in an area

that is unincorporated to be treated any differently than volunteer firemen

living in an area that wanted or needed a town council or a community council or

a local service district. Those firemen should be treated the same as everybody

else.

When those particular fire departments apply for funding

through government they should be entitled to 75-25 funding. Now they aren't.

When they form a fire department, and if they meet the specifications as put

forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in order to have

them incorporated or organized I suppose, if you would, and a constitution

drafted, then why shouldn't they be entitled to receive personal liability, and

be protected when they go out and risk their lives to take

part in protecting

the people and the property in their own particular communities as well as

others?

Some of those fire departments apply and take

part in mutual

aid as well. There is no problem there, I suppose, because from my

understanding, if you are part of an incorporated town and you call somebody

else to help you in case of an emergency, then the fire chief or the person in

charge of that particular scene can ask anybody to provide help, and they are

going to be automatically protected by whatever protection is provided the

regular fire fighters. That is in effect today. But those same individuals,

reacting on their own to an emergency, are not covered. I ask the minister if he

would consider those firemen.

I have one fire department that is very active, very

conscientious, well trained, doing a good job, in an unincorporated community in

my district. I'm sure that there must be others. Those are people who rally to

the cause, saw a need, came and responded, and are providing yeomen's services.

But they are forgotten about as far as the government of the day putting

anything back to help them financially or to protect them should they be

involved in an accident.

Well, this act will take the act of suing and making them

responsible away, and I would imagine, Mr. Minister, that that would probably

relate to people in unincorporated communities as well. When you talk about

volunteer firemen, I suppose, it will not only be people or firemen for

incorporated towns, but that particular liability will be relieved from all

firemen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask you to make that a

little clearer than it is in the act because it is not clear to me.

Those are some of the things that I put forward as some

suggestions as it relates to this piece of legislation. For the most

part it is

a good piece of legislation, but if we are going to go and take away services

from communities, like snow clearing and road upgrading, ploughing and sanding,

if we are going to take away those services, and again download them onto

communities, I can assure you we are going to have problems out there, because

most of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today cannot afford to pay

anymore than they are already paying.

It is hard enough to collect money as it is, but if we impose

any more responsibilities I fear we are not going to see a lot of good people

come out and offer themselves to serve their towns, and to serve their

communities, as it relates to being part of a community council or a town

council. There is more to being a town councillor or a mayor than taking people

to court and collecting bills. There has to be a little bit of satisfaction

there as well in order to reach out and help your community. There has to be

some satisfaction there, and the government should provide that. If we are going

to go and expect people to serve in a local form of government, and to me that

is the most important form of government, that is your first step, your

municipal town councils, and if we are going to go -

MR. TULK: You were a councillor, were you not?

MR. FITZGERALD: I was the Mayor of my town I say to the

member opposite, and it was probably the proudest moment I ever felt when I got

elected mayor in my own particular town. It is only a small town of 700 people,

but it was my home town and we did very well. You know very well, and you can

see we got some things there, in that particular town, that a lot of the bigger

centres do not have.

In the term when I was there we erected a new fire hall, a

new municipal building, went out and erected two new municipal parks. We went

and erected a war memorial, and put in a small marina, but this was because

government was there at the time and if they saw a need, if you could convince

them that they were responsible, and you were paying your bills, then they

reacted by giving you some money to go out and be able to do those things.

Mr. Speaker, that is where the encouragement came from, but I

would not run for municipal council today, I say to members opposite. I would

not offer myself today to only be able to maintain what is in your community and

have to go and take people to court to collect taxes, and to be there forever

with your hand out, you owe, you owe, you owe. There has to be a little bit more

encouragement.

I know we are living in hard times, I know we are living in

difficult times, and the cadillac water and sewer systems may be a thing of the

past, and rightly so, for some communities rightly so because, I think, things

could have been done a little bit different, but in those days when you only had

to pay back 25 per cent of your gross revenue to government why would you be

concerned? It was a matter of applying, getting whatever you can, put in the

cadillac water and sewer system, and whether it cost you $2 million or whether

it cost you $500 wasn't an issue because you wanted to keep up with the rest of

the towns.

That has changed, and it should change. In fact it was late

changing, because there are a lot of ways out in Newfoundland and Labrador today

where we can have water and sewer services without putting in cadillac water and

sewer systems. A prime example, an example that the minister is very well aware

of, is down in Plate Cove East in my district, a community of, I think,

twenty-two households there that were hooked up to the water service. They put

in a water system, a cadillac water system that cost $750,000.

It was very hard to collect funding from the other people in

the community because they did not avail of the services. The services did not

extend to their houses. It was not an option for them so naturally they were not

paying because they had to go and dig their own artesian wells, provide their

own pipelines, their own pumps and whatever else it took to provide them with a

water supply.

