December

5, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 85

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if, with the

concurrence of hon. Members, I could be permitted to read a resolution into the

record as part of the National White Ribbon Campaign centering around the

Montreal massacre last year? There is a national campaign calling upon

Legislatures across the country and the Parliament of Canada to put a resolution

into the record of the Legislatures and ask Members for unanimous consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What I am asking for permission for, Mr.

Speaker - I brought this to the attention of the Government House Leader and the

Member for St. John's East Tuesday night, so they have been made aware of it. I

understand information was sent to the Premier's office on it so I just wanted

to read this into the record and ask hon. Members if they would endorse it

unanimously. If they have some difficulty with it, well they can -

MS. VERGE: Just listen to it (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, can I read it or - ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have consent of the House to read the

resolution?

The hon. the Member.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS statistics about reported incidents of violence

against women and research about unreported incidents of violence indicate that

violence against women in their home, on the street and at work is a serious and

pervasive problem in Canada; and

WHEREAS the abuse of women is related to social, economic and

political inequalities women experience in relation to men in society, and to

societal beliefs, attitudes and values that condone violence against women; and

WHEREAS perpetrators of abuse against women are usually men;

and

WHEREAS the shocking and senseless murder of fourteen women

engineering students at L'ecol Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, symbolized

and focused attention on male violence against women; and

WHEREAS many Canadian men have chosen to wear a white ribbon

in support of this campaign to end the senseless violence against women;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse

the White Ribbon Campaign by adopting the attached statement and by encouraging

all men to wear a white ribbon to signal our support in a campaign against

violence against women.

That is the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and tomorrow being the

anniversary of the Montreal massacre, I would just ask hon. Members for their

endorsement in putting this into the record, and really unanimous consent and

support.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have unanimous consent?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port on a

point of order.

MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the

Rules Committee and the rules that affect this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I

understood during this session of the House, that the new rules that had been

brought in by the rules committee, and all members had looked at, would be used

on a trial basis here. This set of rules had started prior to the last election

and had been considered for a couple of years. The committee, of which I am the

vice-chairman, have been working on them for three years in conjunction with the

now Clerk of the House and other members, and a lot of work has gone in on them.

We were told that they would be brought in in this session of the House. The

committee has travelled throughout the country, just about, talking to other

jurisdictions, and it would modify and modernize the rules of the House. I would

like to ask: What has happened to these rules, and why is it that we are not

operating under the reform rules?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not sure that it is a point of order. It is probably a

matter that could be raised more appropriately in the Question Period, but the

hon. member has raised it. If the hon. Government House Leader wants to address

it, then we will permit that situation.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will check into the

situation and get back to the hon. gentleman as quickly as I can.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

President of Treasury Board: As he is well aware, thousands of people in the

Province are suffering severe economic hardship, and hundreds of families are

going to have to rely on food banks for their Christmas dinner, and this

Government has shown no sensitivity to them - no sensitivity whatever for their

suffering. Now why is the Government, at this time of severe poverty for

thousands and thousands of people, increasing the entertainment allowance for

150 or more senior public sector executives, from $100 to $200 a day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman is wrong again in his facts, of course. He

has quite a record for that now. I can understand that, because I think he was

lead astray by a report last night on 'Here and Now' on CBC that was also

totally, absolutely incorrect, and without any foundation whatsoever. So, Mr.

Speaker, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is that what he has said has

happened, and what the CBC program 'Here and Now' has said has happened, has not

happened. There is not one iota of truth in that story, or in what the hon.

member said.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the President of

Treasury Board has cleared that up. However, it seems to me that where there is

smoke there is fire in this particular case, so I am just wondering how that

type of story could get out, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The hon. member, this time, is absolutely

right. That is the crux of the matter, how could such a story ever get on the

air and be a number one story on the evening news? That is the question. I have

been talking to some management people with CBC and we are currently in the

process of investigating that very question.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. Two years after Marc

Lepine killed fourteen women engineering students at L'ecol Polytechnique what

connection does the Premier see between the Montreal massacre and every day

incidents of violence by men against women all around us? I would like the

Premier to answer the question as the head of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of inane

questions in the House, none more so than this. How can I express an opinion?

What is my opinion anymore than anybody else's opinion? I had nothing to do with

the man who perpetrated the Montreal massacre. I can assure the House of that. I

had nothing to do with what caused it, or why he did it, whether he was an

insane person or whether that reflects generally the attitude of men toward

women in this country. Frankly, I do not believe it does. When the hon. member

wants to ask a question that has substance and is something that the Government

is answerable for I can assure the hon. member that the Government will answer,

but to ask the Government the question of what connection we see between that -

I did not do a psychoanalysis of the individual. I did not conduct a Royal

Commission of Enquiry as to what happened or why it happened, so it is not the

kind of question I can answer, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell us his

understanding, or appreciation of the problem of violence against women in

Newfoundland and Labrador? Secondly, will the Premier tell us his Government's

strategies for reducing the incidence of violence against women, for providing

services and support for the women who are victimized, and for dealing with

offenders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the sensible

part of the question, and the fair part of the question. The minister

responsible is going to make a statement, I believe in this House tomorrow. He

intends to make a statement dealing with it and explaining the Government's view

and position, and where we are going from here, and what steps we are taking at

this particular time. The minister responsible will answer that tomorrow.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is responsible. The

Premier is the head of the Government. I would like to ask again

for the Premier to tell us his Government's strategies, the

strategies of the Department of Social Services, of the Department of Education,

of the Department of Health, of the Women's Policy Office, of Government as a

whole for reducing the incidence of violence against women, for providing

support and services to victims and for programs for offenders.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is letting

her political prejudices overtake her good sense, obviously. Clearly, Mr.

Speaker, half the time they are over there bleating about me being the minister

of everything, not letting any other minister do anything. Now, when I announce

this minister's responsibility, the member is not satisfied - the Premier must

do it, must take over that minister's duties and speak in the House on this. The

members opposite can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same

time, that is not possible with credibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second comment I wish to make on it, is

that it is an enormously complex question that is not really designed for

Question Period. The minister is going to make a statement in this House

tomorrow. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The minister responsible for the matter is

going to make a statement in the House tomorrow, expressing the Government's

position and view on all of these things. Now, I do not know why the hon. member

opposite keeps insisting that the Premier take over the role of that minister

too, and make a statement in the House today. I just do not understand it, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

is to the acting Minister of Justice. During the past few weeks, concern has

been expressed about conditions at Her Majesty's Penitentiary pertaining to the

finding of bullets, and a particular sharp object. Would the minister confirm

if, when staff investigated this issue, any other items or objects were found in

the penitentiary that should not be there?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with

respect to the question asked, as the hon. member can appreciate, what was found

is the matter of a police investigation which is ongoing and I do not intend to

disclose the contents of that police investigation at this time to the hon.

member or anybody else. What is in the interest of the public, the inmate

population and the warders at the penitentiary, is that this investigation reach

a successful conclusion, and to disclose the contents of that investigation

publicly would be to jeopardise the interest of everybody concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

morning, I heard the minister say on CBC Radio, as he said on Friday, two weeks

ago, that he was made aware of this particular incident and I understand, the

following the day, the minister left for Bristol, England. Why didn't the

minister advise the staff at the penitentiary that there was some concern about

their safety when he was advised Friday, the day before he left to go to

Bristol, England?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Concern for the safety of the warders at the penitentiary, as

I understand it, primarily relates to an allegation that there is a hit list.

Mr. Puddister, I believe, representing the warders involved, has made an

allegation that a list was turned up during the lock-down which occurred. To the

best of my knowledge, from the information I have received from the

administration at the penitentiary, no such list exists. Therefore, since there

was no such list, the possibility of advising anybody they were on a list that

did not exist is rather ridiculous.

As to the timing, I was advised on Friday of this potential

situation. I was confident my officials had the matter in hand. I gave express

instructions to my officials to contain the situation, to put in place whatever

resources or measures that were needed to contain the situation, and effect the

safety of the public. To my knowledge, no member of the public, no member of the

inmate population, or no warder has been injured. So, to my present knowledge,

these measures have been and are satisfactory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. TOBIN: Ed Roberts gives answers better.

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

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the unions and the workers have

been informed that the mills at Grand Falls and Stephenville will be closed from

December 22nd to January 2. Is the minister aware of this, and when was he

informed?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it. I was informed

shortly after the company made the decision. I presume I may have been informed

immediately before the union was, or the other people it would have been

necessary to inform. Yes, I am aware, but I only became aware very early this

morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: I might tell the minister that I informed him

yesterday when he did not know. But anyhow, Mr. Speaker, on November 26th, the

Leader of the Opposition, in this House, asked the minister about reports of

downtime at Abitibi-Price mill in Stephenville and Grand Falls, and the minister

said there would be no downtime in 1991 and none anticipated in 1992. Now, that

was a little over a week ago, Mr. Speaker. What kind of communications does the

minister have with the paper mills? Could he tell me that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: With reference to the hon. member informing

me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he did so, but the same hon. member also informed me

a week ago that there was a coyote population explosion in Newfoundland, and

there was, in fact, no such explosion.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, in answering the question of the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago, I answered it based on the

knowledge and the information I had from top management of Abitibi Price. I

point out to the hon. member that the newsprint industry is so volatile that

although the company officials were indicating two or three weeks ago that they

were not anticipating a shutdown for inventory adjustment, because of the

volatility in the industry and because of factors, Mr. Speaker, probably beyond

their control, they were not aware that there would be downtime. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the company has, indeed, made the decision that from December 22 the

two mills, Abitibi Price, Stephenville and Abitibi Price, Grand Falls, will take

an inventory adjustment shutdown for approximately twelve days. So, Mr. Speaker,

those are the facts.

Insofar as dialogue is concerned, every day either myself or

my officials are involved in dialogue with both companies. We are aware of what

is happening and, to the extent that they can, they notify us immediately upon a

decision being made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in Cormack know the

minister is wrong about the coyotes, and the people in Grand Falls and

Stephenville are pretty upset about the way the minister deals with the paper

companies.

