May 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

I would like to welcome to the galleries twelve students from

Cabot Institute, Parade Street, accompanied by their instructors Genevieve

Gallant and Adelle Sharpe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members I would like

to welcome to the House of Assembly as well the Member for Torngat Mountains,

who was sworn in this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

During the election campaign there were lots of rumours

flying around about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro - lots of talk, lots

of questions and so on - and many people, I think, were asking the question: Was

the government actually looking at the possibility of selling all or part of

Hydro to the private sector? I want to ask the minister: Can he tell the House

if there is any substance at all to those rumours?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further that I

can add to what was said in Answers to Questions before we broke for the

election.

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

MR. SIMMS: I do not know if the minister heard me ask the

question. Is there any substance at all to the rumours that were going around?

Can he tell us that? I do not know what he said before the election. That was

not the question.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, without knowing what the

rumours were, the answer is the same.

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

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the minister: Has the government

received an assessment of the market value of Newfoundland Hydro, and if so, who

prepared the assessment and was it done at government's request?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have not asked for a market

assessment of Newfoundland Hydro.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the minister is

trying to be coy. I am asking him: Was there an assessment done of the market

value of Newfoundland Hydro? Surely as the Minister of Mines and Energy he would

know that; and if so, who prepared the assessment?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I tabled the annual report in

this House only two or three days ago, and you can see there the value of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

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

second final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, back in August of 1992 the

Minister of Mines and Energy said - in response I think, at a time when the

Member for St. John's South had publicly made some suggestion about the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro - the minister then said that the government

had studied the matter - at least he is quoted as having said - the government

had studied the matter and decided that privatization would not be in the best

interest of the Province. What was the basis of the study that was done that he

referred to? Can he tell us what the basis of the study was at that time and for

what reason did government decide that privatization was not feasible?

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

MR. GIBBONS: In 1992, Mr. Speaker, in response to

questions in this House - the questions referred to a proposal that had come in

in previous years from Newfoundland Light and Power. When we were assessing a

proposal from Newfoundland Light and Power concerning the power distribution

districts, in the rural districts, and at that time a committee was put in place

and did an assessment of the proposal and the decision at that time was that it

was not in our best interest to proceed with that particular proposal.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: Can the Minister of Mines and Energy - I know

he referred to the report, I have not had a chance to read the report - can he

tell the House what is the market value of Newfoundland Hydro?

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

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, without looking at the report

and getting the figure, I am unable to say exactly -

MR. SIMMS: You told me just a minute ago.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, it is in the report and I would have

to look at the report as well.

MR. SIMMS: You don't know either, in other words?

MR. GIBBONS: I could give an estimate of about $1.3

billion or thereabout.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Can the minister indicate how much profit the Province might make on the sale of

Hydro if it was undertaken?

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

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to speculate

on that at this time.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I give the hon. Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: Can the Minister of Mines and Energy tell the

House if the Province's credit rating agencies or any companies associated with

the credit rating agencies have ever suggested or done any study or work that

would suggest that the government sell Newfoundland Hydro as a way to raise

money to offset deficits for the next two or three years?

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

MR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just a final Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Is the government looking at that issue right

now, can he tell the House that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should ask the Minister of Finance

that.

MR. SIMMS: I am asking the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Does the minister know. Are you doing it now, is it underway now?

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

MR. GIBBONS: Relative to what?

MR. SIMMS: You have no idea of what we are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor do you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about the credit rating

or -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier. The election was held over three weeks ago and this assembly, this

new assembly has convened, why hasn't the Premier activated the conflict of

interest legislation that was passed two months ago and taken steps to have the

House appoint the commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. ROBERTS: She should speak to her Leader.

PREMIER WELLS: She should have spoken to her Leader. I

spoke to him yesterday and I guess no doubt she's discovered that and that's the

purpose of the question, to make it look as though she's doing something. I

spoke to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and I spoke to the Member for

St. John's East about implementation of the conflict of interest legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - about implementation of the conflict of

interest legislation, and appointment of a commissioner as the Act requires. I

told them we were in the process of proclaiming it, and as the Act requires the

Premier has to bring a motion before the House to nominate a person to be

commissioner. As the Act requires, I sought their advice on the nomination

beforehand. I put forward a proposal and I'm glad to say that both members

endorsed the proposal that I suggested. At the appropriate time on the Order

Paper I will be giving notice of motion to appoint the individual of whom we

spoke. So if the member can contain herself for just a few more minutes, all

will be answered.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for his answer. As a matter of fact, I didn't realize that the Premier had

consulted the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Another question for the

Premier. Why did the Premier appoint as his new Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the minister responsible for public tendering and the Public

Service Commission, a man who's bragged about his mastery of old style patronage

politics? Does the Premier want to have the fox in charge of the henhouse?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The election's over.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are certain gutters into which even

members of this House ought not to descend, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: He obviously doesn't like the question.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the new minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It's been

approximately two years now since the former, former minister of municipal

affairs came up with the scheme for amalgamating a number of municipalities in

the Province. Some have been completed, and I might add against the wishes of

the people. Has the minister given any thought to reviewing the whole

amalgamation issue, reviewing it any further?

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Let me say first of all, thank you to my hon.

friend for Humber Valley for the question. But, Mr. Speaker, most members in the

House will appreciate the fact that I have been in the office now for less than

a week and I have discussed with my officials, I think, on two separate

occasions the question of amalgamation, specifically the names or the

communities that have been named for possible amalgamation. I am not really at

liberty to answer at this particular point in time, until I have a chance to

speak to a number of commissioners who have been appointed and to get directions

from my department on what will actually happen in these individual cases. So I

am hoping that the hon. member and the House can bear with me for at least a few

more days until I familiarize myself with the whole question of amalgamation and

then, hopefully, I will be in a better position to answer the hon. member's

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like

to ask the minister, when he is reviewing the process and the scheme that was

set up by the previous minister, well, I guess, the first minister, the Member

for Waterford-Kenmount, who brought it in first, and not the previous one, the

Member for Placentia, would he consider, especially the grouping of Spillway,

Nicholsville, and Deer Lake when he is reviewing the process, look at that

particular grouping. Those people did not ask for amalgamation. It was against

their wishes. Would he give a commitment to the House today that he would take

this particular grouping into consideration?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am led to believe that there are

a number of areas that are concerned about the question of amalgamation and I

cannot give special attention to one particular area of the Province that has

problems with the question of amalgamation. I will deal with every area that has

been proposed to be amalgamated on a fair and equitable basis. I will certainly

take into consideration the hon. member's comments, but when the final decisions

are made, of course, I have to be as fair as I possibly can with every area of

the Province.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has the floor.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

minister if, when he is reviewing the process, he would take into consideration

what the Premier said, I think it was approximately a couple of years ago, down

in Lark Harbour or Summerside where we had a meeting on amalgamation first, that

there would be no communities in this Province forced to amalgamate against

their wishes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. WOODFORD: That is what was said since in the House of

Assembly. Will the minister take that into consideration, and what is his stand

on it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, everything will be taken into

consideration when we deal with the question of amalgamation. We are dealing

with, I guess, the lives of people in Newfoundland and I don't think one

particular comment made by the Premier, or anyone else, should be taken out of

context to the point where we have to concentrate on some one particular item.

We will certainly look at representations made, not only by the Premier, but by

members of this hon. House, from both sides.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Prior to the election, the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture tabled a report, the Simmons Report, in the House of Assembly. Can

he tell the House today, number one: What is the status of that report? And,

number two, has any consideration been given, or is there any consideration

being given to a time frame when the recommendations will be implemented, or

will the recommendations not be implemented?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated,

the Simmons Report dealing with the land freeze and all the rest, is done, has

been made public. My officials and I are perusing the report and it is my hope

that it will be presented to Cabinet, because, as the hon. member will know, a

lot of the recommendations in that report were to have boundary changes made to

the zoned land deleted from the existing zone. Under the legislation, that has

to be done by a Cabinet order, so we are now preparing a recommendation to

Cabinet to deal with the Simmons Report and the implementation of it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: In perusing the document before Cabinet,

can you give a time frame, clearly here today, that this will be done by April,

this will be done by next month, next week? Can you tell the House when those

recommendations will be brought forward? Could you be more specific, Mr.

Minister?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: All I can tell the hon. member is that the

Simmons Report, the recommendations and the implementation of the various

recommendations are high priority in the department; it is a priority of mine

and I don't want to put any time frame on it, but as quickly as possible, we

will deal with the implementation of the Simmons Report.

MR. SPEAKER: A final -

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is clearly, I find -

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. A final

supplementary, the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, I find this somewhat confusing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has the floor.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

I am somewhat confused, because during the election, the

President of the Liberal Party indicated clearly that the recommendations in

this report had been adopted and that people, certainly in my district, in the

district of Kilbride, have been wondering: Is that the case? If it is not the

case, then when will it happen? So again, can you be more specific on when the

recommendations will be implemented and when you are talking about bringing them

in?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member

that I have been somewhat confused too for the past four years when I looked at

the way that zone was administered for twenty years - for twenty full years when

the agricultural zone in Kilbride was administered by the previous government -

for twenty years.

The reason for that report in the first place - the reason to

implement it was to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - was to try to deal with the inequities and

the unfair way the people caught up in that zone were dealt with by the previous

administration, of which he was not a part of course, but that he would be aware

whereof I speak.

Mr. Speaker, nobody but nobody was in a position to say that

the recommendations were implemented. What happened was the report was received

by the department; the department analyzed the report and made the report

public, so there is no reason for confusion. What is happening is the report is

being dealt with expeditiously and shortly the Cabinet will deal with the

recommendations, and we will implement whatever recommendations we intend to

implement.

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

Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: My questions, Mr. Speaker, are for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The 1993-'94 Budget reduced recreational grants by $1.2

million. Included in that reduction is the elimination of the electrical power

subsidy for recreation facilities. Could the minister please tell me how much of

the $1.2 million will be saved by eliminating the power subsidy to these

facilities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me thank the hon. member for the question.

