December

2, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East is on her feet; normally

we start with Statements by Ministers. Does the hon. member have leave to

address the House?

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, unless she can (inaudible)

the Cabinet, she cannot speak, Sir, with respect, during Statements by

Ministers.

MS. VERGE: I would like to speak on a point of order.

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

MS. VERGE: I would like to speak briefly to draw to the

attention of members, that Monday coming, December 6, is the anniversary of the

Montreal massacre. The anniversary is an occasion observed by people across

Canada to reflect on the tragedy and the pervasiveness of violence against women

in our society -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - and I would like to ask the Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What would the point of order be exactly?

MS. VERGE: The point of order, Your Honour, is that,

groups in the Province have asked me to make a request to Your Honour, to have

our House of Assembly, on the anniversary on Monday, observe a moment's silence

to reflect on the Montreal massacre, as well as pervasive violence against women

in the society and to discuss ways of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's request -

MS. VERGE: - curbing violence against women.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's request is that we vary from the procedure

to observer a minute's silence, I guess.

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the so called point of

order, there is, in my submission, no point of order. The hon. lady is either

deliberately assaulting the rules of the House, or, is in appalling ignorance of

them and either way, there are ample opportunities for her to make her point.

She has every right to do so at the appropriate time, but she has no right to do

so on Statements by Ministers, Mr. Speaker. If hon. gentlemen over there, wish

to deny leave on occasion, as they have ever right to do, we on this side choose

to deny leave as well. This is an abuse of the privileges of the House, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, just a brief statement.

Quite commonly in this House, members stand to make points to

bring to the House's attention the passing of some former members or important

people in the Province, or to recognize sports groups or some athlete who has

done quite well and really all the hon. member has done, is to bring to the

attention of members, that Monday is the anniversary of the Montreal massacre,

and I don't think it is that uncommon for her to rise at the beginning, before

we get to the Ministerial Statements and make a request of members.

Now if the government does not want to grant the request of a

moment's silence on Monday, why don't they come out front and say it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think we have heard enough on the matter. We have a

procedure that we have to follow. It is not a point of order to ask to depart

from the normal procedure we follow. We have been a little lax in the rules and

we have had some problems over the last few days. I think if one wishes to

depart from the rules the proper way to do it is to bring it to the attention of

the House Leaders who should confer and then ask leave of the House, but I don't

think we should be raising matters such as this under Statements by Minister's.

So if the House wishes to do it I think the proper thing to do is to bring a

motion to the floor for debate at an appropriate time if there is going to be

any difference of opinion on it. In the absence of any procedure I can only

enforce the proceedings that we have and ask if there are any Statements by

Ministers.

MS. VERGE: On a point of order, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask for Your Honour's

direction as to what might be an appropriate time for me or any other member to

request of Your Honour a determination of whether we have the unanimous consent

to have a moment's silence on Monday, the anniversary of the Montreal massacre.

This request I am making not only on behalf of the official Opposition but also

on behalf of leaders of the White Ribbon campaign and women's groups in the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the proper procedure is to allow the

House Leaders to confer and of course the member for the NDP, to see if leave

can be sought and then if there is any disagreement, or I suppose if there is

agreement, to bring it to my attention and bring forward a motion at the

appropriate time. I think that is the proper process to follow, otherwise our

proceedings get out of order too quickly.

Are there any statements by ministers?

I would like to welcome to the gallery twenty-six Grade nine

students from Frank Roberts Intermediate School with their teacher Bill Raymond

from the districts of Conception Bay South, Harbour Main and Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

the Premier. I would ask the Premier on behalf of leaders of the White Ribbon

Campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador and women's groups in the Province, if he

will confer with his colleagues on the government benches to determine if there

is consent for Members of the House of Assembly to rise and have a moment's

silence to mark the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, which is Monday

December 6th?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the question has come up in

previous years and it has been answered in previous years. So really all that I

can say to the hon. lady is to remind her that even at Concordia University they

have now changed their (inaudible) with respect to this. The way to honour the

memory of the women who were murdered in that heinous incident in Montreal is to

show a proper respect (

a) for their memory and (

b) to move forward to remove the

societal causes that lead to these types of criminal conduct.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier. I would like to draw the

Premier's attention to a press statement he made when he was Leader of the

Opposition, a statement made on Friday, September 16, 1988. The Premier's

statement had to do with a proposal from a firm called Canadian Ecology Limited

to store industrial waste in the abandoned mine shafts on Bell Island. I would

like for the Premier to listen to what he said: "The Liberal Party is opposed to

the proposal from Canadian Ecology Limited, and will be opposed to any similar

proposal for dumping industrial and toxic or potentially toxic wastes in any

part of this Province." With the recent controversy that is about the Province

over the Long Harbour proposal and Baie Verte and Schefferville I would like to

ask the Premier what has changed his mind since that date in 1988?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing, Mr. Speaker. I am still opposed

to importing industrial toxic or potentially toxic waste for storage in any part

of the Province. I am still as unalterably opposed to it now as I was then.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I will table a copy of the

Premier's - well he was Leader of the Opposition at the time - his full

statement and provide members of the press with it, so that members of his own

benches can see exactly what statement was made then. It makes quite interesting

reading because from what is in here SNAGG would really like the Premier if he

took the stand today that he took then.

I want to ask the Premier if he still believes what he said

then? You said: the people of Newfoundland should not and will not grovel for a

few jobs at the price of creating a dumping ground for waste material that

people of other nations are not prepared to have around. I say to the Premier,

really, who is doing the grovelling now, and why does he not, as leader of the

government, come out with a statement that would deny any opportunity for any

proposal from any firm to make this a dumping ground for waste anywhere in this

Province? Why does the government not just come out flat, square against it?

PREMIER WELLS: The position is exactly the same today as

it was then. There is absolutely no difference. I stated very clearly in the

last week or so that I do not want to say, yes, to American garbage, I want to

say, no, to American garbage, but what I am not prepared to do is to say the

members opposite, or somebody else in the Province, have no right to express a

contrary opinion, and I am going to pass a law that says you cannot even bring a

proposal forward for consideration. We do not operate on that basis.

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

House Leader.

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

I just say to the Premier that right now you like to promote

yourself as a man of principle, and your objection to the importation of garbage

at that time was clearly and purely a statement of principle. It wasn't based on

an environmental assessment or any expert knowledge that you had at the time. It

was really, pure and simple, a matter of principle, I say to the Premier.

The final question I want to ask him is, Why are your

principles so short-lived? Why could you make such strong statements and defend

those statements back then when you were Leader of the Opposition, and now you

cast them aside so readily? The only thing that has changed from that time, Mr.

Premier, is that you have changed seats in the Legislature from that of Leader

of the Opposition to Premier. So could you answer why you have thrown your

principles aside and abandoned the very strong principles and statements that

you made in 1988 now that you are leader of the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to

remind hon. members of the House how misleading is such a representation as the

hon. member has just made. Just let me read the first four paragraphs of this

statement:

`The proposal to establish an international industrial waste

dump site on Bell Island is clearly unacceptable to the citizens of that

community, and I believe it is offensive to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.' I share that view today.

`The Liberal Party is opposed to the proposal from Canadian

Ecology Limited, and will be opposed to any similar proposal for dumping

industrial and toxic, or potentially toxic, wastes in any part of this

Province.'

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) industrial (inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Industrial and toxic or potentially toxic

wastes in any part of the Province.

Just listen to the rest of the statement: `We became involved

in this issue when Canadian Ecology asked the Liberal MHA for Mount Scio - Bell

Island, Leo Barry, to arrange a meeting with Bell Island municipal officials to

discuss the project. Mr. Barry properly discharged his duties as an MHA and made

the appropriate arrangements so that that council on Bell Island could receive

and examine the proposal. He did no more, but he could do no less.

Now,, my position remains exactly the same today as it was

then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know - I mean, yes,

perhaps Mr. Barry did discharge his responsibilities as he should have. That is

not the question here, who discharged their responsibilities in an accurate or

responsible manner. The question is, the Premier made a very definitive, strong

statement in 1988 that he would not tolerate - and called upon the government of

the day, to just say no to such importation of waste into this Province and any

community in this Province.

I want to ask the Premier, Why won't he, as leader of the

government, stand in his place and say today that this government will not

accept, will not consider, any proposals for any industrial or toxic waste to be

dumped or placed or buried or covered up in any community in this Province? Why

doesn't he do that, as leader of the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I say again, Mr. Speaker, I have stated

many times what my personal views are. I am opposed to the importation of waste

in the Province. That is my personal view, but I will not stop others from

expressing their views any more today than I would two years ago, or five years

ago, whenever that statement was made.

I can do no more than express my opposition to it, and

provide for an opportunity for people to be heard, but I can also do no less

than to provide for an opportunity. My position is exactly the same today as it

was then, and any fair-minded person who reads it fully and objectively would

readily agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Recently, the minister has been busy announcing the

establishment of regional health boards in Newfoundland - two in Central

Newfoundland recently, and one for the St. John's area. Now, the minister's

actions are based on the Dobbin Report, but that report gives no rationale or

justification for the recommendation.

Now, the minister says that the regional boards will lead to

greater efficiency. He will not find any basis for that in this Dobbin Report.

Does the minister have another study to show what efficiencies will be achieved,

and how they will be achieved? For example, what kind of positions would be

eliminated, and how many jobs?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't require a genius to know that if you

merge boards there is going to be greater efficiencies in the operation thereof.

It is obvious, it is axiomatic.

The reason we are merging boards - there are a number of

reasons for merging boards and for regionalizing our concepts - is this: One of

the big problems we have in a health care system is that a tremendous number of

organizations - with fifty hospital and nursing home boards, each one of which

is out there working for the benefit of the people they are representing, very

often there are advances made, and decisions and suggestions made, to expand

what they are doing; and we find there is quite a bit of duplication in the

system, and it is very difficult to get a regional approach to health care.

What we are trying to do is bring about regional thinking in

health care so that the new board will think regionally and won't think what is

best for this institution. We will think regionally, and in that way we can

develop in an appropriate manner rather than just be involved in things like

turf protection and advancement at other people's expense and we have to be very

careful of that. We do not have many dollars in the health care system, there

are a great many things we have to do in health.

