December

5, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 47

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome a

group of senior management officials from the China National Petroleum

Corporation. These officials are attending a training session at Memorial

University in St. John's and they are accompanied by Mr. Glenn Rowe, Director

for the Centre for Management Development, Faculty of Business Administration in

Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

As well, today in the Speaker's Gallery, we have the former

Member for Harbour Grace, Mr. John Crane, and I would like to welcome him as

well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize and

welcome forty-five students from the Democracy Class at Queen Elizabeth High

School.

They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Fred Wood and Mr.

Derek Stevenson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also have a group from the Rabbittown

Literacy Project in the District of St. John's North and they are accompanied by

Doris Hapgood who is the co-ordinator, and tutors, Elizabeth Gabriel; Cecil

Sullivan and Lori Hapgood, and we would like to welcome them as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have been asked to remind hon. members

that this evening at 6.30, the annual Christmas Lights Across Canada ceremony

will be taking place on the front steps of the building and that all members and

their families are invited to attend.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment for

education in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Yesterday, the House of Commons passed the

amendments to Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada

which were requested by this government on behalf of the people of the Province.

The Newfoundland Legislature, by virtue of this amendment, will now have control

over the way schools are organized and administered in this Province.

In 1991, the hon. Clyde Wells appointed a Royal Commission to

study the delivery of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Royal

Commission, Mr. Speaker, reported containing over 200 recommendations aimed at

improving the educational opportunities for children in this Province and

removing inefficiencies in the administrative structure. Many of these reforms

could not be implemented until extensive changes had occurred in the manner in

which schools and school boards were administered.

After receiving the Commission's report, Mr. Speaker,

government entered into negotiations with representatives of the denominations

involved. After nearly three years of discussions, government and the

denominational representatives were unsuccessful in reaching agreement on a

restructured school system. In the Fall of 1995, government sought the approval

of the people, in a referendum, to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of

Newfoundland with Canada, in order to proceed with the restructuring plans.

Government took the first steps towards broad education

reform when, in November 1995, it requested the Parliament of Canada to amend

Term 17. The House of Commons passed the resolution in June, 1996. However, it

was unnecessarily delayed in the Senate until November 27, 1996 when it was

returned to the House of Commons and received final approval yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the new school districts have now been

established, the interim school boards have been appointed and have hired their

senior administrative staff. We are now in a position to move forward with the

more substantive reforms to the education system, which will have a direct

effect on improving educational opportunities and programs for the students

themselves.

During September and October of this year I conducted a

series of nineteen public consultations and invited public discussion on student

transportation, school viability, and the designation of schools and on other

matters related to the proposed reforms. Approximately 5000 individuals attended

those consultation sessions, and as a result, about 250 submissions were

presented and in excess of 1000 people completed survey forms by mail. A new

draft Schools Act, and a new draft Education Act have subsequently been

prepared, taking into consideration the comments received in response to the

January 3 documents and the presentations, suggestions, and comments received.

The interim school boards which were appointed in August will

assume full responsibility for the administration of schools by January 1, 1997.

These boards have told me and the government that they must immediately begin

the process of reorganizing their schools for the 1997/'98 school year. It is

unfortunate that the process has been somewhat delayed. However, we are prepared

with the co-operation of our colleagues in this House to do as the people of the

Province expect us to do; that is, to move the education reform agenda forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, while the legislation will, I

expect, be introduced very quickly, we remain committed to consulting with our

major partners and stakeholders in education, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association, the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association,

the Denominational Education Councils, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Home

and School Federation. I expect to do this within the next few days.

On behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I wish to

publicly acknowledge the contribution of each and every member of this

Legislature, to date, in unanimously supporting government's efforts to amend

Term 17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It is imperative that, in these times of

rapidly declining enrolment and scarce resources, the current complex system

with its duplication of school boards, administrative offices, schools and

transportation systems, be fundamentally redesigned for educational excellence

and fiscal responsibility. The children of the Province, Mr. Speaker, deserve no

less.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, the tradition which was established by the

hon. minister with respect to providing Ministerial Statements well in advance

was broken today. I just received this copy. It is unfortunate, because it is

with respect to such an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, my comment in reaction to this is: Let us now,

all of us in this Province, forget the unfortunate history on the road to

education reform. Let us forget perhaps what we can call an unnecessary course

of events, and in the interest of all of the students of this Province, let us

now deal with the present and the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the vote in the Commons

yesterday was clearly a decisive vote, and I agree with the hon. the minister

that we must now move quickly. We must move along in the interest of the

students of our Province.

I also support the position of the hon. the minister in

consulting with and debating the issues of reform with all the interested

parties, all the stakeholders in education. We must do this; we must do it now.

We must move along with legislation very quickly, and we have to do this in the

interest of everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Finally, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

a point that was made by the hon. the Premier several months ago, we on this

side of the House would be interested in seeing draft legislation as quickly as

possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon.

members for giving me leave to speak on this historic occasion. As the minister

has indicated, it is a long time coming. When I was a university student, as we

all were, we first became aware of the serious problem that we had in this

Province with the duplication of schools and effort. And after a lengthy and

sometimes acrimonious battle to change the Constitution, we are now at the point

where consensus has been reached in this House. The House of Commons has agreed

to change the Constitution of this Province and to allow us all to move forward.

I hope in doing so, we can ensure the religious denominations

and their adherents that they do have in this Province, even after these

reforms, more rights, more access to all of the schools of the Province, to

teach religious beliefs, than in other province of this country. That should be,

Mr. Speaker, a reason for consolation and satisfaction, not a reason for

acrimony or concern that their rights have been eliminated.

I join with the minister and with the Official Opposition

spokesperson on education in hoping that we can all go forward with a piece of

legislation, having reviewed it, that will not bring forth great debate in

principle in this House, but we can move forward to having implementation of the

plans for reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since my appointment as Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, I have repeatedly spoken to the need to diversify the fishing

industry of this Province. I have highlighted specific fisheries development

opportunities for underutilized species, in particular, and my department has

already undertaken a number of initiatives relative to inshore shrimp, Atlantic

king crab and porcupine crab. I have also stated that we should derive greater

benefits from the northern shrimp fishery which, to date, has been prosecuted by

offshore freezer trawlers. Indeed, I have made representation to my federal

colleague on a number of occasions speaking to the need to provide greater

participation in the fishery by inshore vessels immediately adjacent to the

resource.

Hon. members may be aware that the hon. Fred Mifflin,

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced on November 29 past that his

department will be seeking industry views on sharing increases in the northern

shrimp quota. This fishery occurs from off Eastern Newfoundland, along the

Labrador Coast, and into Davis Strait with seventeen licence holders, including

eight in Newfoundland and Labrador. The combined shrimp quota for 1996 is 37,600

tonnes and each licence receives an equal allocation.

Minister Mifflin has noted that should quotas increase above

existing levels, additional access should be granted. We understand the resource

is very healthy and that quota increases are likely when the new multi-year

management plan is announced by the end of March, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I have made repeated representations to my

federal counterpart and his department about the northern shrimp fishery which

in the past has been of little benefit to inshore fish harvesters of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Minister Mifflin's initiative means that for the

first time ever, these harvesters will have access to that great resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I commend him for his action, and the

cooperation he has given the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on this

issue and others.

Mr. Speaker, this announcement presents a significant

economic development opportunity for those regions of the Province adjacent to

the northern shrimp resource. It is the position of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador that those regions must be the primary beneficiaries

of benefits associated with any increase in quotas for northern shrimp. This is

the position that I again will be communicating to my federal counterpart. Our

inshore fish harvesters have the capability to prosecute this fishery, and there

are plants which will have a strong interest in providing onshore processing

opportunities. I encourage industry to take full advantage of this new

opportunity, and submit proposals to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Speaker, this announcement, together with the recent

recommendation relative to the limited reopening of the 3Ps and West Coast cod

fisheries, demonstrates that the rebuilding of our fishery has taken a turn for

the better. I am most encouraged by these developments and I have every

confidence that this shrimp resource opportunity will strengthen our fishery and

will provide welcome economic benefits to those who will participate in the

harvesting and processing sectors of this fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of this ministerial statement prior to the opening of the House. I say we

finally got a fisheries minister up in Ottawa who is starting to listen to

Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We certainly welcome that because that is

certainly a pleasant change but the minister failed to say how this particular

species was going to be fished. Anything that would give our rural

Newfoundlanders an opportunity to go back into their fish plants and to allow

inshore fishermen an opportunity to harvest a new species, Mr. Speaker, is

certainly welcome news but from what I understand, the way that this particular

species is now fished, it causes great concern by many of the people out there,

even the fishermen themselves, whereby they use the Nordmore Grape and they go

out and scrape it over the bottom. By the very process of harvesting this

particular species of fish, Mr. Speaker, it is destroying tons and tons of

juvenile cod, juvenile turbot, juvenile halibut and this is coming from the

fishermen themselves saying it is not uncommon to have to shovel those small

juvenile fish off the decks of their boats.

Mr. Speaker, while this is welcomed news, and it will provide

opportunities, I say to the minister: Be very cautious about this particular

fish now and into the future.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

Members of the House of Assembly of the signing of the Canada/Newfoundland Farm

Business Management Agreement. This agreement will provide approximately

$780,000 over three years, 1996 to 1999, for the Farm Business Management

Program for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this program will help to

expand the farm management culture from its previous emphasis on production to

include a more business oriented and market responsive approach.

Mr. Speaker, a major focus of this agreement is to sponsor

projects which are designed to enhance the ability of farm managers to

effectively manage change. As with other provinces across the country, Mr.

