November

26, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 78

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before proceeding to the routine business, on behalf of hon.

members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, the Ambassador

of Ireland to Canada, His Excellency Anton Mac Unfraidh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: For the benefit of hon. members, they might

be interested in knowing that prior to His Excellency's appointment to Canada,

he was the Ambassador to Iraq and concurrently to Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait and

Lebanon.

I say to His Excellency: Cad mle filte ag Talamh an isc a

Shoilse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: For the benefit of hon. members, and in case

His Excellency did not understand, either, it is: Welcome to Newfoundland.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Ambassador. I look

forward to seeing him a little later on. This must be a real pleasure for him to

have a posting in a country like Canada, I guess, after being all around the

world.

In the absence of the Premier, I would like to ask a question

of the Minister of Forestry. Last week, last Thursday, to be precise, the

Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited placed the ratings of Abitibi-Price and two

other eastern Canadian forest products companies on rating alert. Is he aware of

this, and can he tell us what potential repercussions there might be for

Newfoundland as a result?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know,

that rating applied to Abitibi-Price, the corporate body, that has mills

operating all over Canada. He will also know, representing Grand Falls, that the

Abitibi-Price mill in Grand Falls, itself, as a result of the restructuring and

negotiations with their unions, and other things they have done, has been making

money these past few months.

So one of the concerns is the effect that the Abitibi-Price,

the corporate body's position will, as he referred to, have on the operation at

Grand Falls. But the mill, itself, in Grand Falls and the operation in

Newfoundland is doing quite well, thanks to a commitment by the work force and

by the company, and hopefully, any difficulties Abitibi-Price, itself, is having

will be overcome. Hopefully, it is due purely to the downturn in the newsprint

industry, as opposed to any other problems.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, officials

in my office spoke to the analyst from the bond rating agency. They indicated

that they issued the alert because they expect major plant closures - not

temporary shutdowns, but major plant closures. I ask the minister, is he aware

of whether or not the Premier, or has he, himself, spoken to the chief executive

officers of Abitibi-Price, for example, and does he have any concerns in that

area at all?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I personally spoke with the

chief executive officer of Abitibi-Price about two weeks ago. I don't know the

date, specifically, but it was about two weeks ago. I might say that present,

also, was the resident manager and other officials of the Grand Falls unit and,

no, there was no indication. Of course, they have made a public announcement,

Abitibi has said publicly, that there will be no downtime the rest of this year,

and, of course, we are getting close to the rest of this year, 1991. At that

point in time, they were not anticipating downtime in 1992, although it is

always possible, as the hon. member would know. If there is any further

deterioration in the international markets, that might well be.

I can tell the hon. member that one of Abitibi's biggest

problems today, and I would think that this applies to all of the Abitibi mills,

is the high Canadian dollar, and the problems that is causing for them. I am

sure, with his connections with the Federal Government, he will make that

concern known, and ask them for a policy that would bring about a reduction in

the value of the Canadian dollar.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my greatest fears now have been

reached, because what the minister has just said obviously makes me aware that

he doesn't know what he is talking about, or what is going on. Unfortunately,

the bond rating agency, itself, doesn't think that the problems are short-term,

nor do they think they can be solved either by a recovery in the newsprint

prices or, in fact, by a drop in the value of the Canadian dollar. The industry

experts, themselves, are saying that, Mr. Speaker. The industry experts say the

real problem is the fact that there is an overcapacity of about 1 million to 1.5

million tons - 1 million to 1.5 million tons in Eastern Canada, Mr. Speaker, and

also, that you have too many plants that would require a lot of capital

investment, particularly to meet environmental requirements.

Now, I want to ask the minister, what process exactly does he

have in place to monitor this particular situation? Can he give the people of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly those working, some

assurance and some comfort that there is nothing to fear with respect to that?

Because of all of this over-capacity, it is an important question. Secondly, has

the Government, for example, offered to assist companies with any of their

environmental expenditures? Has the Government offered that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the only assurance that I can

give the people of Newfoundland is that in our conversations - and they are

ongoing because of the situation in the world market, and because of our

concerns with the effect it will have on Abitibi-Price, Grand Falls or

Abitibi-Price, Stephenville - the executive officers of the company have

indicated to us that they are not anticipating any downtime in the mill.

They are fully aware of the situation in the world market,

aware of the over supply, and aware of the solutions. They know that

Abitibi-Price closed the mill already in Canada and that the other Abitibi-Price

mills are taking downtime but, with that knowledge, they are telling me and

Government, at this time, that they are not anticipating any downtime in the

short-term. If the situation continues to deteriorate, there may well be, but

they are not prepared to speculate as to what will happen in the next six,

seven, eight or nine months.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second part of his question:

Has the Government offered any help or any assistance? - every time the

companies, Abitibi-Price and Kruger, come to Government with requests for

specific assistance, we entertain their proposals, we look at their requests and

we consider what we can do. To this point in time, Abitibi-Price, other than

having ordinary talks they would have with the Province with regard to

silviculture, or things for which the Province is responsible, have made no

specific requests. As a matter of fact, Abitibi-Price is happy with their

performance in Grand Falls and in Stephenville. Their only concern, of course,

is what is happening in the world market, over which they do not have a lot of

control.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one final supplementary to the minister.

The minister referred earlier to the fact that Abitibi made money in Grand

Falls, but we all know Kruger made money, too, up until a month or so ago, and

they are facing some difficulties, so I am not sure you can take any comfort in

that fact. Let me ask him this: The minister mentions - and I am trying to get

at it because of the fact that it can be kind of cloudy at times - he mentions

'in the short-term'; I am talking about the next year, within the next twelve

months. Can he give the same assurance in the next twelve months that we have

nothing to fear, or is he just talking about the next month, the end of this

year?

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

Forestry.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, 'in the short-term' were my

words. What I am saying to the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, is, Abitibi-Price

management have not given us any reasons to believe that they will be

experiencing downtime or any particular problems in the next year, I guess, they

are talking; but they do not say year, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that, if one

is reading what is happening in the newsprint industry today, across Canada,

there are very few chief executive officers who would be prepared to predict

what will happen to their operation, to their mill or to the industry, in the

next year or two or three. But, to the extent that we can be assured, Grand

Falls is not anticipating any downtime relative to their markets or relative to

their ability to produce and compete. No, we are not aware that Abitibi-Price,

at this point in time, is concerned about downtime or any other negative effects

in the mill in the short-term, and the short-term I take to be in the next

months or even the next year.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Recent newspaper

reports state there are major reductions in student enrolments at the Bonavista

and Clarenville campuses of the Eastern Community College. Bonavista, I believe,

has only fifty full-time students and Clarenville is down 25 per cent his year.

Does the Government intend to close the Bonavista campus, and will it close

Clarenville unless enrolment improvements?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that in

many parts of the Province the numbers are up dramatically. New programs are

being offered, but in certain other areas the numbers may be down. Mr. Speaker,

last year during the budgetary process Government decided to explore and examine

the mandate of what were called the under utilized campuses but that did not

include Clarenville. Clarenville has had a broad program for many years, but we

are looking at the future role of certain campuses in the Province. Certainly,

our intention is to emphasize the importance of education to the Province and to

rural Newfoundland. At this point in time we do not intend to close any

campuses, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: The Minister says that at this time they do

not plan to close any campuses. Will the Minister tell us which other campuses

are being looked upon, because they have declining enrolments, and in the

rationalization process he always talks about which campuses do have their heads

on the chopping block?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate a

little on what I said about the importance of education to this Province. In the

past few days the economic planning group has been travelling the Province and

people have been saying that our future lies in developing our human as well as

our material resources. This Government believes that education is vital to the

future so we do not plan to close any campuses. The former Government considered

closing a number of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

DR. WARREN: I will not name them. The hon. member laughs,

but he knows better than I do the campuses they considered closing. We do not

plan to close any campuses. We are looking forward with optimism to the future

of our educational institutions, Mr. Speaker. We are examining the future roles

of a number of them. We have asked Mr. Bill Shallow, a former president of a

college, to travel the Province and talk with people in the various regions, and

to propose a long-term plan so that our educational institutions can serve the

future needs of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: How hypocritical. The minister talks about the

great interest in education. The major agencies today are meeting to discuss the

lack of funding in the education of this Province. I ask the minister, based

upon comments from his own officials when they say that the community colleges

have reduced capacity and are full-time offerings which is part of Government's

program to reduce offerings across the college system. What is the Government up

to? Are they going to use the old CN philosophy, and that is down grade services

until they force people out or reduplicate or duplicate the old centralization

philosophy of the former Liberal government, cut off services to the rural areas

so that people give up, go away, and then say we will have to close the colleges

now. Is this the minister's intention?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I

have to say it to the hon. member. We are not following in their footsteps, Mr.

Speaker. We decided we are not following in their footsteps. We are going to

expand the programs that are offered in the educational institutions in this

Province. The reason some of the campuses have had some difficult times is

because they were never sure year after year before we came into power what

money they were going to get, what services or programs they were going to have

offered. They were never certain. We are trying to put in place a long-term plan

for the colleges in this Province. We want to assure the people of this Province

that we are going to prepare our human population to meet the challenges of the

next century, and we are going to do it in all parts of this Province, rural as

well as urban.

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. With the announcement today to the

Fishermen's Union by the Minister of Fisheries, and with the release of his

fisheries management discussion paper, I am wondering if the Minister of

Fisheries could inform the House whether or not the Province had any specific

direct recommendations to the federal minister pertaining to reforming licensing

and allocation systems for the Atlantic Fishery. Can the minister inform the

House whether or not he had anything in front of the federal minister for

consideration before the minister released his document today.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there had been a lot of

discussion in recent weeks and months, I guess, about the matter of licensing

and it is interesting to note that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

continue to issue part-time registrations. In fact in 1991, I am told, there are

something like 7,300 registered part-time fishermen as opposed to, I believe,

about 11,000 in 1990. I think most people, Mr. Speaker, recognize the fact that

we have to put some order into the fishery. In fairness to the full-time

fishermen who have invested, in some cases, substantial amounts of money into

the fishing industry, we have to afford them some protection.

The White Paper that we are going to be introducing in the

House within weeks now will outline in some detail precisely what the Province's

thoughts are on part-time fishermen and how to deal with the matter without

inflicting too much hardship on those who derive at least a part of their income

from the part-time fishery.

