May 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, whose portfolio includes the

Cultural Affairs Division.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government has decided to

close each of the Province's six Arts and Culture Centres for three months this

summer, from the middle of June until the middle of September, as well as laying

off quite a few of the staff of the Arts and Culture Centres? If the Minister

confirms this, would he give an explanation for this drastic downgrading of the

Arts and Culture Centres?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Director of

Cultural Affairs, Elizabeth Batstone, to visit the Arts and Culture Centres

across the Province - which she was planning to do, in any case, as the new

Director - and, at the same time, examine the budget, faced off against the

centres. We are faced with fiscal restraint and problems with balancing the

Cultural Affairs portion of my budget, as well as all the other divisions, and,

no question about it, we are looking at trying to get through this difficult

year with the budget as it is and the dollars we have available. We will have to

allocate timing and staff in a fashion to accommodate that. But she has not

reported back to me, and I do not know, as yet, the timing, the numbers of staff

and the numbers of months involved. The Centre will be closed, of course, for

some time in the summer, because that is normal anyway, but, as to the exact

time frame, I would have to check that out for the hon. Member and report back

to the House.

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

please, on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am the Member for

Humber East.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber East, I am sorry.

MS VERGE: I have said all along, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier has given this Minister far too much responsibility. Obviously, he has

lost sight of the Cultural Affairs Division. I can tell the Minister that the

manager of the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre has been instructed to close

that Centre for three full months, from June 15 to September 15, this year. All

the staff at the Centre will be laid off for that period. As well, there will be

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary, not a statement.

MS. VERGE: There will be permanent layoff of one of the

staff. Now, Mr. Speaker, will not the Minister confirm that his Government has

issued an edict to close all six of the Province's Arts and Culture Centres for

more than one quarter of the year ahead, and will he not confirm that his

department has laid off several of the staff of the Arts and Culture Centres? In

doing so, will he state his Government's plans for the future operation of the

Arts and Culture Centres? Is the Government simply beginning its plan of closing

out the Arts and Culture Centres or perhaps, foisting them off on the

municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have six Arts and Culture

Centres in this Province, and they will not all be treated exactly alike; they

have different programming and are different in the way they operate. So, I have

to say to the hon. Member, once again, that I will check out the details on

staffing and hours of operation and report back to the House on each one of the

centres.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister tell

the House, whether his Government is committed to providing funding for the

continued operation of the six Arts and Centre Culture Centres in the Province,

whether the Province decides to do that directly or, whether the Province

decides to take the advice of the O'Flaherty Report, and turn over the operation

to a board of governors or a board of directors, to whom provincial grants are

given for operations?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, of course,

we are implementing and have implemented many of the recommendations of Dr.

O'Flaherty's Report. He did deal with the Arts and Culture Centres and made some

recommendations. We have not rushed out and made any rash and quick decisions,

because we have six centres in operation, in key locations in the Province, and

we want to make sure, when we make decisions on these centres, that they are the

right decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, we will ultimately make decisions

whether to retain all the centres as provincially run centres, or whether, in

fact, to consider having one or more of the municipalities - who are receptive

to it, in one case, in particular - consider taking over the operation, even if

on a pilot basis to see how it might work. But we are considering all the

options, including Dr. O'Flaherty's recommendations, and ultimately, we will

make decisions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has

avoided answering the key question I asked. Is the Provincial Government

committed to funding, in future, the operation of Arts and Culture Centres? Will

the Province continue to fund the operation of the six Arts and Culture Centres?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, clearly we are committed to

funding the Arts and Culture Centres. It is identified in our budget. We have a

commitment to fund the Arts and Culture Centres. I do not know how many times I

need to say it. For the future, the whole program, the whole operation, all six

centres, is under review, but, presently, as I said, this Government is

committed to operating the six Arts and Culture Centres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I

want to refer the Minister to a memorandum dated February 14, 1991, addressed to

all redundant pensioners, a copy of which I sent over to the Minister earlier

this morning, from the Director of Pension Administration in his department. The

memorandum informs pensioners of changes in the pension legislation respecting

the re-employment of redundancy pensioners. In brief, it says, Mr. Speaker, `If

a redundancy pensioner accepts re-employment in a pensionable position, the

redundancy pension will be suspended, and that re-employed pensioner will renew

contributions to the Public Service Pension Plan while re-employed in that

pensionable position.' The letter, Mr. Speaker, also states, and I quote,

`Please note, contractual service, temporary services or less than three months,

part-time employment or casual work is not affected by this pension

contribution.'

It also says, by the way, the reason for that is that these

types of employment are not considered pensionable, and that is the reason why

that is allowed. Can the Minister confirm the memorandum of February 14, a copy

of which I have sent to him, states accurately the Government policy on the

re-employment of redundancy pensioners?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this memorandum, which I have

not seen before. From my casual inspection of it, it appears to me that it is in

order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would suspect

it is in order, obviously, was written by his own director just three months

ago. The Minister of Education is not in the House and that is who my

supplementary would go to, so I will have to ask the Minister of Finance. Can he

confirm, is he aware that on May 1 of this year, less than three months after

that memo was sent out by the Director of Pensions, that the Minister of

Education wrote to all community colleges and all provincial institutes in the

Province and said that a former employee, in receipt of a redundancy pension,

should not be engaged to undertake any work, including contractual or part-time

as long as they continue to receive redundancy pension benefits? And can the

Minister explain the last paragraph of the Minister of Education's letter which

says, and dealing with contractual work, the prior approval of the Minister of

Education is required before the redundant employee is re-engaged, unless a

condition of that re-employment is that the redundancy pension be cancelled upon

re-employment. Is that not a clear contradiction of the Government's policy as

just confirmed by the Minister of Finance in his own Department's memo of

February 14?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I am not sure that the people he is talking

about are under the same pension plan as the Public Service Pension Plan. What I

would like to do with that is look at a copy of the Minister's letter and

compare it with our own pension policy. I might add that teacher's pensions have

quite recently come under the Department of Finance. Before that they were

administered completely by the Department of Education. I will check that out

for the Member and would he provide me with a copy of the Minister's letter? If

not I can probably get a copy anyway, but I will check it out and answer his

question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to send a copy of

the Minister of Education's letter over to the Minister of Finance so that he

can check it. I do not believe these instructors are under the same pension plan

as the teacher's in the Newfoundland Teacher's Association. Can I ask him also,

while he is checking this out, could he also perhaps check - maybe the Minister

of Education will answer when he comes back, but could he also perhaps check why

the Minister of Education would want, as he said in his letter, why should he

personally want to approve any temporary work for a redundancy pensioner, when

according to the memo of February 14 it is perfectly okay for somebody who is

receiving a redundancy pension to get contractual work? Why would he want to do

that, personally approve it? Is it because he is interested in setting up his

own little patronage niche, or something of that nature? He could perhaps ask

that, - if the President of Treasury Board would settle down now, relax - I know

he got burned the other night in the House on a parliamentary point put he need

not interrupt. May I ask the Minister of Finance to check further, since what is

happening here in the direction of the Minister of Education, his memo, since

what is happening here seems to be in clear contradiction to the Government's

own policy, could he explain or answer whether or not the Department of

Education is somehow exempt from the Government policy because it is a clear

contradiction? Is the Department of Education exempt?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the regulations under the

Public Service Pension Plan apply to all those people who are in the public

service pension plan. But I will check out the points that the Member raises and

give an appropriate response at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. The Minister, as a Minister of this Government, is responsible

for spending millions of dollars of the people's money to private sources,

hopefully within this Province. I would imagine the policy if at all possible,

when the Provincial Government is spending taxpayers dollars they would do their

utmost to spend it in this Province other than try to create jobs outside the

Province. Would the Minister confirm this is the present policy of the

Government?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, another one of the hypothetical

questions from the Member for Kilbride. As the House is no doubt aware there is

a local preference given to people who operate businesses within this Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a hypothetical question, I am asking the Minister a

question about policy. I do not understand why he would say it is a hypothetical

question. It is probably hypothetical because he has no policy.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm that a $35,540

contract was recently awarded without going through the public tendering process

to a Newfoundland company for doing printing work for the Provincial Government

which will be done outside the Province, when there are at least two companies

that I know of inside the Province who are starving for printing work right now,

Mr. Speaker?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: No, I think that is a question the Member

should put on the Order Paper and I will get him the details and get back.

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

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister was going to

take it under notice or take notice on the question I could understand it, but

it does not take a lengthy answer to say yes or no. I know he never has a

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm for the

Minister that he has given a printing contract to a local company which is going

to do the business outside the Province. How can the Minister justify abandoning

a principle of local preference and expending taxpayers' dollars, dollars

belonging to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to create jobs outside

this Province when printing companies such as Dicks and Company and Robinson

Blackmore, which are Newfoundland companies, at this present time are desperate

for printing work? And the contract was for the printing of the Hughes

Commission report.

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what he talking

about, and I will get the answer and I will get back to him hopefully this

morning on the full details of it.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister has now shifted responsibilities of

Metro Board to the City of St. John's. I would like to ask the Minister will the

St. John's City Council now have exclusive control over the level and costs of

regional services in the Metro area?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's

Metropolitan Area Board will cease to exist at the end of this calendar year.

All of the lands under its jurisdiction will be assigned to one municipality or

another in the northeast Avalon region. And that will leave us with the

servicing aspect of their mandate. The decision has been made, as the Member has

said, that the City of St. John's will have the responsibility to maintain and

operate the regional services mostly previously under the St. John's

Metropolitan Area Board. They will have to determine costs, obviously in

consultation and in dialogue with the other municipalities. I do not think they

will do it in total isolation to the other municipalities - I doubt that very

much. Many of these services in fact - particularly the water and sewer lines -

run through other municipalities and service them. So in that particular case -

and in the case of water, with the water supply and other services, fire

department and so on - they will, yes, determine the costs involved and the

appropriate share for each municipality in consultation and dialogue. And those

costs other than the costs to the City of St. John's will be costed out to the

municipalities sharing the services.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister said these services are to be

negotiated and in consultation with the other areas. Let me ask him then: How

will the negotiations take place? How will disputes, if they arise, be resolved?

