November

21, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 75

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business of the day, on behalf

of hon. members, I welcome to the public galleries today, forty-three Grade X1

students from E. J. Pratt Central High School, Brownsdale, accompanied by their

teachers, Jesse Brown and Richard

Knapman. I hope I got that pronunciation right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that

Lee Wulff, the noted angler, author, artist, inventor, innovator, hunter, and,

most of all, conservationist, was killed in a plane crash last April. Following

his tragic death, several suggestions were made that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador should recognize his lifelong commitment to our

Province and the responsible development and conservation of our wildlife

resources. Those who do not know of his work should take a look at what he did

and the contribution that he made over a period of fifty years to the promotion

of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was learned that the Federal Government was

also considering honouring Mr. Wulff and in subsequent discussions, both

Governments concluded that the most appropriate tribute would be to enable the

young men and women of our Province to follow his example.

To that end, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and

establish the Lee Wulff Scholarship. The scholarship will be tenable at Memorial

University of Newfoundland to assist undergraduate students majoring in the

biological sciences with an emphasis on the environment and resource

conservation. Others wishing to honour Mr. Wulff may do so by contributing to

the endowment fund, enabling the university to provide additional scholarship

benefits as the fund grows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Firstly, I would like to thank the Premier for providing us

with a copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House this afternoon. I

would just like to say that we are very, very pleased with this announcement. It

is a positive, and very worthwhile recognition of a very distinguished

gentleman, Lee Wulff. The Premier has referred particularly to the tremendous

conservationist effort that he has made over the last fifty years or so. It is

unfortunate that he was killed in a plane crash just this year.

We would like to associate our thoughts and our remarks with

those of the Premier, and say that we think it is very fitting that the

endowment fund to establish his Memorial Scholarship at the university. As well,

of course, there is a function on this evening for further recognition. I just

want to say it is a very positive statement, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly

commend the Government for making it.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I ask leave of the House to comment on the

Ministerial Statement.

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

in my view, been granted leave of the House.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the first times that I personally had knowledge of the

great importance of wilderness, wildlife and conservation was through the work

of Lee Wulff on television, in the early days of television. I think it is quite

appropriate that recognition be given to Mr. Wulff's work on behalf of not only

conservation in Newfoundland, but also in terms of tourism, and recognition and

promotion of Newfoundland as a place for wildlife and hunting and fishing. I

think this is quite appropriate action on behalf of the Government, and I

commend them for it.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question today for the Premier. The

Premier said in the House this week, I believe, that Government's plans, as

outlined in Bill 50, I think it is, to amalgamate municipalities and municipal

services and so on, will not place any additional financial burden on the City

of St. John's. I believe he said that. Now, when Bill 50 becomes law, I

understand at least from reading the bill, that Government will, in fact,

transfer all of the property and all of the assets, for example, of the Canada

Games Park and the Aquarena, to the City of St. John's. All of the employees at

the Canada Games Commission will become employees of the City of St. John's.

This year, the Government has budgeted nearly $1 million for the operations of

the Canada Games Park, $923,000, in fact, to be exact. My question is this: If

the Premier is correct, and no additional burden will be placed on the City of

St. John's, can he tell us who will now be responsible for those costs? Will it

not be the City?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back and

look at precisely what I said. The comment at the time was made in the context

of the discussions that were taking place with the Mayor of St. John's and a

radio show host, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The

discussion that I heard in that context was in terms of

including Kilbride and Wedgewood Park, and so on, and my

comment was made in the light of that. Now, obviously, if there is a deficiency

in terms of the Canada Games Park or other things that are operated, the City

and the area served by it will have to pick up that additional cost, so, to that

extent, it may well be an additional expenditure for the City and the

municipality served by that facility. Mr. Speaker, it is not at all fair that

the good citizens of Grand Falls, who have no access to that facility, and had

to provide for their own recreational facilities should have their taxpayers

dollars assigned to the maintenance of that facility. It should be basically

done by the people who get the direct benefit. Undoubtedly, it will benefit

Mount Pearl, St. John's, the areas around, and so on, and it may well be that

there may be some additional cost; that, I don't think can be denied.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for the answer. I mean, my point is that

he said, we understand this week, that there would not be any financial burden

placed on the City of St. John's, and that is what the public understood out

there. That question was dealing with the Canada Games Commission and the

Aquarena.

Now, let me deal with another topic. The Government, at the

moment, charges back some of the costs of the St. John's Fire Department. That

is charged back to the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl and other

municipal authorities within the Northeast Avalon, but some of the cost is borne

directly by the Province. In fact, this year, approximately $1.2 million, just

in excess of $1.2 million, is budgeted by the Province. Will the City of St.

John's now be responsible for the full cost of the Fire Department, subject, of

course, to whatever fees the city collects from the other authorities? This

year, they budgeted $1.2 million from provincial coffers. Who is now going to

pay for those costs? Will it be the City of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would really prefer to

defer to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who has most of this

detail available to him. But I understand, for example, the Province contributes

to the operation of the Fire Department in Corner Brook, 15 per cent, to protect

government buildings, and we would be doing exactly the same thing here and

maybe the portion should be larger here, I do not know. Depending upon the

service Government requires in terms of the buildings and the pressure

Government itself puts on the system, because of Government facilities and

buildings that need to be protected. It is an entirely reasonable and logical

approach. So I would assume the Government would continue to take its reasonable

and fair share of the responsibility.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, so I think - if I can get it

correct - the Premier is now saying that this $1.2 million that was last year

budgeted by the Province will now be still paid for by the Province and will not

be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Premier is saying no, the Minister is

saying yes. Perhaps you should get your acts together.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a final supplementary.

Doesn't he see Bill 50 then, at this moment, the beginning really of a

Government strategy - or is it the beginning of a Government strategy - to

down-load responsibility for Provincial facilities and services onto the

municipalities? For example, is the Government now planning to transfer to

municipalities items like Arts and Culture Centres, other recreation and sports'

facilities, libraries, or whatever? Is that the plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me answer the first question. The

answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, is that what I said was precisely

what is recorded in Hansard, not the Opposition Leader's

interpretation of it. I

did not say anything about $1.2 million being borne by the Province. I said,

whatever is an appropriate portion of it based on a similar principle we are

using in Corner Brook. If $1.2 million is the right figure, then $1.2 million it

will be. If it is $1.6 million, then it will be $1.6 million. If it is $700,000,

it will be $700,000. So I did not say $1.2 million, and I do not want it ever

attributed to me.

