May 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 21

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 7 - 13 marks National Drinking Water Week in Canada. The

purpose of this week is to educate Canadians on the importance of having

adequate supplies of clean drinking water, to heighten awareness of the fragile

nature of our water supplies and to promote the role each individual has in

protecting those supplies.

In this Province we are fortunate to have an abundance of

fresh water. That abundance, however, does not mean we can waste these

resources. In fact, we must be more vigilant to protect those supplies and to

ensure their long-term viability. There are communities in this Province facing

water supply issues such as availability and contamination. Through proper

management, however, these problems can be minimized and corrected.

Mr. Speaker, water, like any other natural resource, is a

commodity. It has a social and a commercial value. Many of our most important

industries like hydro power, forestry and tourism depend on our water supplies.

As well, emerging industries, such as bottling water and exporting water, are

looking at our water resources to bring economic benefit to the Province. As

these other demands on our water supply continue to grow they will require

competent management procedures.

Mr. Speaker, my department is actively involved in assessing

the status of our water resources and determining current and future demands and

opportunities. In recent months we have carried out a number of studies funded

under the Canada-Newfoundland Water Resources Management Agreement. These

studies address, among other issues, the economic value of water to the

Province, the value of protecting water supplies and the demands put on water in

various watershed areas.

I would like to assure this hon. House during this National

Drinking Water Week, that the Department of Environment is committed to the

protection of our most important natural resource for the benefit of the people

of this Province for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I would like to first of all thank the minister for a copy of

his statement today before the House sat. The minister speaks of community water

supply issues and water contamination issues. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

mention to the minister that there is a community in my district that now has

nine homes being serviced by wells which are polluted.

I contacted the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, the Department of Environment, and the Department of Health and they

did absolutely nothing to help the people in that situation, Mr. Speaker. We

agree that it is important to protect the water supplies within the Province,

not only for health reasons but for economic reasons, as the minister mentioned

here today. The minister says that the Department of Environment is committed to

protecting the water supplies of the Province.

I sincerely hope that is more than just water off a duck's

back.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Like a red rag to a bull, I say to the

minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier.

I say to the Premier, it is about time he showed up for the House of Assembly,

to face the music on Trans City.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking the Premier

about communications between his fall guy, the Deputy Premier, and himself.

Now, the Premier appointed the Deputy Premier to chair a

special four-member Cabinet committee on the awarding of the lucrative hospital

construction contracts. The Deputy Premier at the time was also President of

Treasury Board, President of the Executive Council, and by the time the dirty

deed was done, he was also acting Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Will the Premier confirm that the deputy minister informed

him that awarding the contracts to Trans City involved violating the spirit of

the Public Tender Act, and that the Deputy Premier recommended to the Premier

that the projects be re-tendered?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before I address the many

comments the Leader of the Opposition made, may I offer her sincere

congratulations on her election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I not only offer her sincere

congratulations, I say to her, having been in that role myself, I acknowledge

that it is a role of great significance to the public governmental process, the

political process of this Province, and I wish her well in that role for many,

many years to come, but the congratulations are indeed sincere and I want to

emphasize that.

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in

leading into the question said something to the effect that it was about time I

was in the House to answer for this. Well, I have been in the House all along

except Monday. I had a meeting with three key federal Cabinet ministers in

Ottawa to deal with a matter of major concern to the Province. With apologies to

the Leader of the Opposition, I have to say to her that I felt that came ahead

of the necessity for my being here to answer her questions right on that day. I

will be happy to address them at any time in the future.

On the question itself, Mr. Speaker, we have no formal Deputy

Premier position. The President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, when

the Premier is away, stands in and is Acting Premier. He performed the

responsibility that he did in relation to these health care centres, not in any

capacity as Deputy Premier or - what was the latest comment, some sort of fall

guy or something? He did it in the normal discharge of his duties, and I have to

say to the House, did an absolutely excellent job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He did a superb job for the people of this

Province in relation to the matter. Not only is there nothing to justify,

explain or apologize for, I can only express to the House great pride in the

approach that the government took in relation to this matter. I am a little bit

uncomfortable with some of the ineptness with which the approach was carried

out, that has caused some of the problem. I am not terribly proud of that degree

of ineptness in terms of calling for proposals in relation to it and it caused

some difficulty with the process, but I am totally satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that

it is only a matter of process, not a matter of anything else that was wrong in

relation to this.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Premier.

Nice try, but no answer. I will repeat the question: Did the

Deputy Premier, the Acting Premier, the Member for Gander, now the Minister of

Finance, did that minister advise the Premier that awarding the three hospital

construction contracts to Trans City involved violating the spirit of the Public

Tender Act? Did the Acting Deputy Premier, did the Acting Premier recommend to

the Premier that those projects be re-tendered?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear

on that. I think the - I am just trying to recollect now. The assessment done by

the officials - as a result of a letter I received a short time ago from the

Member for St. John's Centre, I had a full assessment done of it and I have just

gotten the report. It came to me only this morning when I got back in the office

and I haven't really had a chance to deal fully with it yet, but I will be able

to answer the specifics of that in detail. As a matter of fact, I may well make

the whole matter public, but in fairness, as I agreed with the Member for St.

John's Centre that I would meet with him after I got the assessment and answered

his questions, I will do that first. Then I expect I will probably make the

whole matter public.

No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not advise me

that this was contrary to the spirit of the Public Tender Act. My recollection

of the assessment indicates that when Cabinet made the decision on October 17 to

proceed with the matter, we had, in the same time frame, been dealing with a

claim against the government in respect to the simulator, under a contract where

we had awarded it to the lowest bidder and the other bidder was claiming we

should have awarded it to them because they, on a fair assessment, were the

preferred bidder, so we were aware of the possibility of claims being made, so

we asked for a legal opinion with respect to the approach that we were taking

under the terms of the Public Tender Act and we delayed the implementation of

the decision of October 17 until we got that legal opinion, and that legal

opinion confirmed that there was no impediment under the Public Tender Act but

that we would have to report to the House an exception to the Act, and I believe

that opinion has been tabled.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I take it the Premier is now admitting that he was aware

of a legal opinion of the senior government lawyer, John Cummings, saying that

proceeding with the award to Trans City violated the spirit of the Public Tender

Act, and went ahead and gave the contract to Trans City despite that legal

warning.

Will the Premier admit, then, that he personally is

responsible for giving the contracts to Trans City, and that he personally is

responsible for the government breaking the law, as has now been ruled by the

Supreme Court Trial Division, at a cost to the taxpayers of this Province of

many millions of dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier and as a

member of the Cabinet, I am personally responsible, as all other Cabinet

ministers are, for every single decision government takes. In this particular

case I am quite proud of the decision that we took because, in fact, it got the

best deal this Province has gotten in public works endeavours for quite some

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The best deal this Province has gotten for

quite some time, so not only do I admit responsibility; I happily claim my full

share of the responsibility, along with all other Cabinet ministers, for the

decision.

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

Opposition.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier defend his

responsibility for the government breaking the law, his responsibility for

withholding vital information, including that legal opinion, from several

ministers in his own Cabinet? How can the Premier answer to the taxpayers of

this Province for the several additional millions of dollars that are going to

have to be paid under the Trans City arrangement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two things, Mr. Speaker, totally

wrong in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. The statement: How can I

justify breaking the law? We didn't break the law. The opinion said very clearly

that proceeding in the way in which we did would be in accord with the Public

Tender Act. I happen to share that view. I've had some background as a lawyer

and I don't disagree with the opinion that was delivered to Cabinet, so I had no

hesitation in moving in accordance with the recommendation.

The second thing that the Leader just raised was: How could I

justify withholding information? I didn't withhold information. Nobody withheld

information that I'm aware of, and the assessment that was done makes it very

clear that no information was withheld from any member of Cabinet. Every member

of Cabinet had all of the information that I had. Every iota of information that

I had, every other member of Cabinet had it. So far as I know I had as much as

every other member too, so nothing was being withheld from anybody.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: Is the

Premier admitting then that he and all of the Cabinet ministers knew that the

Department of Justice's senior lawyer, John Cummings, advised the acting

Premier, now Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that proceeding with

awarding the contracts to Trans City violated the spirit of the Public Tender

Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, now I can stand here in the

House and read the five-page legal opinion (inaudible). I can take the time of

Question Period to do that. Because what the Leader of the Opposition has done

is misrepresented the position. The opinion dated October 21, 1991 has been

tabled in the House, so I will not take up the time of Question Period to read

it in detail, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition and the other members of

the House, read the opinion that has been tabled and you will see very clearly

that it does not say what the Leader of the Opposition represents that it says.

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

further supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, I have not only read that legal

opinion; I have also read the judgement of Mr. Justice Orsborn of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland ruling that the government, at the Premier's instigation

he now admits, broke the law by violating the Public Tender Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I ask the Premier: Is he now indicating that

the Member for St. John's Centre and the other former ministers who claim that

they were not privy to the information contained in Mr. Cummings' legal opinion

are lying? Is that what the Premier is now saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do want to correct some of

the gross misstatements by the Leader of the Opposition that this was done at my

personal instigation - this decision was taken by Cabinet at my personal

instigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just tell the House... In fact,

when this decision was, in fact, taken on October 17 I wasn't in the Cabinet. I

was in the Cabinet for part of the meeting. I had to leave and go. It was after

I, in fact, left the Cabinet, but I knew what the paper recommended. I supported

it, it was the right thing to do, and if I had been in the Cabinet I would have

spoken strongly in favour of it. So, for the Leader of the Opposition to make

these outlandish claims in this way just demonstrates how lacking in credibility

her total position is.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier still isn't answering the question. He knows full

well that the final decision to give that contract to Trans City was made after

October 17, 1991. Now, I ask again: Is the Premier now saying that the Member

for St. John's Centre and the other former ministers who say they didn't know

about that legal advice are lying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker; what I am saying is this:

The decision, the review of the documents that has recently been completed by

the officials of Executive Council, indicates clearly the decision was made on

October 17, 1991. At the same time there was a discussion of another legal case

going on involving the Can-Am simulator and Cabinet instructed that the decision

not be implemented until we obtained a legal opinion because of the issue that

had been raised in the Can-Am simulator case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Cabinet?

PREMIER WELLS: Cabinet did that at the time. I didn't

instruct Cabinet. I think that is the part of the Cabinet meeting I wasn't there

for.