When will the guidelines or formulas which ensure fair compensation for services

be delivered? Will there be an independent arbitration process to settle

differences? Has the matter been studied before this decision was made?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable

discussion on the options that might be available to us if in fact a dispute

arose over a costing of services. Obviously, the Province itself and the

Minister in the Department would be the ultimate arbitrator in case staff could

not resolve it with the municipalities involved. That process is in place right

now. We have dialogued constantly about areas of sharing of services with

municipalities throughout the Province and, particularly, where they have

regional services in place where they are sharing these services. That mechanism

will still be in place.

We have other means as well, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that

proper arbitration takes place. The Public Utilities Board is in place and that

could be used. Other mechanisms such as the Board that are independent entirely

of Government could be used.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister makes reference

to the Boards, let me ask him: Last year he brought legislation before this

House and all he talked about was the Regional Services Boards and how it would

involve this amalgamation of the northeast Avalon. He clearly had the metro area

in mind, Mr. Speaker, when he brought this Board before this Legislature because

he used it as his main example to justify the need for regional boards. I would

like to ask the Minister now, how has this all changed?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that legislation

was to provide a legal entity, a legal mechanism for municipalities to share and

be able to properly borrow money and enter into financial arrangements that

would be very difficult to do without the legal entity in place. Many areas of

the Province in fact were asking for that legislation because they intended to

borrow money and were borrowing money in some cases in the name of one of the

towns,

whereas the others were not signing for the loan that was put in place.

For that reason and many other reasons, of course, as the Member knows having

debated that particular bill, we put the regional services legislation in place

to enable us to establish boards where necessary. It was not just for the

northeast Avalon region. We decided in this case to save the cost of another

level of Government, which most of the municipalities were saying they did not

want, they did not want another level of Government as they perceived it, call

it a board or call it what you like, but they perceived it as being a level of

Government, and we chose because of their requests not to put in place such a

board if we could avoid it. We chose to go the route of having St. John's

maintain and operate these services and cost them out with an administration

already in place and rather than duplicate that that is the route we chose to

take.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister that

he should check his statements to the Sunday Express story of October 8, 1989,

he would find it contradictory to what he said that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in introducing the Regional Service Boards

legislation, the Minister said that all municipalities in a region would be

represented on the board with elected representatives, who would have the

responsibility for the delivery of services on a regional basis. How is that

principle of representation and responsibility upheld in the decision to make

the St. John's City Council the regional board for the metro area? Has the

Minister changed his amalgamation plan to create super towns and satellite

towns? Will the satellite towns be subservient to the will of the super towns?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, had we chosen the option of a

regional board, yes, we would have appointed only the elected representatives of

the particular municipalities, who are members of that board. We would have

asked them to suggest people who would serve on the board, whether it be a mayor

or a councillor or any number depending on how we had the makeup of the board

and the member in municipalities.

But assuming an eight or ten member board, obviously, they

would be selected based on the population I would think, of the member

municipalities; now we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where, in fact, all of the

municipalities, mayors and councillors and so on will have input into the

sharing of services, because, St. John's will not in isolation to all the other

municipalities, assess charges.

Obviously, they have to have dialogue and that dialogue, Mr.

Speaker, I am very confident will take place. The municipalities have said to me

that they will co-operate, in spite of what you may read in the press and so on,

they will co-operate with the City of St. John's and I think we will see a fair

sharing of services and I feel quite confident that will take place.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Can the Minister advise us, what the policy of the Department is with

respect to the payment of debt incurred to provide water and sewer,

specifically. At what stage of completion of a system does a municipality have

to start repaying the debt?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, currently, what happens after

we decide and prioritize the capital works, and the capital works are commenced,

whether it is water, sewer, roads or any other services in which Government is

involved, a bank debt is used in the first instance until the work is

substantially complete, or complete, then that money is rolled into the

municipal financing corporation, and with the share, a portion to the Province

and to the municipality on whatever split has been decided upon.

This year for the first time, we were able to tell how

municipalities can handle the debt load that may be put in place by capital

works; we can tell exactly per household, because all that work is done so, in

the case of a municipality that has a very low fiscal capacity, we are able to

address that and decide that the amount of dollars from the Province would have

to be higher in that case. On the other extreme, communities, towns and cities

with very good fiscal capacity will not get as much help from Government.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That is not

really what I asked the Minister; I asked the Minister, at what point of the

servicing, is the debt incurred? Mr. Speaker, for the Town of Flatrock, a water

system was commenced a number of years ago at a cost of $550,000; for the last

three years, this Government has not seen fit to provide the funding necessary

to complete the project, in fact, it is 1.2 kilometres from the first house.

The result is, that Flatrock has a half completed water

system which does not serve one house, when will the Minister provide the

funding necessary to complete the system?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is describing a

situation that I can duplicate in answer in many, many, many communities

throughout the Province. We have a terrific problem where the lack of dollars to

address the magnitude of the problem are just not available and we have many,

many dry lines, where we put in a phase or two and we are unable to complete the

project which may take three or four or five or six phases. That is the dilemma

in which we are; whether or not we continue, in the case of Flatrock, I assume

it is not being prioritized and other communities are ranking ahead of it,

usually for health and environment reasons, so that is a difficult circumstance

and I can appreciate it.

We have it, as I said, throughout the Province and it is a

matter of prioritization of whether of not a given project is completed and

phases at it or whether we address a community that has high prioritization and

get its project stated with the first phase in many cases, usually because of a

health or environment problem.

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

Extern a supplementary.

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

Can the Minister explain why the council is now paying

$36,000 a year to service the debt, associated with this half completed water

system, which, as I said, has yet to deliver one drop of water to even one

resident, while at the same time the Government refuses to provide the necessary

funding to complete the project?

I mean this is a crazy situation, I mean, what is the

Minister going to do about it, there they are, $36,000 and there is nothing,

there is just pipe in the ground. Can the Minister tell me this morning that the

project will be ongoing? I asked a question and I want an answer.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my answer. It

is really the same question. If the debt has been put in place because a phase

was implemented, I take it to be the first phase, perhaps the second phase, it

certainly is not complete. But if it has been started and debt is put in place

and the municipality is responsible for a portion of that debt they have to pay

it. I mean that is not unique. We have municipalities, as I have mentioned,

throughout the Province that do not have their water system or sewer system,

whatever it happens to be, do not have it complete but yet they have to pay for

the phases that are put in place. So, I mean the answer is yes, they have to pay

for the debt that is in place.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. But I

want to remind the Minister that the people from his Department said they were

going to make an assessment to see if that water line is going to be

discontinued, just stopped completely or some other phase is going to be put in,

but certainly there is doubt there now whether this is ever going to be

completed. That is why I am asking the Minister: is it right for this council to

be paying $36,000 a year for something that might never be completed? And I also

wanted to ask the Minister when is he going to announce his capital works

program? The season is here for construction, not November, the season is now,

right here now in May, and I want to ask the Minister when is he going to

announce that program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Capital Works

Program is substantially complete as far as review is concerned, and I would

anticipate announcing the program within the next couple of weeks at the very

latest.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In the

absence of the Minister of Justice I would like to ask a question of the

Premier. A few days ago a prisoner was escorted from Her Majesty's Penitentiary

to St. John's Airport. From there the prisoner was placed aboard an aircraft,

and when the aircraft arrived in Happy Valley - Goose Bay the prisoner was met

by the security from the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I will

ask the Premier if there is a new policy for this Government to have prisoners

travelling on commercial aircraft without an escort?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard something on the news

about that incident. Somebody raised an issue about it, and I must confess to

the House that I do not have personal knowledge of the full detail of it, but I

understand that there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no cause for

concern because while the man was in prison it was not a violent situation,

there was no reason to fear or for the public to have any concern about his

being free. And I understand that there was a special leave for him to go home

because of a personal matter at home or for some reason, health reason. I do not

know what it was, but this is the only knowledge that I have of it at the

moment. I would undertake to get the full details and advise the House, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Resource Estimates Committee have considered the matters

to them referred and have passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure

of the Departments of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy, and

the Department of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I was asked a

question during Question Period about the cost of operation of the Premier's

office and the salary votes paid, and I undertook to get the detailed

information for the last year, and for the prior year. Also, I undertook to get

information for prior years as well so that there would be some appropriate

basis for comparison. I am now pleased to advise the House that I have obtained

the information and Members will see, if you turn to the second page and the

bottom line, the most expensive year was 1988-89 when it cost $1,800,000 to run

the Premier's office. But to be fair there was severance pay paid out during

that year, during the switch over. The next year it cost $1,400,000 but there

was severance pay in that year, too. To be fair what you should look at is the

last year of the former administration which was $1,327,598 compared with last

year which was $1,100,000. So, Mr. Speaker, quite apart from inflation the way

in which we are operating the office indicates a very substantial savings of in

real terms probably about $400,000 and in actual dollars $250,000 or so.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this is largely commentary, I

guess. If I may, there are a whole bunch of questions on the Order Paper put to

Ministers regarding the layoffs, all by the Opposition House Leader, I believe.

What has happened is I have been compiling everything myself from all

Departments and a breakdown of the total layoffs separated by male/female as

well, which is an additional question, I believe, that was not there, but all

that information will soon be ready. We are still waiting for some of the

details from the hospital sector. As soon as that is received it will be

presented to the House. I should advise, Your Honour, that one part of the

question which asks to list the names and addresses of all the people, that, we

feel, we should not be provided to hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: We understand throughout the debate on this

issue that, for example, the Minister of Education has said, and I believe, the

President of Treasury has said, that a fair number in the Education category

will not be known, the numbers will not be known with certainty until - do you

know them now.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I understood many of them would not happen

until August.

MR. BAKER: They all know about it.

MR. SIMMS: The decisions have been made. Okay, so you

expect to have that next week?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) breakdown I wanted.