So you had twenty-two houses, twenty-two home-owners paying -

I don't know what the charge was, it was very minimal - to try and pay off this

$750,000 bill. It was impossible. As breakdowns occurred and as leaks occurred

it was just left. It was patched up to make it work. It finally got to the point

where all the automatic systems had disappeared altogether and this one

particular person in the community would have to get up every morning, go to the

pump house, turn the pump on and when he saw this big reservoir upon the highest

hill in the community, when he would see the water flowing over the top of the

reservoir he would go down and shut off the pump. That is the way it worked and

it was working that way for years. No chlorine, no automatic cutout, no

automatic water stop when the water reached a certain point in the reservoir.

When it flowed out over the top he would go down and cut it off. I don't know

what would have happened to that particular community if that one person had

found a job somewhere else and his job -

MR. TULK: Where was this?

MR. FITZGERALD: - that was Plate Cove East, I say to the

House Leader.

But anyway it got to the point where government said they

were not going to spend any more money on this particular system. It got to the

point, Mr. Speaker, where I was continually over talking to the minister and we

would look at other options, other ways of doing things whereby we could provide

them with a water supply. We had a couple of public meetings. Finally the people

in that particular community said: Look we have to be realistic here. We cannot

afford to repair. We cannot afford to pay for this particular system and we are

only being pulled and dragged down further and further because the interest

rates are being tacked on. We are paying interest on the interest. It was only

six months ago that we met - I went down and met with them and there was a

representative there from the minister's department, lay it on the line. They

said, `You're right. We cannot afford it, cut it off.' By this time they owed

Newfoundland Power something like $18,000. We cannot even afford to pay the

light bill. So they went and pulled the switch. They cut off their water supply.

The sad part about it was that you had people calling, Mr.

Speaker, who were seniors. You had people calling you who were seniors that were

not able to go out and get an artesian well done. They were not able to call a

contractor from Pouch Cove or from out around Carbonear to come and put an

artesian well in for them. In some cases it was seniors living alone, one

income, one seniors cheque maintaining a household. Then they turned off the

power - and I think I had probably two phone calls after that because people

realized that they were unable to pay the bills. They were unable to continue

having the service that they had there but, Mr. Speaker, we should ask

ourselves, was it fair to have given it to them in the first place? Was it fair

to have gone out to a little community like Plate Cove East, put in a water

supply there that everybody knew they could not afford? It was given to them

because the politics of the day was that you get what you can, don't worry about

paying for it and when the time comes the government will look after us.

Mr. Speaker, some of that has changed and it is time for it

to have change. I say to the minister, it is time for that to change. We have to

start living within our means but by living within our means does not mean to

say that we have to take everything, all funding, away from all communities. I

think the communities that are out there today that are responsible, that are

making an effort to pay, Mr. Speaker, they should be given some encouragement.

Good counsellors should be encouraged, good people should be encouraged, to come

out and offer themselves for council. The only way to do it is to give them some

initiative to offer themselves, knowing that they can do some good to their

communities. It is not going to be brought about by taking away snow clearing

services, it is not going to be brought about by putting in big demands, making

them responsible. You should make them responsible, but they shouldn't be

responsible for paying all the bills from the few taxpayers in some of those

communities. I think we should maintain clearing the local roads in the area. I

think we should maintain providing snow clearing services. Maybe the MOGs should

be changed from the way that they are presently structured today. Because the

base rate of the municipal operating grants I think is higher than it should be.

The ceiling is much higher than it should be. Many of those people out there

cannot afford to pay the - what is the base, minister, $347 before the

government kicks in? Many people out there today cannot afford to pay that. I

think some of that can be changed.

I say to the minister opposite, the members opposite, that if

you don't fully understand the municipal operating grants you can get the Member

for Humber Valley to explain them to you, because he did a good job in

explaining the municipal operating grants to us at one time. Don't be one bit

bashful. He knows how they work. He knows how to get up and explain them and

tell you exactly what the responsibilities of communities are. That being a

little on the side of what this bill is all about, a light moment.

I say to the minister, if he would address some of those

issues, because they are answers I would like to know, especially the fire

fighting ones as it relates to unincorporated communities. I would certainly

appreciate it, and I look forward to his reply before he closes debate. With

that, I will hand it over to my colleague for Baie Verte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues

opposite for the short debate, but then making some very important points,

especially the Member for Bonavista South.

Maybe the most important part that at least I see of this

particular bill in changes is the fact that now fire fighters can respond to

other than fire calls. If we remember back some two years ago, the question of a

qualified fire fighter who has CPR and other medical courses living in,

especially, smaller parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, not being able to

respond to a call by a person who, say, is having a heart attack, because the

law basically restricted a fire fighter from going and administering CPR to

somebody in an emergency situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Good Samaritan (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: The Good Samaritan rule. The law basically

didn't cover - if anything happened, and the family after - I'm making these

comments because there are some students who are in the gallery - the family

after sued that particular person for doing something that he shouldn't have

done, then we felt that maybe there should be some legislation that would allow

for that.