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

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

I am pleased that the Minister is concerned about the

part-time fishermen, but what I was asking him was: Did the Province make any

submissions to the federal minister about reforming licensing and allocations

systems? The Minister announced to the fishermens' union this morning that he is

looking at an agency to look into the licensing and allocation aspects for the

Atlantic fishery, two agencies, one for the East Coast and one for the West

Coast. I ask the Minister: Did the Province have any proposals, direct, specific

submissions, made to the federal minister pertaining to licensing and allocation

reform?

The other thing I wanted to ask the Minister, thinking that

the answer was going to be yes, is: Does he support the reform that is being

proposed by the federal minister?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I misunderstood

the question. Two days in a row now the hon. gentleman for Fogo raised some

questions about part-time registrations, and I assumed the hon. gentleman was

referring to the same matter.

Yes, we have made representation to the federal minister. In

fact, when I met with him last Thursday that was one of the items on the agenda,

the minister's proposal to restructure his department. I believe it was on

Wednesday of last week we presented the minister with the Province's position

paper on joint management.

The Premier has already, of course, written the Prime

Minister and sent him a copy of the submission. In his letter to the Prime

Minister, the Premier suggested that maybe his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

and I should sit down together and discuss the whole matter of joint management,

and exactly to what extent, maybe, the minister's proposal to involve some kind

of restructuring of his department, how we can marry it to the Province's

position. I am expecting that that meeting will be held with the federal

minister hopefully within the next couple of weeks.

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

supplementary.

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

I am wondering if the Minister could be a little more direct

in his answer. I am wondering, since the federal minister is proposing an

Atlantic provinces agency to deal with licensing and allocations in the fishery,

that if the Government, or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be

involved in the agency? The second part of the question is: if this agency is

established, which it looks very much like it will be, what affect will that

have on the issue of joint management?

Because the last number of weeks we have heard a lot of talk

from the minister and the Premier about a joint management arrangement with the

Federal Government. I am wondering now, with this Atlantic fisheries agency that

is going to look at licensing and allocations, what affect that may have on the

Province's position of going forward for a joint management agreement with

Ottawa.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans and his counterparts will pay heed to what the Province of

Newfoundland has had to say with respect to the need for some kind of a joint

management regime. Surely the Federal Government must recognize the fact that

Newfoundland, more than any other Atlantic province, has a larger stake in the

fishery than any other part of Canada. Consequently, it is certainly of little

comfort to us that most of the decisions made in terms of fisheries management

are made in Ottawa. But while we welcome the minister's announcement that maybe

he will be doing some restructuring, we would certainly expect him to pay heed

to what the Province has had to say, and to join the Province in coming up with

some kind of a regime that would be fairer and certainly would better suit the

problems in Newfoundland as it applies to the fishery.

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the

Minister of Social Services. One of the recommendations in the report on

workplace stress in the Department of Social Services calls for the

establishment of a joint management/employee task force to find ways to improve

working conditions and the quality of client services. Has the Government agreed

to this recommendation? Have they made a decision to go forward with this? If

so, when will the task force be appointed?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, the Government has

not agreed to the appointment of any task force and is not likely to do so.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I hope this task force study

which the minister said was so important, that all the recommendations are not

going to be forgotten like that, or any of the report. The report is a serious

indictment of the working conditions in the Department of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, certainly low morale and stress

will affect the quality of service. What actions will the minister take

immediately to reduce the negative effect as this report points out on client

services?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has already

undertaken discussions with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees,

through Mr. March, and the mechanism that would be put in place to address the

concerns outlined in the report. He seemed quite happy with the representation

that we have made to him. We might not necessarily call it a task force; it

might be done through labour-management committee meetings. A number of vehicles

have been discussed and when the employees agree on what they want the

department and Government will do it.

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

au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the minister is

putting the responsibility on NAPE. The minister is running the Department of

Social Services. The problems of job stress and low morale are particularly

severe in the Child Protection branch, as pointed out in the report. Has the

minister targeted this branch for special attention to improve the work

conditions and client services?

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

MR. HOGAN: No particular part of the Department of Social

Services has been targeted for any special attention, Mr. Speaker. We are

dealing with all sections of the department equally, as the concerns arise in

each department. I might also point out to the hon. member that this study was

first undertaken and initiated five years ago, which means it started in 1986

when NAPE undertook to look at this particular problem. It was not until three

years ago that it was determined that the study should go ahead.

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

au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, well good for whoever did it

five years ago, but it is the minister now who has got to make the decision as

to whether he follows the implementation of that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of the employees in

the Department of Social Services said that more staff and reduced caseloads

would help to relieve job stress. How many additional staff does the Department

need to reduce caseloads to manageable numbers, and does the minister have the

support of Cabinet to hire the additional staff required?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, probably we are reading two

different reports because I did not read that in the report. The employees that

I spoke to did not read it in the report, and I am sure that the Newfoundland

Association of Public Employees did not read it in the report. I would also let

the hon. member know that I know that NAPE is not running my Department. They

never did and they never will, not while I am there.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Unlike the

other areas he spoke about earlier this is a matter within his jurisdiction. It

has to do with lobster prices in this Province and the attempts to stabilize

these prices by having changes made to the Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether or not

the joint request of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador

Limited and the Fishermen's Union made in the fall of 1989 for changes in the

act are about to be implemented?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that matter is now

before the Legislation Review Committee and I expect when they report on it

there will be some action taken.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to know that

in May of 1990 the Premier, in a letter, said: it was my intention to have the

amendments introduced in the present session, that is in the spring of 1990, but

says he is not able to confidently assure they will receive royal assent during

the spring and will be dealt with in the fall of 1990. Mr. Speaker, it is now

the fall of 1991 and I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries, or perhaps the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations could assure the House on behalf of

the Government that this legislation will be dealt with this fall, will be

brought forward for debate this fall in this session of the House of Assembly?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation that was discussed with representatives of

the Fishermen's Union and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador

as well has been drafted and prepared. It is currently in the hands of the Chair

of the Legislation Review Committee. He has assured me there will be an

opportunity for public input into that as the committee normally does its work

through this fall. Whether or not it will get completed in time for it to be

done on this agenda I cannot commit to the House at this time.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: My final question is a quite simple one. Two

lobster seasons have passed since this was first proposed to the Government. Can

the minister assure the House with confidence that there will not be another

lobster season pass before this legislation is before the House and dealt with

by this House, i.e. in the fall or spring session? Can you assure us of that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Only from the point of view that we will endeavour to do

whatever is possible to make sure that the changes that are currently drafted,

if there are no further changes that are deemed to be necessary upon the review

of this committee and brought forward to the House then we can probably have a

fairly speedy passage of that new legislation. But, I would like to point out,

Mr. Speaker, so that members of the House are not left with the impression that

pricing for lobsters is in total disarray, under the current provisions of the

Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act they have managed to settle on the

issue of lobster prices every year without the amendments that are now being

proposed, so I am sure that the industry will be able to deal with it one way or

the other, but we are confident that the changes proposed will probably help the

situation and we will do everything possible in the course of events to see that

it is through without undue delay.

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

and the Minister responsible for Wildlife. Could the minister advise the House

if his department has arrived at a decision with respect to a proposal by a

caribou game farm near Peter's River on the Avalon River?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we have not come to any

conclusion. As the hon. member is aware there is a proposal before Government to

establish a caribou game farm in the Peter's River area. We are analyzing the

proposal. It is a very complicated situation. There are a lot of people for it

and there are a lot of people who feel that it might not be the way we should

go. We are getting advice from all over Canada from people who have game farms,

province's and experts. No, Mr. Speaker, we have not come to any conclusion. Of

course, I might tell the hon. member that when we do, it will probably be

important enough for me to make a statement in the House of Assembly.

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

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

Is the minister aware that game farming has been tried in

B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario? And is the minister also aware that in

Alberta alone over 1,000 animals have been detected as having a disease, in

particular tuberculosis, and that this particular disease has been passed along

to cattle, pigs and even to humans?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I am aware of all the conditions that the

hon. member raises, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I am aware of them to the extent

he raised them. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to answer the question by asking one,

because I am trying to determine whether or not the hon. member is supportive or

non-supportive of game farming in Newfoundland.

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

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary:

Would the minister take the advice of two of his staff who, in a memo in

February, 1991, advised that the department is concerned about the risk of

accidental escapes and outbreak of disease with game farming? The employees are

concerned that this could happen in our Province and has advised the minister to

tread very carefully with regard to this particular issue?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what advice the

member is referring to, whether it was advice I received from officials of the

Department of Environment and Lands or advice I received from my officials in

the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. But I will point out to the hon.

member that with regard to most of the concerns he has raised as a result of

game farming using non-indigenous species, imported deer or whatever, there are

very few, if any, game farms in Canada that use indigenous species.

Of course, what we are talking about here is caribou game

farming, indigenous to the Province, and there is no evidence, or at least, Mr.

Speaker, there is no concrete evidence, that the concerns that other provinces

have had will indeed be a factor here in Newfoundland, because of the fact that

caribou are natural to Newfoundland, and if one happened to break out, then it

would go back into the wild from whence it came.

So, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the concerns the hon. member is

raising might not necessarily be relative to Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

On behalf of hon. members, before we proceed with the routine

business of the day, I would like to welcome to the galleries today a delegation

from the Council of Buchans, from the District of Windsor - Buchans, in the

persons of Mayor Harris Walsh and Councillors Darrell Lambert and Donna Lambert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome to the

galleries, twenty-five Grades X, XI and XII students with their chaperons and

teachers, Mr. Lorne Roach and Mr. Wade Colbourne from Long Island Academy,

Beaumont.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

I have to ask where we are now. I went on to Petitions. Is

the hon. member standing on a Petition? I had not moved past Petitions so the

hon. member on a Petition.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you. I rose as soon as you called

Petitions, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you did not see me as I have not been here last

week and I am almost like a new face, but this is an important petition, Mr.

Speaker, and it came to me in two batches and I should mention that by way of

explanation.

The first batch bears 3,000 names from Happy Valley - Goose

Bay and the second batch, which in effect is really the same petition, the same

wording and so on, bears 1,017 names and comes from a variety of communities,

some in Labrador, coastal Labrador, north and south, also from parts of the

Island such as the Central Newfoundland area, Western Newfoundland, St. Georges,

Stephenville and around like that. However, this input from other parts of the

Province were collected by the group responsible for the original petition in

Goose Bay so I am presenting them as one petition bearing therefore 4,017 names.

First, I would like to read the prayer of the petition and ask that the Chair

find it in order:

We, the undersigned, are concerned about the number of

impaired driving accidents in our Province. We feel that the present penalties

for impaired driving are not strong enough to deter people from driving while

under the influence of alcohol. The lives of innocent people continue to be

devastated needlessly by the impaired driver. We call on our Government to enact

legislation which will help to keep drunk drivers off the road. I have signed

the front page of that petition, as well, to indicate my support, Mr. Speaker.