Speaker, the agricultural industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has changed

radically in the past three to five years. By re-identifying the human resource

development needs of the industry, the Canada/Newfoundland Farm Business

Management Program will ensure that the funding allocations made through this

program have the greatest effect and impact in assisting farm managers to grow

with these changes.

Mr. Speaker, this program will be used to upgrade the farm

management skills of Newfoundland and Labrador's farm businesses, almost all of

which are family owned and operated. Through their farm organizations, farmers

will be able to initiate projects which use technology for improved information

management, or involve the refinement of marketing knowledge and skills, the

application of business planning, and the development of farmers'

entrepreneurial skills. Mr. Speaker, the Canada/Newfoundland Farm Business

Management Program will promote strategies designed to increase the

competitiveness of the industry in domestic and international markets.

This partnership program, Mr. Speaker, is equally funded by

the federal and provincial governments, and includes the Province's ongoing Farm

Business Management Program as part of our contribution. This

Canada/Newfoundland Farm Business Management Agreement has been signed as part

of a renewed national initiative, the Canadian Farm Business Management Program,

which has been operating since 1992. However, Mr. Speaker, this new program

places more emphasis on encouraging greater integration and co-ordination of

government and industry efforts in areas of farm management skills, development

and training. Mr. Speaker, the agreement has been refocused to support

activities which will achieve value-added benefits to the agricultural industry.

It will provide the opportunity for greater sharing of materials, tools and

information among the provinces, as well as the incremental development of tools

and information to improve the competitiveness of the sector.

The overall goal of the Canadian Farm Business Management

Program is to help farm managers successfully manage their farm businesses

through more effective use of farm business management information and skills.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this should result in a financially stronger, more

market oriented sector, and in strengthened individual farm operations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again thank the

minister for providing me with a copy of this ministerial statement prior to the

opening of the House.

It is certainly welcome news to the farming industry.

Anything that we can do to help this industry and lead it along is certainly

encouraging. Because farming, especially root crop farming in this Province, has

enough to contend with already when we consider our weather and the type of soil

that we have here.

The one thing I would like to impress upon the minister once

again - he has addressed it here - is marketing. It is certainly unfair to the

farmers in this particular Province whereby when it comes harvest time all of a

sudden we get vegetables from other provinces being dumped onto the market here,

lowering the value of locally produced vegetables right here in this Province.

Our same farmers are not provided the opportunity, or don't have the privilege,

of taking their crops to other provinces, as the minister is well aware. This is

one thing that the farmers in this Province have continually made me aware of. I

know that the minister is aware of it, and I think he or the government should

move as soon as possible to do whatever is needed in order to ensure that this

doesn't continue to happen, and our farmers are given an equal opportunity to

compete in the marketplace today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I ask the minister: Why has the

provincial government given up our autonomy on environmental assessments

regarding the transshipment facility?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, first off, I thank the

Leader of the Opposition for the question. The government has given up no

autonomy whatsoever when it comes to environmental assessment. This project was

registered like any other project under the Environmental Assessment Act. It was

duly examined by all of the experts that we have in different departments,

including the federal, including provincial. The opinion that came back to this

minister was to release the project from assessment. It doesn't mean it is

released from all the other authorizations and permits and protection plans that

we will require for it. Not only that, it has to go through federal

jurisdiction, also the federal environmental assessment act, which it is doing

now. It may take still some time to do that. This project, I can assure you,

will be protected within the Department of Environment and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Will the minister confirm that

this Province has responsibility for environmental assessments onshore and for

up to three miles offshore?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have responsibility

under the Environmental Assessment Act for that area.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, you

received a development plan from companies which resulted in their being

released from the provincial environmental assessment. Are you setting a

dangerous precedent for such a large industrial development? Will you release

this plan to the public to alleviate any concerns in this regard?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this project was registered

in September of this year. It was public in September of this year, and I can

tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: If the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, was

concerned about this earlier the fall, maybe they would have asked some

questions about the project, because they could have picked up the document and

read it. Because it was quite available. Since September, as a matter of fact.

As a matter of fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is a public document.

It was duly registered in September. Any person in this Province can get a copy

of the document. They can look at whatever they think is a concern, and they can

register that concern. As a matter of fact, if they still have a concern they

can register the concern. I will have a copy delivered this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

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

minister for information that would alleviate concerns when they made a decision

and decided not to go to an environmental impact statement. That is basically

the procedure. I ask the minister, is he aware of a report that indicates that

Placentia Bay is considered one of the high risk areas for navigation in this

country, and one of the least able to respond to a spill? An area that is

fundamental now in the recovery of our fishery.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there are two federal acts

which will govern the federal environmental assessment act and the concerns that

people may have about navigable waters, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to any

transshipment activity. Now both these acts are being looked at by the federal

officials and they will have to make a decision as to whether or not the present

documents submitted, deals with offshore water navigations. So, Mr. Speaker, the

federal government, in its jurisdiction is going to deal with that concern, but

further to that, I have already met with the proponent.

I called in the proponent only a couple of weeks ago and

asked them directly and said to them directly: I want to make sure and I want to

be assured, that even if the federal government is going to be looking at this,

I want to make sure that you submit to me, an environmental protection plan to

this provincial government, which will also cover any potential for oil spill

response, and I asked them directly if they would submit that, they have agreed

to do so to this provincial government even though, they may not be required

normally, but we are getting it for our purposes because we want to ensure, as a

provincial government

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - and those officials of the company have

agreed. But also, they still have to go through the Federal Environmental

Assessment Act, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister expects the oil to know when it is within three

miles of the shore?

We must be ready for an oil spill. Now, while nobody will

want a spill to happen, it would be negligent to ignore the possibility, and the

Coast Guard is not capable of responding and neither is the provincial

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, during a critical

twelve hours after a spill, what will we do and who will do it in the case of a

spill?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, first off, the federal

government, through the Federal Environmental Assessment Act and also under the

Canada Shipping Act, is going to require, for sure, on site, immediate response

for any potential oil spill, on shore, right on site and they will have to have

it. But also, not only will the federal government require it, they will not

move ahead on this project unless we get the same thing through an environmental

protection plan, Mr. Speaker. We have written to them and asked for this and

required it and they will give it to us. So on both counts, they will have to

submit both to the federal and provincial governments a response program that

meets for sure, any immediate response to an oil spill that may occur offshore.

It does not matter how close to shore. We are going to ensure

that, that sensitive area is evaluated thoroughly, we are going to make sure

that the company has the best technology, Mr. Speaker, because it is a sensitive

area in Placentia Bay and we want to make sure that we cover it off and we are

going to do our best to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the case of a spill, I asked him what will we do? He said

we will evaluate it and we will look at things. I think it is a bit too late

then Mr. Minister to evaluate things after we have had a spill.

Now, Mr. Minister, we have the Come By Chance oil refinery,

we have the smelter and refinery just recently announced at Argentia, we have

the transshipment facility -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I sure hope it does. These facilities will

mean nothing to the people of Placentia Bay or to this Province if one oil spill

takes it all away.

Now, Mr. Minister, an environmental assessment is not red

tape. Will you reverse the decision and do what is right to ensure that

Placentia Bay will never have to be resettled again?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you know, storage tanks are

not a new thing in this Province or in Atlantic Canada. I mean, we have a number

of tanks all over the Province close to our shores, Mr. Speaker, which right

now, are under the strictest guidelines on the planet, Mr. Speaker, when it

comes to environmental protection. Right now there is a response program that is

already set up for Come By Chance refinery and Holyrood refinery and which are

already in place, but I will tell you now, Mr. Speaker, we are not satisfied

with that. We are going to want better than that when further activity occurs in

the transshipment area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, we have double-hold vessels, they

are going to be the biggest and the best in the world. Some of the best built

vessels in the world, double-hold for sure; but, given all that other

protection, we are going to ensure that we have a proper protection plan. We are

looking at, right at this point in time, the technology they are using in

Norway, we are looking at the technology they are using in Europe, we are having

briefings on that in the next few weeks and I am going to be sitting down again.

I have already met with the Director General of Fisheries and

Oceans, and Coastguard previously, a little more than a month ago to discuss

this issue, and we will be meeting with the federal minister next week in

Toronto.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I was going to give the minister some leave

so the show could go on, but we have to stop the show for a little while to ask

a few questions of the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Of course, most of the hype and talk about Voisey's Bay has

been related to nickel, and for good reason, of course, as there is lots of good

nickel, some of the best quality and quantity in the world at Voisey's Bay.

There are also reports by Inco that there are substantial amounts of copper at

Voisey's Bay. I would like to ask the minister if he can confirm that there are

some 250 million pounds of copper to be produced at Voisey's Bay annually?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to confirm

that 251 million pounds of copper will be produced annually at Voisey's Bay. l

will confirm there is copper. Everybody knows there is copper, there is nickel

and there is cobalt, and there are probably traces of other elements. What is

going to happen at Voisey's Bay, when we are into full production and full

capacity, is that we will be producing enough ore at the site to feed a smelter

that is going to produce annually 270 million pounds of nickel, 7 million pounds

of cobalt, and 36 million pounds of copper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thirty-six million pounds of copper

represents about 20 per cent of the copper we anticipate at the site based on

our present knowledge of the site. The numbers cannot be exact. It is going to

be variable, depending on exactly how much ore is produced in a year, and

depending on where it is coming from in a year.

In the initial phase of the open pit, there is a little more

copper in that, and there is a little more nickel in that than there is in the

underground. The reserves are higher in the underground but the grades are lower

and there will be less copper, and more tons will have to be produced to get it.

In the production from this deposit 20 per cent of the copper will be produced

through the refinery at Argentia.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be able to

confirm it because it is right here in the report by Inco, and I am sure he has

read it. I have read it a few times and I am sure the minister must have read

it. Mr. Speaker, it is from the source.