Now the second question was: does this portend an effort on

the part of the Government in the future to down-load to municipalities

responsibilities for such things as Arts and Culture Centres, and so on? No, it

does not portend that, but maybe that is not such a bad idea after all, and

maybe we should certainly take a serious look at it. Because, for example, why

should the retail sales taxes of the people of Brigus or Gambo be used to pay

for the Arts and Culture Centres in St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and

Gander?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They use them too!

PREMIER WELLS: So let's make sure that we place the tax

burden where it is fair. So we will take a look at it, and if it is fair to

leave it where it is, we will leave it where it is. If it is not fair, we are

committed to fairness and balance for all taxpayers in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Premier. It is a question about one of the many Government municipal

amalgamation proposals made twenty-eight months ago in July, 1989 which is still

outstanding; the proposal to amalgamate Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount

Moriah.

The City of Corner Brook says, if the amalgamation proceeds

there will be a substantial net additional cost to the City of Corner Brook. The

Corner Brook council estimates that after collecting taxes at full Corner Brook

rates, about the highest in the whole Province, from Massey Drive and Mount

Moriah, Corner Brook would be down about $800,000 a year. The Mayor of Corner

Brook, Mayor Ray Pollett, indicated to CBC Radio News within the past day that

the City of Corner Brook is now having a hard struggle trying to balance its

budget for the 1992 budget year, it starts on January 1st. The mayor said that

the city is putting together the budget assuming amalgamation with Massey Drive

and Mount Moriah will not take place in the next year. Is that a safe

assumption?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the people of Corner Brook

and the City Council of Corner Brook and the people of Massey Drive and the Town

Council of Massey Drive and the people of Mount Moriah and the Town Council of

Mount Moriah do not want amalgamation, I have no doubt that this House will

probably not impose it on them; I do not think the House would do that, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will do it this way but you will not

do it (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker; it is clear that the

majority of the people in this region want it. People in Mount Pearl might not

want it but the majority of people in this region want it. There is no doubt

about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: You have not (inaudible) a feasibility

study.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Mount Pearl, to please try and

restrain himself-

MR. WINDSOR: I have gotten in trouble (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am talking to the Member and I ask him to

do so and of course he must.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker,

I will just restate the position. If the people of Corner Brook are concerned

with the growth of parallel communities on their borders that siphon off their

residences and so on, they will agree with amalgamation. If they are not

concerned and they do not want it, the Government is not going to foist it on

them. The City Council in Corner Brook have been told that; they know that. Now

if the people in the area want it, the majority of the people totally in the

area, that is the people of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive, then

this Government would respond to the wishes of the majority of the people and

bring a proposal for amalgamation before the House; but if the people of Corner

Brook do not want that and the people of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah do not

want it, we are not going to bring any such proposal before the House, because,

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to allow any municipality, city or otherwise, to

sort of force the Government into a position: you pay us and we will agree to

amalgamate.

That is not going to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier did not answer my question. Is the Mayor of

Corner Brook safe in assuming that amalgamation of Corner Brook, Massey Drive

and Mount Moriah will not proceed in the next year, so that the city can go

ahead and finalize its 1992 budget, counting on the Corner Brook municipal

boundaries remaining as they are for the 1992 fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is entirely up to the people of the

three municipalities of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive. The Mayor

of Corner Brook is quite safe in making that assumption, if that is what the

people of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah want. Whether or not that

is what they want and he wants and the council want, is more than I can say.

That is something that they can say. If they want the amalgamation in order to

provide for the orderly and reasonable growth and future of the City of Corner

Brook, as we provided for the Capital City of this Province, we would equally

provide for Corner Brook. But we are not going to submit to pressures from

Corner Brook: You pay us money and we will amalgamate. That is not going to

happen.

So, the Mayor is quite safe in that assumption if that is

what the majority of people in the area want. It is no problem, it is very

straightforward.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this has been on the go for

twenty-eight months. How much longer is the Premier going to dither and

procrastinate, and how is the Premier going to determine the will of the

majority of citizens of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah?

The Government had a public hearing at the Legion in Corner

Brook in the winter of 1990. There was a large turnout and every single

intervenor, every single solitary speaker, opposed amalgamation. What more does

the Premier want in the way of proof that the overwhelming majority of people in

the area of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah do not want

amalgamation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we got involved with this

interest in amalgamation because of complaints by the City of Corner Brook that

the former government gave such unfair and prejudicial treatment in favour of

Massey Drive that it devastated Corner Brook, really hurt Corner Brook

seriously. The hon. Member opposite knows what I am talking about, because she

caused most of it to happen - very unfair to the people of Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: She was the Minister.

PREMIER WELLS: She was the Minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to extract from the

records all of the correspondence and the full detail and exactly how these

deals were put together so that the Town of Massey Drive came

out of it with a profit at the expense of the people in the rest of

Newfoundland, and the people of Corner Brook, because that Member pressured it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in response to these concerns expressed by

the City Council we addressed the issue, and we said we will not let that kind

of unfairness take place, but if the City of Corner Brook is not prepared to

take the responsibility, as the City of St. John's was, for amalgamation, then

we are not going to force it on the City of Corner Brook. It is entirely up to

the City of Corner Brook.

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

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

Minister of Education.

Is the Minister aware that the school boards of the Avalon

north region are requiring for children who are absent from school notes from

medical doctors verifying their illness, even for a half day illness or one day

illness from school?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have not been briefed on any

such practice. School boards make their own policies in these areas. I will

check it out for the Member and report back to the House on it later.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Minister should also be aware that the doctors are

being advised that this is a policy of the Department of Education. So I would

ask the Minister if he would advise the House whether or not it is a policy, and

whether it would be a policy that he would support.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will examine the details of

that. I wish the hon. Member had sent me advance notice. If he really wanted an

answer to such a very specific question of this nature he would have given me

some advance notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot be in two places at one time.

DR. WARREN: I do not know what the reasons are. I will

take it under advisement and report back to the House on the question, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister is prepared to tell the House that it is not

a policy of his government, then let him do so. One would expect that he would

know. Can he tell the House that he does not think it is a good idea for school

children to be forced, at a cost to the Medicare system, to get doctors notes

for something as simple as a minor illness?