Your Honour, I have always professed, regardless of what role

I have ever played in life, and especially in this one, that when you do not

know the answer you get up and admit that you do not know the answer. I will

certainly endeavour to find the answer for my hon. colleague and submit it to

the House as soon as I possibly can.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: To me this is another example of the cost

being downloaded to the municipalities, and many of them cannot afford that

cost. I would like to ask the minister also, when he is seeking to find the

answer to my number one question, if he would also find the answer and know how

many arenas and other recreational facilities will close or will have their

operations reduced because of the cancellation of this subsidy?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my department is in the process of

announcing within, I think, the next week or so, the recreational capital works

projects or grants for 1993. I know within that project, or within that amount,

there are a number of areas where substantial amounts of money will be made

available to stadiums and recreation facilities across the Province for

improvement and for operation and for other things. Until, I guess, we are ready

to make the announcement as it relates to recreation grants, I am not going to

be able to give you that exact answer, and I think until, I guess, the towns or

the municipalities that are directly in control of these stadiums and other

facilities are made aware of how much money we are actually providing them with

this year, they are not going to be able to tell me themselves either. So I

think you are going to have to wait maybe a bit longer than a few days to get an

answer on exactly how many are going to have to close because of the reduction

in the power subsidy.

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

Capes, a final supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Well I can tell the minister today that the

Trepassey arena, which is located in my district, is being proposed to cease

operation as of June 30th, and this decision by government is playing a major

role in that closure. I am sure there are others across this great Province of

ours.

Throughout this Province tens of thousands of young people

are idle because they cannot find work. How many of them will lose the only

opportunity available in their communities for positive recreation facilities?

Is the minister concerned about the loss of recreation facilities and

opportunities for our young people, and the social problems - most important -

the social problems that could be caused because these young people have nothing

to do?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, without a doubt I am

concerned about our youth, and not only our youth because these recreation

facilities are used by every member, I suppose, of the general public, from

seniors down to youth. I am concerned.

I'm also concerned, as you are and everyone else in this

Province is, about the budgetary restraints that this government has had to

handle, or we've had to handle in the last little while. I guess it's a matter

of being able to afford and what to afford. I agree with the member. Maybe it's

a situation that we should look at, maybe we'd look at again. I don't know, I

can't say if we would or not. I in my own district for example have lost a power

subsidy in one facility, which amounts to I think around $5,000. I'm hoping and

praying that most communities around the Province can find some other means of

gaining back that money, either through their own taxation system or through the

municipality or through fund-raising of some kind.

I do agree with you. We should not, I suppose, do anything to

affect the people that we represent in Newfoundland. But when our hands are tied

when it comes to the budgetary process and the actual money that we have to

operate in the Province, we have to cut in certain areas. In that particular

case that was one area we cut last year. It's regrettable, but then we have no

other choice.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

a question to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. Seasonal forestry fire

fighters have been hired in all forestry depots on the Avalon except Cape Broyle

and Salmonier. At present there is only one resource person available in these

depots. I'll ask the minister: when is his department going to hire the six

seasonal workers for those depots?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take that particular

question under advisement and provide the answer to my hon. friend - maybe this

afternoon.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't know anything.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister

mentioned in the media yesterday and this morning that eleven forest fires have

occurred in this Province. He's very concerned. One of those fires occurred in

Cape Broyle. It took the forestry fire fighters one and half hours to arrive

from Paddy's Pond. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent in fighting this

particular fire. I ask the minister: will he act immediately to hire the fire

fighters in this area so this area can get fire protection? It's the only area

now on the Avalon that's not getting fire protection that's needed.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, number one, I'll

have my officials brief me on the incident raised by the hon. member, and in the

meantime I'll take the question with regard to the fire fighting situation in

the particular area he talks about under advisement and provide him with the

information he requires in the next - maybe this afternoon, but certainly

tomorrow.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One specific

employee has been there for eighteen years - one specific employee has been

hired for eighteen years. He hasn't been hired yet. The department announced the

rehiring on May 19. A person moved in from Labrador to fill the position and is

living in the area and has not been hired. I ask the minister: is his

department's failure to hire these much needed workers in this area due in part

that this minister still does not know what the department salary budget will

be?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker. We're very well aware of

what the department's forestry budget is. I'm also proud to stand here and

support the record of the Department of Forestry with regards to fighting forest

fires and with regards to our ability and with regards to the equipment and the

technology and everything else available. I would ask the hon. member to take a

look at the record of the Department of Forestry in Newfoundland with regards to

the number of fires and the number of acres or hectares burnt over the past two

years.

I will say to the hon. member, specifically I'm not aware of

the details he mentioned, that somebody was brought from Labrador and hired in

the area he's talking about. I'll provide the information that the hon. member

needs as quickly as I can get that information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Finance. Recently the federal Minister of Finance indicated that he was going to

meet with provincial ministers to discuss a common approach to dealing with some

of the large spending areas. Particularly, I'm sure, he'll be speaking of health

care and transfer payments. Would the minister tell us: has he been contacted by

Mr. Mazankowski to arrange a meeting, and will those meetings be held soon and

will health care and transfer payments be on the agenda for that meeting?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the meetings will be held Sunday

and Monday in Ottawa, this coming Sunday and Monday. I have been in conversation

with Mr. Mazankowski a number of times during the past month on this particular

issue. The intent is to try to come to a unified approach in terms of deficits

across the country. I guess the issues to be discussed will be the relative

merits of taxation versus expenditure cuts and this kind of thing, as far as I

know at this point in time. It has not been indicated to me that the transfer

payments will be under any discussion at all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, when the federal budget was

brought down the Premier, I think, commented that he felt the deficit had not

been tackled as hard by the budget as he would have liked to see happen. In view

of that sort of comment, Mr. Speaker, what proposal is the Provincial Minister

going to bring to this meeting next week? Is he going to go with some proposals

to look at cuts in health care, perhaps a co-pay system for health care? He has

already answered the question I guess on transfers.

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

MR. BAKER: My message, Mr. Speaker, is going to be varied

and I do not intend to discuss the details of it here. First of all, my message

is going to be along the lines that this government has taken, the approach that

this government has taken to deficit control, and we believe it is the only

approach at this point in time. With regard to any other matters, I would prefer

to wait until the meeting and at that point in time I will have a release

related to the details of my presentation.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: We will look forward to that, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just ask the minister this though, specifically, does the minister

support some sort of user fee as a means of reducing the cost of health care?

What is the governments position on that?

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

MR. BAKER: Something, Mr. Speaker, that government has

never discussed and therefore government does not have a position on and I have

not been told that that is going to be an item under discussion at this meeting.

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

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

Minister of Health. The minister will know that the Federal Minister of Health

and Welfare announced a public inquiry to review the safety of Canada's current

blood supply as a result of a House of Commons Committee report tabled yesterday

in the House of Commons. This report also said that there is an urgent need to

trace people who may have become infected with the aids virus through medical

treatment before they infect others and notes that perhaps over 1,000 people in

Canada have contracted the aids virus through the blood supply. I want to ask

the minister what his government is going to do to assist people in this

Province to find out whether or not they have possibly contracted the HIV virus

through blood transfusions, through operations or through blood supply in this

Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem for anybody

who thinks he may have aids or have contracted HIV to get a blood test. It is a

very simply procedure and it is very inexpensive. I welcome anyone who has such

a problem to visit the clinics and become tested.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What can the minister

do to help the people identify those who may be at risk? Can the minister advise

the public or members of the public as to what periods of time the blood supply

in this Province made available may have in fact been contaminated and what

period of time should people be looking out for, people who had operations or

who may have had blood transfusions?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, since 1985, the blood supply

that has been given for ordinary operations in this Province has been tested for

HIV virus. So we can assume that since 1985 everything is fine or pretty well

fine anyway but before that - I do not know how far back we go to check whether

or not there was an HIV virus, perhaps we have to go back to the mid-70's and

perhaps earlier but I would suggest that anyone who has had a blood transfusion

before 1985 and going back for a number of years and who may be concerned about

the matter, should go and become tested. That is about all there is to it. There

is no need of anyone tracking down the thousands of people who may have had

blood transfusions, any more than it is necessary to track down all of the

people who have had other means of contracting HIV as well. So, it is not an

appropriate issue to be debating. The means is there for people to be tested and

anyone who feels concerned should become tested.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the Report of the Newfoundland Medicare

Commission for the year ended March 31, 1992, and I would commend it to hon.

members for their very interesting reading.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that Mr. Wayne Mitchell, who is the Chief Electoral Officer, be

and he is hereby appointed as the Commissioner of Member's Interest pursuant to

Section 34, Subsection 2 of the House of Assembly Act as amended. The House of

Assembly Amendment Act,

Chapter 1 of the statutes of Newfoundland 1993.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Long Island in the district of Green Bay. The prayer of the petition is quite

simple. We the undersigned residents of Long Island petition the hon. House of

Assembly for another phase of our water and sewerage system. The six residents

signing the petition were members of the community council of Long Island a week

or so prior to the calling of the last election. I had a meeting with the

council with regard to their dissatisfaction with the lack of action regarding

getting water and sewer work done and they gave me a petition to bring forward

to the House of Assembly. However, by the time I brought the petition to St.

John's the election had been called and now is my first opportunity to present

their petition.

Long Island is an isolated island, Mr. Speaker. It is rural

serviced by a ferry system. The water system on the island is only partly

completed. During the last term of the Wells administration the government did

the island damage by cutting the ferry system in half. During the last Wells

administration one phase of the water system to the tune of $360,000 was

approved way back in 1990. The Wells government has promised fairness and

balance in the allocation of water and sewer monies but I do not think they have

lived up to their word with regard to, especially rural communities in Green Bay

in that regard. I ask the government to take the plea of the people of Long

Island into consideration. Please do not hold it against them, that I was

re-elected as their MHA. Please do not hold it against them that 46 per cent of

the residents there voted for the Independent Liberal candidate. The next time

monies are allocated for water and sewer monies please give Long Island its long

overdue consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and ask that it be tabled

and referred to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I want to present a petition to the hon. House. It is not in

the proper form so I would like to ask leave of the House to present it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has requested leave of the

House to present a petition from his district which is not the proper form. Is

it the will of the House that the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: He should show it to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hate to pass an opinion but it

appears to me that it is in a general form that members would find acceptable. I

do not know if the Opposition House Leader would like to review it.