We have to move in the whole area of health promotion and

disease prevention. We have an irregular system of home care, some places have

good home care in place, other parts of the Province have very little home care

and what we have to do, is to have a comprehensive system and where there are

extra dollars involved and do not need to be spent, then we will have to extract

these dollars because we need them to spend on things more important, but in

answer to your question, we have had no study to say that we will save X

dollars. It is obvious that dollars will be saved and they will be quite

substantial in some areas, but hopefully these dollars will be spent in other

ways in the health care system, so your answer, as to how many are going to be

laid off, I do not know if people are going to be laid off or rehired, because

we have to expand the health care system; we have to expand our promotional

efforts and there are many other things we have to do as well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the minister has answered the question and I -

DR. KITCHEN: - but what we can't afford to do is, to

spend money on things that are no longer necessary.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has based his Ministerial Statement on public

comments on the efficiencies that will be achieved and he has stated it is based

upon the Dobbin Report. Now, he has not, and that is in his Ministerial

Statement, I ask him to read it. I will ask the minister another question, other

than deficiencies in the system. The minister also said that regional boards

will enhance patient care services. He will not find any basis for that in the

Dobbin Report either. Now, does the minister have another study that will show

how patients services will be improved? For example, will it bring an end to the

number of people who are dying while they are waiting for heart surgery? Will it

tell the people of Port Saunders that they can now have funds to make use of

their spanking new facility?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member gives some examples of what can be done when

money that is improperly spent, is no longer improperly spent but which can be

spent on things which are necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a final

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am appalled. Surely the minister has not proceeded with a

major change in the administration and delivery of health care service in this

Province, without knowing the answers to questions if we are going to achieve

efficiencies or we are going to achieve an improvement in patient care services;

surely, he has documentation to back up these claims. Now how can the minister

proceed with these changes when he has no more than a gut feeling that they are

going to help? Now his gut feeling could turn out to be a severe bellyache for

the health care system in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, he talks about bellyaching. If

that crowd opposite, during the seventeen years that they were over there

misdirecting the health care system, had brought in one simple anti-smoking

measure, we would not need as many heart operations, we would not have as much

lung cancer, but these people for seventeen years made no changes in the health

care system except to spend money in a wide way. So, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong

with that crowd there, is that they, after total misuse of the health care

system, are just wondering now why we, can suddenly start making some

appropriate changes which are very long overdue, by about twenty years.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say to the Minister of Health, it is

unfortunate he blames us because he continues to smoke, but in any case, my

question is to the Premier.

This past summer, the people of the Burin Peninsula received

some devastating news when they found out they were not successful on the

mechanical outfitting bid. July 29, I say to the Premier, I believe is the date

that it was announced that MIL or Peter Kewitt or M & M or whoever it was got

the contract, and the people of Marystown were very concerned about that. I

would ask the Premier if he could tell me when he knew about it himself

personally and who informed him of the decision.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm just trying to remember now. I knew

about it before it was formally announced. I don't know whether it was Gordon

Gosse, who is the person responsible for monitoring the Hibernia project for the

government, or whether it was Mr. Kimberlin. I don't remember. I could try and

look through my records and notes and find out, but it was before the decision

was made public that I was aware of it.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my information or my sources tell

me that the Premier probably knew about it for some time before. Not any great

length of time but probably a week or so, and probably informed on a trip with

Mr. Kimberlin. I'm just wondering if he as the Premier and leader of the

government, and owner of the facility, made any attempt during that period to

try and - because as we all know, the tenders were later negotiated. It was not

a matter of opening a bid and awarding it to the lowest tender. The tenders were

actually negotiated after the bids were submitted.

Not only with MIL, I say to the Premier when he nods his

head. The Vinland bid was also asked for the difference in price and

clarification and the whole bit. So I ask the Premier if he did anything during

that period to try to convince the HMDC people to award the contract to Vinland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were indeed, so far as I know,

extensive clarifications, but I don't think it was negotiated. I think the hon.

member misrepresents the situation. The bidders were requested to provide

clarifications of their bids. I was aware that clarifications were being

offered. I met with the people from Marystown. The minister responsible met with

the people from Marystown Shipyards. We did everything possible within our power

to ensure that Marystown had the best possible opportunity to win that contract.

However, we could not and would not illegally or unduly

interfere with the awarding of the contract on a proper basis. We have no right

to pass laws or to use governmental pressure on HMDC to ignore the normal

bidding rules and practices and invite bids from others and get the lowest

bidder, and then subvert the process and award it to Marystown. We would not

participate in such dishonest activity. Short of that, we did everything

reasonable that the government could do to ensure that Marystown would have the

best possible opportunity to win that bid.

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

Burin- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that $120

million of work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would cause the

government, I think, to do whatever they could do that was legally - and it

would certainly be legal. Because the Premier knows as I know that the Marystown

bid from the time that it was submitted and opened on the evaluation process,

that changed substantially as well to the bottom line. Both the Premier and I

know that. So I would say to the Premier that he could have done a lot more than

he did.

I would ask the Premier then, Mr. Speaker, back in 1988, I

believe it was, there was a $22 million subsidy program put in place by the

federal-provincial government cost-shared 50-50 to assist the Marystown

Shipyard, put in place for the Marystown Shipyard, to assist the Shipyard to

construct vessels. It is my understanding that approximately $11 million of that

money was spent as it relates to the construction of trawlers for FPI before the

bottom fell out of the fishery. So there is $11 million left for a subsidy

program to the Marystown Shipyard. I would like to ask the Premier what happened

to that money, and why it was not used to assist Vinland in their bid.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member says

there is a $120 million contract at stake, the Premier should do everything he

could to get it, that difference is only of degree, not of kind. It is no less

dishonest, whether it is $120 million or $120 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It is no less improper for a government to

intervene in the way in which the hon. member suggests, and this government will

not do it. If the people of this Province want to have a government that will

act illegally and improperly, will put in place contracts and an arrangement

that invites business to invest here on the understanding that you will be

treated fairly and you would be able to run your business on an honest and

straightforward basis, and then seeks to subvert it, they will have to elect

another government other than this one. They will have a chance in four or five

years from now to do that, if that is their course. Their recent expressions of

opinion would lead me to believe they are not likely to follow that course.

Mr. Speaker, the $11 million that the hon. member talks

about, there is no $11 million fund anywhere stashed away for building boats or

anything else -

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to it?

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing happened to it. Any monies that

belong to the Province are part of the consolidated revenue fund. There was no

$11 million in the first place.

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

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

Premier concerning the problems of the Innu people, particularly at Davis Inlet.

I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he is prepared

to release the report of Professor Henriksen, commissioned by the government, on

the future of the Davis Inlet community, and is he prepared to agree with that

report? The media reports say that he favours the move to Sango Bay. Would the

Premier care to comment on that, and is he prepared to release that report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the report was

a piece of work done by a consultant. It was done at the request of the Economic

Recovery Commission.

Last week, some time, Dr. House asked me if I had any

objection to their releasing it. I said: Certainly not. The media asked me about

it a week ago. That same question the hon. member just asked was asked by some

members of the media about a week ago, and I said I had no objection to

releasing the report, and -

MR. ROBERTS: It has been released for approximately a

week.

PREMIER WELLS: The Minister of Justice says it has been

released for a week. I do not know whether it has or it has not. I certainly

have no objection to it. I want to ensure that people are not misled as to what

the report is.

About two years or so ago I asked the Economic Recovery

Commission to look at the situation in Davis Inlet, in as careful a way as they

could, to see if they could try and identify some economic opportunity -

something the government could do to help economic opportunity in the community

and provide for employment opportunity for the people in the community.

I think they had a discussion with Mr. Henriksen, who is from

Norway, because they knew he had done some work in the community, and in fact

had spent a good deal of time in the community many years ago, and had recently

spent some more time in the community, so I am given to understand that they

asked Mr. Henriksen, at that time, to give them some advice as to what kind of

economic opportunities might be developed for Davis Inlet.

I do not think anything was done for a year or so. Then, a

number of months ago, Mr. Henriksen indicated he was prepared to do some work

along the lines that had been requested. He did some work, and presented a

report, which I have seen and read, that really had very little to do with

developing economic opportunity for Davis Inlet and, instead, was simply an

expression of his personal views that the community ought to be moved to Sango

Bay, and he gives some argument in support of why he feels it ought to be moved

to Sango Bay.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier speaks of

moving the people to some place where there is economic opportunity - a pretty

doubtful proposition, considering our economy at the moment.

Would the Premier not agree that to move the band away from

their historic, geographic and cultural roots would be a mistake, Mr. Speaker,

contrary to their own expressed wishes, and not in the best interest of the

people of the Davis Inlet Innu, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, he was not requested to

provide information as to moving the people at all. The original request was to

advise the ERC as to how economic opportunity could be generated for the people

of Davis Inlet. Now he really did not address that question. Instead, he

addressed another separate and different question.