MR. SIMMS: Can I ask the Minister, if he does not get the

Health information, can he table the rest of it by the end of next week if

possible, so we will have a chance to scrutinize it, you know?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) as soon as I can. I hope to have

it within days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

I wonder if the Minister of Health could advise when he will

answer the question regarding the fifty hospital beds that were announced in the

1990 Budget, just as to where these beds were provided and what beds have been

removed from the same hospitals? Could the Minister advise as to when the answer

to that question will be tabled?

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not

know if we are going to re-enact Question Period or not. The information is

being compiled. The first part of the question is quite simple, no big problem,

but the second part does involve a considerable amount of research, where we

have to check with all the hospitals, because we are anticipating there will be

forty-five or fifty beds closed down; at a given month there might be more, and

another month there might be less than that. Now,I do not want to bring

erroneous information into this House, Mr. Speaker. When I bring something here,

I want to be able to stand solid on it - concrete under my feet - and that takes

a considerable amount of time.

Petitions

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure, today, to present a petition on behalf of

307 residents of Lodge Bay, Mary's Harbour and St. Lewis, Labrador. The prayer

of the petition is: To the hon. House of Assembly and Parliament assembled. The

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland humbly showeth,

whereas

all residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain depend solely on Marine

Atlantic to transport all food and supplies to their communities; and

whereas

coastal Labradorians presently pay the highest cost of living in Eastern Canada;

and

whereas high operating costs prohibit the economic viability of many fish

plants; wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon

the House of Assembly to condemn the Federal Government for allowing Marine

Atlantic to raise its freight rates to Labrador by 60 percent, this year, and to

demand an immediate freezing of the rates until public hearings are held and a

full review of the issue is completed.

Mr. Speaker, this petition will, I guess, be one of many that

will follow from the residents of coastal Labrador, because they are incensed by

the increase that Marine Atlantic has placed upon its freight rates, this year,

particularly those that impact upon basic food supplies and the transporting of

fish to and from the coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have done a fair bit of work on this. I met

with the Chairman of Marine Atlantic, in Moncton, some time ago. Out of that

meeting came a commitment that a full review of the rates would occur.

Unfortunately, I have to report that Marine Atlantic has indicated to me that

they are not prepared to lower any of these rates. As a matter of fact, I

understand they are looking to seek another increase in the rates in the

not-too-distant future, and this is completely intolerable.

I believe it is time the Federal Government took a direct

look at the Marine Atlantic operation on the coast of Labrador, for a couple of

reasons. The first reason, of course, is that the Marine Atlantic Service does

not come under the National Transportation Act; therefore, there is no process

that it has to go through in order to substantiate particular increases. If it

did, there would be no way that a 60 per cent rate increase would be allowed.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the federal Minister of Transport -the kinds of

rate increases that take place in Marine Atlantic are entirely at the Minister's

discretion, and, certainly, he has the power to investigate what is going on

here and to see that the people on the coast of Labrador are justly treated when

it comes to paying freight to and from their communities.

The other important reason why I believe there should be a

full review of this is because, in 1949, when we joined Confederation,

Section

31 of the Terms of Union clearly pointed out that the Federal Government would

assume all responsibilities for marine services to and from the Island and

Labrador and it would also assume all costs associated with that service.

Now, while it has not been laid out in a rate

schedule

exactly what the rates would be or the level of service that would be provided,

it is clear to all people who interpret that particular

section that this

service is meant to be provided at the least cost to the people on the coast of

Labrador, and certainly, it was never meant to unduly punish the people on the

coast because of where they live.

The people on the coast of Labrador are presently paying an

intolerably high cost of living and, this year, the 60 per cent increase on food

and fish is going to really hurt many of the coastal fish plants in Mary's

Harbour, Cartwright, Black Tickle, Makkovik and Nain. If you take an average of

a million to a million-and-a-half pounds of fish coming out of these communities

every year, Mr. Speaker, on the average each one of them will now have to pay

$15,000 more on transportation to and from that community. And I know, because I

work closely with the Labrador Shrimp Company, that many of these plants are

marginal at best. As a matter of fact, if it was not for the revenues that the

shrimp company is getting from its offshore shrimp operation, they would not be

able to operate these plants.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the plants in Mary's Harbour, Cartwright,

Black Tickle, Makkovik and Nain do not operate, there is no other action in

these communities. There is no community. They are the lifeblood of the

communities. There is no opportunity to diversify into forestry, mining,

tourism, or anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by

saying I hope all hon. Members will be able to send a strong signal to the

Federal Government to reverse this draconian decision. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. I

see nobody wants to speak to this one, so I have a separate petition.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the other

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, speaking to the

previous petition.

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

I have no problem in supporting the petition put forward by

the people of Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis concerning the rate

increases in Marine Atlantic. But, I have to say this, at the same time, I am

glad that the hon. Member has finally awakened from his dream, because it was

only about three weeks ago that he had a petition signed by the same people in

Mary's Harbour, that he would not present in this House. Mr. Speaker, I find it

so interesting that the hon. gentleman brings in a petition in which the people

are asking for improvements, the same as the last petition. I support the

signatures on this petition, as well as I did the previous petition that the

hon. gentleman would not present.

Mr. Speaker, the increase by Marine Atlantic is going to

cause much difficulty, particularly for the people from Mary's Harbour all the

way up to Nain, because these are the people who probably have, on average, the

lowest annual income in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The increase

naturally will hurt. For example, on a case of milk going from St. John's to

Nain or to Mary's Harbour, regardless of where it would be going, instead of the

$1.95 or $2.00 it would have cost last year, now, it will cost $3.50 or $4.00.

Although, it may not sound like much on the surface, the increase is still

there.

So, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation will get up now and support that petition,

also. Because it was not too long ago, in this legislature, that I asked a

question of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who had filed a

letter that the Premier had written a year and a half ago, on the proposed

increase. The Minister has not - unless he has the last two or three weeks

-objected to the increase by Marine Atlantic. All he did was file a letter that

the Premier sent, and he said, `I support the Premier's position.'

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, he should have been up in Ottawa, knocking on the door of the

Minister of Transportation, up in Halifax and Moncton, knocking on the doors of

Marine Atlantic, because, unless you get the support of the Ministers in that

Government, Labrador, again, could well be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Thank you very much.

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the benefit of the gentleman from Torngat Mountains, the

letter I tabled was, indeed, a position of this Government, which expressed the

very strong feelings of this Government concerning the increased freight rates

in Labrador. I also point out to the gentleman that when I go to Ottawa, I

usually do not have to wait outside the Minister's door, I get in and I can talk

to him face to face, so that is not a problem.

There have been many representations made over the total

policy of the Federal Government. And, as I support the petition so ably

presented by my colleague from Eagle River, it is the total federal position

that I have some concern about. As my friend alluded to, Term 39 and the

provision under the Terms of Union to provide a marine service to coastal

Newfoundland and Labrador, is the one that I feel has been somewhat usurped by

the Federal Government and its policy of user-pay.

It is unconscionable when you see what Marine Atlantic did

arbitrarily, this year, without asking for any input from the people that use

it, not only along the Labrador coast, but along the south coast of

Newfoundland, to increase the freight rates without any hearing. And the point

my colleague makes, the fact that it is not covered under the National

Transportation Act, is the crime. We have a Federal Government saying to their

Crown corporations, We want you to behave like businesses, we want you to show

the figures on the bottom line. Consequently, when a Crown corporation such as

Marine Atlantic has to show the bottom line, the people who pay, and whose backs

it is going to be inflicted on, are the people who live in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

This is what my colleague for Eagle River is trying to point

out here. It is one of the things that I have mentioned to my federal

counterparts any time that I have had occasion to talk to them. I will be

talking to the new Minister, very shortly, and it will be very high-priority in

the discussions I will be having with him.

Just to give you an example of what happened, Marine Atlantic

were very quick to impose the 5 per cent fuel surcharge, immediately, on rumours

of the Persian Gulf War, and the war, last fall.

Despite the fact that I have written several letters, it has

taken quite some time, and just last week, they finally made the last adjustment

to get it down. So, there is no doubt about it, Marine Atlantic are operating

now with a good business ethic, `Let's make a profit', but they are making a

profit on the backs of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whom they are

supposed to serve under Term 31, and I can assure this hon. House that it will

be one of the things I will very definitely be discussing with the federal

Minister.

I think it is an abomination that the Federal Government are

trying to inflict user-pay on a transportation system in Canada. As a matter of

fact, they are gutting the whole country, by this policy, and I think it is time

that it changed.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is

too bad the Premier is not here for this. I am sure he is within hearing range,

as I present this petition. I want to read the prayer of this petition. It does

not refer directly to the Premier, but it is a petition that requests an action

from all Members of this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we the residents of the

Town of the Goulds, petition the Members of the House of Assembly to vote

against the proposed amalgamation resolution as presented in the House of

Assembly on May 14, 1991, by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the wording of this petition by the Town of the

Goulds was not accidental. The wording was very, very well thought out and it

could fit any of the communities affected by this amalgamation. Anyone in this

region who is affected by the amalgamation proposal announced by the Minister a

couple of days ago, should sign this petition. Those who should sign it most are

the residents of the City of St. John's.

The residents of the Town of the Goulds, on very short

notice, held a meeting last night. Between 200 and 300 of them came out to the

youth centre -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister of Social Services might

want to make fun of the republican guard tactics that he has employed since he

got in here, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a bit too important to the people of the

Town of the Goulds for me to be wasting time with that person.

Mr. Speaker, those people came out. We were hoping for 75 to

100 so we could take up our petitions, that is what we wanted to take. I did not

expect to get, on a Thursday night, close to 300 people to come to that meeting,

but we did, and within an-hour-and-a-half, in a community that is spread out

quite a bit, with a couple of very long roads. Houses are not neatly packed

together like they would be in Wedgewood Park, Mount Pearl or most of St.

