The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today twelve business management students from Keyin Technical College, accompanied by their instructor, Bill Norman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I bring forward the statement today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance in Action on Violence Against Women and the anniversary of the murder of fourteen women at Montreal's École Polytechnique engineering school. This date is a stark reminder of the many women in Newfoundland and Labrador who are beaten, sexually assaulted, and in some cases, murdered, every year. We must also remember that there are many more women in our Province who live in fear of violence every day of their lives.

A study on violence against women conducted by Statistics Canada in 1993 found that one in three Newfoundland and Labrador women reported experiencing physical and/or sexual assault since the age of sixteen. The study also found that only 14 per cent of Canadian women surveyed reported the violent incident to the police, and only 9 per cent sought support from social service agencies.

In commemoration of the women who lost their lives in the Montreal Massacre, and those who are victims of violence in our Province, you will find a display in the main lobby of the East Block and outside the cafeteria of the West Block of Confederation Building which I invite you to visit today. Each display provides a listing of the names of the women who were murdered in Montreal, statistics and press clippings on violence against women, and copies of a bookmark published by Women's Policy Office which provides tips as to how we as individuals can do our part to eliminate violence against women. You will also find buttons at each of these displays which are being used to raise funds for the Provincial Association Against Family Violence.

Some of you may also wish to attend the commemorative program which takes place this evening at Memorial University Engineering Lecture Theatre at 7:30 p.m. The evening will feature a service commemorating the fourteen young women slain in Montreal and a discussion of anti-violence activities to be undertaken by organizations and individuals in the coming year.

As many of you know, last June we announced the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's Provincial Strategy Against Violence. The five-year Strategy, entitled Towards the Year 2000, was developed by the Women's Policy Office and the Departments of Social Services, Health, Justice and Education in consultation with the community. Prevention of violence and the provision of quality service to victims of violence are the two main goals of the Action Plan. Some of the most recent initiatives undertaken by the Strategy's Co-ordinating Team include the establishment of regional co-ordinating committees, the initiation of pilot projects for service delivery, and the development of a public awareness campaign. You may have noticed some of the radio advertising surrounding today's date. A more extensive media campaign will be held in February, which has been designated as Violence Prevention Month.

This is one way government is showing its commitment to eliminating violence against women. At the Provincial Women's Lobby in October, government also committed to becoming better educated on the issue of violence. The Premier has written each government member recommending he or she meet with community groups to learn more about violence against women, and discuss how we may show leadership in raising public awareness. I would encourage all members to do the same.

While we are not responsible for the actions of men who commit violent acts against women, we are responsible for what we say and do every day that hinders equality and encourages violence. As we remember these women today, let us commit to daily actions that we will make a difference in women's lives. Each and every one of us has an important role to play in eliminating violence in our Province, both "Towards the Year 2000" and beyond.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while we mourn the forty young women who were so viciously and cruelly murdered in Montreal, we can best remember them today by dedicating ourselves to remember also that violence against women is happening every day in our communities in our Province and in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I note sadly and with remorse that the violent situations faced by women in our Province has not improved significantly in recent years, as noted by the statistics that the hon. the minister just commented on.

Mr. Speaker, every day, when women are afraid to walk alone, are fearful in their relationships or victims of physical, emotional, sexual or verbal assault, all of us fail in our mandate to more than one-half of the Canadian population. We need to be more supportive, more understanding, more reflective and more compassionate in our outreach, and I commend the minister and this government on the initiatives which they have recently undertaken.

We need to listen attentively to the viewpoints of women, always remembering that the men of tomorrow are the children of today; therefore, we should resolve that our sons and our grandsons see in us, as men, examples of personal security that does not depend on the depreciation of mothers or daughters, or other females.

Mr. Speaker, not to overuse an expression, let me say only that when men are prepared to give back the night, that will be the only time when women are able to take it back. Let us therefore resolve each day in our own lives and remember less the offender and concentrate more on the victims of violence. Only when that happens will we have really helped make the lives of the fourteen young women who died at École Polytechnique more meaningful, and make their lives a positive force for good in our Canadian society.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the minister and the Opposition House Leader in recognizing this day as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

While we note that the public massacre of fourteen women in 1989 was a spectacle of national and international proportions, we have to recognize that the continuing violence against women is a problem that we must seek to eliminate as quickly as possible.

In the last two months, in this city alone, two women were murdered violently in their own homes. As the minister indicated, education is important, but action is equally important.

While, as the minister says, we individually are not responsible for the actions of men who commit violent acts against women, we are responsible as legislators here in this House, and you on that side, as government, are responsible for working towards eliminating the causes and conditions which contribute to violence against women. We must have safer houses, we must have safer streets, and we must have policies which deal with these problems effectively, and I urge us all to recommit ourselves to move forward on these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I omitted to say that I have buttons here to commemorate today's event, and I would like to offer them to the Members of the House of Assembly who are not wearing them.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries' bid to attract Software '98. Software '98 is an annual international conference sponsored by the Information Technology Association of Canada, which brings together information technology executives from around the world. This conference will focus on strategic alliances in the areas of investment, marketing, distribution, research and development, and acquisitions and mergers, all related to the IT sector.

Today, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will join forces with the City of Aberdeen, Scotland in a partnership agreement to support NATI, in conjunction with the Scottish Software Federation, in their efforts to attract this world class event. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Councillor Margaret Farquhar, Lord Provost of Aberdeen City Council as she joins with the Premier in signing this partnership agreement.

This union follows Newfoundland and Labrador's successful participation in Software '96, held in Halifax earlier this year. Over sixteen organizations and twenty-one delegates from the Province attended the conference, which featured an address by Premier Tobin to the Information Technology Association of Canada Board of Governors, which included sixty Presidents and CEO's of major Canadian IT companies.

Mr. Speaker, an event of this magnitude would attract 1,000 delegates from over thirty countries to the City of St. John's, providing the Province with an opportunity for significant spin-off. The budget for the week long event is expected to be in excess of $750,000. This venue will allow us to establish this Province as an Information Technology leader internationally. On behalf of all the hon. members, I commend the Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries on their endeavour and look forward to the future announcement of a successful bid.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I just received the minister's statement. I just read it, and by just listening to the minister we, too, also wish the Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries good luck with their bid. We realize that last year it happened in Halifax and there was quite a good delegation from Newfoundland. I understand the Premier spoke at that particular conference, but it is good in investment and marketing. It helps all business, and also, of course, it is nice to attract such a thing to Newfoundland and Labrador. It shows we are leading the way in that way, and I assume that more people in Newfoundland and Labrador in business will avail of the opportunity to participate when it comes here in 1988. I wish them well, and we hope to see them here in 1988.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today, December 6, to mark the 25th Anniversary of an important event in the history of our Province. On this day in 1971 one of the most colossal and fantastic engineering feats ever realized, the Churchill Falls hydroelectric development, generated its first unit of power to be fed into the continent's North American's energy grid.

Over these twenty-five years, the windfall profit Quebec has reaped from that power has indeed on occasion plagued every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. We have come to view Churchill Falls as a symbol of great injustice and we know that this injustice must be addressed, indeed this government is committed to addressing it. But I stand in this House today not to mark an inequitable arrangement and an unfair deal, but to celebrate the success of a project that stands as a monument to the tenacity, ingenuity, the skill and the extraordinary ability of the people of this Province. On this day, we celebrate an engineering wonder constructed at the hands of 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over five years; completed five months ahead of schedule. The men and women involved came from all over the Province, just as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did, lived and worked in the camps at the Churchill Falls job site and they stayed there until the job was done.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the words of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who often sought to match the endeavours of Canadians with the scope and grandeur of this great country, Canada. Churchill Falls, Trudeau said, was a "testimony of man's desire to see the remote, to explore the hidden, to achieve the difficult. The Churchill Falls project represents for every Canadian in every part of Canada one of those proud achievements in our history; it is a strong beat of the country's adventurous heart."

Well, Mr. Speaker, the challenge that faces us on this 25th anniversary is to address the injustice and the inequity of the Churchill Falls contract -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive their fair share of the benefits of this great development; to resoundingly commemorate the efforts of those 12,000 men and women with a new arrangement, a new contract worthy of their achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this problem cannot and will not go away unless we turn our minds to solving it; unless we muster the same energy and determination that drove those sons and daughters of Newfoundland and Labrador twenty-five years ago. Renegotiation of the Churchill Falls agreement, a rebalance of the sharing of benefits in a fundamental way - not a minor way - is what is needed now. Renegotiation of the agreement can also be the key to unlocking the much further riches of the Churchill Falls River. Downstream from Churchill Falls there are two sites, Gull Island and Muskrat Falls. Together, these sites can produce 3,100 megawatts of power.

It has been estimated that the cost of construction at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls stands at roughly $10 billion, and these developments could create 12,000 person years of work in highly paid engineering and construction jobs. These developments could provide secure and stable power for Labrador, further industrial development in Labrador itself, and indeed further power and development on the Island part of the Province, and they would also yield, in addition to that, significant amounts of new power for exports throughout North America.

This is the choice we face twenty-five years later. We can remain locked in the rigidities of the current contract as it brings the project towards financial collapse, or we can seize as a province this opportunity to address new realities that have come to light and work out an equitable arrangement for now and for the future.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have waited twenty-five years for the injustice of this contract to be addressed. But as we move forward, we must never lose sight of the significance of this project, or the accomplishments of the men and women who built it. I call upon every member of this House in commemorating this occasion to be seized with the determination, the energy, the skill, the will of the men and women who constructed Churchill Falls in attempting to renegotiate this contract.

I make that call on behalf of the generation of young men and women of this Province who were unborn when this contract was negotiated, and, Mr. Speaker, who will retire and have lived their entire lives without any benefit from it unless it is renegotiated. I call upon us to replicate the spirit of those who constructed this magnificent engineering feat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too stand to certainly pay tribute to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the people who worked at that particular site. In fact, an individual from the place where I live gave his life in that area back during the construction days of that particular site. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid the price.

I recently had an opportunity to read this August, The History of Churchill Falls by Philip Smith. It is a very interesting book that outlines the history and development of Churchill Falls, the colossal magnitude here, as the Premier says, of such a venture that included worldwide engineering and technical skills. It was a first. The opportunity today to see such a great project's minimized returns to this Province is shameful, and we have to ensure that we never enter into such a contract again.

The Premier has indicated the opportunities are there, and certainly I support endeavours. I am glad he makes reference to the fact that renegotiation of the agreement can be the key to the unlocking of the future riches of Churchill Falls River, because downstream we have up to 3,100 megawatts of power. When they looked at Churchill Falls, many people said it could not be done. When we look at the Lower Churchill, the tremendous potential, to see hundreds of millions of dollars going out of this Province and we getting a pittance from it. We need to negotiate. We need to sit down. We need winter availability. We should get billions back into this Province, and I think there is a tremendous opportunity for new jobs in the development of the Lower Churchill, tremendous opportunities to look at a whole total package in negotiations with Quebec to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get a return in dividends on a resource that we own; but also, in addition to that, to ensure that we get jobs in the construction, in the design, in the engineering, of that particular project.

I will make a very quick comparison. I think it is important that right now we are on the brink of another tremendous development here in this Province. We must get jobs, smelter and refinery, continued exploration, but we must also get a return of royalty and dividends to the people of this Province. We cannot make the mistakes of the past, but we will work to assist in any endeavours to encourage a look at the overall picture, to get extra revenues and agreements, side agreements on that, so we can be the true beneficiary of our resources, and not another province reaping 95 per cent or 98 per cent of the profits from our resources. That day should be over in our Province, and I endorse efforts that are going to bring about a fair and equitable return to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in recognizing the tremendous feat, the tremendous project, that was Churchill Falls. In doing so, I was one of those young Newfoundlanders who was so proud of the achievement, the greatest industrial engineering project of its time, at that time, in the world, but it was with a bittersweet pride that it was noted because it stands now, unfortunately, as a symbol of the kind of development that takes place and leaves Newfoundlanders behind after the project is finished.

The challenge in this Province today with other developments is not to see them developed - they will be developed because the resources are there - the challenge is to see they are developed in the interest of the people of this Province so that we cease to be a Province with the kind of unemployment we have, the lack of fiscal ability that we have to do the right job.