It is quite easy if you are living in C.B.S. because you have

ambulatory services in C.B.S, if you are living in St. John's or Mount Pearl or

Corner Brook, because the service is there. If you are living out in Bonavista

Bay or Trinity Bay and there aren't services available, you pick up the phone

and you call an ambulance, the ambulance could be a half-an-hour to an hour away

from your home. Knowing that across the road is a volunteer firemen who has

probably got CPR and other medical education, why not let that person come and

at least administer some help to keep the person stabilized until an ambulance

or a doctor can arrive to continue? This piece of legislation as far as I'm

concerned is probably the most important part of the number of changes that we

are making to the Municipalities Act.

I do say quite honestly that there is a

section in the act,

and I refer to the comment made, whether fire chiefs or firemen are allowed to

sit on council. There are fire chiefs sitting on numerous councils all over the

Province right now. The problem is not running for council, the problem is

actually getting elected to council. When you get elected as a fire chief to

council then you have to ask, because of the irregularities in the legislation,

if you are allowed to sit, because you are the fire chief, and then council has

to ask the minister if you are allowed to sit. But we have never turned anyone

down. In the number of enquiries we have had in the last four years since I have

been minister, where there has been a fire chief wishing to run for council in

any community, we have always said: You go right ahead, but here is what you

have to do if you get elected.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can we change that in order to

(inaudible)?

MR. A. REID: Yes, it will be changed in the new Act.

MR. FITZGERALD: There is a lot of time and effort put

into trying to get on council, and to get there, not knowing if (inaudible) will

accept your being a councillor.

MR. A. REID: That is right. We have not turned down one,

not that I can remember. Even before me, I do not think we have ever turned down

a fire chief or a fireman. I do not know of any that I can recall, but you are

absolutely right.

As the hon. member realizes, there is going to be a new

Municipalities Act. It probably would have been in the House this Fall, except

for the fact that we have run into a number of areas of conflict in CBS, for

example, that we have to change. There are a number of other changes that we

want to make.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) for years; (inaudible) was fire

chief.

MR. A. REID: Yes, there are a number of areas that we

want to change in the new Act, so hopefully, in the Spring of next year or the

Fall, we will have a new Municipalities Act and this will be addressed in that

Act.

I do, by the way, appreciate the fact that the hon. the

Member for Bonavista South made a comment that this minister will, on occasion,

do certain favours for members opposite. I do not like to let my buddies on this

side know that I am doing very much for you, but I occasionally do small things

to assist you - not necessarily to assist you but to assist the people you

represent. There are good projects in all parts of the Province and, quite

honestly, even though we sometimes argue and get at odds with each other over

certain things, I think at the end of the day, all of us have to admit that we

are all basically in here for the one thing, and that is to serve the people we

represent.

I will say, in closing, that all of these particular changes,

and we have talked to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities, we have talked to the fire fighters association as well as

NLAMA, and we have done a fair amount of consultation around the Province with

communities - Mount Pearl, for one example, Bonavista for another - that

basically have asked for a number of these changes. So this is not something

that has been created in my department. It is something for which municipalities

have been asking for years.

MR. FITZGERALD: Before you sit down, Minister, can you

(inaudible) situation whereby fire departments and fire-fighters in

unincorporated communities - are you considering allowing them to be able to

access the liability or the workers' compensation that is available to

incorporated fire-fighting (inaudible)?

MR. A. REID: That is another bill that will be introduced

to this House in the next few days. The answer is: Yes, it will be, but that is

another bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act",

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 42)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 17, Bill No. 41, "An Act

To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act". I would imagine this will take five or

six hours of debate.

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

Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 41)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the House

yesterday, a number of these bills are duplicates of other bills. This

particular one is a duplicate of the St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act

that we did yesterday in the House. It has to be introduced separately because

the City of Mount Pearl has a separate Act. We have already dealt with, in the

two or three previous Acts, the provision for the term of offices of

councillors, the new date for elections being September. Clause 2, in regard to

liability for nuisances, we dealt with that in the St. John's Act. Clause 3,

snow clearing and road maintenance, we dealt with that in the previous

Municipalities Act, and the time for elections of four years we have done.

We have already discussed this one in previous bills. I don't

know if anyone wishes to make a comment.

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

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

I want to make a few comments relative to Bill 41. I was

going to keep it relatively short but after the intimidating comments by the

Government House Leader, now I feel almost compelled to give one of my

long-winded, drawn out speeches on it. I see the galleries filling up and so on

and so forth, and the minister tells me here to keep on going for a while. Mr.

Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments.

On the issue of councillors taking office within two weeks of

being elected, we all agree that is a reasonable thing to do. However, it could

take place, as the minister says, prior to the expiration of that time if the

old council and new council make an agreement on the swearing in.