The group that presented me with this petition is called

Friends Against Drunk Drivers, and they got together and initially formed as the

result of a very tragic, fatal traffic accident in Happy Valley - Goose Bay,

last August, in which impaired driving causing death charges and related charges

were laid. The group, FADD, have been pretty active in their pursuit to

encourage and convince legislators that stronger forms of legislation and

greater deterrence should be put in place to guard against drunk driving and the

terrible statistics that Canada is subject to when it comes to fatalities and

injuries. They make it clear to me that they are not an anti-alcohol coalition.

Their concern is against the drunk driver and drunk driving.

So, they formed their group and have met with the Premier, as

I understand it. Their indication from the Premier was that he was very

supportive of their efforts and, in fact, there was indication that a study had

been initiated into current legislation as to how it could be up graded and so

on. In discussion with some of the members of the FADD group, it came to my

attention that they believe that groups such as theirs, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, Students against Drunk Driving, and so on, should be given, if they

have not been already, the opportunity to have direct input into the studies and

deliberations undertaken, to see what can be done about better and stronger

legislation, stronger deterrence, with respect to wiping out drunk driving in

our Province and in Canada.

It is hard to describe the devastation that a small community

such as Happy Valley - Goose Bay experiences when a well-known person needlessly

loses his or her life as a result of someone operating a vehicle while impaired.

It has a far-reaching effect of devastation to the community, a special

devastation to the family of the victim, but also, I believe, there is a

devastation to the family and relatives of the perpetrator, as well. It has a

broad-based and far-reaching effect, particularly on small communities where

everybody knows everybody else.

I applaud and support the efforts of FADD to bring to the

attention of legislators everywhere that more controls have to be put in place,

and greater deterrence.

In support of the petition, I was also provided with a copy

of a publication which reveals some frightening statistics for Canada. I have

not had a chance to confirm these through Stats Canada or anything, but they do

show in this particular publication - I would be happy to table it with the

petition - that weekly, forty Canadians lose their lives as a result of someone

operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and another 1,250 a week,

are injured.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. KELLAND: By leave, for just a minute, please?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you.

That, to me, is frightening. One life is bad enough, but when

you talk about forty fatalities a week as a result of people not being properly

in control of their vehicles, I think that is frightening, and it is time that

we do take a pretty concerted effort.

I would mention, some of these names come from districts

represented by other members, but because it came through the committee in Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, I am presenting it here.

I call on every member of this House to lend their strong

support to having the studies completed, the proper input allowed, and

legislation brought about that would provide a greater deterrent, so that, once

and for all, we can eradicate drunk driving and stop this senseless waste of

human life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented so ably by the

Member for Naskaupi, and say to him that we, on this side of the House, I am

sure, as do all members in the House, support the prayer of the petition. As

well, we have all received a communication from this group; the Friends Against

Drunk Drivers they are called. In fact, I hope to meet them when I am in Goose

Bay, in a couple of weeks time, to discuss the issue a little further with them.

The letter is impressive and, I think, outlines quite clearly

their goals and objectives. I want to mention, for fear there are those who may

not be so willing to listen to what they have to say - for some strange reason -

that they should be aware this group are not an anti-alcohol group. They make

that very clear in their letter. They are, of course, solely opposed to drunk

driving, and who would not be? Who would not be?

Mr. Speaker, we all know, of course, that this group

developed their petition as a result of a local incident that occurred in their

area, but they point out, as well, in their communication to all of us as

members of the House of Assembly that this is a problem that exists everywhere,

not solely in the local area.

They also indicate that they want to work towards stricter

enforcement, or stiffer fines, or changes in legislation that might bring about

some deterrent, I guess, to people drinking and driving, and some encouragement

for the judiciary to make sure that the penalties they impose upon those found

guilty of this practice will act as a deterrent. In other words, they should be

stricter. In the communication that the member talked about, it is noted that

there are forty deaths per week as a result of it. They point out, as well, of

course, that the problem seems to be socially acceptable, as says the

article

that he talked about.

When you consider that this group have, in their catchment

area, about 8,000 people in terms of population, and from their own area the

petition has about 3,000 names, that is quite a sizeable response from the

people in that local community - nearly half the people - well, I guess probably

it is half the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Three thousand adult signatures out of 8,000

people, so that is probably more than half the adults in the area. It is a

laudable effort on their part, and we want to commend them for it, as will

people from other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point. The penalties,

of course, are put in place through federal legislation, through the Criminal

Code of Canada, where the minimums and the maximums are put in place. If it is

an increase or a change in that legislation that is required, then some other

action has to occur elsewhere. It cannot occur here.

But we can, here in this Legislature, appeal to our own

Provincial Government and ask them to provide perhaps a bit more funding to ADDC

in an attempt to help them better promote the prevention of drunk driving,

because that is the agency that is supposed to be doing it on behalf of the

Province and on behalf of the people of this Province. That is one thing they

could do, provide a bit more funding to the Alcohol and Drug Dependency

Commission.

Another thing we could do, and I recommend it here, Mr.

Speaker, if the member is prepared, to draft a short resolution - I can speak on

behalf of our party, at least, I cannot speak on behalf of the NDP, but I am

sure they would support it, as well - a short resolution which we could send to

the Federal Parliament of Canada as some kind of an initiative from our

Legislature here in Newfoundland and Labrador. If the member would be willing to

initiate such a resolution, I would be prepared to co-sponsor it. We could agree

without debate to pass it and have the message passed along. Maybe that is an

initiative the member would like to pursue. We would certainly support it, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am pleased to rise in support of the petition so ably

presented by my colleague from Labrador. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more

devastating, I guess, than for a person's life to be extinguished by a drunk

driver.

All of the Labrador community has felt the effects of the

recent incident, and, indeed, many of my constituents have provided their

support to this petition.

I, also, want to pay my tribute to the Friends Against Drunk

Drivers. The group in Happy Valley/Goose Bay has done an admirable job in making

the public more aware of the devastation that can occur as a result of drunk

driving. Certainly, I believe they are doing a great service to that community,

and, indeed, to the whole Province, to see that we are more sensitive to the

issue. They are advocating some significant and specific recommendations to see

that such incidents are reduced, and the subject will be an added feature, I am

sure, of many more future discussions.

As to further action, I have already spoken to the Member for

Naskaupi, and certainly, the idea of putting a resolution to this House is one

with which we would concur. I think it is one thing this hon. House can do, it

can send a message that this is totally unacceptable and something more must be

done. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the statistics on

the number of fatalities and the number injured in this way are very disturbing,

particularly with respect to our young people, since a greater percentage of our

young people between the ages of eighteen and thirty are victims of drunk

driving.

So, I am very pleased to support the actions of Friends

Against Drunk Drivers and I am pleased to see that the whole House, today, is

sensitive to this issue. I hope that whatever actions we initiate here will have

effect, and that some meaningful change will come about to stop this horrendous

loss of life. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to commend all hon. members who just participated

in this petition. I think it is the right time to remind hon. members again

about the requirements for a petition, because sometimes they engage in debate,

particularly acrimonious debate. I just want to read the appropriate quotation,

particularly after it was done properly, in the Chair's view, so that hon.

members will remember in the future. It is No. 92 of our own Standing Orders,

which says: "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." I believe that all

members speaking to it fulfilled these requirements.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14, the continuation of Bill 50, on

which debate was adjourned yesterday. I don't know if the hon. member who

adjourned the debate had time left.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he was speaking by leave of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking by leave?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly,

it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak to this amendment. The amendment

calls for a six-month delay in bringing Bill 50 to fruition. I don't think it is

an extraordinary request; it would, rather, simply allow for assessment of the

needs of the people involved, and there are a great number of people involved,

especially on the Northeast Avalon, where the future of the residents is

addressed by Bill 50.

The six-month hoist would give people time to go along with

what the Premier said yesterday with respect to to other areas in the Province,

and perhaps, in this area, hold a plebiscite to see what the people really want.

Mr. Speaker, I know it will not be in my time, and I don't know if it will ever

become a reality - but I find partisan politics in this Legislature distressing,

and we are all victims of it. People get up and say things because they are pro

or anti, whichever side they are on, and I think that is wrong.

Again, I don't know if there will ever come a day when we

will see in the House of Assembly, men and women get to their feet and speak the

truth, speak what they feel, what is in their minds, and be elected on the

stance they are taking, be elected for what they feel, rather than be toed into

or pushed into what they really do not believe in their hearts and souls is the

right way to go.

The other night, I watched the House of Commons on television

and I heard this lady, who, I must say, was not a member of my political

persuasion. But, certainly, I listened intently to what she had to say, and she

sort of assured me that my line of thinking wasn't all that wrong, that there

were other people out there with the same feelings I had, that sometimes the

House of Assembly defeats its purpose.

The House of Assembly is about to pass a piece of legislation

just because it was sponsored by the Government in power. In many instances, Mr.

Speaker, a piece of legislation is brought to the minister by bureaucrats, who

sometimes feel they are aloof from the elected representatives, and sometimes

feel that they have all the answers - and perhaps, in a diplomatic way, they

might. But in many decisions made by legislators, including our own, what the

legislation is all about is sometimes forgotten, and that legislation, in all

cases has to do with people.

Today, in 1991, Mr. Speaker, amalgamation, Bill 50, may not

mean a great deal to a great many people and people will sort of shove it under

the counter and say 'forgotten', it had to come about anyway, but that is not

necessarily true, because this has to do with people, their lives, their

environment, their families, generally, all aspects of their way of life, and I

think that each and every member should be allowed to stand and speak freely of

his feelings or his aspirations when it comes to an important piece of

legislation that deals directly with the lives of a great number of people.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that somewhere, sometime, the philosophy

with respect to legislators and legislative assemblies will change. We have

sometimes, now, a free vote, but in most instances, Mr. Speaker, we toe the

line. I am not saying that when I was a member of the government, I did not do

just that, as well - I did; but I am not saying it was right, because I often

had misgivings about toeing a line when I didn't think it was the right thing to

do, and I also, in my time as part of government, was always sure to make it

quite clear that I found some things that weren't really doing anything for me,

and I didn't think were doing anything for the Province in general.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 50, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation

Of Certain Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region." The

Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker, is made up of, perhaps, a third of the population

of Newfoundland and Labrador and, therefore, is very important to this Province.