With respect to the Churchill Falls contract itself, we must continue together to do whatever it is - whatever it is - that can be done to insist that this unfair arrangement be changed. And if the government has any particular initiatives in that regard then we should be all willing to stick our necks out and fight to see that this contract is changed, because it has to be changed if we are going to have pride in ourselves as part of this great country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

Doctor Peter Roberts presented a report to your department on salaried physician service, and in that report he indicates that salaried physician service has become dysfunctional and urgently requires restructuring. He further states that they require a substantial infusion of new resources, and government must define the resources available to support the salaried service. I ask the minister: What have you done to rectify the problems since you received his report, back in July?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report that was done by Dr. Roberts was done at the request of the department to address some of the issues that we are attempting to deal with amongst ourselves, the NLMA, the NHNHA and others, to arrive at probably a more agreeable and more equitable compensation package for salaried physicians. As a result of and subsequent to the receipt of the report, I have had a number of meetings with the leadership, the Executive of the NLMA, Dr. Mike Cohen and his executive group, I have met with some people representing salaried physicians, and we are continuing to work on the issue. It is not an issue however, that can be addressed in isolation of the big picture or the total compensation issues regarding doctors.

The fact of the matter is, we have had in place for five years a joint management agreement that expires next April and covers all the issues to do with that of compensation for doctors. The NLMA's position, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is this: As the hon. member quotes quite accurately, the position of the doctors is that the remedy lies in government putting in new resources, putting in several millions of dollars of new resources. What I have said to the doctors in the Province, through their association, is that, as a Province, we do not have any more money to put into the MCP pot to pay doctors.

The $138 million that we now pay for doctor services in the Province is all we have for the next two years to work with, I have repeatedly said to them I am prepared to discuss rebalancing that pot so as to put more money into the salaried physicians' portion of it but, the position of the doctors, quite frankly is that, no, we need to put $4 million to $5 million of new money in, not touch the fee for service pot, increase the money that is in the salary pot and I have had to say to them quite frankly, quite honestly and quite openly, that is not on, we do not have the extra resources. We will work with what we have to the best extent we can and we will seek to get their assistance to re-allocate money as best we think, with their co-operation as appropriate to deal with the salaried issue.

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister referred to the NLMA. I had a release yesterday and they are extremely concerned with the delays here. And just recently, the Chair at the salaried physician negotiations, in his statement to all salaried physicians stated that, physician recruitment and retention is in crisis in this Province. Not only are there insufficient funds in the system to fill the eighty unfilled positions, but MCP projections show that the funds currently allocated for the filled salaried positions will run out before the end of this fiscal year.

Now, will the minister admit that his department is not actively pursuing recruitment for the more than eighty unfilled positions in this Province, because there is not even enough funds to meet the commitments on the ones that are already filled?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have always had in the Province, unfortunately, a number of unfilled physicians in rural Newfoundland primarily in the primary care side of it and in some of the specialties in some specialty areas as well.

Our intent, our ongoing activity through the health care boards and now through there, the eight boards central recruiting agency is to continue to actively recruit doctors for the Province so that to the best extent possible, we can fill vacancies as they occur and address vacancies that have been historically in existence for many, many years. But in terms of new resources, we have to work within the allocation of $138 million that we have in the MCP budget, and I say to the hon. member, it is simply not on to say we must continue to add new dollars to the system to pay doctors more and more. If we get more and more, we have to work with the dollars we have, and there is no point in saying: Yes, we can find money in another part of the Budget.

The fact is the health care budget is on a very, very, tight rein and we are having difficulties in all of the areas of the health care sector, to address all of the needs that come forward and this is one area where we are being challenged daily to insure that we have the appropriate number of doctors, that we can get the job done in the context of the existing resources we have.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, MCP is projecting there is not enough there to pay the ones that are already filled.

In many instances, boards have to hire doctors to come in and do locums in areas where there are no doctors or doctors not available. Now, sometimes they will pay that full daily salary, that specific amount and, in addition, in some instances, transportation, accommodations, and meals. Now, does the minister realize that finding doctors to do locums is putting extra strain on those boards, not only in manpower effort but also in a direct cost? Can the minister tell this House how much money is spent annually on locums?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member is not too far off when he says that we pay locums through our boards, pay doctors monies to come in and do locums. The fact of the matter is that salaried doctors, like most other people who work for salary for government, work under basically some terms and conditions that are set out in agreements that we have in their contracts.

The basis for salaried physician contracts is really what is known in the medical community as the Blue Book. It is sort of the contract, if you like, that we have with doctors. The fact of the matter is that sometimes doctors who work what they are prescribed to work, as per their contract in their board jurisdiction, do go outside of their board jurisdiction to cover-off shortages of services on weekends and that sort of thing, in other board jurisdictions.

I am the first to agree that we would be better served budgetwise, if we could come to an arrangement with the salaried doctors so that the boards could probably employ them within their own board jurisdiction rather than having them cross over board jurisdictions on weekends, meeting each other on the highway to cover-off locums. But the situation at the moment is that the contract we have with them, the Blue Book parameters that we work within, allows this to happen. We are addressing that issue in the bigger context of all of the other issues that have to do with salaried physicians and we hope we can sort that out to the best advantage of not only the budgets of the board but also to the best advantage of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - working arrangements with the doctor but more importantly than anything, to ensure that we have better health care services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am glad the minister does realize and made a statement that possibly there are monies being used inefficiently because of this and he mentioned that they are looking at it. I did ask, does he have a figure on how much of these inefficiencies are in the system, it is certainly important that we know that.

Now, doctors who go out to rural areas to do locums, I say to the minister, they are generally not familiar with the area, the patients and their history. Now, this often, too, results in extra costs because they order more tests. They have to do more referrals because they want to follow a cautious approach and we certainly cannot blame them for that. Now, has the minister evaluated what impact this has on the resources within our system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologise for not completing my answer to the previous question.

To the question of how much money is being spent in locums and extra expenses within boards, not only for locums but providing other things to doctors such as assistance with housing and that sort of thing, I am happy to report to him that I wrote all of the institutional boards just last week and asked them to provide that information, specifically and quickly to the NHNHA so that we would have the benefit of that knowledge, to see what we are spending on other areas of compensation in addition to the $28 million salary figure that we know is there. So that information is being correlated and should be available to me within the next few days for the NHNHA.

To the other question, yes, it would be better, obviously, if patients could have access to a doctor ongoing, who has a full knowledge of their file and their case history. The fact of the matter is that from time to time we do have turnovers in doctors in rural areas which causes people to have to see new physicians and we do have doctors coming in on locums that people have to be familiar with. That is not a circumstance that lends necessarily, to bad health care but it would be better and I think a more user-friendly environment for doctors and patients if they could have a more ongoing and historical relationship with each other.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: When will he release the report that was done on the peninsula's health care board?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I already answered that question earlier this week. I won't be releasing the report on the health care board that was done on the Peninsula's health care board. That report was done, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, at the request of and for the Peninsula's health care board. At what point they deem it appropriate to release the full content of the report, I am sure they will proceed to do so, but the fact of the matter is that they released the twelve recommendations that came forward from it, indicated clearly they are moving forward to implement them and I believe that is an appropriate course of action to follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Of course, my department was represented on the committee. It would be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: What am I hiding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my preamble today, I would just like to mention that it is good timing with the Churchill Falls, when talking about that, Mr. Speaker, that we talk about Voisey's Bay. Of course, we do not want to make the same mistakes, and we want to make sure there is no stone unturned in covering every angle with respect to Voisey's Bay. So I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy a few more question.

Yesterday, in my questions to the minister, I wanted him to confirm the numbers for copper production capacity in the Voisey's Bay operation. Inco reported in their own documents some 250 million pounds in their operation. Of course, the one from Argentia on Voisey's Bay reported again with some 200 million pounds, so it seems the numbers change. Will the minister tell us what his figures are for the annual copper production from Voisey's Bay, and if they differ from Inco, and to prove it, will the minister commit to table in the House the head assays on Inco's-Voisey's Bay copper find?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are leaving no stone unturned, and we are leaving no rock unturned, absolutely no rock unturned, to ensure that we get the maximum benefits from this development, absolutely none. A year ago in this Assembly we brought in an amendment to the Mineral Act that stated we are economically feasible in the future - further processing will be done in this Province of any rock that is turned in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: We did that about a year ago, and that is the standard that we work by with any resource, whether it is the nickel from Voisey's Bay, the copper, the cobalt, the antimony from Gander Lake, or any other resource in this Province. That is the standard that we work by. Where it is economically feasible, it is going to be done right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are insisting on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: In that regard, for the first time in our history, 499 years since Cabot, the first time in our history we are going to have a nickel smelter and refinery in this Province, smelting material in this Province, including copper. Copper is going to be done as part of that. Twenty per cent of the copper is going to be done as part of that. It is a going to be a world class refinery project, the biggest in the Western world, the most economical and up-to-date in the Western world, year 2000 technology, the cleanest in the world. That is what we are insisting on as a result of this development. We are going to get the maximum developments.

Now, if the hon. member wants me to table some analysis of the ore from Voisey's Bay, I happen to have that with me today, and I will table it when I finish with it. Right now, in the ovoid, 32 million tons and the grade of nickel was 2.83 per cent, the grade of copper is 1.68, and the cobalt is .12 per cent; that is for the first five to six years of this development.

The grade in the eastern digs for the first 50 million tons is 1.36 per cent nickel, 0.67 per cent copper, and 0.09 per cent cobalt. Nickel is exactly two times copper in the first 50 million tons and that number will obviously vary over time as we find out more, but that is the amount. In the eastern digs for 270 million pounds of nickel you are going to get 135 million pounds of copper. Already 36 million pounds of copper are going to be produced in the smelter and refinery at Argentia, so that leaves about 100 million pounds, about 50 kilotons of copper that will go elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

DR. GIBBONS: I am pleased to table the assays from Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon the Member for Baie Verte on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I congratulate you on the nickel smelter refinery for Argentia. I took that on, on advice from the Premier, on congratulating him on the nickel smelter refinery for Argentia. Now, let us deal with the question I just asked. I knew that the minister today would have the assays and I asked that they be tabled so we would have proof. We have been battered around with different -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I want to ask the minister: Who else besides Inco - and, of course, they are interested in their shareholders - who else has the minister assurance from besides Inco that it is not feasible for a copper refinery in Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my department has some expertise in mining and geology and have done some research on this issue. They is monitoring it and doing more research. We are working with the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology in doing economic analyses of this particular issue. So we are studying the issue. I would say to the hon. member, he shouldn't let copper go to his head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: We are going to assess (inaudible) we get the maximum benefits from this development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I want to remind the minister that the copper top keeps going and going and going, so I will continue to ask questions on the copper availability.