Mr. Speaker, on the liability for nuisances, I want to say to

the Government House Leader that the issue here is really one of trying to give

municipalities some protection. I made comments on that the other day when I was

talking about other parts of this legislation. Because the truth of the matter

is, if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had not put forward some

legislation thus far, we would have had no need to meet this Fall because, now

he tells us we have already done five or six pieces and he tells us there is, at

least, a couple more he wants to get in now under the wire. So I can see that

his Legislative agenda for the autumn was well researched and prepared; however,

we had been waiting for the whole new Municipalities Act, and while these things

are important that we are doing now, they essentially are housekeeping measures

and he is supposed to be doing a total revision of the Municipalities Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. That is a commitment he gave to the

Federation of Municipalities a year-and-a-half ago. They have had consultations

with the federation.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). When he comes back, I will give

him the hob-nailed boots.

MR. J. BYRNE: Repeat that again.

MR. H. HODDER: He should be doing a whole new

Municipalities Act and my hon. the critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis is

well aware of the discussions there. So what we are doing here really, is doing

some preliminary measures to get the minister through until the Municipalities

Act as has been promised. And I just remind the Government House Leader that we

have been promised that Act now for about three years, nothing has come forward

to the House. It seems to be like the new Act for the Department of Social

Services. We have had umpteen reports on these things but each year we hear the

same thing, we are going to bring in a new Act. The last major changes to the

Municipalities Act occurred in 1978, I say to the Government House Leader, when

Neil Windsor was the new Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

On the issue of changing the election date from November,

back to the last Tuesday in September, that is a good idea. I just wish that the

hon. the Premier had taken that advice last year when he decided that he would

have the election in the middle of February and the people of this Province

said: An election in the middle of February! You know why and particularly since

the mandate for the previous government was only about twenty-eight months or

thirty months into a sixty-month term at maximum. So we were but little over

half-way through. But at that time the Premier did not consider the negatives of

having an election in February, so we all were compelled to campaign in the

worst kind of weather. And I should say that I happen to believe in fixed

elections, not only at the municipal level, I believe in fixed terms at the

provincial level. I believe if we can function with fixed terms at the municipal

level every four years, we know and we have known since 1961 - in 1961 there

were municipal elections, 1965, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989 and 1993, and

going to 1997.

What I say to the hon. the minister is that we should look at

that as an example. If the government of the United States can operate on a

fixed term, therefore we should consider it at the provincial and national level

so that a four-year term is commendable to the government, so we don't rush off

- in our system here, the British parliamentary system, whenever the government

of the day considers it to be appropriate. And I acknowledge that governments of

all parties have tended to rush off to elections when they feel it is to their

greatest advantage. I think there is something wrong with that. The former

Premier, Clyde Wells, had made commitments that he would only have the elections

every four years. I think we lost something when we deviated from that. Because

that was a very positive initiative on his part.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make mention as well of Southlands

before I sit down. I note the minister has returned. I want to say to the hon.

the minister that we have had over the years some significant disagreements with

the minister over the government of the day's initiatives on amalgamation. I

well remember consulting with then-minister Eric Gullage in 1989, telling him

that his bulldozer kinds of tactics were not going to be effective. Amalgamation

itself is a good idea. However, it can't be forced from the top down. The

minister now is making some very positive initiatives in that area. I'm pleased

to see that some communities are coming together, but it is grass-roots driven,

and that is the way it should be. I say to the minister these are very positive

initiatives he is taking there to encourage municipalities which want to join

together to do so. There are some very good examples of that where it is very

successful. However, there has been a significant change from his department and

his role from that of the previous minister.

We want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that

when the previous government was divvying up the lands in the greater Avalon

North area, Avalon area, comprised of St. John's and its environs, there was, I

call it, a vindictive, sad thing done relative to Southlands. The minister knows

that the people who live in Southlands today want to be part of the City of

Mount Pearl. They say so. The minister knows that Southlands was an integral

part of the extension to Mount Pearl in November or in January of 1981. So that

consequently the municipality, in co-operation with Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing, planned for an orderly expansion from the boundaries of Mount Pearl, as

they were in the 1960s, to continue on into what then was a satellite city, they

called it first, afterwards called Newtown, then to go on into the area across

the arterial road, to expand Mount Pearl to make it a very viable second city.

However, in 1991-1992 the government of the day, in a fit of

discontent with the City of Mount Pearl, of which at that time I was the mayor,

decided they would go and say: Yes, we will let Mount Pearl stay as it is.

Perhaps because of the tremendous local identity, because of the efficiency that

Mount Pearl displayed, because it was very well run, according to the people who

write on these things, and I want to take some responsibility. But my role was

more that of the captain of the team rather than my saying that it was because

of my sole initiative. Not at all. The people of Mount Pearl were the driving

force.

When the government of the day made an announcement, I can

only say to hon. members that it was on a Monday evening when I heard the

government was going to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's. I remember

calling a council meeting at 10:30 at night and having everybody turn up, and

between that and Wednesday evening, we organized a petition. In a two-and-a-half

hour period in that week, on a Wednesday, we were able to collect nearly 17,000

signatures - in two-and-a-half hours. That petition was to argue against the

government proposal to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's.