John's. Mr. Speaker, those people took petitions and went out and asked people

to sign. There are 2,100 signatures on this petition. There are 2,980 voters, I

believe, in the Town of the Goulds. Mr. Speaker, over 80 per cent of the people

of the Goulds who can vote have signed this petition. There are 5,000 people in

the Goulds, Mr. Speaker, over 2,000, plus school children.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible). More than 900 voters.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: That is not the only part of the district,

boy. Don't be so stunned!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I should ignore him.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the Goulds have signed this

petition. If I had the `Clyde Lied' buttons with me last night, and sold them

for $1.00 each, I could have raised enough money to finance my next campaign,

because the people in the Goulds are completely fed up with what this Government

is trying to force down their throats. Most of the 2100 people who signed this

said they feel completely and utterly betrayed by the republican guard tactics

that are happening in a lot of things in this Province, Mr. Speaker, especially

having amalgamation shoved down their throats by the Premier. They do not blame

the Minister too much because they do not think the Minister had much say in

this. They blame the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, for shoving this

down their throats, the same as he tore up contracts for public servants, the

same as he made commitments during an election and did not live up to them.

Mr. Speaker, all I had last night were some bumper stickers.

The Member for St. John's South might watch his pick-up when he is passing

through the Goulds from now on, because if he stops too often there will not be

one bumper sticker on it, it will be plastered with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be vandalism.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did I admit to vandalism, then? If I put

a bumper sticker on that member's car, I would say I did. The only reason I did

not do it was because I did not think of it. It would not be one, Mr. Speaker, I

would plaster it with them, too. When he stops at Bidgood's the next time he

might find out where the rest of them are going to come from.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Goulds ask very simply for

this Government to follow the Municipalities Act. Do not ram it through the

House of Assembly by resolution. Have a feasibility study and show us why we

should go in with the City of St. John's. That is not an unreasonable request.

That is a very reasonable request, Mr. Speaker, made by the residents who

attended that meeting, and by the people who signed this petition. They ask the

members in this Legislature to vote against this resolution so that we can get

back to democracy, hold the proper feasibility study for this proposal that was

presented, and then let us see what will happen in the Town of the Goulds. Maybe

then, Mr. Speaker, when they know what the consequences are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

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

It is with great pleasure that I stand to support the

petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. The amount of time

taken to take up a petition, as he said, in a place like the Goulds! Anybody who

is familiar with the Goulds, and it is quite questionable whether anybody

opposite is very familiar with the Goulds or how it has developed, or how it is

presently operating, in view of what they did this past few days to that town,

must realize in a short time last night what a number of people would sign a

petition objecting to what this Government has done, or is trying to do. I will

not say, has done, yet, because we do not know whether or not the Government has

the power to do what they say they are going to do by means of resolutions.

Consequently, it shows, as I said, the way people feel about it when you get

that number of people signing a petition.

Mr. Speaker, the concern of people is not that towns and

communities are being amalgamated, not that services are being formally shared.

Very few people who are involved with Municipal Government will argue the fact

that as areas develop - and in recent years in Newfoundland many rural and urban

areas have come a long way in relation to the provision of services to

taxpayers, not forgetting the fact, of course, that as they have come a long way

taxpayers are paying the bills for the development of these services. Areas have

come a long way, and as road areas occur, as is happening in rural areas,

populations are becoming depleted, then the need to re-access how services are

provided is important and Government has to play a part. There are times when

things have to be shared, there are times when things can be more properly

managed, but who knows better as to what can work in an area, whether it be the

actual provision of that service or the method of co-operation that takes place

in relation to the towns or villages involved, and people who live in those

areas, themselves. It is extremely unfortunate that the people who are presently

directly involved in all this process had very little say in the actual result.

Some months ago, when the new Minister - on his own, I think, a very

well-intentioned gentleman - rode in waving the amalgamation flag, he was

referred to as Eric The Red, you know, the great Viking who came to the west and

conquered everything that lay in his path.

Unfortunately, now - and once again, I say, I do not blame

the Minister, because I think he has had his sword taken away - he is being

referred to as Eric The Yellow, because he backed away from the process number

one, but mainly because of the egg on his face, due to the humiliation he must

be going through because of what was done to him by his own party.

I understand that the Minister, or Minister-to-be, I suppose,

the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, was the big stick, in caucus, in

relation to what really happened. The Member, if one is to believe what is being

told, is the one who went to the Premier and gave him an ultimatum in relation

to his own area, and if you look at the fact, that in the whole process, the

only area that is satisfied with the amalgamating suggestions, is the area of

Paradise. And what is being said by the Member, I understand, if it is correct,

is that he is the one who told the Premier what had to be done in relation to

his area.

Now, it is unfortunate that the Member for Pleasantville and

others did not have the same clout in Cabinet, because they got scuttled and, of

course, Members like the Member for St. John's Centre and St. John's North did

not know what was going on, anyway, and the Member for St. John's South, I

understand, was completely ignored. So, therefore, the Premier - and I referred

to him earlier as `Cod Liver Clyde', because his philosophy is: Take it, it is

good for you; I say it is good for you, so put up with it - has absolutely no

knowledge of the effect of this resolution that is coming before us.

He has no knowledge, at all, of the fact of what this is

going to do to a place like the Goulds. The Minister of Social Services, who

says he knows so much about rural Newfoundland, should know something about the

physical makeup of the Goulds. Last night, I talked to an elderly gentleman from

the area, who owns a fair amount of land. A lot of people in the Goulds, because

it is a rural area, own a lot of land -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- but the concern was they will not be able to pay their

taxes, they will have to sell off and go to senior citizens' homes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, no leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: It is terrible, and that is what is happening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words

in response to the petition taken up last evening by the people of the Goulds.

Of course, petitions are a vital part of this process and people have every

right to express their views.

In a case like this and in a situation and a decision like

this which involves great change, substantive change, long, long overdue in the

Northeast Avalon, I might add - no previous Government, including the Members

Opposite, were willing to take any decisions, leave it alone, because I suppose

AN HON. MEMBER: We believe in democracy.

MR. GULLAGE: - politically, tough decisions, in many

cases, in many Governments, are best avoided. So, the previous Government

decided to avoid the tough decisions that had to be taken and left it alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shove it down people's

throats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, we carried out the

feasibility process necessary. I do not think anybody could argue. In the

beginning, they were telling me I was going too fast -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: - trying to do it in a couple of months, so

I slowed it down considerably, Mr. Speaker, where I think we have gone beyond

the year-and-a-half in the process. So, for anybody to suggest that we have not

taken the time and have not had dialogue and discussion, on top of the previous

nine Royal Commissions - some of them Royal Commissions, no less, by previous

Governments. On top of all that information we had available - I have said it in

the past - we have been studied to death. Mr. Speaker, it is true! You can come

over to my Department and I can show you the studies stacked up! The previous

Government said, Okay, just leave them there, it fills up all the bookshelves.

But, `do nothing' was their attitude, Mr. Speaker. Now, politically, sometimes

doing nothing wins you a lot of points, I guess. But we decided that we could no

longer sit around and do nothing about a very serious situation in the Northeast

Avalon.

Now, the Goulds is one of seventeen communities affected by

the decision, and in-between, of course, we have a lot of Metropolitan area

land. And, those people in-between municipalities, were we going to leave them

alone for another ten or fifteen years, not really represented in any

substantive way by elected - granted, there were some elected people appointed

to the Metropolitan Area Board, but half the Board was appointed and unelected.

Did we want to let that continue? No, we did not. So we had take decisions for

the best long-term interests of the Northeast Avalon, 160,000 people. I do not

know what that works out to but it is about - what? Thirty per cent? - something

like about 30 per cent of the population of the Province.

So, we made a decision, and I think we made it in the best

interests of the seventeen communities and the others in the Metropolitan area

lands, and in the best interests of the Goulds. Even though the Goulds has

presented a petition through their Member, I think they will see, in the future

- maybe not in the short-term, it will take time. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the

long-term best interests of the people of the Goulds - as with the other

communities, will be best served by the decision the Government has taken.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, today, we are calling Motion

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the actual

debate, I am a bit shaken by the Minister's last comments there on this whole

issue. It seems to me that when a government decides that it knows more than the

people, that is a pretty heavy responsibility to take on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I am a bit shaken by what the Minister of

Municipal Affairs just said.

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

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour will recall - I am not sure,

according to Hansard, who was in the Chair, if it was Your Honour or -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: It was Your Honour. Your Honour will recall

that on May 14, I raised the point of order about divvying up the resolution -

just to summarize without going into great detail - as put forth by the Minister

of Municipal Affairs. And my reason was, I thought, self-explanatory, because

there may be sections of that resolution, there may be amendments proposed to

the resolution, some sections of which may be acceptable to Members, and which

some Members may find more acceptable than others. And that would give Members

an opportunity to support those that they agree with, and vote against those

with which they do not agree.

The very essence and principle, I suppose, of the process of

debate in a Parliament, is outlined in Beauchesne, starting on page 171, which

Your Honour, I know, is quite familiar with. But I just want to make one

additional submission, because, when I made the point of order, I did not give

Your Honour a Parliamentary reference to consider. Perhaps he has considered it,

anyway, but I do want to make sure that Your Honour did consider it. It is the

reference on page 172, that my friend opposite is quite familiar with, paragraph

Now, in order to come to that paragraph 557 you have to read

paragraph 552, which talks about the whole process of debate and the purpose for

making resolutions or motions acceptable. I mean, the whole intent is to try to

make them more acceptable. And I am arguing that one way of doing that would be

to divide these resolutions.

Paragraph 557.(1) in Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 172, says:

"A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions" - and, clearly, we

have two or more distinct propositions in this resolution - "may be divided so

that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker," of

course, "has a discretionary power to decide whether a motion should be

divided." So it is really a follow-up to the point of order that I put on May

14, when Your Honour said - I believe, he said he would get back - he said, `I

will look into it and have an answer later for the House'.

But I just want to reiterate that it was not a facetious

point of order, it was quite a serious point of order.

If I might just conclude by saying, for example, I will put

it as clearly as I can, under the next to last resolved part of the resolution:

`and the House of Assembly further resolves that the timing of the

consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and administrative

details be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;' Well, that may be one of

the clauses, for example, that may not be too hard to vote for, if you

understand what I am saying. That is a fairly simple one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But, still, it is part of your resolution, so

I am saying you could vote for that.