It is some 250 million pounds, and I say that to be

conservative numbers, I say to the minister. There are 250 million pounds of

copper concentrate - the sample which I have here today, Mr. Speaker, 250

million pounds of copper about to move out of this Province. Can the minister

tell us who has advised the government on the viability of smelting and refining

copper at Voisey's Bay? Did the Province depend solely on Inco's information, or

did it seek independent advice from people within the industry, or whether it is

true that our copper has to be shipped out of the Province for refining because

it is not viable here? Is that true, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, at Argentia we are going to

have the biggest smelter and refinery complex in the Western world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: It is going to be year 2000 technology, the

most advanced smelter refinery complex in the world, the most environmentally

clean complex in the world, and through that complex we are going to put the

nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay which will contain most of the nickel, most

of the cobalt, and about 20 per cent of the copper.

Now, about 80 per cent of the copper will remain, and on an

annual basis about 50,000 to 70,000 tons of copper will go elsewhere, based on

assessments that have been done that copper will not be smelted at that complex.

It is not economical to do so. It is not economical to build a copper smelter

for 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 tons of copper per year. In the last ten to twenty

years in Canada and the United States, eight, ten or more small copper smelters

have closed because they were not big enough to be economic.

New copper smelters that are built today in the world are

four to five times as big as the one that will have to be built to deal with the

amount of copper that will be available from Voisey's Bay. Internationally today

copper smelters run much bigger than that. If you look today into South America

you would find that there are copper smelters there, the Chilean copper smelters

that are pushing a billion pounds of copper per year. So the economic scale is

such that you don't build new small copper smelters. There is another aspect of

this particular ore, that if it does not have a dedicated smelter you will not

be sending it all or selling it all to one particular smelter as well. It is

likely because of a nickel contaminant in it that this particular copper will be

sold to several smelters in various places to produce it.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. I am

delighted that the refinery that we are about to get is supposed to be state of

the art and so on. What we want to make sure of is that every possibility, every

stone is turned to make sure that we are not shipping 250 million pounds of

copper concentrate and maybe, by the way, Mr. Speaker, even more of that out of

this Province than you would find elsewhere. So we are going to lose that 250

million pound base, at least that much.

Now, Mr. Speaker, isn't it possible that we could look at

others, besides Inco, to find out if it is possible for a refinery copper

smelter to be built in Labrador so that a refinery can stay there in Labrador

with copper?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if there is somebody out there,

whether it is on the other side of the House of Assembly or elsewhere in the

Province or the world that is interested in building such a copper smelter, we

would welcome them, absolutely welcome them. I am sure the company would be glad

to make the product available to them on a commercial basis, no problem to do it

but in terms of our assessment of the economics of this, you are dealing in

copper with something that is running around ninety cents a pound. I am not sure

what it is today. It might be ninety-three cents a pound today and nickel is

running over $3 a pound. The last time I saw a price on nickel it was $3.18 a

pound. There is a huge difference in price between the two. The nickel is the

commodity which has the big commercial value in this case and there is no

question, it is very viable and very economical but when you look at the 80 per

cent of the copper that is going with the copper concentrate and compare that to

what is done elsewhere in the world, in terms of copper smelting, a copper

smelter at 50,000 to 70,000 tons a year is not in the category that most people

would build today. If there is someone out there who wants to build one, come on

and do it. We would be glad to see you do it.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister is missing

something here. It is not somebody should build one, it should be Inco that

should build this copper refinery smelter in Labrador. I say to the minister,

hasn't Inco said that they will be importing nickel for its refinery in

Argentia? Isn't that correct? So if we are that close, Mr. Speaker, to 250

million pounds or more, why can't Inco of course look at the possibility of

importing copper like they would import nickel to Argentia? Why isn't that a

possibility?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we want the most economic

venture possible relative to Voisey's Bay. Absolutely the most economical

venture possible and at the end of the day, we would like a few tax dollars for

the people of this Province as well. We would like a few royalty dollars for the

people of this Province as well and we are not interested ourselves, as a

government or a people, in seeing something subsidized so that it would lose

money and pull down the revenue that is going to be possible from this

particular development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: We want to maximize the development to the

benefits of the people of this Province.

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

for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am just

simply asking the minister again today, and the whole reason for the line of

questioning, have you had a second opinion, besides Inco who takes care of their

shareholders, not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is the government's

job, to make sure with a second look that there is a possibility of a viable

smelter here in this Province, I will ask the minister that again?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have first opinions and

second opinions and other opinions. There are a lot of people who have opinions

and we did not ask Inco for an opinion first, second, third or last.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: Lots of people have opinions on what is

viable. We have our own people who are well capable with the people that we have

working for us to use the knowledge that is available about this industry to do

an evaluation of this industry, and we have done that. So we do not need to ask

Inco for their opinion, and their opinion alone. We believe this decision is

well-founded.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, according to a 1993 financial audit, $18,000 was

misspent by the Town of Pouch Cove and, according to a 1995 financial audit,

$16,000 is unaccounted for. Residents have demonstrated their outrage that their

tax dollars have gone missing; yet, the circumstances remain a mystery and no

one has been able to assure residents this will not happen again. I ask the

minister: What has he done to get to the bottom of the situation in Pouch Cove?

And what action does he have planned to bring about an acceptable resolution to

the situation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Two questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: The first question was: What have I done, or

what am I planning to do? There have been two separate police investigations in

that town - finished, complete - the report sent back to the Department of

Justice and ultimately to me.

What do I do with the town? I would certainly take the

recommendations of the member into consideration if he would propose the

suspension or the expulsion of that particular council. I would take it under

consideration. But I will say to you and this hon. House, the last thing that I

want to do, as a minister representing some 280 communities in this Province, is

to go out and do any more suspensions or firing.

I say to the hon. member: If he has suggestions of what the

minister should do with that council, make them to the House so that we can

discuss them with the people in that community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister: Give me your salary and I will give

you the solutions, no problem.

This is a very serious situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you taking this (inaudible) again

today?

MR. J. BYRNE: You watch now and find out.

The minister has watched this situation develop in Pouch

Cove. He has seen another messy situation play itself out in Conception Bay

South, where he did not listen to the member there. We are not talking about an

isolated incident.

Is the minister concerned that his department may be

providing inadequate resources to train new staff and municipal councillors? And

is he concerned that his department may have inadequate staffing to monitor

these situations and address them before they blow up like this?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case

relating to this particular community, I can honestly say that we do not have

inadequate staff. Our staff at the regional office has been almost on a daily

basis visiting the town, talking to the people in the town, talking to the

councillors. If anything, in the past three or four months we have spent more

time out in that particular area than we have in any other community on the

Northeast Avalon. So do not say in this House, and leave the impression, that

the staff of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs are not able or

capable of handling that particular community.

I do say to the member: I am in a situation where I have to

make a decision, and make it quickly, on what to do in that particular town, but

I do not want to be accused in this House, or for the member for that area to

stand in this House in a month's time and accuse me for firing another council.

So I say to you, in all honesty, if you want that council fired, you tell me

right here and now to fire that council and I will consider what you propose.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister is looking for solutions from

this member here, and I will give him a solution, no problem. I have yet to ask

for the council to be fired.

AN HON. MEMBER: No? What are you going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, 841 of Pouch Cove's 2,000

residents have petitioned the House to have the Auditor General do a full

investigation to get to the bottom of things in Pouch Cove. I am presenting that

petition in the House today.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that neither he nor anyone

else has been successful in finding out what is going on in Pouch Cove, or in

clearing the names of those who may quite wrongly be under a cloud of suspicion,

will he now agree to contact the Auditor General to impress on her the

importance of this matter, and to urge her to undertake a thorough investigation

of circumstances at Pouch Cove so the truth can come out?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Number one, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the

Auditor General does not come under my department, so I cannot direct the

Auditor General to do anything. My immediate reaction to your request would be

no. Let me tell you why I would suggest that we not send the Auditor General

into Pouch Cove.

If the Auditor General goes into Pouch Cove, you are looking

at a tremendous amount of expense, you are looking at a long period of time

before a final answer or final decision would be made. What I would suggest to

the hon. member - and I am sure a lot of us do it, I know I would do it; I am

sure other members of the House do it - is that maybe if the member went down

privately and met with that town council itself and offered his assistance, his

long years of experience that he has himself in the municipal field, offer, make

suggestions to the council itself. Who know? The council may resign! The council

may resign on its own. I don't know. I have heard the mayor say on several

occasions that he wasn't running anymore. Maybe he would resign if the member

asked him to resign, and then we could have another election, which could

probably address some of the problems down there.

But I say to the hon. member, you and I, let us go down

together. I would be glad to go down and meet with the council, you and I, and

talk to them and try to come to some sort of solution, rather than to go down

and spend $100,000 or $150,00 on further investigations that ultimately are not

really going to prove a lot. Because we are going to have an election in six or

eight months, and maybe at that point in time the people of Pouch Cove will

elect those people whom they want to elect. I offer the hon. member, let us go

to Pouch Cove, you and I, not to meet the 800 people who signed the petition,

but maybe we can talk to the town council.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem meeting with

the minister and the town council in Pouch Cove, none whatsoever, but I will say

to him that there were almost 400 people in a public meeting that the town

council itself called, 400 people, with the police officers there that did the

investigation, the town engineer there, their auditors there, and other people

who represented the town, and it was demanded on the spot that the council

resign - with almost 400 people there - and it didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Therefore your question is ...?

