MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Speaker, the people of Halifax Fairview have the same concerns and interests that people throughout HRM and throughout the Province of Nova Scotia have. They're concerned about the quality of their health care system, accessibility to family physicians, and health care when they need it. They're concerned about the quality of the education system. They want to make sure that their children, that our children get a good education and there are many reasons to be concerned about that. They're concerned about what's happening in the long-term care sector where seniors are having their assets taken away, assets built up over a lifetime taken away as the price of admission to long-term care. They're concerned about their sons and daughters, and even people of the older generation, who are going into post-secondary education institutions or would if they could afford the tuition. They're concerned about the transportation network. They're concerned about auto insurance.

I could talk about all of those things, but in the special time that's available to me today I would like to focus on three particular issues that are more particular to Halifax Fairview and that, to a certain extent, are somewhat unique to my constituency. For each of these items what I would like to do is to urge the government to act. For each of these items there is something concrete that can be done in order to deal with the particular issue or particular situation.

The first one is the issue of jake brakes. I introduced a piece of legislation in the House earlier today on this. I've introduced it before and I'm hoping to have a conversation about it later today with the Minister of Transportation and Public Works. For those of you who don't live close to a 100-Series Highway, this may be a bit of mystery. What is this issue all about? If you do live close to a 100-Series Highway or a major road that has large truck traffic on it, you'll know exactly what it's about. It's the use of the engine-retardant brakes

[Page 1254]

which are very, very loud. People in my constituency, who live beside the Bicentennial Highway, tell me they get jolted out of bed in the middle of the night.

It's a serious issue when you have a major road next to a residential area. In the constituency of Halifax Fairview, there is a street, namely School Avenue, which is closer, I'm told, to a 100-Series Highway than any other residential street in all of the Halifax Regional Municipality.

But it's not just people on that street who have a problem with jake brakes. On the weekend I visited the home of a family who are not one, not two, but four streets over from the Bicentennial Highway. That's what they called me about, that's what they wanted to talk to me about - what can be done about the use of jake brakes? I've been working on this issue for the past - it must be six months now since it was first raised with me by residents of Fairview.

There is something that can be done. First of all, this government, I believe it was this government, brought in a law saying that the use of jake brakes in a 50 zone is illegal. That's fine, that covers the Town of Truro, for example. If you drive into the Town of Truro, it says jake brakes not allowed in the town limits. That's not because of the town bylaw, it's because of the provincial law saying that in a 50 zone you can't use jake brakes. The problem is the particular stretch of Highway No. 102 that we're talking about is not a 50 zone, it's a 70 zone. So it's not illegal to use jake brakes.

I've discussed this issue with representatives of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association which represents many or most of the long-haul truckers and I've also discussed it with the short haul truckers' association. Both of them told me the same thing, that is, except in heavy traffic, there is no need for jake brakes to be used on that particular hill. I met and toured the site with one of the APTA's safety officers and he told me that there is no need for the use of jake brakes on this hill. So why are they being used?

To cut a long story short, he told me that really, there are some truckers who are simply not aware of the impact that they're having on nearby residential areas, or worse, there's a small group that were referred to by both of the truckers' associations as the cowboys - the ones who like the sound of the loud trucks, who are awake in the middle of the night and they want to make sure that everybody else is up with them. Those are the people that we're after - the people who use their air brakes or their engine-retardant brakes, rather, not their air brakes, their engine-retardant brakes when it's not necessary.

That's why I've introduced the bill today. It's very simple, very straightforward and what it does is it gives a municipality the power to forbid the use of jake brakes even outside a 50 zone. Naturally, safety is first, has to be first, will be first. If truckers need to use their engine-retardant brakes for safety purposes, then they will still be able to. But, where it's not necessary, especially at night, this law will permit the municipality to pass a bylaw outlawing

[Page 1255]

the use of jake brakes. It's a good measure, I commend it to the government's attention and to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, with whom I hope to speak later.

I know there are members on that side - I don't mind naming the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, an experienced trucker, he and I have conversed about this informally and he understands, he knows the issue that I'm talking about. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that I remember that member saying that there were areas of his constituency where it's also an issue. So I commend this piece of legislation to his attention in the earnest hope that working together we can provide a solution for the people who have a problem.