It's the way this is being brought in, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem with

amalgamation, none whatsoever. If it was explained to the people, over the long

haul, I think people might accept it. But, Mr. Speaker, with the way the

Northeast Avalon is being amalgamated, surely goodness, Mr. Speaker, there is

not a handful of people out there who feel they know what is really in store for

them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big step. When Kilbride was annexed,

when other areas were amalgamated, people agreed with that amalgamation or

annexation, because, Mr. Speaker, Government Members, officials and whatever

went among the people and explained what the benefits were and, in explaining

what the benefits were, brought home to the people a reality that, 'Look, this

amalgamation is better for you, better for your community, better for your

children, and better for the Province in general.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was never done. I attended several

meetings that were held before this amalgamation came to a resolution in this

House and, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing explained. It was just a matter of

organizations, town councils, and individuals who had some feelings as it

pertained to amalgamation coming to a meeting and expressing their feelings.

What amalgamation was all about was never really defined, and people who had no

feeling for amalgamation, had no experience in amalgamation, were just there

listening to those briefs. Those briefs were presented mainly by people who had

something to gain from what they were saying in their briefs.

Town councils, certainly, spoke about loss of identity and,

you know, we are going to be overtaxed, and in many cases it was right, it was

true. But the point remains, we were never versed, we were never told, 'Look,

amalgamation is not as bad as you think it is, perhaps there is a way out.

Perhaps this is the best way to go.' I do not know, because no one ever told me,

and 95 per cent of the people on the Northeast Avalon do not know, because this

was sort of a secretive thing. There were some hearings held, but there was

nothing told to the people with regard to: this is what you are going to gain,

this is what you are going to lose, so draw your own conclusions.

The Premier said in the House yesterday that he felt sure the

majority of people in the Northeast Avalon agreed with amalgamation. For the

life of me, I cannot see where the Premier took his statistics from. I mean, I

am positive, I am sure, that 90 per cent of the Goulds do not want amalgamation

- 99 per cent of Wedgewood Park does not want amalgamation.

The Minister of Finance smiles, but it is going to come home

to rest on the minister and all the other ministers and all the other members

for the St. John's area, because now St. John's is wondering about the same

thing as I am, what benefits will be derived by St. John's with this

amalgamation. This is one of the biggest problems.

I can hear the member for Bellevue talking about the latest

poll. You know what polls are used for. Up until some of the statistical -

MR. SIMMS: Wait until he sees the latest polls.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, wait until he sees the latest polls. He

just saw a number of figures -

MR. SIMMS: The ones he saw yesterday.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. I am surprised at the Member for

Bellevue, who is an educator, why he did not do the calculations himself. I am

sure he has the capabilities but why he did not do them I do not know. I am not

going to stray from my train of thought and would rather get back to the

amalgamation bit. I hope that we are all here in the House and that I can stand

in my place when amalgamation is over, and after the people realize how they

have been sold down the river by this Government, then let us do a poll. Let us

do a poll then.

MR. NOEL: The city did a poll on amalgamation.

MR. SIMMS: They did a poll on St. John's members.

MR. NOEL: On the St. John's population (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: The St. John's members.

MR. NOEL: No, they did it on the St. John's citizens.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Pleasantville is

interjecting again but I do not mind a bit. He is continuously doing that but

very seldom does he rise in his place. He might rise in his place today.

According to the Open Line show this morning he is going to rise in his place

today. The hon. member is going to stand up and be counted, not alone be

counted, but he is going to tell the truth. I am not inferring that all members

on the other side have told lies but they stretched the truth a little in saying

that we are sure the people on the Northeast Avalon recognize the fact that

amalgamation is the best thing. It is the best thing since sliced bread. Mr.

Speaker, I differ, because, as I said, why the people in St. John's were in

favour of the proposed amalgamation was because they did not understand the

ramifications of amalgamation. They did not understand what it was going to cost

the City of St. John's. It was never told to them by the Minister of Finance. My

good friend the Minister of Education is doing his best as far as educating the

people of this Province is concerned and I sometimes have to give him a slap on

the back and tell him he is doing a fair job. But I say to the Minister of

Education, as a minister representing an area in St. John's, he should also

educate the people of St. John's about what is going to happen. Tell the people:

look, your taxes are going to be raised to offset the cost of the Aquarena, to

offset the cost of the Canada Games Park. That is what he should be doing. The

Minister of Education should be educating the people of St. John's for the

minuses, not the pluses, but the minuses associated with the amalgamation of

Wedgewood Park and the Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we saved Mount Pearl.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, you saved Mount Pearl by pressuring the

Government. Numbers came out. It was just a number's game. The Minister of

Finance is always over there yakking away to himself, saying very little of any

consequence, but yakking away to himself. The Minister of Finance should have

been out on the streets going around to the people before this resolution was

passed last spring, saying to the people: look, this might or might not be the

best thing for you. Let us have a few meetings where we will get both sides to

come and explain to us what this deal is all about.

I am not saying there is a big deal in this cost efficiency

as it pertains to the Goulds and Wedgewood Park. Wedgewood Park had all the

services that were necessary, that the people needed. They were prepared to pay

up front more money to the City of St. John's if it was required. They were

prepared to pay more money for fire fighting if it was required. They had all

the services as far as recreation is concerned, as far as maintenance of streets

and whatever was concerned. They had everything going for them at 6.5 mils.

MR. NOEL: Everything except justice.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Pleasantville again

talking about justice. Well, let us talk about justice. Justice can only be

gained in a democratic society. That is what we are all told, but where is the

democratic society?

MR. SIMMS: It is not here.

MR. PARSONS: Is it the one that we live in where the

Premier can go out in Corner Brook and Mount Moriah and tell them that they can

have a plebiscite to decide for themselves if they are going to amalgamate or

not, and tell the people of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds: you will do as I say?

It was a foregone conclusion when he brought the resolution in the House.

I have to admit to one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the Member

for Pleasantville did have the guts to stand on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is unparliamentary.

MR. PARSONS: I doubt if it is unparliamentary. Everyone

is born with them. Without them you are not a human being.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, he did stand on his feet, and

he did say that he did not agree with the resolution. I have to give him a pat

on the back for that. I mean as far as the other people on that side of the

House - I mean we have one particular member, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island who was presented with a petition from a great number of - I believe

there was - I do not know what percentage of the people signed in St. Phillips,

but it was a vast majority.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Stephenville says he

brought it in. He might have brought it in, but he never presented it.

MR. SIMMS: He would not even sign it.

MR. PARSONS: He would not even sign the petition. You

cannot present a petition without signing it, and the hon. Member for Mount Scio

- Bell Island would not even sign it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he was a wimp. He was afraid of the

Premier so he would not get up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island on a point

of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, Hansard will show there is no

question that when I made the original presentation the petition was not signed.

I asked the permission of the House to allow me to sign the petition. I asked

permission of the House to allow me to sign the petition so that my comments

would remain. The hon. Opposition House Leader at the time, who is now Leader of

the Opposition, refused to grant me the permission to sign it at that point in

time. Hansard will show that I was more than willing to sign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule on that point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

problem with the member is what he was doing was asking the Legislature to break

its own rules, and being Chairman of the Rules Committee for the Legislature, it

seemed somewhat ironic to me to have the Chairman of the Rules Committee

standing up in this Legislature asking for permission to break the rules that he

is supposed to help establish, so there is obviously no point of order, Mr.

Speaker, whatsoever.

MR. SIMMS: As usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member wish to speak to the point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order raised by the

hon. Member. He is just using that to explain the situation that occurred here

in the House earlier, but there is no point of order.

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

MR. PARSONS: I will have to remind the hon. Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island that the people responsible for that petition also

asked this side of the House if they would present it on their behalf -

MR. SIMMS: And he would not let us.

MR. PARSONS: - and he would not let us. He would not let

us present it. He took away the freedoms and the rights of Newfoundlanders. He

took it away from them in his own district. A betrayal of his people who elected

him.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman did not agree with what

was said in the petition, he should be man enough to stand in his place and say:

look, I am presenting the petition, but I do not completely agree with the

contents of it. It might be precedent setting, but at least it would be in the

record that he presented the petition. When he came into the legislature he was

a lame duck. He came in and said: well I have the petition, but certainly

someone is going to see that I did not sign it, then it will be thrown out that

I am not allowed to present it, then I will not allow anyone else to present it

so there is no way I can lose. That is what the member did, but I want to say to

the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, that he erred. That was a mistake.

Because some of the statistics that the Premier used yesterday might have been

taken from the fact that that hon. Member told the Premier all the people down

in St. Phillip's, Portugal Cove and all that area, are all prepared to go along

with this amalgamation bit. That in itself was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: All except Myrle Vokey, his campaign

manager.

MR. PARSONS: That in itself was wrong, Mr. Speaker. Let's

go back to the burdens on St. John's, and what will be taken away from those two

respective towns.

The argument ever since I came into the House as it pertains

to Wedgewood Park was: here on one side of the street you have a town that is

paying 11.5 mils, and on the other side of the street, perhaps one number right

across the street, you have another community which is paying 6.5 mils. But no

one ever did an assessment on why that was happening. Why was it happening? Why

could neighbouring communities - as we were told, as the argument went; one on

one side of the street and another on the other side of the street - supply the

services at more of a reasonable rate than 11.5 mils?

We all know, and I can readily see, that the St. John's

infrastructure was much larger than the infrastructure in the Goulds or in

Wedgewood Park. But the point remains: should they be penalized for being good

citizens in administration? By being smaller than the larger town? Why would

they be penalized for it? If Wedgewood Park ran a good shop, if the Goulds was

efficient, why change it? There was nothing broken in there. I mean all they

come across with is: Wedgewood Park is scandalous, Wedgewood Park should be

paying their fair share. What is their fair share?

What do we do as Newfoundlanders? Live up to expectations?

And if a fellow is painting his house across the way the first thing they don't

say: go over and give him a slap on the back and say, boy you're doing a great

job. They say: where in the name of God did you get the money to buy the paint?

And that is what went on in the Goulds and Wedgewood Park. They were saying: how

can they do it for 6.5 mils when St. John's has to charge 11?

I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people were never

told. The people of Wedgewood Park, 99 per cent of them, want it to stay as it

is - have its own identity, and rightly so. In 1977 St. John's was asked to take

Wedgewood Park and refused because it would be a burden on them. But seeing that

a group of people in there got together and formed a council, and that they did

such a fine job of governing that small community, that now everyone seems to

have a hand out there saying: welcome to the Met. Boy, we certainly would love

to have you. Because now the tax base and facilities are there for anyone at all

to step in and take over. There is no doubt in my mind that the acquisition of

Wedgewood Park, the amalgamation of Wedgewood Park to the City of St. John's, is

a plus.