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker has seen it

and thinks it is alright to present here, we agree with the member presenting

his petition.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that I am

quite happy to grant leave for the Member for Eagle River to present his

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker, and

obviously, a special thank you to the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is that we the people

of Mary's Harbour, Labrador hereby present this petition to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador:

whereas the existing power plant is in a residential

area and due to the recent fire, we feel this facility poses an extremely

dangerous threat to our community, and we strongly recommend that when the new

power plant is built, that it be located outside a residential area where it

would be less dangerous, should a fire reoccur. Mr. Speaker, this petition is

signed by 183 members of the community which virtually represents the total

number of adults in this community, and I want to concur with the wishes of

these residents.

As members would recall, about five or six weeks ago, there

was a fire in that power plant that destroyed the power plant totally and left

the community without any power. Certainly, it would have been very, very grave

indeed if it had occurred in early January, because it would have caused

tremendous damage to the water and sewer system and indeed to the lives of the

people concerned. So I want to indicate to this House that this is a very

serious issue and it is not only in the community of Mary's Harbour, it is the

same thing along the coast, because when these original power plants were built,

Mr. Speaker, they were built without the proper planning process and indeed,

many of the communities were not incorporated at the time, so now that the

communities are incorporated, there are certainly zoning regulations which must

be respected and as we have seen in this community, many residents built their

homes close to the power plant because that was indeed the residential zoning

that was made available, but now this power plant has been eliminated.

I might also submit for members information, Mr. Speaker,

over the last ten years, there have been four such power plants burnt to the

ground on the coast of Labrador, and certainly, if this particular plant had

burnt in the summer time, it would have indeed caused a very, very grave

situation in that community and I think that it would only be prudent for

Newfoundland Hydro to take a serious look at the implications of moving this

particular facility when they rebuild it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask

Newfoundland Hydro if they would review the staffing and locations of all their

power plants along the coast of Labrador, because we must not forget that the

replacement cost of the four facilities over the last ten years, is going to be

somewhere in the order of $10 million, and, some people have expressed the view

that if there were a system of staffing set up where these facilities would be

monitored on an hourly basis, then maybe these accidents would not have happened

and these kinds of considerable public expenditures would not have had to be

made.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the hon. House and to the

minister responsible, the wishes of these people and I would hope that when the

power plant is rebuilt, that it is done so with all the due respect for the

wishes of the people in Mary's Harbour.

Thank you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from

Eagle River for presenting that petition. I would certainly draw it to the

attention of Hydro and ask for an assessment.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand and support

the petition presented by the Member for Eagle River. Obviously, he did not get

much encouragement from the minister and I hope he brings back the comments of

the minister to the people of Mary's Harbour, as it relates to the enthusiasm he

displayed in terms of supporting the petition that was just presented by the

Member for Eagle River.

I have some knowledge of what the Member for Eagle River is

talking about because I too, represent a constituency where several communities

have power plants - actually it is only one now because Monkstown is hooked up

to the main grid and Petit Forte, again this year, was hooked up to the

provincial power system, but I know what the member is saying. I think the

improvements that are needed should be met; the residents of Mary's Harbour know

what is best for Mary's Harbour, and I think this government has a

responsibility to adhere to what they requested.

I would encourage the minister, if I may, to show more

enthusiasm in the future for petitions that are being presented by the Member

for Eagle River, and indeed all other members in the House of Assembly.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I understand that it has

been agreed by the House Leaders that we would debate Motion 3.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the debate

it might be useful to record an understanding that has been reached between my

friend from Grand Bank and myself, and see if members are prepared to endorse

it.

The rules of the House, as we know - the Standing Orders of

the House - provide that there are to be two days of debate on any motion

standing in a Private Member's name - two successive Wednesdays when we

ordinarily have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well not for many years until I arrived, I

say to my friend from... When my hon. friend was in the Chair it was two days in

those days; but in any event, his point to me shows the danger of changing the

rules without changing the rules, which is really, in my judgement, about the

stunnedest thing that the House of Assembly could do. If we want to change the

rule we should change the rule, but there have been no changes made in the

rules. There were recommendations made in 1975 on redistribution, which the

government of the day ignored as well. Recommendations are of no value. It is

action that counts.

Now let me get on - my friend from Grand Bank and I have

reached an understanding which, if acceptable to the House, I would propose we

act upon, and that is this: That with respect to Private Members' Day, first of

all a motion be debated for only one day and put to a vote at the end of that

day's debate. Secondly, that the speeches on the motion be of twenty minutes

duration, and that the mover have the right of response at the end of the -

after, in other words, at twenty minutes of five the mover would be given the

floor and he or she would then speak. Thirdly, that we do not take the motions

in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper, but instead alternately the

Opposition and the government side are allowed to state which motion they wish

to have debated, and we will endeavour to do that on the Monday before the House

meets so as to give members a day to prepare.

Now that is my understanding of the arrangement. If my friend

from Grand Bank is of like mind perhaps he could confirm it, and if all hands

are agreed then we will proceed on that; but I say to my friend from Grand Falls

- that is the same arrangement we had last time except we have now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) years.

MR. ROBERTS: Well I do not know how long it has been on

there. There was a six year gap in my time in the House. No, it was not there

before 1985. It might have come after 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It could well be. I am not responsible for

what went on after 1985. I was not there, but I answer for what I have done or

not done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, in a way in which the hon. gentleman

was not. Even when the hon. gentleman was in the Chair he was not responsible. I

am not responsible for Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, and that ilk, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not want me to tell them about

(inaudible) conversations.

MR. ROBERTS: I would hope not. The hon. gentleman, I

would assume, still has the attributes of a gentlemen, as he always did, but if

he wants to tell what he recalls of conversations, I will tell him what I recall

of conversations and we will have a very entertaining time, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, if hon. members are of a like mind perhaps we

could proceed on that basis, at least until such time as Standing Orders are

formally amended, whenever that may be.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Yes, Mr.Speaker, we agree with the proposal put forward by

the Government House Leader. Of course that was the arrangement we were working

under for years until, I guess it was some time last Fall - I think it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Christmas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, close to Christmas. Somewhere after

the 20th of December, with the night sessions and the long debate on certain

legislation, and other things that some of us still remember, that this thing

got out of whack and got off the rails. Then we, on one occasion, went to two

Wednesdays for Private Members' resolutions, so -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) used up an entire day on points

of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Precisely, so we totally agree with what

the Government House Leader said, that we will give notice on the Monday; we

will alternate sides on the Private Members' resolution, and it will be twenty

minutes each with the mover of the resolution to take the floor at 4:40 p.m.; so

we totally agree with what the Government House Leader has proposed, and we hope

that this Session will be cordial enough that we will not resort later on in the

Session to two day debates on Private Members' (inaudible). So yes, we agree,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the Government House Leader and the

Opposition House Leader of the dangers of assuming unanimous consent in coming

to these agreements. I haven't had any discussions with either of these

individuals on this, but for the purposes of today's debate I would certainly be

happy to give consent to the procedure as put forth. There have been discussions

in the past concerning not just the order of debate back and forth but also the

arrangements being made to include the private member's resolutions coming from

the New Democratic Party, as well. So I would hope that there would be an

opportunity to discuss that, as well, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of the debate

today, I have no difficulty.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, let me

say to my hon. friend from St. John's East, I had not presumed unanimous

consent. I was stating an arrangement struck between the Leaders of the only two

parties in this House, the only two groups in this House. As I recollect, my

closing words were: If hon. members are so minded, Mr. Speaker, we shall proceed

on that basis.

That said, I thank my hon. friend from St. John's East. He

has exactly the same rights as any other individual member of this House and I

will respect those, and look forward to continuing to work with him on that

basis. But, with respect, I will deal with my friend from Grand Bank, as House

Leader for the Opposition, on a different basis, because he speaks for - is it

sixteen? - fifteen, sixteen, whatever it is, subject to recounts and

controverted election petitions and nembers of the House, and members who have a

role as the Official Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. What the House Leaders have

pointed out, as well as the Member for St. John's East, is that under the rules,

this is not the proper or the prescribed procedure, and that, of course, it has

been custom. However, custom does not have the force of an order and, as was

pointed out, perhaps the matter could be taken up by the Standing Orders

Committee, which might then provide us with appropriate rule amendments, and we

will act on that case.

In any event, it certainly appears to be the will of the

House to follow the custom and we would do so. Of course, if an objection were

raised, we all know the consequence of that.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Not

wanting to take up any more time, but since we are talking about procedure and

Standing Orders and so on, the report that the Committee did present - also,

there were some other changes proposed, such as that there would be statements

by members at the beginning of the session, at the beginning of each sitting day

for, I think it was thirty seconds or a minute or ninety seconds - I forget what

the time was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety seconds.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ninety seconds. This stuff was never

implemented. So I am wondering if the Government House Leader perhaps could take

under consideration having a look at that report and maybe there are some things

that we could look at, if not implementing now, before we adjourn for the

summer, with a view to perhaps putting into practice by the time we resume this

Fall.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would

say to my hon. friend, that is a matter I am in the process of addressing. I

will have to, in due course, take counsel from my colleagues. I have read the

report - I think it was a - of the Standing Orders Committee. In fact, I think

His Honour was a member of it in his role as the Minister of Justice, and my

friend for Mount Scio - Bell Island, as I recollect, chaired it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Eagle River?

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Eagle River chaired it? No, I

think my friend from Mount Scio - Bell Island chaired it.

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

Culture, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Anyway, there was a report and the House,

for whatever reason, did not act upon it. I would say to my friend from Grand

Bank, and, Mr. Speaker, to the other members, that we shall propose membership

for the Standing Committee on whatever it is called, on the Standing Orders, the

Standing Orders Standing Committee, in due course. My friend from Grand Bank is

a member of the striking committee, and we shall strike, no doubt, that

committee, along with the others we have struck, and are about to strike. We

have struck. We will see whether we have struck well or badly. There are a

number of areas which I would suggest we examine. I would say to my hon. friend,

I would hope that we would be able to move this forward fairly early in the life

of this House, so that we can get on with the substantive business, having put

our affairs in order.