Anyway, they decided to do that and they waited and they got

the legal opinion. The legal opinion was quite clear. A week or so later at the

next Cabinet meeting the decision to proceed was reconfirmed. This is what the

documentation indicates very clearly. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question

about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, let's talk about the other paper for

a minute. That other paper appears in three places. It was dated October 31,

1991 and it appears in the file of Cabinet papers of the former Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation who had resigned ten days before. I started

to wonder: How did that appear in the former minister's documents when he had

resigned, hadn't been there for ten days before? That is a bit of an anomaly.

Mr. Speaker, that Cabinet paper has no markings on it or no stamp on it. It is

just a draft with the signature of the President of Treasury Board.

There is another copy of it that appears in a file of Cabinet

documents that they keep for me in Executive Council. It doesn't appear anywhere

in my office but it appears in my Cabinet papers file in the Executive Council

office. No stamp on it.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a stamp on the one we have.

PREMIER WELLS: Just a minute now. Members asked for an

explanation, I will tell them what I know. No stamp on it. No markings of any

kind on it.

The third place, and the only other place where it appears,

yet another anomaly, is in the files of Treasury Board. Not the President of

Treasury Board's personal files but in the files of Treasury Board. There, Mr.

Speaker, it has the Executive Council stamp on it. It is the original document

and it has the Executive Council stamp on it.

Ordinarily when a Cabinet paper is prepared and signed by the

Cabinet minister it goes up to Executive Council and it is logged in the record

- the date and time when it was received - and the Executive Council stamp is

put on it. There is no record of it in the log. It was never received as far as

they know in Executive Council office. There is no record of it ever having been

logged in Executive Council. The original doesn't appear in the Executive

Council files, it appears down in Treasury Board's files. Another anomaly.

MR. WINDSOR: Who sent it (inaudible) Executive Council

(inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: I have no idea. I can't figure out, nor

can anybody. So you have three anomalies.

AN HON. MEMBER: How naive do you think we are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The members asked for - what I know about

it I'm telling them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a bunch of fairy tales.

PREMIER WELLS: What do I conclude from that? What does

one conclude from...?

MR. WINDSOR: Who has been taken to task in Executive

Council for letting that stamp out of the office?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I can't figure out how it happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: All those who've looked at it don't know.

Was it planted? I don't know. I have no basis for suggesting that it was. I just

point out that those three anomalies exist. I don't know where or how it came.

It was never seen by any Cabinet minister. No Cabinet minister had it or saw it.

It was not the opinion of -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) who signed it!

PREMIER WELLS: I will let that minister answer for that.

MR. WINDSOR: He must have had his eyes closed when he

signed it.

PREMIER WELLS: That was not the opinion of the committee.

The opinion of the committee that went before Cabinet was attached to the

Cabinet paper subsequently and that reflected it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that the Minister of Finance does a

better job as Acting Premier then the Premier does of acting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now the Premier asked: What can one conclude

about the incredible story of the paper signed by the Minister of Finance dated

October 31, 1991? Well what one could conclude is that the orders to shred were

not carried out totally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Elizabeth Marshall, the current Auditor

General, testified in court that orders were given to shred documents, the

Supreme Court Judge in his written judgement said information had disappeared.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to get to a

question and we should stay away from speculation of that sort.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if she has a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I say to hon. members, I am having trouble

at times hearing from both sides of the House and I would ask that we ask one

question at a time rather than when a speaker is on their feet to have more

questions. So I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to have the floor,

please.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, won't the Premier confirm that a

paper dated October 31, 1991 bearing the signature of the now Acting Premier,

Minister of Finance, then Chair of the Premier's special committee, exists? Will

the Premier confirm that in that document the Minister of Finance; (

a) warns of

legal problems with an award to Trans City, says pointedly that awarding to

Trans City would violate the spirit of the Public Tender Act and would be

difficult to defend; (

b) that in that paper the Minister of Finance recommends

strongly that the contracts be re-tendered so that all interested contractors

would compete on a level playing field? Will the Premier indicate whether the

information contained in the paper was conveyed to the Member for St. John's

Centre and all the members of the Cabinet at the time in question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that

such a document exists. I have no hesitation in saying it. As a matter of fact,

I think we made it available. It was tabled in the court and it has the

Executive Council stamp dated October 31 on it. It never went near the Executive

Council office as far as the Executive Council records indicate. I have heard

the minister say this was not his view, this is not the view of the committee.

So how does it appear?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I am prepared to answer the questions the

Leader of the Opposition asked, Mr. Speaker, but I am not prepared to try and

shout down the cacophony of noise opposite. If they want the answer I would -

MR. WINDSOR: You don't like the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is very clear, it is obvious

that they don't like the answers and they are trying to prevent them from coming

out, Mr. Speaker, but it is not working. Their fondest dreams are not going to

come true on this, I can tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the official to find out where this

paper came from, who prepared it, how it got in the process and all of this. No

civil servant remembers specifically preparing this paper. One civil servant

says: That sounds like me, I might well have prepared that paper. It sounds like

what I would (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Are you telling me he does not remember

writing a paper like that?

PREMIER WELLS: I can only tell you and you will see the

full report when I make it available to everybody, Mr. Speaker, after I have had

a chance to review it.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only speculate. That is

all we can do at this stage, speculate about how this came into being. As hon.

members opposite who served in the Cabinet before will know, and all on this

side who served in the Cabinet will know, frequently public servants, or a

public servant will prepare a position paper that they think Cabinet, the

committee, or the minister, may take as a position on an issue. This was

prepared apparently after the opinion was received from Mr. Cummings, and

whichever civil servant prepared this probably did so on the basis of what he

felt might be judged to be a position the committee should take after receiving

the legal opinion.

It was never the opinion of the committee. No member of the

committee saw it or endorsed it. I will let the Minister of Finance explain how

his signature appears on it. I can't do it. He has personal knowledge and I

don't think my hearsay is the right thing to provide the House.

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

of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: Is it not true that all that paper does,

anyway, is summarize Mr. Cumming's legal advice which was that awarding to Trans

City would violate the Public Tender Act and would likely generate a court

challenge? And is not the recommendation of the Minister of Finance simply a

logical step acting on that legal advice, namely, that the contracts be

re-tendered so that all interested contractors could compete on a fair and

balanced basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Here is what Mr. Cumming's opinion says. I

will just read the last paragraph, but I commend the whole of it to members. `In

summary, Cabinet does have the authority to award these contracts to Trans City

Holdings under

Section 8 of the act even though it is not the lowest or

preferred bidder. However, this will require the tabling of the reasons for the

contract award in the House of Assembly,' which, as all hon. members know, was

done. `Therefore, Cabinet must consider whether or not it is appropriate to

exercise its authority in this situation where the lack of precision in the

tender call resulted in a complicated analysis process requiring considerable

subjective judgement which is not readily explainable to non-experts.'

Now, there is the ineptness that I was talking about, the way

in which the proposal was put out, the interchangeable use of tender and

proposal, and so on. All of that ineptness, Mr. Speaker, caused this kind of

complication, but portrays no improper act by anybody, and no improper motive by

anybody. Everything was dealt with on a straightforward basis and that was the

only complication. This

summary position that some civil servants prepared did

not reflect the opinion, so I say to the Leader of the Opposition, no, her

position is quite incorrect, it does not do that.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: I ask the Premier: Wasn't the improper act and

the improper motive decided by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland this winter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and about the decision of

the Supreme Court of Newfoundland I will say no more until the Court of Appeal

has rendered its judgement on it, except to say, no, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of

the Opposition is not correct.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, why was he hell-bent on giving the three

lucrative hospital construction contracts to Tom Hickman, Bill Case, and Joe

Butler, despite the legal warning, despite the contents of that legal opinion,

that he failed to heed the warning about violation of the spirit of the Public

Tender Act, and despite the horrendous cost to the taxpayers of the Province?

Now, it is common knowledge that Tom Hickman was the major

contributor to the Premier's $50,000-a-year salary supplement over the two years

that he was Leader of the Opposition. That is a total of over $100,000. I ask

the Premier: Just how much did Tom Hickman, Bill Case, and Joe Butler put in

your pocket?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, some people, when they can't

deal with issues on their merits, will stoop to anything to further their

political position or their political drive. I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, it doesn't matter what kind of inane comments she makes or what kind

of unfounded allegations she makes, she can't turn what is essentially a silk

purse into a sow's ear.

Now the silk purse might be a little limp because of

ineptness in handling it and presenting it, but I can say to the House, I can

stand here with great pride and say: nobody on this side of the House that I

know of, nobody had anything to do with this in any way that was in any manner

incorrect. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can make these kinds

of statements, without any foundation whatsoever, for as long as she wishes. She

can't make them true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the hon. member proceeds with further questions, I

refer her to page 142 of Beauchesne, paragraph 484, in which it says and I

quote, subparagraph (3): "In the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted

by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself as a political

institution;" and the

part I want to quote is as follows: "or to impute to any

Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case;" I

draw to the member's attention, I think the last question probably offended that

rule and I ask her to refrain from imputing to any member unworthy motives.

Thank you.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: I have a final question for the Premier. He

just -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member has the floor. I would ask her to ask her

question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier just used the phrase -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - `turning a silk purse into a sow's ear.' I

would like to ask him whether Tom Hickman turned a hefty contribution to the

Premier's salary supplement into three lucrative hospital construction

contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just read to the hon. member that that offends our rules of

propriety here. The hon. member is not allowed to ask questions that impute that

any member of the House has engaged in any form of corruption or anything of

this sort and with all due respect, I think the hon. member should take a

different line of questioning.

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

report filed by Mr. Justice Noel of the Trial Division in response to the

commission given to him by Minute of Council 95-0153, which is Order in Council

95-082, and the Order in Council which was tabled earlier is dated 08 March.

Judge Noel's report is dated 26 April. There are copies for members opposite and

for the press. Members who sit on this side were provided with copies a few

minutes before the House met, Sir.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to table the C.A. Pippy Park Commission Annual Report

for 1993-'94.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: The motion to be debated today is Motion No.

5, which stands in the name of my friend, the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, the hon. the Member for St. John's

Centre.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present this motion dealing with what is a very

serious and pressing matter in St. John's, and in particular, in the district

which I represent.