Well, then the government of the day decided that, no, we

will accept that - after great pressure - but then the Premier, in a Cabinet

meeting, went up and took his blue pen and just simply drew a line all around

Mount Pearl, drew it up the highway and said, no this is what is going to

happen. These are the consequences. Everybody realizes that was a mistake. I say

to the minister today that it is time now for the government to forget about the

past, let us forget about the animosity that existed between Mount Pearl and St.

John's and Mount Pearl and the Provincial Government. It is past. The people of

Mount Pearl, the people of Southlands, are one community. So therefore I say to

the minister, recognize that and recognize that within his own caucus there are

people who hold the same viewpoint that I have. Therefore, it is time to make

another amendment. It is time to bring forward a further amendment so that the

city of Mount Pearl's boundaries can be changed to make sure that its natural

growth area, called Southlands, is able to be part of the city of Mount Pearl.

Not until that is done will we be able to say we have given Mount Pearl a

fairness and given a chance to be able to grow in the manner that it was

intended to grow as per its municipal plans.

So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these matters to the minister's

attention, telling him that I totally agree with what he is doing with the

amendments here but on the issue of Mount Pearl, I put forward the comments on

Southlands. I will repeat, the Premier, last February 20, two days before the

election call, came into Mount Pearl - and he had a rally and that is fine, that

is acceptable, that is the prerogative of the parties when they are campaigning

- came into Mount Pearl and they organized a luncheon with the Chamber of

Commerce, held at the Royal Canadian Legion on Park Avenue in Mount Pearl. It

was well attended. As one of the candidates in the election, I did not attend

the Premier's luncheon, obviously, but I made sure that I had people there. I

made sure that the Premier's comments were all taped and made sure that this was

all recorded. Therefore, I know exactly what the Premier said. The Premier

basically said he would assure that the whole issue of Southlands would be

revisited.

I don't want to say that the Premier said if Mount Pearl

voted totally Liberal, he would then change Southlands, but he certainly gave

the impression that voting for his party's candidates would make a big

difference. So Mount Pearl people voted very well because they had a commitment

from the Conservative Party saying that if the Conservatives won the election,

Southlands would be returned to Mount Pearl. The people of Mount Pearl were a

very wise group of voters and they maximized their benefits. They simply said,

`Well, we have two members and we will make sure that we have the best of all

possible worlds.' I just say to the hon. the minister, that it was a commitment

in writing from the Progressive Conservative Party that if they had been elected

to government, Southlands would have been returned to the city of Mount Pearl.

There was commitment by the Premier, two days before the election, and that was

commitment was circulated all around Mount Pearl by last minute telephone calls,

by bulletins that were coming out saying: The Premier has said that he will

revisit Southlands. So there was no mistaking that the message on the street

was, if you vote for the Liberals in this district, in Mount Pearl, that

Southlands would be looked at again, and looked at very positively, with the

intent of being returned to the city of Mount Pearl.

That commitment was made. Now we are asking the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs to deliver on that commitment.

MR. A. REID: I am not in the loop.

MR. H. HODDER: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs has admitted that he is not in the loop, so I am trying my best to get

the minister back into the loop.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind the minister of the

commitments of his leader. Obviously, I have asked questions on this matter in

the House of Assembly, and I shall continue to press it until we are assured

that it has been revisited. Let us not forget that the whole focus of the

re-visitation is to reconnect those two parts of Mount Pearl which are part of

an integral community and part of one, single unit. You cannot have it the way

it is now. It has to be looked at positively. Commitments were made, and the

people of Mount Pearl are now saying: Deliver on them.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I will defer to any of

my colleagues who might want to address this issue. I do understand that there

may not be any more speakers on this side, so I will now let the minister, if he

wishes, conclude second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get up for an hour on it.

MR. H. HODDER: I do believe that the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition wishes to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not.

MR. H. HODDER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does

not wish to speak. I conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: If there was ever a situation where I would

prefer to remain out of the loop, it has to do with the situation in Southlands.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will quote you on that.

MR. A. REID: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) quote you on that.

MR. A. REID: Yes, they will quote me on that, for sure.

Mr. Speaker, basically, as I said in my opening remarks, this

is a confirmation for

An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, and that

basically has been dealt with in the City of St. John's Act, the City of Corner

Brook Act, and the Municipalities Act.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 41)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act" (Bill No 40).

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

of Corner Brook Act". (Bill No. 40)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: The same thing again, Mr. Speaker. This one

is the same one as we passed, the one before, the City of Mount Pearl. It

basically coincides exactly with the Municipalities Act and, because it is

Corner Brook, we have to do the same thing with Corner Brook.

I will make one comment for my hon. colleagues across. There

was some mention of training fire-fighters, and if you look at clause 11 in the

Act, it basically says that the duties of a fire chief are to ensure that

fire-fighters are trained in standard first aid and basic life support, and that

a minimum standard for a first responder level certificate is completed within

twenty-four months after the date of the minister's authorization.

That basically compels that fire-fighters who respond to

first response medical situations must be qualified to administer to the first

responder. That basically will compel fire-fighters around the Province to have

the necessary medical training in order to respond to calls that would normally

be handled by ambulatory or ambulance drivers, or medical people.