I have no wish to move the people away from their historic

roots. As a migratory people, all across the Ungava Peninsula, really, is their

historic roots. The settlement in Davis Inlet is relatively recent history, but

I see little point in moving from point `A' next door to point `B' if there is

no significant difference between the two points in terms of dealing with both

the social and economic question. So I have asked the Innu, and all concerned,

to let us try and find a place to move that can provide some reasonable prospect

of increased economic, social and cultural opportunity for the people of the

community. That is the objective of this. The government does not determine that

they not be on the coast. If there is better opportunity there then by all means

move to Sango Bay but for heavens sake look at what Sango Bay has to offer in

terms of economic, social and cultural opportunity or enhancement of those

opportunities over and above the existing. That is all we are asking and we

think that if we are to be involved in authorizing any expenditure of provincial

funds, and we may not be, it may be entirely federal, but we think if we are to

be involved in authorizing the expenditure of provincial funds we have a

responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province to take that kind of an

approach. Even if there are no provincial funds involved, if the federal

government is going to be doing it entirely, we have a similar responsibility to

express our concerns or views on the expenditure of public funds. But more than

the expenditure of funds, we have a greater responsibility to the people of

Davis Inlet to try and do whatever we can to contribute to the best possible

economic, social and cultural future for them.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite the Premier's

views, the leadership and the people of Davis Inlet have spoken about the future

that they want, surely they have considered the Premier's views on this. When

will the Premier stop trying to impose his will on them and listen to what they

have to say about their own future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, unlike some people, I look to

history for lessons. The real reason why we study history is to get lessons so

we can decide how is the best way to go forward. I look back at what happened in

1967, and contrary to the views and the opinions oft expressed, the Innu of

Davis Inlet were not forced to move into Davis Inlet by an insensitive

government against their wishes, as sometimes has been suggested, rather

diametrically the opposite is true. The government of that day said much the

same thing as I am saying today. There is very limited opportunity in Davis, why

don't you move somewhere else? Why don't you move somewhere near Sheshatshu,

Goose Bay or somewhere else where there is better opportunity? The Innu took a

vote on it actually at the time. Twenty-two people voted not to move to

Sheshatshu, to stay in the Davis area, two people voted to move to Sheshatshu

and get out of the Davis area, seven families did not vote at all because they

were away at the time. On the strength of that, the government of the day said:

we concede to the wishes of the Innu. We will help provide for and manage the

move to Davis Inlet, what is presently today's Davis. Against their better

judgement the government of the day agreed to that. The same arguments were

relevant then as they are today. Now we saw that mistake made twenty-five years

ago and we have seen the results of the last twenty-five years. Some of us have

the good sense to look at history and try and avoid repeating those mistakes.

This is all I am trying to do, look at other opportunities and if there are

better opportunities then for heavens sake move and provide those better

opportunities for people. If there aren't better opportunities then obviously,

in this present circumstance, the community has to be moved and Sango is

probably as good a place as anywhere else but don't shut your eyes from looking

at other places that may provide an opportunity for the people of Davis to enjoy

and improve social, economic and cultural benefits of the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a quick

question for the Minister of Health. Will the government establish one super

health board for the Western Region with responsibility for both institutions,

hospitals and senior citizens homes from Port Saunders to Burgeo, plus

responsibility for community health, and when will the changes, whatever form

they may take, when will the changes be made?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are proceeding on

this health board reorganization in an orderly manner. It is taking a bit longer

than we had anticipated, the Cabinet has made its decision with respect to

Central Newfoundland, we will have two boards there and in St. John's. That was

another pretty momentous decision. We now have to get the boards appointed, and

that is quite a bit of work. We have done a fair amount of preliminary work in

the third area we are going to examine, which is Eastern; that is the area of

Bonavista, Burin, Carbonear, Placentia, that general eastern area, which is

between St. John's and Central. I have some further consultations to take place

before we can finalize my recommendations to government on that point.

Next comes Western Newfoundland, and we have had a proposal

from the people in that area to do as the member suggests, but I want to have

some consultation with them just as soon as possible, once we get Eastern -

well, it is hard to pin it down. I hoped that would be done in November, but

November is past and we don't have Eastern done. Then we will see what has to be

done in the Northern area. It is a bit slower than I had hoped, but we are

working on it, and that is the order in which we will be examining them. The

next one now is Eastern, then Western, and then Northern.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe Question Period is close to

expiring but we might have time for one more question, if there is one more.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I have a question for the Premier. Last July

the Premier told people in Western Newfoundland that he personally ordered an

immediate assessment of Western Memorial Regional Hospital practices and

procedures. Will the Premier now release to the public the results of that

immediate assessment, and will he make a definitive statement about the future

of the Western Memorial Regional Hospital School of Nursing, to remove doubts

about the future of the Corner Brook School of Nursing which are probably

affecting plans for nursing education next September?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the future of schools of

nursing is under consideration by government because, as you know, there are

really five schools of nursing. There are the Memorial University school and

three others in hospitals in St. John's, plus Western. We want to do what is

appropriate in the Province and we haven't made any final decisions on that

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

public galleries the former member for the District of Torngat Mountains, Mr.

Garfield Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Let us welcome, as well, Mayor Leona

Gillette of the community council of Steady Brook, together with Claude Wilton,

who serves on council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

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

the reports of the exceptions to the Public Tendering Act for the months of May,

June, July, August, September and October.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I rise today as minister responsible for the

Status of Women, Mr. Speaker, to present the annual report of the Provincial

Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, No. 2".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

tomorrow move the following motion:

WHEREAS the practice of public accountancy in the Province is

regulated by the Public Accountancy Act;

AND

WHEREAS that Act provides that chartered accountants have

the right to be licensed to practice public accountancy in the Province, but

does not accord that right to other accounting designations;

AND

WHEREAS the other jurisdictions of Canada have passed

legislation or are contemplating passing legislation to accord certified general

accountants the same rights or substantially the same rights to practice public

accountancy as are presently enjoyed by chartered accountants;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Members for Trinity North,

Kilbride, Mount Pearl, Port au Port and St. John's North be and they are hereby

appointed as a select committee to examine into and to report upon:

A) The present criteria for licensing as a public accountant

in Newfoundland and whether those criteria are unnecessarily restrictive;

B) Whether there are categories of accountants other than

chartered accountants who are qualified to perform public accounting functions;

C) The present criteria for licensing as certified general

accountant in Newfoundland, and whether the training and qualifications of CGAs

in and of themselves or under certain conditions are adequate to qualify some or

all of them to perform public accounting functions;

D) The legislative provisions required to ensure the maximum

competition in the marketplace by qualified individuals consistent with the

protection of the public;

E) The body or bodies that should be empowered to licence

public accountants and the composition and manner of appointment to the same;

and

F) Other matters directly and necessarily related thereto.

And that the Committee be empowered to send for persons,

papers and records that they may sit at St. John's at all times during the

Assembly for which they are appointed whether or not the House is in session or

has prorogued, and that they may hold hearings at St. John's to receive further

representation from members of the public;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the select committee shall

submit their report to the House by the 31st of March, 1994.

I should advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition has submitted two of the names that I've read and we

have named below.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I

will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in making

its recommendations for the 1994 quotas is recommending that the Gulf cod

fishery be closed and quotas for other stocks be substantially reduced;

AND

WHEREAS if implemented these recommendations will have a

direct impact on the fishermen and plant workers on the Southwest and Northwest

coasts;

BE IT RESOLVED THEREFORE that this House of Assembly support

acceptance of the recommendations made by the Fisheries Research Conservation

Council and the implementation by the federal government of a fair and adequate

compensation package to fishermen and plant workers in that area.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Colleges

Act, 1991".

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my

colleague, the Minister of Finance, I have two notices:

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

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Certain Resolutions

Relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan

and Guarantee Act, 1957.

I give notice that he will on tomorrow move that this House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Certain Resolutions

Relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority

Guarantee Act, 1957.

Mr. Speaker, on my own account, I give notice that I will

move at the appropriate time that the Public Accounts Committee be authorized to

consider and report upon evidence taken by the committee during the Fourth

Session of the Forty-first General Assembly - and may I add that the latter

motion is being brought forward at the request of the Public Accounts Committee

to overcome a procedural problem which I will address at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am responding now to a number of questions raised by the

hon. the Member for St. John's East when I was absent with the 'flu on Tuesday

or Wednesday - I am not sure which day.

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's East Extern.

MS. COWAN: What did I say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Extern.

MS. COWAN: I am sorry, St. John's East Extern. I beg your

pardon.

I would have liked to have been here for Question Period, Mr.

Speaker, because I would have been on my feet for the entire Question Period -

and it would have been great - but I don't want to tie up the business of the

House this afternoon, so I am going to submit my answers to these questions,

most of which are very straightforward and could easily have been answered by

any staff member in my office, easily available to the public, and anyone who

wishes to call at any time is certainly - they are just sort of routine-type

questions anybody would ask about an environmental assessment, nothing to get in

a state over.

I will table these, then, Mr. Speaker, and I imagine that

people will rejoice at having these in their hands. And the Member for St.

John's East will notice that I am `standing pat' again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we begin with the

adjourned debate on "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act". It is Order No.

11, Bill No. 32. I am not sure who adjourned, but one of the gentlemen opposite,

I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 11. I believe the hon. the

Opposition House Leader was last speaking and adjourned debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I was concluding my remarks, actually, on Tuesday, on this

bill to amend the Fire Prevention Act. Basically, what I was into at that time

was the liability question that seems to be surfacing more and more across the

country. Having had discussions with fire-fighters from my own region as late as

last weekend, it seems to be a great concern now with fire departments - the

whole issue of liability.

As I said on Tuesday, at one time, all the fire departments

had to worry about was showing up at the fire, putting forth their best efforts

to control or to extinguish the flames, but now, as we have seen, I guess, in

all areas, the question of liability has become more and more prominent. People

are suing more and more, looking for financial awards for what they perceive, I

guess, as poor procedure, bad procedure, so it has become a big, big concern for

fire departments and fire-fighters throughout the Province. So I wanted to bring

it to the attention of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and, as

well, I guess, to the Minister of Justice, that this is - I am just talking

about the liability, I say to the minister. It seems to be a growing concern

amongst fire-fighters and fire departments in the Province, and I think there

have been some seminars run recently where they brought fire-fighters, and

particularly, fire chiefs, from various fire departments around the Province,

together for seminars dealing with the liability question.

I wanted to finish by commending the minister, by the way, on

increasing the fines for those who violate the act. As I said on Tuesday, I was

a little concerned that the fines were not increased in a more dramatic fashion,

because when someone violates the Building Code, or violates the Fire Prevention

Act, we all know the dangers and we all know the potential for not only loss of

property, but for loss of life.

I hope the minister will take my remarks under advisement and

probably talk to his officials, talk to the Fire Commissioner, and probably some

fire departments around the Province, because I don't think you could have a

much more serious crime than someone who violates a code or

an act that

threatens not only the loss of property, but more importantly, the loss of life.

So I ask the minister to consider that, and perhaps when we come back this

spring he might want to further amend the act, to further increase fines for

those who, in a lot of cases, by the way, blatantly violate.