I want to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the forest

industry and the performance of the forest industry in this Province is crucial

to this Province. I ask the minister: What steps does he intend to take to

ensure that he has better information on decisions that are being taken that

affect the Province, does he have any indication of further shutdowns in 1992,

and is the Government taking any initiatives to reduce the risk of shutdowns and

closures in the Province? Could the minister tell me that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will quote for a second from

the prepared statement made by Abitibi Price when they announced this particular

shutdown:

"The world newsprint industry market continues to be

depressed. And, while we are cautiously optimistic about operating rates for the

new year, we have to live with the reality that pressure to take downtime is,

indeed, a reality. Abitibi Price has been fortunate that we have not been forced

to take inventory adjustment before now, and we have maintained our operating

rates, as well, well above the industry average."

Mr. Speaker, there is no way to have more dialogue, there is

no way for a government to be better informed as to what is happening in the

industry. Anyone who has been paying attention to the newsprint industry these

past months will know that financial analysts, people who are not involved with

the paper companies themselves, have predicted that the newsprint industry over

this year will lose somewhere around $800 million, collectively. That paper

mills will shut.

Based on the performance of the Opposition with regards to

some of the questions that have been asked in this House the past month relative

to that industry, they seem to be hell-bent on making sure that maybe some of

those mills shut will be our own mills in Newfoundland.

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

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

the Minister of Mines and Energy and concerns the proposed development of the

Lower Churchill and the discussions between the Government of Quebec and the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. According to an

article in today's issue

of The Montreal Gazette the development of the Great Whale project may be

delayed for several years, the reason cited being the fact that a deal is

imminent on the Lower Churchill between the Governments of Newfoundland and

Quebec. Could the minister inform the House about the status of negotiations

with Quebec?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen the

particular

article referred to. Our negotiations relative to Hydro Quebec are

continuing. The most recent meeting was two weeks ago today, on November 21. We

have not concluded negotiations and I am not going to go putting dates on when

we might, whether positively or negatively. A year ago I was hoping that by the

end of this year we would have reached letter of intent stage but at this time I

would say that I am cautiously optimistic, but I can never be sure. We will see

what happens over the next few months.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, about a month or so ago in an

interview the Minister of Development indicated that there would be no

consultation with the Innu people until a deal with Quebec had been negotiated.

Can the Minister of Energy confirm that this is the policy of the Government

with respect to the Innu?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if we reach a letter of intent

with Hydro Quebec and we have a project to proceed with we will have to address

various matters. Native rights is one of these matters, environmental matters is

another, engineering another, and we will deal with them. If we do not have a

project we do not have anything to negotiate about.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. The

Premier has indicated recently his desire to speed up the land claims

negotiations with the native people of the Province, in particular Labrador. How

can you hope to settle land claims with the Innu while you are ignoring them in

the discussions about the Lower Churchill? How can you square these two

propositions if you are going ahead and negotiating with the Government of

Quebec and are not negotiating with the Innu to find out that both of these

things obviously would have to be negotiated at the same time? How can those two

policies - one of going ahead and trying to get a deal with Quebec and ignoring

the Innu; and then trying to go to them afterwards with a fait accompli? - how

can those two policies be squared?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With great difficulty, if what he says

were true, but what he says is not accurate. We have discussions under way with

the Innu at the moment to work out a framework agreement for a comprehensive

land claims settlement. We are not proposing to do it on a piece-by-piece basis,

to do areas that might be affected by the Lower Churchill development, the

coastal areas, wood areas, other areas, do it on a piece-by-piece basis. We are

trying to put in place a framework agreement that would provide for a

comprehensive agreement. There is no reason to abandon that approach at this

stage except to try and put in place an approach that would speed up the process

because what is in place now takes too long. It goes anywhere from ten to

fifteen years. In the end things get changed in the meantime and do not get

resolved and it is just too long a process.

So what we are talking about is speeding up the process to

have it dealt with more quickly for two very good reasons: one, for the benefit

of the aboriginal people, so that settlement of the issues will not be delayed

and their interests and their rights will be addressed more quickly; and two, to

develop a greater level of certainty in the final outcome and have it done

rather more quickly.

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

indicated a final supplementary. But I will allow him to pursue one more.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that might be the final question, but perhaps the

Premier could, since he answered the question for the minister, indicate that

any negotiations or any deal with the Province of Quebec on the Lower Churchill

would be subject to a satisfactory land claims negotiation with the Innu.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, nothing is subject to

satisfactory negotiations with anybody. We are going to negotiate with the Innu

people a fair resolution of their claims, but we cannot say all future

development in Labrador is subject to satisfactory negotiations with the Innu

people. That would put us in a position of subjecting ourselves to blackmail,

and there is no way in the world we can do that. We have to provide for the

overall development of all resources in this Province on a basis that is in the

interest of all the people, the Innu and Inuit included. But we must also do so

and proceed with a real sensitivity for the legitimate interests of the Innu or

Inuit people in particular areas.

I have already indicated this to the Innu people and we are

working now on identifying areas of land in the Lake Melville area where they

have a particular and continuing interest, and they have had an extensive use of

the land. We have indicated to them that once we have identified those areas of

land, we are prepared not to proceed with any development without first talking

to them. But we are not going to say the whole of Labrador or the whole of the

Island of Newfoundland is in that position.

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 Mines and Energy. The

Public Utilities Board yesterday approved a 2.25 per cent electricity rate

increase for Newfoundland Power. There is another application to the board, this

time by Newfoundland Hydro, for an increase of 3.9 per cent in the rate it

charges Newfoundland Power. That increase, if approved, would be passed on to

consumers. Will the minister direct Newfoundland Hydro, which is a Crown

Corporation, to withdraw its request for a rate increase?

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

DR. GIBBONS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: If the increase is awarded by the Public

Utilities Board, will the minister ask Cabinet to order a rollback?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I will address that particular issue, Mr.

Speaker, after I see the results of the hearing before the Public Utilities

Board.

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

Extern.

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

Hydro says the increase requested will not offset its deficit

this year and they have proposed to take $9 million from the rate stabilization

fund to cover the deficit. Does the Minister expect Hydro will need another rate

increase in 1992 and, if so, by how much?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, because the hearing that is

presently requested is related primarily to the continued phaseout of the PDD

subsidy, and we now have the finalization of that, as of December 31, 1991. So I

do not anticipate that they will be going back to the board for another increase

in 1992.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Over the

past few days, the chief executive officer of Fishery Products International has

indicated that there will be some downtime within the FPI plant system. I am

wondering if the minister could inform the House whether he has received a

briefing from Mr. Young on that issue, and what people working in those plants

might expect over the next few weeks?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I read the report as well and I

am equally concerned, but Mr. Young has had meetings with my Deputy Minister. I

believe yesterday morning they met at length and discussed certain problems. As

far as I know there has been no final decision made yet as to what might happen.

We all know that FPI are having problems harvesting their allocations in the

area known as 2J and, even though the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans

agreed to a transfer of the quota to the area known as 3K, it has not had the

desired effect. It is still difficult to harvest their quotas in 2J and, I

guess, in the next few days we will know exactly what the outcome will be.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer. I know it is a

harvesting related problem of zones and so on and no fish being in the zone,

but I am just wondering if his department has received an

indication from Fishery Products International of what plants specifically will

be affected with downtime, and if so, how long the company expects them to be

down? Can he tell us if he has been notified of what plants will be affected

because of the harvesting problems?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary

for the minister. I asked the minister a few weeks ago, and I am still picking

up indications around that Fishery Products International is looking very

seriously at further rationalization of their plants within their system, I have

received indications that there may be one or more plants, at least one, that is

going to be looked at very seriously in the next twelve to eighteen months; that

we may see another plant being taken out of the system. I am wondering if the

minister, in his discussions with Fishery Products International, received any

indication whatsoever that we may see another plant or more being taken out of

the FPI system over the next year or so?

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I have not been so advised, but I should point out that

recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced an interim total

allowable catch for 1992. Now that total allowable catch will be reviewed some

time in the new year, I would think probably January, when certain monitoring

results are in and scientific data has been assembled and so on. I do not think

anybody knows, at this point in time, what will happen. It might well be, Mr.

Speaker, that there would have to be a further reduction. We hope not, but if

the need is there then of course there will have to be. I suppose the question

that the hon. gentleman is asking cannot really be answered until that final

assessment has been done, which will be another two or three months.

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

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

Minister of Finance: The minister introduced last year, his infamous payroll

tax, called a health and education tax. Could the minister tell us if that tax

has been as successful as he thought it would be? Does he not accept the fact

that businesses in this Province, in this recessionary time, are finding that

tax to be extremely onerous, and would he not now admit that the tax is a

negative tax, and is a disincentive to business and industry in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: At least I got a straight answer, Mr.

Speaker - not a very long one - but at least I got a straight answer.

Would the minister care to tell us if the projections we are

hearing relating to revenues from lotteries are going to increase next year by

some 37 per cent? Would the minister not confirm that that is a result of the

slot machines in bars and the video machines that are now being very highly

utilized because of the state of the economy, because people are so desperate to

try to find a solution to their economic problems; is that not exploiting the

recession, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a fact that our lottery revenues to date are higher

than anticipated. The causes of that, and the motivation of people who buy

lottery tickets and who play these machines in bars, I am not able to say. I

will say that our revenues from Atlantic Lottery are up over last year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will find that his

revenues are up quite substantially. I think they are up $26 million this year

from $19 million last year - quite a windfall for the minister, Mr. Speaker, in

spite of the economy. Can I ask the minister where he expects now his revenue

from retail sales tax to be at the end of the year? Does he expect the RST

income now to be down as we have been predicting, or does he see in fact coming

out on budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are watching the retail sales tax figures quite carefully,

and our latest estimates are those which I released in a Ministerial Statement

about two weeks ago.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the whole Province is

watching the RST, and because of the state of the economy we are seeing them

going down. Will the minister now confirm that his tax harmonization program,

that he is projecting, is receiving very negative feedback from the business

community? Will he not now indicate to this House whether or not he does intend

to broaden the RST base next year, which, Mr. Speaker, would be the death toll

for many industries in this Province if he were to do so.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are running the Government. The

dismal utterances on the part of the member opposite are frightening. It is a

good job, Mr. Speaker, that no one pays the slightest attention to him. Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West. Time for a short question with a correspondingly short answer.