I do not know if there is anyone on the other side who needs

to discuss this one or not, `Harvey'. I think I can go on to second reading on

this one. No? Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 40, "An Act To Amend The

City Of Corner Brook Act", but before I get into that, the minister, myself, and

the mayor of a local town met last week to discuss Bill 38 and the minister said

he would not bring it to the House until he had time to resolve a particular

situation. I went over this morning to remind the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs of that situation, he then reminded the Government House

Leader of the situation, and the Government House Leader is now getting all

upset because he feels we are spending too much time on some of these bills.

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

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: How does the hon. gentleman know what the

Government House Leader is going to do? Is he going to stand up and report

everything that goes on in conversations, and does he think he is going to stand

up over there and dictate how this House is going to be run? What a lot of

nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a disagreement between two

hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: A typical, no point of order, for the

Government House Leader. Actually, we did the Government House Leader a favour

this morning by not bringing Bill 38 forward because I had planned to take up

the full hour to discuss Bill 38. Now, we are on Bill 40 on which I am only

going to take five or ten minutes, so in actual fact we speeded up the process

of the House of Assembly here this morning by agreeing to go to Bill 40 and not

Bill 38.

The minister, has rightly stated, with respect to Bill 40,

that there is a lot of duplication with respect to the City of St. John's Act

and the Municipalities Act, and many of the same concerns are being addressed,

some housekeeping matters, and what have you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the points

that should be made, I suppose, is that this bill deals with fire-fighters

within the City of Corner Brook, their responsibilities, their responses, and

what they will be responsible for doing in the future. They will possibly be the

first called in response to an emergency other than maybe a fire, so they can be

called to respond to a medical situation. The minister says, by this bill, they

will be getting proper training to require them to be able to handle these

situations.

Another point here is the election of councillors. They will

take their place within two weeks of being elected, Mr. Speaker. Also, this bill

says, the same as in the city of St. John's, with respect to municipalities

across the Island, that the election date will be moved up again. We have had a

number of discussions and points made on that situation. This bill also deals

with the fire chief and the responsibilities of the fire chief which would

include all fire department activities, including activities related to fire and

other emergencies.

Basically, it also deals with the situation where, if a fire

department responds to an emergency situation outside the municipality, then the

fire chief who is responsible for that area would be the person who would take

charge of the situation. There is also reference to the liability of nuisance in

this bill. Many of the towns in this Province and the municipalities have been

sued for what could be considered acts of God, I suppose, or some minor problem

within any given system. That is being addressed, and rightly so.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also deals with Winter maintenance. We

had a lot of discussion on Winter maintenance and snow clearing, and the

problems that arise within the towns and municipalities. That is being addressed

also, a good move on the part of the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. I have pretty well said what I wanted to say on this bill. There is

also a clause there which will change the polling day from Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. J. BYRNE: Keep going and going like the copper top.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: Ever since he came number one in the poll of

Opposition members you can't shut him up.

MR. J. BYRNE: That has always been the case, I say to the

Minister of Education. Actually, since I've sat in this seat here, Mr. Speaker,

and I'm directly opposite the Minister of Education, I've been watching him very

carefully. I see when he stands to say hello to someone it takes him ten minutes

to say hello. I'm taking my cues from the Minister of Education. When he answers

a question he goes on and on like the copper top battery. He goes on almost as

much as the Minister of Health. Actually, what is going on now, we have another

member in the House of Assembly, one of the newer members, actually, and it is

the Premier himself, who when he is asked a question he doesn't answer the

question. He goes completely 180 degrees reverse away from the question.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Government House Leader,

for Hansard's (inaudible) -

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

I remind hon. members that we are debating

An Act To Amend

The City of Corner Brook Act. The Chair doesn't see much relevance in the debate

right now in terms of

An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling,

but I'm only responding to questions and concerns thrown at me from across the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually, the Chair doesn't care which side

of the House. The relevance right now leaves a lot to be desired.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in that case then I will

become very relevant. Subclause 1 of this bill will amend

section 2 of the City

of Corner Brook Act by defining the term fire fighter. It is going to define the

term fire fighter. We all pretty well know, or have a fair idea, what a fire

fighter is. In more recent years of course we have females entering into the

fire fighting field in the Province. They are being well trained and doing a

very good job within the various fire departments. I'm not sure how many female

fire fighters the City of Corner Brook has, but I'm sure the City of St. John's

has one or two, I'm pretty well convinced of that.

Also this act will be defining other emergencies and will be

saying what responses the fire department will be responsible for responding to,

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker. That is a good idea. I think every fire

department, volunteer or paid professional fire departments, should have a

definition of what they are to respond to, when they are supposed to respond,

have respond times in place. That is a good point again.

This is a good bill, I would say to the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, of course. It is conjunction with the previous bills

that have gone through, the past three or four, the municipalities, the City of

St. John's act, the City of Mount Pearl act, and the amendments to those acts.

Again, that is in agreement, so we really don't have a lot of problem with that.