People congregate in public halls, as we all know, whether it

be a bar, whether it be a restaurant -

MR. ROBERTS: That's why there are public halls.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, exactly.

Schools, service clubs - their meeting rooms are often rented

out to the public for weddings and banquets and so on. So I think it is an area,

I say to the minister, to which he really should pay more attention. I am not

saying that in a derogatory fashion, but I would ask him if he would have some

discussion on the possibility of increasing the fines even to a greater extent.

Because I really believe that the increasing of fines, for whatever offense, is

certainly a major deterrent. Coming from my own area of the Province - and not

particularly talking about fire-fighting and fire departments but some other

illegal activities, I can only say to members opposite that the increase of

fines is certainly a deterrent to those who engage in breaking the law. With

that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Member for Placentia wishes to speak.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to say a few words about the Fire Prevention Act. I

know how important it is because it is people like me who are to benefit from

these volunteer people, and these paid fire people, as well, who answer the call

and are always ready.

The situation is arising where insurances - and we all know

about insurances, their costs are rising. And the insurances do not help the

fire brigades, not one cent, from what I can gather, out our way anyway. They

don't invest back to the people who are saving them fortunes.

The fire brigade in Fair Haven is trying to get off the

ground, so I will be asking the minister in short order if we will be able to

give them a hand. We are into a situation, in our way, as the members of this

House well know - we have towns in the area where I live, amalgamated, and on

January 1, 1994, that will be taking effect. With the Americans leaving Argentia

and retaining some twenty to twenty-five acres - in a secretive place that they

have down there for monitoring different affairs under sea and wherever, there

is going to be a need for fire protection there. So we should be able to make

the best of all bargains for the people who are going to be retained.

The amalgamation - we have three fire brigades who do a

yeoman service to the area and I will be asking the minister, to be kind in the

new year, to be able to negotiate with those people in the fire protection of

the area.

This act - I must get back to it; we are all conscious of it

- this act to put volunteer and paid firemen in is good and I have no trouble

with the bill. But I do have trouble with - and I will just say for one moment

what I said earlier, about insurance companies reaping the benefits of what some

of these paid firemen and volunteer fire people of this Province of ours do, and

they do not reinvest back into even a pair of rubber boots for these people who

put their lives on the line at times to save us all. Sometime or other we are

going to have to get to the task of these rich companies who are doing very,

very well. The rates are escalating and I do not see them helping the people of

this Province. I thank you.

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

close the debate on second reading.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say congratulations to all

the members who spoke on this particular bill. I guess fire-fighting and

volunteer fire-fighting in the Province is close to all our hearts. As a lot of

my friends know, every time I get a chance to talk about voluntarism in the

Province, I always say without exception that our volunteer firemen have to be

ranked as the top group in the whole Province. I certainly concur with just

about everything that was said from the other side and this side with regard to

accolades for those people who risk their lives almost on a daily basis to

provide the necessary service that we need in the communities around the

Province.

I will close the debate, Mr. Speaker, by just making a couple

of final comments. This is basically a cleaning up of the act. I guess last year

when we introduced the new Fire Prevention Act, we missed or somebody missed a

couple of technicalities, and it was a chance for me or my department to go back

and change these technicalities and to make them more in tune with today's, I

guess, lifestyles, or whatever.

I just want to mention one comment the hon. the Opposition

House Leader made with regard to penalties. In the old act, we talked about a

maximum $1,000 fine and twelve months imprisonment. These new changes will have

gone now from $1,000 up to $5,000 and a maximum of twenty-four months in prison.

Maybe it is not enough -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sock it to them.

MR. REID: I don't know, maybe it should be a lot more

than that, and I will certainly take my hon. colleague's suggestion under

consideration. Five thousand dollars doesn't sound like very much to me, for

someone who violates I suppose, the life safety codes in the Province, because

that is what the Fire Prevention Act is, basically, and maybe he is right in

saying that. But at least, let me have the privilege of presenting and

tightening up what we have, for now, and I will certainly guarantee the member

that I will go back and look at the possibility of introducing maybe more

stringent regulations at a later time.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act,

1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 32).

MR. ROBERTS: Could we now go on to Order 16, Bill No. 36?

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

In The Province Respecting Rail Service." (Bill No. 36).

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to rock the air waves of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this evening, so I will just take a brief

minute and see how the Opposition relates to this particular piece of

legislation. It is housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, to repeal the Railways act and

there are just a couple of points I want to make.

There are presently thirty-eight pieces of legislation

controlling the railway activity in Newfoundland which I think is very silent,

you don't see a great many locomotives running across our tracks anymore. These

acts are attached to the form of the

schedule of the act. Some of the

legislation predates Confederation, while some has been modelled under present

legislation and, in most respects, the Railway Act of Canada, the National

Transportation Act, 1987, has rendered Newfoundland legislation redundant.

Just one or two points here, the issue of tax exemptions for

locomotive fuel presently being enjoyed by the Quebec Northshore and Labrador

Railway and the Wabush Lake Railway, have been addressed by the Department of

Finance through the existing legislation and/or the regulations to the Retail

Sales Tax Act.

So what we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, is to

do away with all of the legislation, the thirty-eight pieces of legislation that

have been on the books of the Province's legislation authority and just make

sure that for those who are operating in Labrador, the two railways now, that

the locomotive fuel tax act is on the legislative authority of the Minister of

Finance.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I haven't railroaded anybody yet either. Mr.

Speaker, I have no dispute with the revisions and I am glad the minister

mentioned Labrador City because we have a small bit of operational rail and we

also have Trinity Loop which should be promoted, and probably there are other

places with abandoned rails where they might do the same thing. Now, how far it

goes I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Well, that is in operation, that Trinity

Loop.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not a rail line.

MR. CAREEN: It is not a rail line, I know that. The sad

part about it all - and the Premier mentioned earlier about learning from

history - if we don't we will continue to make the same mistakes. Now, these

bills have nothing at all to do with it because lots of this stuff happened long

before we were born, but the sad part about the railway in this Province is, it

is one of the contributing factors in our losing our country, and I always find

that very hard to take. It is not for me being a nationalist Newfoundlander

close to home, but I just find when they talk about old railway bills and what

other people have done long before us when there was no need really to go centre

- if they wanted to open Buchans they could have come in from the sea.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, but they could have come in from the sea.

If they wanted to open up certain parts of the Island they could have gone in

from a harbour or a cove instead of the dreadful penance they put on this

country, the former country of Newfoundland and the livyers that were here. If

you take a divider and put it on the map of Newfoundland, there is no place any

further than forty-five miles from salt water and we could have opened different

parts without going to the expense of going right through the middle. Anyway,

that is only a short history lesson.

I have no trouble with the bill introduced by the minister,

and to get it off the table, I will sit down.

Thank you.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few questions to the minister basically. We do

have a railway still operating in Labrador. Under what legislation is it

therefore operating? The minister seems to be eliminating all the railway acts

here, but there must be some legislation to cover it. If you want to answer it I

will just carry on afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may simply respond to the question, by

leave? The railways, of course, are matters for the Parliament of Canada under

the Constitution of Canada, so the QNS & L, and there may still be a Wabush Lake

railway, I am not sure. The line of rail that runs from Sept-Iles to Ross Bay,

turns left or west and comes into Labrador City and Wabush and goes north to

Shefferville is operated under the authority of the Railway Act of Canada. I

think I have the name correct. The legislation in here, which is being repealed,

was legislation that had to do with the guarantees at the time the Wabush mine

operation was coming into being, I guess, would be the correct word.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.

I just wanted to clarify that so we would be sure what we are dealing with. I

don't have a problem with getting rid of all these redundant acts which is just

garbage that is sitting around and that needs to be taken out of the statutes.

I want to use this opportunity, though, to ask the minister,

or one of the ministers - the Minister of Tourism is not here, but maybe the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can tell us what is happening

with the old rail bed across the Province? We know there is a number of groups

who are interested in developing that as a tourism corridor across this

Province, an invaluable resource. I have asked in this House many times for the

ministers to ensure that that rail bed would be protected, that right of way

would be protected.

I have some concern, however, that in a number of

municipalities across this Province, some other property has been alienated,

particularly where there were railroad stations. Those railroad station areas,

the old yards, are being transferred to municipalities for industrial purposes.

All that is well and good, and a useful purpose for that industrial area

generally in the heart of the community. I don't have a problem with that, but I

want to ensure that there is still a corridor through there and that some

provision is made either to go through that or around that, so that we have an

uninterrupted corridor right across this Province which has tremendous potential

for all-terrain vehicles.

In view of the regulations government has recently introduced

dealing with all-terrain vehicles, they are still a valuable tourist resource

there, but if you are going to restrict where they can be operated, you have to

provide a reasonable place for them to be operated if you are going to continue

with any tourism operations related to that.

Snowmobiling, of course, is one activity that is near and

dear to my heart and that I am most interested in. It has a tremendous

potential, not only the main line, but the spur lines as well - the Bonavista

Line, the Argentia Line, the Buchans Line, and so forth. They have tremendous

potential for tourism development based on snowmobiling and all-terrain

vehicles, and provide a ready means of access to a great deal of the interior of

this Province.

Can the minister give us an update on what government's

position is on protecting these rights of way in various areas of the Province,

and what, in fact, they may be doing to ensure that some development takes

place?

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the minister - normally I

could recognize him now to answer the questions, and not in the sense of

concluding the debate, or I could move to other members and the minister could

answer all the questions at the end. I would be guided by the members.

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe he could answer the question then

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I will let the minister answer the

questions at the end. There may be some overlap.

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

MR. MANNING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

opportunity to speak on Bill 36, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province

Respecting Rail Service."

As stated by the former speakers, there is not so much to

talk about in relation to the bill, itself. I am pleased to see that the

government is bringing all the legislation in under one piece of legislation.

Some of this legislation goes back many years, and maybe before our time.

Talking about the past, the Minister of Health was talking today about what

happened twenty years ago. He is blaming me for something that happened when I

was in kindergarten. I have a problem with that, sometimes, but that is

interesting.