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

the acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating the

scandal the present Government is involved in with their $19 million gift to one

of their contracting friends, the minister said he would consider tabling the

Hanscomb Report. Can we ask him when he is going to make up his mind, and when

we can expect the public of Newfoundland to see what was in it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: We have already dealt with that question a

number of times in Question Period, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving onto the routine orders of the day, on behalf

of hon. members I would like to welcome to the galleries today, fifty Grade XI

students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap, accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Ross Senior.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

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

will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, debate or further

consideration of third reading of Bill No. 50, "An Act To Facilitate The

Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation

To The Northeast Avalon Region," standing in the name of the hon. the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that any amendments to that motion for

third reading of Bill No. 50 should not be further adjourned and that further

consideration of any amendments relating to the third reading of Bill No. 50,

shall not be further postponed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

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

Advisory Council On The Economy."

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to present a

petition on behalf of some 1,000 people from across the Province but primarily

from my district and some other districts in St. John's. The prayer of the

petition reads: 'Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited has applied to the

Public Utilities Board for an average rate increase of 3.74 per cent, to become

effective November 1, 1991.

We, the undersigned, protest this application for an increase

in electricity rates and request Government to do everything possible to

disallow it.'

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition of these citizens of our

Province, because many of our people cannot afford to pay more for their

electricity rates. They cannot afford the cost of living that they are faced

with today, and I hope that Government will look at anything they may be able to

do to minimize the rate that I understand was awarded yesterday, which was less

than the company requested, but, of course, many people suspect that the company

requested more than it actually wanted, anyway.

But, in the view of these petitioners and many others of my

constituents and people I speak with, no increase should be allowed, because

they do not feel that the company needs an increase at this time, and they feel

that the particular amount is not what is relevant, the principle is relevant.

This is a time of restraint and financial hardship in our Province and there is,

in the view of these petitioners and many of my constituents, no reason why this

particular company should be insulated from the vagaries of our economy.

Many people with whom I have spoken, feel that we should look

at decreasing power rates charged by Newfoundland Power in this Province. They

say that they are amongst the highest in the country, they are $78 per 1000

kilowatt hours, compared to $55 in Montreal, $65 in Calgary and $72 in urban

Ontario, and we have the highest basic charge in the country, Mr. Speaker.

People cannot afford to pay these charges.

Just yesterday morning, I had a citizen in my office who said

that he cannot pay any more taxes and he sees Light and Power increases as a

kind of economic tax. People are seeing their disposable incomes fall and tax

and other prices rise; they are just getting squeezed out and something has to

be done. Many people feel that Newfoundland Light and Power is not delivering

electric power in this Province as efficiently and economically as it should.

They feel they are running a cadillac operation and it seems that even the

Chairman of the Public Utilities Board has some sympathy for this perspective.

Just recently, he said that although the company has come before the Public

Utilities Board three times for an increase to boost their credit rating, they

have failed to boost it, though the increases have been granted. To quote the

chairman, he said, 'It seems you put yourself at great risk of losing your

credit rating when the board is trying to maintain it.' It seems that this

company is in a no lose situation, Mr. Speaker. In asking for an increase this

time, they cited the recession. The last time, they asked for an increase, they

cited inflation. They say, if sales go up, they would have to have an increase

because it would increase the capital cost of supplying the power that is

required. And they say, if sales go down, they need an increase because it

increases their unit cost.

It seems that this company is in a 'no lose' situation, so I

think Government has to look at what further we might be able to do to minimize

the cost of electricity in this Province. Perhaps the board should be given

different guidelines, perhaps commissioners should be appointed differently, or

perhaps we should do something more. I know this Government has done what it

thought was adequate to ensure that the case for consumers was properly

presented to the board, but perhaps there are other things we could do, and

perhaps we should look at that possibility.

We should also, Mr. Speaker, look at the relationship between

Newfoundland Power and its parent company.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. NOEL: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to finish?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. NOEL: Some people feel that there are various

economic dynamics and relationships involved there that are giving Newfoundland

Power advantages over its competitors in other fields, in the fields of real

estate and telecommunications. Now that it has become a trust company, some of

its competitors may be concerned with the advantages it is getting in that

regard. And there are some indications that there is a certain advantage to

Newfoundland Power from its ownership by Fortis. The fact of the matter remains

that their main justification for their need for an increase is that they have

to have it in order to sell their bonds at a reasonable price on the market. But

the dividends paid on their shares which, in my view, have the equivalent

security of bonds - I don't see why the difference in the price they have to pay

in order to sell their shares should be so much greater than the price that is

paid for bonds, because I think the security involved is just as great with the

pricing system we have put in place for Newfoundland Power. It has certainly

been lucrative for that company, and over the past ten years, their effective

rate of return has tripled, while the rate of return on Government bonds has

only increased by 50 per cent. The net assets of this company have increased

from $9.3 million, I am told, in 1989, to about $33 million presently. I think

we have to look again at the operations of Newfoundland Power and see what we

can do to protect the interests of power consumers in our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly take

great pleasure in rising to support this petition. I am amazed at hon. gentlemen

opposite. These are the same hon. gentlemen who were so proud of their

Government in the last two years when they slapped Newfoundland Hydro with a $10

million guarantee fee, and when they reduced the subsidy PDD by $10 million a

year for three years. That is where the increase is coming from, Mr. Speaker,

the $40 million that this Government is taking from Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. Where else is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro going to get their

operating revenues, Mr. Speaker? They have to get it from the charges that are

put forward. And if this Government is taking $10 million in subsidy or in

guarantee fee - the first time any corporation was charged a guarantee fee by

the Province - and if they are going to reduce the subsidy to PDD, which has

always been accepted as the responsibility of taxpayers all over the Province,

to try to equalize the cost of electricity in rural Newfoundland, in the

isolated areas, it can be done one of two ways, Mr. Speaker. You can do it by

direct subsidy from the public purse or by giving Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro increases. Hon. gentlemen opposite should not sit there and be so amazed,

since they made the decision to take this $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro,

that therefore the PUB would have approved an increase for Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. They have to balance their budget, and they have two choices,

either to get subsidies from Government, or raise their fees.

Now the hon. gentleman said something about inefficiencies in

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Maybe there are some minor inefficiencies, Mr.

Speaker. If you eliminated almost all the staff of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro you would not touch the surface of the difficulty they are facing here.

That is peanuts we are talking about. And Newfoundland Power - Mr. Speaker,

Newfoundland Power simply passes along increases given to Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland Light and Power just got an increase.

MR. TOBIN: You voted for the last Budget, so you voted

for the increase.

MR. WINDSOR: So, naturally, Newfoundland Hydro is going

to come along now and look for additional increases. What we are seeing is this

$40 million being passed along, a decision, Mr. Speaker, that is not made by the

PUB, not made by Newfoundland Hydro, but made in the Cabinet room by this

Government. That is the answer here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present

on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland with respect to the Newfoundland

Light and Power increases.

The prayer of the petition is a little different in a number

of cases, because some petitions have arrived on my desk, and as opposed to

breaking them out, the prayer of the petition is very basic. It says: 'We, the

undersigned, are strongly opposed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Light and

Power's proposed application for a rent increase. We strongly feel that it will

bring extra economic hardship on the people already affected, and that we, the

undersigned, protest this application for an increase in electricity rates, and

request the Government to do everything possible to disallow it.'

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I present today comes from

some thirty-three different communities in Newfoundland, representing some 7,310

residents.

With respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, it is something

that I have been personally involved in for the last six years, in attempting to

fight these increases. And I have a tremendous problem with the fact that the

parent company for Newfoundland Light and Power, who will receive, this year, a

profit somewhere in the neighbourhood of $24 million or $25 million, and whose

shares have gone from approximately $14 to $23 over the last five or six years,

that the PUB should have taken these items into consideration as well, and while

doing so should not simply have - although in a diminished capacity in terms of

granting a lower rate - should not have rubber stamped the demands and requests

of Newfoundland Power.

Mr. Speaker, the Power Corporation, Light and Power, also has

to do as other people in this Province are having to do. As it tightened its

belt, has to look at lower returns for its share holders, and that is something

that they have to do. So there is some 7,310 names on the petitions that I

present today, and as I said, Mr. Speaker, they represent some thirty-three

communities throughout Newfoundland.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

indeed, a pleasure for me to be here today and stand to speak in support of a

petition signed by 7,310 residents of this Province from thirty-three different

communities, and probably some from the communities that I represent in

Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, when three members opposite

formed a little committee or tried to get a bit of publicity - the Member for

Pleasantville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for St. John's South - they

went out to the people of this Province and said they were going to take up

petitions to keep the Hydro rates down or to protest against Newfoundland Power

getting any Hydro rate increases. Mr. Speaker, what they did not tell the people

who signed these petitions is that they, and they alone with their Government,

are directly responsible for these increases. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not

being honest with the people who signed their petitions. I would expect that the

Member for Mount Scio signed this one. I guess he signed this petition and put

it in. But what they should be doing, the three of those members on the

backbenches and any member over there who disagrees with Hydro increases, or

electrical rate increases, is to do something that they have control over, deny

Newfoundland Hydro rate increases. They have direct control over that as the

Government of this Province. They should be lobbying the members of their

Government, their Cabinet, to deny Newfoundland Hydro these rate increases.

If Newfoundland Hydro does not get rate increases, both what

they have to cover the $40 million that you caused them to have to raise and the

new raises that will have to come in the next couple of years, then you will

have a direct effect. Then you can present petitions in this House on behalf of

7,000 people and 1,100 people, and stand with pride and say that you had some

effect. Do not hide away behind Newfoundland Power. You have no choice, you have

no effect on it. The Public Utilities Board is going to give them the raise, but

Newfoundland Hydro has to finally come to Cabinet before any raises are

permitted.