Last Fall, a resolution similar to this was approved by the

Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador in session, and I am very grateful to

members of caucus on this side for allowing this motion to be debated here

today. I am looking forward very much to support from the side opposite,

particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who I know has a great social

conscience. I remember, in Corner Brook some years ago when we were fighting the

political campaign - she was neutral at that point - when she was representing

women's rights, and she went to all the campaign headquarters and demanded to

know where we stood on women's rights. Since that time, I have seen her

operating in various meetings, the AIDS committee and so on, and I know she has

a great social conscience. So I look forward to support from the other side of

the House as well.

On the night of December 21, 1992, we had in St. John's a

very serious fire. The fire broke out near the CLB Armoury and wiped it out. It

wiped out the Dominion store on the corner of Parade Street there and also swept

the Department of Social Services building on the upper side of Harvey Road,

wiped out much of the lower side of Harvey Road and proceeded down Long's Hill.

A number of houses were destroyed and quite a number of families were

dispossessed. Mr. Speaker, the fear that arose in the city of St. John's, at

that point, I think has not been surpassed since the fires of the last century.

What we have in St. John's is a very serious fire problem which threatens us all

the time and which must be addressed.

I remember, some members may not, but some members should

remember the fire that devastated Harbour Grace on August 17, 1944. It destroyed

the whole business premises of Harbour Grace and prevented that town from ever

regaining its ascendency in that area. Fire presents an extremely dangerous

situation.

I remember being in a fire myself, in a hotel in Winnipeg,

when the Liberals had a convention, and we tried to escape down through the

-people were burned in that fire and I remember the fear that was in everybody's

hearts as we wondered if so and so was safe and somebody else was safe. Fire is

something that we have to be very much concerned with. Every year in St. John's,

people die, burned to death in fire - not many, but some, too many, and there is

no need of it. There are situations which exist that must be corrected. I refer

to houses divided up into bedsitting rooms where unrelated people are living,

sharing a common kitchen, sharing a bathroom and very often pretty well

unsupervised. I don't wish to castigate every bedsitting room arrangement but

there are some in very serious situations.

Let me read to you something that came on my desk just before

caucus, just before the meeting here. My secretary took a call from a

constituent, and here is what the constituent said - I am going to have to go

and see this constituent now after I leave here today - she says, `Wires hanging

off the hall walls; holes in the walls throughout, especially close to the

doorway; no cover on the heaters, space heaters; no smoke detectors; no toilet

seat; no faucet handle; hole next to the bed; springs shot in the bed; fridge

hasn't been cleaned, etcetera, etcetera.' That is not typical but it is not

uncommon. We have houses divided up into one, two or three apartments where

different people and different families are living. And people are afraid, in

some apartments, as to what the people in the other apartments are up to. It is

a very serious situation when you have somebody in an apartment situation where

you cannot control a fire.

Years ago when we all lived in various parts of the Province,

when we lived in our house, there were also fire hazards, but always somebody

was there to keep control in the nighttime, to make sure that the fires were out

or appropriately banked. But when you are living in a place where there are

multiple family units and there is no connection, how can you be sure of your

life?

In parts of St. John's there are a great many people who have

not much money; my district has a great many poor people, people who are on

social assistance, people who are not on social assistance but barely managing

to feed their families, and sometimes they can't do that. The food banks are

full - not full of food but full of people looking for food. I visited one last

week and they keep telling me the sad stories.

I was visited by a delegation of nuns the other day who are

very concerned about the fire in St. John's and the living conditions of so many

people here; and it is not only people in St. John's, it is people from all over

the Province who are taking up residence in St. John's. They are leaving the

serious situations that occur in rural areas and moving into St. John's because

they think there is something more here, and they end up, very often in my

district, in bedsitting rooms or small apartments and trying to live.

Now, I don't wish to make a hard time for landlords; there

are some extremely decent landlords in this Province, in this town. I came

across a situation yesterday where somebody had a fire in their basement in an

apartment house, and the upper people had smoke damage to their possessions and

they wanted to move out. The landlord didn't have any obligation to return their

damage deposit but the landlord did return the damage deposit and gave them

their money back, even though the month was half gone and it was not the problem

of the landlord. So there are decent landlords in the city but there are some

who are not, just as there are tenants who are careless. So there are people all

over the Province congregating on the City of St. John's.

Two young people were murdered downtown not long ago; they

were from St. Brendan's, one and then another brother, murdered down there.

There are many people from St. Brendan's in St. John's, I know lots of them,

fine, good people and there are people from Trepassey in St. John's. A woman was

in my office the other day - five children, living in a terrible dump downtown

in the Member for St. John's East's district, actually, but she came to me

because she knew somebody who knew me and we were able to talk to her about her

problem anyway, and hopefully it will be looked at but it is not just there,

where ever you go, you see people from all over the Province.

We have many health and social problems in that area. The

John Howard Society operates a place and there are many parolees around, good

people having met problems in the law but having a terrible time adjusting with

this no-work situation. They are living in bedsitting rooms very often when they

become released from the John Howard Society House. We have the Salvation Army

operating a place on Springdale Street for people who are trying to get over

their drinking habits and many of these are parolees, good people but trying to

get over their problems and when they get out, they very often still have

problems.

We have people who are discharged from the Waterford who are

trying to make a go of it on their own and it is very, very difficult. They are

in bedsitting rooms in many cases, unsupervised and unhelped and they are having

a hard time, a very hard time. They phone me all the time telling me about their

fears. A man was in my office the other day telling me how cold he was last

winter, he was so cold and everybody in that house was so cold, that what they

had to do he said, was take apart the stove and put the units in the side - he

was a bit of an electrician - and he took this very dangerous action in order to

keep warm.

Now, you may think I am laying it on a bit thick, and perhaps

I am; perhaps I am, but not very thick. I see a lot of serious situations there,

and we have to do something about the serious problem of fire. There are many

vacant houses. I went and visited a house last weekend and he said: Look at

those three houses, two across the street and one next to me which are vacant -

this man owns his house - vacant houses at which children had thrown rocks

through it and so on and there they are; it is almost unbelievable sometimes

what people have to live -I don't want to downplay the city, because there are

some really nice houses, family residences that have been in the downtown and in

what are called `the higher levels', the Rabbit Town area. These are the areas

that I am talking about, generally speaking, although they can be elsewhere.

Some of these problems are in St. John's North, they are in

St. John's South, some are in St. John's West and many of them are in St. John's

East but the majority are in my district, I think. One of the problems of living

in this area is a very great difficulty of getting fire insurance. Some of the

houses have space heaters and if you have a space heater in your house rather

than an oil heater, rather than a furnace or electric heat, you are almost

facing an uninsurable situation; the insurance companies don't want to insure

you.

MR. ROBERTS: Particularly if you have them at the foot of

a stairs, going upstairs.

DR. KITCHEN: That is the most dangerous one, yes, and

that is how everything used to be heated at one time, but it is now a fire

hazard.

The other problem you have has to do with wiring. Not all of

the houses downtown have modern wiring. A lot of them are wired to take a 20 or

30 amp fuse, and with all the electrical appliances that are being used now,

that is not enough, the wiring is insufficient. Insurance companies find it

difficult to insure such houses, such apartments. Many insurance companies will

take one house in this area, and another house somewhere else. They want to

spread the risk. They will not take all the houses in a row and insure them.

They map the neighbourhood and decide which ones they are going to do, or how

many they are going to do in an area.

MR. ROBERTS: It is prudent underwriting, because if one

of these houses goes, the nature is that the whole bunch of them (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Sure, and it is good for the fire - it is

the way they should be operating, but it is pretty hard for the person who

looking for fire insurance and can't get it. Even when you get fire insurance,

it costs more than it does in a normal house; they estimate perhaps 30 per cent

more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of the time you can't get it.

DR. KITCHEN: And very often you can't get it at all - the

hon. member is quite right.

I didn't realize until the other day that if a house burns,

through no fault of the landlord, the tenant's possessions are not insured. You

have to get your own fire insurance tenant's package.

MR. ROBERTS: The tenant should have his or her own

policy.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, they should have their own policy, but

the problem is that very many people cannot afford to buy it. It is $10 or $15 a

month to get tenant's policy insurance, and many people don't have it.

So, looking only at fire insurance, I believe if we can get

good fire protection downtown where houses are upgraded and so on, we will be

able to get lower fire insurance rates, and over time this will be very cost

effective, property values should go up and so on.

What has to be done? I believe what has to be done more than

anything else is that we have to get a good, solid, financial program in place

by government. I know the Federal Government is pulling out, but that doesn't

relieve the rest of us of the responsibility. My plea here now is that we take

some time to think about how we are going to divert funds so that we can help

the people who live in housing that needs to be improved, to find the funds to

handle that situation. And I believe government has a responsibility to help out

in this way, much more so than we are presently doing.

The fire department firmly believes in sprinkler systems. The

problem with sprinkler systems is that they are expensive. If you have a

sprinkler system in a house, as soon as the temperature goes up the sprinkler

turns on and the water comes out, and the fire is put out with a minimum of

damage, a little bit of water damage from the sprinkler. It is often forgotten -

a fireman told me the other day that when a fire gets under way it can expand

fifty times in a minute or two - as quick as that it can go - so it is very

important, if you have a sprinkler system that turns on, that will quench it

pretty well right away, or at least control it, and these are not too difficult

to install in some cases. They say they can be hooked up to the domestic water

line.

I believe we should give consideration to making it

compulsory for sprinkler systems in certain types of houses, particularly those

divided up into bedsitting rooms, four or five bedsitting rooms where different

people are. Perhaps we should have a sprinkler system there - the landlord

should be forced to do it. Perhaps we should help the landlord do it, in some

cases, because we gain as well.

I believe every bed-sitting room should have someone in

charge of it. Every bed-sitting room house should have someone in charge of that

house, someone who is responsible for reporting to the landlord, or maybe the

landlord should live there himself or herself. Because this is the type of

accommodation where most of the fires occur. Some American states are making it

compulsory for that type of accommodation to have sprinkler systems.

Even without sprinkler systems - because when this was

brought to the attention of City Hall by former councillor, Wendy Williams and

her committee, and more lately by Councillor Marie White and others, Council

rejected the notion of making it compulsory because of the extreme cost. I

believe government should be able to help out there with the cost so that it can

be spread.