I say to the minister, in all sincerity, these are information questions to be sure that a refinery smelter is not - and the reason for the questions is to be 100 per cent sure, not 99 per cent like Churchill Falls, that it isn't feasible to have a refinery in this Province. I say that to the minister in all sincerity. That is why I asked the questions on the assays and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear in the second part of the question on the assays, could the minister confirm that he said 135 million pounds from your assays? I couldn't hear you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. member that the copper top keeps beating the same old drum.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are on top of this, we are going to stay on top of it, we are going to guarantee to the greatest extent possible we get the maximum benefits from Voisey's Bay. But where it is not economically feasible we are not going to insist on it. Because, as the hon. member's Leader said a little earlier today, we want to get some royalties from Voisey's Bay as well, we want to get some taxes from Voisey's Bay as well. So we don't want a subsidy of an uneconomic venture that is going to drag down the other benefits that we are going to get. We want the maximum benefits to us in this Province from this venture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I continue to beat the same drum, and the minister keeps singing the same tune about nickel. I am not asking about nickel. I congratulated you on that already, I say to the minister. He said 135 million pounds. Kidd Creek just outside Timmins, Ontario also has a copper refinery with about the same - the numbers are being batted around by Inco, but about the same capacity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I am asking the minister to confirm it. Is the capacity anywhere near the same for Kidd Creek as it is for Voisey's Bay, and so therefore would it not be as feasible for a refinery in Labrador, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a little bit of what I have said. We are refining nickel, we are refining cobalt, we are refining, projected by the company, about 36 million pounds of copper per year in association with that. That is leaving over only about 100 million pounds, leaving over only about 50,000 tons of copper to go elsewhere. There are no copper smelters in the world being built on that scale today. The Kidd Creek smelter that the hon. member refers to annually produces about 130,000 tons of copper. That is already about two-and-a-half times the size of what would be required to do the copper from Voisey's Bay that is left over. It is not economical to do a small smelter refinery. Other smelters in Canada - referring to the one in Horne, Quebec, it is producing 240,000 tons of copper anodes a year. That is five times as much. So you have to look at the economics of this, not just the economics of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just economics in Canada, but you have to look at the international economics. In this particular case we are looking at the international economics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the hon. the Premier. Does the Premier know if North Star Cement is on the bidder's list and therefore a candidate for consideration for the supply of cement for the grouting operating and the joining process which will bring together the Hibernia topsides and GBS?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, North Star Cement is not on that list. A few years ago when their cement was tested, they did not qualify in terms of a quality of material for the gravity-based structure. Then they were not considered for the two-and-a-half thousand tons that are going to be required for the grouting of the structure when it goes to the ocean floor.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are right, Mr. Minister, on the fact that during the GBS project, their cement was not of the quality for that particular project, but Northstar is a manufacturer of quality cement. They are a local company, and they are quite capable of producing the cement that is required for this particular process.

Does the minister or the Premier feel that they have the responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that this Newfoundland company is put on the bidder's list and given every opportunity to bid on this process for this particular project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have already done that. We did it the previous time when they were on the list and got considered. Their product got evaluated. They were part of the process, with any other cement producer in Canada or anywhere else that was asked. I, personally, have met with Hibernia management on this issue. I have had discussions on it with representatives of Northstar, and they have had detailed discussions with the company on the issue, and I think everybody understands the particular situation we are in today relative to this contract.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I spoke with an official of Northstar yesterday, I say to the minister, and they feel that they do have the quality of cement that is required for this particular process. They feel that they have been locked out of the bidding process for this particular project. They were not even permitted to have their cement tested for this particular project. The specifications now - they are looking at a company from Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Does the minister feel he has the responsibility to do anything and everything possible to ensure that Northstar's cement is at least tested and that they are given the opportunity to be considered for this particular project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this in great detail with the company, with Hibernia management. I have had Hibernia management in my own boardroom to review this particular issue. Hibernia management had Northstar at the site the day before yesterday going over this in great detail themselves, assessing this. At this stage, there is not adequate time to test a new cement for this particular project, not adequate time at all. If all other things were started today, it could not be done in that time frame.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services.

In order for child protection services to be effective, case workers must be able to work closely and consistently with families and school personnel. Case workers must be able to see a case through and do the necessary follow-up. Turnover in personnel was a common complaint heard by teenagers and others in care during the public hearing process of the Select Committee on Children's Interests. What initiatives has the minister taken to reduce the turnover in child protection personnel? And has she been able to follow up on the commitments she made last Spring in the House on that issue?

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

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

As my hon. colleague knows, there are a number of issues which may cause turnover of social workers on the front lines. One of those might be the obvious reason, where people leave or are transferred from one section to another. Of course, the other very obvious way is through the bumping process, as part of the collective agreements that we have with the various unions.

Based on the principle of seniority, members are allowed to bump throughout the system. This has been a historical relationship, and unless you are suggesting that through collective bargaining the whole issue and concept of seniority be addressed and eliminated, until such time, that is the process which we have to follow with our front-line employees.

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

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

Madam Minister, on November 27 of this year you received a letter from the Principal of St. Bernard's Primary School in Witless Bay. In that letter the principal indicates there have been five changes in the child protection personnel servicing that school in the past eight months. How can the services of the department be effective, compassionate, and have the expectation of success, when there is no continuity in a child protection team.

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

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

I have said before, in this House, that as a Department of Social Services we are very concerned about the quality of care that we provide to our children and to our other residents but I am very confident in the quality of work that is being provided by social workers. While there may be many reasons why people are transferred or why they are moved, personal choice is certainly a very obvious reason, we do stand by the quality of our front line staff. We will do whatever we can to work within the parameters that are set down to try to eliminate those interruptions in continuity but we are bound by a collective agreement and we are bound by an individual's choice who may want to leave. I think we would all agree that if someone asks for a transfer or wants to move from a very difficult and challenging area to another, I think in the best interest of everyone we often try to comply with those requests. It is a concern, I will not say it is not but we do have a set of parameters by which we have to work within.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the public hearing process we did last year, we had comments made that while one part of the system was saying to children don't talk to strangers, at the same time these young children say that strangers are often the social workers because they change every month. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister would she do an investigation in the situation at a turnover at the child protection workers at the St. Bernard's Primary School on Witless Bay? Will the minister assure the House that that investigation will be done promptly? Will she commit herself to try to address these kinds of issues as they come to her attention, very promptly because we remind the minister that it is young children, it is a primary school and the integrity of the process depends on continuity of the people who serve these young children?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through our processes which we have ongoing right now through our program reviews, through the Social Policy Advisory Committee, from the report on the Select Committee of Children's Interests, these issues have been raised time and time again. I will commit to the House and to the member sitting across the House, that we will work within the parameters which we have to work within. We will try to maintain quality care that we have established in the front lines and we are looking at every single component of how we deliver services to children, to families and to the citizens of the Province. So in that respect I will commit to do that.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In March of 1997, the five year moratorium on the commercial Atlantic salmon fishery will end. Will the minister inform the House what his recommendations will be to his cousins up in Ottawa as it relates to fishing this particular species?

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

MR. EFFORD: Keep conservation a number one priority in making any future decisions, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like an answer he gave us on the crab quota a couple of months ago.

Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly on Tuesday the minister indicated that he is satisfied that a recreation salmon fishery will build the economy of the Province. He did not mention the commercial salmon fishery. I would like to ask the minister if he is going to be bringing in a recreational salmon fishery quota or will a commercial salmon fishery quota also be part of that recommendation?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this Province who would like to see a full recovery of all species of fish any more than I personally would. I grew up in a fishing community. I know how important it is to the survival of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador but on all species of fish, until we are totally satisfied that there is enough sufficient stocks to have a commercial fish harvest, whether it is cod, whether it is caplin, whether it is salmon, whether it is lobster, we will make no recommendations until we are satisfied the resources are sufficient to have a commercial fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister, if it is not going to be an option for the commercial salmon fishery to be returned, will those people - and I think there are approximately 100 in Newfoundland and approximately 213 in Labrador - will it be possible for those people to take part in another licence buy-back?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, any decision on a licence buy-back will have to be a decision that will have to be discussed with the federal Minister of Fisheries, DFO, the federal Government of Canada, to see if there is enough money.

I would like to ask the hon. Member for Bonavista South: Are you recommending a commercial salmon fishery in 1997?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome thirty-five students from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Steve Hurley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Labour, I am pleased to table today the report of the environmental assessment for the Newfoundland Trans-Shipment Terminal Project. You can tell by the weight and volume of the report that we expected only to be exceeded by the weight and volume of oil going through the trans-shipment terminal. On behalf of my colleague, I would commend it to members of the House for weekend reading, particularly the Leader of the Opposition so he does not further embarrass himself with questions like he was asking yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do this all in one brief statement, that we entertain Motions 2 to 7, the first reading of some bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3 to 7.

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

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce the following bills, carried:

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

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province". (Bill No. 48)

On motion, Bills 27 and 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce the following bills, carried:

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act". (Bill No. 49)

On motion, Bills 31 and 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act And The Liquor Corporation Act," carried. (Bill No. 50)

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday when we adjourned the House we were at second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", (Bill No. 42), Order No. 16.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Bonavista South adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to drag this bill on much longer as far as my few comments on it, but there were a couple of concerns that I wanted to raise, and I raised some of them to the minister yesterday.

Another item in this particular bill is the snow clearing of roads. I do not know if this is an opening whereby the Department of Works, Services and Transportation now will be flogging off their responsibility; instead of just going into communities and ploughing roads that are deemed local roads, to pass them on back to communities. I have seen this happen in my own district last year whereby, because of a community council being unable to support the cost of maintaining their local roads, the people in the community, seniors and students alike, were left for the whole winter without their roads cleared. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation cleared the main road down through the community, and all the other local roads in that particular community were left unploughed, unsalted, unattended to for the whole winter.

So I do not know if this is another example, Mr. Speaker, whereby now, through this particular bill, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation sees fit to get out of snow clearing in communities, plow the main road, open up the main thoroughfares and make community councils and town councils responsible for - I think town councils are responsible for their local roads now, but, Mr. Speaker, certainly, local service districts and community councils have not taken responsibility for this particular service, and if that is allowed to happen, then there will certainly be a severe downloading of expenses and costs passed on to communities and for the most part, to most of the residents in those particular communities who will not be able to afford this.

The elections, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good move by the minister, to move the elections back from November to September. It is a time that will give new councillors coming in and it is not uncommon and I do not think you will see it uncommon in the future, whereby you will see wholesale changes in municipal elections. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, you have six councillors and the mayor coming forward probably having no thoughts or no idea of what the budget process is and what is entailed in that, and they should certainly be allowed some extra time in order to be made aware of what the rules and regulations of the municipalities act want them to carry out and they should have time to bring in a budget that fairly and clearly reflects the responsibility of the town.

Right now, I think the elections are held on the first Tuesday or the second Tuesday of November, budgets have to be in prior to the new year, and usually, Mr. Speaker, come December month, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is calling: get your budget in, we want your budget, get it in prior to the deadline, and this puts pressure if you would, and puts an unfair chore, Mr. Speaker, on elected councillors at such an early stage in their mandate.

Fire-fighters, the minister mentioned fire-fighters in responding to emergencies. Mr. Speaker, responding to emergencies by volunteer fire-fighters is nothing new in rural Newfoundland. This has been going on for years. What you will find is, local volunteer fire-fighters responding to all kinds of emergencies, whether it is someone lost in the bushes or someone lost on a fishing expedition, whether it is a boat, Mr. Speaker, a boat fire or people who are lost out boating; whether it is someone involved in an auto accident, volunteer fire-fighters, Mr. Speaker, respond to all those calls. Most of them are trained in first aid, some are probably not, and I think it might be a good idea for the minister to encourage all volunteer firemen to be trained in first aid. I think that is an excellent thought and that is in the legislation, but I remind the minister once again, that there is a cost involved in that as well, and if we are going to train fire-fighters, then somebody is expected to pay the bill for providing that particular training.

Most of our municipal councils and all of our fire departments today, Mr. Speaker, are certainly cash strapped, and I always admire firemen for going out and putting forward so much time and effort in protecting people's lives and properties. I have always admired them, Mr. Speaker, even after doing all that and taking part in that exercise and, Mr. Speaker, being available for emergencies, taking part in training programs, having their regular meetings, then going out and doing fund-raising.

Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Bingo games and the lottery booths are filled with volunteer firemen, earning money to put back into their community, to buy a fire-truck, to buy firehose or to buy another piece of equipment. It never ceases to amaze me, so that is one group of individuals, Mr. Minister, that if something can be done to help them financially and to encourage them to continue to be involved, then we should do that. I spoke about it yesterday and the minister said no, and I would like clarification when he gets up to speak. Because it is my understanding that a volunteer fire chief in a community is not allowed to offer himself for council. That is my understanding. If that is incorrect then the minister should certainly change that.

Because I know of two communities, Mr. Speaker, where volunteer firemen have refused to offer themselves for council, good firemen, would make good councillors, because they were of the impression that they couldn't offer themselves, they had to make a choice, one or the other. In many cases in rural Newfoundland you will find there is only a certain number of people who are going to take part in volunteer work anyway. You will find that the Lion's Club members and the Kinsmen members and the fire department members and the town council members and the Knights of Columbus members are all the same people. The minister knows what I'm talking about. He's from Carbonear, not a great urban town. He knows what I'm talking about and he came up through the process of being on council himself. He knows exactly what I'm referring to. If that is there, if it is true that those particular individuals are not now allowed to serve and become part of their town councils, then I think that should be changed, and I think it should be changed and implemented as soon as possible.