MR. J. BYRNE: Therefore my question is this. Will he not

again reconsider the question I asked? Because when all is said and done, you

can ask the council to resign. It can very well resign. That is still not

getting to the solution of what went on in that town that caused $34,000 to be

gone, misspent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I ask the minister would he reconsider and

ask the Auditor General to do an investigation into the town, as he did with the

town of Conception Bay South?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well

as I do - probably nobody else in the House is as familiar with the police

investigation that went on in Pouch Cove. The hon. member knows what went on in

Pouch Cove. I know what went on in Pouch Cove. The question of sending in the

Auditor General would be very expensive as far as we are concerned for that

particular community.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: No, we would have to pay for it, the

government themselves, so you would be looking at $150,000, $200,000 if they

went in to do that type. We asked the Constabulary to go in and see if they

could come up with any basis for criminal charges. The report is available, Mr.

Speaker, to anyone in this House. They can read the Constabulary reports and

pretty well find for themselves what went on in Pouch Cove. We are working with

the council and the staff at Pouch Cove right now to try to set up a system

whereby we make sure that this doesn't happen again. I am not in any position to

say what will happen to those people who have been named in both investigations.

I think you would have to ask the Minister of Justice to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. A. REID: The answer, Mr. Speaker, basically is no, I

am not in a position to ask the Auditor General to go in, but I will offer

whatever assistance I can to the community, and even to the member, if he so

wishes.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister

inform the House if the committee chairman looking at pay increases for

provincial court judges is being paid for his services?

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

MR. DECKER: No.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of road

conditions on the Bonavista Peninsula whereby, just entering into the winter

months, already the schools have had to be closed down there because of the

breakdown of equipment? I ask her if it is because of cutbacks, or is it because

of the department not being prepared for the winter months?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the road

conditions in this area of the Province, as I am in other areas of the Province.

There has been a complete assessment that has just been finished on all of the

provincial roads. It does identify areas where there is major improvement needed

to the infrastructure.

It is also a fact that we have had less finances than we

would like to have had to be able to do regular maintenance, both throughout the

summer and as we head into the winter months.

The staff of my department are doing the best they can with

the resources they have at their disposal. As conditions change, they will be

keeping a close eye on it. Again, the department will be responding as best they

can within the resources that they have at their disposal.

We are keeping a very close eye on conditions, both in this

district, in this area, as we are in all others, and we will be responding as we

can to the conditions that arise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

I just want to remind hon. members again that, when

presenting questions, the supplementary questions, as stated in Beauchesne ,

410.(8), states: Supplementary questions should flow from the answer of the

Minister. So members should not be jumping from one minister to another with

various questions.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have for tabling, the 1996 Annual Report of the

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools

In The Province".

"An Act Respecting Education".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really do not expect the same level of accolades.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act".

"An Act To Amend The Dental Act."

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act And the Liquor

Corporation Act".

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

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

Resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following

resolution:

WHEREAS the people of Labrador have long since felt a great

deal of frustration because they have not received a full and fair share of its

resources; and

WHEREAS the people of Labrador are demanding to be full

partners in this Province; and

WHEREAS the time has come to correct the inequities in

Labrador giving the people more control and input into the development of their

region

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this honourable House call on

the hon. the Premier and the government to commence the following: Commit to

enact, a Labrador Advisory Council to provide input on policy and legislation

related to Labrador; establish Legislative commitment to develop

an act

representing Labrador to properly deal with and recognize the differences and

unique challenges of the Labrador region; establish Legislative commitment to

provide a regional royalty fund through ensuring that a percentage of provincial

royalties derived from resources within the region are used for the benefit of

Labrador and Labradorians; establish Legislative commitment to develop a Crown

corporation to accept and administer funds resulting from the royalty fund and

establish an administrative and governing body of the corporation which shall

consist of representatives from each region of Labrador; commit to the

completion of a highway system comparable to the Trans-Canada Highway within the

region; commit to ensure that all communities in the region have adequate and

modern water and sewer services completed; commit to prepare a long-term energy

plan for the region to be tabled in the House on or before December 1997; commit

to a regional preference policy for resource development in the region, which

would guarantee maximum economic opportunities for the people of that region;

commit to continue ambulatory services; commit to provide law enforcement

services that are accessible to all areas of Labrador; commit to assist with the

resolution of land claims of the aboriginal peoples of Labrador; commit to

provide proportionate government offices and local service centres within the

Labradorians in sectors where the employment opportunities are greater in that

part of the Province.

Thank you.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

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

In response to a request by Mr. Jack Harris, MHA, Signal Hill

- Quidi Vidi the following information has been prepared for tabling in the

House of Assembly.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: In answer to a question posed by Mr. Jack

Harris, Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi during the Summer sitting of the House. The

question was tabled on July 21 and I hereby table the information that was

requested.

Petitions

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

MR. G. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition to the House on behalf of 2600 residents of the Twillingate area in the

great district of Twillingate & Fogo. It reads, Mr. Speaker;

WHEREAS the plant in our community of Twillingate has just

been shut down as a result of the moratorium on groundfish stocks resulting in

the layoff of hundreds of people; and

WHEREAS the fishery is the main employer for the people of

Twillingate and the surrounding area,

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon the provincial government to issue a crab and shrimp license for our

plant in order to provide employment for our area.

Mr. Speaker, as I said it contains 2600 names out of a

population of approximately 4000 people so I would hazard to say that it

represents every adult on Twillingate Island. The reason all those signatures

are there, Mr. Speaker, is because practically every adult on Twillingate Island

depend on the fishery for a living, and many of those, up to 400 or 500 of them,

have depended on the fish plant in Twillingate for the past fifty or sixty years

for their income.

I understand that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

is currently reviewing the policy regarding the issuance of processing licenses,

and I humbly beg the minister, if he finds it in his heart to issue new crab

licenses that Twillingate be placed top on his list of priorities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Just a couple of minutes to make a few brief

remarks. My colleague, my friend, representing fish plant workers and fishermen

of Twillingate Island brings the concerns of his people to the House of Assembly

because since the closure of the fishery down there, as in many other parts of

the Province, they are going through a desperate situation where not enough

income can be derived from the few species of fish that the fishermen can

actually catch and be processed in that particular fish plant.

Since assuming the responsibility of the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture back in March, I have had continuous meetings, and a

consultation process has been ongoing with all of the people in the industry to

try and determine the type of processing sector industry that we could have for

the future fishery in this Province that can be sustainable to the individual

needs of the communities where the plants exist.

We know that 220 plants cannot exist. We know there are not

enough resources. No matter how much development of underutilized species or all

species of fish we can harvest in the future, we could not sustain that number

of plants. We have put a lot of thought into this. We have had a lot of

consultation with the industry. We are about ready to make some recommendations

to Cabinet that will address the needs of certain areas and certain regions in

the Province, but certainly not all.

The one thing that I can honestly say is that a fish plant

that survives in the future must be sustainable for the longest season possible

to the community in which that fish plant is located. It is going to be a

difficult decision to make. Can they all operate? No, they cannot. Can they all

have all species of fish? No, they cannot. These are the decisions that we will

be looking at and making recommendations to Cabinet. That announcement will be

forthcoming in the very near future.

There is going to be a lot of pain out there, but we have to

do it for the overall best interest of the industry of the future; and when we

make the decisions, those plants which will survive will be for the longest

season possible and develop an industry for the long term in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to present a petition,

as I said earlier I would, on behalf of 841 residents of the Pouch Cove and Shoe

Cove area; 841 people out of a total population of 2,000, quite significant. The

wording of the petition is:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Pouch Cove,

Newfoundland:

WHEREAS we, the citizens of the Town of Pouch Cove, have lost

confidence in the ability of the Town Council of Pouch Cove to effectively

govern the town, as demonstrated by the 1993 financial audit in which $18,000

was misspent, and by the 1995 financial audit in which $16,000 is unaccounted

for; and

WHEREAS the town council has adopted a very uncooperative

attitude toward the taxpayer residents of the town, and have demonstrated total

insensitivity to the concerns of the taxpayer residents;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

instruct the Auditor General for Newfoundland and Labrador to undertake a full

and comprehensive investigation into the practices, policies, finances,

administration, and all aspects of the Town Council of Pouch Cove.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only do I have this petition of 841

signatures; I also have 104 letters with 148 signatures, addressed to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Reid, which I will present to

him after I say a few words on this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I asked questions in the House today along the

lines of the petition, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs does

not seem to be too anxious to get to the bottom of what is going on in Pouch

Cove. He was trying to throw it back across the House, basically, in wanting

solutions from me. When I put forward a solution, that the Auditor General go in

and do an investigation, he basically turned it down.

Mr. Speaker, he can very well say that we can meet with

council. He was trying to get me to say to get council to resign, but in the

wording of my questions there is a cloud of doubt over various people on council

and the administration of the town itself: the previous clerk, the previous

assistant clerk, and the previous town manager to that. So, in actual fact, what

may happen, what I have been saying all along, to get to the bottom of it and

basically vindicate certain people, the Auditor General's report could do that.

We had two police investigations there, the most recent

completed in September and then continued on, and a report was put in very

recently to the town, just before the town council itself decided to call a

public meeting, and the police investigation itself was inconclusive.

The people in the public meeting down there last week, some

400 people, or close to it, were very curious as to why the police investigation

was inconclusive. How come they could not get to the bottom of it, or to at

least lay charges? Basically, I think it goes back to the fact that the

procedures and the policies that were put in place by the Town of Pouch Cove

were not sufficient to allow the police to have a proper paper trail to the

person or persons who took the money.

Mr. Speaker, I saw, only today, a copy of the audit that was

done very recently, and there are some very serious questions that need to be

answered. I think that the minister should really request that the Auditor

General go in and do an investigation. That is what the people want. They want

to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Speaker.