Another way is fire walls. They tell me that if you are

living - two houses are together - I'm in one, Mr. Speaker, and you are in the

next one, and they are joined - if you put five-eighths gyprock on the wall

facing me and I put five-eighths gyprock on my wall facing you, we can retard

the spread of fire by almost an hour. Now, many houses have wood panelling. If I

have wood panelling and you have wood panelling and mine catches fire, you are

gone.

MR. ROBERTS: There is nothing in between many of these

except maybe plowed and tongue.

DR. KITCHEN: Plowed and tongue, perhaps. In some cases,

it is plowed and tongue. Many people don't have gyprock or gypsum board in their

walls. That is not as expensive to put up, and I believe that could be done and

encouraged.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you.

Another point I want to make with respect to that is that if

the gyprock is put in it should go right up pretty well to the roof, because in

some connected houses in St. John's you have what the firemen call cocklofts,

where the attics are common - you can go from one house to the other in the

attic. They were put up - not all, but a few are still there. They are still

there, they tell me. I checked with the firemen the other day because someone

said they weren't there. He said: Yes, they definitely are, not in every case,

but in some, where you can go up in an attic in one and go over to the attic in

the next. You can imagine what that does with a fire break-out.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude these remarks now and I

will finish up later on. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to have a few words on this

resolution put forward by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Some questions that I would have to ask right from the

outset, some of those questions that I would have for members opposite, and

members of City Council in St. John's, and especially the Fire Commissioner's

Office, building inspectors and so on: Who owns those houses? Who is collecting

the rent from those particular houses? I have heard all kinds of comments over

the past number of years, both publicly and privately, about those particular

housing units in this particular part of St. John's, but I have yet to hear the

name of one of the landlords.

Now, if I have to build a house, or one of my constituents

has to build a house, in my particular area of the Province, we are put right

through the wringer. First, Department of Health inspection, second, Environment

has to come in. When you wire your house, you have to have three inspections

before the final one is done. Before ever you put a sheet of gyprock on, there

has to be an inspection. There has to be an inspection right after. Each

receptacle, each light fixture, has to be put in a certain area, if not, you are

turned down, there is no hook-up. Even for a temporary hook-up - people put

right through the wringer.

Yet we have rental units in this Province today - and the

member brings up a good point about his particular area down here in St. John's,

a really serious problem, no question - but we have other areas of the Province

as well where those houses and housing units and rental units are there and the

landlord is doing absolutely nothing with them, only has his or her hand out at

the end of the month for the cheque, spending absolutely nothing on those units.

I think that something should be put in place, done through the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing. I know he is responsible for the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation which comes under his department. But in

conjunction with the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations - I think

certain areas of the inspection division comes under his domain, and there are

other regulatory parts of the building code that come under Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, especially as it pertains to anything in that department, and

CMHC.

But with new homes and new housing we do not have that

problem because those problems that the member is talking about, about the

gyproc, about the asbestos, about the lighting, about the wiring, instead of 110

all 220 services coming into the homes. Down in his area and others areas we

have 110 outlets through the whole house. Even if they wanted to put in an

electric heater they cannot put one in unless they go down and take out the fuse

and put a copper in behind it or a piece of file wrap. Now, that is what is

being done around this Province, and people are doing that with those old fuse

box type things and not the new units. They cannot handle anything. They cannot

carry the load. They are in there with 12/2 wiring in most of the houses right

on through. With the new minimums today when you doing wiring it is, I think,

14/2 or something like that now, that is the minimum requirement, and the

minimum requirement for an entrance is a 220 line. There are no ifs, ands, or

buts, 110 would not be hooked up to a residential house today and if you do you

are asking for trouble.

I, first of all would like to say to the member, and the

ministers that are responsible, if we have to go through City Hall - I know the

City of St. John's is involved in this, and there are other councils around the

Province as well, the City of Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, Mount Pearl, or

whatever, something has to be done with regards to the inspection services on

those buildings. People are put into death traps. It is as simple as that.

We would not put people on a ferry unless it was inspected.

We would not put them on an airplane unless DOT inspected it, or the Minister of

Transport inspected it. We would not put anybody in a car unless they had their

seat belt on, or something like that, but yet we have the Department of Social

Services and other people paying $362 or $372, plus whatever the individual

wants to pay on top of that per month, to a landlord who has his or her hand out

at the end of every month picking up the cheque and saying, thanks and goodbye,

and hoping and praying that nothing happens.

There is another thing I would like to talk about, Mr.

Speaker, concerning those insurance companies. How is it that an individual who

goes to get insurance on his house is questioned and asked, what type of heating

do you have? Do you have oil? Do you have wood? Do you have electric? It makes a

difference to your insurance policy. It makes a difference to your homeowner's

policy, and the bottom line is that it makes a difference to your premium. It

makes a big difference to your premium.

Is there any way to warn the people who are renting in this

Province today that they have no coverage on their personal belongings in their

homes? No. Usually it is in the fine print. Usually your landlord has insurance

to cover his or her losses, the hell with the person who is renting.

Now, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre that he is

going to have to get to his colleague in Cabinet. He knows it. He is well aware.

He has read out a lot of the problems that his constituents are experiencing

today down in that particular part of St. John's, and I totally agree with him.

The thing I do not agree with is, not only this government, but any government,

putting money into housing units around this Province that belong to fat cat

landlords who will not do anything for the individuals in those particular

areas. That I do not agree with, although I would like to see the safety of

those people enhanced, the people who are staying in those apartments, but we

have fat cat landlords around this Province, whether in St. John's, Corner

Brook, Mount Pearl, or wherever they are. They should dig in their pockets, and

they should be forced to carry out inspections - the government carry out

inspections - and those landlords told in no uncertain terms, to fix it up or

get out.

Now, there is one danger with that, and I am sure the hon.

member will agree with me, and that is that the poor people who are staying in

those rundown buildings will probably end up on the street. That is the threat.

That is always the threat to come from a landlord - always - especially in an

area like that where you have so many. If it is over in my area where you have

two houses here, you have a house here and a house there, and a house over

there, you can do something with them because they can always move out into a

little better area, or move to another community because they are usually close.

Down here in this particular area it is all sort of in a nucleus area, and where

do the other people go to get the rent for that price. That is the problem. Now,

that is what should be addressed, a little better housing for those individuals,

and if social services is paying $372 a month - I think that is the maximum from

social services, the rest comes from other people - then something should be

done about the social housing policy.

I had a letter from the minister's department back on July

29, 1994, with regard to social housing consultation that is supposed to be

carried out by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Now, in that there are some

really good suggestions to do something with regard to social housing in the

Province. It mentions about the consultation parameters, and in that I would

like to put on the record at this time the second parameter is that most

governments are not in a position to commit open-ended long-term subsidies for

social housing, and they are not, but again, as far as I am concerned, the

government is in a very good position today to say to the City of St. John's, or

whoever, if they have to go through the City of St. John's - there are some

areas where they may not have to - and go to those landlords and put it on the

table in no uncertain terms that we should not have people living in this type

of building any longer. They can do that with a stroke of the pen, and I say

that if a piece of legislation is brought to this House tomorrow concerning

those particular areas of the Province, and addressing some of the very serious

problems in that particular area we will, without a doubt, pass it with very,

very little debate.

This is an issue that should be addressed. It should be

looked into. It is a very serious matter, because what is going to happen one of

those days down in that area - and if this was located anywhere else but in the

City of St. John's, if it was in Deer Lake or any of the outlying areas of rural

Newfoundland today, if there was every a fire in any one of those buildings, she

would be gutted; the community would be gutted. It just so happens that you are

living in the City of St. John's. They have an excellent water resource. They

have a paid fire-fighting department, and they have lots of water, and it is all

in a close area. They can fight it very easily, and that is usually what

happens. They have two or three fire stations they can call on. They get to the

source fairly quickly, and it is put out.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government, and the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this case, probably should lead the way,

through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and make sure that those people who

are renting those units down in this particular part of the city are taken to

task, because the regulations are there for individuals around this Province.

They are there for me and everyone else, they should be there for them. Now

granted those buildings were constructed years ago but that is still no excuse,

there is still absolutely no excuse. If I have a building and I have the

electrical service unhooked from it for one day or if I am only changing the

name, Mr. Speaker - this is something the member probably knows but I will say

to him now - even if they change the name on a residence in this Province or a

commercial business in this Province, I have to have another inspection. How can

someone down there get away with that? If I change the name on one of my

buildings, if I change the name with Newfoundland Light and Power or

Newfoundland Hydro, it is automatic, before that is hooked up, I got to have

another inspection. Now how can people down in that part of the city get away

with the likes of that?

My time is almost up, I only have another twenty minutes. It

is a very serious situation and I say to the member again, a very serious

problem. A good resolution, an excellent resolution but you can bring all the

resolutions you like, Mr. Speaker, to the floor of this House and unless there

is something done about it then we will be in here month after month, year after

year with the same resolution and then it is probably going to be too late. Now

is the time to do something about that particular part of St. John's. I say to

the members opposite and to the ministers who are responsible, act and act now

before it is too late and before there is another life lost. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Member for Twillingate I would

like to welcome to the public galleries a former member of the House of Assembly

for St. Barb North and Trinity - Bay de Verde, Fred Rowe.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is a bad joke that tells

of the Air Canada pilot who announced to his passengers: We are now flying over

the Atlantic Provinces, you should set your watches back thirty years. There are

areas in the City of St. John's, especially the area represented by my colleague

from St. John's Centre, where that comment would be taken literally because in

stark contrast to the more affluent areas in the city we continue to have

neighbourhoods, especially again in the central part of St. John's, where

poverty is visible in its rawest and ugliest form.

Mr. Speaker, in those areas there are no manicured lawns,

painted fences or painted cottages to camouflage decades of neglect and economic

depression. I say St. John's Centre but I should hasten to add that that

description might very well fit a large number of areas in the Province. I can

think of several in my own district of Twillingate where maybe not quite as

decrepit or as run down as the area in St. John's Centre but we do have some

very serious housing problems. I have people in my district living in homes that

are clearly unfit for human habitation. During my frequent visits to the

district I invariably am contacted by people who live in those houses and I have

to say that I am not able to get much help for them.