Well, let us go on to the next one: Government shall

introduce legislation where necessary to effect the changes set out in the

resolution, once passed. Maybe we would be hard pressed to vote against that, it

is pretty straightforward, but where it says that the boundaries of Mount Pearl

be divided, in that clause, or maybe some other clause, might clearly be opposed

to that and would like to indicate to the House that the Chair would like to

have the sense of the House would be much easier. Maybe the St. Thomas' -

Paradise clause, we would support, because, as we understand it, at this stage,

at least, there is no major objection to it, so maybe we would support that.

So I think my point is obvious and I do not want to beat it

to death, but I guess what I am saying to Your Honour is in following the rules

of debate, the process of debate, as outlined by Beauchesne, clearly when you

put a resolution or a motion forward, the intent is to try to get the resolution

proceeded with in such a way as to make it more acceptable to the majority of

members in the legislature. That is the whole purpose of it. And the other major

thing, of course, is for the Chair to be able to get a clear sense of the House,

and I think it would be much easier for Your Honour to get a clear sense if we

simply agreed, at the appropriate time, to take separate votes on each of the

individual clauses.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of

order. The Member is absolutely right that he did make the submission and I made

a counter submission at that time. I would like to remind Your Honour, as the

Opposition House Leader did, the purpose of this particular

section is to

expedite matters in the House, to make sure that things proceed according - and

make it easier for the matter to be dealt with. There are certain cases where,

by splitting a motion, it would certainly make it easier to deal with that

motion. There are other cases where it would not. I would like to remind Your

Honour that paragraph 557 says, "A motion which contains two or more distinct

propositions may be divided," it does not say `must be divided.' It does not say

that where there are two separate ideas in a resolution, it has to be divided.

There is nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that it may be divided,

and certainly it may be divided, if it expedites and makes it easier to carry

out the legislative process in the House and to get the sense of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this particular instance, however, as I

have pointed out to Your Honour, before, there are not two distinct propositions

there. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, you change one piece and you have to change

all the others, the next piece, the next piece and the next piece, and the thing

is a package and a unit. A change in one necessitates changes in others. So, Mr.

Speaker, in that sense, it is a package.

In the sense of expediting matters in the House, then

obviously, the intent, if this were to be divided to myriad sections, and when

you make a change in one section, then you have to go back for another month or

so to figure out how you are going to then effect changes in the others in light

of the first change and so on, obviously, the intent of the splitting is an

obstructionist intent, in this case. I would suggest to Your Honour that he, in

his deliberations, consider whether it would be proper to use this clause with

the intent to obstruct rather than with the intent to expedite and to clearly

get the sense of the House in terms of the amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon.

So, Your Honour, it is not a simple matter. I would ask Your

Honour to take into consideration, as I know you will, the nature of this

resolution, the fact that it is a package and a change in one necessarily

affects the other. They are not distinct, you see, two or more distinct

propositions. If in fact, Your Honour, they were distinct propositions in here,

then I would be suggesting, as I have in the past, that they be split. But, they

are not distinct, they are inextricably tied, tied together. This is a package,

it is like a jigsaw puzzle, and where a decision on one boundary would, of

necessity, affect other boundaries, and so on, along the chain.

Your Honour, I once again suggest to you that this is a

package resolution. It is not the type of resolution that contains distinct

possibilities, distinct propositions, and, therefore, should be handled in one

vote as a package, as Government intended in the first place.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a further submission for

Your Honour's consideration.

While the Minister quoted, as I did, paragraph 557, and tried

to make the point that the resolutions `may be divided', it goes on quite

clearly to say that it is the Speaker who has the discretionary power to make

that decision, essentially. That is why I am making the argument to the Speaker,

not to the Minister and President of Treasury Board. Now, I find his arguments

somewhat hollow, quite frankly.

Every time I get up to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

and offer something constructive in the hope that it will improve the

legislative process, the Minister seems to suffer from a severe case of

paranoia. The other night was a great example, when we sat here for an hour and

thirty-five minutes for Your Honour to rule on whether or not the Estimates

Committees should continue. Totally a waste of time, it was not necessary. But

it was brought on by paranoia suffered by the President of Treasury Board, and

once again we have it. He is suggesting now, in a subtle little way, as he often

does, that all we are doing here is attempting to be obstructionist.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, categorically, all we are

simply asking is that the eight or nine clauses, when the time comes for the

vote, be voted on separately. Now, what is obstructionist about that? A voice

vote takes about one minute, and if it is a division vote, ten minutes, at the

maximum. It is no big deal. I mean, that is not obstructionist, and there is no

intent to be obstructionist. That is a silly argument and I plead with Your

Honour not to consider that as part of the submission.

Let me deal with the more substantive question that he

raised, which is, he is arguing that this resolution cannot be dealt with

separately in voting because a change in one

section would, of necessity, mean a

change in the whole resolution. Those are his words from Hansard, and that is

basically what he said here a few moments ago. Now, I would argue that quite

clearly, Mr. Speaker. I will give you one example in the resolution, itself. If

Your Honour looks at the resolution, for example, this is the third resolve,

"AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the St. John's Fire Department,

including the Mount Pearl Fire Station, and the Canada Games Park including The

Aquarena be transferred to the City of St. John's, and all those facilities

associated with the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board be transferred to the

City of St. John's;" Now, if we were to vote, and wished to vote against that

and the House wanted to vote against it and it was defeated, that will have no

bearing on the boundaries in the rest of the resolution, absolutely no bearing

on the boundaries outlined in the rest of the resolution.

"AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the timing

of the consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and

administrative details be set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council;" I mean, if

that were voted against, it does not matter, because, as the Minister has

already said himself a few moments ago, they already have the authority to do

that, anyway. I mean, the argument against this is ludicrous. I do not know why

the Government House Leader is becoming so determined to not allow democracy to

work a little better because that is all we are arguing. Finally, I will say

this, because I know he is going to respond again to put down my arguments,

perhaps he can then tell me if that same argument will apply, if, for example,

an amendment is proposed, as has been talked about and rumoured now for the last

couple of days, that some strong lobbying is underway by the City of St. John's,

using one of the Members on the Government side, specifically the Member for

Pleasantville, in an attempt to try and bring in an amendment to the resolution

that will incorporate Mount Pearl into this whole resolution. Would not that

then as well, using his own argument, not be permitted, and if that is the case

why should we not permit such matters to be put forward in the way of

amendments? Perhaps we have some amendments to be considered, but surely they

would have to be dealt with separately. That is the major argument I would make

Your Honour. In any event ultimately Your Honour will decide. We are simply

asking that you give consideration to separating the resolution so that at the

voting time it can be voted on individually.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very unusual. Normally, a point of order is made, a

submission is made to Your Honour, and then from the other side there is a

further submission, and there are submissions made. The problem with the

Opposition House Leader is he thinks he is still Speaker and he has to get up

and make rulings. That is what he assumes. He believes he is still Speaker and

he gets up and makes his ruling. I would like to point out to Your Honour that

further to what had been said the Opposition House Leader had already pointed

out in his submission that the things other than the boundaries were things they

could easily agree with, and it was the boundaries they wanted to spilt out and

have separate votes on. This is what he indicated. He indicated a complete lack

of understanding of the resolution when he said that if he read out a

section we

could vote against that and it still would not affect the rest of the

resolution. Your Honour this is one of the things about the necessity of making

provisions in this resolution for not having a regional services board as an

essential part of it. It is tied in with exactly what happens to all the

boundaries, and is an essential part of the jigsaw puzzle. Obviously, in the

Member's submission he shows a complete lack of understanding of what this

resolution is about. To make his point he also says: does this mean now that

Government is not going to accept amendments? Well, amendments are not the same.

An amendment is not the same as splitting an resolution. Your Honour has not

been in the Chair any more than a couple of years and Your Honour understands

that, I am sure. There is no wonder the Member opposite was such a bad Speaker

when he was in the Chair, with that type of argument.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Members are correct, the point of

order was raised some time ago. The matter is now under consideration. The Chair

allowed some additional comments to be made and will bring back a decision on

the matter shortly.

The hon. the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I

rise to start the debate on the resolution, a resolution I introduced to the

House a couple of days ago. The resolution, of course, proposes that we

substantially change the present structure of Municipal Government in the

northeast Avalon area. We have, as hon. Members know, some seventeen

municipalities comprising a population of about 160,000 people, by far the

largest region of the Province, with its core, of course, the capital City of

St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we have had for some time now in place the

seventeen municipalities I mentioned and a St. John's Metropolitan area board.

This board carries out the function of providing management and services to

people who live in between and on lands that are in between the seventeen

municipalities. Many of these communities, such as Evergreen Village and

Elizabeth Park as two examples, Windsor Heights is another one, grew up and were

formed as municipalities really and part of the Metropolitan Area Board, without

representation really in the same context as the other seventeen municipalities

which all have elected councils. Metropolitan Area Board is half appointed from

elected officials from the seventeen councils or some of the seventeen councils.

The major players, the larger cities and towns, have most of the representation

because of population. But the Metropolitan Area Board also has half of its

membership appointed by the Province.

So it was felt that the Metropolitan Area Board because of

the need to rationalize and restructure the northeast Avalon had fulfilled its

role, and I believe we made that comment - I am sure we did - at the front end

when we started and introduced the feasibility procedure for the northeast

Avalon. The intent was - and it was even before then, actually, because we are

not the first government to talk about a changing role for the Metropolitan Area

Board. It was thought that the lands would be annexed to the nearest

municipality in most cases. Would be part of the rationale for the feasibility

process because certainly the Board was outlined. Metropolitan Area Board was

included in the feasibility process as a municipality because it is incorporated

as such. It operates under the jurisdiction, under the criteria established

under the Municipalities Act as other municipalities do as well. And that at the

end of the day, or throughout the feasibility process and the commissioners were

asked to examine assigning those lands and those responsibilities to another

jurisdiction.

So that has been accomplished with the resolution. Portions

of the resolution speak to the assignment of the assets of St. John's

Metropolitan Area Board to the City of St. John's for administration,

maintenance and operation. And that the lands would be annexed to the nearest

municipality in most cases.