I would make one further comment. Again, my friend from Eagle

River demonstrated today, when we have no rules, when we don't follow the rules,

in my judgement, we get into trouble. Your Honour can't enforce understandings.

Your Honour can't enforce vague - Your Honour can enforce fairly and impartially

rules with precedents and

interpretations. So I will certainly take the position

that if we want to change the rules, we should spell out what we want, change

them, and get on with it, just as we should get on with the debate here this

afternoon. My friend from Ferryland is halfway down the Ring Road now and will

meet himself coming back, in anxiety.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Ferryland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

One more matter - before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Ferryland, the Clerk of the House asked me to draw to your attention that if you

wish to propose an amendment on Private Member's Day, it would be helpful to him

if it could be in writing, if at all possible, because we have had some problems

with getting the language correct. So, if at all possible - and it may not be at

times - we would appreciate having any amendments, as such, in writing.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I

would like to take this opportunity to, I guess, congratulate all members on

their election and re-election, and it gives me an occasion, too, to thank the

voters of the Ferryland district for re-electing me. I can assure them that I

will work as hard over the next four years as I have over the past year on their

behalf.

It also give me pleasure to speak on behalf of the resolution

on the Outer Ring Road, even though I feel that this resolution should not have

been presented. It should not have been necessary to be presented today, because

the Outer Ring Road should have been given the go-ahead for construction.

We are living in a society, today, where the large percentage

of people are living in urban areas. We only need to look across this country,

and here, specifically, in our Province, to see that the majority of people in

Canada today, about 60 per cent of the people, are living in urban areas; and

one of the greatest problems encountered by people living in urban areas is they

become frustrated with the transportation network within their cities.

Successful cities from a business and economic standpoint are

ones that can plan ahead and be able to prepare for the future, and this

government has taken the approach of reacting to transportation crises and other

crises instead of acting to prevent these crises.

Today, we are finding that the populations surrounding the

City of St. John's and Mount Pearl are increasing in area, and there is a shift

from rural Newfoundland into urban areas. I think this government is responsible

in great part to the increase in shift of people from rural Newfoundland into

urban Newfoundland. People, today, are starting to see that their local taxes in

rural areas of this Province have increased substantially, and the gap between

taxes in urban and rural areas has narrowed very much. There are no great

incentives anymore in living outside in rural areas and commuting for an hour or

forty-five minutes, or an hour-and-a-half, into urban areas when you are paying

a very similar tax base. I think the need for this - this government has

contributed to a shift from rural to urban Newfoundland, and I think they should

accept a certain responsibility in being able to meet future demands of

transportation and other services that come with this specific shift.

Now, with reference to Crosbie, I will get to the funding

aspect, I inform the Member for Eagle River, very soon - where the funds for

this road are coming from. I am sure he knows quite well.

One of the greatest concerns, I guess, being expressed, is

from an environmental aspect and I will address that, too, shortly. But this

Outer Ring Road, linked to the City of St. John's, would tie in with what was

proposed as a Goulds bypass road that would meet around the Harbour Arterial, in

around Mount Pearl, and would facilitate the movement of traffic around this

city.

Now, even in my own district, it is very frustrating when you

drive for an hour-and-a-half to get to work, and it takes fifty minutes to get

from the regional water supply in Big Pond, in here to the Confederation

Building. There is definitely a severe traffic problem developing, it is

increasing, and there are no direct steps being taken to alleviate this problem.

We have to plan ahead and look at this problem, and there are numerous reasons

why the Outer Ring Road should go ahead.

Now, the people in my district have been told that the Goulds

bypass that would tie into the Outer Ring Road would be one hundred per cent

federally funded. This Provincial Government, in the Fall of 1991, were

approached with putting the steps in place for a one hundred per cent federally

funded Goulds bypass road to tie into the proposed Outer Ring Road, and nothing

has been done. On May 15, 1992 it was registered for an environmental assessment

review. That was over twelve months ago and nothing has happened. It has sat on

a desk for eight months because the Premier didn't want the money to go on the

Avalon, he wanted it to be directed off the Avalon, and I think that is very,

very unfortunate - a 100 per cent federally funded project that could do wonders

to the area of the Goulds, especially, the Southern Shore area, and here in the

City of St. John's.

Overall, I think it is important that we plan ahead. Now, the

Pippy Park area was commissioned back in 1968 to provide an area to house

government and other cultural, social and educational institutions. That is one

of the purposes for which that land was set aside. Since that time it has been

made into a park area that enhances the city. I am not advocating to destroy

that because we have to meet environmental standards, too, and I will address

that very shortly, but overall, the intent of this park area was to provide an

area for government to be able to operate and have various institutions in close

proximity, set aside in at least some remote area of the city that would be able

to facilitate the conduction of business within a proper environmental setting.

The Minister from St. Barbe finds that very hard to believe

but, actually, that is a fact. Back in 1968, that was established under, I think

it was called, the Pippy Park Commission Act 1968.

Now, this road is funded one hundred per cent by the Federal

Government. I understand, $68 million has been contributed by the Federal

Government to constructing the Outer Ring Road, in addition to $6 million for a

Goulds bypass road, so $74 million would certainly be a big boost and it is not

going to affect the financial position of this Province. If it is a concern in

times of restraint and utilizing where money can be best spent, it is not

impacting upon the Budget of this Province.

Now, the money is available and the need has been clearly

stated. The Provincial Government have admitted there is a need, the Federal

Government have admitted there is a need, and the City of St. John's has clearly

identified the need for the Outer Ring Road and the need for it to progress. An

environmental impact study was approved back in 1988 for this Outer Ring Road,

and even just last Fall, Transport Canada completed its own environmental

assessment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It hasn't? The Department of Environment

Canada participated and also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was done

by the Federal Government to satisfy their need to see if it should proceed.

They were satisfied, and stated that it met the requirements of the federal

environmental and all regulating agencies for it to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Crosbie.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I am not sitting in the House of

Commons and I am not the federal member, so I can speak -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) future considerations.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. It has been stated that it would be

funded federally. The Federal Government have agreed to fund the $68 million. It

has not only met the federal environmental regulations, it has met the

provincial environmental regulations and, in 1989, the Provincial Government

removed it from the public hearing process because they came to the conclusion

that the assessment was not going to be detrimental or it wasn't significant to

warrant public hearings, because there would be no adverse effects upon the

environment and the terrain in the Pippy Park area where this proposed road was

to go ahead.

Now, it has met all standards and funding has been set aside

for this road but the Provincial Government have dragged their feet on the Outer

Ring Road, failing to make a decision as to where they even stand on the issue.

They have recognized the need but they haven't done anything to move it ahead

and put it into motion.

On October 19, the Fall of 1992, the provincial Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation stated on a CBC radio program, 'As I

indicated in 1990, the Ring Road was released from further environmental review

and the conclusions of the federal study are' - the federal study that the

Government House Leader referred to, stated, 'With respect to the environment,

impacts are either insignificant' - this was a result of the federal study that

was released and quoted by the government's provincial minister in charge - 'or

mitigative with known technology.' That is by your own government's minister

responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. Your government's department

was satisfied upon release of this federal finding back in October, 1992.

MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now, hold on now, who was satisfied?

MR. SULLIVAN: The hon. Aubrey T. Gover, Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. ROBERTS: Satisfied with what?

MR. SULLIVAN: He stated on an Open Line show, in a

conversation and here is his quote, I quote against your information: As I

indicated in 1990, the Ring Road was released from further environmental review

and the conclusions of the federal study are, with respect to the environment,

that environmental impacts are either insignificant or mitigative with known

technology.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) have a look at the legislation

and look before he leaps, would be my advice to him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I am just quoting your government's

minister

MR. ROBERTS: It was an accurate statement when made. When

was it made?

MR. SULLIVAN: October of '92.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just this past fall -

MR. ROBERTS: That is right, but the hon. gentleman might

want to have a look at the act.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and since that time, there has been no

known changes or environmental or terrain changes in the environment of that

area since 1992, and if my understanding, that if it does not proceed even in

'93, that legally,it would have to go back through an environmental process

again, so maybe what this government has done, it has possibly put the Outer

Ring Road into a situation -

MR. ROBERTS: We announced what we did.

MR. SULLIVAN: - well, we may have to go back to an

environmental review again -

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, we have announced what we did -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes

MR. ROBERTS: - we set up a commissioner, Mr. Goodyear,

announced it publicly -

MR. SULLIVAN: - that is right.

MR. ROBERTS: - with a mandate to give us advice on that

point.

MR. SULLIVAN: And what is the advice?

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend, the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation will speak in due course when the hon. gentleman

concludes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the advice has not been made public?

MR. ROBERTS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not seen a report from the

commissioner who was appointed -

MR. ROBERTS: It has not been made public, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I understand that as of May of this

year, that legally it may have to go through an environmental process again, if

there is not a commitment -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) last September, some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: The advice of John Crosbie.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not the advice of John Crosbie at

all. It is the advice of the former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation on an Open Line radio program here in St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: One of the, I guess, pros in going ahead

with the Outer Ring Road, is that currently the Outer Ring Road runs through the

centre of Memorial University and divides the campus. The campus of Memorial

University does not have a uniqueness and a closeness and identity there. I had

the opportunity to go there and visit there on numerous occasions and attend

university there for six years, and I have been at other universities also, and

I find that it does not have a university good setting, with traffic running

down the main thoroughfare and we know in the past that has posed some

transportation problems and safety problems. In fact there was a very serious,

tragic accident there in the past but that has been corrected somewhat by

skywalks and fencing and that but, it does destroy the whole atmosphere of

Memorial University, and I think it is important that we look at delivering a

transportation system that is going to be conducive to increased growth and

prosperity and development within the city.

Now, any city is judged by its ability to be able to meet the

needs of its people, the needs of its people in terms of accessing the services

in the city, accessing the businesses; it has had a profound effect, this poor

transportation, in this city on certain businesses across the city. For example,

in on Kenmount Road, with business on Kenmount Road, it must be very

frustrating. At certain times of the day it is almost impossible, it takes about

an hour almost to be able to get through the city of St. John's and into

Kenmount Road; it has become a main thoroughfare leading into the city, and with

the increased populations occurring in Conception Bay South and in Mount Pearl

and in the Goulds-Kilbride area, we are getting an increased bottlenecking of

traffic coming in across the Crosstown Arterial Road.