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

DR. WARREN: I will check into the whole issue, Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Last December, 1990, the

Minister and his department instituted a new grant system for the municipalities

in the Province. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, some of the municipalities in the

Province have had some very tough times, hardships, severe hardships when it

comes to collecting taxes. Adding to this new grant system the department also

instituted what they called a rating sheet to determine if municipalities in the

Province could get a capital grant or any capital funding for that particular

year or not. Would the Minister be using those rating sheets this year as a

strict guide to determine whether a municipality will be obtaining any capital

funding?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, we are just about

through the first year of the change in the municipal grants, and the vast

majority of the urban municipalities in the Province with greater fiscal

capacity and ability to raise taxes because of the broadened tax base, are

seeing a lessening of their grants,

whereas the majority of the rural areas and

smaller communities which have more need of assistance from the Province than

the larger ones with greater capacity, are seeing an increase in their grants.

We are starting in that process now to making those changes phased in either up

or down in the grants over a three year period. We see that system as being very

fair. I have seen no substantial complaints from it. Granted, there are some

communities perhaps that have to be looked at on an individual basis. There are

always problems where some communities have peculiar problems with a downturn in

a particular industry or, in fact, an industry ceasing to operate entirely, that

we have to address separately. But in the main, Mr. Speaker, the new grants

programme is working very, very well, and indeed has been commented on by

ministers in other provinces as being one of the fairer ones in the country.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The favourable

comments must be coming from the other provinces. They certainly are not coming

from the municipalities in this one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Minister: because of this new grants system, and because of municipalities in

the Province experiencing such severe hardships, is the Minister considering

reviewing the financial implications that this new grant system has had on the

municipalities in the Province in the past year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago I

asked the Federation of Municipalities to meet with me, and one of the items we

are going to be discussing is the new grants system. I have asked them very

specifically to address the differences between the various communities, types

of communities - the two main sectors of course are the urban communities and

the rural, and also to address any peculiarities they see where, as I mentioned,

communities for economic reasons mainly have seen a downturn in their economy, a

downturn in their taxes, an inability to collect the sort of revenues they had

in the past. Yes, the Department and certainly as the Minister, we are willing

to address individual circumstances, individual problems of municipalities, as

we have been willing to do in the past.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister consider dropping the use of the so-called rating sheets, especially

now in those hard times? And also consider abolishing or extending the three

year deadline that municipalities had to meet pertaining to the new grants

system?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker. Well, first of all, on the

rating sheets, some mechanism has to be in place to assess the need in

individual communities throughout the Province. So you have to look at

environmental problems, health problems, which are the two key factors when

looking at water and sewer, just as one main part of the grants programme. We

have to keep that in place. We have to look at the fiscal capacity of the

municipalities, as we do with grants, and look at the ability of municipalities

to repay the debt that is going to be put in place, and to decide what share

municipalities can bear vis--vis the Province. So yes, the rating sheets will

continue. We have made some improvements this year. Every year we make changes

to make improvements. They are very important because that is the only way we

are going to have a fair system.

As far as the grants are concerned, we will make improvements

in consultation with the Federation of Municipalities, the group that represents

the municipalities in the Province. If we see improvements that can be made we

will look at those suggestions. If a suggestion is well made and is looked at

and is seen to be an improvement that we can make we - any system is not

perfect. And granted we had to work with it for a period of time to see whether

or not it is good. Three years we saw as a reasonable phase-in period, phasing

up and down with the grants, and it seems to be working very well. If indeed

that proves not to be adequate, too long or too short, we are willing to look at

it. But all that will be done in consultation with the municipalities.

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

West.

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

the Premier regarding the health care facilities scandal. I would like to ask

the Premier if he would confirm that the consultants hired by the Government to

evaluate the bids for the three health care facilities recommended that the

contract to build and lease the Port Saunders health care facility should be

awarded to N. D. Dobbin Limited, the lowest bidder on that project?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations that I have

seen indicated that the three facilities should be built by Trans City.

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

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the second question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). Well let me ask him, did Hanscomb

Consultants make recommendations for the awarding of the other contracts for the

health care facilities?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Hanscomb Consultants made no such

recommendations about any facilities. They were hired first of all to do an

analysis of bed counts, gross floor areas to bed rates, building gross floor

areas, building efficiency, building capital costs, and gross building volumes.

They did an analysis of the proposals we received and compared them to a typical

government-built proposal, and their conclusions were based on that alone. They

did not make any recommendations as to which proposals should be accepted, Mr.

Speaker, not a single one.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been rather

evasive as he deals with this scandal that is presently under way. Let me ask

the Minister then, Mr. Speaker: if he is saying the report does not include the

questions I have just asked, will he do the honourable thing and lay the report

on the Table of this House for the public of Newfoundland and Labrador to see?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the report which I have just

recently got and had a look at, because I had never before gone through the

whole report, contains about 340 pages. About 330 of those pages, or close to

it, are simply a series of figures analyzing the floor areas and all that kind

of thing. However, there is an introduction which describes the purpose of the

study, and there are the conclusions which, I suppose, if the hon. Member was

interested in, I could let him have. But in the whole report, I have not

finished looking at all the numbers, because they are simply numbers, Mr.

Speaker. There is not a single conclusion in there - not one single conclusion

that fits anything the hon. gentleman opposite has been saying.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a

supplementary to the Premier.

Will the Premier ensure that the Hanscomb Consultants Report

is tabled in the House? Will he do it? (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the Hanscomb

Report. I know only what the hon. Minister has told me about it. I have not seen

any Hanscomb Report, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who read it?

PREMIER WELLS: Do not ask me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know, but I can find out.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER WELLS: The Minister tells me he has read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER WELLS: Did the Minister read it?

MR. BAKER: Yes. I just finished explaining-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I just heard what the Minister said. He

does not have to tell me. He said there is an introductory part, there is a

conclusion, and in the middle there is a whole 330 pages of figures.

He said he read the introduction, he read the conclusion, he

scanned over the figures, and he has not looked at them in detail. Okay, that is

what the Minister said. I did not know that Hanscomb existed until the day

before-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: I did not know Hanscomb existed until the

day before yesterday, or two or three days ago, when the Minister told me about

it. It was the first I ever heard of the word 'Hanscomb'. We leave these kinds

of decisions to the department. The department runs the show, and they did.