Another point I want to make is with respect to the questions

that I asked. I asked the question: Does Municipal Affairs have inadequate

staffing to allow proper investigations of the municipalities? Each year

municipalities are supposed to send in their audits and those audits are

supposed to be reviewed by Municipal Affairs. From what I have been told, there

are only three people available to review close to 200 audits per year. So no

wonder we can see that these problems arise within the towns.

Now, the town of Conception Bay South, Mr. Speaker, we know

what went on up there and the minister had to fire the whole council. I think

the MHA for CBS was requesting the minister, for ever so long, to take certain

actions. There were two reports done on the Town of Conception Bay South before

the Auditor General went in. When the Auditor General went in and did an

investigation, they got to the bottom of what went on in the Town of CBS.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very similar situation happening now in

Pouch Cove. We have had two police investigations done, they had two financial

audits done and now the police investigation is inconclusive. We know there was

at least $16,000 taken by people cancelling out receipts and taking cash out of

the till. Yet there can be no charges laid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, by leave, just to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member has asked for leave. Does he have

leave?

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to point out that the Minister

of Fisheries -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - has refused leave on this very important

matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague in

the great district of Cape St. Francis. As a member for the area, he brings

forward the petition from the residents of Pouch Cove. Basically, the petition

asks for the government to consider, through the office of the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to have the Auditor General look at the matter

of a legislative audit for the Town of Pouch Cove.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that part of the mandate

of the Auditor General is to look at audits for the 291 municipalities in the

Province. However, we know that the Auditor General is not able to do

legislative audits for all 291 municipalities. In fact, in this year, I do

believe, the Auditor General will be doing audits for three municipalities at

maximum. Therefore, it is not a great, shall we say, request, and the minister

would be totally within the parameters of the office that he holds, to ask for

that particular request from the Auditor General.

What might happen is that the Auditor General, in selecting

municipalities on which to do a legislative audit this year, could select Pouch

Cove. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not a slow process, it is going to take

considerable time; but part of the mandate of the Auditor General is to conduct

audits on the municipalities in the Province and, as the minister knows, that is

not done very often. It is very much an infrequent kind of thing. As I said, in

this fiscal year she will be able to do audits on only three.

So maybe the minister should consider the request put forward

by the good people of Pouch Cove. They are acting in some sincerity. Obviously,

I have great reluctance in saying that the town council of Pouch Cove should be

dismissed. Because until we can say that they have done something that is

legislatively wrong, in other words they either have failed to do something they

should do, or they did something they should not have done. Therefore it would

be very difficult to go and say to the elected people in Pouch Cove: We are

going to turf you out of office. That is not the intent. The intent is to find

those parts of the legislative mandate that is given to the town council in

Pouch Cove where they have failed to live up to their mandate, if they indeed

have.

That being the case, there is only one way to find that out,

and that is to have the Auditor General do an audit. Without doing that it would

be wrong, I say to the minister, for him to suggest, or anybody else to suggest,

that we simply go down and we turf out the seven volunteers of the community who

have given of their time. Without just cause it would be wrong for us to ask

them to vacate their offices.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition put forward by my

colleague, and ask the hon. the minister if he will give it some consideration.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on a point of order.

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

A few minutes ago when I was up speaking on my petition - I

would just like to have a clarification from the Speaker. I believe the Speaker

was prepared to give me leave to continue on with the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is just a question, Mr. Speaker. I want

to address it. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture denied leave and he

wasn't in his chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am wondering if it is permissable that

the minister can deny leave when he is not in his chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will check the point raised by the hon. member and

report back to him. The Chair itself does not have the power to grant leave. The

leave must come unanimously from members.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to be as

accommodating as I can in regard -

AN HON. MEMBER: Diplomatic.

MR. A. REID: Diplomatic. Well, it doesn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I don't have any sisters living in Pouch

Cove, put it that way. I am trying to be as diplomatic, as my hon. colleague or

friend said, as I can, and I want to do something for Pouch Cove. The problem I

have with it is the excessive cost of sending in an auditor to do a complete

audit on Pouch Cove's books. Pouch Cove's books have already been audited. There

is a whole host of -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Give me a chance to speak, now. I gave you a

chance to speak, I never interrupted you once. Over in the regional office right

now there is a whole host of recommendations that have been made to the people

of Pouch Cove on numerous occasions - not only with this council, the previous

council - on what they should be doing with regard to the accountability, what

they should do with regard to employing someone on a full-time basis to handle

administration and so on. I can provide every single person that signed this

petition in Pouch Cove these recommendations.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of my staff, and I say this

quite honestly to the member and to the House, it is our opinion that it would

be basically a useless exercise to go down, because the Auditor General would

come back and make the same recommendations as already have been made. I would

say this to the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that if the Town of Pouch Cove wants

someone to go in and do an independent audit to find out what is going on down

there, yes, but I don't see why we would need to send in the Auditor General. If

the Auditor General goes in, you know as well I do what she has to do with

regard to sending in people.

Why can we not ask an independent firm to go in there, make

some recommendations to council, and maybe, at the end of the day, do just as

good a job as the Auditor General would do? At the same time, then, maybe the

people who are screaming and bawling and putting in petitions to the hon. member

to have something done would be willing to dig a little deeper in their pockets

and pay a few tax dollars to have a report like that done, with the help of the

government and through Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

By coming in through the back door, because that is basically

what they are doing, they are asking the Auditor General to go in because they

know they do not have to pay for the Auditor General. If they don't have enough

responsibility to assume the situation they are in down there, and if they think

they need a complete audit done, then I would suggest they go out and hire a

firm from St. John's or somebody else to go in and do the audit. Then I would

look at the possibility of assisting in some way the community in paying the

bill at the end of the day. But I do not agree with sending in the Auditor

General. I hope the hon. member tells the people of Pouch Cove what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member is asking for leave to speak to the petition

again.

MR. EFFORD: For what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the points the minister just

made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 13, "An Act To Amend The

City Of St. John's Act", (Bill No. 25). I think the Member for Waterford Valley,

the Opposition House Leader, adjourned the debate.

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

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

I want to make a few more comments on Bill 25. The minister

has joined us and I want to just make a few comments, and in particular, repeat

some of the things I said a few days ago.

If you look, Mr. Minister, at clause 1, there are some

matters you might want to address here. This is a

section which forces a member

of the council who becomes insolvent or bankrupt during the term of office to

stop being a member of council. It also deletes subsection 9.2 of the City Of

St. John's Act which says: a person who becomes bankrupt or insolvent may be

eligible for re-election after that person has obtained an order of discharge or

a proposal acceptable by the creditors.

Now, we know that this would bring the City Of St. John's Act

more in sync with the general legislation governing those who hold elective

office. There was some concern expressed in the House the other day about the

remaining subsection, where it says that if you were absent from the Province

for a period of twelve consecutive months, therefore you would stop being a

member of council, or if you are convicted of an indictable offence - and we had

the question the other day, Mr. Minister, if there were any time constraints on

the matter of the indictable offence.

There is nothing mentioned in the Act, therefore we had the

question of whether or not someone convicted of an indictable offence, say when

was a young person, maybe nineteen or twenty years old, if that would

permanently bar one from being able to run for public office in St. John's when

he might be forty-five or fifty years old, and we had some discussion on that.

We know that we have to have rules and regulations but we need to have a couple

of constraining things put in there that would not prevent somebody from running

for office, let us say, thirty or forty years after they have been convicted of

some relatively minor, indictable offence. So we wanted to have your comments on

that.

Clause 3 says the city is not liable for a nuisance and we

wanted to get some comments on that as well. What does that mean? For example,

as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Minister, does it have any relevance to the Tock

situation? As the minister knows, Neil Tock, who owned a house on Labrador Place

in what was then the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board jurisdiction, had some

damage caused by flooding in his basement. The flooding was caused by the drain

outside the manhole being filed with debris, hockey sticks and so on and so

forth. And when the flooding occurred, he sued the St. John's Metropolitan Area

Board and in court, through the decision rendered by Judge William Adams, the

St. John's Metropolitan Area Board was found liable because he said the

authority was liable for the nuisance.

That was later on appealed, as the minister knows, to the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland which upheld Judge William Adams' decision. It

went from there to the federal court, the Supreme Court of Canada and it was

upheld there as well. I want to know if there are any implications, any

relevance of this definition towards that decision, because it is not defined,

and at least, the bill should define what we mean by the word `nuisance', and

who is responsible for it, to what extent does this have a liability for a

resident who might be, shall we say, inconvenienced, for example, if someone

builds an office tower next to one's home, and that becomes a bit of a nuisance.

In the city of St. John's, we have had a number of instances

where people who own property have been, shall we say, inconvenienced, and what

they said was that the new structures became a nuisance to them. So we wanted to

ask the minister if he would have a little comment on his definition there.

Of course, then the issue was raised the other day as well,

of the grants to the City of St. John's and the downloading that is taking

place. In this case, although it is a relatively small amount of money, the good

Mayor of St. John's was on the air yesterday morning talking about the fact that

over the last number of years the Province have decreased their support to the

City by about $4 million. The City of St. John's, coming up for its budget

hearings in a few days from now, find themselves having a very significant

shortfall in revenue. Although it is a small amount, as a percentage of the

total City budget, it does indicate some concern. The City of St. John's has

written all the MHAs protesting it, and I am sure the minister has received

copies of that correspondence as well.