MR. TOBIN: And you voted to give them $40 million!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members in the

backbenches and all the members on that side of the House have already taken

away $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro, which they have to raise somewhere

else in this Province. There is only one way they can raise it, they can charge

their consumers. One of their consumers is Newfoundland Power. If they increase

the rates to Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland Power will increase it to the

7,310 people who signed your petition and to the 1,100 people who signed the

other petition.

I believe it dishonest for those hon. gentlemen to go around

proposing that people sign a petition that does not tell the full truth. If they

said on this petition that they would have a better effect on Newfoundland

Hydro, that their Government had the say in Newfoundland Hydro, I think more

people might have signed it. They certainly would have signed it with their eyes

open. When they were signing that petition, I wish I had been behind each and

every one of those 8,000 people so I could say: The people who asked you to sign

this have a direct say in Newfoundland Hydro's increase. Do you think that they

should go to their Government and say, no more rate increases, at least until

this recession is over, should be given to Newfoundland Hydro. I think I would

get ten times as many of them to sign it.

MR. TOBIN: They are presenting it the day after the

increase was announced.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long they

have had this petition, I am not sure how long they have had it in their

possession, probably not very long. But I hope they didn't have it yesterday. I

hope they didn't have it the day before. Because they hid it in their offices if

they did while the Newfoundland Public Utilities Board -

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

I want to remind hon. members, I have been rather lenient in

allowing hon. members to engage in probably a bit too much debate. Hon. members

will know that Petition time is not a time for a debate, and I refer hon.

members to our own Standing Orders, page 31, Standing Order 92: "Every member

offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the

material allegations it contains." So, I ask the hon. member, please, to

remember the substance of the petition.

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

apologize.

I will conclude by saying that I support the people who

signed this petition. I do not understand, and I think it is a disservice to

these 8,000 people, why the members waited until after the rate increase was

given by the Public Utilities Board to present it to this House. I think it

should have been presented before. But, Mr. Speaker, I do support the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

present a petition on behalf of, not only the residents of St. John's South, but

also residents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry, I didn't realize. I thought the hon. member was

rising to speak to another petition. But I just wanted to explain to the Member

for St. John's East that I am not permitted to recognize him because the

petition, in this case, is two from this side and one from that side. So I just

wanted to explain that to the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East, on a point

of order.

MR. HARRIS: My point of order is that Your Honour did not

call for further petitions, and I understand that there are three speakers

permitted on a petition, the member who presents, and two others. I do not

understand that it has to be one from each side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No. The hon. member, I think, is inaccurate.

As far as I understand the rules, it is two from the side presenting, and one

from the other side.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) could ask for leave, and I am sure

that we would have no difficulty in granting him leave to speak to the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has my leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: To speak to the hon. Government House

Leader?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the member wants to speak

to the petition, we have no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member from St.

John's East has leave to speak to this petition?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon.

members for giving me leave to speak on this, as they will have recognized that

I gave leave, while I was on my feet, for the hon. Member for Pleasantville to

continue with his petition.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the petition presented

by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, and indeed speak to it and its

prayer, which is similar to that of the Member for Pleasantville. All

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel that certain special privileges have been

given to Newfoundland Light and Power, and indeed Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, with respect to the amount of revenue that they can obtain from the

people of this Province for distribution of power service. It is quite an

experience to attend one of these hearings and hear the rationales given, the

arguments given, and how in fact it comes to be that these companies get the

rate increases that they seek; and they do come with their briefs and documents,

and stacks of them sometimes one foot and two feet high. I have been there

representing consumers at these hearings, and trying to mount arguments that

defeat their arguments as to why certain things ought to be included in what

they call the rate base, and all of the other elements that go into demanding

for them a rate of return to their investors which is satisfactory to them and

satisfactory to their investors.

What it boils down to, is that the only consideration that

the Public Utilities Board can give to the matter is whether or not a particular

reasonable rate of return on investment is being obtained, and no other

considerations are allowed to enter into that equation, because the legislation

that gives the power and authority to the Public Utilities Board specifies what

they shall consider.

While we all agree that rate increases, particularly at a

time when the public of Newfoundland and Labrador are suffering from a

recession, from wage freezes imposed by this Government, from loss of employment

and from lack of job opportunities, that the Newfoundland Light and Power and

their investors are guaranteed a rate increase and have what is in effect a

licence to print money that is supported by the legislation of this Government.

What is needed is not just a presentation to this House by

hon. members saying that we all deplore this. What is needed is some action on

the part of the Government to change the regulations, to change the Public

Utilities Act, to put into the mix of considerations by the Public Utilities

Board, certain considerations above and beyond those of the investors of the

stockholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, but rather also to put into effect

some consideration for the ability of Newfoundlanders to pay these rate

increases.

What I would commend to the backbenchers, is to have a look

at the Public Utilities Act. Find ways of making changes in it, and convince

their Cabinet colleagues on that side of the House that the time has come to

make changes in the Public Utilities Act; to insist that the Public Utilities

Board play a greater role in examining not only the interests of the

shareholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, or the financial capital base of

Newfoundland Hydro, but also the interests of consumers in a very direct way,

and not just as a consequence of the ability to provide money and revenue for

these companies.

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a lot of finagling that goes on.

I can only call it that because it looks, from the outside, like what the

companies are trying to do is put everything into capital so that it becomes a

big amount of money that they can then demand a certain rate of return on. That

shows up in the rates as higher rates, and it is pretty easy for them to

demonstrate that they need more money. They need more money to guarantee to

their shareholders, that they will get a rate of return that is far better - far

better - than the kind of rate of return that people get in any savings account,

and it is a no risk investment as the hon. Member for St. John's South knows,

and there needs to be changes in that and there need to be changes in the

attitude of Government towards Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well, so that

when the opportunity arises, when people are pressed and strapped as they are

now, that the Government is prepared to take action to alleviate the high cost

of electricity when the time comes. It is very surprising that the rate of

increase -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would now

like to read the prayer of the petition.

Whereas the Member for St. John's South has publicly declared

his objection to a proposed rate increase by Newfoundland Power, and

whereas we

the residents of St. John's South and other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador,

humbly pray and call upon the Member for St. John's South, to add objections in

his efforts to prevent a rate increase for Newfoundland Power and wherefore, the

undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly

to instruct the appropriate minister to stop any action which would lead to a

rate increase for Newfoundland Power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I personally have been involved in

challenging Newfoundland Power for some time, even before I had the opportunity

to come to this hon. House and represent the citizens of St. John's South. I was

opposed to what I felt was an unnecessary third party. I think what the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador need to know is that when Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro come before the Public Utilities Board to look for a rate increase, that

is a Crown Corporation which belongs to the people. It is a third party that I

was always in objection to, when you see a company that is 90 per cent owned and

controlled by

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people signed the petition?

MR. MURPHY: I am very sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, I

would be glad to inform the hon. member, 937.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the petition?

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that

Newfoundland Power has not changed its face in 1990, 1991. If you look at the

information submitted, they have continued to grow and grow unnecessarily as far

as this hon. member is concerned, when we all know that the recession was here

and upon us, the Government was forced to take a position, a lot of small and

large businesses were forced to take a second look and curtail their involvement

and expenditure, curtail their capital works, curtail and diminish in some cases

their current account and in some cases forced to lay off people. This was not

the case with Newfoundland Power.

They have asked for an increase and received a proportionate

share of that increase which I feel as a Member in this House is too high and,

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that, that particular company, if only the

Government of this Province, this Government and/or the other Government had the

capital to buy out the shareholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, I think we

would be offering power rates to the consumers in this Province at a fair and

equitable level. It is just that we do have Newfoundland Power, it is beyond the

capability of this Government and/or previous Governments, and I am sure they

thought about it, and knowing that the people's power company, Newfoundland

Hydro, needs a rate increase, needs some assistance, for Newfoundland Power to

have at this particular time almost 3 per cent on the backs of the consumers of

this Province, certainly is not agreeable by me and my colleagues who have

previously spoken. So it is with great pleasure that I support the names, Mr.

Speaker, which are contained in this petition and present said petition to this

hon. House.

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

West.

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

I would certainly like to stand and support the petition that

was presented by the Member for St. John's South, but I have to say the same

thing, Mr. Speaker, that has been said by previous speakers from this side of

the Legislature, there are two questions that have to be answered. The petition

was sent to prevent an increase by Newfoundland Power, and is being presented

today after the increase has been announced. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is something

like locking the barn door when the horse is gone. These members sat on that

petition, Mr. Speaker, and did not present the wishes of the people of this

Province, who signed the petition, to have it brought before the Legislature, if

they had it in their possession before yesterday. That is exactly what happened.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, I would submit -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman from Pleasantville, on a point of order.

MR. NOEL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like

to point out to the hon. member that the petition I presented was to the

Government of the Province and not to the Public Utilities Board. So, it did not

matter that it was not presented before the ruling was handed down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I just want to say to the Member

for Burin - Placentia West, as I stated earlier, that presenting of petitions is

not for debate or questioning procedures or members' motives. The rules

governing petitions strictly deny debate, and it is to speak to, as I have said

before, whether a member is supporting the petition, to talk about the number of

signatures and the material allegations within the petition. So, I would ask the

hon. member, please, to adhere to these rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted you ruled that

there was no point of order, and indeed there was no point of order. I am

surprised the member said the petition was for the Government, because the

petition should be presented to the House of Assembly, for presentation to the

Government. That is quite a difference, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, the people who signed these

petitions asked these members to bring the matter before the House of Assembly

and to the Government, through the House of Assembly. That is what they asked,

and it was done the day after the increase was awarded, Mr. Speaker, and that is

not right. That is not what the people wanted.

Mr. Speaker, had the member been allowed to bring it in here,

that is different. I am surprised. The reason why there is an increase in hydro

power today is because this Government, Mr. Speaker, took $40 million from the

last Budget, and those three members over there voted for the last Budget, Mr.