Firemen as well in unincorporated communities. Not all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are incorporated. Not all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador want to be part of a town council or a community council or a local service district, but a lot of people have seen a need for a fire department. They have come together, they have recognized the need, they have met as a group, and they have gone out and raised funds on their own to build fire halls, to buy and make fire trucks, to buy equipment. It seems to me that it is certainly unfair for those particular volunteer firemen in an area that is unincorporated to be treated any differently than volunteer firemen living in an area that wanted or needed a town council or a community council or a local service district. Those firemen should be treated the same as everybody else.

When those particular fire departments apply for funding through government they should be entitled to 75-25 funding. Now they aren't. When they form a fire department, and if they meet the specifications as put forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in order to have them incorporated or organized I suppose, if you would, and a constitution drafted, then why shouldn't they be entitled to receive personal liability, and be protected when they go out and risk their lives to take part in protecting the people and the property in their own particular communities as well as others?

Some of those fire departments apply and take part in mutual aid as well. There is no problem there, I suppose, because from my understanding, if you are part of an incorporated town and you call somebody else to help you in case of an emergency, then the fire chief or the person in charge of that particular scene can ask anybody to provide help, and they are going to be automatically protected by whatever protection is provided the regular fire fighters. That is in effect today. But those same individuals, reacting on their own to an emergency, are not covered. I ask the minister if he would consider those firemen.

I have one fire department that is very active, very conscientious, well trained, doing a good job, in an unincorporated community in my district. I'm sure that there must be others. Those are people who rally to the cause, saw a need, came and responded, and are providing yeomen's services. But they are forgotten about as far as the government of the day putting anything back to help them financially or to protect them should they be involved in an accident.

Well, this act will take the act of suing and making them responsible away, and I would imagine, Mr. Minister, that that would probably relate to people in unincorporated communities as well. When you talk about volunteer firemen, I suppose, it will not only be people or firemen for incorporated towns, but that particular liability will be relieved from all firemen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask you to make that a little clearer than it is in the act because it is not clear to me.

Those are some of the things that I put forward as some suggestions as it relates to this piece of legislation. For the most part it is a good piece of legislation, but if we are going to go and take away services from communities, like snow clearing and road upgrading, ploughing and sanding, if we are going to take away those services, and again download them onto communities, I can assure you we are going to have problems out there, because most of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today cannot afford to pay anymore than they are already paying.

It is hard enough to collect money as it is, but if we impose any more responsibilities I fear we are not going to see a lot of good people come out and offer themselves to serve their towns, and to serve their communities, as it relates to being part of a community council or a town council. There is more to being a town councillor or a mayor than taking people to court and collecting bills. There has to be a little bit of satisfaction there as well in order to reach out and help your community. There has to be some satisfaction there, and the government should provide that. If we are going to go and expect people to serve in a local form of government, and to me that is the most important form of government, that is your first step, your municipal town councils, and if we are going to go -

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I was the Mayor of my town I say to the member opposite, and it was probably the proudest moment I ever felt when I got elected mayor in my own particular town. It is only a small town of 700 people, but it was my home town and we did very well. You know very well, and you can see we got some things there, in that particular town, that a lot of the bigger centres do not have.

In the term when I was there we erected a new fire hall, a new municipal building, went out and erected two new municipal parks. We went and erected a war memorial, and put in a small marina, but this was because government was there at the time and if they saw a need, if you could convince them that they were responsible, and you were paying your bills, then they reacted by giving you some money to go out and be able to do those things.

Mr. Speaker, that is where the encouragement came from, but I would not run for municipal council today, I say to members opposite. I would not offer myself today to only be able to maintain what is in your community and have to go and take people to court to collect taxes, and to be there forever with your hand out, you owe, you owe, you owe. There has to be a little bit more encouragement.

I know we are living in hard times, I know we are living in difficult times, and the cadillac water and sewer systems may be a thing of the past, and rightly so, for some communities rightly so because, I think, things could have been done a little bit different, but in those days when you only had to pay back 25 per cent of your gross revenue to government why would you be concerned? It was a matter of applying, getting whatever you can, put in the cadillac water and sewer system, and whether it cost you $2 million or whether it cost you $500 wasn't an issue because you wanted to keep up with the rest of the towns.

That has changed, and it should change. In fact it was late changing, because there are a lot of ways out in Newfoundland and Labrador today where we can have water and sewer services without putting in cadillac water and sewer systems. A prime example, an example that the minister is very well aware of, is down in Plate Cove East in my district, a community of, I think, twenty-two households there that were hooked up to the water service. They put in a water system, a cadillac water system that cost $750,000.

It was very hard to collect funding from the other people in the community because they did not avail of the services. The services did not extend to their houses. It was not an option for them so naturally they were not paying because they had to go and dig their own artesian wells, provide their own pipelines, their own pumps and whatever else it took to provide them with a water supply.

So you had twenty-two houses, twenty-two home-owners paying - I don't know what the charge was, it was very minimal - to try and pay off this $750,000 bill. It was impossible. As breakdowns occurred and as leaks occurred it was just left. It was patched up to make it work. It finally got to the point where all the automatic systems had disappeared altogether and this one particular person in the community would have to get up every morning, go to the pump house, turn the pump on and when he saw this big reservoir upon the highest hill in the community, when he would see the water flowing over the top of the reservoir he would go down and shut off the pump. That is the way it worked and it was working that way for years. No chlorine, no automatic cutout, no automatic water stop when the water reached a certain point in the reservoir. When it flowed out over the top he would go down and cut it off. I don't know what would have happened to that particular community if that one person had found a job somewhere else and his job -

MR. TULK: Where was this?

MR. FITZGERALD: - that was Plate Cove East, I say to the House Leader.

But anyway it got to the point where government said they were not going to spend any more money on this particular system. It got to the point, Mr. Speaker, where I was continually over talking to the minister and we would look at other options, other ways of doing things whereby we could provide them with a water supply. We had a couple of public meetings. Finally the people in that particular community said: Look we have to be realistic here. We cannot afford to repair. We cannot afford to pay for this particular system and we are only being pulled and dragged down further and further because the interest rates are being tacked on. We are paying interest on the interest. It was only six months ago that we met - I went down and met with them and there was a representative there from the minister's department, lay it on the line. They said, `You're right. We cannot afford it, cut it off.' By this time they owed Newfoundland Power something like $18,000. We cannot even afford to pay the light bill. So they went and pulled the switch. They cut off their water supply.

The sad part about it was that you had people calling, Mr. Speaker, who were seniors. You had people calling you who were seniors that were not able to go out and get an artesian well done. They were not able to call a contractor from Pouch Cove or from out around Carbonear to come and put an artesian well in for them. In some cases it was seniors living alone, one income, one seniors cheque maintaining a household. Then they turned off the power - and I think I had probably two phone calls after that because people realized that they were unable to pay the bills. They were unable to continue having the service that they had there but, Mr. Speaker, we should ask ourselves, was it fair to have given it to them in the first place? Was it fair to have gone out to a little community like Plate Cove East, put in a water supply there that everybody knew they could not afford? It was given to them because the politics of the day was that you get what you can, don't worry about paying for it and when the time comes the government will look after us.

Mr. Speaker, some of that has changed and it is time for it to have change. I say to the minister, it is time for that to change. We have to start living within our means but by living within our means does not mean to say that we have to take everything, all funding, away from all communities. I think the communities that are out there today that are responsible, that are making an effort to pay, Mr. Speaker, they should be given some encouragement. Good counsellors should be encouraged, good people should be encouraged, to come out and offer themselves for council. The only way to do it is to give them some initiative to offer themselves, knowing that they can do some good to their communities. It is not going to be brought about by taking away snow clearing services, it is not going to be brought about by putting in big demands, making them responsible. You should make them responsible, but they shouldn't be responsible for paying all the bills from the few taxpayers in some of those communities. I think we should maintain clearing the local roads in the area. I think we should maintain providing snow clearing services. Maybe the MOGs should be changed from the way that they are presently structured today. Because the base rate of the municipal operating grants I think is higher than it should be. The ceiling is much higher than it should be. Many of those people out there cannot afford to pay the - what is the base, minister, $347 before the government kicks in? Many people out there today cannot afford to pay that. I think some of that can be changed.

I say to the minister opposite, the members opposite, that if you don't fully understand the municipal operating grants you can get the Member for Humber Valley to explain them to you, because he did a good job in explaining the municipal operating grants to us at one time. Don't be one bit bashful. He knows how they work. He knows how to get up and explain them and tell you exactly what the responsibilities of communities are. That being a little on the side of what this bill is all about, a light moment.

I say to the minister, if he would address some of those issues, because they are answers I would like to know, especially the fire fighting ones as it relates to unincorporated communities. I would certainly appreciate it, and I look forward to his reply before he closes debate. With that, I will hand it over to my colleague for Baie Verte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues opposite for the short debate, but then making some very important points, especially the Member for Bonavista South.

Maybe the most important part that at least I see of this particular bill in changes is the fact that now fire fighters can respond to other than fire calls. If we remember back some two years ago, the question of a qualified fire fighter who has CPR and other medical courses living in, especially, smaller parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, not being able to respond to a call by a person who, say, is having a heart attack, because the law basically restricted a fire fighter from going and administering CPR to somebody in an emergency situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Good Samaritan (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: The Good Samaritan rule. The law basically didn't cover - if anything happened, and the family after - I'm making these comments because there are some students who are in the gallery - the family after sued that particular person for doing something that he shouldn't have done, then we felt that maybe there should be some legislation that would allow for that.

It is quite easy if you are living in C.B.S. because you have ambulatory services in C.B.S, if you are living in St. John's or Mount Pearl or Corner Brook, because the service is there. If you are living out in Bonavista Bay or Trinity Bay and there aren't services available, you pick up the phone and you call an ambulance, the ambulance could be a half-an-hour to an hour away from your home. Knowing that across the road is a volunteer firemen who has probably got CPR and other medical education, why not let that person come and at least administer some help to keep the person stabilized until an ambulance or a doctor can arrive to continue? This piece of legislation as far as I'm concerned is probably the most important part of the number of changes that we are making to the Municipalities Act.

I do say quite honestly that there is a section in the act, and I refer to the comment made, whether fire chiefs or firemen are allowed to sit on council. There are fire chiefs sitting on numerous councils all over the Province right now. The problem is not running for council, the problem is actually getting elected to council. When you get elected as a fire chief to council then you have to ask, because of the irregularities in the legislation, if you are allowed to sit, because you are the fire chief, and then council has to ask the minister if you are allowed to sit. But we have never turned anyone down. In the number of enquiries we have had in the last four years since I have been minister, where there has been a fire chief wishing to run for council in any community, we have always said: You go right ahead, but here is what you have to do if you get elected.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can we change that in order to (inaudible)?

MR. A. REID: Yes, it will be changed in the new Act.

MR. FITZGERALD: There is a lot of time and effort put into trying to get on council, and to get there, not knowing if (inaudible) will accept your being a councillor.

MR. A. REID: That is right. We have not turned down one, not that I can remember. Even before me, I do not think we have ever turned down a fire chief or a fireman. I do not know of any that I can recall, but you are absolutely right.

As the hon. member realizes, there is going to be a new Municipalities Act. It probably would have been in the House this Fall, except for the fact that we have run into a number of areas of conflict in CBS, for example, that we have to change. There are a number of other changes that we want to make.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) for years; (inaudible) was fire chief.

MR. A. REID: Yes, there are a number of areas that we want to change in the new Act, so hopefully, in the Spring of next year or the Fall, we will have a new Municipalities Act and this will be addressed in that Act.

I do, by the way, appreciate the fact that the hon. the Member for Bonavista South made a comment that this minister will, on occasion, do certain favours for members opposite. I do not like to let my buddies on this side know that I am doing very much for you, but I occasionally do small things to assist you - not necessarily to assist you but to assist the people you represent. There are good projects in all parts of the Province and, quite honestly, even though we sometimes argue and get at odds with each other over certain things, I think at the end of the day, all of us have to admit that we are all basically in here for the one thing, and that is to serve the people we represent.