In addition, although it is a small amount, making it

retroactive to April 1, 1996, has the effect of cancelling this particular grant

nine months into the fiscal year. We do not think that is a very reasonable

thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments - I do not believe that

any of my colleagues on this side have any further comments. If they do, they

are certainly welcome to have them, but I will probably ask the minister if he

would have a few comments on these matters when he closes debate.

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

Provincial Affairs. If he speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. A. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I think most of

us who have had past experience in municipal administration would realize that

for at least two sections of this particular bill, even though it is "An Act To

Amend The City Of St. John's Act", it is also included in a number of other

bills that I have to present to the House in the next couple of days, and it

will go beyond just the City of St. John's and cover the whole Province

eventually.

Clause 1 of the bill basically is something that has been

there for a long time and, based on insolvency and whether a person is bankrupt

or not, and whether they can sit on city council, was antiquated as far as we

were concerned, and council asked for that to be removed.

In respect to maintenance of roads, snow clearing of roads

and maintenance of roads in the wintertime, it basically gives the City more

authority to go out and set regulations as it relates to cars parked in wrong

places, vehicles parked on the sides of the roads, things obstructing sidewalk

snow clearing, and that sort of thing.

My hon. colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley wanted to

know about the nuisance liability. He mentioned the fact that there was a court

case some years ago with Metro Board, and this is basically a follow-up to that.

He was right on. He knew exactly what he was talking about when he made that

comment. It now gives protection to the City - the same thing will be in the

Municipalities Act later on; it will give protection - and Mount Pearl and

Corner Brook, and all the other communities.

We have been running into - when I say `we', Mr. Speaker, I

refer to we who have been municipal politicians - for years and years and years

being challenged in the courts by people who blame town councils for all kinds

of the weirdest types of things. A drain blocks up with ice in the wintertime,

for example, and we get an early flood, and somebody's basement floods, and we

get taken.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can you define (inaudible) in the Act?

MR. A. REID: Yes. As far as I know, there are going to be

a number of

definitions in the Act, I believe. I am not sure about that, but I

can check that for you.

Council gets sued for all kinds of weird things, acts of God,

and liability in regard to water running down on the left-hand side of the road

instead of the right; it is just unbelievable. To put legislation in place to

protect municipalities from this type of nuisance, the Act now will give

magistrates the authority, to judge on a fairer basis, not allowing

municipalities, of course, to get away with something they do intentionally.

My final comment is on the annual grant. If the City of St.

John's - and apparently they do - think it is a down-loading on the City, I

guess, that is what it is. Last year we had to make a number of decisions with

regard to trying to save some money to balance our budget, and that was one of

the areas that we thought the City of St. John's could absorb. I admit, quite

openly, that sometimes it is difficult for the City of St. John's, as well as

every other community in the Province, to meet its budgetary targets, but in

this particular case it was something we had to do, that we defined, and I was

instructed to do, and I carried that out.

With that, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 36, Order No. 14, "An Act

To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act".

MR. SPEAKER: What Order did the hon. Leader call?

MR. TULK: Order No. 14, Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

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

Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill No. 36)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: This is another housekeeping bill,

basically, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleagues on both sides of the House are

aware that the City of St. John's has been having all kinds of problems. Not

only the City of St. John's, but most of the larger centres in the Province are

having problems with assessments, times of assessments, and a base date for

assessments.

When challenged in court, some magistrates are saying that

assessments should be done on a reassessment basic every year, and some others

are accepting the fact that they can be done every two, or three years, and

there is no uniform legislation which says that it has to be done in a

particular period of time, whereby giving magistrates and appeal boards some

sort of guidance on how far they can go back for assessments or how far they can

go ahead.

Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 5, of the bill basically introduce a

uniform tax base date for assessments of property, and 5 and 6 confirm the

current base dates as applicable to assessments made in 1995, and 3 and 6

basically say that the Assessment Act institutes a requirement that property be

reassessed every three years.

Hopefully, in two or three years time property will be

reassessed every one year under the new assessment policy that we are trying to

finish up right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am going to say a few words on Bill 36, "An Act To Amend

The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act". Mr. Speaker, the minister

made a few comments on introducing the bill, saying it is a housekeeping bill

and it is basically there to be more efficient with respect to the City of St.

John's who had problems with their base date. I think a lot of municipalities

across the Province have had problems with their base date over the past number

of years.

For example, a lot of the smaller municipalities thought they

would have their assessments done, I believe, every five years, but in actual

fact, it went anywhere from five to ten years. So any way that Municipal Affairs

can improve upon that, of course, we would certainly support.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I think it could very well be, I say to the

Government House Leader. There are a few things that need to be mentioned. The

minister mentioned when he was introducing the bill that the magistrates and the

appeal boards often times do not have a base to start out from when they are

hearing appeals, and having judgements made, so from that perspective alone, I

suppose it would be a positive thing.

For a number of years when I was a mayor of a small town, I

was often of the impression that maybe what we should be doing is privatizing

assessments and let each municipality do their own assessments or hire a firm or

a professional company to come in and do the assessments. The answers were

always given that we could not do that, Mr. Speaker, because of the

inconsistencies. The different towns would not be compatible, they would not be

consistent from one town to the other.

Now the City of St. John's, of course, Mr. Speaker, have

their own employees, have their own assessing department in St. John's and I

believe Corner Brook has the same. But when you sit back and look at it with

respect to privatizing, I think that is where this department may be heading, to

privatizing the assessments, Mr. Speaker, across this Province to all

municipalities. Certainly, as it now stands, the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs does the assessments and they charge out over, I think, a

period of six years, the amount of money it would cost to do an assessment for a

municipality. For example, if you took a small town with 5,000 or 6,000 people

you might have 15,000 properties within that municipality. If you took the total

value of the Municipal Affairs assessment and cost to do that, well, they would

average it out over six years and it may cost the town $20,000, $30,000,

$50,000, $60,000 a year, depending on the assessed value and the number of

properties and what have you. Now apparently, they are talking about increasing

to every two years, the base rate, the base year and effectively that would be

every three years, as the minister pointed out and rightly so. Again, I think

that would be, maybe now if we look at every three years it will end up being

every six years. The way it works now currently is every six years but it can be

anywhere from six to ten years. So that in itself could speed it up, I would say

to the minister.

Now, apparently, the St. John's Board of Trade would like to

see that the assessments be done every year. I have asked the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this House questions with respect to the

assessment division and why it takes so long to have assessments done. He has

been telling me for the past while and other people in this House - and I would

say to many mayors and councils across the Province, that they are going to a

computerized system and the computerized system would certainly speed matters

up. They would have reassessments done every year in due course. and if that is

the case, that can have a pretty big impact on taxpayers in the different

municipalities. Because, as it now stands, if I have my piece of property

assessed say, in 1995 or 1996 and I have to wait six years or five years to have

that property assessed again, when that assessment comes in, the taxpayers can

take a pretty big jump in their taxes. Their mil rate, applied over a six year

period versus a two year period, would be a more gradual increase.

With respect to the way the system now works in the longer

span, depending on the situation, municipalities in effect could be losing

revenues, could very well be losing revenues, because they have to go so long

before they have the reassessments done. On the other hand, some property

owners, Mr. Speaker, may in fact pay more taxes than they should pay because

given the circumstances in any municipality, given the circumstances of the

economy and other factors, of course, property values can decrease. So if we

wait for five or six years, Mr. Speaker, an individual could actually pay more

money than he or she should have paid because the tax rate could have decreased.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is something that can be improved upon, and hopefully, it

will be improved upon with respect to this legislation and going through the

House.

Now, I don't have a lot to say on this bill, really, other

than the fact that in previous years smaller towns could have been hurt because

of the fact that they had to wait so long for their assessments. Now, the time

frame will be shortened up. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't really have much to say on

that. I don't know if my colleague here would like to say a few words on it. I

am just checking a few of my notes and I see that I have covered the things that

I wanted to cover. That is pretty well it, I think. I will let someone else have

a few words.

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

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

I have just a few comments on this bill. In some regards this

bill is a bit overdue, in that there have been calls over the last number of

years for the minister to look at the whole issue of assessment. We are pleased

he has brought forward some amendments, because this certainly has been asked

for by the Federation of Municipalities for the last number of years. When we

talk about doing the assessment revision for both the Assessment Act, which is

for all the other municipalities, and for the City of St. John's, we are

basically changing the whole assessment for all municipalities in the whole

Province.

Making January 1 - "`base date' means (

i) January 1, 1996 or

(ii) January 1, of every third year after 1996," this is a positive step

forward. As the minister knows, we have had some difficulty over the years with

different municipalities, some of them adjacent to each other, having different

base years. It has caused some great troubles in court when the people who are

doing the revisions to the assessments and arbitrating on the decisions required

as a result of people challenging the assessed values, some of the court systems

have had great frustration with the fact that the assessment dates change. Often

they find themselves having to make decisions on property values that are

somewhat irrelevant to the current market values.

For example, all throughout the 1980s we found the court

system was often making decisions when the base year might have been three or

four years before that and, of course, the values of property had gone up

considerably. Now we find the opposite is happening when we have deflationary

circumstances. We find that some businesses and some home-owners are asking to

have their property assessed because the market value now, for example, in some

parts of the City of Mount Pearl, is not nearly as great as it was, say, three

or four years ago. Some people would like to have their property reassessed more

often than every five years. The only way you can change the base year is if you

are going to go and do a reassessment.

I am very pleased to see that we are going to make it

mandatory that all property be reassessed every three years. I think that is a

positive thing. I do note that the St. John's Board of Trade has asked that the

assessment be done every year. That would be ideal, that would be great. It

would mean that if you did it on an annual basis you could reflect the

year-by-year changes in the market value of property. However, there is an

appeal process that is in place, and any business person who feels that his or

her business has been improperly assessed in comparison to the market values of

the current time can apply and can have that re-adjusted on an annual basis.