I am pleased to see that the government is bringing all the

acts - a lot of them obsolete now that the railway service is shut down across

the Province, mostly - bringing them all in under one act. As we all know, the

railway service shut down across the Province a few years ago because it was a

costly venture with very little return. We struck an $800 million deal to try to

develop our roadways so the transportation links across the Province could be

improved.

I have learned over the past number of weeks that projects

are being pursued across the Province with in constructing this new road across

the Province, and double highways, that some parts of the old railway bed are

being disturbed or destroyed as we pursue this double highway, or construction

of the highway. It has been brought to my attention, as the tourism critic for

our party, that this is a concern to some people who are trying to develop the

railway bed throughout the Province, as the speaker before me mentioned, to help

develop our tourism potential, our tourism industry in the Province.

I am of the understanding - I stand to be corrected, and the

minister may do so when he gets up - that you have over 3,000 applications

before you to develop the railway bed across the Province, some sections, some

whole, and some from municipalities and interest groups, et cetera. While I am a

strong believer in the tourism potential of the railway bed, I ask the minister

to look at each application but to be careful that private entrepreneurs who are

trying to develop the tourism industry in the Province don't get `carried away'

with the railway bed from one end to the other, and if there are sound proposals

put before him that will create jobs in the Province, that will improve the

tourism industry in the Province, that he look at them favourably when he goes

over his 3,000 applications.

It is great to have this railway bed there, I believe. A

couple a weeks ago I attended a news conference at City Hall here in St. John's

where they announced the possibility of a Canada Trail being created, a trail

that would be 15,000 kilometres long, reaching from one end of Canada to the

other. I thought it was a great idea, the potential of this trail and what it

could do for tourism in the whole country. The great asset we had here in our

Province was the fact that we had a railway bed that did not have to be

developed. It was there and it could have - I think, up to 75 per cent or 80 per

cent of the Canada Trail that they propose is already developed in Newfoundland,

and that we have a great opportunity there to avail of this, so I would ask the

minister to consider this in his deliberations - the possibility of being part

of that Canada Trail.

As I touched on earlier, it was brought to my attention that

some places across the Province that have the roads being constructed, trestles

that were used during the railway times are being destroyed, and in place they

are putting back some roads and the trails are being cut off, and people have to

cross highways in order to continue on a trail. I talked with a couple of ATV

owners whose families spent a week on a holiday over in Central Newfoundland,

and they had to cross the highway in several places to continue on the old

railway bed, so that is a concern that they had.

Again, there is not much in regard to the legislation itself,

but the tourism potential of the railway bed is very important to the Province.

Over the next few months, I am sure, the minister will be entertaining all of

the applications that have come forward, and some decisions will be made. I ask

him to think of the tourism potential for the Province when he has his

deliberations, and that private entrepreneurs, especially - everybody may be

trying to get a piece of the action, but it should be for the benefit of all

Newfoundlanders, and I ask the minister to accept that.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in fear of repeating what

has already been said by a couple of speakers before me, I can assure you that I

am aware of the potential there, especially on the Bonavista Line of the old

railway. I know that the rural development associations in our area, plus other

people as well, have put forward some very good proposals of what might happen

there. I think with some thought and some more interest expressed to it, and

some people putting some effort into being realistic about this whole thing,

that we can create something new and something different, to give some people

another reason to visit the area.

My thoughts, my concerns, are more of a question to the

minister. If you are going to use those railway beds as they are being used

today, by ATV's and skidoos, hikers, etc., my concern is: Who is responsible for

the infrastructure that has been left behind since the railway has been taken

up? I know there are culverts that have been removed. I know that there are

trestles and bridges left behind. My concern is that if we are going to turn our

back on what is left behind, one of those days we may be faced with a calamity

and we will be looking for places to lay blame. So when the minister gets up to

answer some of the questions put forward by the Member for Mount Pearl, I ask if

he would also address that question.

Another concern that I have had in my district, Mr. Minister,

was the situation where the railway bed was taken up, some culverts were taken

out and then filled in with gravel. This, in turn, has caused problems with

flooding in the area. I know I have been very fortunate that the minister has

looked after the problem. I do not know if he has been aware of it or not, but

the problem was looked after without going to the minister. It was done from the

bottom up, and there are sure to be some Tories in the administration up

through. There are still some left behind, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell where or

how it was done, but it was attended to, and I thank the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation for looking after that problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to address those concerns,

because it is something that has been a concern of mine, and also some other

people in the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to have

anything to say on this one. I have to have a few words now. I forgot all about

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation introducing this bill. I am

just glad to have an opportunity to say a few words pertaining to this.

I am sure the minister, since his appointment as Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, has read - for sure the minister responsible

for tourism has given him a copy - of the `rails for trails' agreement.

I think I saw him the other morning down there having a

coffee and reading it. He was really interested in it. I am sure that from cover

to cover he knows exactly what some of the recommendations were from the

committee that presented that report, two or three months ago now, I think. Just

this weekend they have a meeting - I say to the Member for Stephenville that the

rural development council have some meetings in Stephenville coming up this

Saturday, Friday night and Saturday, pertaining to this subject.

I say to the Minister responsible for Works, Services and

Transportation that when they took up all the rail bed and everything - oh, yes

took up all the rail beds, spikes and everything else associated with the - what

an irony, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the government of the day would not have

touched that if ever they thought that a few years down the road that the

minister, who was in opposition at the time, was one day going to be responsible

for all the road work across this Province. That agreement would never have been

signed I am sure of that but it fell right into his lap. He got millions and

millions of federal dollars - in the Corner Brook area last year just outside -

between Deer Lake and Corner Brook, millions of all federal money and the

perception was what a great job the Province is doing with the roads in our

area. But regardless of that, Mr. Speaker, it came from the federal government

and it is going to be interesting to see where it is going to come from over the

next few years. The road between Deer Lake and Corner Brook - the minister I am

sure is aware of it because I have spoken to him personally on it and the Member

for Humber East has spoken to the minister on it and got some firm commitments

on finishing that road and trying to cut it down from ten years - trying to cut

it down to three, four or five years - between Deer Lake and Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, that is exactly right. Now

that is another point. I am sure that if that was not started it would not be

there now. That is why I want to get some commitments now while the Premier is

from that area. The minister would be a little bit reluctant about doing

anything otherwise to hurt him because there might be some changes in the next

two or three years pertaining to the Premier and that district. That is why I

would like to have it done now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like - on a more serious note - the

minister and some of his officials to have a look at what is happening in some

areas. I know up in the Howley area, between Howley and Kitty's Brook, Pond

Siding or up that way, there are a couple of construction companies up there

going in and picking up whatever was left, I suppose some of the scrap metal and

probably it is a good thing. It is a good thing for the environment that's for

sure but in doing that, taking those big trucks in over the old railway beds,

they are tearing it to pieces and the ordinary person cannot use it after.

What happened after CN took up the rail bed, they graded it

over and made it passable for everybody to go in and use it. A lot of people in

my area use it and use it quite often, all summer long, they have camps in there

and they have cabins in there. The only time they had access to it previous to

that, except along the side of the railway track, was in the wintertime when you

use it primarily for skiddooing but now they have access pretty well year round.

They use their trikes and quads or what have you and they go in there berry

picking or hunting. A very, very popular area of the Province for hunting,

fishing and berry picking, especially partridge berries, big area.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a way to keep people off the bogs.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes that is right, that is the other point.

The minister asked do you have a quad? Yes, no doubt. It is a great way to keep

- which is another bill that will probably be coming to the House fairly soon,

regulations on ATV's. One of the greatest things I suppose that happened to the

Province pertaining to quads or trikes - and keeping them off the bogs because

that access, that corridor right through the Province, is a good, solid, hard

access and they can go pretty well anywhere. Now what happens once they get in

the country, that is another matter. So I would like for the minister, and I

think his department has been notified of what is happening in that particular

area with regards to those companies going in tearing everything up because it

was left, I must say, in fairly good shape for traffic. Even cars and trucks had

to go in over it. The only problem that they did have were the spikes, some of

the spikes that were left in the gravel, in the granular stone and everything

there. They used to have a lot of flat tires and so on.

The other thing that I mentioned from the outset about the

minister being cognizant of what is happening with regards to this agreement,

and recommendations made by - I think it was the rural development council put

that in, was it? That report in on the rails for trails. They are very active.

Like I said, they have a meeting this weekend I think in Stephenville. They are

experiencing some problems with regards to going from a community - one

particular community, especially where the rail bed goes through that community.

I have a prime example of that, and that is in Deer Lake, where the rail bed

comes up through the back of St. Judes, comes into Deer Lake, goes through the

town, the main street of Deer Lake, and on into the interior again. So they have

a problem there with - the council is not in favour of that apparently right

now, so there may be some accommodations made to just make the loop up around

because of the livyers. They don't want skiddoos and trikes all hours of the

night - and that is understandable - going right through the heart of the Town

of Deer Lake. There may be some accommodations made for that.

I'm sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the minister, when he takes that

into consideration, remember that there are probably 95 per cent Liberals in

there on the trikes and owning the cabins. So take that into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the rural development council will

be making, and have made, a lot of recommendations to the Department of Tourism,

the Minister responsible for Tourism, through and in conjunction with, the

Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. I for one see a lot

of possibilities and a lot of positive things coming out of that report. When it

does come to his desk I'm sure the minister will be cognizant of what they're

doing and make sure that those rules and regulations are passed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will be here 'til Christmas?

MR. TOBIN: We intend to be here for Christmas, I would

say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman would make a great Grinch

who stole Christmas.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentleman would

make a great angel for the Christmas tree. I think there would be competition

from the Minister of Health, but....

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering as I looked over there, no

wonder the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's hair is getting so

grey.

MR. EFFORD: Say that again?

MR. TOBIN: I said, no wonder his hair is getting so

scarce and so grey, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say a few brief words as it relates to this Bill and that is

the Roads for Rails deal and the need for the - he is talking about the Rail

Service Act and improvements to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: We did have a train.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a train. That was what I was

going to ask him, what he plans to do with the railway track between Marystown

and Grand Bank.