Mr. Speaker, about twenty-five years ago the federal

government commissioned a study into housing conditions in the country, in

Canada. The commission was headed by the then Minister of Housing and Urban

Affairs, the hon. Paul Hillier. I had the privilege of attending hearings of

that committee when at the time I represented the federal riding of St. John's

West. I invited the hon. gentleman and his committee to visit St. John's West

and to see first hand some of the serious conditions under which people in that

area have to live. I should point out that some of the areas that I showed to my

colleague and friend, Hillier, are those situated in the District of St. John's

Centre.

So things have not changed very much. Twenty-five years ago

we had a very serious problem in that area and notwithstanding all that is being

done, we still have a serious problem there, which tells me, Mr. Speaker, that

while we have done certain things, we have spent certain amounts of money but

certainly not enough. Rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, that in a country where

twenty-five years ago, the government of the day officially adopted the

principle that every Canadian is entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of

basic human right, but we still have thousands of low-income families forced to

occupy decrepit structures that are unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

For generations, Mr. Speaker, these people have been engaged

in an ongoing struggle not simply to catch up to the income levels and social

amenities enjoyed by their fellow-Canadians, but all too often they have had to

struggle to catch up to retain a vestige of human dignity and self-respect. Mr.

Speaker, it is unthinkable that in this day and age, living in a country like

Canada, that we should have people who are denied one of their basic rights,

namely, that of decent housing, housing that is wind and water tight; and in

many cases in this Province, I can tell you that is not the case.

In the early 1970s, a well-known sociologist, Dr. Albert

Rose, who was then the Dean of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Social

Work said, and I quote: "The most important change that could be made in our

National Housing Policy would be a formal declaration that all levels of

government intended during the balance of this century, to discriminate in

favour of families and individuals at the bottom half of the income ladder".

That, Mr. Speaker, is a very thought- provoking declaration on the professor's

part, but unfortunately it was ignored; his advice was ignored and as a result

of course, thousands of families in this Province, indeed, in other parts of

Canada, continue to live in structures that do not even come close to meeting

the national standard; and I have to say, that the hon. gentleman's district,

the man who introduced this resolution today, which is the central core of the

old City of St. John's, is no exception.

We have people there, the working poor, who for generations

have occupied and in most cases owned houses, who lack the financial resources

to bring these houses up to an acceptable standard; consequently, they have been

allowed to deteriorate to the point where many of them are now unfit for

occupancy and I regret to say, in many cases have gone beyond the point of

rehabilitation. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence if we are to

retain these neighbourhoods and salvage what is left of the existing housing

stock in those areas, we must act now while reasonable action is still possible.

If we wait, if we procrastinate, Mr. Speaker, these neighbourhoods will have

gone beyond the point of restoration and then of course, another problem

commences.

In the words of Dr. Rose and in the spirit of true

Liberalism, Mr. Speaker, which we practice on this side of the House, I call

upon this administration to -

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. CARTER: I call upon this administration, Mr. Speaker,

to formally declare that during the balance of this century, it will

discriminate in favour of low-income families and individuals who find

themselves on the bottom half of the Province's social and economic ladder. Such

a commitment should be taken in the spirit of economic, as well as social

investment, whereby, the government and society will benefit significantly in

years to come and at the same time save the present and future generations of

low-income families from unbearable human misery and living hell.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of representing that part of

St. John's for three terms as the federal member; there is hardly a house in

that part of old St. John's that I have not at some time or other visited. I

concur with the comments of my hon. colleague for St. John's Centre that

something must be done and something must be done right away.

I drive through the area frequently on a Sunday morning. If I

have nothing else to do I usually get in my car and I drive around old St.

John's and reminisce, look at houses that I've been looking at now for a large

number of years. I'm flabbergasted that something doesn't happen down there. I'm

absolutely amazed that we do not have a catastrophe in that area. I hope it

never happens.

Many of these areas - we have houses that are joined

together, no fire breaks between them, very thin walls. In most cases tongue in

groove or square-edged board without even the benefit of insulation by way of

gyprock. Very few of them have adequate insulation, very few of them have

adequate wiring and plumbing. To put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, these houses in

many cases are unfit and certainly unsafe for human habitation. That seems to be

the story in a large number of places in this Province, especially in the

cities, in the urban areas, where urban blight has set in, and I regret to say

very little is being done about it.

I think the time has come for all levels of government, not

just the Province - maybe the Province should be the junior partner in this

arrangement - but certainly I think the federal government has a responsibility,

I think the Province has a responsibility, and I think the municipal council of

St. John's has a responsibility as well. I think the time has come for those

three levels of government to pool their resources, to get together, and to

determine that something is going to be done about the problem.

I would strongly urge that as a forerunner to any such action

the government should consider redefining the role of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation, redefining it with a view to maybe privatizing its

commercial and residential real estate holdings. I can't for the life of me

rationalize the current role of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation. I think that the projects that they undertake, the things that they

are doing, could quite easily be done by the private sector, and that being the

case then I think the private sector should have the opportunity to do it.

I think the new mandate of a reorganized Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation should include the administration of existing

social housing units. I'm not suggesting that they privatize or dispose of, or

whatever word you want to use, the social housing complexes within their

jurisdiction. I think the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has done

a very good, an extremely worthwhile job, but I do believe that they appear to

have lost sight of their true mandate. Instead of concentrating on providing

housing for people who are unable to provide housing for themselves, low-income

families, they have gone into developments that certainly could be handled quite

adequately by the private sector. So I call upon the government and the minister

to give serious thought to taking a look at the mandate of the existing

so-called social housing agency we have and to streamline it where it will play

a much more effective role in providing housing for the low-income families in

this Province, and especially in this city.

It will be necessary of course for government to determine

the magnitude of the problem. That has to be done. The Province, the federal

government and the city must join forces and determine the magnitude of the

problem that is associated with urban blight and they must determine the cost of

effectively dealing with that problem. I would then call upon the government and

the minister to give some thought to establishing a task force consisting of

representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Central

Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the federal government's housing

agency, and of course the St. John's municipal council.

I am suggesting that our local Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation be the lead agency and that this task force would be

required to systematically, thoroughly compile data and do an inventory to

measure the state of housing in the defined areas. Now this problem cannot be

attacked and resolved overnight. It is going to take time - it is going to take

a lot of time - but I think we should identify areas where the need is greatest

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: The minister will get a chance to speak, I

presume, in a few minutes.

- and provide a survey whereby we can do an assessment as to

precisely how many of these homes are fit to live in, and those that are not

should be demolished.

We have a lot of people living in downtown St. John's,

occupying homes. Some of them are there as tenants. Others as there as

occupant/owners, but whatever, in most cases these people are absolutely

incapable of providing the necessary wherewithal to attack the problem.

Consequently, they have to continue to live under conditions that are

substandard.

Another problem that we have, and I think the minister

alluded to it, or the member, the business of absentee landlords, and landlords,

wealthy businessmen, wealthy professionals, lawyers, doctors, wives of doctors

and lawyers, businessmen, farmers, who own some of these houses and who couldn't

give two hoots as to how they are maintained, or to what extent they accept

their responsibility to ensure that they are properly maintained. I continue to

get calls from around St. John's from people with housing problems, and I must

say some of the comments that I am hearing would almost make your hair stand on

your head.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close my few remarks, but again I

repeat that I believe the government, while I realize money is scarce, I don't

expect there is going to be too much provincial money available to undertake

this kind of program, but certainly we should make a start, and I strongly urge

that we take a hard look at the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

with a view to maybe privatizing it; and the revenue generated, by the way, from

the sale of their assets could be used, could be applied, to address the

problems that they should be addressing in the poorer parts of St. John's where

you have a lot of low income families who are absolutely unable to do anything

for themselves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an

opportunity to speak on this resolution today brought forth by the Member for

St. John's Centre regarding the housing in the St. John's area. I congratulate

him on bringing it forth, and bringing it to the attention of all hon. members,

in particular members on his side of the House who have more influence on

government policy than we do over here, and in particular on members of Cabinet,

including the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who has the

authority to do something about these problems.

Obviously the Member for St. John's Centre, who has had much

more time to devote to his constituents in person since he is no longer in

Cabinet, is well aware of the problems of his constituents, and in saying that I

do not wish to cast any aspersions on his interest in his district before that.

I know for a fact that he is in touch with his constituents on a regular basis

and was so when he was in Cabinet, so it is not a new thing, and I have

discussed with the Member for St. John's Centre on a number of occasions the

kinds of social problems and financial problems and housing problems that exist

in both his district and mine when it comes to the problems that are being

brought forth here, so I want to say that I welcome the resolution being brought

forth here today.

There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when governments in this

Province and in Canada were very active in trying to do something about the

social housing needs of the people of St. John's and rural Newfoundland. Up

until the last few years, some great efforts were made in St. John's to try to

improve the quality of the housing stock. The Residential Rehabilitation

Assistance Program was a very important contributor to that. The St. John's City

Council, for a period of time, was very active in installing in-fill housing, an

in-fill housing program in St. John's, and bringing about, and imposing, in many

cases, standards that previously had not existed, standards of placing fire

walls. Any new construction in downtown St. John's, particularly where row

housing is involved, must have an adequate fire wall and fire separation. The

CMHC, in approving residential mortgages for mortgage insurance, or improving

projects under the Residential Rehabilitation Program, would insist on complete

fire separation between units, even separate units of an existing house or

property, as well as a complete fire separation from one house to the next.

They have been doing this, Mr. Speaker, under the

understanding - and these programs, particularly the Residential Rehabilitation

Assistance Program, was offered to municipalities in Canada on the understanding

that those municipalities would also, at the same time, put in place and enforce

housing standards of a greater degree than they had in place, housing standards

which would guarantee not only the houses completed under the program but that

all homes or houses, or residential units, within these municipalities would

have these standards applied to them.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that is not being done in an adequate

manner. If the enforcement were sufficient, the problems that the Member for St.

John's Centre is pointing out in terms of fire safety and life safety would not

exist.

There is a fear existing amongst people who are forced to

live in residential housing that is inadequate, and that fear is that they will

have no place to live, that their alternatives are grossly inadequate. If they

are on social assistance and they go to the social worker, or if they go to the

minister, they are told, `That is not our problem. You go find the house and we

will see if we will pay for you to live in it.' The department takes no

responsibility for ensuring that there is an adequacy of housing, or available

housing. They say, `You find the house, you find the apartment, and we will go

and approve it. That is a private matter.'