But to the southwest we have the Goulds. All the pluses that

were gained by the amalgamation of Wedgewood Park are certainly taken away by

the minuses of the Goulds. Let me tell the hon. minister. He should stick to the

financial aspect of it, and he is not doing a very good job even at that. But

let me tell him about it. The number one thing: when amalgamation comes through,

which supposedly is the first of the year, the City of St. John's will be

responsible for the highway out as far as Bay Bulls Long Pond. They will be

responsible for snow clearing, for sanding and salting, and the cost alone is

going to be astronomical. So no matter what is gained from the annexation or

amalgamation of Wedgewood Park it will be certainly lost over the long run by

what is going to be lost in the cost for the Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mount Pearl too.

MR. PARSONS: Well, let me say this to the hon. member, if

the need was there, and if it was viable, and if it could be proven to me that

this could be a supercity, or should be a supercity, as it was once said, then I

certainly would not throw that out the window. I could certainly sit down and

listen, and I think that all the people within this area - I am not sure but

that is the right way to go. I am not sure but that is the right way to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mount Pearl.

MR. PARSONS: I am not sure, but perhaps it is the right

way to go, to amalgamate Mount Pearl. I do not know, and no one else knows,

because no one was ever told. There was no information forthcoming from

Government to tell the people which is the best for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the hon.

minister. I had the privilege and the pleasure to be part of the group that

brought the council to the small town of Flatrock. To show how democratic that

was, compared to what we see happening here in the House today, we went around

with a petition supporting incorporation in Flatrock, and another group went

around with a petition saying that to incorporate the town was wrong. Both

petitions were presented to Government. The powers to be, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs at the time, came back and said: well we cannot incorporate

the area, because the people have spoken and there are 52 per cent who said no

to incorporation. Mr. Speaker, it was gone; but we kept plugging at it. We kept

talking to the people and saying that this is what you will gain from having

your own town. Finally, because we went out and did our work as a group, as a

committee, we had seminars within the small community and explained to the

people, everyone had a time limitation to address those hearings, and then we

had another plebiscite. This time we won by 70-odd per cent. We had 70-odd per

cent of the people behind us, to go ahead and incorporate the town.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is justice. That is freedom. That is

living in a democratic society, from my point of view. Where is it, in this

legislation? Where is it? The Premier stood in his place yesterday, and I am not

saying that the Premier lied, but I do not know where he got his facts and

figures. He said that the majority of the people on the Northeast Avalon were in

favour of what is happening in this Bill 50, and that is wrong. That is wrong. I

challenge anyone, including the Premier, to come along and show me where any

survey was done - only the one that was done in Wedgewood Park, where 99 per

cent said no; only the one that was done in Mount Pearl, where 99 per cent said

no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: By leave? Just to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, who are the other people? The

St. John's people never knew what they were going to lose. I said before, and I

asked questions here in the House about the Aquarena. I was told by the minister

that it will be covered out, that they have no fears, the Aquarena is going to

make money. The Aquarena, the last year that we were in Government, cost the

taxpayers of this Province $400,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) management.

MR. PARSONS: And there is no way; there is good

management, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: $900,000.

MR. PARSONS: $900,000. Perhaps one of the finest men who

ever managed, and finest manager in this Province is in charge of the Aquarena.

I do not have to mention the man's name. There is certainly nothing that can be

taken away from him - a fine man. If there is anyone who can make that place

viable it is him, and he has not done it, and he does not see it in the future

any more than I do.

Mr. Speaker, there is no subsidization as far as the Premier

is concerned - no subsidization for a changeover. There is no subsidization as

it pertains to the Aquarena or the Canada Games Park or anything else. There is

no subsidization for the Goulds for snow clearing and de-icing of the roads, so

what do we have?

We have a piece of legislation here which if it was explained

to the people they might accept it. Well, it was never explained. The people do

not know what it is all about and now the realization is coming, they are

saying, what it is about? Perhaps it is not a good piece of legislation, perhaps

it is not good for St. John's anymore than it was good for Wedgewood Park or the

Goulds.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you very much for the time

and I will certainly be supporting the hoist - and I ask all my colleagues on

both sides of the House, to just give the people another six months, you can

bring it in then and pass it through the House if the people do not speak out.

Give them some sort of a plebiscite. Let us count the numbers. Let us say to the

people: look, this is democracy and why our forefathers came to this Island. The

greatest bastion of democracy is on this Island, do not let it be said to our

future generations: you were hoodwinked because you did something when you did

not know what it was all about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch out, Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: Listen here, you are going to give the member a

false impression.

I would like to know what the Member for St. John's East

Extern and the proposer of this amendment thinks would be accomplished by a six

month hoist .

AN HON. MEMBER: A referendum is (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Pardon me? A referendum. I know that Members of

the Opposition have been talking about the need for a plebiscite or referendum

but I wonder would they agree to abide by it? I wonder if the Member for Mount

Pearl would agree to abide by the result of a referendum amongst all the

municipalities, amongst all the people in the Northeast Avalon?

MR. WINDSOR: If the question was a fair question.

MR. NOEL: If the question was a fair question. Would you

consider it a fair question: should the entire Northeast Avalon be amalgamated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just one question, you have to give the

Opposition (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Would you consider it fair?

AN HON. MEMBER: As compared to what (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: So we have to have a plebiscite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - that asks a question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: -that suits the member but also has a number of

different options.

MR. WINDSOR: One that is fair to everyone.

MR. NOEL: Fair to everyone. The Member for St. John's

East Extern said that a survey was done in Wedgewood Park and in some other

communities, but a survey was done in St. John's, May 12th and 13th of last year

and people were asked the clear question whether they agreed with amalgamation

of St. John's with other municipalities and only 19 per cent disagreed.

MR. WINDSOR: Would the member agree with the plebiscite

and would he stand by it?

MR. NOEL: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: You would. You would agree with the

plebiscite?

MR. NOEL: I would be quite happy to have a plebiscite if

the entire Northeast Avalon area participated, particularly the area including

St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Wedgewood Park, The Goulds - and abide by the

result of that. I mean the members on the other side say it is undemocratic to

amalgamate these different groups. Undemocratic, the Member for St. John's East

Extern says, to amalgamate Wedgewood Park with St. John's against their will.

Would you consider it democratic if the people of Pleasantville said they wanted

to have a vote on whether they could separate from St. John's? Would you allow

them to separate from St. John's? If the people from say, St. John's North said

we do not want to pay the expenses of running this great metropolis, we do not

want to pay the expenses of servicing the Confederation Building and all of

these government buildings and all of the hospitals and schools. People in St.

John's North do not want to pay it, people in St. John's Centre do not want to

pay it. Would that be democratic? Is that what you would agree to?

MR. WINDSOR: It depends on the question.

MR. NOEL: But if that was the question, if the people of

Pleasantville said: we want to have a plebiscite on whether we have to stay in

St. John's or whether we would be allowed to leave it. Would you agree with

that? Would you consider that democracy?

MR. WINDSOR: If there was a feasibility study it would

show it was in their best interest.

MR. NOEL: But my question to you was, would you agree

that the people of Pleasantville should be allowed to have this vote on whether

they want to stay in St. John's or not? The same for North, the same for Centre,

the same for Waterford - Kenmount, so we end up with nobody with responsibility

for the cost of running the capital city of the Province, according to your

reasoning. Now, what kind of reasoning is that? You are trying to make that out

to be some sort of advocacy of democracy.

MR. WINDSOR: Would you give me thirty seconds to make a

statement? Could I interrupt you for thirty seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the hon. gentleman and I will not

take more than thirty seconds. Let me quote to him an

article that comes from

the parliamentary update that arrived on my desk today. This comes from meetings

held in Zimbabwe by the heads of Governments including Prime Minister Mulroney.

At that meeting just a couple of weeks ago it confirms 'the inalienable right to

participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the

society in which he or she lives.' The right to self determination confirmed by

the heads of Governments of all the Commonwealth parliaments, Mr. Speaker. This

is confirming a decision or statement made in Singapore in 1971. That is what we

are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, the right of self determination, and if the

example the hon. gentleman refers to of the people of an area of St. John's, say

the Pleasantville area, if they could show it was feasible, that it was not

injurious to others, and that they could have a separate municipality, I would

be happy to give them the right to chose the society under which they live.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why did you not let Newtown stay on

it's own?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for

Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: I say to the member that nobody can enjoy real

legitimate self determination unless they are prepared to pay for it. Obviously,

any group that is given the option of having a situation in which they will pay

less taxes while other people pay for the cost of servicing them are going to

say, yes, I will opt to pay less taxes, so Pleasantville will leave St. John's,

St. John's North will leave, St. John's Centre will leave, and we will have a

great city here with nobody paying the expenses for it.

MR. WINDSOR: There is nobody suggesting that.

MR. NOEL: Well, you are suggesting it if you are saying

that Wedgewood Park should not be brought into St. John's if it does not want

to, and we know the main reason it does not want to is because it is now

presently paying half the taxes it is going to pay in a couple of months time.

It is the same thing with Mount Pearl. The residents of Mount Pearl are paying

8.7 mils on their domestic properties compared to 11 mils the residents of St.

John's pay. The businesses of Mount Pearl pay 8.7 mils as a business tax

compared to 16.5 mils in St. John's.

MR. WINDSOR: Tell me why?

MR. NOEL: Because they are not paying their share of the

cost of running this entire region.

MR. WINDSOR: They are.

MR. NOEL: No, they are not. Are you telling me that the

City of St. John's is that inefficient?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I am, and it has been documented.

MR. NOEL: The only difference is that inefficiency.

Perhaps we could agree to amalgamate the whole region and allow people from

these other districts, from these other towns, to run the City of St. John's and

perhaps to even elect the councillors. If we can be convinced that the reason is

efficiency in the operation of their municipality perhaps we would agree to let

all the councillors be elected from outside the present St. John's. Anybody who

is being reasonable will concede that that does not account for all the excess

costs in St. John's. Even your own members have conceded that. The Member for

Fogo yesterday suggested that the rest of the Province should be paying more

toward the cost of operating St. John's and I agree.

MR. WINDSOR: I suggested a provincial Capital committee.

MR. NOEL: But why would you suggest that if you think the

only problem with St. John's is inefficiency in municipal government? Why would

you try and burden the residents of the rest of the Province with the cost of

running St. John's if inefficiency is the only problem in St. John's?

MR. WINDSOR: It was a major one.