No, what I'm saying to the minister is that there is a fair

amount of money as a result of the Roads for Rails deal that came to this

Province, and it is for the people of the Province. The Burin Peninsula Highway,

I would say to the minister, was the beneficiary of some of those funds a couple

of years ago.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Tory!

MR. TOBIN: A Tory riding? Yes, Mr. Speaker, and there is

a good chance it is going to remain one for a long time, I would say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. A lot longer, I would suggest,

than Port de Grave is going to remain Liberal.

MR. EFFORD: You've gone off track now.

MR. TOBIN: Whether it is a Tory district or a Liberal

district should not be important. It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, that we

didn't practice that for seventeen years.

MR. EFFORD: How much money did Port de Grave District

get? Not a penny.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what a reflection on the MHA for

the District, whoever he or she was. What a reflection on the member, he never

got anything for his district.

MR. EFFORD: You remember that next year.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister has made

commitments for paving my District.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are not very many of them

in my district.

MR. EFFORD: There are some. Do you want their names?

MR. TOBIN: I would not object to the minister naming it,

Mr. Speaker, if he has a name there that he wants to say?

MR. EFFORD: Rock Harbour.

MR. TOBIN: Rock Harbour?

MR. EFFORD: Yes - all Liberals.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you, I have won Rock Harbour, I say

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) vote for Joey (inaudible) Rock

Harbour.

MR. TOBIN: I also say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that

he should not be practising the pork-barrelling that he is advertising here in

the House, and I hope the media will have their mikes tuned in and turned on, to

hear the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stating that only

Liberal districts are going to get funding from the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, while the Premier might practise fairness and

balance, it is going to be difficult for him to practise fairness and balance

with that type of minister, with the most political department, at his Cabinet

table. Now, the Premier had to make decisions before relating to that minister.

The Premier had to and he did make decisions. I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, that if the Premier heard what he said today, he

would again fire him out of Cabinet. So I would say to the minister, the best

thing he can do to stay in Cabinet, is to get up and say, whatever Burin -

Placentia West wants extra, they will get it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation - and he is probably aware of it; as a matter of

fact, it is my understanding he is so well aware of it that he decided rather

than drive to the Burin Peninsula, he would rather sail because the waters are

calmer and smoother than the Burin Peninsula Highway - when he is allocating his

funding this year, that he not let the Minister of Justice overrule the

recommendations of the department and the decisions of Cabinet and take the

money from the Burin Peninsula Highway and put it elsewhere in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the Minister of Justice, when there is a strong

recommendation and a priority made, submitted to Cabinet to be approved, then

the Minister of Justice should not overrule that decision. And how do I know,

Mr. Speaker? During the election campaign, the Premier met with the

Burin-Marystown Chamber of Commerce, and they asked him about the funding for

the Burin Peninsula Highway.

The Premier said, the funding is there under the Roads for

Rail Agreement and there is so much to be spent this year; and the Chamber said:

`Mr. Premier, I think you are mistaken,' because they had been made aware that

the Minister of Justice had decided to do some - what would you call it? with

the funding, as he did with the Burin Hospital when he was Minister of Health.

And they said: `No, Premier, you are wrong, there is no money there from what we

know.' The Premier said: `Yes, I am sure there is money,' and they said, `No,

there is not, as far we know, but we are delighted you are saying yes - you are

the Premier, you should know.' He said, `Well, to double check, I will send my

assistant out to call the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation,' and the executive assistant came back and said: `Mr. Premier, I

am sorry, but the deputy minister is not in his office.' Now, everybody at the

meeting knew what that meant, that there was no money approved, and whether or

not the deputy minister was in his office we don't know. The Premier was so sure

that money had been approved, that he told the Chamber of Commerce that it was

approved, but what the Premier had forgotten was that the Minister of Justice

got into the Cabinet discussions and took the money that was there for the Burin

Peninsula Highway and moved it elsewhere in this Province. So I ask the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, if he would ensure that this year there

is money from that Roads for Rail deal for the Burin Peninsula Highway, and that

includes, by the way, the districts of Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West,

Fortune - Hermitage and Bellevue. I say to the minister that there are four

districts that chop up the Burin Peninsula Highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four Tory districts?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two Liberal (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, regarding the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage, I am not sure what he is.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He changes like the seasons.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. EFFORD: I don't have to take lessons from you. The

people sent me back with (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if you want to take lessons on

loyalty, you can take them from me and if you want to take lessons on not

knowing what loyalty means, stick to yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The people sent you back! You scuffled across

the House on your hands and knees, you begged and cried and preached and coaxed

the Premier to take you into the caucus and then he gave you a petition and

said: Go out there and go door-to-door and get in if you want to get in. That is

how you crossed over there, I say to the member. That is where you came from.

That is where your loyalty is, and the party should be well aware of that, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: How he gets the blood pressure up!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would rather have high blood

pressure than grey hair, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. `Roberts' is taking a look.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) his hair, not letting it go

grey. I would tell him, his forehead is going to be nearly as high as mine.

MR. TOBIN: I could probably brush it down like the hon.

gentleman.

In any case, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation that he should give serious consideration to the districts of

Bellevue, Fortune - Hermitage, Burin - Placentia West, and Grand Bank, in the

allocation of funding this year, and whether the members are Conservative, NDP,

Liberal, or not sure, shouldn't matter.

What he should do is make sure that the people who drive over

that road, from the District of Burin - Placentia West, from the District of

Grand Bank, the people who drive over it daily to work in Marystown from the

Fortune - Hermitage district, should have a road to drive over, and I know that

the minister is going to be very sensitive to the needs of the people of these

areas, regardless of their - because it is not like the minister, I would

suspect, to judge people based on their political affiliation. I think that

would be out of character for the minister, Mr. Speaker - totally out of

character for the minister - to do something based on their political

affiliation, and I would suspect that he will probably announce this evening

that the money is going to be there. I have to leave, but my colleague for Grand

Bank will inform me as to what he said.

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

Transportation, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments. I never thought, when I introduced

this piece of legislation to repeal all the legislation on the books, the

Railway Act, that I would get such a Tory tribe over there making a pitch to get

their roads done next year.

All I thought this legislation would do is clean up the mess

that the Tories left behind, because they took away the railway; they left a

mess right across the Province, and now it is our responsibility to clean up the

mess, and this is the first step in cleaning up the mess that the Tories left. I

think that is what we have been doing for the last four or five years - cleaning

up the mess.

Let me first deal with the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

That won't take very long. All I have to say to the hon. member is that we are

very aware of the needs of the roads to be constructed and maintained right

around the Province. We have to keep in mind the priorities of the people across

the Province where the greatest need exists, and we have to keep in mind that

for seventeen years there were many areas in the Province that did not get any

road work. Now, we have to be very aware of that. So when all of those roads are

done, and brought up-to-date, and those which were built after that, then I am

sure we will take care of all of those roads as they come on stream, and be fair

to all people, but we must keep in mind the roads that were left for seventeen

years.

Now, one district in particular that I can speak about is the

great District of Port de Grave. For years and years it never got any pavement,

any gravel, but I can assure you, they are going to get it now. We have to get

them done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. The roads have been in trouble out there

for seventeen years. For seventeen years there were no roads done, so we have to

be fair to all the people across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is more than your district.

MR. EFFORD: There is a lot more than my district. That is

what I am telling you; we have to look after those roads.

Mr. Speaker, the trails - there is the real issue, the

railway corridor around the Province. One question that was not asked by any

member opposite, was "What is it going to cost?" That is the underlying factor

there. What is it going to cost, and who is going to pay for those railway

corridors to be maintained right across the Province?

It is a very serious issue. The Minister of Tourism and the

Minister of Environment and Lands are being charged with the responsibility to

look at it, to make proper representation, and to deal with the development

association - the groups of people who are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a point of

order.

MR. MANNING: I would just like to remind the minister, if

I could, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that under the Canada Trail program

they announced a couple of weeks ago at the news conference which I attended,

part of that program was to sell a metre of trail to any Newfoundlander who

wanted to buy one, and that would create dollars to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order. What is

the point of order that the hon. member is raising?

MR. MANNING: He indicated in his statement that he was

concerned about the cost. I understand where the minister is coming from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of the information the hon. member is talking

about; nevertheless, saying you can sell a metre of road is fine, but when it

comes to the actual sale and getting the money, that is another issue. This

whole cost of maintaining the railway bed across the Province - this government

is very conscious and very aware of the need to have that railway bed protected.

The Member for Humber Valley made a comment about some of the

construction companies going in there and doing major damage. I suggest to

everybody that if you see anybody doing damage, it is incumbent on each

individual to report that to the authorities. If you are going to allow it to go

on for two or three months, then somebody has to be charged with the

responsibility of repairing that damage. If damage is being done there, it is

like damage being done to any properties across the Province. It is against the

law for any construction company or any individual to go in there and do damage

to that property, and it should be reported to the proper authorities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there anybody now (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: Not, that I am aware of. The Minister of

Environment and Lands is left with the responsibility for the whole railway bed

and any activity taking place on the railway bed right across the Province.

Somebody made a comment about the four-lane highways being built and the areas

within the Province where we have to cross over a railway bed. Every time we

construct a highway, or a piece of road over a railway bed, there is always a

way left so that the railway corridor can be connected. I will use, as an

example, Brigus Junction out on the Trans-Canada. When we had to build the

underpass for vehicles to go through, there was a corridor left there to connect

the railway bed through the overpass so that snowmobiles and all-terrain

vehicles can get through there. We are very aware of it, and you are quite

right, although nobody has come up with where the money is going to come from to

put this right across the Island, we have to protect the railway bed as much as

possible until those decisions are made. There is some agreement between CN

Marine and the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for a certain

amount of money to deal with the culverts and the bridges across the Island, and

all that is going to be done in due course.

The one clear message we are all aware of, and we are all in

agreement with, is that that railway bed should be protected for the future of

`rails for trails' so that groups can use it. When the day comes, I am sure

everybody will be happy with it but finding the money is the bottom line now,

and who is going to be responsible, not only for the construction and the

rebuilding but for maintaining it in the future. Somebody is going to be left

with that responsibility and that is going to cost one awful lot of money.