Mr. Speaker, any member of this House representing St.

John's, a St. John's district, or the ministers who may get calls on this, know

that housing needs are perhaps the most frequent and the most serious kinds of

problems that are being brought to members of this House of Assembly by their

constituents, and it is the most frustrating for members because dealing with

the one agency in this Province who has to deal with those issues, the same

answer comes back again and again: `Our waiting lists are so long, our waiting

lists are impossible to meet, there are so many people on the waiting list, the

amount of housing available is so inadequate that we can't deal with it.'

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for St. John's

Centre has pointed out, the housing agency of this Province, the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation, is concentrating its energies on new

developments, not for social housing, Mr. Speaker, or finding ways of enforcing

and bringing to the attention of the government and the public the housing needs

of this Province. Instead they are out busy developing new subdivisions, banking

land for new subdivisions, installing water and sewer for new subdivisions for

the housing market and banking land, and providing that service, building

condominiums and condominium developments for the private sector - spending

their time and energy doing that.

MR. EFFORD: That is misleading.

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation can speak if he wishes later on. They may at some point in time

recoup this money from the private sector and get it all back, as they do in

their land banking, but this should not be the job of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation in a city and in a Province which has such a great

need for social housing and housing improvement.

I have in front of me, Mr. Speaker, a letter from a

constituent of mine, saying that she has her name in to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation and put on a list. This woman lives in a private

house with her ten-year-old daughter. She and her daughter share a bathroom with

the bedsitters. This is a private home that has bedsitting rooms. This woman and

her daughter live in this house and she says that she does not think it is

proper and right - she says, `My daughter is ten years old, and I don't feel

right about living here with the male bedsitters.' She doesn't know who they

are. She has no control over who they are. She is on a list with Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing and she is hoping to be able to get an apartment, a place

to live for herself and her daughter. She has no other alternative, Mr. Speaker.

This is just one example and anybody who represents a St.

John's district - and it is not confined to St. John's. The resolution is aimed

at the downtown housing core in St. John's and I am addressing that, and this

woman is from St. John's and lives there, but there are other problems across

the Province in rural Newfoundland, as well as in St. John's.

The Member for St. John's Centre brings attention first and

foremost to the issue of fire safety. It is a very serious problem. It is

life-threatening, Mr. Speaker. But let me suggest to you how serious it is. It

is serious enough that insurance companies won't insure houses in downtown St.

John's. They are turning them down all the time, and all they are going to lose

is money, Mr. Speaker. They are not talking about insurance for people's lives

or their health. They are talking about property insurance. You pay a premium

based on the risk and they are saying, `There is no premium, we won't accept any

premium. We don't want to be in the business, the risk is too high. The risk of

losing money by accepting a premium from a house is too high.' Now, Mr. Speaker,

if that is a concern for an insurance company who knows what the risks are in

terms of dollars and cents, then what kind of a risk is it to the lives and the

safety of the people who are living in those houses?

So the minister has brought to the attention of this House a

matter of supreme importance. There is an opportunity - it is all very well to

say that there is no money for this, there is no money for that, but it is not

always money that solves the problems. There is, within the Provincial

Government, the power to take initiatives, to take the lead, to have the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Housing look at the mandate and

the priorities of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and play a

stronger role in insisting that it devote its energies and its time to trying to

solve some of those problems and devise programs that help. It is not

sufficient, in this recent announcement about providing some money to landlords

to upgrade their properties. That is a minor intrusion into all of that. If

there are houses that are unsafe, they ought to be ordered to bring them up to

standard. And if the municipality is not properly enforcing its regulations,

then the Provincial Government has the power and the duty to do something about

that.

I say to the Minister of Social Services, that if her

department is paying rent on houses - it is all very well to go and inspect them

and say, `Yes, we will pay your rent here,' but if there is inadequate housing

units that are inspected - if they turn them down what do they do? Do they go

back to their office and wait for another call? If they go and inspect an

apartment that is inadequate and improper, do they phone City Hall and report

that? Do they play an active role in ensuring that houses or apartments units

that they are aware of that don't meet health standards, that don't meet life

safety standards, that don't meet fire regulations or electrical standards, if

they are seeing it - if they walk into a house at the request of a social

assistance recipient and look around and say, `I am sorry, we can't pay your

rent here. The place is inadequate. This place is not fit to live in.' Do they

walk away, Mr. Speaker, and let that landlord rent that unit to someone else? Is

that what they do? I think so. They should be mandated, Mr. Speaker - if they

are aware of housing units that are inadequate, that are unsafe, that are

unhealthy, they should go back to their office, pick up the phone, phone the

inspection authorities, phone City Hall, and say: I am an inspector for the

Department of Social Services. I just visited a housing unit at a certain

location. The place is filthy, the place is unsafe, the place is unhealthy, and

I want to you to go and inspect that property and order that landlord to improve

it or have that place closed.

That is the kind of active measures that officials of the

government departments can be taking - it doesn't cost the government a cent.

They are out there hiring policemen. The Social Services policemen are out there

after welfare recipients. Why can't the inspectors who are already out there -

they are already out there looking at houses - if they find a house and a

housing unit that is inadequate, why can't they be asked - and I'm just asking a

very simple request, very straightforward. Can they not be given a mandate by

the Minister of Social Services, if they identify a housing problem, as housing

inspectors, should they not phone and contact and write and follow up the

relevant municipal authority to see whether that housing unit has been fixed or

closed?

Now, there is nothing new about that type of approach. In the

field of child welfare, not only social workers, but everybody, has an

obligation to report if a child is being neglected or is in danger. It is not

new to place those kinds of duties on welfare authorities and officials. Why

doesn't the Minister of Social Services have a policy and pass the word on to

the housing inspectors in her department to not only decide aye or nay with

respect to whether the department will pay the rent for particular premises, but

if they are saying nay because of inadequate conditions, then what they should

do is follow up on that by making sure that that particular housing unit is

reported on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister asks: What about the role of

housing? I dealt with the role of housing. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation has a very big role. I'm just saying that there is more than one

way.

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Minister of Social Services, if

she had been listening, she would have heard the first part of my comments,

which is that you don't always have to throw money at a problem to be able to be

pro-active. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows that. If he

doesn't have any money, that doesn't stop him from doing things. I think he

would agree with that. His department doesn't have to spend money in order to be

effective and active, and this is one way that the Department of Social Services

can play a role in improving the housing conditions in St. John's, by mandating

the social workers who are in the inspection division to follow up on complaints

of inadequate housing by reporting it to the relevant authorities.

The situation with respect to housing, the risks to life that

are associated with it, all of that is not just a matter of rhetoric. I'm not

suggesting that the Member for St. John's Centre is engaging in that. He has

brought to the forefront very important points. I've tried to stay away in my

remarks from rhetoric about the needs of poor people. These are not rhetorical

needs, Mr. Speaker, these are real needs. When I, as a member, or the Member for

St. John's Centre get a call from someone who says that they have no food in

their refrigerator, and they are ashamed to go the food bank...

I had a call the other night from a woman whose brother is

employed full-time by the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. Last November she had

to go and insist that this man and his wife go down to the food bank to get

food. The man and his wife did not have, on the full-time income they were

receiving, sufficient money to buy groceries and to feed their family of three

children - didn't have it, couldn't do it. The woman who called me, her

sister-in-law had lost twenty pounds, she was underweight. And this is not a

family of people who don't have any money at all. The father of these three

children, the brother of the woman who phoned me, is a full-time employee of the

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation and doesn't have enough income to properly feed

his family and himself and his wife.

Those are the kinds of situations that we are dealing with on

a realistic basis. This is not a person who is drinking his wages, not as person

who is wasting money. She gave out to me all the expenses. On another occasion I

can rehearse them back to the House. It seemed very sad to me to hear that a

government employee was unable to properly feed a family on the income being

received.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that I only have a very few seconds

left to conclude my remarks. I will do so by saying, let's hear from people

about some practical solutions, some practical things that government can do

right now to improve this problem. It is a serious one, and I thank the member

for bringing it to the attention of members of the House.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a motion that I think deserves the attention of the

House of Assembly. The Member for St. John's East has been an advocate for a

long time, since I have been in politics. In my lengthy political career, the

Member for St. John's East has been a strong advocate of St. John's, and

especially of housing and of improving conditions for people who don't have the

ability, or don't have very much ability, to improve it for themselves. So,

first off, I commend -

MR. HARRIS: So has the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. AYLWARD: I am talking about St. John's Centre. That

is what I said, isn't it?

MR. EFFORD: No, you said St. John's East.

MR. AYLWARD: Did I say East? Oh!

MR. EFFORD: And I was telling you he was in conflict.

MR. AYLWARD: What a slip-up. I am sorry. I have to

apologize to the Member for St. John's Centre - my apologies. The Member for St.

John's East does have a conscience.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. AYLWARD: He does. Now, he is with the NDP and they

are supposed to have a conscience.

MR. EFFORD: He is a landlord.

MR. AYLWARD: He may be a landlord, I don't know, but the

thing is, he does have a conscience and he does advocate, on many occasions, for

this issue, and that is welcome.

The Member for St. John's Centre has been doing this for some

time, and I hope that we see some progress on it in the near future.

Part of the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is

to do a variety of things, really. It is to help develop housing in the Province

- to develop industrial parks is another part of its mandate, but housing in

particular - and part of the mandate, what they have been doing over the years,

has been developing industrial land and residential land, and using the funds

from that to help stimulate the non-profit housing sector. They have been trying

to do that, making monies from the development side of putting together, say,

the Mount Pearl land assemblies of the world and other types of land assemblies,

using those revenues to then help develop social housing. There is always a need

for more funding and more financial resources to be dedicated towards, in

particular, social housing, and in particular areas that really have a crying

need.

Identified in this resolution by the member is downtown St.

John's, but the history of the development of the city in the downtown is

definitely a particular problem. It is a problem that you really can't describe

anywhere else in the Province. It is one based on historical development, and it

is one that does need an attempt, and you need a realistic solution to it. Given

the financial situation we have, you really have to try, I think, to keep

pushing it to get more priority provided to it.