MR. NOEL: Well that is the point I am making to you. It

may be one, and I agree, we can achieve a lot more efficiencies in St. John's.

Whether the Member for Kilbride was correct yesterday in saying that it takes

nine members of the St. John's Municipal Council to change a stop sign, I doubt

that it is that extreme.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same thing in Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: Same thing in Mount Pearl, my friend who is a

resident of Mount Pearl tells me. But we can achieve efficiencies in St.John's,

and that is one thing I think we might achieve by expanding the City even more

than we have done. I think we might have a more effective municipal

administration in St. John's if we were do that. We would bring in the

councillors and the staff, and the very competent staff that we have in some of

these other municipalities, in Mount Pearl and Wedgewood Park. We would

amalgamate them with the City staff and perhaps we would have a more efficient

operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It cannot get any worse.

MR. NOEL: Cannot get any worse. Well that would be one

way to do it. Another way to do it might be if we were to say that there are

benefits in competition. If we were to say that one big city in this whole area

was too much, and if we were to say that there should be more than one city in

the Northeast Avalon, and Mount Pearl was going to be a second city, then

perhaps we could do that. But add to Mount Pearl, rather than confining it in

the way we have done.

MR. WINDSOR: Which is what your commissioners

recommended.

MR. NOEL: Add the proposed Town of Paradise to Mount

Pearl. Add some extra cost to Mount Pearl. Presently Mount Pearl is contributing

$2 million per year less in municipal taxes to the cost of running this whole

region than they would be contributing if they were taxed at the same rate as

St. John's. Two million dollars a year tax. Businesses in Mount Pearl are paying

half the tax rates that businesses in St. John's are paying. We are going to

destroy St. John's if we do not do something to change this situation, and that

is going to hurt us all. Because as the Member for Fogo and some other Members

have said, the Province is going to have to start putting more money into St.

John's if we do not deal with this issue properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should put it in anyway.

MR. NOEL: They should put it in anyway. The Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) Government buildings. Not St.

John's, not St. John's alone, all (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Well, I agree with that. Presently the Province

I think contributes about $400,000 a year to the City of St. John's, plus $1.2

million for the cost of fire services,

whereas the Federal Government

contributes $3 million, I think it is, this year, or last year, I believe. So I

believe that the Province does not contribute enough.

But the less we get in legitimate and equitable tax rates

from the people in this region the more we are going to have to get from the

municipalities outside the Northeast Avalon. That is why all of the members of

this House should be concerned about what happens in St. John's. Because St.

John's is in poor financial shape, in my view, and I think that is going to

become evident in the next few weeks. I think that if nothing different is done,

or if the Government under this new legislation does not give the City of St.

John's the right to charge for a sufficient amount of services, then St. John's

could find itself in worse shape after this piece of legislation is passed then

it is today.

When you look at the cost of servicing the Goulds, the cost

of taking on the burden of the Aquarena, all of these extra costs that St.

John's is taking on, we are not taking on enough of an increase in tax base to

put us in a better financial position. I think the budget for the City of St.

John's is going to go over $100 million this year. City taxpayers cannot afford

to pay any more taxes. One of the things we hear often in this Province is how

the municipal tax effort is so much below the National municipal tax effort.

Well that is not the case in St. John's. The municipal tax effort in St. John's

is equivalent to the Canadian average for an equivalent amount of services

delivered. Where we do not have proper contribution to municipal revenues in

this Province is in the rural areas largely, maybe some of the two other two

cities and the larger towns, but we are not getting a proper municipal tax

contribution in these areas. If they do not pay it in municipal taxes, they are

going to have to pay it in another way because this city has to keep

functioning. But we have seen in recent years a tremendous increase in the

commercial tax rate in St. John's. We are going to see an increase for the next

years budget in the amount of taxes paid on household properties in this city,

and the people of St. John's cannot afford to pay what they are paying now much

less than pay more. They just cannot afford it. Right now, or a few years ago,

and I presume that these statistics have not changed, the residents of St.

John's were paying twice as much as the residents of Mount Pearl and the

residents of Wedgewood Park in percentage of household income.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not true.

MR. NOEL: That is what the statistics are, my friend. I

can show you and I can give you a copy of them I have here.

MR. WINDSOR: I have them here.

MR. NOEL: Well then you have to admit that it is true.

Almost twice as much. It was 2.33 per cent for St. John's, 1.39 for Mount Pearl,

and 1.18 for Wedgewood Park as I recall. So St. John's residents are paying

twice as much as a percentage of the household income in municipal taxes as most

other Newfoundlanders, I would say 80 or 90 per cent of Newfoundlanders. So we

cannot expect St. John's residents to pay any more municipal taxes.

MR. WINDSOR: Compare that to the level of service though.

MR. NOEL: For a level of services even. For a level of

service.

MR. WINDSOR: The numbers do not reflect it.

MR. NOEL: For a level of service.

MR. WINDSOR: You are not comparing apples now.

MR. NOEL: No, they are paying more for a level of

service. The point you make is right, that they are paying a higher percentage

of income than other areas, but getting more services. But they are not getting

twice as many services.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, I am not sure.

MR. NOEL: Oh you are not sure, but that is the case, that

they are not getting twice as many services -

MR. WINDSOR: They are getting far more.

MR. NOEL: - and some of these other areas that are not

paying as high a percentage of their income in taxes are getting more financial

assistance, a higher percentage of financial assistance from the provincial

government, such as practically all the communities in the Province.

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl for example?

MR. NOEL: No. Mount Pearl gets slightly more than St.

John's, I think, one or two percentage points.

MR. WINDSOR: It is slightly less.

MR. NOEL: Well slightly less is a great deal for Mount

Pearl when they are paying half the commercial mil rate of St. John's

businesses.

MR. WINDSOR: $143 (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Half the commercial mil rate of St. John's

businesses, and a good deal less than the mil rate of St. John's householders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: And how can Mount Pearl expect that to

continue? How can the residents of Mount Pearl talk about democracy? If they

think they can live in the same region - a person gets up in Mount Pearl in the

morning and comes out to work at the Confederation Building and goes back home

to Mount Pearl, he is paying for the cost of running the services that he gets

out of Mount Pearl, but he is not paying his proper share of a contribution to

the cost of running the place, the city, and the location where he works, but

the constituents in my district are doing that.

MR. WINDSOR: Some of them work in Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: Very few. Seventy -

MR. WINDSOR: Come out to Donovans and see how many work

in Donovans.

MR. NOEL: Seventy-seven per cent of the people employed

in Mount Pearl work in St. John's. Seventy-seven per cent. Ninety-nine per cent

of the people in Wedgewood Park.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-seven per cent of St. John's men

do not work in Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: No, a very small percentage of St. John's

people work in Mount Pearl. Eight-four per cent, I think it is, of this whole

region, people who work in this whole region work in St. John's and do not pay

their fair share to contribute to the cost of operating this city. That is why

you people have to realize -

MR. WINDSOR: They work with Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: They do not only work with Government.

MR. WINDSOR: Most of them do.

MR. NOEL: Yes, okay. They work with Government, but they

are still not paying the cost of operating the place where they work.

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's should be lucky to have

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They also support your commercial

establishments, the university, (Inaudible)

AN HON. MEMBER: We would like to have that on the West

Coast.

MR. NOEL: Do you think the people of the West Coast would

be willing to pay the same inequitable share of municipal taxes just to have

that? A lot of people come to work in St. John's every day from as far as 100

miles away, from fifty miles away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carbonear.

MR. NOEL: Carbonear, where they are paying much less

taxes even than Mount Pearl, I suppose; much less taxes than Wedgewood Park.

People are coming-

AN HON. MEMBER: They pay gasoline tax.

MR. NOEL: They pay the gasoline tax. Well a lot of people

burn up as much fuel coming from the west end of St. John's to the Confederation

Building as people do from Conception Bay South somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: No? What services do they not have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have very few services. They

do not want (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: What do they not have in Carbonear?

AN HON. MEMBER: They certainly do not have a city hall

like they have down here.

MR. NOEL: They do not have a city hall like they have

here, but they have a city hall. They have their services. So what is the point

of having a six months hoist, which is what this amendment is about? Nothing has

changed over the past six months.

MR. WINDSOR: It is called having public input.

MR. NOEL: We have had all kinds of public input, and

whose opinion has changed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: There is not one different thing being said

across the other side of the House after the two years we have spent debating

this.

If we were to have a feasibility study, the feasibility study

would say that the people outside St. John's should be paying a higher

percentage of municipal taxes in the whole region. It would say that.

If we were to have a plebiscite, the majority in the

plebiscite would say that we should amalgamate Mount Pearl, Paradise, St.

John's, Wedgewood Park, probably the whole area; so what would be achieved by

this six months hoist that the other side are proposing? Mr. Speaker, I suggest

that nothing would be achieved by that, so what would be the purpose in doing

it? All that we are doing is dragging out the debate, preventing us from doing

what needs to be done in order to get the finances in this whole Province in

reasonable shape.

People do not seem to appreciate the dire straits that this

Province is in financially, this whole Province. The only way we are going to

improve our financial situation is if everybody makes a reasonable contribution

to the cost of operating the Province. We have to do that in personal tax,

business tax, through sales tax, and through municipal taxes. So we cannot have

communities, we cannot have privileged groups like the people of Wedgewood Park,

or the people of Mount Pearl, we cannot have people like that not paying a fair

share of the cost of running this Province. If we allow that to continue,

everybody in this Province, every member in this House of Assembly, is going to

let his constituents down in the long run.

We are trying to run a cadillac system of municipal services

in this Province, and we cannot afford it any more. People cannot expect to have

whatever level of municipal services they want. They cannot expect to have an

urban level of municipal services wherever they want to live in this Province.

We have to agree to that. If people choose to have a rural lifestyle, they have

to put up with the level of services that goes with it, or else they have to pay

for the cost of providing the level of services they want. We cannot be telling

people throughout the Province that they can have a level of services wherever

they want them for a much cheaper tax rate than is being paid by those in urban

areas. This Province has to deal with it, and this Government is trying to deal

with it.

I do not think that we have gone far enough in the

amalgamation that we are doing in the Northeast Avalon. I think, as I said, that

we could consider enlarging Mount Pearl and having two fairly equitable cities

in the whole area, or making one large city, including Paradise and Mount Pearl,

or most of Paradise, the urban part of Paradise. We should do one of that if we

are going to bring sense to municipal government in this area.

MR. WINDSOR: Does the Member agree with the

commissioners' report (Inaudible) after a feasibility study and public hearings?