The Minister told me that the indications in the Hanscomb

Report are that the Government saved some considerable dollars by this approach,

and that it is the right kind of an approach for Government to be taking. So I

take some encouragement from that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but in his

absence I refer the question to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

It results from a large number of phone calls which I have received in the last

couple of days from a lot of fishermen around the Province who are applying for

UI benefits. These fishermen are in a desperate, desperate financial situation,

Mr. Speaker, and they believe that Ottawa is out to make life miserable. I would

like to ask the Minister, is he aware, first of all, that these fishermen are

experiencing these circumstances, and if so, could he tell the House why this is

happening to the fishermen in this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for the question, and in bringing the

matter to the attention of the whole House. In fact, it was brought to my

attention earlier today that some fishermen, who have qualified for unemployment

insurance benefits, in trying to make their applications, are being advised that

they can expect rather lengthy or inordinate delays due to the great number of

things being processed through the unemployment insurance offices at this time

of the year. Immediately upon being advised of that situation, we are in the

process now of making contact, Mr. Speaker, with representatives of the

employment and immigration offices here in the Province, and also with the

federal ministry, to try and make sure that these delays are eliminated if at

all possible. As all members here would know, there has been great difficulty

with people, particularly in the fishery, qualifying for unemployment insurance

benefits, and we certainly would not want to see that exacerbated in any way by

having those who have been fortunate enough to qualify experience unnecessary or

unexplainable delays.

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

supplementary.

MR. EFFORD: A very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

These fishermen who have called me from different areas around the Province,

just before I came down here, are now having to go to the Department of Social

Services. They have also informed me that they have already made representation

to the Federal Minister's office and they got no response back. Will the hon.

Minister assure us then that because of the time constraints that are in place

he will go above the people here in Newfoundland and talk to the people in

Ottawa, because this is where the problem is taking place. It is the attitude of

the people in Ottawa towards the Newfoundland fishermen and they cannot afford

to suffer any further.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to inform all

Members of the House again that in fact we have been making approaches to the

Federal Minister responsible for the unemployment insurance system as well as to

the Provincial Federal Minister, Mr. Crosbie, on this matter, and we hope we

will get a successful resolution.

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Recently

the Minister announced an Emergency Employment Response Programme and on October

28 the Minister sent a letter out to the various sponsors of the particular

programmes. Several days ago I asked the Minister if any money has been sent out

to those sponsors and as of this morning I received a number of telephone calls

again from various sponsors throughout the Province stating that the Minister's

letter of October 8, which said you will receive 75 per cent of your funds

immediately, four weeks have now passed, people have been working, and some of

those people have not received any payments so far. Could the Minister advise

this House when he will send out the 75 per cent that he told the people on

October 28 he was going to send out immediately?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as we know the process was

ongoing prior to introduction of the programme into the House by the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, the Minister of Social Services, Environment

and Lands, and myself, the main players, I suppose, involved in the programme.

We did, in fact, in advance of coming in this House and advising that there was

going to be a programme say to the municipalities, or to the community groups,

or development associations, whatever it happened to be, explained to them what

the guidelines were. The actual advice of whether or not they were given a

project, approved for a project, came after that date. I will certainly look at

the problem that the Member has pointed out and see if we cannot speed up the

process and have the 75 per cent that he mentioned forwarded as quickly as

possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made

under the Loan And Guarantee Act of 1957.

Mr. Speaker, also, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local

Authority Guarantee Act of 1957.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the

hon. the Member for Harbour Main indicated that some hospitals in the Province

have overruns; I believe he indicated that the Janeway could be approaching $1

million.

The situation in the current year is very similar to previous

years. Hospital Boards operate substantially within their budgets, with most

projecting final results within plus or minus 1 per cent per annual budgets, and

a hospital whose deficit is projected to be within 1 per cent of their budget is

not considered to be in difficulty, as this would be considered well within the

capability of the organization to accommodate.

Several organizations have had discussions with departmental

officials about concern for expenditure levels. The only hospital board which is

currently projecting a year-end deficit beyond 1 per cent of their annual budget

is the Janeway Child Health Centre. The department is advised, Mr. Speaker, that

the Janeway has a deficit, not of $1 million, but $200,000, as of September 30.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

MR. DECKER: By a long shot. The hospital is projecting

the deficit could reach $500,000, if they don't take some corrective action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should learn that

if he is going to bring these matters to the attention of the House, he has an

obligation to get his facts correct, because it does cause some concern. Mr.

Speaker, also, the hon. member suggested that we have been losing some doctors

in neurology, some neuro-surgeons. I don't have the liberty to give the names,

but I do have them and I will share them with the hon. member.

One doctor, who is a neurologist, left the Province in July

and has been replaced. The doctor left the Province because his wife was doing

post-graduate work in another program outside the Province that is not available

here in Newfoundland. A second doctor has joined The General Hospital and will

be taking over from another doctor, Mr. Speaker, who is retiring. At the

Janeway, a doctor resigned this summer and was replaced by another doctor.

Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the information that I have,

in general terms there is an adequate number of neurologists in the Province.

Again, the hon. member did not have his facts straight, and that is doing a

disservice to the people of this Province. I welcome questions about the Health

Department, but I want them to be based on concrete facts, I do not want them

based on speculation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the hon. the Member for St. John's East raised his

question, I have been informed by my officials that the Department of Education

has not sent out any recent directives with respect to sick leave for students.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, school boards are responsible for developing

policies in these areas.

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to present

a petition from the District of Bay of Islands, a constituency represented by

the hon. the Premier. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is accompanied by a letter

addressed to me, Hon. Len Simms, which says: "Dear Sir, enclosed you will find a

petition on amalgamation that you are to present in the House of Assembly on

behalf of the Town of Mount Moriah."

Mr. Speaker, I want to read the prayer of the petition for

this hon. House on behalf of the people of Mount Moriah in the District of Bay

of Islands, represented by the Premier. The prayer of the petition is as

follows:

"To the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador

in Legislative Session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents -

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

I am hearing a lot of noise coming from somewhere. I am not

able to identify where it is coming from, I only know that I am having great

difficulty hearing what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying, and I

ask hon. members, please, to refrain from making any excessive noise so that the

debate may continue.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is probably the

snickering in the press gallery.

Anyway, the petition goes on to read: "The petition of the

undersigned residents of the Town of Mount Moriah:

"WHEREAS the Provincial Government's proposal to amalgamate

the Town of Mount Moriah and the Town of Massey Drive with the City of Corner

Brook would result in poorer municipal services and higher municipal taxes for

the residents of all three areas;

"THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Provincial Government to

abandon the plan to amalgamate the Town of Mount Moriah with the City of Corner

Brook and to maintain the autonomy of the Town of Mount Moriah."

Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting, at the request of the Town of

Mount Moriah, several weeks ago when I was over in the Corner Brook area on the

West Coast. They said that their member was totally opposed to their views and,

therefore, they had to come to us to see if we could express their views for

them and on their behalf, in the House of Assembly, which, naturally, I quickly

agreed to do, as I would with residents of any constituency, Mr. Speaker,

including my own, and I have done it many times before.

There are 283 people - there are 459 voters, by the way, in

the Town of Mount Moriah - who signed the petition. The petition was given by a

number of people who went around the communities, and they had the choice for or

against amalgamation. It was not simply a petition against. The results, Mr.

Speaker, were as follows: Of the 283 who signed the petition, 277 were against

amalgamation and six agreed with the Premier, in favour of amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that their request to have

this case brought before the House of Assembly is similar to the requests of

many other municipalities whom we have heard complain about the issue of

amalgamation, some in the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island's district, and

some in Your Honour's district. As a matter of fact, the minister, not long ago,

said Indian Bay, I believe, was exempt, they were not going to be included,

because they didn't want to be. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that that

philosophy didn't apply to all the Province and not just selected areas.

The petition also, Mr. Speaker, expresses the view of these

people that coincides with the view of the Federation of Municipalities who

recently passed a resolution at their convention against forced amalgamation.

These people are opposed to having amalgamation rammed down their throats. Mr.

Speaker, since their member was not prepared to present the petition, I guess,

on their behalf, then I am happy to be able to do so and put their case forward.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, having heard the Premier speak

today in the House in answer to questions asked by the Member for Humber East, I

think - it is so hard to really understand what the Premier is saying. I have

never seen a person spend so much time correcting somebody else before he

answers a question. But I believe, today, he said Mount Moriah will not have to

amalgamate. I believe that is what he said, Mount Moriah will not have to

amalgamate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this petition has been extremely successful,

if that is the view, because if the Premier says it won't happen, then you can

rest assured, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will not proceed. You can rest

assured of that.

I look forward to the Premier's comments on this petition. I

know he will want to commend me for presenting it on behalf of his constituents.

I know he will want to commend his own constituents. The petition, by the way,

was sent to me by the mayor, Mayor Allen Critch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to

that. I am happy to present it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three things

that I want to say about this. First, let me address the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Correct'.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, 'correct' the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The number of times that I correct people

in this House is directly proportioned to the number of times that the

Opposition need to be corrected. It is not caused by me, it is caused by the

misrepresentation that you hear from opposite. I don't have to correct people, I

just ask fair-minded, objective people to get Hansard from today and read it,

and they will see that what I said was not what the Leader of the Opposition

attributed me. I did not say if Mount Moriah does not want to be amalgamated,

they will not be amalgamated. I never said any such thing. What I said was if

the majority of people in Corner Brook, Mount Moriah, and Massey Drive,

together, do not want amalgamation, it will not be, but if the majority of

people in Corner Brook, Mount Moriah, and Massey Drive, together, want

amalgamation, then whether Mount Moriah wants it or not, we will bring a

proposal into this House for amalgamation. Now, I can go back and repeat that

again, and I might even spell it out in block letters, it may make it easier for

them to understand and accept. Maybe then, they will not misrepresent the

position quite so much, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the petition specifically.

Lest anybody have any doubt that the Government's policy operates on a fair and

balanced basis, and there is no priority, privilege or exemption, I applied to

my own district exactly the same principles the Government applied to the entire

Province. I did not seek exemption because Mount Moriah in my own district was

opposed to it. We applied the same standard throughout. We are determined, Mr.

Speaker, to cut the errors of the past, of the former Government, and govern

this Province with fairness and balance, and we will continue to do so despite

the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not present that

petition to the House because I was not asked to. Had I been asked to present

the petition to the House, I most certainly would have presented the petition to

the House, and I would have said exactly the same about it as I am saying here

today. I would not have spoken in favour of it. I would have presented it and

said these are the wishes of the people of Mount Moriah, but I would not have

addressed in favour. The petition would have been exactly as it was spelled out

here today, and that should be abundantly clear to everybody.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support for

the petition of the citizens of Mount Moriah, opposing forced amalgamation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Premier's verbal

trickery, there is nothing fair about keeping the people of Mount Moriah, Massey

Drive, and Corner Brook waiting for twenty-eight months. There is nothing

balanced about making them believe that amalgamation will not be forced if it is

against the will of the people of any of the communities affected. The people

there have been jerked around long enough!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: The people who are volunteering their time and

energy to serve on the fire departments of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, who

spend several hours each week training, would like to know now whether their

fire departments will continue to exist. The householders of Corner Brook,

Massey Drive and Mount Moriah would like to be able to plan their budgets for

next year; they would like to be able to know that their municipal taxes will be

roughly the same as they are now. The councils, the individuals who serve

voluntarily on the councils of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, the people who

serve for small remuneration on the council of the City of Corner Brook, would

like to be able to put together their budgets for the fiscal year that starts in

five or six weeks!

Is it not fair and reasonable after all this time, after a

public hearing at which every single presenter opposed amalgamation, for the

Premier to give them an answer? How much time does it take for this Government

to make a fair and balanced decision? Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these

petitioners and people throughout the Corner Brook - Mount Moriah - Massey Drive

area, I call on the Premier to do the right thing, to admit that amalgamating

those three municipalities is wrong. It will increase the total municipal

servicing cost, drive up taxes for residents of all three communities, and lower

the standard of services. I call on the Premier to direct his minister to call

off the forced amalgamation of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, and

to resolve all the other as yet unresolved amalgamation proposals. Enough is

enough!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have copies of three petitions from the

District of Mount Scio, given to me by the Mayor and Councillors of St.

Phillips, and by a concerned citizen of the Town of St. Phillips. Before I go

ahead with the petitions, there are almost 1,900 signatures from the people of

St. Phillips; 93 from the Town of Hogan's Pond; and 111 from Metro Board.

Now, I realize - and I do not want to deceive the House or

try to do something devious - that I am not supposed to present a copy of a

petition in the House. That is why I am saying it is a copy and I would like to

have -

MR. DOYLE: But you can ask to present it.

MR. WOODFORD: I was asked to present the petition because

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that these particular petitions were given to the

Member for Mount Scio last April and he did not present them in the House on

behalf of his own constituents. Those people came to me and asked me yesterday

if I would bring this to the attention of the House. As an MHA representing a

district in the Province, that would, as the Premier - and I have to give him

full marks and credit. He just stated a minute ago, that if he had received a

petition from his own constituents he would have presented it in this House. I

am sure he would have. But why would an hon. member have petitions and not

present them?