This year, I was talking to the Minister of Housing, and he

was telling me that they have adopted a rooming house RAP program which is

targeted exclusively at St. John's this year. This program providing $320,000 in

funding, is targeted to operators of rooming housing, and is intended to operate

these properties to today's health and safety standards. I think part of the

reason that program was brought in this year - and it is not enough, mind you, I

think it is a start - but the reason that it was brought in, in large part, was

because of the efforts of the Member for St. John's Centre in detailing what the

problems have been, especially over the last little while.

This is a problem historically, something that really hasn't

been attacked, and I think that this program that was brought forward this year

is one that will help make a start in dealing with the problem. You have to

recognize a problem first. That usually takes a long time when you are in

government, at times, because of the bureaucracy and so on, and how large that

is. But in this case there is a recognition of a problem, there is now a

particular attempt to start to deal with the problem. From what I hear of what

the member is speaking, he is saying we have to devote more resources towards it

and more effort. And we agree, we have to. It is a problem that will not go

away, and there are some solutions to the problem.

The other part of that solution, I believe, is an amendment

that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is bringing in on the

fines for landlords in this city who are not following guidelines for fire

protection, fire safety, and other safety measures. I believe that is going to

be increased from I think it is about $100 or so, or $200, to $5,000. It is

going to $5,000. When that amendment is through it is going to give the City

Council of St. John's more authority to deal with landlord situations that have

existed for some time, and give them some clout with which to exercise, and to

hopefully see some improvements in the housing situation that exists in our

historic downtown, the oldest city in North America.

That is a particular move being made. Again, too, I think

very much credit should go to the Member for St. John's Centre for again

bringing that issue to the minister, and for him to respond in quick order is

something that is pleasant to see. Hopefully, as part of an overall package, it

will see some improvements start to happen over the summer period, over the fall

period, as the city will have an ability now further to enforce their laws. And

now, with further directed funding being targeted towards the downtown St.

John's area of three hundred and twenty-thousand, in particular, to the rooming

houses and that situation that has occurred, we hopefully will see some further

improvements.

The fire that took place only a short period of time ago

downtown in which we saw the levelling of a number of buildings was a scary

situation. It was one that - we've had some history in this city way back that

could have seen a very major problem on our hands. So it is a serious situation,

there is no doubt about that. It is one that needs that dedication of resources.

There is a response starting to occur, and I think, over the next period of

time, with the proper diligence and I suppose, the proper dedication of effort

towards this problem, that we will see some improvements being made.

It is also going to take, though, too, an awareness of the

landlords and the city downtown that they have to have also the ultimate

responsibility. Enforcement and financial contributions to improvements can go a

long way, but you also have to have landlords who have the concern to have their

housing in the proper condition in order for people to properly live there. It

is something that needs more attention. It is something that needs more

attention around the Province, because there is a different type of situation

around in rural Newfoundland. We have a lot of inadequate housing in some areas

of the Province and that particular problem needs also to further be addressed,

because really, what we are talking about here is inadequate housing, and in

this situation, in one centralized location. We also have it in a lot of other

rural areas of the Province and that needs to be tackled further.

The Federal Government back in 1993 cancelled the RAP program

at the time and that created a problem. That created a problem for Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation, it created a problem in trying to deal with

and tackle the many problem areas of the Province, rurally, where they have a

pretty long list of people who are in desperate need of improvements to their

housing be it the furnaces, the heating units and so on, the types of water

supplies, the whole thing, there is a number of identified problems with some

housing situations in this Province that we need to tackle, and what I see from

the Minister of Housing is a strong attempt to try to tackle these problems

dealing with the financial situation that now the federal government has, and

putting forward a strategy for the Province, and I think there has been a good

start to that, very much so, a good start by the minister responsible

considering what he has had to deal with in a short period of time.

Right now, the Housing Corporation is working on a

comprehensive provincial housing strategy and we welcome that, and I think that

that is going to help establish priorities for spending. It is going to help

establish the areas in the Province that are in higher need that we can

dedicated the scarce dollar that is available at this point in time for

government, there are not as many as there used to be but, it means wiser use,

it means evaluating and making sure that you are getting the bang for the buck

and that you are dealing with situations that are crucial to the people of this

Province and the intent of the strategy is again to identify those groups with

the greatest need and to develop programs and approaches.

The strategy will not be limited to government; it will also

focus on opportunities for public and private partnerships in an effort to

determine the most cost-effective methods to assist people. The strategy will be

finalized in conjunction with the budget development process this fall so, I

think the Member for St. John's Centre is hopefully going to have some input

into that process also over the next few months, as again, the start has been

made on it with a dedicated program especially here in St. John's, but we need a

provincial housing strategy, a kind of updated, basically a further strategy and

the minister and his officials at Housing are in the process now of carrying

forward on that.

Again, it is a result too I think, of the changing role that

the federal government sees or has seen early back in '93, where they were

attempting to get out of all housing. I think they are back into part of it now,

but we see that at the end of the day we have the responsibility to try to have

a program that makes a contribution to helping people with their living

accommodations to an acceptable standard. If we are in politics for anything,

Mr. Speaker, trying to find that the basic needs of people and making sure that

they are met is probably the biggest part of our mandate, and sometimes in the

hierarchy of needs that we all aspire to and watch, the basic needs have to be

met first before you can go and you get that education and then you reach higher

for that position that you want to attain but your basic needs have to be met

and housing is one of those basic needs and is something that we, as government,

have to focus on as strongly as we can and I believe that part of the debate

today coming out of it we will see further efforts made to try to deal with the

problem, and I think it is commendable that the minister has been able to have a

dedicated fund this year towards the downtown area. It is the first time I

believe and I think it is a good start.

It is not enough but it is a good start and hopefully we will

see some of the private sector participation in these projects start to get

real; to see the private sector participate in doing this and if we have to give

them a pat on the back or whatever we have to do, Mr. Speaker, then I am all for

it but you know, it is also the private sectors responsibility. The private

sector is saying let's do this for us and do that for us to help stimulate the

economy. Well, they also have to help stimulate the economy by doing some things

for people in this Province and we need to see more of that.

I was at the opening for the Home Show which opened last

weekend and I was at the booths and walking around; that is a big industry in

this Province repairing of homes and so on, and the private sector has been

involved in a heavy way, but I think we need to see a closer partnership with

government, with the private sector to see what we can do to maximize the value

of the expenditures that are being made and we welcome the provincial housing

strategy that the minister is bringing forward and getting developed.

The role of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is always up

for question, Mr. Speaker, it has been I think for the last ten or fifteen

years. Since I have been a member it has been always one that I have wondered

about. I think these days we have to also understand that what they are doing is

really two things. You are trying to develop land assemblies in the Province, in

communities that need them, where it is viable to do so and taking monies that

are able to be - doing that because that is a need where there is no private

sector - being able to do that and use those funds to develop your social

housing, to put up units that we need for senior citizens in this Province, Mr.

Speaker. There has been some excellent housing put up for seniors.

There has been some excellent housing put up for disabled

individuals. I can tell you, out my way, there has been some superb housing put

up for disabled individuals, accessible housing. The CPA have been involved in

doing that, the Canadian Paraplegic Association has been involved in a major way

in this Province in the last three, four, five years. We have seen some major

good housing improvements made for people who have disabilities and are

physically challenged. So we have seen some improvements that way, we need to

see more and in particular in the downtown St. John's area. The present program

that has been initiated by the Province, with the federal government, we need to

see a further attack on the problem.

I think the Minister responsible for Housing has been able to

get the efforts started in a major way. I think that working with the Member for

St. John's East, St. John's Centre and the other members for the City of St.

John's, and with City council, which is a major player, that we are going to see

some improvements finally, further improvements and that with a collaborative

effort we will see some substantial changes and improvements to the basic living

arrangements for people in St. John's. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this issue because the

housing industry is an industry that I have been involved in for many, many

years. I had the portfolio for, I think, seven years as Minister of Housing. So

I have some background and some knowledge of the housing industry and also a

great appreciation for the concerns of my friend from St. John's Centre. Having

been born and raised in St. John's - in fact, lived for a short period of time

in the downtown core and have seen some fires.

In fact, I should relate a story that some members might find

interesting. When I was a very young child living in downtown St. John's I was

awakened one night by fire trucks. There was a fire just a couple of doors away

from me. I was not very old then, I may have been seven years old. The fire was

in the home of a schoolmate of mine. At 1:30 a.m. I watched him coming out of

his bedroom window in his pyjamas and come down over that ladder. Now that

schoolmate turned out to be a colleague of mine, the former Minister of

Transportation, the Member for St. George's, Mr. Dawe, who came out his window

at one-thirty in the morning.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I resist the temptation to give him another

swat on the wrist, Mr. Speaker, it is not worth wasting time about. He

contributes nothing to the debate. He just tries to be disruptive. It just shows

what a complete imbecile he is and what a disgrace he is to the people of Port

de Grave. We have 450, 950, several thousand people ready to put the Member for

Port de Grave out to pasture in the next election, Mr. Speaker, whenever the

Premier gets the intestinal fortitude to call it. I am not going to waste any

more of my time. This is a serious issue. He may not think it is very important,

Mr. Speaker, he might find it funny but the Member for St. John's Centre does

not find it funny. He raised it quite sincerely and it is an excellent issue.

Mr. Speaker, fire safety in downtown St. John's is an

important issue and the housing issue, as many members have said, is very, very

important, probably one of the most basic and most important issues facing many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today. I say to my friend from St. John's

Centre that I support fully his concern for fire safety in downtown St. John's.

Many of these older homes are certainly substandard. They were built long before

there was even a semblance of a national building code or a fire code. So they

do not meet any kind of normal standards by today's values. Now we must remember

that a large portion of downtown St. John's is now part of the great heritage

area. So they have, through municipal by-laws, forced owners or landlords to

comply with very serious restrictions on what they can do in renovating their

homes, and there is a good rationale for that. We are trying to retain the

history and the culture of the city and the character of downtown St. John's

which is quite unique. It is really quite unique, and I certainly support that,

but we must recognize that if we are going to force these people to maintain

these types of standards that we are putting a financial burden on them, and

there has to be in place a program. There has been some funding in place but

probably not enough to allow them to conform with the heritage guidelines, and

at the same time upgrade the fire standards, the fire safety, and the life

safety features of these homes.

We have all heard of the two great fires that destroyed St.