I think that was the main point, the protection of the

railway bed, and who is going to be charged with the responsibility. The other

one is the culverts. Now, I am going to remind the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South that his committee from the town of Bonavista came in to see me, a group

of people with a petition about the culvert down there and the flooding of the

property, and I told them I would ensure that would be completed before summer's

end, and I believe it was completed, as the member stated.

So we are very aware of the needs and emergencies, and that

was an emergency there in the town of Bonavista. And I wasn't aware it had been

completed until the hon. member said it was.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am talking about a different thing. I

am talking about Southern Bay, which is right up at the other end of the

district, it is not close to Bonavista at all. It was just a lady who voiced her

concern.

MR. EFFORD: But it is in your district, the District of

Bonavista.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not the one you are referring to.

There is no petition.

MR. EFFORD: There were people in to see me about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was only one lady.

MR. EFFORD: Anyway, I want to say that all of these

things have been taken care of. The Minister of Tourism and Culture and the

Minister of Environment and Lands are responsible for any concerns with the

railway bed. If I am requested, as Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation for work to be done through the department, it would have to come

from these ministers in particular.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading on Bill No. 36.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province

Respecting Rail Service," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 36)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we now have Order 18

which is second reading of Bill No. 37?

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

Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No. 37)

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Bill No. 37,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, is

for the release of information - information about charges laid in a motor

vehicle accident and to remove the requirement to provide police with an

estimate of damages to vehicles involved in an accident. Those are the two main

changes in this Highway Traffic Act that we are going to change. (Inaudible)

gives a couple of points that we are going to refer to in this particular piece

of legislation and I will give the hon. member an example.

All the motor vehicle accidents now where there is $1,000

damage or personal injury, it must be reported to the police. The police are

then required to make a written report of the accident to the Registrar of Motor

Vehicles. The Highway Traffic Act currently restricts the Registrar in the type

of information that can be released to lawyers, insurance companies, or anyone

sustaining loss. The present Act does not permit the Registrar to release

whether or not charges have been laid in relation to any party involved in the

accidents.

What we are going to do now is - release of this would be

extremely beneficial to the insurance companies. Now, you would be able to

release more information on any accident or any driver involved in accidents, to

insurance companies, and solicitors who repeatedly request such information, and

it would expedite accident investigations and claim settlements.

The current act requires that parties involved in an accident

obtain an estimate of damage to the vehicle involved. The act also provides for

release of this information to authorized parties. The validity of the accident

damage estimate is questionable, is time-consuming to collect and is not used

for any practical purpose. So what we are saying now is that an individual

involved in an accident will not have to go and get an estimate of the damages

and send it in to Motor Registration.

There is no means to establish, for argument's sake - if I

had an accident today, or any individual had an accident, and you get a form

written up about the amount of damages done in that particular accident and send

it in to Motor Registration, they have no way to know the validity of the cost

of the accident or the cost of the repairs. Anybody can go anywhere they wish.

There is nobody saying that you have to go to an auto body shop. You can go

anywhere, you can write it up yourself and send it in. That is the way it has

been done in the past. We are now saying that nobody will have to send in those

estimates to Motor Registration.

That will be done, and should be done - if a person has an

accident he or she reports it to his or her insurance company and they will go

through the proper standards and then the accidents will be written up in that

way. That is the way a claim is settled. That is no business of the Department

of Motor Registration. If there is any fault, or any charges laid in there, then

the police will forward the information. If there are any charges like impaired

driving causing an accident, all that information will be forwarded to Motor

Registration, but not the cost of repairs of that accident. The cost of the

repairs is not the issue.

MR. TOBIN: What about if you hit a moose?

MR. EFFORD: You get awful angry!

Obtaining an estimate information often delays the reporting

process for police, and that is quite true.

The other thing, the minor

part in this, is that up to now,

there is a highway traffic regulation (inaudible) down here (inaudible) the

equipment required to be present on motor vehicle inspections, like brakes,

lights, wipers and tires, that is all under the one piece of legislation and the

fee for all them is $20. The change in this act now is going to allow that if

you have a problem with your brakes and you're caught in violation of the

Highway Traffic Act, there will be a separate charge for each one. There would

be a minimum charge of $20 and a maximum fine of $90, and from one to ten days

in jail for failure to pay this fine. In other words, there was one charge for a

violation of brakes, lights, wipers, tires et cetera, for the whole thing, under

the Highway Traffic Act. Now it is going to be a separate charge, a minimum fine

of $20, and a maximum fine of $90 on each offence.

There are certain defects which require more severe penalties

than others. For example, defective brakes or steering are more severe than a

single light not working. If you had a single light on your taillight not

working, or your wipers not working, that is not as severe as if a handbrake or

the brakes are defective on your car. So there are areas there - like the light

would be on a minimum fine of $20 but then they would be encouraged to, under

the more serious offence, the brakes or the tires, for argument sake - if you

have smooth tires on your car, it is more dangerous and it would be a more

serious fine. It would be $45 or $50 - whatever the magistrate decides at the

time.

This amendment will give the authority to the minister,

through the regulation, to set the penalties for equipment defects, with such

penalties being approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few questions about this bill. The bill purports to

make two simple amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, to the

section of the act

dealing with the information that parties to an accident, insurance companies

involved, or lawyers acting for parties to an accident, are entitled to get.

The reasons for the changes proposed are not obvious to me. I

listened to the minister's explanation, although I had difficulty following it.

I would like the minister to tell the House, when he rises to speak at the end

of this second reading debate, why he is bringing this bill forward. Who asked

for these changes? Did the insurance industry come to the government and ask for

either one of these changes? Did the police ask for either one of these changes?

Did any consumer's group ask for the changes? Or were the changes simply

generated by bureaucrats?

The current act - and under the bill this would remain the

same - requires people involved in a motor vehicle accident to make a report to

the police when the damage exceeds $1,000; so it seems to me that people have to

make some kind of an estimate of the damage when they decide to go to the

police, and I cannot see why they would not still be required to give an

estimate in their report, or why the police and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles

would not be required to include that information in the file that is forwarded

to a party, or a lawyer representing a party, or an insurance company affected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I say to the minister, if he reads

section

174, which is being amended by his bill, insurance companies are mentioned,

because

section 174 reads as follows: A person involved in an accident, and a

person or an insurance company that has paid, or may be liable to pay, for

damages resulting from an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, and a

solicitor, agent or other representative of the person or company, is entitled

to the information that may appear in a report made under the preceding

sections.

Those are sections requiring parties to an accident to report

to the police, and requiring the police to forward a report to the Registrar of

Motor Vehicles.

I read those preceding questions quickly, so I may have

missed something, but I believe that is the gist of them. Then,

section 174

makes a list of information contained in reports that has to be given to a

party, a lawyer for a party, or an insurance company affected, making a request

for information.

What I do not understand is why anyone would want to remove

from that list an estimate of the damage. Whose idea was it to remove that from

the list? Was it a request from the insurance industry? Was it a request from

consumers? Was it a request from lawyers? Or was it simply an idea of the

minister's staff?

Has there been any problem arising from the current inclusion

of an estimate of the damage? That is one of the changes being made, and I am

asking for an explanation of the origin of the change. The other change that is

being proposed is an addition to the list of adding to the list information

about whether a charge has been laid as a result of an accident. Now that seems

to me to be a reasonable addition. Again I would ask whose idea it was to make

the addition?

While I am at it, Mr. Speaker, since this is a highway

traffic act amendment, I'll take advantage of the opportunity to discuss the

Humber Valley Trans-Canada Highway. I said to the minister the other day that

the work that has been done to four-lane the highway between Massey Drive in the

west and Steady Brook in the east over the last couple of years has been quite

frustrating for motorists. The end result may well be worth the trouble.

Although the trouble should not have been necessary. I will have to reserve

judgement on the end product because it still is not finished. Considerable work

was done this past summer and fall but disappointingly the work has not been

completed.

One of the major interchanges in Corner Brook has not been

completed and evidently won't be finished until next spring. That is the Lewin

Parkway Interchange so for the next several months the only way trans-Canada

Highway traffic will be able to exit and get into Corner Brook will be to use

the Riverside Drive Interchange in the east or the Massey Drive Interchange in

the west. The central interchange at the Lewin Parkway still is not completed.

That is confusing, especially for motorists who are used to leaving the highway

at Maple Valley and turning off to the Lewin Parkway. It is also confusing

because the current signs are not adequate.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the delay in completing the new

highway through Corner Brook, the work that was done this summer involved

unnecessary disruption of traffic for the few short weeks of sunny hot weather

that we had in August. Dust control was quite inadequate and motorists had to

suffer through dust at peak traffic times early in the morning and at the end of

the work day. Traffic was snarled and lined up. There was a bottleneck basically

on the outskirts of Corner Brook.

So as my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley said the

other day, I would urge the minister in future to try to ensure more efficient

and orderly highway construction. Much more work remains to be done in the

Humber Valley with 100 per cent federal funding from the Roads for Rails

Agreement. Plans are in place for the four-laning of the entire 30 mile corridor

from Massey Drive to Deer Lake. Only a small

section of that corridor has been

tackled so far, the

section from Massey Drive to Steady Brook, that is not

properly completed but we have ahead of us the distance from Steady Brook to

Deer Lake. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not published a

schedule for the

remainder of the Humber Valley four-laning and residents of that area and

perhaps others would like to see such a

schedule so they can plan ahead. People

who live in Little Rapids who will be affected by the reconstruction of the

highway, by the four-laning, would like to know whether the work in their area

will be done next year or five years' away. People in Pynn's Brook would like to

know approximately when the work will be done through their community. It should

be possible for the minister to proclaim a plan showing year by year the work

that will be done.

It should also be possible, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to

stick to the

schedule by getting tender calls out early, well in advance of the

construction season, and making it possible for the successful bidders to do

their work through the whole construction season, to get started as soon as the

frost goes out of the ground.