I drive it every day. I have travelled throughout the city

from one end to another, and I have seen the problems encountered with

transportation in this city compared with transportation in other cities of

similar size and larger size -

AN HON. MEMBER: Toronto.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have visited Toronto, Calgary and

Edmonton and every city in Canada on numerous occasions, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is correct. It is easier to get

to Toronto airport from downtown than it is to get to Bidgoods from here, and

that is a problem; and the hon. Member for St. John's South can tell you about

traffic problems -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would say, take the money and forget

them if you wish, but take the money and do something constructive with the

money. Now not only the frustrations being encountered across the city, the city

too has identified that they are frustrated in their planning attempt to develop

the east end of the city. The east end of the city cannot be developed because

the transportation network is not there to entice residents and businesses and

so on to establish there because it is remote and very difficult to move around

the city and that is causing major problems.

So if the city is going to be able to carry on business and

have movement of traffic on a more viable and progressive basis, it is important

that this government look seriously and stop stalling this important

transportation network in the city and do something about it. Now, not only for

the need, the need is there, it has been recognized by your government, it has

been recognized by the federal government and by the city of St. John's, that is

not the problem. It has been recognized, it has met environmental regulations

both federally and provincially, the need has been established, the money is

available and the only thing holding it up is this government's inaction to move

ahead and do something that is proper for the city, not only from that

perspective but from the perspective in a tough economy, in a time of restraint.

Can you imagine what $68 million and $6 million for a Goulds bypass, $74 million

would do with an infusion of capital spending into an economy that is ailing and

is badly needed? The spin-off effects of jobs alone from construction in an area

in which this government has sliced, I think, $50 million from capital

expenditures. They have just turned their backs on a project that has met all

standards and a perceived need, and not only a perceived need there is a defined

need out there that has been done from various studies. I would ask this

government to take a serious look, to look at the factors involved, to assess

the situation and to make a proper decision. I would ask our new minister there,

I am sure he is a very rational individual, I have to give him credit for that,

he is a very sensitive individual to people's needs and I think he is going to

do an excellent job there and I am quite sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I am quite sure he is going to be a

strong voice in cabinet to ensure that the interests of the people are served. I

ask the minister to follow through with that and that is what his constituents

said too and I concur with them, I ask the minister to look seriously at this.

It is a very worthwhile project with no significant adverse effects, only

positive effects upon the whole area of the Avalon Peninsula and I think it

would be a tremendous project. I ask that the government stop dragging its feet

and do something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the

House of Assembly again and to be able to take a few minutes to congratulate my

good friends opposite and especially the Member for Humber East which I will get

to in a few minutes. But I want to, Mr. Speaker, take this opportunity first of

all to say publicly, congratulations to all of my hon. colleagues who were here

before the election, for all of those new members who came in since the election

and the latest, William Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains, who went through

somewhat of a frustrating time but nevertheless successful.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Hear, hear! We prevailed, we prevailed

the great Torngat!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the

opportunity and the pleasure of listening to some of the new members speaking in

the House of Assembly. If you did not know better, you would say that they had

been here quite awhile. They are not like new members. A great improvement in

what I have heard over the last number of years from some people in the House of

Assembly and I think the new members from this side of the House are going to

add a great addition, not only to the House of Assembly but to the Liberal Party

of Newfoundland and Labrador but especially the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: To my hon. friends opposite, except the

Member for Humber East, I would like to congratulate all of the hon. members,

especially the new members. I have had the pleasure of meeting them one on one

and saying hello to them. I think it is a different political system than it

used to be years ago. I think we cooperate a little more in the House of

Assembly and we will respect each others districts. Being minister, where I am

sitting, I hope we can work together and if you have any concerns I am only too

glad to listen to them but I can assure you that from time to time I will not

forget which side of the House that I am sitting on and that we can carry on our

usual political interest that we both have, on either side of the House, that we

always have on either side of the House.

My hon. friend for Humber East, I think she's setting a trend

that she wants to continue the same way she finished off the last sitting. Make

no wonder her majority dropped substantially -

MS. VERGE: It didn't.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's a dream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Tories' vote dropped substantially with

her leadership.

MR. EFFORD: With her leadership, yes, that's right. I say

to the hon. member, she can throw all the barbs she likes across this house.

This hon. member is used to it. He did his share from 1985 to 1989, he gave it

and he's able to take it. So you can continue. I'll have no problems with

listening to it. But there's a long road that has no turns, don't forget that.

Wait and listen.

The important issue here, Mr. Speaker, is the Outer Ring

Road. The motion that was put by the hon. Member for Ferryland, my hon.

colleague the Minster of Justice said that it's the thoughts of the hon. federal

minister, Mr. Crosbie, and the words or the speech or the voice of the hon.

Member for Ferryland. That's not the point. Those are not the facts that we want

to talk about. I know the hon. federal minister certainly wants to get the Outer

Ring Road started.

I tell you, you should have an interest in your city. It's of

great interest to all the people living in and around the city and commuting to

and from. How the best transportation mode can be prepared and developed for the

city. I too drive to and from St. John's on most days but I have to deal with

very little traffic. I'll leave my home out in that great district of Port de

Grave and I drive to St. John's in approximately fifty to fifty-five minutes

right to the Confederation Building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I haven't lost a point since the new

legislation came in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ran into the moose.

MR. EFFORD: That was before. I tell you, you know, if you

have a problem with a lot of traffic you haven't got to come in in the heavily

congested times. You can come in a bit earlier in the morning. I usually leave

my home at 5:30, 5:45 in the morning, so I'm usually here at Confederation

Building by 6:45 or 6:50. Very little traffic then to bother with.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't need a Ring Road, do you?

MR. EFFORD: You don't need an outer Ring Road for that

time of morning. There's no traffic. You can come in with ease. In fact, there

are very few cars. A few boats sailing out in Conception Bay. You fishermen

usually get up that early. But very few cars driving Kenmount Road at 5:30 or

5:45 in the morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: If we all came to work at that same hour

we'd have the same problem.

MR. EFFORD: Well anybody who wants, as the hon. Member

for Ferryland wants, to get to the Confederation Building without any delay, I'm

sure all he has to do is do like all of his friends on the southern shore, the

fishermen. Get up early in the morning and come in. There are very little

traffic problems, I can assure you of that.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, outside of the ease with which I

come in in the morning, I live in rural Newfoundland. In the area in which I

live we are very fortunate, like the city of St. John's, in that we do have a

reasonably well organized transportation system out there. We don't have much

problem. We're lucky now that the new Conception Bay North by-pass road is to be

started this year, the beginning at least is to be started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: It's the beginning. It's going to take about

ten, fifteen years before it's completed. If the money and everything comes

forth on a consecutive, year after year basis. Let's take it a little bit

farther. Let's go across Newfoundland. I tell you, a lot of people in the

Province of Newfoundland don't enjoy the same pleasures of driving on the roads

that we enjoy driving on. If you want to take it a step further, Mr. Speaker,

and go down to the great region of Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: Big land.

MR. EFFORD: The big land. That great, rich vast land of

Labrador. Look at - this is 1993. What type of a transportation system are they

living with? If you were living with the same transportation system that they

are living with, what kind of complaints would we hear from you if you're

complaining about the system that we have presently in this area or in this

region, or for the Avalon region?

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't work in the city.

MR. EFFORD: They don't - but they are people.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What? So they shouldn't get a road?

MR. EFFORD: They are people. Are you saying because they

don't work in the city they shouldn't have roads?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now then. Now.

MR. EFFORD: They don't even have a road in most areas

from community to community.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I hope Hansard got that.

MR. EFFORD: Very few of them have roads in the community.

You're saying they don't live in the city? I hope Hansard - I'm sure it will,

and that the hon. Member for Eagle River - because, I don't know, probably the

hon. member didn't realize what he was saying, that there's a greater need in

the city. But -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) that's not the

interpretation

(inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: - I think what you have to look at is the

rights of people, and that is what we have to look at in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador - the rights of individuals. Whether you live in

Forteau, Labrador, or whether you live in Cartwright, or whether you live in

L'Anse-au-Loup, or whatever place you live on the Island of Newfoundland or

Labrador, you have as much right to have a road. Living in a city does not give

you a greater right to have better transportation, as a person or an individual

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that is what I am talking

about. I am looking at a region like Labrador, from where you hear very little

complaints from time to time. We do not hear them in this House of Assembly. We

have very few people get up and question: What time is the great Trans-Labrador

Highway going to be completed? What time are the people of Labrador going to

enjoy the same rights as we do here on the Island of Newfoundland. That is what

we have to be very aware of - the needs of people in areas of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador who have less advantages now than we are presently

enjoying.

I always say: The more we get the more we want. We take a lot

of things for granted and we very seldom wonder and take a great interest or

pleasure in what we have, that we get up in the morning, get aboard our car,

turn the key, our roads are ploughed. If there is not enough salt on the road

then we will pick up the phone and complain to someone in Works, Services and

Transportation, saying: Get the salt on the road. Get the ploughs out, because I

cannot get where I want to go. I cannot get to the movie theatre, cannot get to

the shopping mall, cannot get to a place of work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cannot get to a hospital.

MR. EFFORD: Cannot get to a hospital. That is another

thing, and that is one of the most important things. The other equal - not only

are the hospitals equal, but in mode of education - the disadvantages of living

in a region like Labrador compared to here in St. John's, they do not only lose

the pleasure of driving to and from a place of work, or a health facility, or a

school, or Memorial University or whatever - they are not able to enjoy any of

those advantages that we do here.

So we have to understand, where are the priorities? Do we put

our priorities for the needs of the people in an urban centre like St. John's

and the great places that they are enjoying, or do we look at the people of the

whole region of Newfoundland and Labrador and say: Well, should we give them

some consideration before we look at it ourselves? Are we selfish enough again

to grab everything for ourselves and forget those people in Labrador, or in

other parts of Newfoundland?

Many, many parts of Newfoundland do not enjoy a reasonably

good road to drive over. I know. I have only been in the minister's office for a

little more than a week, and I tell you, the letters that I have had to read

requesting from people, explaining that we do not have a road to drive over. We

are living on this road and there is no way to physically get a car or a truck,

or even be able to go out after dark and walk on that particular piece of road.