As I said earlier, it designates the city fire chief as being

responsible for the organization and training of the people within the fire

department. This will include all fire department activities including

activities related to fire and other emergencies. Again the fire chief will be

responsible to see that certain individuals get certain training, and in

particular, I believe within the first twenty-four months - I believe it is

twenty-four months - the people who are going to be responding to emergency

situations which are emergency medical situations will have a certain level of

training to be able to respond to these situations, and rightly so.

That begs the question, who is going to be paying the cost

for these people to get this training? Will it be the municipalities? Will it be

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs? Or will it be some

combination of both with respect to the training themselves of the fire

fighters? Obviously with this bill, and with all the bills that have gone

through and talked about the training of fire fighters to respond to emergency

medical situations, there is going to be a fair number of these people wanting

this training. There is going to be a fair number of fire fighters wanting this

training. So what is now the process and what are the capabilities of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs or the people who do the training to handle the numbers

of people who would be wanting the training? That is a concern I suppose that we

should be looking at.

Also, as I stated earlier, with respect to the nuisance

problem with the municipalities where they are being sued over the years, some

of the smaller municipalities, the minister stated previously when I asked him a

question across the House that this will be addressed in regulations, which

would be a definition of `nuisance', Mr. Speaker, so that is a good thing I

would think and it is nice to know that when it goes to court or appeals or what

have you, that the people making the decisions will have some kind of a

reference or guide to help them determine what a `nuisance' is and if the town

should or should not pay.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with winter maintenance

and snow clearing and what have you, of local roads again, and it is my

understanding that it is similar to the other acts that have been discussed in

this House recently, and that would now give the authority to the town to have

an automobile taken away if it is blocking a road in midwinter or if it is in

the middle of a snow storm or if people are leaving their cars on the sides of

the roads too often when it is not an emergency situation, than to have them

going to the police to take the cars away, they can actually call up a tow truck

themselves and have it taken away and stored and probably, I would imagine, have

the individual who owns the car pay for the towing and storage costs.

I know there are other bills that the Government House Leader

is anxious to bring before the House today, so just a few other points I suppose

I would make with respect to the election day, being the last Tuesday in

September. Of course, it used to be the first week or second week in November

and now it has moved up the election day to basically two months and it

certainly would give ample opportunity now to the new councillors who are

elected to have time to study the previous budget, to get to know the

regulations of the municipality, to get to know the zoning of the municipality,

to get to know the boundaries of the municipalities in which they live, and to

then be able to help prepare themselves to get into a new budget for the

upcoming year and by doing this, Mr. Speaker, they can make some informed,

intelligent decisions rather than just going in and maybe, if there are one or

two councillors who have been there from the previous council, then everything

is just given to them, it is signed and passed and what have you. So it is a

good move as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in previous debates in the House.

There is also one other item here which says that the

fire-fighters are trained in standard first aid and basic life support and that

the minimum standard for this is four months. I think we have pretty well

addressed that and - Mr. Speaker, I think I have addressed the concerns here

with respect to this bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act" so I

will take my place.

Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. A. REID: Bill 40, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner

Brook Act", I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook

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

tomorrow. (Bill No.40).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 15, "An Act To Amend The

City Of St. John's Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 38).

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

Of St. John's Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 38).

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I only wish - and I say this to my hon. and

good friend from Mount Pearl - if his colleague from Pouch Cove or from down in

the East and my colleague could get along as well as you and I, we would not be

running into a lot of trouble that goes on in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: That is right.

I need to make one comment on this particular bill. This will

sort of tighten up the regional fire services bill that we introduced to the

House some years or two years ago. Even though there is a commitment to the Town

of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, I think that we can reach the commitment

in third reading, in Committee stage. I don't think there are any other problems

with this as such other than the fact that the member and I have agreed that we

would deal with a particular question as it related to one of his communities,

and I really cannot see any reason why we cannot give second reading on this

bill today and then at committee level introduce an amendment, if we need to

introduce the amendment.

I make the commitment to the hon. member and to this House

that I will proceed immediately with a reaction to the mayor in his letter, and

if we can come up with an agreement in the next week, then at third reading we

will introduce -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) committee.

MR. A. REID: At committee level we can introduce the

amendment that the member wishes to introduce, or I will introduce it; it is up

to himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: That the mayor wishes to introduce.

MR. A. REID: That the mayor wishes to introduce, and at

that particular point in time then we can handle the question of Logy Bay -

Middle Cove - Outer Cove.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Well, I have quite a few words to say on this bill and I am

going to start at the beginning.

It is sad to say, in this House of Assembly, when a minister

of the Crown works out a deal not to bring a bill until a certain municipality

has a right to deal with it -

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

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: One lesson the hon. gentleman should learn here

is that a deal between gentlemen does not become something that you stand up in

this House and debate. The House Leader has learned it very well, and the hon.

gentleman should know that you do not stand up in this House and, in a fit of

tantrum, blow it all out. Otherwise, people will not deal with you. It is as

simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling.