MR. NOEL: Which commissioner? There were a lot of

commissioners' reports.

MR. WINDSOR: The latest one the Assistant Deputy

Minister?

MR. NOEL: Well, an Assistant Deputy Minister was part of

the report that recommended allowing Wedgewood Park to remain independent, and

anybody who would recommend that has very little credibility in giving municipal

advice, in my view.

MR. WINDSOR: I am talking about this report that had been

done in accordance with the Act!

MR. NOEL: Well, I am not going to tell you whether I

agree with that report. It is too complicated. We can have a separate debate

about that report. But what I am telling you is that nothing will be

accomplished by putting off dealing with this matter for the next six months. So

I intend to vote against this six months hoist.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to speak on the amendment to this Bill. I am also pleased to see

that the Minister of Development is excited about what I am about to say and

sitting on the edge of his seat, thumping his desk in anticipation that it is

going to be very profound and well reasoned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wabush and Labrador (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: As it always is, as it always is.

MR. A. SNOW: Wabush and Labrador City may be involved in

some of the remarks that I will make, I am sure. Because what we are talking

about here in this Bill are the roles and responsibilities of municipal

governments. Now, I have had the opportunity of participating in municipal

government in Labrador City for a number of years - eighteen years to be exact -

and at that same time while I was a member of the town council of Labrador City,

I had the opportunity of sharing services with our sister town in Wabush.

That was done by mutual agreement of both communities. We

learned to share the facilities in these towns. We did it because we felt that

it would be a wiser use of the taxpayers' dollars. There was not another level

of government telling us that we had to do it or else. There was some discussion

in the beginning of course that maybe the Provincial government should play a

greater role in the responsibility of paying some of the cost of this facility

that they wanted us to institute to service our area. Mainly an incinerator.

But I guess by the fact that because the Town of Labrador

City, I believe, is probably - not probably, it is - the most efficient and well

run community in this Province. By far it is the most efficient in this

Province, and probably in Eastern Canada. It is well run, and the success of it

is not just due to its council's direction or the amount of taxes that the

people pay, but it is the awareness that the taxpayers' dollars have to be spent

wisely and for the benefit of all the taxpayers.

The hon. Member for Pleasantville went on a few minutes ago

and made some remarks. He said that: we cannot have communities not paying their

fair share of operating this Province. Now that is the remark, I believe it is

verbatim, of what he did say. But what he fails to see is that what we are

talking about here is a level of government delivering a service to taxpayers.

The municipal level of government, not the Provincial government. He has the two

confused. He recognizes in a previous remark leading up to that statement that

the Government -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now the hon. Member for Pleasantville had

the opportunity of speaking for half an hour and he could have made all the

points that he would like to make now, I am sure, but he did not make them all

then, so I would appreciate it if he would stop interrupting and allow me to

continue and then he can get up probably at a later date and continue the

debate. In the meantime I certainly hope that he would listen and take some

notes and keep quiet.

And, Mr. Speaker, he said that St. John's is in poor

financial shape and we all have a responsibility, and we certainly do. Each one

of us sitting in this House has a responsibility to ensure that the capital city

is on a sure financial footing if you will, and the Member for Pleasantville

listed off the fact of the high cost of servicing the Goulds. He listed off the

acquisition or the operation of the Aquarena, the Canada Games Park.

Now who foisted these responsibilities over on the City of

St. John's ? Was it the Town of Fogo that passed this over? This particular

Government did, Mr. Speaker. They created the problem and now they say we are

going to save you by increasing the number of people who are going to have to

pay for it. What the hon. Member for Fogo suggested in a speech yesterday, was

that the responsibility on the Provincial Government should be that they should

be paying property taxes the same or grant in lieu of property taxes, the same

as the Federal Government does with their property, that is what he said, not

just to the City of St. John's, but to the City of Mount Pearl, to the City of

Corner Brook, the Town of Labrador City, Wabush, Grand Falls, Gander and Grand

Bank, wherever they own property. The Federal Government does it but for some

reason this Government feels that they do not have the responsibility to pay

their fair share of taxes and that is fundamentally unfair.

The hon. Member for Pleasantville talked about 77 per cent of

the people of Mount Pearl who live in Mount Pearl work in the City of St. John's

and thus they should be paying for the cost of the street maintenance and the

snow clearing and the water they consume in here in the buildings. But, Mr.

Speaker, I live in Labrador City and I commute to St. John's practically every

week and come to work representing my district. Surely to goodness, you would

not expect that the people of Labrador City should be incurring a greater tax on

them because I come out here and go to work in the City of St. John's? No, Mr.

Speaker, that is not fair. What should happen, what should occur is that the

Provincial Government should recognize their responsibility and pay to every

municipality their fair share, similar to what the Federal Government does for

property taxes, give a grant in lieu on property taxes on properties that they

own and operate.

MR. NOEL: Why should the residents of Labrador City pay

for the cost of operating the Aquarena?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. NOEL: Yes but not very many (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is a Provincial Training Centre.

MR. NOEL: So you think that the people of Labrador City

should (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) on behalf of all people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking

about here is the abdication of the Provincial Government's responsibility in

participating in their share of the municipal costs, that is what we are really

talking about. This Government created the tax burden or the financial burden of

the operation of the Aquarena in the Canada Games Park onto the city of St.

John's, and now they are saying we are going to ask everybody else to pay for

it, and, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about one government attempting to oppress

another. That is not fair, but if you stop and think - yesterday I believe there

was a meeting in the City of Mount Pearl, the Town Council and one of the quotes

in today's newspaper was from Councillor Simms who said: where do we go from

here? He who turns and walks away lives to fight another day. It is time to

retreat. The battle has been lost.

MR. NOEL: The battle for public relations.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is said in

the spirit of one government to another, with a conciliatory approach, saying

let us sit down and talk this over; it is said, I believe, in terms of a person

who feels that he has been declared war upon. Another level of Government has

declared war on a lower level, or the municipal level of Government, Mr.

Speaker. In this council's mind, they feel that they have been attacked by this

Provincial Government. The hon. the Member for Gander, the President of Treasury

Board, is nodding his head in affirmation of that remark. He agrees with me that

this Government has attacked the City of Mount Pearl. He continues to nod in

affirmation, that he agrees they have attacked the City of Mount Pearl in

passing over the responsibility of operating new facilities in the City of St.

John's. He recognizes that, similar to Gander - he knows how much the Federal

Government gives to the town of Gander in a grant in lieu of taxes, he

recognizes the tremendous amount of wealth that the Federal Government pays to

Gander and, indeed, if the Province accepted the same responsibility, the

financial burdens, the tax burden, or the financial incapacity to pay the bills

of the City of St. John's would be removed by the Province accepting the same

responsibility that the Federal Government does when they look at their property

bills at the end of the year. The hon. the Member for Gander recognizes that,

and that is why he agrees with me.

MR. WINSOR: He was Chairman of a finance committee in

Gander at one time and he knows what the Federal Government contributes.

MR. A. SNOW: We have often, when we are up speaking - the

Member for Pleasantville has, and people on this side have - talked about being

fair with the people being affected by this process. We have one standard for

the West Coast. The Premier says, 'If the people in my district don't want

amalgamation they won't have it, but if the people in St. John's, Mount Pearl,

or Paradise don't want it, it doesn't matter, I think it is right that they

should have it.' That's what he is saying.

MR. NOEL: The people within that whole region and the

people in this region want it. The Member for St. John's East Extern was talking

about integrity and speaking frankly, a little while ago.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people

of this House are going to support the six-month hoist on this because they are

beginning to realize that this proposal needs more study. We need to lay out the

fact to the people of this area, the area being affected. Some communities are

thinking that they may have to pay taxes of $200 to $300, or that the cost of

fire fighting may go up 200 or 300 per cent in Paradise. I think the City of

Mount Pearl suggested to me that it may cost an extra $600,000 or probably more

like $1 million by the time the dust settles.

MR. NOEL: Who do they expect to keep paying it for them,

Labrador City?

MR. A. SNOW: The reason why we should do a study is so

that we can ascertain exactly how much this is going to save the taxpayers being

affected. Lay out the facts and have a plebiscite. If the people want to

amalgamate, I would be in favour, Mr. Speaker, if they said, 'We should do it.'

They can all vote on the question of whether or not they should jointly share in

the cost of municipal services being delivered here in the capital region of

this Province.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you tell us what question you would

be content to have in the plebiscite?

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you resign?

MR. NOEL: Why don't you stop interrupting the speaker?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to draw up the

question today, but I will, with the leave of the House, table the question

tomorrow. I am sure, with the amount of intelligence that is in this House - a

lot of people would question my statement there, I guess - but I am sure we

would be able to devise a question, after a study was done on how this city,

this region, could benefit, and how this Province could benefit, from sharing

the costs of municipal services in the capital region of the Province.

I think the important thing is that we have to know what the

costs are going to be. We don't know now. The Premier suggests that all is well

out there, that everybody is in favour of it. Well, we know that everybody is

not in favour of it. We read the newspapers. One councillor, a well-known

Liberal, figures that the war is over, they have been run over by the tanks from

Confederation Building. It is time to fly up the white flag. 'It's all over,

boys, I give up, I quit!'

But I am sure that a more reasoned approach would be to study

the cost of delivery of municipal services to the capital region, and then pose

the question to the people affected. That would be the fair way of doing it, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Labrador City and Wabush, I don't have a

problem with that, either. We, in Western Labrador, have shared our municipal

services for years. Yes, and even the Member for Eagle River recognizes it. He

recognizes it, Mr. Speaker. There is some sharing in recreational facilities,

sharing of the cost of operation of the incinerator in Western Labrador. It is

operated, by the way, by the smaller municipality. The larger, more populous

municipality pays the per capita grant in the operation of the incinerator.

There is a joint board that meets from councils -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - by agreement. There is a joint board that

manages, makes decisions, they meet fairly regularly on the operation, albeit

the day-to-day operation of that facility is done by the Town of Wabush, and

they do a very good job of it. The people pay the complete cost of that

operation, by mutual agreement, Mr. Speaker, and that's what is important for

this House to remember. They provide an excellent example of co-operation and

sharing between municipalities. It is probably the most efficient operation of

any municipality in Eastern Canada.

Now, it is very simple what the people want in this case, Mr.

Speaker. They want a chance to decide how this municipal service delivery is

going to be paid for, how they are going to have to pay for it, how much they

are going to have to pay. It is not whether or not the City of St. John's is

efficient or inefficient in delivery of municipal services. Taxpayers will

decide that in no matter what forum, I believe, that they run, or in what

boundaries they run their next election. They will decide whether or not the

council operates an efficient service for the people of the area affected.