What has happened the last few years - and I say to the

minister that he and his colleagues have now been in power for five years - the

minister and his colleagues have been in full control now through five

construction seasons. What we've seen year after year, despite the fact that

they're able to spend 100 per cent federal funding, what we've seen are delays.

We've seen tender calls coming out in June and July, and consequently year after

year work is rushed late in the fall and confusion has existed. Jobs have taken

more than one construction season, have extended through the winter and into a

second construction season. I'm glad to hear the minister say that he is going

to bring about improvements because I say to him improvements are certainly

needed.

With respect to the four-laning of the highway through Corner

Brook, much of which has been done over the last two years, but not all of which

is yet finished, again I make an appeal to him to do his best with the

horticulturists and gardeners on his staff, and with the Pippy Park Commission,

to beautify the Trans-Canada Highway bank through Maple Valley, which is the

middle of Corner Brook. The new highway may well represent an improvement for

traffic, although again I say that remains to be seen, but the construction has

marred the beautiful Maple Valley. Beautiful natural trees had to be cut down to

make way for the highway. The new highway is on a fairly steep incline from the

adjacent houses and businesses. Those people who used to look out on trees,

maple, larch, hemlock trees - those are the names of the streets in Maple

Valley; Larch Street, Hemlock Street, Maple Valley Road, Pine Grove Avenue -

instead now look out on a steep, barren, rocky bank.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that he take on that

ugly bank as a challenge, and with the gifted people on his staff that he

transform that bank into a beautiful rock garden by planting appropriate ground

cover, and shrubs and flowers. The provincial government spends considerable

amounts of public funds to beautify St. John's, to beautify the public buildings

in St. John's, and also to maintain Pippy Park. The provincial government is

doing nothing of the sort in Corner Brook.

In the case of Maple Valley the provincial government could

spend federal money that has been promised over a ten-year period for a

four-lane Trans-Canada Highway, and, Mr. Speaker, it does not even necessarily

cost more to finish a property, a new construction or a renovation, to finish it

attractively than to leave it in an ugly state and, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians have not, by and large, done a very good job of landscaping.

There have been some recent improvements and I can point to notable exceptions,

but by and large as a people, we have not done a very good job of landscaping.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take her seat for one

minute, while we inform the hon. members of the House of the questions for the

Late Show.

The first question is from the hon. Member for Humber East:

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the response to my question about Western

Memorial Hospital, and wish to address it again on the Late Show.

The second question is from the hon. Member for Humber Valley

and says: Mr. Speaker, I was not satisfied with the minister's response to my

question on the change to the MOG to municipalities and I would appreciate

having the question placed on the Late Show, and the third question is placed

here by the hon. Member for Placentia: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the

answer provided by the Premier to my question re the status of Argentia. I am

requesting that it be placed on the Late Show.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain

the origin of the bill before us, the two changes to the Highway Traffic Act

that are set out in the bill, and while he is on his feet, I would like him to

explain how he is going to improve the performance of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation in completing the four-laning of the Trans-Canada

Highway through the Humber Valley. I would like him to promise a

schedule so

that residents will know what to expect from one year to the next and so that

property owners who will be affected by the construction, will know what year

they will be affected.

I would like the minister to explain how he is going to

complete the new Trans-Canada Highway through Corner Brook and indicate whether

he will take a creative approach to beautifying the highway bank through Maple

Valley, which is very visible to a great number of Corner Brook residents and of

course, it is also in prominent view of tourists who visit Corner Brook. I would

remind the minister that in his administration's red-covered strategic economic

plan -

MR. EFFORD: Red? (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I believe there is just red trim on it.

Tourism is cited as one of the very few opportunities - that is the Throne

Speech - the Strategic Economic Plan has a more modest smattering of red - but I

would call on the minister to review the Strategic Economic Plan and note the

identification of tourism and culture as one of the very few opportunities for

economic growth in the Province, and to read on and see in the discussion of the

tourism potential, the identification of Western Newfoundland as a prime region

of the Province for tourism growth, now Corner Brook is the major centre of

Western Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has a particular fondness for

the colour red and I encourage him when he is decorating, when he is beautifying

the Trans-Canada Highway bank in Maple Valley, to work with his gardeners and

horticulturists to choose some red foliage, perhaps similar to the natural maple

trees, vegetation that will turn red in the fall, or perhaps he can go further

and plant some red flowers. Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I will take my

place and listen with interest to others.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few remarks on this bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act, and I want to suggest first of all, that the minister is

probably doing a service here to the public in making the reporting provisions

less onerous and also perhaps expediting settlements of insurance claims and

accident investigations.

When I say that, I would also suggest to the minister that

another provision of the act, which was brought in last year, perhaps he should

have a look at that too. That is the provision which requires medical

practitioners to report to the registrar of motor vehicles. Each time that a

doctor encounters a patient who is, for medical reasons, unable to drive - I

don't know if this minister brought that in or not but I remember at the time

expressing concern about it because it seemed to me to be impractical in many,

many circumstances and irrelevant. I have since talked to a number of medical

doctors who have raised with me their concern that the letter of the law

requires them to make a report to the registrar of motor vehicles that a

particular patient is unable to drive plus give the reasons for it.

These doctors were concerned about two things; number one,

the impractically of the requirement in many circumstances, secondly; the fact

that there was no discretion involved at all and thirdly; the problem of

confidentially of patients information in passing this on to the registrar of

motor vehicles. If I may give an example, if a person is brought into the

emergency centre of a hospital and is suffering from a stroke for example, well

clearly that person should not drive. Should there be an obligation on the

doctor, the emergency doctor who treats that patient, to sit down and make a

note to the registrar of motor vehicles that Mr. So-and-So who was just brought

in with a stroke should not be driving? That is what the legislation requires,

Mr. Speaker, and that is perhaps an onerous duty on a medical doctor in an

emergency situation who is required to make such a report. I think what happens

is that medical doctors, like everybody else, make practical decisions sometimes

in violation of the law. That is something I think the minister should concern

himself with. If he is setting about, as he seems to be here, in simplifying and

making more sensible, more practical, more reasonable the reporting requirements

under the Highway Traffic Act.

The second kind of impractical situation, which does come up

quite often, is there are many people who have never driven in their lives. A

senior citizen who may be in his/her sixties or seventies, never driven a car in

their lives and all of a sudden by virtue of some medical condition, they would

not be able to drive because of eyesight problems, stroke, heart condition or

whatever, why should there be a requirement on a medical practitioner to sit

down and write a letter to the director of motor registration saying that Mr.

So-and-So, who may be living in a senior citizens home, having his legs

amputated already and is not able to get a drivers license? Well here is someone

who has never driven in their life, never likely to drive and not at all a

concern of public safety. Why should Dr. So-and-So, who is treating that

patient, be required to sit down and write a letter to the director of motor

vehicles? Someone has to pay for that. I don't know if the minister is prepared

to pay the bills for that but someone has to pay for it. I imagine some doctors

might start sending a bill to the director of motor vehicles for the service.

MR. EFFORD: He won't get paid.

MR. HARRIS: The minister says he won't get paid. Maybe if

the law requires him to send this report, maybe he is entitled to get paid.

Maybe he is going to try and find some way - maybe he is going to try to get it

from the Minister of Health.

I say to the minister that the minister doesn't seem to be

able to accept compliments. When I'm complimenting the minister on doing a

service to the public by making the reporting provisions simpler, more practical

and more reasonable, and offering a suggestion as to how he can make his

regulations in this other matter simpler, more practical and more reasonable, he

doesn't seem to be willing to accept the kind of compliment that I'm giving him.

I'm complimenting him on his good sense in bringing in this change in the

legislation. I suggest to him that he use that good sense to follow up on the

other suggestion that he should re-examine the provision requiring medical

practitioners to give written advice to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, even in

such circumstances where it is totally impractical and unreasonable and not in

the public interest for him to do so.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, and with apologies to Dale

Carnegie for any failure to speak with the degree of interest that would keep

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation from turning his back to the

Chair, with those remarks I will end my speech. Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Personally I have no

trouble with the amendments as they are being put forward, but what I do have

trouble with is making things easier on insurance. The insurance companies are

gouging people all over this Province. The rates are escalating and they are

talking about next spring escalating again.

While the minister is talking about some amendments, I

noticed there the week when he was talking about safe driving, he was

attributing it to inattention, that the people driving are not paying attention.

What I've seen, in different parts of the districts, and people have called me,

is the lack of yellow lines and faded yellow lines. People had no other choice

but to try to keep one eye looking for the yellow line on the highway, and the

other poor eye they have looking for a moose. I would say the minister should

pay a little bit of attention to the lines in the districts. In places in this

Province of ours -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Oh my, poor minister. I will have to use the

words of Winston Churchill on that, Mr. Minister. Never before in the history of

Newfoundland have so many been screwed by so few. That is on that side over

there.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It won't be long now.

MR. CAREEN: It won't be long now. You said that before.

Who did I hear? Oh, that is the Member for Eagle River. He was in a tug of war

this summer and he was kicked off the team for pushing. I will also tell the

Member for Eagle River that the difference between the Premier and Almighty God

is that Almighty God never dreams he is Clyde Wells.

Minister, in all seriousness, I know what you said, because I

questioned you earlier before about yellow lines, and I know that we had

terrible weather this summer. We should make every effort that our roads should

be safe for people to drive on, our own people and strangers alike.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should make every Efford.

MR. CAREEN: Every Efford? We got him, we've every Efford,

and they're all on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freshwater (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Freshwater? No sir. One thing about

Freshwater people is they do not like sooks, mister. I learned lessons going to

school from Grade I to Grade XI, but the best lesson I ever learned was on the

school playground. That a sook got another smack in the head. If there is a

by-election in Placentia I will show you what kind of a smack sooks will get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Anyway, I am not here to waste the time of

the House. The changes I have no qualms with, but we always should - and every

one of us - if we see something that should be reported, we should report stuff

that could be causing trouble to life and limb of anybody who drives over roads.

With that, thank you, Sir.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I have just a couple of short comments, Mr.

Speaker, and probably a question to the minister.

The minister, in outlining the reasons for the bill, in the

explanatory notes, mentioned about the prosecution action resulting from motor