I will say, in closing, that all of these particular changes, and we have talked to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, we have talked to the fire fighters association as well as NLAMA, and we have done a fair amount of consultation around the Province with communities - Mount Pearl, for one example, Bonavista for another - that basically have asked for a number of these changes. So this is not something that has been created in my department. It is something for which municipalities have been asking for years.

MR. FITZGERALD: Before you sit down, Minister, can you (inaudible) situation whereby fire departments and fire-fighters in unincorporated communities - are you considering allowing them to be able to access the liability or the workers' compensation that is available to incorporated fire-fighting (inaudible)?

MR. A. REID: That is another bill that will be introduced to this House in the next few days. The answer is: Yes, it will be, but that is another bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 42)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 17, Bill No. 41, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act". I would imagine this will take five or six hours of debate.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 41)

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the House yesterday, a number of these bills are duplicates of other bills. This particular one is a duplicate of the St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act that we did yesterday in the House. It has to be introduced separately because the City of Mount Pearl has a separate Act. We have already dealt with, in the two or three previous Acts, the provision for the term of offices of councillors, the new date for elections being September. Clause 2, in regard to liability for nuisances, we dealt with that in the St. John's Act. Clause 3, snow clearing and road maintenance, we dealt with that in the previous Municipalities Act, and the time for elections of four years we have done.

We have already discussed this one in previous bills. I don't know if anyone wishes to make a comment.

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

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

I want to make a few comments relative to Bill 41. I was going to keep it relatively short but after the intimidating comments by the Government House Leader, now I feel almost compelled to give one of my long-winded, drawn out speeches on it. I see the galleries filling up and so on and so forth, and the minister tells me here to keep on going for a while. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments.

On the issue of councillors taking office within two weeks of being elected, we all agree that is a reasonable thing to do. However, it could take place, as the minister says, prior to the expiration of that time if the old council and new council make an agreement on the swearing in.

Mr. Speaker, on the liability for nuisances, I want to say to the Government House Leader that the issue here is really one of trying to give municipalities some protection. I made comments on that the other day when I was talking about other parts of this legislation. Because the truth of the matter is, if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had not put forward some legislation thus far, we would have had no need to meet this Fall because, now he tells us we have already done five or six pieces and he tells us there is, at least, a couple more he wants to get in now under the wire. So I can see that his Legislative agenda for the autumn was well researched and prepared; however, we had been waiting for the whole new Municipalities Act, and while these things are important that we are doing now, they essentially are housekeeping measures and he is supposed to be doing a total revision of the Municipalities Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. That is a commitment he gave to the Federation of Municipalities a year-and-a-half ago. They have had consultations with the federation.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). When he comes back, I will give him the hob-nailed boots.

MR. J. BYRNE: Repeat that again.

MR. H. HODDER: He should be doing a whole new Municipalities Act and my hon. the critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis is well aware of the discussions there. So what we are doing here really, is doing some preliminary measures to get the minister through until the Municipalities Act as has been promised. And I just remind the Government House Leader that we have been promised that Act now for about three years, nothing has come forward to the House. It seems to be like the new Act for the Department of Social Services. We have had umpteen reports on these things but each year we hear the same thing, we are going to bring in a new Act. The last major changes to the Municipalities Act occurred in 1978, I say to the Government House Leader, when Neil Windsor was the new Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

On the issue of changing the election date from November, back to the last Tuesday in September, that is a good idea. I just wish that the hon. the Premier had taken that advice last year when he decided that he would have the election in the middle of February and the people of this Province said: An election in the middle of February! You know why and particularly since the mandate for the previous government was only about twenty-eight months or thirty months into a sixty-month term at maximum. So we were but little over half-way through. But at that time the Premier did not consider the negatives of having an election in February, so we all were compelled to campaign in the worst kind of weather. And I should say that I happen to believe in fixed elections, not only at the municipal level, I believe in fixed terms at the provincial level. I believe if we can function with fixed terms at the municipal level every four years, we know and we have known since 1961 - in 1961 there were municipal elections, 1965, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989 and 1993, and going to 1997.

What I say to the hon. the minister is that we should look at that as an example. If the government of the United States can operate on a fixed term, therefore we should consider it at the provincial and national level so that a four-year term is commendable to the government, so we don't rush off - in our system here, the British parliamentary system, whenever the government of the day considers it to be appropriate. And I acknowledge that governments of all parties have tended to rush off to elections when they feel it is to their greatest advantage. I think there is something wrong with that. The former Premier, Clyde Wells, had made commitments that he would only have the elections every four years. I think we lost something when we deviated from that. Because that was a very positive initiative on his part.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make mention as well of Southlands before I sit down. I note the minister has returned. I want to say to the hon. the minister that we have had over the years some significant disagreements with the minister over the government of the day's initiatives on amalgamation. I well remember consulting with then-minister Eric Gullage in 1989, telling him that his bulldozer kinds of tactics were not going to be effective. Amalgamation itself is a good idea. However, it can't be forced from the top down. The minister now is making some very positive initiatives in that area. I'm pleased to see that some communities are coming together, but it is grass-roots driven, and that is the way it should be. I say to the minister these are very positive initiatives he is taking there to encourage municipalities which want to join together to do so. There are some very good examples of that where it is very successful. However, there has been a significant change from his department and his role from that of the previous minister.

We want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that when the previous government was divvying up the lands in the greater Avalon North area, Avalon area, comprised of St. John's and its environs, there was, I call it, a vindictive, sad thing done relative to Southlands. The minister knows that the people who live in Southlands today want to be part of the City of Mount Pearl. They say so. The minister knows that Southlands was an integral part of the extension to Mount Pearl in November or in January of 1981. So that consequently the municipality, in co-operation with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, planned for an orderly expansion from the boundaries of Mount Pearl, as they were in the 1960s, to continue on into what then was a satellite city, they called it first, afterwards called Newtown, then to go on into the area across the arterial road, to expand Mount Pearl to make it a very viable second city.

However, in 1991-1992 the government of the day, in a fit of discontent with the City of Mount Pearl, of which at that time I was the mayor, decided they would go and say: Yes, we will let Mount Pearl stay as it is. Perhaps because of the tremendous local identity, because of the efficiency that Mount Pearl displayed, because it was very well run, according to the people who write on these things, and I want to take some responsibility. But my role was more that of the captain of the team rather than my saying that it was because of my sole initiative. Not at all. The people of Mount Pearl were the driving force.

When the government of the day made an announcement, I can only say to hon. members that it was on a Monday evening when I heard the government was going to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's. I remember calling a council meeting at 10:30 at night and having everybody turn up, and between that and Wednesday evening, we organized a petition. In a two-and-a-half hour period in that week, on a Wednesday, we were able to collect nearly 17,000 signatures - in two-and-a-half hours. That petition was to argue against the government proposal to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's.

Well, then the government of the day decided that, no, we will accept that - after great pressure - but then the Premier, in a Cabinet meeting, went up and took his blue pen and just simply drew a line all around Mount Pearl, drew it up the highway and said, no this is what is going to happen. These are the consequences. Everybody realizes that was a mistake. I say to the minister today that it is time now for the government to forget about the past, let us forget about the animosity that existed between Mount Pearl and St. John's and Mount Pearl and the Provincial Government. It is past. The people of Mount Pearl, the people of Southlands, are one community. So therefore I say to the minister, recognize that and recognize that within his own caucus there are people who hold the same viewpoint that I have. Therefore, it is time to make another amendment. It is time to bring forward a further amendment so that the city of Mount Pearl's boundaries can be changed to make sure that its natural growth area, called Southlands, is able to be part of the city of Mount Pearl. Not until that is done will we be able to say we have given Mount Pearl a fairness and given a chance to be able to grow in the manner that it was intended to grow as per its municipal plans.

So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these matters to the minister's attention, telling him that I totally agree with what he is doing with the amendments here but on the issue of Mount Pearl, I put forward the comments on Southlands. I will repeat, the Premier, last February 20, two days before the election call, came into Mount Pearl - and he had a rally and that is fine, that is acceptable, that is the prerogative of the parties when they are campaigning - came into Mount Pearl and they organized a luncheon with the Chamber of Commerce, held at the Royal Canadian Legion on Park Avenue in Mount Pearl. It was well attended. As one of the candidates in the election, I did not attend the Premier's luncheon, obviously, but I made sure that I had people there. I made sure that the Premier's comments were all taped and made sure that this was all recorded. Therefore, I know exactly what the Premier said. The Premier basically said he would assure that the whole issue of Southlands would be revisited.

I don't want to say that the Premier said if Mount Pearl voted totally Liberal, he would then change Southlands, but he certainly gave the impression that voting for his party's candidates would make a big difference. So Mount Pearl people voted very well because they had a commitment from the Conservative Party saying that if the Conservatives won the election, Southlands would be returned to Mount Pearl. The people of Mount Pearl were a very wise group of voters and they maximized their benefits. They simply said, `Well, we have two members and we will make sure that we have the best of all possible worlds.' I just say to the hon. the minister, that it was a commitment in writing from the Progressive Conservative Party that if they had been elected to government, Southlands would have been returned to the city of Mount Pearl. There was commitment by the Premier, two days before the election, and that was commitment was circulated all around Mount Pearl by last minute telephone calls, by bulletins that were coming out saying: The Premier has said that he will revisit Southlands. So there was no mistaking that the message on the street was, if you vote for the Liberals in this district, in Mount Pearl, that Southlands would be looked at again, and looked at very positively, with the intent of being returned to the city of Mount Pearl.

That commitment was made. Now we are asking the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to deliver on that commitment.

MR. A. REID: I am not in the loop.

MR. H. HODDER: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has admitted that he is not in the loop, so I am trying my best to get the minister back into the loop.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind the minister of the commitments of his leader. Obviously, I have asked questions on this matter in the House of Assembly, and I shall continue to press it until we are assured that it has been revisited. Let us not forget that the whole focus of the re-visitation is to reconnect those two parts of Mount Pearl which are part of an integral community and part of one, single unit. You cannot have it the way it is now. It has to be looked at positively. Commitments were made, and the people of Mount Pearl are now saying: Deliver on them.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I will defer to any of my colleagues who might want to address this issue. I do understand that there may not be any more speakers on this side, so I will now let the minister, if he wishes, conclude second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get up for an hour on it.

MR. H. HODDER: I do believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not.

MR. H. HODDER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to speak. I conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: If there was ever a situation where I would prefer to remain out of the loop, it has to do with the situation in Southlands.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will quote you on that.

MR. A. REID: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) quote you on that.

MR. A. REID: Yes, they will quote me on that, for sure.

Mr. Speaker, basically, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a confirmation for An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, and that basically has been dealt with in the City of St. John's Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, and the Municipalities Act.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 41)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act" (Bill No 40).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act". (Bill No. 40)

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

MR. A. REID: The same thing again, Mr. Speaker. This one is the same one as we passed, the one before, the City of Mount Pearl. It basically coincides exactly with the Municipalities Act and, because it is Corner Brook, we have to do the same thing with Corner Brook.

I will make one comment for my hon. colleagues across. There was some mention of training fire-fighters, and if you look at clause 11 in the Act, it basically says that the duties of a fire chief are to ensure that fire-fighters are trained in standard first aid and basic life support, and that a minimum standard for a first responder level certificate is completed within twenty-four months after the date of the minister's authorization.

That basically compels that fire-fighters who respond to first response medical situations must be qualified to administer to the first responder. That basically will compel fire-fighters around the Province to have the necessary medical training in order to respond to calls that would normally be handled by ambulatory or ambulance drivers, or medical people.

I do not know if there is anyone on the other side who needs to discuss this one or not, `Harvey'. I think I can go on to second reading on this one. No? Okay.