Again, no point of order from the Government House Leader. He loves to stand in

his place and give no points of order, but he calls them points of order. He

gets a chance to say a few words and blow of a bit of steam. That is what he is

up to all of the time, blowing off a bit of steam.

The fact of the matter is that there was no deal made between

myself and the Government House Leader. There was nothing done. He was the one

who got up. What happened was that there was an agreement between a minister of

the Crown and a municipality.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

a point of order.

MR. A. REID: I do not know if it is a point of order or

not, Mr. Speaker, but there is no agreement between me and the mayor, or

anybody, as it relates to this particular bill and whether or not we will hold

up this particular bill until an agreement could be reached. There is no

agreement. I never made that commitment. I categorically state that. It is a

personal point of order. I cannot have another member of the House getting up

and making statements that are not correct when they refer to me personally. I

take exception to the fact that someone would say I had an agreement. I did not

have any agreement with the mayor or anyone else, or with the member, as it

relates to this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member going to speak to the

debate or to the point of order? There is no point of order. There is a

disagreement between two hon. members.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling,

another `no point of order'. It is basically, I agree, a disagreement between

myself and the minister. Why all this came about is because the Government House

Leader became a little bit sooky today, for some reason or other, and he did not

get the bills through that he was planning on getting through.

Here is the situation: He is bringing a bill before this

House now, Bill 38 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) teach you a lesson.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you are not. You are not teaching me

any lessons, I say to the Government House Leader. You are teaching me not to

trust you. That is what you are teaching me.

I was planning on saying a few words on Bill 38, and hoping

it would be a few words, but it is going to be quite a few words, I say to the

Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this bill now is going to give the City of St.

John's the regional fire department, and they are going to be responsible for

implementation and responding - and on the board itself, I believe, there will

be representatives from the City of Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's. That

is all well and good. It is probably good for the City of St. John's and the

City of Mount Pearl that they would share their services on a per capita basis

and what have you, but this goes back to 1992 and before. It goes back to

amalgamation.

At that time when amalgamation was being discussed, and most

people in the area knew it could not work in the Northeast Avalon because of the

way it was being approached - not necessarily that the simple logistics of

amalgamation could not be worked out, but the way it was approached was the

problem at that point in time - and the minister of the day was told that by me

at a meeting in his office at 8:00 a.m. that it could not work because of the

approach. That is not the current minister. Now, I want to get that quite clear,

it was the then minister. He went and pursued it in a heavy-handed fashion and,

of course, we all know the results of amalgamation.

Now, the present minister is taking a different approach with

respect to regionalization. Regionalization can very well be a positive thing,

and regionalization can be a positive thing with respect to fire-fighting on the

Northeast Avalon. What happened, back then, when the regional fire department

was put in place, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, Portugal Cove, Paradise,

Petty Harbour, St. John's, and Mount Pearl were put on this board. They were put

into this regional fire committee. They had no choice. They were just thrown in

there without any consultation whatsoever.

The town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove put a

representative on that board, which was myself as the mayor, and so did the town

of Paradise, and the town of Portugal Cove, as did the town of Petty Harbour.

St. John's had eleven representatives on that board and Mount Pearl, I think,

had five or six. That figure I stand to be corrected on. We had four towns, Logy

Bay-Outer Cove-Middle Cove, Portugal Cove, Paradise, Petty Harbour, four up

against something like sixteen or seventeen.

We attended a number of meetings at that point in time to try

and make this work. Of course they came up with a formula to charge the smaller

towns, and the smaller towns could not agree with that formula, Mr. Speaker,

because they saw their fire rates going up as much as ten, fifteen, or twenty

times, so how could the smaller towns afford to pay for that? I know, for

example, that the town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove were paying $15,000 a

year at that time. Now, that is a small amount of money but it is the amount of

money that was requested by the Department of Municipal Affairs. That is where

the money was being paid, to the department, so they paid their $15,000 each

year.

Now, the town only incorporated in 1986 and this was 1989, so

they came up with a formula that was going to be based on property value,

property assessment within each municipality, and the towns did not agree with

that because they felt they were not getting the same service as the larger

municipalities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl, and they really did not have

any say. They had four total against somewhere around sixteen or seventeen votes

on that committee.

I remember being at a meeting, at a regional fire committee

meeting down at City Hall in St. John's and the formula was being discussed and

how it was not fair. I am going to get into the reasons why the formula was not

fair. I remember at that time the Deputy Mayor making the statement, that they

would listen to the small towns and then do what was best for St. John's. Now,

what kind of a working relationship would that be, Mr. Speaker, so I said to the

committee, you are wasting my time. There is no point in my being here if you

are going to have that kind of attitude. It is not an attitude of cooperation,

so I got up and left the meeting because there was no point in carrying it any

further.

We had done our best, we had tried. As a matter of fact we

had made a presentation to the committee, a presentation at that very meeting

which I have here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, and it was ignored. It was very

logical and made presentations as to why the rates being charged to the smaller

municipalities were unfair. Ther