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

I just want to know what the - the hon. member is not saying

he is on a point of order. If he is asking whether or not he can present the

petition, I ask the hon. member to please quickly clue up his point of order,

and the Chair is willing and able to make a ruling.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to ask permission, Mr. Speaker

MR. DOYLE: Leave of the House.

MR. WOODFORD: - leave of the House, to present the three

petitions on behalf of the citizens of those three communities. It is as simple

as that. Mr. Speaker.

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

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

order. The reason that there is a rule against copies being presented as

petitions; it is pretty straightforward; we have had this rule in the House for

some time and we have made exceptions to that rule, there is no doubt.

The reason is: a copy of a petition being presented by

somebody to whom the petition was not addressed originally, may be presenting

the petition at the request of two or three or four of the individuals, and the

individuals who actually signed the petition do not realize that it was going to

be presented by that member. The times that I know of where we have allowed

copies of petitions to go ahead, have been in instances where, either the

original petition had been lost and copies were available or, the use of a fax

machine or whatever, or the people inadvertently had sent a copy to a member to

present, and I do not recall any case where a petition that was given to one

member to present, a copy of that petition was then presented by a totally

different member without the expressed permission of all these individuals or

the majority of those who have signed the petition. So, Mr. Speaker, in this

instance, I would suggest that we not accept the copies of the petition and that

the hon. gentleman speak to the member for the area and perhaps then they can

resolve something and the petition can be presented in the House. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think this is an instance where the reason for the copies not being

allowed, this is an instance which that rule was meant to avoid and so, I would

suggest, Your Honour, that it not be accepted.

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

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

to be a pretty straightforward case here. We have a case here, where the member,

who was given the original petition this past spring, and informed the House

that he was not going to present the petition on behalf of those constituents.

MR. SIMMS: He told them that already; in the spring he

said that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, those -

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You cannot have a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. gentleman is speaking to a point of

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know the rules yet?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the petition is to the hon.

House of Assembly -

MR. R. AYLWARD: When did you come in here, yesterday?

MR. MATTHEWS: - the petition those people signed is to

the hon. House of Assembly, not to the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island or to

the Member for Humber Valley, it is to this House, the People's House. Those

people did what they thought was right, and we have seen it happen, I do not

know how many times, but almost daily, that people in various districts or

constituencies around the Province sign petitions and go to their elected

representative, the MHA, and ask him to present the petition on their behalf in

the Legislature.

Now we have a case here, Mr. Speaker, where, the elected MHA

was not prepared to do so. The people have waited since last April or May to

have their petition presented in the Legislature; they then consulted and went

to see the Member for Humber Valley, who is the Municipal and Provincial Affairs

critic in the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: Why did you not present it?

MR. MATTHEWS: The town councillors representing those

people, Mr. Speaker, not one or two individuals, they went on behalf of the

people whom they represent, I would suggest the people who initiated the

petition in the first place, the councillors, went to the Member for Humber

Valley and asked him to present this petition, copies of this petition on their

behalf, because the original copies of the petition are with the Member, so I

submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have done it before; we have had copies presented

in the Legislature before, by leave.

It is obvious that the people who signed the petition feel it

is important enough that they wanted this petition presented to the House on

their behalf, and I ask the Government House Leader to provide leave to the

Member for Humber Valley, so he can present this petition on behalf of the

people who so signed.

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

Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that last April,

the petition in question was presented before the House. Hansard will show that

I spoke for the entire five minute allotment and in the last ten seconds,

someone asked me - as a matter of fact, after my comments were made and Hansard

will show that - if I had signed the petition. At that point in time, I said,

no, I had not because I was not in agreement with it, but I did physically

present it here and Hansard will show that -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: At that time, Mr. Speaker, I also asked leave

of the House to present that petition, unsigned, as the standing rules of that

day showed. When I was refused permission, refused leave of the House by the

members on the other side, I did the honourable thing here in the House and I

presented it personally to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs over

his very desk -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! That is right!

MR. WALSH: - and I challenge them, Mr. Speaker, to read

Hansard for the entire five minutes of my presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is not on a point of order. He is just

clarifying what he assumes to be a point of clarification and with the good

graces of the Chair, he is being permitted to do it.

What we are dealing with here is that the Member for Humber

Valley asked for leave of the House to present a petition that is not meeting

the requirements, and in those circumstances, of course, the Chair can only rely

on the House, and the distinct impression that the Chair has is that the leave

of the House has not been granted.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I am not up on a petition, Mr. Speaker, I

am up on a point of privilege.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. It is going to be very brief

but to the point. We as MHAs were elected in each and every one of our districts

in this Province and when we were elected we were given the right to speak on

behalf of each and every constituent in our district, regardless of what I might

think as a Member, or anybody else in this House. The question I ask, Mr.

Speaker, is what other avenue does a constituent in this Province have if he

cannot depend on his one and only voice in this House, and that is his or her

MHA? If he cannot depend on that, someone else should be able to take up the

cause and speak on behalf of those constituents.

They are frustrated. The Member was to the meeting and he

should have presented the petition. The point I am making is that they have a

right, and as a Member of any district in this Province we have a right to speak

on behalf of our constituents. As far as I am concerned if they cannot have that

voice in the House then someone else within the Chamber should be able to do it

for them, and if I cannot do it then someone else should. It is as simple as

that.

MR. SPEAKER: I will entertain one submission from the

Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is obviously

not a point of privilege and cannot possibly be construed as being so. To follow

the rules of the House cannot possibly be construed as being a point of

privilege. What we are seeing here is a very mischievous attempt by Members

opposite to circumvent the rules of the House. The original petition, as the

Member for Mount Scio explained, was presented to the House, and the Member in

his submission keeps insisting that it was not. It was presented to the House.

He spoke for the five minutes on it, and asked for permission to table it,

because his signature was not on it. Obviously, Members opposite refused

permission, but the petition was presented to the House. The hon. Member spoke

to it and he presented it to the appropriate department at that time, so the

voice of these people has been heard, Mr. Speaker. But, that is not an issue at

all, the only issue here is: is following normal rules of the House grounds for

a point of privilege? Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not.