To make substantial changes like that in my view took a lot

of courage on the part of Government. We could have sat back when we took

Government and decided to leave everything alone. To let seventeen communities

continue to operate in competition and isolation to one another. Isolation as

far as planning is concerned, management, administration of services,

competition for industry and business and residential growth. And all seventeen

- and I suppose you could include the Metro Board as well in that context -

really not coordinating any of those activities one with the other. We could

have sat back and let that continue to happen. But Government decided to take

the initiative and to proceed with the feasibility process which has led us to

the resolution that we have today.

We recognize that reform was needed in municipal government -

not just in the northeast Avalon but obviously throughout the Province. We had

to make reforms. Now to suggest that we were the only ones saying that would be

ludicrous, I suppose, is the word. Because for years and years - and as a member

of the Federation of Municipalities I can attest to it - member municipalities

were saying that they wanted more independence from government. Making a case in

Newfoundland and throughout Canada that they should be recognized as clearly a

third level of government.

They are still making that case, the Federation nationally

and I suppose individually in the Province, they are still making that case that

they want independence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with independence comes responsibility. You

do not just simply say that you are going to be an independent level of

Government, self-governing with no input from the Province or the Federal

Government unless you can support that statement, unless you can support that

independence. But, Mr. Speaker, municipalities, especially in Newfoundland where

we have over 500 of them with any size, have very great difficulty in operating.

Difficulty in providing management to their people, difficulty in providing

services, particularly water and sewer, which is the biggest single problem we

have with municipal government in Newfoundland, providing the essential basic

rights, if you like, which everybody feels that they have of clean water and

good services as far as sewer lines are concerned, and providing a healthy

environment for people to live in with proper municipal services which address

the health and environment needs that everybody has.

Mr. Speaker, municipal governments throughout this Province,

particularly in the smaller areas and smaller communities, are incapable of

delivering those services for their people without help from the Province. It

just cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. Bringing a lot of them together that have

adjacent boundaries helps us in that cause, helps us in so many ways. First of

all, it helps them in rationalizing the cost of administration by putting two or

more municipalities together, whether it be in rural Newfoundland or in the

urban parts of the Province, it certainly brings about economies of scale. Every

single commissioners report that I have read attests to the fact that is true,

they make the point that their evaluation of the seventeen points in the

feasibility process has caused them to recommend that communities come together

because it is very cost effective. There is no question in all cases that when

you combine smaller entities with small populations, in many cases throughout

the Province with very small populations, we have communities involved in the

amalgamation process with as little as a couple of hundred people. Mr. Speaker,

bringing those smaller communities together into a larger community in rural

Newfoundland with 1200 people or 1500 people or 2000 people whatever the case

might be, mostly that would be the case. There are one or two exceptions but

most groupings put together would be at least 1200 people. We have established

that was the size necessary for a community that would sustain itself, from our

research, would require some 1200 people or more.

So, we used that criteria and identified the groupings of

towns that had co-adjacent boundaries and could logically come together, then

the commissioners confirmed that we were right in the majority of cases, not all

cases. We have eight or ten situations of groupings of communities that the

commissioners are saying that for many reasons but mostly because they are too

far apart that they should be left separately and treated as separate entities

and the Government should deal with their problems as they are separate

municipalities.

The vast majority though some thirty-four groupings of

municipalities the commissioners are clearly saying, based on the criteria laid

down in the feasibility process, the communities should be joined together.

Mr. Speaker, they addressed factors which included the

administrative capability of the towns or cities, the cost efficiency in these

towns as they presently existed versus put together. Community identity, one of

the points raised, I supposed, most frequently at hearings was, are we going to

lose our identity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not invent amalgamation. A lot of

amalgamations were done in the past and community identity was not lost. I can

give you examples close to home in CBS (Conception Bay South) where we have

Kelligrews, Manuels and Topsail and the names are still there and people still

identify with those communities; so community identity has not been lost.

Quidi Vidi village right here in the city is still Quidi Vidi

village, anybody going down there say, to visit the plant or visit the

restaurant he is going to Quidi Vidi village and it is identified that way, so

we have not lost identity as far as towns are concerned throughout the Province.

Well that certainly is not a good reason to back off and say: oh no, we will not

proceed to examine the feasibility because of a loss of identity, that certainly

would not be a good reason for Government not to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioners looked at representation for

the population that was in place, we look at the northeast Avalon, we have 122

elected officials, surely that is a duplication of Government on top of the MHAs

we have the Federal Members and if you look at the representation we have in

this Province, if you look at the whole Province, some 500 odd municipalities

and you can stretch that to 800, if you want to take every little community, but

say 500, look at the municipal representation in this Province per capita, you

know we have an elected person if you add on the MHAs and the MPs, we have, I

believe something like an elected person for every seven adults, something like

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: For every seven adults?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, it is totally out of whack. I am

including now the civil servants of course, you took the civil servants and they

work for the people as well, you see, so if you took it all, we are working

closely to the point where an adult person in Newfoundland will have an

individual working for him solely, one individual, if you take the civil

servants into it. So, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody who would argue the point

that we are badly over-governed to say the least, over-governed, far, far too

many people providing leadership in terms of municipal, provincial and federal

politics.

They also examined the municipal services and functions

throughout the area in question, feasibility in terms of revenues and

expenditures, equity in terms of the taxpayers ability to pay and the benefits

received. Looked at the tax yields compared to the economic activity in the

area, where we have communities that have very low fiscal capacity because they

have probably just a residential tax base and nothing else; others with great

affluence really, I may as well say it, great affluence where they have industry

and business and maybe they are like St. John's is, a large service centre for a

large portion of the Province, certainly all the eastern portion.

A lot of the goods and services that are provided to the

eastern half of the Province comes through St. John's, so we have cities like

St. John's and Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, they are

relatively prosperous, but the other extreme, we have many, many communities

that have very low fiscal capacity because all they have is a very low and

inadequate tax base from their residences, so, Mr. Speaker, addressing the

fiscal capacity was important as well and we did that, not just in the

commissioner's addressing the fiscal capacity of towns and looking at towns and

cities being put together versus left separately as far as the financial area is

concerned.

We also addressed it at the same time we were carrying out

these feasibility studies, addressed it in a revised grants programme for the

Province which I do not think anybody would argue is a good programme; there is

no question it is a good programme, Mr. Speaker, where, we have caused a shift

in dollars; now granted, a lot of our urban areas have complained because we

caused a shift in dollars away from the urban areas to the rural areas and that

is because of the inequities between municipalities and I have just addressed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: I have just explained why those inequities

are there, Mr. Speaker, because of the vast differences in fiscal capacity one

town to another -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: - some with very rich resources, very high,

broad tax base-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Municipalities that have a very inadequate

tax base. So when we worked on the grants programme, when the consultants and my

staff worked on that programme, they very quickly identified those disparities

and designed the programme to address them.

Now we are not finished with that grants programme of course.

Even now we have the Federation of Municipalities and we work closely with them,

unlike the previous government. We work very closely with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: According to Sam's press conference.

MR. GULLAGE: I think Mr. Connors would agree we do. We

work very closely with them and they are now presenting reaction to some of the

components of the grants programme. Particularly as the grants programme

addresses the urban municipalities. And if there is an inequity in there we are

going to consider it. We will consider any presentation that comes forward from

the Federation of Municipalities.

I have had members of that Federation come to me with

concerns about the grants programme. Now the vast majority of it suggests some

90 per cent of the communities are more than satisfied and I have not heard from

them. But some of them are dissatisfied because they see inequities. And we did

not pretend we were going to devise the perfect programme the first time out.

That just would not be possible. And we are going to address those inequities.

If we have to bring in a different component, if we have to reword some of the

components in future years, we will take a look at that because we want to be

fair.

Obviously that grants programme is put in place because of

the need for money throughout the Province. Now in order to have total

independence as far as municipalities are concerned - and they would love to

have it and we would love to give it to them. We would love to be able to say to

all five hundred municipalities: effective January 1 you are on your own. Carry

out your own affairs. That would be ideal, it would be wonderful, and we would

love to see them in that position. But we are light-years away from it. I mean,

there is just no possible way the Government could cut off the municipalities

and say: from now on you carry out your municipal management, carry out your

capital works, provide services to your people without Provincial help. It just

cannot be done.

And you know I talk in this House every time I get the

opportunity about the $2 billion problem. Two billion dollars. We are not

talking about a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Two billion dollars is the

need out there now for water and sewer and roads. It is a dramatic problem. By

far the biggest problem in Canada per capita. Nobody even comes close to us in

the problems we have in addressing services of water and sewer and roads for our

people.

So we have to rationalize our municipal government. There is

no question. Anybody who would argue against consolidation of municipalities -

unification of municipalities, which is a better word -

AN HON. MEMBER: Try annexation!

MR. GULLAGE: Anybody who would argue against - or

annexation, any word you wish, anybody who would argue against it, in

Newfoundland of all places. Now I could see arguing against some provinces

perhaps. But In Newfoundland with our scarce resources, with the Government

fiscally restrained as it is - in spite of that though the last few years able

to deliver large capital works programmes, the largest in our history. Some $63

million last year, and prior to that I think it was close to $50 million. We

were able to deliver those programmes. But we have a long ways to go. And we

have a Province that, as every other province in Canada, is having great

difficulties financially. We still have to help the next level of government

with their servicing. Particularly capital service. Capital costs of water and

sewer and roads.

By coming together, by amalgamating, by being unified,

whatever you want to say, helps us in delivery of those services. There is no

question. If you put two, three, four municipalities together and you are able

to plan a larger coordinated unit with more people, you are able to plan

infrastructure better. You are able to plan the town plan better, it is better

put together. Because you can see into the future with three or four communities

coming as one rather than four in isolation doing their own thing, each one of

them planning industrial business growth, residential growth, subdivisions going

all over the countryside in many cases. There is only one way to address that

question. That is have communities join together as one.

Now they are working as one in some locations right now.