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

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 40, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act", but before I get into that, the minister, myself, and the mayor of a local town met last week to discuss Bill 38 and the minister said he would not bring it to the House until he had time to resolve a particular situation. I went over this morning to remind the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs of that situation, he then reminded the Government House Leader of the situation, and the Government House Leader is now getting all upset because he feels we are spending too much time on some of these bills.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: How does the hon. gentleman know what the Government House Leader is going to do? Is he going to stand up and report everything that goes on in conversations, and does he think he is going to stand up over there and dictate how this House is going to be run? What a lot of nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a disagreement between two hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: A typical, no point of order, for the Government House Leader. Actually, we did the Government House Leader a favour this morning by not bringing Bill 38 forward because I had planned to take up the full hour to discuss Bill 38. Now, we are on Bill 40 on which I am only going to take five or ten minutes, so in actual fact we speeded up the process of the House of Assembly here this morning by agreeing to go to Bill 40 and not Bill 38.

The minister, has rightly stated, with respect to Bill 40, that there is a lot of duplication with respect to the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, and many of the same concerns are being addressed, some housekeeping matters, and what have you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the points that should be made, I suppose, is that this bill deals with fire-fighters within the City of Corner Brook, their responsibilities, their responses, and what they will be responsible for doing in the future. They will possibly be the first called in response to an emergency other than maybe a fire, so they can be called to respond to a medical situation. The minister says, by this bill, they will be getting proper training to require them to be able to handle these situations.

Another point here is the election of councillors. They will take their place within two weeks of being elected, Mr. Speaker. Also, this bill says, the same as in the city of St. John's, with respect to municipalities across the Island, that the election date will be moved up again. We have had a number of discussions and points made on that situation. This bill also deals with the fire chief and the responsibilities of the fire chief which would include all fire department activities, including activities related to fire and other emergencies.

Basically, it also deals with the situation where, if a fire department responds to an emergency situation outside the municipality, then the fire chief who is responsible for that area would be the person who would take charge of the situation. There is also reference to the liability of nuisance in this bill. Many of the towns in this Province and the municipalities have been sued for what could be considered acts of God, I suppose, or some minor problem within any given system. That is being addressed, and rightly so.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also deals with Winter maintenance. We had a lot of discussion on Winter maintenance and snow clearing, and the problems that arise within the towns and municipalities. That is being addressed also, a good move on the part of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have pretty well said what I wanted to say on this bill. There is also a clause there which will change the polling day from Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. J. BYRNE: Keep going and going like the copper top.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: Ever since he came number one in the poll of Opposition members you can't shut him up.

MR. J. BYRNE: That has always been the case, I say to the Minister of Education. Actually, since I've sat in this seat here, Mr. Speaker, and I'm directly opposite the Minister of Education, I've been watching him very carefully. I see when he stands to say hello to someone it takes him ten minutes to say hello. I'm taking my cues from the Minister of Education. When he answers a question he goes on and on like the copper top battery. He goes on almost as much as the Minister of Health. Actually, what is going on now, we have another member in the House of Assembly, one of the newer members, actually, and it is the Premier himself, who when he is asked a question he doesn't answer the question. He goes completely 180 degrees reverse away from the question.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Government House Leader, for Hansard's (inaudible) -

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

I remind hon. members that we are debating An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act. The Chair doesn't see much relevance in the debate right now in terms of An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling, but I'm only responding to questions and concerns thrown at me from across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually, the Chair doesn't care which side of the House. The relevance right now leaves a lot to be desired.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in that case then I will become very relevant. Subclause 1 of this bill will amend section 2 of the City of Corner Brook Act by defining the term fire fighter. It is going to define the term fire fighter. We all pretty well know, or have a fair idea, what a fire fighter is. In more recent years of course we have females entering into the fire fighting field in the Province. They are being well trained and doing a very good job within the various fire departments. I'm not sure how many female fire fighters the City of Corner Brook has, but I'm sure the City of St. John's has one or two, I'm pretty well convinced of that.

Also this act will be defining other emergencies and will be saying what responses the fire department will be responsible for responding to, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker. That is a good idea. I think every fire department, volunteer or paid professional fire departments, should have a definition of what they are to respond to, when they are supposed to respond, have respond times in place. That is a good point again.

This is a good bill, I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, of course. It is conjunction with the previous bills that have gone through, the past three or four, the municipalities, the City of St. John's act, the City of Mount Pearl act, and the amendments to those acts. Again, that is in agreement, so we really don't have a lot of problem with that.

As I said earlier, it designates the city fire chief as being responsible for the organization and training of the people within the fire department. This will include all fire department activities including activities related to fire and other emergencies. Again the fire chief will be responsible to see that certain individuals get certain training, and in particular, I believe within the first twenty-four months - I believe it is twenty-four months - the people who are going to be responding to emergency situations which are emergency medical situations will have a certain level of training to be able to respond to these situations, and rightly so.

That begs the question, who is going to be paying the cost for these people to get this training? Will it be the municipalities? Will it be the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs? Or will it be some combination of both with respect to the training themselves of the fire fighters? Obviously with this bill, and with all the bills that have gone through and talked about the training of fire fighters to respond to emergency medical situations, there is going to be a fair number of these people wanting this training. There is going to be a fair number of fire fighters wanting this training. So what is now the process and what are the capabilities of Municipal and Provincial Affairs or the people who do the training to handle the numbers of people who would be wanting the training? That is a concern I suppose that we should be looking at.

Also, as I stated earlier, with respect to the nuisance problem with the municipalities where they are being sued over the years, some of the smaller municipalities, the minister stated previously when I asked him a question across the House that this will be addressed in regulations, which would be a definition of `nuisance', Mr. Speaker, so that is a good thing I would think and it is nice to know that when it goes to court or appeals or what have you, that the people making the decisions will have some kind of a reference or guide to help them determine what a `nuisance' is and if the town should or should not pay.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with winter maintenance and snow clearing and what have you, of local roads again, and it is my understanding that it is similar to the other acts that have been discussed in this House recently, and that would now give the authority to the town to have an automobile taken away if it is blocking a road in midwinter or if it is in the middle of a snow storm or if people are leaving their cars on the sides of the roads too often when it is not an emergency situation, than to have them going to the police to take the cars away, they can actually call up a tow truck themselves and have it taken away and stored and probably, I would imagine, have the individual who owns the car pay for the towing and storage costs.

I know there are other bills that the Government House Leader is anxious to bring before the House today, so just a few other points I suppose I would make with respect to the election day, being the last Tuesday in September. Of course, it used to be the first week or second week in November and now it has moved up the election day to basically two months and it certainly would give ample opportunity now to the new councillors who are elected to have time to study the previous budget, to get to know the regulations of the municipality, to get to know the zoning of the municipality, to get to know the boundaries of the municipalities in which they live, and to then be able to help prepare themselves to get into a new budget for the upcoming year and by doing this, Mr. Speaker, they can make some informed, intelligent decisions rather than just going in and maybe, if there are one or two councillors who have been there from the previous council, then everything is just given to them, it is signed and passed and what have you. So it is a good move as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in previous debates in the House.

There is also one other item here which says that the fire-fighters are trained in standard first aid and basic life support and that the minimum standard for this is four months. I think we have pretty well addressed that and - Mr. Speaker, I think I have addressed the concerns here with respect to this bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act" so I will take my place.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. A. REID: Bill 40, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act", I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No.40).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 15, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 38).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 38).

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

MR. A. REID: I only wish - and I say this to my hon. and good friend from Mount Pearl - if his colleague from Pouch Cove or from down in the East and my colleague could get along as well as you and I, we would not be running into a lot of trouble that goes on in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: That is right.

I need to make one comment on this particular bill. This will sort of tighten up the regional fire services bill that we introduced to the House some years or two years ago. Even though there is a commitment to the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, I think that we can reach the commitment in third reading, in Committee stage. I don't think there are any other problems with this as such other than the fact that the member and I have agreed that we would deal with a particular question as it related to one of his communities, and I really cannot see any reason why we cannot give second reading on this bill today and then at committee level introduce an amendment, if we need to introduce the amendment.

I make the commitment to the hon. member and to this House that I will proceed immediately with a reaction to the mayor in his letter, and if we can come up with an agreement in the next week, then at third reading we will introduce -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) committee.

MR. A. REID: At committee level we can introduce the amendment that the member wishes to introduce, or I will introduce it; it is up to himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: That the mayor wishes to introduce.

MR. A. REID: That the mayor wishes to introduce, and at that particular point in time then we can handle the question of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove.

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

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

Well, I have quite a few words to say on this bill and I am going to start at the beginning.

It is sad to say, in this House of Assembly, when a minister of the Crown works out a deal not to bring a bill until a certain municipality has a right to deal with it -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: One lesson the hon. gentleman should learn here is that a deal between gentlemen does not become something that you stand up in this House and debate. The House Leader has learned it very well, and the hon. gentleman should know that you do not stand up in this House and, in a fit of tantrum, blow it all out. Otherwise, people will not deal with you. It is as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling. Again, no point of order from the Government House Leader. He loves to stand in his place and give no points of order, but he calls them points of order. He gets a chance to say a few words and blow of a bit of steam. That is what he is up to all of the time, blowing off a bit of steam.

The fact of the matter is that there was no deal made between myself and the Government House Leader. There was nothing done. He was the one who got up. What happened was that there was an agreement between a minister of the Crown and a municipality.

MR. A. REID: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on a point of order.

MR. A. REID: I do not know if it is a point of order or not, Mr. Speaker, but there is no agreement between me and the mayor, or anybody, as it relates to this particular bill and whether or not we will hold up this particular bill until an agreement could be reached. There is no agreement. I never made that commitment. I categorically state that. It is a personal point of order. I cannot have another member of the House getting up and making statements that are not correct when they refer to me personally. I take exception to the fact that someone would say I had an agreement. I did not have any agreement with the mayor or anyone else, or with the member, as it relates to this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member going to speak to the debate or to the point of order? There is no point of order. There is a disagreement between two hon. members.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling, another `no point of order'. It is basically, I agree, a disagreement between myself and the minister. Why all this came about is because the Government House Leader became a little bit sooky today, for some reason or other, and he did not get the bills through that he was planning on getting through.

Here is the situation: He is bringing a bill before this House now, Bill 38 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) teach you a lesson.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you are not. You are not teaching me any lessons, I say to the Government House Leader. You are teaching me not to trust you. That is what you are teaching me.

I was planning on saying a few words on Bill 38, and hoping it would be a few words, but it is going to be quite a few words, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this bill now is going to give the City of St. John's the regional fire department, and they are going to be responsible for implementation and responding - and on the board itself, I believe, there will be representatives from the City of Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's. That is all well and good. It is probably good for the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl that they would share their services on a per capita basis and what have you, but this goes back to 1992 and before. It goes back to amalgamation.

At that time when amalgamation was being discussed, and most people in the area knew it could not work in the Northeast Avalon because of the way it was being approached - not necessarily that the simple logistics of amalgamation could not be worked out, but the way it was approached was the problem at that point in time - and the minister of the day was told that by me at a meeting in his office at 8:00 a.m. that it could not work because of the approach. That is not the current minister. Now, I want to get that quite clear, it was the then minister. He went and pursued it in a heavy-handed fashion and, of course, we all know the results of amalgamation.

Now, the present minister is taking a different approach with respect to regionalization. Regionalization can very well be a positive thing, and regionalization can be a positive thing with respect to fire-fighting on the Northeast Avalon. What happened, back then, when the regional fire department was put in place, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, Portugal Cove, Paradise, Petty Harbour, St. John's, and Mount Pearl were put on this board. They were put into this regional fire committee. They had no choice. They were just thrown in there without any consultation whatsoever.

The town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove put a representative on that board, which was myself as the mayor, and so did the town of Paradise, and the town of Portugal Cove, as did the town of Petty Harbour. St. John's had eleven representatives on that board and Mount Pearl, I think, had five or six. That figure I stand to be corrected on. We had four towns, Logy Bay-Outer Cove-Middle Cove, Portugal Cove, Paradise, Petty Harbour, four up against something like sixteen or seventeen.

We attended a number of meetings at that point in time to try and make this work. Of course they came up with a formula to charge the smaller towns, and the smaller towns could not agree with that formula, Mr. Speaker, because they saw their fire rates going up as much as ten, fifteen, or twenty times, so how could the smaller towns afford to pay for that? I know, for example, that the town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove were paying $15,000 a year at that time. Now, that is a small amount of money but it is the amount of money that was requested by the Department of Municipal Affairs. That is where the money was being paid, to the department, so they paid their $15,000 each year.