But when you talk about bringing in new areas with tremendous

tax burdens, and including them, I believe they should have the right to decide.

Can you imagine how a person in the Goulds feels when last year he was told that

his taxes were going to be tremendously increased because of the high cost of

servicing his area and the area was going to be gobbled up by the great big City

of St. John's? - and this year, they are saying, 'The reason why we have to pass

on more cost to other people is because we are going to have to pay for services

where we gobbled up some land last year. Now, isn't that ridiculous? I mean,

what an argument! You talk about setting up a house of cards, Mr. Speaker!

The minister, when he introduced this bill, said it was

important to have the bill pass because of the high percentage of the Province's

population involved. But even though it is 30 per cent to 35 per cent of the

Province's population, we must respect the democratic rights of all the people

in the region. I think that is very important and we should remember it. We

talked about the large number of communities in the region, serviced by the

councillors' administrative staff. The Member for Pleasantville talked about how

this was going to be - what we could do is bring all these staffs in and put

them in one big building, in Pleasantville, somewhere, I guess he would like to

see them, and this would be tremendously efficient.

I don't know how he figures that is going to be efficient,

Mr. Speaker. The efficiency that worked in some of the smaller towns is done by

volunteer effort, as we have seen through volunteer fire departments, like in

the Goulds or Paradise. I don't know how he proposes to do away with them. He is

trying to run over the fire departments in other towns, trying to bulldoze them,

the big tank from Confederation Building comes down and runs right over them.

But I believe that it is not necessarily going to be more

efficient, and we must consider that. That is why we should - and I am sure that

members in the House are going to support the hon. the Member for Burin - Who

proposed the -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: You did.

- the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, who

proposed that we study this for six months.

MR. TOBIN: The Federation wants it.

MR. A. SNOW: And the Federation, I mean, here is a group

which represents all the municipalities of this Province. They are suggesting

the same thing, that we should do an economic analysis of what is being

proposed. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with doing an analysis rather than just

flying by the seat of our pants, the way the Member for Pleasantville has

suggested? This Province is in enough trouble as it is, by people attempting to

fly by the seat of their pants, or by gut reactions to the shortfalls in budget

positions. That's what has got this Province in the mess that I believe it is

in. We are not a poor province, we are a poorly-run province. And we have to

straighten that out by analyzing the problems, whether they be with regard to

economic development, industrial development, or in delivery of municipal

services.

I don't know why the people on the other side are

apprehensive, afraid, scared, to study it. Why are they? What is wrong with

studying the cost of the implication of what this means? What is wrong with

studying the fact that it may be, indeed, that the ultimate result will be it

will cost more to gobble up the Goulds?

I don't see anything wrong with it, and most people out there

in the city of St. John's, now, are starting to question whether or not this

process should go. Because they are recognizing that really what is occurring

here is that this Government is down-loading its responsibilities on municipal

government and they are attempting to get out from under their responsibility by

proposing this amalgamation. So, really, it is a smoke screen, if you will, to

try to suggest to the people of this Province that this will ease - if we have

an amalgamation process, they don't have any responsibility, they can just pass

it on to this new supercity or whatever it is going to be.

The loss of democracy - the Member for Pleasantville

suggested that nobody can really enjoy the right of self-determination without

the responsibility of who pays, of recognizing that they have to pay for it. I

agree with him. I have to agree with him that we all have a responsibility for

paying. All I am suggesting - I accept the responsibility, I own a little bit of

property here in the city area. I accept the responsibility of paying for the

cost of delivery of municipal services. But what we are talking about here is

the efficient use - and not just efficiency, Mr. Speaker, but the democratic way

in which we can change how people are going to be paying the cost of municipal

services delivery here in the Northeast Avalon.

I am sure that if this Government paid its fair share for the

services that they are getting in the St. John's region, you would not have the

uncertain economic future of the City where it is today. The fact that the

Province does not pay a grant in lieu similar to what the Federal Government

pays - and, of course, we all recognize the number of Provincial Government

buildings that are here in the city of St. John's. Really, this is the industry

of the capital region, and they should pay. They should pay. There should be a

responsibility accepted, not just be me, who happens to own one house here in

St. John's, but the Government, who owns several buildings, should be paying

their fair share of taxes, or grants in lieu, Mr. Speaker. They should be paying

their fair share. If the Federal Government accepts their responsibility, and

individuals accept their responsibility, businesses accept their responsibility,

the only entity not paying their fair share is the Provincial Government. The

Provincial Government don't pay their fair share for the delivery of municipal

services in St. John's, and neither do they pay for it in any other region of

this Province where they have property. They don't pay it in Labrador City, in

Wabush, in Grand Falls, or even Gander. They don't pay it anywhere. They are not

living up to their responsibility when they accept the services from the

municipal governments in the areas where they have their so-called places of

business, their factories, their shops. They are not paying, and that is not

fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: And now, even the Minister of Finance is

agreeing with me. He is now agreeing with me, and I am glad to see that he is

agreeing with me, Mr. Speaker. He agrees. Finally, I have convinced him. Well,

it has made it all worthwhile. I have been up here talking for twenty-five, or

twenty-eight, or thirty minutes, and I have finally convinced the Minister of

Finance of his Government's responsibility in paying for their fair share of

delivery of municipal services. That is really what we

are talking about here in this bill, Mr. Speaker. We are

talking about who is going to pay for the delivery of municipal services, and

how we are going to be able to treat the taxpayers fairly in this capital

region.

I think it is important to remember all of our

responsibilities, not just somebody outside that we can attack, like the poor

people in the Goulds, or in Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Right on!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, they must remember their

responsibility when they go into Cabinet up there on the Eighth Floor, the ivory

tower, where they may have to be saved some day when the building catches on

fire, when they will recognize the importance of having a good regional fire

department here. And they should be paying for it, Mr. Speaker. Everybody else

pays for the right, of having a good area fire department here in the City of

St. John's region, in the capital region of this Province, so why should the

people on the Eighth Floor not pay for the fire department? They should. They

even get to drink St. John's water - or does it come from Kilbride?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay Bulls.

MR. A. SNOW: Bay Bulls, Mr. Speaker. They should pay for

that. They should pay for it. It is their responsibility to pay for it. Why

should they just be attacking the poor little farmer out in the Goulds, or the

poor little bake shop out in Paradise, let them pay for it, let them triple

their cost? How about the person who has a little shop down on Casey Street

somewhere, or somebody operating a little shoe store down on Water Street? Why

should they be overtaxed? They should not be. If this Government accepted its

responsibility, they would not be overtaxed. They would be able to pay a fair

share just like everybody else if this Government accepted its responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, we have been burnt too often by this Government.

The people of this Province have been burnt too often by this Government. It is

not fair, it is definitely not fair, for this Government to continue in its

dictatorial ways passing on financial burdens to the ordinary taxpayer in the

street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now the Minister of Finance I believe just -

should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that everybody

in this House elected to represent his or her district went through a process in

democratic elections. Now, what is wrong with allowing the democratic process to

continue again? What is wrong with allowing a six month study to do a proper

economic analysis of what the affects are going to be on the ordinary taxpayers?

Then giving them the opportunity of participating in a democratic process called

a referendum or a plebiscite, but allowing them to then participate and see how

they feel about how their municipal services should be delivered and who should

be paying how much.

Because that is all part of the question. It is a fundamental

part of the question. But how can we sit here in this House and force this down

people's throats without doing any economic analysis? It is not fair for the

ordinary taxpayer, it is not fair for a person operating a small business inside

the City of St. John's, who is already being protected by the Member for

Pleasantville, suggesting that they are paying too much - and they are. Because

they have to accept the burden that the Province has foisted upon them.

The Province is not paying their fair share, so the small

business person, the ordinary taxpayer in the cities of St. John's and Mount

Pearl and the towns of Paradise, the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, they are all

being affected and asked to bear the burden of the responsibility that this

Province has, this Government has, to pay on their shops, plants, factories,

houses.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask everybody in this House to consider

voting in support of the six months hoist on this Bill. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, by leave!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my honour to

speak in this debate on the six month hoist amendment. I want to say at the

outset that I support this amendment, unlike the Member for Pleasantville. Some

of his views I agree with, and we had an opportunity earlier in the year to

collaborate on a motion to amend the resolution, one which I had indicated that

I would second on his behalf, but at the last moment he found another seconder,

someone on the other side of the House who was willing to second the motion.

So I agree with some of his views about amalgamation, in

particular the overall views as to what is necessary in an amalgamation. But I

do not agree with him on the inevitability of all this. I do not agree with the

City Councillor Randy Simms from Mount Pearl that the battle is lost. Because I

think there are a lot of things that have to be considered here that obviously

have not been to date.

Members recall that the Premier was asked yesterday was he

satisfied with the level of consultation. He said that he had no reason to

suspect that there was not an adequate level of consultation with the

municipalities. But obviously the Premier has not been listening to what the

town and city councillors have been saying in this municipality. He has not been

reading the papers, or he has not been listening to - or his backbenchers have

not been telling him what has been going on.

When the Town of Paradise, for one, which along with all the

other towns was called in here in May month and given the word from the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs as to what was going to go on. They did not

know what was going to happen, they were told. They came out of that meeting, a

week before the House went into session, and said: Oh, there were winners and

there were losers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure right now whether there are

any winners, because we have a state of confusion amongst all the municipalities

as to what the costs of this amalgamation is going to be.

Over the course of the summer, Mr. Speaker, all members,

particularly the members in the St. John's area, were sent a questionnaire by

the Town of Wedgewood Park asking to advise of their understanding of the costs

and benefits of amalgamation. It was impossible to answer that questionnaire,

Mr. Speaker, because the costs and benefits had not really been adequately

determined. In fact, the costs are not now known. The cost to the Town of

Paradise, in terms of the cost of fire fighting and regional services is not

known. They have an idea that it may well be in excess of $600,000 for fire

fighting.

I see the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island perk up his

ears. Maybe he is going to get up and speak and tell us how it is satisfactory

to the residents of his district who reside in the new Town of Paradise,

proposed Town of Paradise. Maybe he will tell us how it is that the increased

costs associated with the regional fire services will be adopted by the Town of

Paradise, how they will absorb this cost of perhaps $500,000 or $600,000. I say

perhaps $500,000 or $600,000, perhaps $300,000 or perhaps more. People do not

know, and the town itself does not know, and they are unable therefore to make

their budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps $50,000.

MR. HARRIS: He says, 'Perhaps $50,000.' That is what it

cost the