Speaker. You cannot practice one thing and do another thing. I am surprised that

the Member for St. John's South followed the lead and was led by the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island. I am surprised he was led by the Member for Mount Scio

- Bell Island, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Like a fool with a ring through his nose.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, led around with a ring through his nose

by the member.

The fact of the matter is, that petition is in this House and

there are increases to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador because every

member over there voted to take $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro. That is why

there is an increase, Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that you can take $40 million.

The Member for Pleasantville talked about the tax increases and people can't pay

any more. No, Mr. Speaker, they can't, and they couldn't pay any more in the

last Budget when you took $40 million from Hydro and threw it at the people.

They couldn't afford that, no more than they can afford a 25 per cent hike in

the City of St. John's because of the amalgamation that you are voting for.

Tomorrow or the next day there will be more petitions on that.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for

Pleasantville, the Member for St. John's South, and the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island voted to increase the taxpayers' light bills in this Province. That

is what happened. Every member there, the Minister of Social Services, for

example, voted to increase the light bills of the poor people of this Province.

That is what is going on here, Mr Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy.

MR. TOBIN: I won't sit down. It is too serious an issue

to sit down over. You've got to use up the five minutes you have to show, Mr.

Speaker, the hypocrisy that is being perpetrated in this Legislature today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To present a petition a day

after the increase, after voting -

MR. MATTHEWS: Had it a week ago.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, had it a week ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. I don't know whether

the hon. member is aware of it, but the hon. member is now debating the

petition, in which case he is disobeying the rules of the Chair. I would ask the

hon. member, please, to speak to the petition as the rules of our House dictate.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Your Honour, if I have been doing that, I

would like to apologize, but it is such an emotional issue that I get carried

away once in a while, particularly when you see such a display of hypocrisy. I

apologize to Your Honour and to the House for getting carried away on that

issue, because like I said, it was extremely emotional.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are

thousands of names on petitions -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I also think it is out of order

for the Member for Pleasantville to be yapping all day.

There are thousands of names being presented on petitions in

this House today, people asking -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act," carried. (Bill No.

58)

On motion, Bill No. 58 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Act, The Bills Of Sale Act, The

Conditional Sales Act And The Registration Of Deeds Act In Relation To The

Offshore Area," carried. (Bill No. 59)

On motion, Bill No. 59 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 6 is the calling for moving into Committee of the

Whole to discuss Bill 50. It is appropriate now, of course, first of all before

asking leave to go into Committee of the Whole to establish the rules by which

the debate will be governed in the Committee of the Whole, which for hon.

members enlightenment is the closure debate. We now ask hon members to vote on

the motion.

All those in favour of the motion please say, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation

commonly known now, Mr. Chairman, as the gag act. Today in this hon. House I was

listening intently to some of the petitions that were presented and which

certainly reinforced my line of thinking in that there are a lot of people out

there hurting. There are a lot of people out there who cannot afford an increase

by Newfoundland Light and Power. In all the communities that those hon. members

brought forth there was certainly no doubt left in anyone's mind that the people

out there cannot afford the rate increase. What we see here as it pertains to

Wedgwood Park and the Goulds is ten or perhaps twenty times the increased cost

to those people than Light and Power's 2.25 per cent. We look at Wedgewood Park

- I have no, like I said before, and I want to repeat myself, and I want to say

at the outset of my few words, that I have no problem with amalgamation. If the

City of St. John's was in as great a need as we are led to believe, monetarily

choked, then I would say here today that I would have to take everything into

consideration and say: perhaps this is what has to be done.

But what we see here is undemocratic and I think it is

against the freedoms that we stand for. People never had an opportunity to

understand what this legislation is all about, they never had any understanding

of what they are getting themselves into. None whatsoever. When we think about -

Wedgewood Park, like I said, now pays 6.5 mils and are going to increase almost

immediately - because that is what the Minister said yesterday - to 11 mils, and

I suppose there is some justification for that. Because Wedgewood Park does have

the services.

But here we are debating a bill and the minister, or the

Cabinet, do not know or cannot tell us how this is going to be phased in with

the people in the Goulds who do not have the services. Only a few days ago I was

travelling through the Goulds and I saw the old water tank, stainless steel

water tank, being hauled around to individual houses giving them a supply of

water. Well surely to goodness those people are not going to be pressured into

paying 11 mils for this type of service. When you ask the minister or other

members of the Government is there going to be a phase in, is there going to be

any subsidization, the Premier says: no, there is not going to be any

subsidization. The minister says we will look at everything and look at it in

its right, true perspective.

But what assurance have we of anything? The minister does not

know, the Premier does not know. This thing was done in an ad hoc manner. Just

because the Premier said that we were going to do it at any cost. Now we asked

on this side for a six month hoist to give more time for the people to

understand what this amalgamation is all about and how it will affect them. It

is a certainty, it is reality, that there is a great number of people out there

who do not understand. Even, in fact, the City of St. John's, the Council of St.

John's, do not know. Do not know the ramifications of this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, yes, and if I was left alone

and if this gag order was not brought into the House then I would be up here

speaking until Christmas, at every opportunity, saying how wrong this bill is.

Saying that the democratic freedoms that we have are being erased by this type

of legislation.

It could be asked, what sense is there for me being here

today, standing here, talking away, very few listening, or whatever? But it is

something that you have inside and you think that if something is wrong you have

to speak against it. Yesterday I was up here and the hon. Minister said

something about: you were against Confederation -

MR. GRIMES: That's right, that's true.

MR. PARSONS: - and you were against the school tax -

MR. GRIMES: When it first started you were against the

school tax.

MR. PARSONS: What else did he say now I was against? I

believe that was all.

MR. GRIMES: No, you were against the fisheries

(Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And I was against the plans brought in by

both Governments yesterday to rescue the fishery.

MR. GRIMES: That's right.

MR. PARSONS: But anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to make my

position clear. In 1949 I was against Confederation.

MR. GRIMES: Indeed you were.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, solidly.

MR. GRIMES: Everybody in Newfoundland knows that. They

named you Peter Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: I felt at that time that Newfoundlanders

could look after their own destiny. I felt that Newfoundlanders had the ability

to be creative enough to iron out their own difficulties, and there is no one in

this hon. House who could tell me today that I was wrong because we never did

get the opportunity.

Now after we went into Confederation I became a solid

Confederate because let's face it, we all became Canadians and as legislation

passed bringing us into Confederation, then as good Canadians we had to abide by

that decision. So now I consider myself as good a Canadian as there is in the

country.

Mr. Chairman, let's go back to the school tax, and let's go

back to why I am here today. The school tax: I had many misgivings as it

pertained to the school tax when it was being implemented.

MR. GRIMES: Now you are for it.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I was on the St. John's board at the

time and proud of it. For free, a great number of men, like myself, men and

women who gave their time freely at no cost to anyone to do the things that they

thought were beneficial for the students and for the communities in general.

I had some misgivings, I hated the thought of extra taxes for

a poor people, the people who were poor out there, but then again I had to take

into consideration, me and many more, the benefits and pluses that were in this

school tax for the students to give them a little bit better education, and I

know the hon. minister will agree being a past president of the NTA. He will

agree that the monies were needed to implement many of the programs, and even to

do some capital work, which it was never meant for in the first place, because

what it was meant for in the first place was to help out with the incidentals:

the chalks and the extra things that were done in school that there was no

monies allocated for. I want to put on record that I think the monies still have

to be made available, but there might be some restructuring that will have to

take place as it pertains to the authority itself, and I do not think that there

is anyone saying otherwise.

But again, the point I made yesterday and the point I am

making today, I know it has very little relevance to Bill 50, but the point I am

making is that the schools certainly need that money, and it will be a sad day

if it goes into general revenue because what scares me about that is if it goes

into general revenue, where is the first priority if there is a major need in

highways, health, education and whatever? But see, it all depends again on who

prioritizes. Health and education, yes, are the mainstays, I think, in any

province, and hopefully will remain.

But, Mr. Chairman, why I went into this is because I wanted

to explain to the House why I feel that everyone should have a right to get up

and speak their piece and talk about the discrepancies and wrongs of any pieces

of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I feel that this piece of legislation is as wrong

as wrong can be. There is no problem with amalgamation; it may be the best thing

since sliced bread if it is brought in properly and people understand what they

are getting themselves into. I think that if it is properly explained, then

people will accept it with open arms in many instances.

Now there are places where amalgamation does not do that. I

think there are places where they are doing things themselves now more cheaply,

and they are receiving the benefits of being incorporated by downplaying,

placing great emphasis on people on unemployment within the community, on monies

being spent in a correct manner, and in smaller communities they have the

advantage of being able to control that situation much better than a larger

society. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that if the situation was explained, that if

there was an advantage to St. John's for this amalgamation, then I feel that the

people of St. John's, and the people of the surrounding area will accept Bill

But, Mr. Chairman, we have to look at what is taking place.

The advantages to St. John's on a monetary basis because of the acquisition, the

annexation of Wedgewood Park, no mistake, is a plus. It is a plus, and I think

it will cost the people of Wedgewood Park, about 1,300 of them, perhaps $250,000

or $300,000 more in 1991 or l992. Mr. Chairman, that is immaterial to what the

cost is going to be to service the Goulds.

So, when we say we had to do this on the Northeast Avalon,

because some of the arguments were: St. John's are paying more than their fair

share while the outlying areas, in particular the Goulds and Wedgewood Park,

were certainly not paying theirs, then, Mr. Chairman, that is where I have great

difficulty. Because in the Goulds, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a mammoth

cost for services, services that are not already there. There is going to be a

great cost to the City of St. John's for snowclearing and there is going to be a

great cost to the City of St. John's for deicing the highway because the highway

now, Mr. Chairman, will run to Bay Bulls - Long Pond and will come under the

jurisdiction and the responsibility of the City Council.

Mr. Chairman, the other situation - I have said it before and

I will say it again - is that the Aquarena, the Canada Games Park, and other

facilities being passed over by the Government will put a further burden on the

taxpayers of St. John's. I think, Mr. Chairman, that within a very short period

of time - and we are not looking at any more than two years - the City of St.