The second constituency issue that I'd like to speak about in the time available to me today is the provincial park that is in my constituency. It may surprise many members of the House - I know it surprised some members of my caucus - since I represent an urban riding, they didn't realize that there's a provincial park in my constituency. But there is. It's Long Lake Provincial Park. It was established in the late 1980s or perhaps as late as 1990 by the former member for that area, John Buchanan, when he represented that entire area before redistribution in 1992. One of his last acts as the MLA was to declare this area to be a provincial park. I guess the key thing to know, Mr. Speaker, is that since that time nothing has happened, absolutely nothing. That's okay, I'm not saying that's John Buchanan's fault. Heaven knows, there's lots that is John Buchanan's fault. We're still dealing with the fallout of John Buchanan's Government every day we sit in here, 13 years after the man resigned, we're still dealing with the financial fallout of that government.

[4:00 p.m.]

It was a good thing. You can't be in government for 12 years and not do some good things, and one of the good things that he did was to declare this area to be a provincial park. But it has been, as far as I know, without a management plan. It's virtually unknown to people, except people who live right around the periphery because there are no set trails, there is no development, there is very little in the way of signage. It has been left undeveloped. It appears to residents and to me, the MLA, that it has been operating without a long-term management plan.

Now there are short-term issues as well. I've been told recently that there are parts of the park that are being torn up by ATVs. These modern vehicles that go into off-road areas can really tear up a place. In a park without any fences, without any gates, without any management plan, without any signs, it's hard to say to somebody, that's not the right thing to do.

So the Department of Natural Resources needs to take both a short-term and a long-term approach. I'm pleased to say that after my request, the Department of Natural Resources is meeting with me tomorrow, and I hope to receive some favourable news, some favourable

[Page 1256]

consideration from that department about what to do with this park which could be a real jewel. Point Pleasant Park is available to residents of the city, but the nearest provincial park to peninsula Halifax is Long Lake Provincial Park. With careful planning and management, it can be a real jewel.

I'm pleased to say the park is shared between myself and my colleague, the member for Timberlea-Prospect and the member for Halifax Atlantic. Together, we are determined to turn this into the jewel that it can be. Appropriate protection, appropriate management is what is needed. I really commend that issue to the Minister of Natural Resources for his consideration.

The third issue that I would like to talk about, Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me in this context are the lessons that we have to learn from what has happened up in the Fairmount Subdivision in my constituency. There was a very large, very beautiful but very contaminated piece of land, the subject of 40 years of indiscriminate dumping of industrial waste, and really nobody knows for sure what was dumped there because it was truly indiscriminate and unrecorded.

Up until this year, it has defeated the attempts of all developers to clean up the site at a reasonable cost, but a developer came along and came up with a plan and said, I know how to clean this up, I know how to do it in a way that is affordable. Indeed, much to everyone's surprise, the work has gone ahead and lots are being sold. But unusual situations call for unusual remedies, and what's happening is that a never-before used method is being used to deal with this contaminated soil. That is it's being scraped off the property and put at the southern boundary of the property beside the CN Rail line in what's called a containment cell. This use of the containment cell is absolutely new to Nova Scotia. It is the first time there has been any kind of containment cell like this in the open, in a residential area. It's new for everybody.

But there are certain fundamental things that should have been done that were not done, and one is to get security from the developer for the long-term maintenance of this property. The problem is that the developer made long-term commitments. They're going to keep owning this containment cell and they've made commitments far into the future, in perpetuity, essentially, to maintain this containment cell. But the developer, like all developers, set up a paper company to look after the development. The paper company, after the lots are sold, will have no assets, so the promises are being made by a paper company with no assets. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. That's the way developers and other companies do business.

The problem is that the government didn't ask for any security. So it was only after the fact, after the work had started, at my request, that the department said, hey, how about some security for that promise. If things don't go the way we planned, where's the financial guarantee that you are going to be able to come up with the money to do what you promised

[Page 1257]

to do? I asked in the last sitting of the House what the government's intention was on this and, again at my request and my insistence, the discussions were underway, but there has been no report back to the House from the Minister of Environment about how that's going. Has security been obtained? And when I say "security", I mean that in the legal, commercial sense of the word. Is there financial security for the developer's promises? This is something very important. It should have been done, and should be done for any future development, because when somebody makes those kind of 25- and 50-year commitments, the nearby residents need to know that it will be carried out.

Those are the issues, Mr. Speaker, some of the issues on which I've been working on behalf of the residents of my constituency. Those are the issues on which I will continue to work and, if my constituents so desire, those are the issues on which I will continue to work after the next election, with the support of the government of the day, whoever that may be.