MR. SPEAKER: (recording failure) privilege raised by the

hon. Member. A point of privilege deals with a Member's point of privilege to do

his or her work properly in the House and obviously we are not dealing with

that. The Member is not restricted from doing his work in the House. The matter

is whether there is an avenue for the presentation of a petition which will not

be presented by somebody else which is a different matter entirely. Since the

Member is dealing with a petition that does not meet the requirements of the

House, quite obviously, all the Chair can do is rule that it is neither a point

of order in this case, nor a point of privilege, because the petition does not

meet the requirements. The hon. Member just has a copy of the petition and not

the original. I do not know what would happen if the hon. Member had the

original copy. I suppose the hon. Member could present it, so from that

perspective then the people would be heard so there is a way.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

A petition? Permission to go back to Petitions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition from the community of Postville on the

Labrador Coast. Basically what the petition is asking for is more health care,

more visits from the doctor. The petition is signed by forty-two people in the

small community of Postville which is roughly 55 per cent of the voters in that

community. During the past year or so the Department of Health throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador has seen fit to make some drastic cuts in health and

services given to people in our Province. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is

most affected is the coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is now, November 21, and speaking with the

local health representative in Postville today, I have been advised that the

last time a doctor visited that community was back in July. Mr. Speaker, about

two and one-half years ago there was a doctor stationed on the north coast of

Labrador who would travel between Nain and Makkovik. He would make regular

visits, and the people were cared for. Since this Government came to power two

and one-half years ago, which is really ironic, Mr. Speaker, there is no doctor

stationed on the coast of Labrador. The doctor is stationed in Happy Valley -

Goose Bay, and can travel only when the weather is good, at the same time

knowing that he has other people to serve in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay,

Northwest River area, and does find it difficult to service those people.

I have correspondence, Mr. Speaker, from doctors in the area.

In fact, I am sure that the Minister of Health will respond to this particular

petition, because the Minister has correspondence from doctors in Lake Melville

who have expressed concern about health care along the Labrador coast.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Postville are saying loud and

clear, above everything else: try to do the best you can to look after our

health, and we need visits from a doctor or some other medical professionals

more often than we have presently travelling the Labrador coast.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition in the hope that the

Minister, when he responds, will get up and not be negative. Mr. Speaker, this

petition is asking for a positive answer, a positive reply from this Government.

Let us not talk about the past. Let us talk about how we can improve the

services in the future. I ask that the petition be placed to the ministers to

which it refers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

point of order.

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

The reason I am rising on a point of order is pertaining to

Bill 50. I would like to ask for Your Honour's indulgence and consideration

under Beauchesne, page 153, paragraph 505, under The Sub Judice Convention, and

I would like to-

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member repeat that again,

please?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, page 153, paragraph 505, under The Sub

Judice Convention, and I would like to read in part for Your Honour: "Members

are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or

tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention

is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who

stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry."

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer Your Honour to

Erskine May, 21st. edition, page 377, and draw Your Honour's attention to the

sub-head 'Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision' and read again in part for Your

Honour: "Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be

brought forward in debate." Further on, Mr. Speaker, there was a report of a

Select Committee on Procedure from the British Parliament in 1962-63, and a

resolution was consequently passed on 23 July 1963. The first reference was

dealing with criminal jurisdiction, but I would like to refer Your Honour to

page 378, second paragraph, and read again for Your Honour: "The resolution of

23 July 1963 also applies to the civil courts, and in general bars reference to

matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court from the time that the

case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court." So this

indicates, Mr. Speaker, that indeed we do have a reference here that matters of

this nature should not be debated in the Legislature when it is before the

courts.

As well, I would like to refer Your Honour again, further on

in paragraph 3, and read in part: " That in exercising its discretion the Chair

should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real

and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings."

I think, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that with the

attention and the publicity that will be drawn towards this debate, if in Your

Honour's discretion you allow it to proceed with this Bill 50, I think there is

no doubt that it will indeed very possibly prejudice the case that is now before

the courts.

So, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour to

consider and perhaps take some time to deliberate and review, because in my

humble opinion, there are certainly adequate references here that, I think, we

should see Your Honour deliberate on and consider. I do not think there is any

doubt that if this debate and this Bill is permitted to proceed here, we are

talking about a lot of people and we are talking public rights. We all know the

issue, we all know that the case is now before the courts, and I ask for Your

Honour's indulgence.

MR. TOBIN: Good point.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member gets up and talks about the sub judice convention

and tries to make a case, Mr. Speaker, that when a bill is before the

Legislature of the Province or the Legislature of the Country, that any bill

that is before the Legislature, if somebody files notice that they are going to

do something in court, that they could stop that bill from proceeding. In which

case, Mr. Speaker, there would never be a single bill passed in any parliament

in this country, because any crank or anybody who had a problem with it, could

simply file notice in a court and, Mr. Speaker, there would never be one single

item ever get through any legislature in this country. Mr. Speaker, obviously

that is incorrect.

This particular convention that the hon. gentleman refers to

- I can see where in some cases in a criminal action that this may have some

relevance. The House voluntarily does this in criminal matters where this may

affect criminal charges against an individual. Mr. Speaker, the sub judice

convention he refers to: "Members are expected to refrain from discussing

matters that are before the courts or tribunals, which are courts of record. The

purpose of this is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial

and persons who stand to be affected and so on." It is a voluntary restraint

imposed by the House upon itself.

Mr. Speaker, the next

section that he neglected to read goes

on to say that this convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.

And then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that no settled practice has been

developed in relation to civil cases. So, Mr. Speaker, obviously this convention

has no impact in this particular case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they go on to say that in

terms of the precedents and so on, in civil cases, the convention does not apply

until the matter has reached its trial stage anyway. Mr. Speaker, on a number of

counts they are dead wrong: Number one, only notice has been given, I

understand; number two, it has not reached the trial stage; and number three,

there is nothing in civil cases to bind the House in these instances. If there

were, Mr. Speaker, the whole parliament of this country would collapse.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

shouts a good case, but he does not make a good case. First of all, if what he

said were accurate, then how come we do not have more happening. It just does

not happen that way. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that you would have this

happening left, right and center. Perhaps he could explain to us why, then, all

these references are here for Your Honour to consider? Why all these

parliamentary references in Beauchesne and Erskine May and all the other

parliamentary references throughout the British system of parliament? Why are

they there?

They are there, Mr. Speaker, because occasionally, something

like this might develop. Now, let me just counter his argument about civil law.