John's is going to have to increase its tax base. Now, they have already

increased the taxation aspect of it, by the increase in property tax of about 25

per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the people in St. John's proper

and down here in the center part of St. John's, a great number of whom are

elderly citizens on fixed incomes. A great number of the younger people from the

City of St. John's have moved to the outlying areas, into the new subdivisions

or whatever. The people who are living in the core of St. John's are mostly on

fixed incomes, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think they are capable of paying a

higher assessment. Now, with their property values increased by 25 per cent,

that is a terrific increase in itself, but I feel with the amalgamation of the

Goulds, in particular, you are going to see an added drain on the City Council

of St. John's, thereby causing the Council to increase their mil rate. Mr.

Chairman, I feel that that is really an injustice to the older residents of St.

John's, people who are paying to the hilt now. They cannot afford another

increase.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many things that we could do. Say

to the people: Look, this is a piece of legislation that is beneficial for

everyone concerned. Put it in its right perspective. Let the Government

subsidize the changeover. Let the Government give St. John's the amount of money

necessary now, because this bill is going to pass. There is no doubt about it. I

mean, we cannot stop this bill on this side. Closure has been invoked. So, it is

only just a matter of time before they will talk us out or we will talk

ourselves out. We can get up here and talk only for twenty minutes, talk about

the improprieties, what this bill is going to do to the people that we

represent, but at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this bill will pass.

Mr. Chairman, what we are pointing out is that parts of this

bill are detrimental to this entire area. All I am saying, and I have said it

before and I will repeat myself whenever I get the chance, is that amalgamation

could have been the order of the day if it had been done in a righteous manner.

MR. NOEL: You had to support doing the right thing.

MR. PARSONS: I supported doing the right thing. I

supported Government in going around and getting the consensus of the people

which was never done. It was never done. Those committees were a farce. I mean,

there was no input from Government explaining to the people - I am sure the hon.

Member for Pleasantville will agree, all who came to those hearings were town

councils or interested groups submitting to the panel: Look, we do not want to

become part of St. John's or we do not want to become part of Torbay because we

would lose our identity.

MR. NOEL: What would you support doing?

MR. PARSONS: Look, if the people -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: - on that panel had some program from

Government to explain exactly what you would gain by amalgamation, then I think

the people would have a different feeling on it, and at least they would say:

well, look, there are some good things in this amalgamation bill.

MR. NOEL: But it would not be a gain for everybody -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's

East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What the hon.

member is saying is not correct. The people did not understand it, no one

understood it. The minister who brought this Bill 50 before the House does not

understand it. The minister does not understand it. The minister cannot get on

his feet today and explain to us what the cost is going to be to the Goulds?

What is the extra cost going to be for the people of Wedgewood Park? That is all

we are asking. We are not asking any great things. All we are asking is just to

get on so we can explain to our constituents: this is what is going to happen to

you in 1992. These are the costs that are going to be incurred by you because of

amalgamation. Just get up and tell us, explain to us. Tell us.

The other thing is the content of this bill on page 23. On

the Resolution part, paragraph 10 (3) (a), (

b) and (c). 'Amalgamating a town

with a town or city and annexing areas to the city or town, establish an area as

a town and to disestablish a town.' Those are very broad statements and could

spell the (inaudible) of many communities, whether they like it or not. All I am

asking for is if the Government will just reconsider. I know now that is almost

impossible. But I want to make sure that my dissatisfaction on behalf of my

constituents are well known to the Government and to the minister responsible,

in saying that gives the Government any Thursday morning at all at a Cabinet

meeting the right to disband a town or form a town, and I think that is wrong. I

think that of all that is in that - there are some good things in Bill 50. But

that is the fault with Bill 50 and that is on page 23, which gives the Cabinet

the right to disband or to make a town with just the stroke of their pens.

My time is running out and I do not say I will get a chance

to speak to this gag order again. But they will never gag me, and I do not think

they will gag any members of this side of the House in getting up and speaking

their piece, and saying how wrong they feel this Bill 50 is. Again, nothing

wrong with amalgamation in many instances, but the approach of Government is

wrong, it is undemocratic, it is a disgrace to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. A slap in the face to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and a

disgrace to the Government for bringing this forth. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was

hoping that with a bill of such magnitude as this bill is, surely to goodness

the minister is not permitting some of the backbenchers from saying a few words?

They are there today, and yesterday the backbenchers, including the Minister of

Social Services, were shouting and bawling. Here is a particular piece of

legislation that is going to affect all the Northeast Avalon and he is afraid to

get up and say one word. The minister is afraid. He is not allowed to get up and

say one word on this particular bill. If the minister was in the backbenches

like he was last year I am sure by now the minister would have been up to say

something. But he is not allowed to say anything.

I think that we would become much better politicians, much

better individuals, if we would once in a while forget about toeing the Party

line and stand up for our own convictions. Because what is happening here now -

and not only in this House; it is happening in other governments in other Houses

across our country - is that we have a number of Members in this Legislature,

ministers - and I can understand, I have been part of Cabinet and when Cabinet

makes a decision, then the Cabinet stays together, but there are backbenchers on

the other side who are not allowed to vote against this particular piece of

legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Exactly, Mr. Chairman. As I said to my

colleague -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I want to draw the hon. member's attention to Standing Order

44 (

b) which says that: 'Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly

relevant to the item or the clause under consideration', so I ask the hon.

member to keep his remarks relevant to the items in the bill.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will

keep my remarks to the items but meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, it is on closure. It

is on closure, Mr. Chairman, and we are talking about closure on Bill 50 and I

am concerned that this bill is going to go through naturally, because of the

majority by the Government, and because of the minister, who was a former

President of the Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe. That is

right, Mr. Chairman, and in fact, I have to say in all fairness to him, I was on

the council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay at the time and I have to give him

credit because he was one of the better Presidents of the Municipalities of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, since he decided to go into politics and since he

became a Cabinet Minister, he lost his sense of respect to the individuals in

Newfoundland and Labrador, he has lost that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Oh no, I do not want to talk about the

physical condition of the individual, but I think what we should do, and I say

to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I

know he is over there looking through the bill now, I would think if the

minister really did what he wants to do, he would ask for this bill to be taken

off the Order Paper and that would be the best thing to do because you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tomorrow.

MR. WARREN: - well tomorrow it is going to come off

because by tomorrow with your majority it is going to go through anyway, it is

going to go through by tomorrow evening anyway. I think tomorrow will be the

ninth time in two years that closure has been brought into this Legislature.

Nine times in two years that closure has been brought into this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I think if we go back in history, we will

notice that as bad as other governments were, as bad as the twenty-two years of

the Smallwood or the five or six or seven years of the Moores or the ten or

twelve years of the Peckford or the forty-one or forty-three days of the

Rideout, if we go back to all those Premiers, we have never, in Newfoundland's

history, seen a Government that is dominated as much by one individual. That is

the whole problem and I must say, since my hon. colleague for Placentia went

into Cabinet, he has been a completely different person than he was last year,

because last year he would have gotten up and fought against the bill and would

have stood up on principle, but now, he will not even stand up and express his

opinion on anything whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with what is not being told to

the Goulds, to Wedgewood Park and to other areas in the Northeast Avalon. What

is going to happen after January 1st? How much will the mil rate be? How much

will you have to pay for poll tax? Will the school tax be all gone and will

there be a new tax brought into place? All these are questions which need to be

answered and here the Government is bringing in closure on this bill without

giving the answers to the people who need them.

Mr. Chairman, as sure as this Government and the Minister of

Finance prepare a Budget each year, and in any of the budgets that is planned

for the rest of the next twelve months, it is the same thing with the city

councils and the same thing with individuals. They need to plan their budgets

well, but they cannot plan their budget because this Government will not tell

them what to expect.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville got up yesterday

and I must say, he made a fairly good speech. He made a fairly good speech.

MR. TOBIN: He attacked the city council.

MR. WARREN: Yes, he attacked the city council, Mr.

Speaker. But I was wondering if the Member for Pleasantville, if there was a

resolution brought into this House today stating that there would be a

plebiscite, including Mount Pearl on the Northeast Avalon, drop this bill - we

will get rid of this bill altogether and have a plebiscite for the whole area,

including Mount Pearl - would the member think that would be a good idea? So I

would say, why does the member not talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

suggest to him to get rid of this bill altogether and bring in a plebiscite for

all the Avalon, because it is going to happen in two years time. In a couple of

years time it is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Corner Brook, Mount

Moriah, and Massey Drive would be treated differently than St. John's, Wedgewood

Park, and the Goulds. Why couldn't the people here also have the opportunity to

decide what they wanted? I really think that not enough investigation has gone

into this. There have not been enough public hearings heard throughout the

Northeast Avalon. I think my hon. colleague, representing Wedgewood Park, said

they have something like 95 per cent of the people in that area against this

bill - Bill 50.

A few days ago, I think the Mount Pearl Fire Department had

their first opportunity to try out their skills in putting out a fire when a

vehicle ended up in their parking lot awhile ago. I think, according to all

reports, they performed their duties in a most diligent manner. I think the

minister should realize what he is taking away from those people who were given

proper training. Here is a service that was going to be of benefit to all the

citizens of Mount Pearl and other areas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: The Mount Pearl Fire Department was not

allowed to use it. They were not allowed to go. They were told not to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. WARREN: By this Government. This Government advised

them not to move.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: That is the problem. The reason the truck,

which was on fire, came to the fire hall was to get the fire extinguished.

I say to my hon. colleague, the Mount Pearl Fire Department

was not allowed to respond to fires. It was only a few days ago there was an

alarm at O'Donel High School. The fire department was right across the street

from it, and they had to wait thirteen minutes for the fire truck to come in

from the Brookfield Station.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking

about.

MR. WARREN: Oh yes, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, they had to wait

thirteen minutes for the fire truck to come in from the Brookfield Fire Station,

and here was a fire truck right across the street, equipment and men standing

by, and not allowed to answer the alarm.