I think it is a reasonable compromise. We did have a

five-year reassessment program in the Province. It is now on a three-year basis.

I think that is somewhat reasonable. However, we do want to note as well that

the minister for some time has been talking about putting all of the assessment

for the Province on a computer system. We are wondering what the progress might

be on that, how it is coming along, and whether or not we can have all the

municipalities on a computer-generated assessment program within the next

several years.

Also, there has been some call by some of the major

municipalities to have the right to do their own assessments. Thus, for example,

in the City of Mount Pearl we find that it costs a lot of money for the City to

pay to the Province the cost of doing the assessment. In fact, the City of Mount

Pearl could do its own assessments a lot more cheaply than having them done by

officials of the department, or under the department's guidance.

The overriding factor would be if, indeed, the assessments in

the City of Mount Pearl were consistent with residential values in the City of

Mount Pearl. There are checks and balances, and there is an interaction that

occurs between the real estate industry and the municipality to govern that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What is the status

of what we might call the privatization, is one way to put it, but giving the

municipalities the right to be able to conduct their own assessments? Some of

the municipalities in the Province, the larger ones, can certainly do that, and

do it a lot cheaper, but what is happening now is that we have the City of Mount

Pearl, the City of Corner Brook, the Towns of Grand Falls and Gander, and in

essence these municipalities are subsidizing the smaller ones. That is not

deemed to be satisfactory. It is a way of sharing the burden.

The minister knows that assessments in certain other parts of

Canada are not always done on a provincial basis; however, this might be

something that he is looking at having done on a regional basis. Perhaps that is

one of the functions that he could assign to the regional councils when they get

established. Hopefully that is one of the things that a regional council could

do, which is look after all of the assessments within that particular region. We

could regionalize assessments even. It would be a step forward in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to just comment on this. One of my

colleagues made note of the fact, to ask a question of the minister, if there

had been consultation with the Federation of Municipalities, and in particular

with the City of St. John's, and if their agreement had been received on this

particular matter. I am assuming that it has; however, the minister might want

to comment on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is a more progressive piece of legislation

than we see in some cases; however, there are certain difficulties that the

minister might want to address, particularly if he is going to address the issue

of computerization, and whether or not the larger municipalities, and the larger

towns and the two other cities, can have the same benefits as St. John's when it

comes to governing and conducting its own assessment program.

With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to any of my

colleagues if they wish to speak on this matter. If not, I look forward to the

minister's comments during the closure of second reading.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the comments made by the hon. minister and my

colleagues with respect to the purpose of this act essentially being to

co-ordinate the assessments of properties in the City of St. John's. It is

always a point of some discrepancy when properties are being assessed, whether

it be in a two-year period or a three-year period, and that assessment is being

carried forward to determine fair market value at a specific date. Whether it is

five years or one year, clearly we cannot satisfy everybody because there is a

risk, as I see it, regardless of what we do. If we go with a five-year period of

assessment, clearly that may be disadvantageous to a home owner if, in fact, the

property value has decreased in that period of five years. Conversely, if the

fair market value of a property has increased within that five-year period,

clearly that person is equally in a position where he is disadvantaged.

Mr. Speaker, the act essentially uniforms the law with

respect to assessment. Clauses 3 and 6 of the St. John's Assessment Act

stipulate that the property which these acts apply shall be assessed or

reassessed within two years of the base date, which is effectively every three

years, because it is two years after the first twelve-month period. Simply

changing the legislation to read that an assessment must be performed every

three years will not, in and of itself, facilitate timely assessments which

reflect current market values, as I mentioned earlier. Equally, as I've

indicated, one drawback with an increased frequency of assessments, however, is

that residential property assessments will tend to rise more quickly, and

consequently the tax burden experienced by individual property owners may

increase more rapidly.

Therefore I guess it is a compromise position. The base rate

is now being set perhaps as a compromise position to help home owners in a

situation who obviously want to have the best benefit of their property and have

the best fair market value appraisal which will benefit them in the event of

either resale, or in the event of an assessed taxation of their property.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say other than the

change is obviously an acknowledgement of some uniformity with respect to

assessment. Other than that, we support the bill.

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

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, one of the

questions was asked about the assessment division in my department. Yes, the

assessment division - the cities of Mount Pearl and St. John's, the Federation

of Municipalities, are actively pursuing the devolution of the assessment

division, which should take place in the next short while. The municipalities

have been notified of that. Also, while notifying municipalities of that, they

have also been notified of what it is going to mean to them in cost, especially

in rural Newfoundland. Their cost will triple. Even with that said, we are going

to move in that direction because that seems to be the approach that a lot of

the members of the House have been asking for for a number of years. We are

going to go along with them now and we are going to do that, and I hope we don't

have an outcry from rural Newfoundland when it comes to assessment.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And

The St. John's Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 36)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 15, second reading of a

bill,

An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections Act, Bill No. 37.

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

John's Municipal Elections Act". (Bill No. 37)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is picking up from a

previous bill that basically changes the time of election from November to

September, and every four years hereafter. Polling day will be the last Tuesday

in September for municipal elections beginning next year. That is in a number of

other bills. I don't really need to say anything other than that. I don't think

we need to talk for ten minutes on it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say

a few words on Bill No. 37,

An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections

Act. Basically there are no real problems. I don't see any real problems with

it, other than one which I will get to in due course.

I believe the City is in favour of this, to move the date

back from November to September. In actual fact, it is a good move because if

the council gets elected in November it really doesn't give it a lot of time to

get into the swing of things and to know what is going on within the City. It

doesn't give them a lot of time to prepare budgets, getting to know what the

budget is all about, to compare last year's budget, next year's budget, to look

at the regulations. A good time of year, too. You have winter coming on. To me

it is a good move, really, and no problem with that.

The only thing that I would comment on, and the minister can

address this. I stand to be corrected, but I thought there was a movement afoot

- or some City councillors believed there should be a separate election for the

deputy mayor, as there is a separate election for the mayor. I'm just wondering

if this minister addressed that and why they didn't pursue that further, or why

it isn't here in the act, a reason why there wasn't a separate election for the

deputy mayor.

I had a few notes on this but basically I agree, it is a good

move from my perspective and I think that most people do support that but we

will see what happens with it in Committee. Other than that, that is all I have

to say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, if he speak now, he closes the debate. Oh, okay.

Hon. Members should avoid standing when there is - the hon.

member for St. John's South - it is confusing to the Chair because there are so

many people standing.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to the House. My colleague was standing behind my

chair and I could not get up.

Mr. Speaker, there is just one item in this bill I wish to

speak to and that is in regards to the neglects that the bill makes to an

election related change that the City of St. John's has requested, and that is,

to have a slot on their election ballots for the position of Deputy Mayor.

It is my understanding that the City of St. John's has

requested this and they wish that the position of Deputy Mayor be chosen by the

general populous as opposed to, by the councillors from within, once they are

elected.

I am wondering if the minister will re-evaluate and revisit

this request by the City of St. John's in making this change although, I realize

that it would require several amendments to the act and would probably delay the

bill in passing before the House. But it is in fact, an item that the City of

St. John's has requested and I think, based on that, we should probably

entertain the idea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now, closes the debated.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: To answer the question on the Deputy Mayor,

yes, Mr. Speaker. We are actively pursuing that with the city right now and if

the city decides to pursue it further, knowing the implications of it, I am

pretty sure that we can get it through the House in the spring in lots of time

for the election next fall.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal

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

House on tomorrow. (Bill No.37).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 16, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act', (Bill No. 42).

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

Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 42).

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: This one cleans up a number of areas, Mr.

Speaker. I think the most important one in this particular one of the act, "An

Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", is the designation of liability for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Harvey, this is a combination of all of

them, isn't it?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: That includes town councils, the liability

regulations, the elections to choose these -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes. So you are all familiar with that. I do

not need to discuss this any further. They know about that, so I am going to let

them speak on it anyway.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time today to make some points

concerning Bill 42, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act".

There are changes of course to the Municipalities Act and

some that are proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are profound. They cover five

different subject matters, some of which are more controversial than others of

course, and I will just go through them.

First of all, the snow clearing of roads. Now, if this is

just simply, I guess a change - if the change is just simply a clarification and

it is acceptable to the municipalities and has nothing to do, say, downloading

of snow clearing responsibility, then it certainly seems acceptable to me.

Number 2, the nuisance end of it, Mr. Speaker, if nothing

else, an amendment is certainly needed to define the word `nuisance' and this

term I think is in place, in I believe three other bills that have been

introduced, so if for no other reason, at least that term is certainly defined.

The elections, these changes seem acceptable, Mr. Speaker,

and again, these changes are placed in three other bills as well. The community

councils; as of January 1, 1997, all communities will become towns and all

community councils will become town councils. The bill makes the change, of

course it follows from this, and this change seems to be acceptable in

principle.

I have some concerns, Mr. Speaker, with the fifth one which

deals with fire-fighters. Under this bill the fire departments can be made

responsible for responding to emergencies other than fires and even when they

are outside the municipality in question, fire-fighters, including volunteers of

course, will be trained in standard first aid and basic life support. This, no

doubt, ties in with the Firefighters Protection Act also before the House this

fall. It has implications, Mr. Speaker, or it seems to me to have implications

for private ambulance operators and it demands very, very careful scrutiny in

this area. I think having been, when we formed a volunteer fire department in

Conception Bay South some years ago and being one who was involved in

recruitment for that particular department and today it is probably one of the

best fire departments, volunteer fire and partially paid department, Mr.

Speaker, probably one of the best in the Province.