Now, the town only incorporated in 1986 and this was 1989, so they came up with a formula that was going to be based on property value, property assessment within each municipality, and the towns did not agree with that because they felt they were not getting the same service as the larger municipalities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl, and they really did not have any say. They had four total against somewhere around sixteen or seventeen votes on that committee.

I remember being at a meeting, at a regional fire committee meeting down at City Hall in St. John's and the formula was being discussed and how it was not fair. I am going to get into the reasons why the formula was not fair. I remember at that time the Deputy Mayor making the statement, that they would listen to the small towns and then do what was best for St. John's. Now, what kind of a working relationship would that be, Mr. Speaker, so I said to the committee, you are wasting my time. There is no point in my being here if you are going to have that kind of attitude. It is not an attitude of cooperation, so I got up and left the meeting because there was no point in carrying it any further.

We had done our best, we had tried. As a matter of fact we had made a presentation to the committee, a presentation at that very meeting which I have here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, and it was ignored. It was very logical and made presentations as to why the rates being charged to the smaller municipalities were unfair. Therefore I left the meeting, and after I left the three other mayors, the mayor for Petty Harbour, the mayor for Paradise, and the mayor for Portugal Cove left behind me, and it has been up in the air ever since.

Now, the four towns came together themselves to try and make presentations to the City of St. John's and to Mount Pearl. They have had meetings with the minister, and the minister has tried, to give him credit where credit is due, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has tried to resolve this matter somewhat but he cannot wash his hands of it. This bill is washing his hands, and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is washing its hands of the situation that was created by the government of the day on forcing a regional fire committee into these towns. There are only certain towns named. If it was going to be a regional fire committee, how come all the towns in the area weren't named, I say to the Government House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? What is your problem? Listen now and you might get the details of what is going on here and you will understand the reason why this is so unfair to the smaller towns.

Mr. Speaker, the four towns got together and they made a presentation. Here is the presentation they made. That they would go to binding arbitration on what the rates would be. All the towns agreed with it I think, except the City of St. John's, and possibly - I'm not sure about Mount Pearl, but I know the City of St. John's disagreed with it. This could have been resolved. Back at the time that there was $15,000 being charged, the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove put it up to $30,000 the next year. The following year it put it up to $45,000.

There was a formula created by the committee which was never acceptable. I remember having a meeting with myself, being the mayor of the day, the mayor of Paradise, the mayor of Portugal Cove, and the mayor of Petty Harbour. We had a meeting with the then-premier. I don't know about the member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Were you there, the member for (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, we had a meeting with the then-premier, Mr. Wells, and we sat around the table and we told him the situation, and what was going on. His minister was at his side. He said: Tell me where is the unfairness in this, or whatever the case may be? I told him. He turned to the minister and said: Tell the mayor that if the formula is going to be based on assessed value only it isn't going to happen. That is what the premier of the day said. Ever since then they have been trying to force the formula based on assessed value only.

Again, we (inaudible) believe, and the people in the town don't believe, that they are getting the same service. It has nothing to do with the quality of the fire fighters, it has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment, anything of that nature, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with response time, which is probably as good as it is going to get with respect to the location of the fire departments or the fire halls. I remember saying when all this was under way that if a house caught fire on Doran's Lane in Outer Cove the house would burn to the ground. It was within months there was a brand new house built down there and it caught fire. I think it was on a September day, a beautiful day, sunny, bright, dry day, and the department responded. Kent's Pond I believe responded to the fire on Doran's Lane, and what do you think happened? The house burned to the ground. That is what happened. They want us - Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, and the smaller communities - to go out and pay the same amount of money for fire fighting services when they aren't getting the same service.

While all this was going on, the minister decided to change the regional fire department and to allow some municipalities to leave the regional fire department. Of course, some did. The town of Portugal Cove - St. Philips have down there and they had constructed a fire -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What isn't so?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I stand corrected. The minister says that he didn't allow some, he allowed all, and that is quite true. He did change the regulations to allow all the towns to pull out of the regional fire department if they wished. Then again, he knows full well that there were certain towns in certain situations that could, and certain towns that could not, depending on the cost.

The town of Portugal Cove - St Philips had a fire hall built down there and it needed funding to put in a fire truck, and what have you, and put in a volunteer fire department. It decided to do that, Mr. Speaker. I think the town of Paradise is in the process now of doing the exact same thing, putting in a volunteer fire department.

Petty Harbour, I believe, is still under the St. John's fire department. I'm not quite sure on that one. But Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, Mr. Speaker, were in a situation where it had come from $15,000 to $30,000 to $45,000 they were paying back, and that was something that they did because the formula that was being utilized was never, ever adopted, which was based on assessed value, so the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, on their own, realizing that $15,000 was not enough, $30,000 was not enough, they went to $45,000, and I am not sure now if it is up to $60,000 or not.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons the town feels it should not have to pay the amount of money it is paying are numerous, and I am going to get into them. The responsibilities of the regional committee on fire-fighting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove feel that they are not getting the same service because of many reasons, one being, of course, that if you are so far away from a fire department or a fire hydrant, you pay more on your house insurance. In Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, there is no water and/or sewer, and no fire hydrants, so the people now are paying more for their fire protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will save that for when he comes back.

Mr. Speaker, there are no fire hydrants in the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, none, so the people pay more for that.

If there is a fire, as there was a fire on Doran's Lane in Outer Cove, the fire department responds. They come down with I think it is a tanker of 1,000 gallons, which can be gone in two to three minutes, and all the firemen can do is look at the house burn, unless there is a river close by and they can get some portable pumpers and what have you and fill up the truck and get it to the fire.

Of course, the most important thing here is that when they do respond and get there in time, they can save a life. Depending on the response time they can save a life, depending on the situation.

The people in the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove do not, by any stretch of the imagination, get the same fire protection, and they pay more on their house insurance for fire than if they lived in the City of St. John's, and they do not have the same protection.

Another point that was made is that the City of St. John's receives large sums of money with respect to business taxes, and if the fire-fighting formula, or the cost-recovery formula, is based on assessed value only, then what about all of the businesses in the City of St. John's who pay taxes to the City? Are they paying an extra amount to cover the cost of fire-fighting? That is a concern. That is a point that we brought up, and there was no answer to that.

The federal and provincial government buildings: information supplied by the City of St. John's on the City of St. John's Fire Department indicates that a deduction of 15 per cent in the total operating costs is applied for the Province's contribution to cover fire protection - 15 per cent. And the question is: Is this sufficient to cover the actual value of the government buildings, a 15 per cent deduction? That was never answered. We still, to this day, do not have an answer.

Another major point is this: Within the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove we have a garage and probably a convenience store, and a very few small businesses, but we do not have the potential for major fires that the City of St. John's has. We do not have the potential for the major fires such as the one over there on Military Road a few years ago with respect to row housing and what have you. Again, there has to be a certain stand-by set aside to cover the cost, basically, in case of a potential major fire, which is not the case in Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. So what are the costs there?

As a matter of fact, one of the offers, I think, that was made to the regional fire department, or the City, was that they would give a base amount of money which would be, say, $50,000 or $60,000 a year and then they would pay on a call-out basis, so if one truck responded or if it were just the emergency response vehicle that responded, you would pay x amount of dollars per hour or, depending on how many staff responded, if there were two in the emergency response vehicle, if it were just the vehicle, and two people responded, you would pay x amount of dollars. If it were the emergency response vehicle and a tanker and another truck, and depending on the number of people involved, well, then you would pay more.

Now, I am going to get into it for a little while here, Mr. Speaker. The actual responses in Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove in 1994 and 1995 and let you see what we are going to be paying $150,000 for per year, Mr. Speaker. So the potential for major fires is not there. We do not have the big tanks that you have on the Southside Hills and other commercial businesses you have in St. John's that could have anything stored in them, anything from hazardous waste to hazardous materials that if caught fire would require certain protection and certain equipment to fight that fire, which is not likely to happen in a town.

Now, the argument can be made, Mr. Speaker, that an oil truck or any type of truck that is transporting any type of material can be caught on fire or an accident could happen and the St. John's Fire Department would have to respond to it, or the regional fire department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is a possibility, but that in itself, Mr. Speaker, does not alleviate the cost now, the fact that the town is putting aside x amount of dollars and is prepared to put $50,000 or $60,000 on a base rate and then pay for call-out. So that is another thing, dangerous material.

The rescue units themselves, Mr. Speaker - if you look at the number of times the rescue units are called out in St. John's and the areas that they service, and compare it to the number of times the rescue unit is called to the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. From what we could see, Outer Cove utilized the rescue unit 1.13 per cent of the actual responses, so we have no problem paying for, you know, 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent or 5 per cent of their standby time for that, but we do not see why we should have to pay the same standby time as the City of St. John's would have to pay, Mr. Speaker, and as I stated earlier, the response time to Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove is not the same as it is in St. John's.

If, for example, there is a fire down in Outer Cove or Logy Bay and Kents Pond is out, who is going to respond to the fire in Outer Cove? It is now going to be Kenmount, which will add another three or four minutes to the time. So our response time is not the same, we are not getting the same coverage, Mr. Speaker, and one can make all the arguments one wants, any argument, but those are the basic facts of the matter.

In the 1992 Budget, Mr. Speaker, fire-fighting became the responsibility of the regional committee. The town budgeted 100 per cent increase for that, 100 per cent increase. An increase of 850 per cent is completely unacceptable. That is what the St. John's Regional Fire Committee wanted, they wanted an increase by the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove of 850 per cent. Now, you can see, we went up 100 per cent, we went up 200 per cent and we are looking at even 300 per cent but, 850 per cent for the same service, Mr. Speaker, is just not acceptable and, the mil rate increase - if we want to get into it - to pay what the regional fire committee wanted, a 50 per cent to a 60 per cent increase in the mil rate would have to be implemented to pay that bill, which again, is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the services that the different areas have, actually the increased rate would be between eight and nine mils to bring us very near to the city of St. John's, which would put us very close to the mil rate in St. John's, yet some of the services that the town does not have, water and sewer services, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drainage, engineering services, street cleaning and a lower level of fire protection. Again, I want to reiterate that I am not complaining about or saying anything about the professionalism of the fire-fighters or the department itself, it is just the simple logistics and location, Mr. Speaker, that I am talking about, and how long it will take to respond and what they can respond with, Mr. Speaker. So those are some of the things that we are looking at now.

The cost of over $130,000 for fire protection for the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove is completely out of proportion with the cost for that of other towns.

Now, here is something that I think is very important. The St. John's Regional Fire Department wants the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove - and this is based on 1992 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrible! Terrible!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, it is terrible. It is based on the 1992 figures. Now, we have had assessments in 1995 that have increased this by as much as 50 per cent to 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker. But the regional fire department wants the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove with 600 homes, 2,000 people down there to pay, at that time in 1992, $130,000. Now, they have come up with a formula to forgive $30,000 based on how far you are away from the fire hall, but that $130,000 was based on 1992 figures. Now the figures have gone up again based on the assessments from 1995 because the formula is based on the total assessed value of properties within the town. In 1995, I think the assessed values went up anywhere from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker. So that $130,000 now has eliminated the $30,000 they were going to forgive and it will probably be over $130,000.

The Town of Witless Bay - from the figures I have here that were given to me by the Town back in 1992 - was paying $10,000 a year, $10,000, Mr. Speaker, volunteer department, compared to $130,000. We have the Town of Bay Bulls, we are paying the Town of Witless Bay - they are up to $13,000 now, I believe. The Town of Flatrock, Torbay responds to the Town of Flatrock. They are paying, in 1992 figures, $9,000 compared to $130,000 for the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. The Town of Pouch Cove, with the exact same population as the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, with a volunteer fire department, were putting in $30,000 a year, $30,000 compared to $130,000 a year. Where is the fairness? This is created by the government of the day and the minister of the day. The Town of Bauline, only a small amount, only $4,500. I think Torbay responds there, or Pouch Cove. The Town of Torbay with 5,000 people now, Mr. Speaker, or pretty close to 5,000 people, the figures in 1992 were $33,000, and their volunteer department. So that is $100,000 less than the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. That figure has increased in the Town of Torbay to up around $60,000. So, Mr. Speaker, one can see from the figures above that for one town to be singled out, to have to pay those kinds of figures is just unreasonable and unfair.