I think it is ridiculous that this Government would take the

measures they are taking today to push this bill through and force - and I

compliment the Wedgewood Park mayor and councillors; I compliment the mayor and

councillors in the Goulds; I compliment the town council, mayor and councillors

in Mount Pearl - they put up a gallant fight. We on this side have put up a

gallant fight, but it is the sort of fight where you are behind the eight ball

before you start. You are behind the eight ball before you start, because you

have a Government here which has a majority, and regardless of whether it is

good or bad, regardless of all the positive reasons why it should not be done,

the Government will still go ahead on the advice of one individual, who says:

look, it is going to go my way or no way. That is the unfortunate part about it,

Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Government that you may not realize the

consequences in the short term, and the people in this area may not, but they

will in the long term. Maybe when the Premier decides to go to the

Lieutenant-Governor and ask for an election writ, then the people will respond

and use their voting power to treat this Government the way it has treated the

people on the Northeast Avalon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure once again

to speak on this bill. Firstly, I want to make reference to a question raised in

debate by the Leader of the Opposition questioning the Premier, I believe, in my

absence - certainly in my absence on this particular question - about the fact

that I was out of the Province. To quote the Leader of the Opposition: 'we are

told a ten day absence.'

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if you want to include weekends - and

normally, at least to my knowledge unless I have missed something, we are not

normally here on weekends - the fact of the matter is there were four days of

the so called ten days, which was really nine days if you want to include

weekends, from the time the Minister of Justice and I left this Province to the

completion of the trip. The actual time, Mr. Chairman, spent in business

overseas was five days, five days during which we visited three cities, and

worked day and night. The implication of that question, which got, of course,

misconstrued in the press - what else is new - nobody ever asked me. Certainly

nobody ever asked my officials or anybody else how much actual time we had spent

doing business overseas. You would think that somebody would ask the person who

was over there. And finally, of course, I was asked upon my return, but by then,

of course, the Leader of the Opposition was successful in totally distorting the

facts. So let me clear that up first, Mr. Chairman. We were overseas five days,

and one of those days, as a matter of fact, was spent travelling, so in actual

time four working days, Mr. Chairman. Very reasonable actually. Very pertinent,

Mr. Chairman, very pertinent indeed, and I think it should be clarified for this

hon. House.

Mr. Chairman, another question that was raised was whether or

not we were satisfied that the various municipalities in the St. John's area

were given adequate consultation. That was a question that came to the Premier

from the Member for St. John's East. Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a period of

consultation in this Province on any issue, I would challenge the opposition to

tell me when we have had more consultation on any issue in this Province at any

other time, more consultation than we have had on this issue. We have been

talking about amalgamation, transfer of services, transfer of facilities in the

Northeast Avalon now for over two year. Two years of consultation, and the hon.

Member for St. John's East has the nerve to get up in this House when I am not

here, and ask a question of the Premier whether or not there was adequate

consultation. Mr. Chairman, he should have, and probably was laughed out of the

House at the time - is my guess.

MR. TOBIN: He was not.

MR. GULLAGE: He was not. Well he probably should have

been because we have had more consultation than there has ever been in this

Province on any issue at any time in the past, bar none.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with on the Northeast

Avalon is easily the largest amalgamation that we are doing in the Province. It

involves some twenty-five communities if you want to include the communities

that are in the Metro Board area, but certainly seventeen incorporated

communities, some of which are large in context to rural Newfoundland and larger

than many of our rural communities.

So, it involves a large amalgamation and a very important

one. For the first time, of course - and it had to be dealt with sometime, so

perhaps you could argue the timing is right, anyway - we are dealing with the

issue of the Metropolitan Area Board. And, Mr. Chairman, as the capital city,

the city of St. John's, grows, there is no question, I suppose, in anybody's

mind, whether it be Metro Board members, members of Government, or members of

the communities in the Northeast Avalon, that eventually, the Metro Board

responsibilities had to be transferred over to the jurisdiction of the

municipalities in the area, whether it be the City of St. John's or other

municipalities. Mr. Chairman, we have matured to the point where that was

evident. The Metro Board lands, a good portion of which, at one time, were

outside and on the perimeter of the Northeast Avalon, are now almost completely

- I would say, completely surrounded by municipalities and have their boundaries

co-adjacent to other municipalities. That decision was taken, Mr. Chairman, and

I think, often missed is that for the first time all of those people in the

Metro Board area will have representation by elected members, fully elected

members, in whichever municipality their lands will be located, whether it be

St. Jonn's, Portugal Cove, St. Phillips, Paradise, St. Thomas. Any of those

areas will certainly be part of an elected municipal structure for the first

time. I think that is an important point to make.

We are also, of course, as the bill states, transferring over

responsibility of the regional services that are in place, most of which, or a

good portion of which, are being administered by Metro Board right now -

transferring those services over to the City of St. John's to manage and operate

in consultation with the other municipalities that access those services. So,

the member municipalities on the Northeast Avalon will sit with the City of St.

John's Council for purposes of discussing rates and the provision of services on

any particular service they are being provided with as part of a regional

service, whatever it happen to be, whether it be water supply, fire fighting, or

garbage disposal. There is a long list, of course, of possible regional services

in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the alternative to that, as this House has

debated, would have been some form of regional services board or, in fact,

regional government, both of which are now provided for. Contrary to what is

being said by the Opposition, the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon did not

want regional services, did not want a regional board, and spoke out loudly and

clearly against it. Only after the fact did they say they would like to have

regional services. Throughout the hearings process they wanted nothing to do

with regional services and, in fact, perceived it and said it was, in their

view, another level of government, a tier of government in between the

municipalities and the Province. They did not want it, Mr. Chairman.

In any case, Government had to make a decision to proceed

with setting up a regional form of Government, elected by the people, to sit in

between the municipalities involved and the Provincial Government, to set up a

regional services board with representation from the communities in the

Northeast Avalon, appointed from those elected councils, or, in fact, to make

the choice we did, which was to say: Well, we have a large city, relatively

large, certainly large in Newfoundland terms, large even in Atlantic Provinces'

terms, and an administrative structure already in place capable of handling

these regional services on behalf of the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon.

So that decision was taken, Mr. Chairman, and I believe -

contrary to the concerns and the questions that have been raised about whether

or not St. John's will be fair - that working in co-operation with the other

mayors, St. John's will be fair. I believe that, like Metro Board, where Metro

Board today sets rates for water and is fair - we have not had any difficulty

that I know of in the setting of those rates - that the same co-operation we

have had to date with the Metropolitan Area Board will continue between the

member communities on the Northeast Avalon.

Now, we also decided to regionalize fire fighting services.

As a result of that we have the current controversy, if you like, between the

Council of Mount Pearl and the Government. The record will show that the Mount

Pearl Council was advised a year-and-a-half ago, approximately, that this

Government intended to proceed with regional fire fighting services - that was

clear - and also, throughout the interim, offered to man the Mount Pearl Fire

Department on many, many occasions; occasions when the Mount Pearl Council, in

particular - mainly the Mount Pearl Council, I am not saying others did not

suggest it - suggested that the station should not be unoccupied. Of course, I

fully agreed and offered - as a matter of fact, I remember some of my comments -

'Give me half-an-hour and I will have it manned.' They refused.

They refused to have the station manned and continued to

pursue a mandate that saw us where we are now, where, right up to recently, I

guess, they were going to man the station, in fact, put young fire fighters in

training, defying Government resolutions throughout the day, saying to the

Government, in essence, that they would challenge the Government's resolution

and decision to have a regional service.

Now, at the root of all this problem, of course, is the fact

that the Mount Pearl Council knew that it was partner to and part of a regional

service when this debate started. It was not as if we were saying they could not

have a fire department as, in fact, the petitions suggested. The petitions, if I

remember the wording, said, in essence, something to the effect that they were

asking the people whether Mount Pearl should have a fire department.

MR. WINDSOR: Their own fire department! Go get the

records!

MR. GULLAGE: Their own fire department. But the

suggestion was very clear, Mr. Chairman, from what I understand was said at the

doors, that it was implying that the Government was denying them fire fighting

service.

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody ever suggested (inaudible) too

stunned to understand what you're talking about!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is

clear, that Mount Pearl was and is part of a fire fighting service, to this day,

contributing to it as just about all the other municipalities in the Northeast

Avalon are.

What we saw take place over the last few months was the Mount

Pearl Council suggesting that they should walk away from that agreement with the

Province, walk away from that partnership with their neighbours, and set up

their own fire department, as if they had no fire fighting service at the time.

That was the implication. Every time an opportunity was

there, the implication came out in the press. Certainly, every comment I saw was

implying that they were not receiving fire protection at the moment. And they

are. They are part of a service at the moment, and they were part of it when

this debate started. That point should be made clear. And, to walk away from it,

and walk away from an agreement with their neighbours, Mr. Chairman, is

unconscionable, really. The Government decided, of course, that a regional

service would stay in place and that we would compensate the City of Mount Pearl

for their building and equipment and that station would become part of a

regional service.

MR. MURPHY: And so it should.

MR. GULLAGE: And so it should, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, mention has been made of plebiscites and

petitions and that sort of thing, another point I think I should speak to

because it has been addressed many, many times throughout the debate.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, The Municipalities Act

was dealt with, I guess, some fifteen years ago, by the Whelan Commission, and

the recommendation was that plebiscites be taken out of the Act. Why was that

recommendation put in there, Mr. Chairman? I do not think it was put in there

frivolously. I think it was done after a lot of research and a lot of thought

about the importance of a plebiscite, whether it should or should not be. At the

end of the day, Whelan clearly said that plebiscites were mostly emotional in

nature and could not properly address the facts of the matter. Certainly, you

could never possibly educate thousands and thousands of people to the point

where they could make a decision individually, a rational and good decision, by

way of a signature on a plebiscite, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly, I think, Whelan's recommendation to the Government

of the day was a good one. Because, Mr. Chairman, we are elected to make

decisions. That is why we are here. We are not elected to pass our decisions

down and say, 'We cannot make a decision, would you please make one for us.'