We are talking about in Newfoundland. We are not talking now about Labrador.

Then we listen to the hon. Member for Ferryland. I am sure he

has good reason; his good friends want him to get up in the House of Assembly

and push for that Outer Ring Road, to get (inaudible) from where he sits - well

it is good to have that amount of money spent in the region. I can understand,

and there was a commitment made by the federal minister to make sure that that

money would be spent. I suspect that the hon. Minister of Fisheries - the

federal Minister of Fisheries - has something in the back of his mind that I do

not think he is going to be there a lot longer. I think come June 10th, and

depending on the outcome of the federal leadership, I think will certainly

determine how much longer Mr. Crosbie will be in federal politics. I have no

doubt in my mind, and my hon. colleague over across the way knows full well what

I am talking about. If the leadership goes to a certain Ms. Campbell, I suspect

Mr. Crosbie will be seeking another career, and I have no doubt he will be

wondering where he is going to go to work the next morning - probably Ambassador

to some country, United States, England, London, wherever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Possibly - but I say 'if' Ms. Campbell wins,

which is a good possibility; no doubt about it. The polls are showing there is a

little dickering going on now, a little fluttering around, but I suspect that

Mr. Crosbie wants to get the Outer Ring Road finished - I should not say

'finished' but at least a commitment to start, and some equipment working on

that area, before he has his final days in as the Member for St. John's West,

because there is no doubt in my mind that he did make the commitment personally

to the people and he certainly wants to get it started; but then that is not

always possible. There are a lot of things to consider before you make a

commitment.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is boring.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not

interested, because I am not saying now what he wants to hear. He would like for

the minister to get up and say, yes, we are going to bring out the pick and

shovels tomorrow morning, yes, we are going to start digging and we are going to

get excited. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of people in this

Province who would like to see a lot of things happen that are not happening

today. I received, just yesterday, a letter from an individual in Labrador. I

have to go back to Labrador again because I think we have to give a lot more

consideration as to where the money is going to be spent in the Province for

roads and for the needs of people. I think that is what we really have to look

at, Mr. Speaker, the needs of individuals in the Province who desperately need

and are doing without and that we as a government must look at the probabilities

of getting a federal agreement and providing a reasonable mode of transportation

for people who deserve equally, as I said a few seconds ago, equally as much and

who deserve what we enjoy and what we take for granted. We do take a lot of

things for granted here in this Province.

The one thing I can assure you is that people are going to be

treated on a fair and equal representation, and while I have my good friend for

Eagle River there is no doubt about it that when he gets up to speak later on

this evening he is going to tell us the importance of a better improved system

of transportation in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am looking at a letter I

received from the local service district of Tors Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: The residence of the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. EFFORD: No, it is from the local service district. I

am not going to tell the gentleman's name. It is from the chairman but it is in

your district. I am not interested in who lives there. A lot of people live

there but that is not the point. Is it or is it not in your district?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: I tell you, if I were living there, your

percentage of votes would have dropped substantially in the last election

because you would have had a lot of competition running in the Ferryland

district, on the southern shore. Anyway, here is an example. It is a photo. The

hon. member never spoke about this and I was surprised. I was expecting him to

make a comment, not so much for St. John's as for his own district, but not once

during the twenty minutes did he mention the need of a road in his district.

Here I have several photos sent in from a local service district in his own

area. Now, that is very interesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I am talking about the twenty minute speech,

from 3:00 o'clock until about 3:20 in the House this afternoon and not a word

from the hon. member to talk about this, so I wonder if my friend from Eagle

River is not correct, that he had the call before 2:00 on what he should talk

about because here is a prime example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with my (inaudible). I

am talking about a letter I received as minister. I have only been in the office

a week. I have already answered and signed it this afternoon, attached the same

pictures, and told them of the expedience in which this will be dealt with. I

cannot read a letter of confidentiality between the Chairman. If he wishes to

make it public I am sure he will do so.

MR. SULLIVAN: Hand delivered by the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. EFFORD: I can honestly say that the Member for St.

John's South did not. It came directly to me from the chairman of the local

service district and you know who that is as well as I do, the chairman of the

local service district. In fact the letter was received only a couple of days

ago. I can even tell you the approximate date on the letter. The letter is

answered already. Anyway, this is the point I wanted to make. I have roads like

this in my district. Although we have a great convenience in transportation we

have a lot of roads out there and there is never enough provincial monies to go

around the Province to take care of the needs of the people. We are talking

about a very close distance from St. John's, Tors Cove, Port de Grave,

forty-five or fifty miles out the road, all out through the Harbour Main

district and to Conception Bay South there are a lot of needs, yet here we are

saying: let us make the Outer Ring Road a top priority, let us do it before we

do anything else in the Province.

That is where we have to ask ourselves the question: is that

really right, should we do this now, before we address the needs of the people

in the Province and the people of Labrador? And, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

that is the point I want to make to the hon. Member for Ferryland district, and

ask the question: where are the priorities, the greatest needs of roads to be

addressed?... and that is the decision that will have to be made, not because

the Federal Minister of Fisheries, the Member for St. John's West, the hon. John

Crosbie made a commitment that this be started before his term of office

expires, whether it is June or whether it is July or whether it is later on this

fall, I am sure it is near. So look at our needs, look at our priorities and let

us make the right decision in the best interest of all people, in the best

interest of all people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just

the people in one region or in one area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I rise in support of the resolution put forward by my friend

from Ferryland for a number of reasons, but I must say first off, I enjoyed the

comments of the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, although I

am speaking on this on behalf of more than one person, more than myself. The

minister referred to himself driving into St. John's early in the mornings, but

99 per cent of the people that drive into St. John's early in the morning - it

is a bit later actually in the morning, seven, eight, nine o'clock, so we should

look at it from that perspective rather than 6:30 in the morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. member to take his seat for a minute please.

The level of noise in this House is getting extreme, the hon.

Member for St. John's East Extern is next to me and I am having difficulty

hearing the hon. member, so I ask hon. members to restrain themselves and stop

shouting across the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, '91-'92, '92-'93, I have

been chairman of Northeast Avalon Towns, and in November of 1992, the Northeast

Avalon Towns passed a resolution to support the construction of the Outer Ring

Road. Now, the Northeast Avalon Towns is made up of sixteen municipalities

including the two cities and fourteen other municipalities and they represent

approximately 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the population of the Province. If

this number of people and the town councils involved are representing this

number of people, there should be some weight given to their views, but I do not

know if it has been.

In March of this year, there were public hearings on the

Outer Ring Road. The chairman was Mr. Terry Goodyear. I attended those hearings,

and I wanted to hear the presentations by Works, Services and Transportation to

get their perspective on the Outer Ring Road, I also wanted to hear the

opposition to the Outer Ring Road, so I did sit in on a few of those

presentations, to get the pros and cons to help make up my mind if I felt the

Outer Ring Road should go ahead or should be stopped or whatever the case may

be, and I honestly and sincerely believe that it should continue and should be

constructed as soon as possible.

Works, Services and Transportation recommends the

construction of the Outer Ring Road. These are people who are in the employ of

the provincial government; they are being paid for their expertise, for their

professionalism, they are supposed to be in the know when it comes to this kind

of stuff. They have done studies on the Outer Ring Road, studies with respect to

the environment which says that it is environmentally safe; studies which show

that the Outer Ring Road is needed; I mean we can keep on studying forever if we

do not want to make up our mind to do what should be done. The studies have also

shown that it will alleviate traffic problems in and around St. John's, and that

is the question, we are here today to discuss the Outer Ring Road.

The hon. minister earlier stated: should we spend money on

other roads in the Province before we spend it on the Outer Ring Road?... that

is not the resolution; the resolution is addressing the Outer Ring Road. Studies

on the Outer Ring Road again have shown that there is very little impact on the

environment and, as I said yesterday in this House, I am the critic for

Environment and Lands so I should be aware of any concerns that would be

involved with respect to the Outer Ring Road on the environment. Studies have

shown that the air quality will not be affected; studies have shown that the

soils and terrain will not be affected; studies have shown that vegetation will

not be negatively affected. The wildlife and the water in the area of the Outer

Ring Road will not be negatively impacted upon. The Outer Ring Road has been

studied, studied and studied to death.

Traffic studies by the Department of Transportation have

shown that the Outer Ring Road is required. They have looked at alternatives.

Alternatives have been compared such as staggering the work hours, as the

minister alluded to earlier. Studies have looked at the relocation of the Outer

Ring Road, bringing it out closer to Windsor Lake. There have been

recommendations made that Prince Philip Drive be piggybacked. I mean, this is

actually ludicrous, in my mind. I believe we should listen to all the

professionals. As I said, they are being paid for their expertise.

Back on studies again, population growth has been studied,

employment growth has been studied, economic analysis on gas and oil

consumption, time consumption, safety factors have been studied. As I said, it

has been studied to death, and it is time to get on with the Outer Ring Road.

There has been some opposition to the Outer Ring Road and we

have to be very careful here. There is talk about spills on the Outer Ring Road

which is going to be 1.3 kilometres away from Windsor Lake. Now, we have

Portugal Cove Road, Thorburn Road, Broad Cove Road, basically on top of Windsor

Lake, and we are concerned about spills 1.3 kilometres away. The Southern Shore

Highway moves right along Bay Bulls Big Pond. Does that mean we have to move all

of those roads also, when they are right on top of the water supply? I don't

think so.

There have been comparisons made between the City of St.

John's and Toronto with respect to a nature park in the middle of a city. They

were saying, if Pippy Park were in the middle of Toronto, there wouldn't even be

a consideration given to construction of an Outer Ring Road such as the one we

are proposing, but I don't believe that those arguments are valid. If someone

wants to leave downtown St. John's, down on Water Street, and travel for fifteen

minutes, he can enjoy Newfoundland outdoors at its finest. He doesn't have to

drive for hours and hours and hours to get to a nature park. Most of

Newfoundland is a nature park, so I don't know if that argument is valid.