I know that for a while of course they were getting these

calls on 911 and they were responding to emergencies and really, Mr. Speaker, I

guess emergencies that they really did not want to respond to. I think after

some time they met with the ambulance people, the local ambulance operator in

this particular area and they worked it out. They were actually getting calls to

attend all sorts of things and really and truly there was actually no need for

fire departments to attend. Some of these were - Friday night somebody was at

the local club, something went wrong, the ambulance went and the fire department

sent two units. Mr. Speaker, it was an absolute waste of time and certainly a

waste of taxpayers money.

So in the question of the private ambulance operators, I

think, Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful here that we are not going to do

the same thing. As I see this bill, it looks to me like maybe that is what we

are going to do. We are going to have maybe ambulances responding to emergency

calls. An ambulance is fine but I am not so sure that we should have volunteer

fire brigades responding to the same particular call.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, okay. Well I have no problem with that.

I have no problem with that, it will just depend on where we sign off on this

thing. Like in my district, I don't feel that our partially paid and volunteer

fire department should be responding to emergency calls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That's right, yes. Now if they need the jaws

of life or something, then fine. So this bill makes changes on about five

different subjects, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that the minister interjected

that because certainly in that case on the Southern Shore if the fire department

had responded then who knows, we may have saved a life and that of course would

have been certainly a great thing. So the bill touches on about five different

subject matters. Some of which are more controversial of course than others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, snow clearing, and I will touch on this as

I run through the five particular areas. The snow clearing of roads which is

clause 6. This clause, Mr. Speaker, confirms a right of councils to make

regulations on winter maintenance of roads.

MR. SPEAKER: It is Thursday afternoon, it is 4:02 - I

hate to interrupt the hon. member. I thought he might stop early but it looks

like he is going to continue on. Under the rules I have to announce the

questions for the Late Show at 4:30. The first question is to the Minister of

Mines and Energy, re my question on copper viability, and that is the Member for

Baie Verte. The second question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, re my question on accommodations re the Cabot Celebrations, and that

is the hon. Member for St. John's South. The other question, number three, is to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs re my question on Pouch Cove by

the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The snow clearing of roads, Clause 6, this clause confirms

the right of councils to make regulations on the winter maintenance of roads and

the snow clearing. Basically, Mr. Speaker, this is the same way we do the

amendments to the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's and the City of

Corner Brook. These changes seem fairly straightforward and unless it is part of

a scheme to download snow clearing responsibilities, and cost, from the Province

to the municipalities, then I really do not see this as being a problem.

Section 180 lists the types of regulations a council can

make, and, of course, the listings are fences, signs, times of recreational

vehicles, traffic flow, protection and cleaning of roads, and sidewalks. This

bill, of course, adds (

f) as something the council can make regulations about.

Now, in respect to the winter maintenance of roads and snow clearing, including

regulations which prohibit or control parking during winter months, and (2) they

prohibit or control the erection of structures which impede or hinder winter

maintenance of roads or snow clearing, and prohibit or control the deposit of

snow on sidewalks and public roads.

The minister could be asked to explain what situations have

created (inaudible) as spelled out in the explanatory notes to clarify and

confirm the authority of the councils to make regulations respecting winter

maintenance of roads, and certainly for snow clearing, Mr. Speaker. Under what

sections have municipalities been making regulations regarding snow clearing

until now?

Section 166 (1) of the act already states the ownership, management,

and control of all public roads, sidewalks, and bridges in the town, except

highways classified and designated by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, and the bridges and the highway are vested in the council. Has

the Federation of Municipalities called for this change, Mr. Speaker? If the

change is simply for clarification and is acceptable to municipalities -

AN HON. MEMBER: What one is that?

MR. FRENCH: That is the one on the highways, where they

can make rules and so on concerning snow clearing and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Then this would have nothing to do with the

downloading of snow clearing responsibilities? Then that, Mr. Speaker, again, is

certainly acceptable to us over here.

The sections on the nuisance, clauses 20 and 23, these

clauses insert new sections on the nuisance basically the same way they do to

the amendments of the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's, and again the

City of Corner Brook.

Section 447.1 will state, "A municipality and its councils

are not liable for a nuisance."

Section 641.1 states, "A local service district

committee is not liable for a nuisance." Similar changes are in the amendments

to the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's Act and, of course, the City

of Corner Brook Act, and the term `nuisance' is not defined in these bills.

Neither do these bills say who is responsible or liable for damages caused by a

nuisance. If nothing else, an amendment is needed to really define `nuisance'.

Clauses 21 and 22, and again these changes certainly seem to

be acceptable, are amended, sections 506 and 510, to set a municipal election in

1997 and every four years thereafter; change the polling day to the last Tuesday

in September, which I have to say makes a great deal of sense to me, and being a

former councillor I certainly had it happen to me; you get elected in November

and you are expected to do a budget and have it ready for presentation by

December 31. I kind of applaud the minister here on moving it back. It gives the

council the opportunity to get its feet wet and have a chance to do this. I am

also pleased, while I am up today, to also -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, I applaud the minister on moving the

elections back to September. It gives a council more time to get their feet wet

and do their budget.

I am glad to see as well, while I am talking on this

particular bill, I also understand that the minister, through his department,

has arranged, I know, for the new council and the new mayor that were just

elected in the district of the Member for Topsail and my district, that they are

going to have a seminar, I believe, this Saturday, where they will certainly

have the opportunity to meet with people from the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. It will give them the opportunity, any of them who have any

questions, to get involved. In that regard, I think these changes are certainly

acceptable.

Community councils, and there are a list of clauses:

1(1),(2),(3) and (5), and then there are 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 to 19, and 27.

Again, these changes seem to be okay in principle. We do not really have a lot

of difficulty with these. I guess from (1), (2), (3), and (5), it just removes

the word `community' and so on from the definition of the clerk and so on.

Again, we do not really have a great deal of problems with this particular

section.

Clause 2 says a community, its towns, cannot be amalgamated

together, which makes sense if there are no longer any communities, of course.

Also, that a town can no longer be disestablished so that it has the status of a

community. Again, it certainly makes sense to me.

Of course, clause 3 deletes references to communities from

adjustments to assets and liabilities following an amalgamation or an

annexation. Again, Mr. Speaker, that seems to make sense from my point of view.

Being a former municipal councillor, I see merit in that.

Clause 4 is important. It adds a new

section 7.1(1), which

says, "Every community constituted or continued under this Act is continued as a

town." A community council existing on December 31, 1996 shall be continued as a

town council." In (3), "The property, assets, powers, rights, obligations and

liabilities vested in or charged against a community council on December 31,

1996 shall continue to be vested in or charged against a town council continued

under subsection (2)." Again, we have no great problems with that. There are

implications of making a town council a community council, and the changes will

come into effect in less than a month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will gladly give him leave if he wishes to

sing, Mr. Speaker. Clause 11 repeals sections 257 to 303 of the Municipalities

Act which together form

Part II of the Municipalities Act entitled Communities.

Since communities become towns, there is no longer any need to reference any of

these sections. The provisions related to towns are contained,

Part I on towns

section 3 right through to

section 256.

Clause 12 deletes reference to community from Cabinet powers

to adjust assets and liabilities and establishing or changing regions. Clause 13

deletes reference to communities from the requirements to publish a notice or

intent to order a feasibility report on establishing or changing a region.

Clause 14 deletes reference to community from the description of powers of a

regional council. Clause 15 deletes reference to community from the description

of areas that are not unorganized.

Clause 16 deletes reference to community from the list of

entities that may be required to connect to a regional service. Clause 18

deletes reference to community from the list of entities that must be sent to a

regional council budget. Clause 19 does the same as clause 18 regarding of

course revised budgets.

Clause 27 brings all of these sections on community councils

into force on January 1 1997. On that date all communities will be towns and all

community councils of course will become town councils. If these changes are

approved in principle then the details of the changes - again, we would have no

real problem with these particular changes.

Number five, the

section on fire fighters. These changes

indicate that fire fighters will be moved into the area of emergency response

that until now have been handled by ambulance operators. The minister pointed

out a case here a while ago where I honestly believe that if we had had somebody

besides an outside ambulance coming all the way from St. John's, then I think it

could have made a difference.

These changes should be seen in light of the new fire

fighters protection act which protects fire fighters from liability from acts or

perceived negligent in the fulfilment of their duties. Clause 1(4) adds a

paragraph (

h) to the list of

definitions to define fire fighter. The definition

is essentially the same as the one in the fire fighters protection act which

also includes volunteers.

Clause 1(6) adds paragraph (j.1) to the list of

definitions,

and states "`other emergencies' means a non-fire related emergency and includes

medical emergencies for which a fire department has been authorized by the

minister to act as the first responding agency." This subsection clearly means

fire fighters will be responding to medical emergencies as well as fires.

Clause 5 repeals subsection 57 which states: The town fire

chief is responsible for the organization, training and operation of the town's

fire brigade and for fire prevention and fire protection within the town. It

replaces the subsection with: "The town fire chief is responsible for the

organization, training and operation of the town fire department."

The limitation is removed. It says fire departments are

responsible for fire protection and fire prevention within the town, Mr.

Speaker. I guess as an explanatory note here, this would include all fire

department's activities, including all activities related to fire and other

emergencies. The government clearly wants to expand the mandate of fire

departments to include other emergencies besides those related to fires and the

department is also no longer limited to responding within the town. I guess, as

the minister has said, where there is a local ambulance, I guess between them

and the fire department, they work out a system between them where this works.

Clause 7 repeals

Section

Section 192 states, "The

council may establish, operate and maintain a town fire department composed

entirely or partly of volunteer members or of paid employees, and acquire o