Almost all of the services in some locations in the Province are done on a

co-operative basis. Where they share a water supply, they share garbage

collection, they have a volunteer fire department that they share. They are

together in everything but name. They just have not joined legally together. So,

Mr. Speaker, that co-operation will continue. We have communities like that who

will continue indefinitely like that because they are some distance apart in the

majority of cases. But, Mr. Speaker, wherever they have adjacent boundaries

where you can throw a stone and hit the next house in the next community. They

are so close that you cannot tell the difference. It makes great sense to

examine amalgamation or unification or consolidation or whatever you want to

say, so we did that in 42 groupings throughout the Province. The largest program

of this type that has ever been attempted by any Government, the only Government

to have the courage to do it. No previous Government had the courage to do it.

They sat around and looked at the problem and said, 'we cannot tackle that.'

AN HON. MEMBER: They knew it needed to be done.

MR. GULLAGE: They knew it needed to be done, that is

right. They obviously knew it needed to be done. It is rather obvious. But they

said: no, it is too politically tough. That could cost us politically so we will

sit back and we will avoid any decision. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the easiest

thing you can do in Government. It may not get you re-elected, that is for sure

because I do not think there are too many people out there nowadays. Our

population is becoming more and more educated in spite of the fact that we have

a high illiteracy rate. We do have more and more of our population becoming

education.

Mr. Speaker, they know what is going on. They know that

Governments are expected to perform. They are not elected to take office, have

the Ministers sit at their clean desks and do nothing. I mean I could have done

that, Mr. Speaker, two years ago. I could have gone in and sat at my desk and

done nothing, but that is not what we were elected to do. None of the Ministers

in this Government are elected to do nothing, and I do not think anybody would

suggest that any of us have been sitting around. We have made great changes, Mr.

Speaker. I think we have probably done more in the last two years than the

previous Government did in its entire term of 17 years.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINDSOR: Do not be so foolish (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in two years we have done more

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl to restrain himself.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in two years we have done more

as a Government than the previous administration did in 17 years. I do not think

there are too many people who would argue with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: And, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever any

debate about that my next statement in saying that in the Department of

Municipal Affairs we have certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: We have done more in Municipal Affairs, Mr.

Speaker, than the previous Government certainly did in this entire

administration. There is no question about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: That is not me talking, that is people

saying it to me, and it is true. Did you address the grants program? Did you

address the inequities between municipalities? Did you look at amalgamation?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again, I will ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl if he will

restrain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to stop (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member introduced the

grants program, and when we took Government we had to revise and change it

because it was not working.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the northeast Avalon now, to

be more specific of course, we have the commissioners reports, we have had them

some time ago, and we have had the opportunity to examine those reports with the

commissioners, with planning staff, with the executive in my department, as I

have said before, with any advice that I sought to come up with a recommendation

for Government. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long process, a year and a half in

spite of the Members on the opposite side complaining first of all that I was

going too slow, and now I am going too fast. I do not know what they want, Mr.

Speaker. This thing has been studied to death. Maybe we should go on for ten

more years or something, or maybe we should leave it alone like they did and do

nothing.

Mr. Speaker, we have thoroughly studied the northeast Avalon,

and we are recommending that 17 communities come down to 11. So we will see a

rationalization of municipal government. We will see the Metropolitan Area Board

disappear. We will see all of their lands annexed to other communities. We will

see those people, by the way, very happy. Because they wanted representation by

elected people, mayors and councillors who are elected into the adjoining

municipalities. They were outside of Metropolitan Area lands. Represented by

half the Board that was not elected. And they saw that as being unfair.

So we are going to rationalize the number of municipalities.

We are going to bring down the numbers. We are going to provide for more

effective government. We are going to assign all the services, rather than to a

regional services board - which we could have done, we could have set up a

regional services board, another bureaucracy. But the communities were saying to

us they did not want the board. Clearly they were saying that. There were a

couple of exceptions. But most of the municipalities were saying: we do not want

another level of government. They saw that as a level of government in between

themselves and the Province. And it is more costly. They would have had to pay

for it, they would have had to pay their per capita share. So we responded to

their requests and their concerns about the board and we decided not to bring

one in.

We have asked the capital city - after all, it has 100,000

people, it has a large administrative structure in place - to take on the

responsibility of management of the water supply, sewage and solid waste

disposal, firefighting, urban transportation, which they are already providing

to some other municipalities, and other services that may be regional in nature

and could easily be costed out by one municipal body.

Now we do not know quite frankly how that is going to work.

We have no idea how that is going to work. But I can tell you, we presently have

services costed out right now by the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. I

hardly ever hear a complaint.

MR. WINDSOR: No, because there is equal representation on

it!

MR. GULLAGE: Mount Pearl and St. John's -

MR. WINDSOR: They are not subservient to the City of St.

John's!

MR. GULLAGE: - are paying the same amount for their

water, exactly the same.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) no problem with the Metro Board,

the problem is with the City of St. John's -

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

MR. WINDSOR: -because there is no representation!

MR. MURPHY: That is a stupid analogy.

MR. WINDSOR: It is not stupid! You are too stupid to

understand (Inaudible)!

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

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

I remind the hon. Members again that it is certainly

unparliamentary to interject, to interrupt, a Member in the debate. And I ask

hon. Members on both sides to restrain themselves please and afford to the hon.

Member silence while he is presenting his points of view.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying. We have

assigned that responsibility to the City of St. John's. We do not know quite

frankly how it is going to work out. We would hope that there would be

cooperation. I have been told by the mayors - you do not hear it in the press,

of course - but the mayors are telling me that they are going to cooperate. That

is what they are saying. We will cooperate to make this work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mayor of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: And I am not just speaking of the Mayor of

St. John's either. Other mayors have said exactly the same thing. Now, if they

are saying they are going to try to make it work, if they are saying they are

going to cooperate, I can only trust that their word is the law. Right? And I

trust that it is. These are hon. good people. We have good administration. We

have good mayors and councillors in place and they have the best interests of

their people at heart. I think they will want to be fair in deciding the cost

sharing arrangements that are necessary. They want to agree at the end of the

day on what is fair.

If that does not happen the Province is the final arbitrator.

It is right now. And we can use all sorts of mechanisms to make decisions and to

arbitrate any dispute that might take place. I do not think we are going to see

too many disputes.

MR. WINDSOR: Who will arbitrate?

MR. GULLAGE: In the first instance my staff and myself

will talk to the municipalities and try to resolve the matter. If we cannot do

it through that mechanism we can use the Public Utilities Board, as an example.

MR. WINDSOR: Do that!

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, we can do that.

MR. WINDSOR: That would be acceptable, I think.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, okay. And we can do it.

MR. WINDSOR: That would be acceptable. As long as the

Mayor of St. John's is not the arbitrator.

MR. GULLAGE: And we will do it. And we can do it. But,

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is we are not going to automatically refer

something to the Public Utilities Board and have a case drag on for weeks and

months if it can be resolved right in the Minister's office. Obviously we are

not going to automatically refer every minor dispute. We are going to try to

resolve it in the Department first. But, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot resolve it,

we can use the Public Utilities Board. There is a mechanism of arbitration that

can be put in place. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, if we can avoid another

level of Government, I think we should do so. Municipalities are saying that,

let's avoid that second level. Mr. Speaker, we are reacting to their concerns

and we are avoiding a second level of Government.

Mr. Speaker, we have done substantial amalgamations

throughout the northeast Avalon. In the case of Mount Pearl, the city that I

share with the Member for Mount Pearl, we have left Mount Pearl substantially

alone. We thought that with 22,000 people, I think actually it is closer to

23,000 people, we felt that Mount Pearl which is a self sufficient city -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. GULLAGE: - which is a self sufficient -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. Members again that the Member who is recognized

by the Chair is the only Member who should be speaking when we are debating here

in this Chamber. Members are not permitted to interrupt, conversation across the

Chamber is not permitted. All hon. Members will have an opportunity to

participate in this debate. So again I ask hon. Members for their co-operation

so that there can be a smooth flow of debate and we can maintain a high level of

decorum in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Mount Pearl

has been left substantially alone. Government took that decision for a lot of

reasons, 23,000 people. A city that was previously a town has been incorporated

for a long time. It is not like Wedgewood Park, for example, that is essentially

a sub-division really to be honest. I think even the people there would admit

that. One of the residents of Wedgewood Park last night on the news I noticed

admitted essentially that it was a sub-division, and that is true, it is a

sub-division, 1,300 people. But you look at 23,000 people with a good business

industrial tax base and good residential tax base, obviously self sufficient it

is a different concern entirely. And, Mr. Speaker, to say that we agonized over

the decision on Mount Pearl would be an understatement. I would suggest it was

the most difficult decision that we had to make in the northeast Avalon context

because of the reasons I just gave.

Now, Mr. Speaker, from a planning standpoint a decision was

taken that the Southlands area - Southlands, of course, is undeveloped right

now. There is nothing in the Southlands area. It is on the other side of the

Harbour Arterial Road and is slated for development by Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation as the prime developer. Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken

that the Harbour Arterial Road would be an identifiable boundary for the City of

Mount Pearl and that Mount Pearl would grow within -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the agricultural zone.

MR. GULLAGE: The agricultural zone to the south is still

identified as the boundary for Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: And, Mr. Speaker, it was decided that would

be the boundary for Mount Pearl with the Southlands development and all of the

development up through the corridor, if you like, up through the Goulds and Bay

Bulls Big Pond Line behind the Goulds and all that area becoming part of St.

John's. And to the west of the Southlands development, of course, we have

largely a water reservoir, Mr. Speaker. Mostly lands that are substantially

undevelopable except for some small areas, but we felt that should be under the

control of municipal jurisdiction for future water needs, so it should be

controlled for future needs into the future for the northeast Avalon because

presently, of course, our two main water supplies are Windsor Lake and Bay

Bulls, but it was felt wise that we should at least reserve and put under the

control of municipal jurisdiction the lands to the west, so that has been done,

Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, that leaves Mount Pearl with some 300 acres,

so I am told, of land that can be developed within the new boundaries. Mr.