There is a misconception out there that I would like to

address and that is with respect to the Outer Ring Road. The misconception is

that the Outer Ring Road divides or splits Pippy Park. As we all know, or should

know if we did some research on it, when the Outer Ring Road was first approved,

it was approved to go around Pippy Park. Subsequent to that, the government of

today put more land with the park out as far as Windsor Lake so, actually, it is

not dividing the original Pippy Park. Therefore, that is a misconception.

I have been in business, with respect to land, for twenty

years and I believe the fact that the Outer Ring -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't comment. I was listening to the

comments yesterday by the hon. the Member for St. John's East. I disagreed with

most of what he said yesterday and I will try to ignore it today.

As I was saying, the amount of land that is going to be used

up for the actual construction of the Outer Ring Road is very minimal when you

compare it to the amount of land that is slotted for Pippy Park, itself. Some

people say that if they split the park with the Outer Ring Road - which I

disagree with - they are going to cause problems for cross-country skiers,

hikers, berry-pickers and what have you. I think that these concerns can

certainly be accommodated by walkways, underpasses, such has been proposed by

Work, Services and Transportation. These people know what they are talking

about, so we should be listening.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, there has been opposition to

major highways in the past, such as Pitts Memorial Drive. I believe it is a good

thing that the government of the day had the foresight to go ahead with Pitts

Memorial Drive. Where would we be today without Pitts Memorial Drive? Traffic

problems in and around St. John's would be horrendous. The transportation

between Mount Pearl and St. John's would be horrendous.

I travel the Trans-Canada Highway a fair bit, and it takes me

longer to get from the Overpass in on Topsail Road to the east end of St. John's

than it takes me to get from Whitbourne in, so there have to be problems. It is

just common sense. We know there are problems.

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that the Outer Ring Road is

part of a master plan for transportation in and around the City of St. John's.

The master plan includes roads such as Prince Philip Drive, Columbus Drive,

Pitts Memorial Drive, Kenmount Road and others. If we do not complete the Outer

Ring Road, where does that leave us with the plan, the roads, the money that has

been spent so far on those roads? What is going to happen? Down the road it is

going to lead to nothing but confusion as the population increases,

transportation confusion, more problems - so we have to complete the plan. If we

make plans today and half complete them, where does that leave us for tomorrow?

We have to address that concern and we have to listen to the people involved.

Another concern of mine with respect to the Outer Ring Road

is Prince Philip Drive. Prince Philip Drive goes right through Memorial

University. Now, for safety reasons alone, in my mind, it makes sense that we

would put in the Outer Ring Road.

MR. ROBERTS: We would close the Parkway then?

MR. J. BYRNE: It certainly wouldn't take the amount of

traffic that it is now taking.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is not answering my

question. Do we close the Parkway?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, let me answer. Why would we close

Prince Philip Drive? I mean, it just refers to the amount of traffic. We are

trying to alleviate the traffic in and around St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern is a new

member to the House and I would like for hon. members to extend him the courtesy

of being heard.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't mind. I am enjoying this, actually,

believe it or not. I expect, in a very short period of time, I might be doing

the same thing to the hon. member opposite.

Anyway, let me continue, Mr. Speaker. We have to be careful

not to make decisions that are based on assumptions and/or emotions. I believe

we have to be careful to realize that the opposition to the Outer Ring Road is

not to be blown out of proportion and exaggerated, which I feel has been done in

the past year or so. We have very few people opposing the Outer Ring Road. But

this is hanging up the Outer Ring Road, where the major, major percentage of the

people in and around St. John's, people I talked to - the Northeast Avalon Towns

Joint Council - support the Outer Ring Road. Therefore, we should definitely go

ahead with it. I believe that there are precautions now in place to protect our

environment with respect to the Outer Ring Road.

One point I would like to make before I conclude and sit down

is: What is our legacy going to be to future generations that live in and around

St. John's, on the Avalon Peninsula, if we do not complete the master plan that

was put forward by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for a

number of years? Is the legacy going to be that we were poor planners when we

knew, and we were told, that there were going to be problems down the road,

where studies have shown that the population growth and the economic growth in

and around St. John's will require the Outer Ring Road? Is that what our legacy

is going to be?

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I really didn't get into

the actual economic perspective of the construction of the Outer Ring Road,

because I believe the construction of the Outer Ring Road merits its own

construction without the job perspective, although it can create many jobs and

stimulate the economy at a time when the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador is

very poor. I would like to end by saying, I believe, as you can tell from my

comments, that the construction of the Outer Ring Road should be started as soon

as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few words on the Private Member's bill put

forward by my colleague from Ferryland today - the Member for Ferryland, a good

member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) member.

MR. MURPHY: A good member? I agree. I said during the

election that the man is unbeatable. I didn't say the same about the Member for

Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he was.

MR. MURPHY: A few letters here and a few letters there,

Mr. Speaker. What a difference a page or two makes!

MS. VERGE: What about the Member for St. John's South? He

increased his margin (inaudible) -

MR. MURPHY: Now, the Member for Humber East is going to

shoot her barbs. She got up today and got on with a silly and stupid question,

and it was treated as such. I think she should, for one day, just contain

herself. She has done enough to hurt herself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I can't, if you people - I ask for

protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, I have to laugh at that.

MR. CRANE: Yes, that would make anybody laugh.

MR. MURPHY: The Roads for Rail deal that my friend from

Ferryland got on with - number one, let's have a quick chat about the Roads for

Rail deal. 'The great train robbery' is what it should be called - a few paltry

million dollars extended over a period of years that would have come to this

provincial government or that provincial government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It doesn't matter how much. The member knows,

$800-and-some, and change, somewhere close - I remind the hon. member from

Springdale, about the same amount of money that this government have lost in

transfer payments over the last four years, about the same amount of money that

the hon. J C has brought down in the form of moratorium, about the same amount

of money - all about the same amount of nothing. The money to which this

Province was entitled, you can put a new title on it, you can put a new face on

it, you can call it what you want, it is still the same money. So it is the

'Roads for Rail' or 'the great train robbery.'

No Newfoundlander alive, Mr. Speaker, in his right mind,

would have said, shut down the railway before we get the road completed. That

would have been the logical thing to do. If the Member for St. John's West were

really concerned about Newfoundland, the island portion of Newfoundland, if he

was really concerned, he would have kept the railway in business and he would

have built the four lanes across the Island, and then -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member for Grand Bank may feel it is

not much sense, but an awful lot of Newfoundlanders think it makes sense.

Because what are we faced with today? The Member for St. John's East Extern full

well knows - an overabundance of tractor trailers, heavy equipment. We are out

there, day-in - you talk about safety. The Member for St. John's East Extern

talks about safety, and all of us take a chance in taking our wives, our loved

ones, our children, our grandchildren, on the highway with tractor trailer after

tractor trailer, two-and-a-half feet -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The thing that really bothers me, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West is out there driving a truck also. That really

bothers me, talking about safety.

So we know that the initiation of this whole deal associated

with the Outer Ring Road was wrong. It was wrong. It was a handshake between the

former Premier, Mr. Peckford, and Mr. Crosbie, and it really took the feds off

the hook. To allocate, then, $68 million in that Roads for Rail deal, for a road

of convenience - not for the citizens of St. John's. It has nothing to do with

the citizens of St. John's. It is a road of convenience to bypass the busy roads

in the city. That is all the Outer Ring Road is. It is a quick convenience for

people in this building to get to Mount Pearl or to get to Conception Bay South

or to get wherever. It has nothing to do with the City of St. John's, absolutely

nothing.

As a matter of fact, what it will do to the City of St.

John's and what it will do to the tax base of the City of St. John's is, it will

deplete it. It will stop the economics that are going on on Kenmount Road right

now, all the gasoline that is sold there, and all the other products that are

sold there. Ask the merchants on Kenmount Road if they are in favour of an Outer

Ring Road. Ask them. Now what did the Crosstown Arterial do?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A man for the merchants, are you?

MR. MURPHY: I am not a man for the merchants I say to the

Member for Grand Bank. I am a man for the employees of the merchants. Anyway,

the Outer Ring Road itself as we see it today, $68 million of, I think, 1987

money, is now about enough money to do about 60 per cent of the Outer Ring Road.

I agree with the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern, there is no way that a

few people over here in the northeast end of the city should have their own

private park in their backyard. I agree with him, I totally agree with him.

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not say that.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I will say it for you, because

basically what you were saying was that there is little opposition, no

opposition, or a select group who are the opposition to the Outer Ring Road.

Alright, it does not matter. The name of the game is simple, we as members in

this House of Assembly cannot look after 100 people. If those 100 people want a

short distance to go to the most majestic wilderness area close to the city then

let them go to Shea Heights in the district of St. John's South which is totally

a beautiful area. They can cross country ski, they can walk on trails, they can

do what they like.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. MURPHY: You are right. The member is right, the road

does not deter or take away a great deal from the Pippy Park complex as we know

it. But this is 1993 and what the hon. member must realize and must know is that

the terrible deal that was made by the previous administration can be called

nothing less than terrible. It was an awful deal to say to the feds: we are

letting you off the hook for a paltry sum over the next ten years, spread out,

alright fifteen years, the longest period of time. It was unheard of because

year after year, after year, each provincial government had its fair share of

federal funding towards the construction of roads throughout the Province

because after all how do you get goods and services to the city of St. John's if

you do not bring them by ocean, or you bring it from Port aux Basques, or you

bring it from Corner Brook over a network of one, two lane highway.

This government and the previous government has been

struggling for years now and we have finally gotten to Holyrood with a four lane

highway, and we now want to take $68 million now and apply it to an Outer Ring

Road. I say to all members opposite that there are definitely higher priorities

that will bring a better return to this Province. I see new members in the back

over there agreeing. Do you think the Member for Bonavista South wants $68

million spent on an Outer Ring Road here in St. John's? I am sure he does not. I

am sure he has all kinds of highway priorities out there. Does the Member for

Baie Verte - White Bay want $68 million spent to the Confederation Building? I

do not think so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not likely.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the Member for Ferryland is obviously

on his feet today because of his close affiliation over the last three or four

weeks with Mr. Crosbie. It is incredible how friendly they have become. Mr.