That is what a plebiscite, in most cases, amounts to. I am not suggesting that a

plebiscite should never take place, Mr. Chairman. I suppose, on a national

scene, if you are dealing with moral issues - I will not mention what they could

be, but certainly there are issues where perhaps plebiscites are important.

In dealing with matters where we have had a feasibility

study, we have had public hearings, we have had consultation with councils, we

have had consultation with the people, untold meetings, Mr. Chairman, and

certainly, debate in the House of Assembly, to suggest at the end of the day

that we ignore all of that, the importance of that, and say to the people, the

man on the street, 'Now, even though we have gone through this exhaustive

process, we have taken this two-year period of consultation, dialogue,

discussion, public hearings, and so on, we now want you to make a decision for

us,' Mr. Chairman, that is almost unthinkable, if not crazy. Because, Mr.

Chairman, we are elected at the end of the day, on an issue like this, a

detailed, complex, difficult decision like this, to make a decision.

PREMIER WELLS: It would lack courage.

MR. GULLAGE: It would lack courage to pass it down to an

electorate that has not been through the process that we have. That is why we

are here, to go through that process, to take the time to carry out the dialogue

and to carry on, as I said earlier, the longest consultation process, in my

view, that has ever taken place in the history of this Province. I challenge

anybody to say otherwise or to show otherwise, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: In your view.

MR. MURPHY: In a lot of views.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, I challenge you to show this House

otherwise. I would say it is the longest consultation period that has ever taken

place on any issue in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the other point I want to address is one on

which questions have been raised lately, about the unfairness of some of the

decisions we have taken. I guess, specifically, I am talking about the Aquarena,

the fire department, the annexation of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park to St.

John's and, indeed, the amalgamation of Paradise to St. Thomas, Portugal Cove to

St. Phillips, and, of course, the Metro lands.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said in answer to that question many

times, we will address any unfairness, and I stand by that. We do have to see

the transition process through to its end. We have the officials of my

department now in consultation with the officials of the communities that are

affected, and we will be fair at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman. If we see

that amalgamation and annexation, the transfer of a facility or a service, is

done in a manner that appears to be unfair as a result of doing it, the

Government will address that, and I think that is fair, but firstly, we cannot

just do that off the top of our heads at this stage because we do not know the

facts.

Firstly, we have to carry out the transition process, which

incidentally is not required under the Act. I added that process, I added the

transition period in there and I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, not

required, but important to see what the facts are and then Government can react,

and if there is an unfairness, we will address it. Mr. Chairman, I am out of

time so may I just clue up by saying that I believe this is an important

decision, obviously it is because we have been debating it for some time, and

usually only important decisions are involved in a lengthy debate such as this

has been. I think it has been well debated by both sides of the House, but at

the end of the day I think we have made a good decision and I think history will

record that. Thank you.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the only true words the

minister spoke were his last words. At least we finally got the minister on his

feet. The minister says it was debated well by both sides of the House - no, it

has been debated by this side of the House. Hon. members opposite have not

stood, have not been counted, with one or two exceptions. The hon. Member for

Pleasantville has spoken I think at least twice on this piece of legislation. I

believe the hon. Member for St. John's South, spoke yesterday in my absence, or

the night before last in my absence, and one or two others. The Member for

Carbonear has spoken and that is about it.

Incredible, Mr. Chairman, that no more members have come

forward to put their views on the record of the House of Assembly on one of the

most important pieces of legislation -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's North.

MR. WINDSOR: - as I said sometime ago, earlier in this

debate, it is incredible that so many members opposite who were former mayors,

former councillors, former executive members of the Federation of

Municipalities, have not stood in their places to be counted. Mr. Chairman, I

want to address some of the things that the minister just said. I used some

unparliamentary words just a few moments ago when, Your Honour, I think was

tempted to bring me to order and would have been quite correct and I withdraw

any unparliamentary words that I used, because they come out from time to time

in the heat of debate.

The fact remains that what the minister said a few moments

ago was absolutely untrue. Let me address the first question: that the Mount

Pearl council was told a year and a half ago, that there would be a regional

fire service. We were told a year and a half ago, that Government was leaning in

that direction. Negotiations have been carried on since that time between the

council and the minister and the Premier, so if the minister's statement was

accurate, what were these negotiations about?

The fact, Mr. Chairman, is this, that on October 12th, 1989,

the minister and the Premier in a meeting with the Mount Pearl council, made a

certain commitment and they made it clear that it was Government's view, at that

point in time, that a Regional Fire Department would be the most suitable for

this area. That they did say, but they also said, Mr. Chairman, that they would

reduce the inefficiencies in the St. John's Fire Department, bring the cost down

to an acceptable level, and that if a regional service was put in place, a

regional board with appropriate representation would be put in place as well.

Those were the two commitments made, Mr. Chairman, and furthermore, that if that

did not take place, the City of Mount Pearl would be permitted to proceed and

own and operated its own fire department. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is the truth

of the matter.

Now the minister has not denied that. I made that statement

two nights ago in this House. I have made it before and neither the minister nor

the Premier had denied that fact. Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, they have betrayed

the faith of the Mount Pearl City Council. It was on the strength of that

commitment from the Premier and the minister - it is absolutely true -

MR. GRIMES: Mount Pearl changed its mind. They did not

want it.

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl did not change its mind.

MR. GRIMES: It did so.

MR. WINDSOR: It was on the strength of that commitment

that the Mount Pearl council said: we will not open our fire department until we

complete this process.

MR. TOBIN: Why did the minister not tell the truth?

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, Mount Pearl opened the

fire department when the minister and the Premier broke their word to the City

Council of Mount Pearl.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true. That is nonsense.

MR. WINDSOR: If it is not true, I say to the Minister of

Labour, then somebody - Mr. Chairman, with no aspersions on anybody - somebody

is lying to me. Somebody is lying to me. It is either the Premier and the

minister, or it is the mayor and council of the City of Mount Pearl, one of the

two. One of the two are lying. Now we would like to find out. Bring the mayor

and council before the Bar of the House, and ask them what their side of the

story is. Bring them in here because if they are lying to me I would like to

know that too. Bring them in here, and let's see who made the commitment and who

did not, and what is the truth of the matter. I am quite prepared to do that,

Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to do that.

The minister said, Mr. Chairman, that Mount Pearl has been a

partner. We have never been a partner in a fire department. We have had a

service provided to which we have not wanted to subscribe for many years, but

have not been given any alternatives, and all of that fault does not lay with

hon. gentlemen opposite. We had the same difficulty when this party was in

power, and I am the first to admit that. I had many of these same arguments with

my own colleagues when we were in power. We were slowly moving toward a

resolution, and it would have been resolved by now. In fact, it was our

government that authorized the City of Mount Pearl to proceed with the building

and equipping of the fire department, but we were not a partner, I say to the

minister, as I said before when he tried to make that statement, there is not a

signature on a piece of paper - not a signature. We have been sent a bill, we

have been threatened that if we do not pay that bill it will be deducted from

our municipal grants. Now if that is the minister's idea of a willing partner,

then he has a strange notion of partnership. The city has for years been saying:

allow us to own and operate our own independent fire department.

Consultation, the minister said, Mr. Chairman. The minister

says there has been more consultation on this matter than ever before. Mr.

Chairman, there has been absolutely no consultation on this proposal. There has

been no consultation. There was a proposal put forward by the minister which had

many weaknesses, but at least it was a proposal put forward. The minister

appointed a commission in accordance with the Municipalities Act, and the City

of Mount Pearl Act, and the City of St. John's Act, and that commission, Mr.

Chairman, conducted some public hearings, not a plebiscite, but a public hearing

in accordance with the act, and received eighty-four written submissions dealing

with the proposal that the minister had on the table, dealing with that

proposal, Mr. Chairman.

And a report came from the commissioners, and we have the

report. Here is the report that was given to the minister. Take into account the

minister's proposal, the strengths and weaknesses of it, all the submissions

made, the eighty-four written submissions, and the hundreds of oral submissions,

studying previous reports, consulting experts, hiring a team of financial people

to do a thorough financial analysis, an independent firm of chartered

accountants. That is the concept, Mr. Speaker, that is in the Municipalities

Act, and all other legislation, and it was followed to produce this document.

But in this document, Bill 50, Mr. Chairman, there is no resemblance to either

the minister's proposal or the report of the commission. Bill 50, Mr. Chairman,

came out of nowhere, was never put before the people of this area, or the

municipalities, or the commissioners for comment, or study, or feasibility

analysis, or anything else. So I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, there has

been absolutely no consultation on the matters contained in Bill 50. No

consultation whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned plebiscites. I

would agree that one could not be bound to having a plebiscite every time you

wanted to make some change in the Province. Neither should this Chamber be bound

by having plebiscites for every decision that were to be made. If that were the

case we could all go home and we could be replaced by a computer that would add

up the numbers. But that is not what this Chamber is for. We are here to make

intelligent decisions. We are here to use our own judgement to a very large

measure, we are here to govern the Province in the best interests of the people.

No, we do not have plebiscites any more, but the legislation

was changed, I say to the Minister, because I changed it in 1979 when I was

Minister of Municipal Affairs. I agree we should not be bound to have

plebiscites. But we should be bound to have feasibility studies and to allow

those municipalities or individuals concerned to have some input. It naturally

follows that this House should listen to those submissions. Otherwise why do we

go through all those exercises? Why do we go through all the time, trouble and

expense of debating an issue in this hon. House if Government is not prepared to

listen? That is really what is being shown here, that the minister and the

Government are not prepared to listen.

No, we do not need a plebiscite. But the minister could

listen to the submissions that were made. If petitions with 18,000 names and

22,000 names do not mean anything; if the commissioners' report, properly

conducted - there were some weaknesses in that whole structure which we have

criticized, but generally speaking it was conducted in accordance with the

spirit and the intent of the legislation - if that does not mean anything; if

the public opinion poll done by professionals recently which said 83 per cent of

the people of this region support Mount Pearl's right to have a fire department,

surely that mus