Speaker, that will provide growth for, again I am told, for some twenty years,

and you know, none of us can foresee the future, but certainly that provides a

good long time for growth, mostly I would think it would be commercial growth,

but residential growth as well, into the future. Mr. Speaker, so we took that

hard decision, and as I have said it was not an easy decision. Obviously, the

points of view ranged from a supercity which a lot of people were talking about

certainly the press were talking about, they were accusing me of saying that we

wanted a supercity. Eric Gullage wanted a supercity. The press all had different

versions of it, one newspaper would say the supercity with seventeen

communities, all the northeast Avalon from Holyrood, Witless Bay inwards, the

whole works. Another municipality would say the supercity is St. John's, Mount

Pearl, Paradise, St. Thomas and Conception Bay South. And, another municipality

would say, oh, no, the supercity is only St. John's and Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, our agenda was never to say that we wanted one

supercity or another whichever one you may want to pick. Our agenda, Mr.

Speaker, was to start a feasibility process that would have examined all

seventeen municipalities and the metropolitan area lands and come forward with a

decision for Government, and we put in place three separate commissions to do

that. It is not as if we just put one person out there to do it. We put three

separate commissions, four people deliberated and made a recommendation to me as

the Minister. Ultimately, I have made one to Government obviously. So, the time

was taken and we examined the northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, just to go a little further around the northeast

Avalon, the other groupings, we really only have two other consolidations and

that is we have added Paradise and St. Thomas with Evergreen Village and

Elizabeth Park, Topsail Pond, Three Island Pond as a new municipality. And, Mr.

Speaker, we have also joined together St. Phillips, Portugal Cove, Windsor

Heights, and Hogan's Pond into another municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, they have had a public meeting. They

have all had public meetings, that is all part of the process, Mr. Speaker. Any

time a decision is taken by Government in Newfoundland in particular, at least

in my experience in observing Government in action previous governments and this

one, almost always when a decision is taken of great magnitude and great change

there is a public meeting called. That is the normal process in Newfoundland. It

is automatic. I do not have any fault with that Mr. Speaker, I am not going to

say that as the Minister you should not have public meetings, do not do that.

That is undemocratic or whatever. It is all ridiculous.

It is like petitions, we have petitions presented in this

House all the time, very democratic, Mr. Speaker, people are speaking they are

having their say. Sometimes they get listened to and sometimes they do not

because Governments have an obligation to govern and make decisions, tough

decisions. So, Mr. Speaker, they have had public meetings. They had a public

meeting last night, I believe, in St. Phillips was it not? They have every right

to do so, Mr. Speaker, but that does not mean they have not accepted the

amalgamation of those towns. I am hearing from the councillors and the mayors

they are going to make it work. But they have to present the fact that they are

coming together to their people and hear their concerns. They have to hear that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that they have heard their concerns it does

not mean they are not going to work together to make that town, that new entity

successful. It does not suggest that, Mr. Speaker. They will work very hard to

make that new town successful. Mr. Speaker, we have good strong municipal

leaders, and those leaders will continue to do a good job for their people as

they are doing right now.

Mr. Speaker, just to continue on we have not made too many

other substantive changes that I can think of. We have left the rural areas

substantially alone because most of the other areas, as the Member for St.

John's East Extern knows, in his District are rural in nature, largely

unserviced as he spoke about earlier, whether it be Flatrock, Torbay, Pouch

Cove, or Bauline, largely unserviced. So, Mr. Speaker, we have left them alone.

We have not made any changes, we could have I suppose, we could have joined them

all together.

Mr. Speaker, as the feasibility process has told us, as the

commissioners have told us, the great need for change, the great need for

rationalization of services and the bringing down of the numbers of communities

is in the areas where we have done so, Mr. Speaker, we feel, after a long period

of study, after nine previous Royal Commissions. I know I said this earlier but

it bears repeating, nine previous Commissions sat on the shelves. There are

still over there now to be seen. Mr. Speaker, we think we have taken the time,

have examined the commissioner's reports, have consulted with the

municipalities, and at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, have come up with a

decision which is in the best long-term interest of the people of the northeast

Avalon. I am sure we will see better planning put in place because we are going

to ensure that as a Province. We are going to ensure that the St. John's urban

region plan will be strengthened, Mr. Speaker. We have strengthened it now. We

have made changes now where we have substantially controlled development. We are

saying to municipalities now you cannot have subdivisions running all over the

countryside, unserviced. It has to be serviced building lots. It has to be an

acre. You have to have an acre of land if you want an unserviced building lot.

That is the right thing to do. Health and Environment were telling us that so we

made that change. They said a half acre is too small, a half acre is not

working. It works for a brief period of time but it does not work in the

long-term. Those planning changes have been made and we are going to strengthen

the planning regulations for the northeast Avalon. There is no questions about

it, and we are going to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated

as best we can. We know it is not going to be easy. We have now made substantive

change, a change that is not going to please everybody. We do not pretend it is

going to please everybody, but when you are doing something in Government, when

you are making great change, when you are making good change, you are never

going to please everybody. That is not possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think the future will show that this

Government had the courage to make the difficult decision that had to be made in

the northeast Avalon. We have made that decision and I think future Municipal

Governments, and future Governments, and the people of the northeast Avalon will

praise us in the future for having made this tough, difficult but wise decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio -Bell

Island on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about posters

being flashed through the House by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As I

was coming up here I noticed he was flashing some kind of a banner or poster and

I am not sure if that is proper in the House of Assembly, my understanding is

that those kinds, and that kind of paraphernalia, should not be. I am wondering

if the Member would be willing to show it to us again to find out whether or not

it is proper or not? I was referring to the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not noticed any posters or

banners and if the posters or banners are inappropriate the Chair will bring it

to the attention of the hon. Member.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

Once again the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island decided to

make a fool of himself, which he is usually doing. His mouth works, Mr. Speaker,

before he thinks. He is not used to being in the Legislature and does not know

how to handle himself. That is the biggest problem he has.

MR. EFFORD: Where did you get the tie?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if that is the greatest worry of

the Minister of Social Services, where I got my tie, then there is not much

wrong. I have a lot of ties like that, Mr. Speaker. I want to get into the

serious issue today, and that is the issue of forced amalgamation in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, what is taking place here today is something

that we should all be concerned about. It should be something that every member

in this legislature could be concerned about because I would submit that what is

taking place here today is something that is illegal, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing in that

scenario missing and that is there is not one made up for the fellow who

delivered the Budget. The person who delivered the Budget should have cartoons

and buttons made up about his truthfulness and honesty in this. In any case,

what we are dealing with here today is something that contravenes The

Municipalities Act, make no mistake about it. I want to get into it because what

The Municipalities Act clearly states, Mr. Speaker, is that a very detailed

procedure - Mr. Speaker, I served as a councillor and deputy mayor and I learned

from The Municipalities Act how to administer towns and how to make sure they

were fiscally and financially responsible and other things that relate to the

operations of municipalities, I will tell the Member for Carbonear.

In any case, The Municipalities Act may cite a very detailed

procedure which must be followed before Cabinet can decide to amalgamate towns

and municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, The Municipalities Act clearly states that

Government must make a specific amalgamation proposal and then publish the

proposal in the affected communities. Has that been done, Mr. Speaker? Appoint a

commissioner or commissioners to study the feasibility of the Government's

proposal, report to the Minister who in turn makes a recommendation to Cabinet.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs if he will tell us, when he gets the chance, if these proposals and

groupings that he brought before the House the other day for amalgamation if,

indeed, they constitute what is termed the specific amalgamation proposal that

was made, and if in turn they were posted in the affected communities, with the

specifics that were made? That is the question I want to ask, Mr. Speaker. If

that is the case. I would say that it did not happen, and for that reason alone,

what the Minister has brought before this House is illegal. The clear meaning of

the Act is that the Minister cannot recommend, nor can Cabinet approve a

proposal which has to work through the process established in the Act. The

amalgamation proposals in the resolution were not published in the communities

affected as I have outlined, were not subject to a feasibility study, were not

recommended by any commission appointed to conduct a feasibility study, and were

not proposed by any municipality. Now, Mr. Speaker, that clearly states that

what is in this Legislature today is illegal and expect it to be tested as such.

I have further comments on that, but the Minister made reference to loss of

identities. There are certain places that have lost their identities in this

Province through amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, probably Newtown did.

But there are other places that I am familiar with. Mr.

Speaker, I was born in the place that has lost its identity through

amalgamation. I was born and raised in a place called Daniel's Point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is right. I am sure the Member for

St. John's South knows where it is, but it is now part of Trepassey, Mr.

Speaker. The last time I heard Daniel's Point was when my brother graduated in

here and they had their convocation in the Arts and Culture Centre, when he

walked out on the stage and he was introduced as being from Daniel's Point, and

at that stage in the game I had forgotten about it myself. But that is the last

time I have heard it. So, there is such as thing as losing your identity, do not

every kid yourself on that.

There are other statements. I listened to the Minister this

morning and I heard what he had to say there today and I was wondering what is

going to take place in this debate. I am wondering as to what -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, but I can tell the Member for Carbonear

that he worked hard to see that Carbonear lost (inaudible) during his tenure as

Mayor of the Town.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how Members opposite are going to

support this. I am going to wonder if the Member for Carbonear has the courage

today or next week when the vote is taken that he had a few days ago when he

stood in this House and said that he did not support the amalgamation issue. I

am wondering if that changed, Mr. Speaker, when he was called to the eighth

floor to explain his actions and came back with his tail between his legs. I am

wondering if he will have the same courage today. I challenge him to deny that

he was called to the eight floor regarding it, Mr. Speaker. If the Member for

Carbonear wants to get involved in trying to harass me in my speech, Mr.

Speaker, I am wondering where he stands. I see the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage and I wonder where he is going to stand on this issue because I can

tell the Member that on July 21, 1989 he had his picture in the paper as part of

the committee of the Progressive Conservative Caucus opposing amalgamation. Does

he still oppose amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, because there he is with myself and

our leader, the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. Mr.

Speaker, it would be interesting I will be interested to see where he stands on

the issue that is facing us before this legislature. We hav