We felt at the time, Mr. Speaker, that the cost recovery formula had to be changed. The Premier of the day felt that the cost recovery formula had to be changed and that it could not be on assessed value. We felt that the formula would have to consider the fact that the towns have varying degrees of water available for fire-fighting when the four towns were involved and a change for response to be considered after a base charge. Now, that is something that I talked about earlier, that what we should do is basically come up with a base rate that is agreeable and acceptable and that could go to binding arbitration. That is what the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove requested, asked for and agreed to, but the city did not, Mr. Speaker. So we asked for a base rate and basically binding arbitration. But no, Mr. Speaker, no that would not be the case. They were agreeing to pay a certain level of fire-fighting and phase it in over three to five years.

Now, another point, Mr. Speaker. We felt that the buildings within the city of St. John's should be properly assessed and taxed accordingly to offset the costs of fire-fighting within the city of St. John's. I don't believe that was ever done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this presentation, some of these comments here were made to the regional committee at the time and it was never adhered to or listened to and it is still a mess. Now, there are numerous letters I have here from the mayor of the town today and from when I was mayor. We were offering different settlements but it never did come to any conclusion. So we have this legislation before the House now that would require the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove to do one of two things and they are really caught in a hard place. They are caught in a hard place not because they put themselves there, it is because of the way things evolved over the years. Now, we have some of the smaller towns like Portugal Cove, as I said earlier, who have their own volunteer fire department and it seems to be working well.

Now, for the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove to stay with the city of St. John's - and I think that is probably preferable to many people in the area, in the town, that they stay within the City of St. John's. It is a paid, professional, fire-fighting association, and the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove over the years has sent out questionnaires and tried to get responses from the people in the town. And quite recently they had a public meeting in St. Francis school down in Outer Cover. I attended the meeting, and there was a very good turnout. It went on for upwards of probably two to three hours. We had the professional fire-fighters from the area there. We had people, concerned citizens, about the actual protection of their homes, their children, and their families.

Many people addressed the council, and I have to give credit to the council for calling the meeting to get the views of the people and see where they wanted to go. Because basically, if they go with this regional fire department, or if they put in their own volunteer fire department, you are looking at 25 per cent of their budget, basically, going for fire protection. Now, I really do not know if, in St. John's or Mount Pearl, 25 per of their budget goes toward the cost of fire-fighting in their municipalities, but that is what is expected here now. If this bill goes through with no changes, the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove will be in a situation where they are going to be forced to pay upwards of 25 per cent of their budget for fire-fighting, and the town really cannot afford that.

It has been often said that the town should increase their mil rate. The mil rate there now is 5.5 mils. What people should realize is that the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove has no debt. They have two buildings down there, the Town Hall and the Justina Centre, which were put there in ten years, two beautiful buildings, well kept, well maintained, totally paid for by the people in the town, with very little money from Municipal Affairs, from the government. Of course, we have seen over the past number of years that the grants to municipalities are being cut, but these buildings are paid for. They were one of the first communities in the Northeast Avalon to become computerized, paid for. All the equipment they have in their town is paid for. So why would they need to increase their mil rate? Just to pay the increased cost to the regional fire department for fire-fighting, when you compare their town, and the service they get, to the other towns and what they are paying, and they end up paying as much as five or six times more? That is just not right. It is just not fair, by any stretch of the imagination, and it is something that needs to be resolved.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that is going through the House, as I said, puts the town in a hard place. They have a choice to pay upwards of $130,000 a year, and maybe more - that is at the present time - to the St. John's Regional Fire-Fighting Committee, $130,000 a year, 25 per cent of their budget; or they can go toward a volunteer fire department.

Mr. Speaker, a volunteer fire department can be quite costly. We have a fire hall in Torbay; we have one in Pouch Cove; we have one in Kent's Pond. The simple logistics of it: Is it really necessary to do that? Some of the people at the public meeting did not really think it was necessary, and that we should stay with the city, bite the bullet and pay the extra cost, depending on the protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I am getting into now, I say to the minister. That is what I am addressing.

The town had someone come in and do a study basically to see what it would cost to set up their own fire department.

Just before I get into that, just for information purposes for you, Mr. Speaker, and for Hansard, and to get it in the record, in 1994 these are the responses that the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove had: The fire department responded to one chimney fire; one garbage fire; one rescue, which may or may not have been from within the town; one false alarm; one forest brush; one vehicle; the smell of smoke; three medical; two structure fires; and a motor vehicle accident.

Mr. Speaker, that would work out, per call, to be almost $11,000. So for the St. John's regional fire department to respond to a chimney fire it costs the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove $11,000 in 1994. Now, is that reasonable, Mr. Speaker? I have to ask the question, is that reasonable? To respond to a false alarm, $10,769. Isn't that a bit much, I say? To a vehicle fire, the same thing, $10,769. It sounds a bit out of whack to me, Mr. Speaker. I am sure if there is a vehicle fire or a false alarm on Elizabeth Avenue, or downtown, it does not cost the City of St. John's $11,000, not likely. I would not think so.

In 1995 there were three chimney fires, three alarm bells, rescue two, medical six, vehicle two, structure four, and motor vehicle accident one, Mr. Speaker. The total responses were twenty-three and the total cost per call, $6,068. Again, is that reasonable and fair to expect? I say it is not, Mr. Speaker. The responses in 1996, from January 1 to September, there were twelve responses, a chimney fire, garbage, rescue twice, false alarm, forest brush, and structure, so they are mostly very minor responses. But I will say that since I have lived in the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, and I am there twenty-three years now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Some hon. members are sitting with their backs to the Chair and that is unparliamentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: From January 1 to September of 1996 we had the same type of responses, very minor. I was just about to say that since 1974 there have probably been ten house fires in the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. I know that in recent years there was one on St. Francis Road, a house caught fire and it was saved. I believe there was another house that was saved, but by far the majority of houses, if they catch fire in the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, will more than likely be burned to the ground.

I want to get into the cost of developing their own volunteer fire department. Now, this, of course, depends upon the number of volunteers within the town. To put a volunteer fire department in place within that town, as they say, we would need at least twenty-four individuals to respond to an emergency within the town. Of course the reason why they need thirty-four individuals is because you would have to set up certain groups of individuals, units, I suppose, you would refer to them as, so that at any given time there was always complete coverage.

Looking at the figures here for the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove to set up a volunteer fire department, and we have a good job done on the study that was presented, from what I can gather, it would cost $431,000 to set up a volunteer fire department, to put a building there, to get a fire truck, a tanker or what have you, equipment, and all that. I think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has agreed to allow the town to borrow the $431,000 to put up a volunteer fire department.

MR. A. REID: You are digging yourself a hole.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am only stating the facts.

MR. A. REID: You are doing more damage to your community than good. I can tell you that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying to the minister that I am only stating the facts as they have happened since 1990. Those are the facts.

The members on the opposite side are upset because I am stating the facts, but this study shows there is $431,000 needed to set up a volunteer fire department, and the yearly budget for it to operate on is going to be $36,700.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the town were given these figures at a public meeting and they were not decisive enough to know or they were not conclusive enough to know what they wanted to do because what they needed to know was, if they put their own fire department in place or if they went with the St. John's regional fire department, what it would cost per house extra to go with one or the other, and they asked the town to come back with those figures, to go back and do a calculation so they could make an informed decision. They have decided to go with a volunteer fire department or, if they wanted to stay with the City of St. John's regional fire department, to know what it would actually cost them extra, one way or the other, and the Mayor of the town agreed to go back and get those figures and I am sure they would be forthcoming in due course.

I think the town is prepared to stay with the St. John's regional fire committee if they had two or three concerns addressed. The major concern I think is the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, is that somewhere in the legislation, if they want to stay with the St. John's regional fire department that they have to have some kind of arbitration system put in place, Mr. Speaker, so they would go to binding arbitration, that they could go to this committee and say, you know, the regional fire department is now going to increase this year by 2 per cent, 5 per cent, 10 per cent, is that fair? Yes, no, and they will accept it.

They want to come up with a figure of what they should pay up front, if it should be $15,000, $30,000, $60,000, $130,000, that is what they want to know, that is the question that is being asked and they really need to know that because, Mr. Speaker, they are comparing the service that they are getting at this point in time and as I said earlier, there are situations, Mr. Speaker, that arise, no doubt about it, that the regional fire department will respond and will hopefully save a life and hopefully save the houses, but the conditions, Mr. Speaker, to which they have to respond, are not the same as they would have to respond to within a city or within a town that has water and sewer.

The Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove does not have any water and as I said earlier, they do not have any fire hydrants in the town, so in actual fact, even if they did have the response time, and got there within an acceptable response time, they really do not carry enough water, from what I can understand, and from what I have been told, to fight a full-fledged fire, a residence fire.

Back to the situation with respect to the four towns, the four towns themselves were hoping to work out something but it did not materialize. They were hoping that they could work out a true regional firefighting committee over the years and through the jigs and the reels, Mr. Speaker, they had to go their own way. Now there is an opportunity for the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove to stay within the city of St. John's Regional Firefighting. I think overall that is what everybody would basically prefer if the town could afford it. If the town could afford to stay within the City of St. John's Regional Firefighting Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I think overall it would be best for all concerned. It would be money that the regional fire department would not be losing each year. It would not put the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove in debt to the sum of $450,000 to put up their own fire department, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, the legal beagle said that you were boring.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Topsail, Mr. Speaker, I heard him shout across the House that I'm boring. Mr. Speaker, I am stating the facts but the thing is here, we really don't know if the Member for Topsail is boring or not. He is never on his feet to say anything so all we can see is him over there sitting down and I won't repeat what I said yesterday but we really don't know if he's boring or not. I suspect he would be because if it takes him that long to get on his feet to say one word I suspect he may be a little bit boring, I suppose.

MR. FITZGERALD: He can't have much to offer.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, he can't have a lot to offer, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important piece of legislation going through the House, Mr. Speaker, a very important piece of legislation and I really don't want to be detracted too much from it. So basically, when it is all said and done, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I apologize to the Member for Topsail if he didn't say a word. If he didn't say a word.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much more I want to say on this issue. I pretty well covered it. All I will say is that I want the best situation for all concerned and the best situation for all concerned, from my perspective, is that the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove stay with the city of St. John's if it is affordable and they can do it. But if they are forced into a situation where they have to go back and build their own fire department, putting up another building, is it really necessary in the overall scheme of things?

What I am saying for the minister is that we have to work something out here. The mayor has been at it for years; I have been at it for years. It is time to bring this to a conclusion and get something that is reasonable and acceptable to all of the people in the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If he speaks now he closes the debate. The hon. the minister.

MR. A. REID: Bill No. 38, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No. 2)", I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No. 2)", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 38)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if it is in agreement with the gentlemen opposite, having completed, I think, what we said this morning we set out to do, I move that the House adjourn until Monday at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

Prior to putting the question, I wonder if the Government House Leader could tell me what the order of business would be for Monday.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think, if the Minister of Education is ready on Monday, we would be moving - if the consultation that needs to be done with the community is finally to the satisfaction of the Minister of Education, and I understand that he has given the Opposition spokesman already the bill for study over the weekend, and I think it will be out on Monday morning for everybody, when the House opens the first thing on Monday, then I would move to the bill on education, the two school acts. That would be, An Act Respecting Education, Bill No. 27; and Bill No. 48.

Other than that, I would be moving to Bill No. 45, Order No. 20, "An Act To Implement the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland and Labrador".

If the consultation process is in place, and done to the satisfaction of the Minister of Education, we will be calling the two education bills. Other than that, we will be going to the HST bill.

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

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

I am wondering if the Government House Leader would be able to confirm early on Monday morning whether or not we would be moving –

MR. TULK: Absolutely.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.