John's, but we did not learn well by those great fires. We have basically

replaced the city much as it was and used the same standards of construction

that allowed the city to be destroyed in those two great fires. I guess we all

do remember the great fire at the CLB Armory just a couple of years ago which

threatened a large portion of the central core of the city. It was only by the

grace of God and through the tremendous efforts of the fire department that

stopped that fire from spreading. We lost a dozen houses as it was but it was

very, very close to jumping across Long's Hill and getting down into the real

core of the city. We could have lost many, many more homes the night of the CLB

fire, many, many more.

MR. GRIMES: You could see it from the steps.

MR. WINDSOR: We were here on the steps and we watched it.

The House was sitting that night. My friend for Exploits is quite right. Many of

us went out to watch the fire from the front steps of Confederation Building. We

were very fortunate, with the high winds and conditions that night, fire

fighters did an incredible job of containing that fire and saving hundreds of

other homes that could have been swept away that particular night, and that

potential is always there.

I just want to point out, too, that the level of protection

is not as great as we would like in the central core of the city. The water

mains and the lines there are very old. Many of them need to be replaced. The

city is doing its best to clean them and replace them but they are very old. I

am aware that they had difficulties that night in maintaining pressure to the

fire hoses, and there are many other areas of the city that may even be worse.

The CLB Armory was at a central point where many water lines

came together so there were many directions from which water could feed to it.

There are other areas of the city downtown where a major fire, a three or four

alarm fire such as that one, could not probably maintain the kind of fire

pressures that would be required to protect those homes, and fire can get out of

control very quickly.

Now, I want to address some of the issues that were raised

here, particularly in comparing private housing, public housing, and rental

housing. There is an argument that needs to be considered between them. Let me

first of all say that it does not matter who owns the house, or what the

ownership is, the life safety is the important factor. That is the most

important thing.

The Member for St. John's Centre, I think, is pointing his

finger primarily at landlords who are not prepared to spend funds to repair

homes. Well, that is certainly a valid case in point, and I think there is some

argument to be made that when persons purchase homes and put them up for rental

an occupancy permit is required but there can be some restrictions put in place

to ensure that a level of improvement is put in place from a life safety point

of view. Having said that we must always recognize the economics of the

situation, that we do not want to put that unit outside of the economic market.

We have to consider that.

Now, the Housing Corporation has been involved in downtown

St. John's. I remember what old St. John's looked like. I remember some of the

homes that have been taken down, particularly around the Queen's Road area where

the Delta Hotel is now and City Hall is now. There were some very low standard

of homes there, so there has been tremendous improvements.

The housing corporation has methodically from time to time

purchased old homes that went on the market and have been replacing them with

new modern structures that retain the character but have a higher standard of

fire safety and meet the national building code. Bit by bit we are doing that

and I have to say they have done a good job of that, particular when it refers

to some senior's housing adjacent to City Hall. I think it is an excellent

example of how the Housing Corporation can participate in urban renewal on an

economic basis, because those are good units and I believe they are economic

rentals.

They basically took people who were in some of the older

homes in this area, who had spent their life living there and really did not

want to move away from that area, the area where they had lived their own lives,

with all of their friends and their places of doing business, their whole way of

life centred around that area. Those units were built and people moved into them

in favour of these newer units, and saw their old homes torn down, but it is an

appropriate way of dealing with that problem. They may not be in their old home

which was substandard. They are now in a new modern unit which is far safer for

them, designed to accommodate their needs, but they are still in their area;

they are still living in downtown St. John's.

Now, downtown St. John's is becoming a very popular area.

People are moving back to the core of the city. My own daughter had bought a

home in downtown St. John's a couple of years ago, has restored it, and is very

happy and very comfortably living in downtown St. John's. Fortunately it is

totally detached, but not by very much. It is still in great danger. The CLB

fire could very well have taken her home.

We are seeing a lot of young professionals, a lot of artistic

people, a lot of academics; these types of people find the downtown core an

attractive place in which to live. A lot of university students find it an

attractive place in which to rent accommodations and to live while they are

attending university, and it keeps them close to the nightlife of George Street

and so forth. So we should not look at downtown St. John's as being a liability

by any means. There is an opportunity here to develop very high quality housing,

very desirable housing, that will find a ready market available to it.

Let me address also, in the few moments I have left, the

issue of where the Housing Corporation should be involved here. It has always

been an argument, as long as I have been around, that the Housing Corporation

should be providing social housing for the disadvantaged, those who are not able

to look after themselves, and that is certainly an important mandate of the

Housing Corporation, by all means; we have to do that.

We also need programs to allow those who are not quite able

to look after themselves, to help them stay in their own homes as much as

possible. It is far cheaper, I say to the minister, to do that than to say: Your

house is substandard; we will build you a new one. It is far better to provide

some senior citizens with a measure of funding to help them to upgrade their

homes to a level where they are able to stay in their own home as long as

possible, not only from a social point of view but from an economic point of

view, because if they are no longer able to stay in a substandard house then

they end up probably in senior's housing somewhere, a senior's home, something

of that nature, which is far, far more expensive to the public purse. So

sometimes a few pennies in the right direction will save many dollars in another

by allowing people to stay in their own homes and their own environment as much

as possible.

Social housing is a very important role for the government to

play, and for the Housing Corporation to play, but I want to address the

question, as well, of economic units, and of development of industrial parks. In

the minister's own district, the industrial park in Carbonear probably would not

be there except for the Housing Corporation. So here is a case where the Housing

Corporation became the stimulant to industrial development there. I believe, in

fact, there were some housing subdivisions built in Carbonear and in Harbour

Grace by the Housing Corporation, and in many other areas of the Province where

the private sector would not go.

Now the private sector will say: You should not be in that

market. If there is a demand we will fill it. And that is a valid argument, but

I say to the minister that there is always a role for government to play to

control the marketplace. If you let the private sector go totally to fill the

economic marketplace, then what control is there on the marketplace? There is

always the competitive control, I suppose, but government plays an important

role in acting as a break in controlling market values in those areas.

I also want to address the question of why is government

spending money to develop these expensive building lots. The answer is very

clearly, as the minister will confirm I'm sure, that a lot of money in many

areas is made. Some of these housing developments in fact give a real return to

the Housing Corporation, which in turn is rolled into social housing. Not only

are we keeping the market level down so that those persons who are purchasing

units on an economic basis are assured that rents or land prices are kept

reasonably low, we are also in fact making money to put into social housing.

Elizabeth Towers is always looked at as a great pink elephant

or white elephant or something, but Elizabeth Towers in fact makes a small

amount of money for government over the year. It has cost us money in earlier

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't in the beginning, but market rents

have gone up. The rents charged in Elizabeth Towers now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I won't say to the minister that all of that

capital cost, because of the poor construction, could be recovered in the short

term, but in the long term. In Pleasantville, all those apartments that we

inherited for a dollar from the United States government, they've made millions

for the Province, and at the same time provided very good units at very low

rental rates. Churchill Park still returns money to the provincial government

through the Housing Corporation. So there is an argument there. It controls the

rental rates in the marketplace and also provides some funding to the Province

to put into social housing. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand government's role in

the economic area.

By all means the key role is social housing. By all means we

have a role to play in ensuring that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has a

reasonable quality of life, a reasonable home in which to live. I wish we had

more funds available for rural RRAP, for urban RRAP, for urban renewal programs.

These are great programs that have been in place over the years that have done

tremendous work in our Province and in other provinces of Canada, that have

upgraded our housing stock considerably, but we still have a long ways to go.

Not only does it provide improvements in housing stock, but as the previous

speaker mentioned it is a tremendous employment generator. The housing industry

is a major industry in this Province, it is a major employer. Any funding that

we can direct - and I realize the problems with finding funding - in that

direction will be repaid many times over, Mr. Speaker, both in social benefits

and in economic benefits.

I take pleasure in supporting the motion by the hon. member,

but I want to emphasize that is not the only problem that we have. We face many

housing problems. There are many areas that we can be involved in, in new

innovative housing forms that I'm sure the minister has seen: in cluster housing

that is being developed in many areas, in very innovative apartment-type

settings designed for both the socio-economic situation, the age of the person,

and the lifestyle of the person and so forth. There is a whole area that we need

to look into, but certainly the member's resolution is an appropriate one, and I

take great pleasure in supporting it, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to rise to speak in

favour of my colleague's motion. I'm going to be honest and say to you that I'm

rising in favour because I understand fully the situation that my hon. colleague

is faced with in downtown St. John's. I can appreciate his concerns for his

constituents, as I'm sure he feels the same about our constituents, other

constituents around the Province, who are not necessarily in similar situations,

but in just as critical situations.

I listened with interest to my hon. colleague from across the

way, for Mount Pearl, a few minutes ago when he made the comment about

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and what is going into the

Province and what role Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is playing

in the overall social housing scheme in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

contributes $13.5 million each year, or at least this year, to Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. That $13.5 million generates over $200 million in fees and

services, in commitments from the federal government on cost-shared programs,

and numerous other programs and ways I suppose that the Housing Corporation can

make money around the Province. In making that money around the Province, and

getting such a good return on that $13.5 million, enables them, the Housing

Corporation, to go out and take

part in RAP Programs, urgent repair programs,

seniors housing, rooming house RAP Programs, the one that is going on in St.

John's this year; we were given some $300,000, $400,000 from the federal

government in conjunction with the federal government this year for a program,

and the total amount of that $400,000 is going into rooming house RAP in St.

John's.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate responsibility -

and I am not saying this to shirk the responsibility of the provincial

government or federal - but the ultimate responsibility for the lack of adequate

facilities in downtown St. John's rests solely in the City of St. John's Act. It

is the City of St. John's, in their act that regulates the fire prevention, fire

equipment, life and safety in these types of units that are found I suppose, not

in all areas of St. John's but at least in the downtown area, and comes under

the City of St. John's Act.

As most members know, from a question that was posed to me by

my hon. friend from Humber Valley just before we closed about where was the bill

to impose fines, to increase the fine from $100 to $5,000 for those slums - and

I use the word loosely - slum landlords in St. John's who continually ignore

rules and regulations when it comes to health and safety in some of their homes.

I was informed a few minutes ago that I should be ready to introduce that bill

to the House next week.

Now that bill basically gives the City of St. John's now, the

right under their act to increase their fines for those people who