Crosbie has become so influential, I say to the hon. Member for Exploits, that

he got to the Leader of the Opposition to move my true friend and colleague from

Burin - Placentia West, moved him down a seat to make room for the Member for

Ferryland, so this is what we are looking at today. This is what we are going to

see over the next while when this House is open. What we are going to see is

dissertation in speech, and dialogue after dialogue, from the Member for

Ferryland directed by the Member for St. John's West and the Member for Grand

Bank knows it. He now has his official parrot in the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland, so I know the hon. members in the back concur.

If we had a situation here in St. John's where $68 million of

Outer Ring Road was going to develop all kinds of jobs that were going to impact

and affect Bonavista South, White Bay - Bay de Verde, St. Mary's - The Capes; if

that was the kind of happening that was going to take place, these members would

be pounding on the desks when the Member for Ferryland got up - he is right; he

is right - but not a peep out of them. The member sat down and one little polite

tap from the Member for - you are going to have to forgive me - the Member for

White Bay, a little polite tap on the desk - a little polite tap - because he

never had the enthusiasm nor the gut feeling that you need to support even your

own. You have to feel it.

Now the Member again for Humber West, a good friend who also

has absolutely - will not be here when the vote is taken; will not be here

because he has no time for the Outer Ring Road to St. John's - the Member for

Humber West.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber Valley.

MR. MURPHY: Humber Valley I meant to say. Excuse me, Your

Honour. He will not he here, because he has about as much interest in this

resolution as he has in the Khyber Pass, I say to hon. members.

What I say to the Member for Ferryland, what got me baffled a

little bit, is he says: Be it therefore resolved that the government take steps

necessary to ensure that construction of the Outer Ring Road will commence no

later than the spring of 1994.

Well if it is such a priority why are we waiting a year? You

would think that the member would be chafing and biting and tearing up his desk

to start construction now. Now I agree with the Member for St. John's East

Extern. We need the jobs. He is right. Any kind of construction that is going to

take place in and around the city of St. John's would be welcome - more than

welcome - because we need the jobs here in St. John's; but I say, in all

conscience to the Member for St. John's East Extern, there are a lot of parts of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that also need jobs. I am sure he

would agree. I am sure other hon. members would agree.

Now, you know, it is ludicrous when you think about what the

Member for St. John's West has done in the House, or in Parliament in Ottawa

when it comes to federal funding, because historically for forty years the

provincial government always, always but always made a contractual arrangement

with the federal government of the day to a 60/40 split, or a 40/60 split, or a

50/50 split. In some cases - in some cases, and I remind the hon. members

opposite - it was 90/10 when Mr. Lester Pearson signed the original Trans-Canada

Highway with the then Premier, Premier J. R. Smallwood - 90/10. There was never

a federal/provincial deal since, but it is not fair for an hon. member to stand

up in this House and say that the total contribution of the Trans-Canada Highway

came from the federal government. What was the federal government's commitment

to the Province? What was the commitment? So subsequently we have $68 million

that Mr. Crosbie is trying to ram down this government's throat and say: You do

this.

Now is that the way to do it? Would he turn around to the

Province of Ontario or any minister and say: Here is the money; you put this

road there. I do not care what government was there. It does not matter whether

it is NDP, and God forbid they got another short while to bathe their wounds

before the people of Ontario dispose of them in rapid order. We will see, Mr.

Speaker, that the federal government and/or Mr. Crosbie, or anybody who speaks

for Mr. Crosbie, is not always right. He is not always right. The Outer Ring

Road was a concept that started at City Hall to alleviate pressure through the

City of St. John's to get people from outside St. John's into the Confederation

Building, the Arts and Culture Centre, the University and such places.

Now we have a member opposite, and some other members

opposite, baying about the Outer Ring Road. I'd like to see the Outer Ring Road,

but it's not on my list. It'll do nothing for the constituents in St. John's

South. It might offer some jobs for them, it might get a few jobs for them, but

outside of that it will do nothing. If you don't listen to the dictatorial face

that the hon. John puts on every time he offers, he throws down like Lazarus

some crumbs from the table to the floor, and we're supposed to bend over and

pick them up, then what happens is he gets hon. members opposite to drive his

silly horse.

So, Mr. Speaker, as much as, yes, it would impact and affect

the safety of those people who drive from out around the bays and inlets in

Conception Bay and other places, it would help the safety. Nobody's guaranteed

of that. Because after all, if you had an Outer Ring Road, you would expect that

road to be a fairly high speed highway. We know what happens on high speed

highways. The road that has the worst record in the City of St. John's right now

is the Crosstown Arterial.

MR. SULLIVAN: Too much traffic. (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member, when he gets up in

his last twenty minutes he'll have ample opportunity to tell us the difference

between the Crosstown Arterial traffic and the Outer Ring Road traffic, and

where it comes together, and how the Outer Ring Road would alleviate the

Crosstown Arterial. Because if he's coming to Confederation Building he would

use the Crosstown Arterial. He would never, as the Member for Ferryland, or

anyone who lives in that area of the Avalon Peninsula, have an occasion to use

the Outer Ring road as such. Unless he wanted to go on a scenic drive and go up

and across the Witless Bay Line or something.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Goulds by-pass is going to tie into it.

MR. MURPHY: The Goulds by-pass is going to tie into it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What Goulds by-pass?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member may well be wheeled in here.

He may be pushed in here or carried in here and sat in his place by the time the

Goulds by-pass - I understand that. I agree. As a matter of fact, I would

suggest to the Member for Ferryland that he would do a lot better if he stood in

his place today and brought in a private member's resolution to deal with the

Goulds by-pass.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Then maybe the member - no, see, he

keeps falling off his own issue and falling on John's issue. He keeps falling

into the basket of the hon. John. Whatever the hon. John wants him to say he

says. He takes the issue as such and raises it. If he was standing up today

talking about the Goulds by-pass I'd be up supporting him. Up voting with him.

But no. The hon. member knows. If we prioritize the situation here in

Newfoundland and in Labrador, if we prioritize it, if we look at it fair as all

Newfoundlanders should, if we look at what's needed, what's the most need, what

has the most need, what will do the most good for our people, alright? Then the

hon. member could stand in his place and I would have to probably stand up and

support him when he's talking about the Goulds by-pass.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Probably.

MR. MURPHY: There are other places, I say to the Member

for Grand Bank. There are other roads that would do every citizen of this

Province, both in Labrador and Newfoundland, a heck of a lot better -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no. That's not the issue. We could put a

new airport down in Frenchman's Cove, or wherever they call it, right? We could

do all kinds of stuff. The member knows what I'm talking about. All these other

members over here are not very interested in this particular issue, not very

interested. It doesn't get the juices flowing in the members up in the back. I

can sense that on their faces. When the member was up they were polite. They

have to be polite. They're new members. There's nothing going in them. It's not

like the Member for Grand Bank talking about fish. They're all on their toes

when that happens. But the member who lives in Renews talking about the Outer

Ring Road. It sets suspicion right through every member here. It sets up all

kinds of 'ifs' and 'ands' and innuendoes and 'buts' and so forth and so on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's a prerequisite of being a

Liberal, you have to be suspicious of everything.

MR. MURPHY: So, Mr. Speaker, it is nothing - as a matter

of fact, I say it again: The Roads-for-Rails deal was a disgrace. It was a

disgrace. For one provincial government to sit with a federal government and

sign that kind of a deal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: By leave, just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, I

would like to point out to hon. members, new members, and not so new members,

and older members, that it is unparliamentary for hon. members to turn their

back to the Chair. I do not want to identify hon. members, but all hon. members

who were in the last Sessions of the House know it is unparliamentary to turn

their back to the Chair.

I will now recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few moments to address this particular

issue. I have to say that I was totally amazed by the performance of the hon.

Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder he left.

MR. WINDSOR: No wonder he left. I believe he left because

I do not think he believed a word of what he said - not a word. No member that

represents a St. John's constituency could honestly stand in his place and say

the sorts of things that hon. member just said.

I would like to know where the rest of the members for St.

John's are coming from. How about the new Member for St. John's North? What is

his view on the Outer Ring Road and the value to the city? How about the Member

for St. John's Centre? We do not expect him to speak. He has not said two

intelligent words in this House since he came here, but we would like to know

what his position is on it. How about the Member for Pleasantville? Where is he?

Is he going to speak on this particular motion? Is he going to represent the

people of Pleasantville? Is he going to try to tell us that the people of

Pleasantville do not want this particular road? How about the Member for St.

John's West? Where is the Minister of Mines and Energy? Is he going to speak on

the Outer Ring Road? The Member for St. John's West probably does not even know

that the Outer Ring Road and another offshoot of the Outer Ring Road, which has

been planned for twenty years, called a bifurcation Road. How many members

opposite have ever heard of the bifurcation Road?

AN HON. MEMBER: Here.

MR. WINDSOR: One. The Member for Gander is the only

member opposite who has ever heard of the bifurcation Road, or the East/West

Arterial. Has anybody ever heard of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is not there yet, but it has been in the

planning stages for many years. It was in the planning stages when the Harbour

Arterial was built. It was in the planning stages when the Crosstown Arterial -

or what do we call it, the Prince Philip Parkway, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Columbus Drive.

MR. WINDSOR: Columbus Drive?

AN HON. MEMBER: Crosstown.

MR. WINDSOR: Columbus Drive is Crosstown, yes. The Pitts

is the Harbour Arterial - all in the planning stages then. Well what is

interesting about this debate, everything I have heard today, I sit back and

say: Where did I hear it before? Where did I hear all of these arguments before?

Does anybody remember the debate that went on when the Harbour Arterial Road was

to build an access road to the Harbour of St. John's so that all of the

businesses that come in through the busiest port in the Province would have

direct access to the Trans-Canada Highway. What a foolish proposal! What do we

need it for?

Do you remember all of the cries from the do-gooders, the

environmentalists, who said: You are going to destroy the beautiful South Side

Hills. I do not see anything beautiful about some of the oil tanks that are

allowed to stay up in the South Side Hills. There is nothing beautiful about it.

Do you remember every single spring, on spring breakup, when

the ice and the snow on the South Side Hills started to melt? Do you remember

all the houses that were flooded, many times shifted off their foundations; and

oh, the Harbour Arterial Road is going to make that worse. It is g