Let me argue about civil law. The Minister of Development, who doesn't yet know

how to move a motion to call for a standing vote, is now an expert on criminal

law. Erskine May says, page 378 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: If hon. members would stop interrupting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If the hon. minister could stop interrupting,

restrain himself. Page 378 of Erskine May says: 'The resolution of 23 July 1963'

- that is the earlier reference that my colleague referred to - 'also applies to

the civil courts'. It does not just say criminal law, it also applies to the

civil courts - 'and in general bars reference to matters awaiting or under

adjudication in a civil court from the time that the case has been set down for

trial or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion

for injunction'.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that clearly indicates that the Government

House Leader's argument is totally wet. It has nothing at all to do with the

argument that the Opposition House Leader presented for Your Honour's

consideration. We all know the matter is before the court. Whether it is before

the court in the form of a notice or whatever, the reference is there for Your

Honour to consider. But I think the most important issue that has to be

considered is the issue that my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, referred

to in his presentation. That is the issue of whether or not there is a real and

substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings before the court. That is the

question.

It is a very delicate issue for Your Honour to determine, a

very dicey problem that we have here. But I am sure Your Honour, with the great

advice that he often gets from the Clerks at the Table, will reach an

appropriate decision. I have no doubt. It is a matter that needs to be carefully

considered and researched. I won't go on any longer. We have had two from this

side, we have had two, I think, from that side, or one from that side.

MR. MATTHEWS: One. The second is going to get up now.

MR. SIMMS: Maybe Your Honour might wish to consider the

matter in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: I will accept one further submission. I

wanted to tell members I am not going to permit debate to carry on on this very

much longer. The Chair is ready to make a decision. I have entertained two

submissions from this side. Now I will take a further submission from the

Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very briefly. I

have quoted from sections 505, 506 and 507 of Beauchesne, 6th edition, page 153,

I think, which deals with this issue. It is obvious from that that this is not a

case where we can stop the proceedings of the House because there has been

notice of something filed in the court. So it is fairly obvious.

The final point I would like to make that I had neglected to

make earlier, Mr. Speaker, is that if Mount Pearl is appealing a law, something

that this House has dealt with, it is kind of beyond me -obviously, in order for

their case to proceed, and in order for them to challenge something, it has to

be something that has been passed by this House. So, in order for something to

be challenged in court -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It works the other way around. In order for

something to be challenged in court, it first of all has to be passed by this

House before it can be challenged. Because, as of this point in time, it has no

bearing, no stature, and, Mr. Speaker, therefore I believe it is not possible to

stop this. Because, in fact, this process would help the other processes in

place.

MR. SPEAKER: I indicated that I would not take any

further submissions. Since it is, I think, affecting the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl, I will permit him to make a submission.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a

very wise decision you have made, because I think I can shed some light of great

importance on this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly hope so.

MR. WINDSOR: It relates directly to what the hon. the

President of Treasury Board just said. The injunction, or the action in the

court, does not relate to Bill 50. It relates to the resolution passed last May.

It is on that resolution as outlined in Bill 50, it is to give effect to that

resolution, that we are being asked to debate. So the act has, indeed, taken

place. The resolution has, indeed, been passed by this House. The City of Mount

Pearl and their legal counsel have put forward a very lengthy case arguing that

that resolution was an illegal resolution, and I, for one, firmly believe that

it, indeed, was an illegal resolution, will be found by the courts to be

illegal, and will be struck down.

The point the Opposition Leader makes, Mr. Speaker, is that

if this House were to debate Bill 50, which is based on that resolution, and, in

fact, gives effect to that resolution, this House would then be prejudging

whether or not the act passed and the resolution passed last May was, indeed,

legal. That is not our role, Mr. Speaker, that is a role for the courts, and I

think we have clearly shown that to continue with this debate would prejudice

that action in the courts, and therefore this debate, Mr. Speaker, should not be

allowed to continue until the courts have passed a ruling on that issue.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to relate to the comments of the hon. gentleman from

Mount Pearl. I am happy to see Your Honour recognize him because it does have a

particular bearing on his district.

I would like to refer once again, Mr. Speaker, that "no

settled practice has been developed" - and I am reading from Beauchesne again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: "in relation to civil cases," and, "in civil

cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial

stage." That is the second point. The third point is that even in criminal cases

this is a voluntary restraint that the House imposes upon itself. So we are

talking about something voluntary here in any case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess the House for I do not

know how long, but if I need to be longer, then I will come back and ask hon.

members to get into something else.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): It is four o'clock and while we

are waiting for His Honour to return, I will announce the questions for the Late

Show:

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the Premier's response

to my question about Kruger and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited. I would

like to debate the question on the Late Show; that is the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer to my

question on school tax to the Minister of Education, and I would like to debate

it on the Late Show; that is the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer I received

from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, with respect to the

Emergency Response Program; that is the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

We will recess awaiting the Speaker, who should be here

shortly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

With respect to the matter raised by the Opposition House

Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, with respect to the sub judice convention

preventing Bill 50 from being debated today, we have done extensive research on

the matter. Just let me read a couple of excerpts for hon. members.

(1) The sub judice convention exists to protect from

prejudice parties in a case awaiting trial and is a voluntary restraint by the

House upon itself. While it has been applied consistently in criminal cases,

there is no settled practice in relation to civil cases. However, in civil

cases, the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial

stage.

The question was summarised succinctly by Speaker, Solomon

Lloyd, who appeared before the British Select Committee in 1971-1972, when they

were discussing a similar matter and Speaker Solomon Lloyd said: I think it is

quite clear that there ought to be a sub judice rule or convention certainly

with regard to criminal cases. I think there are several types of civil cases,

like action for defamation of character where one can see the same sort of thing

applying, and I would think there that the rule or the convention ought to

exist. And he says: The general proposition ought to be that matters of general

interest are discussable. The presumption should be for discussion rather than

against it. Furthermore, in Canada, the convention does not apply to bills.

I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page 153, 508 (3). It

says, "The convention applies to motions, references in debates, questions and

supplementary questions, but does not apply to bills." I read also for hon.

members a ruling by the Speaker in October, 1971 when the House of Commons was

in a similar circumstance with respect to the sub-judice applying to a bill.

After extensive debate when members had presented their cases, the Speaker of

that time says, 'It seems to me logical, as hon. members taking

part in the

discussion have indicated, that we should take this view, otherwise the whole

legislative process - that is to take the view that debate should continue -

'otherwise the whole legislative process might be stopped simply by the

initiation of a writ or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of

Canada,' so he made substantially the same ruling.

I could carry on for hon. members, quoting from page 153,

509, which says, "The Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members

recommended that the responsibility of the Speaker during the question period

should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention, and that the

responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the question and

the Minister to whom it is addressed. However, the Speaker should remain the

final arbiter in the matter but should exercise discretion only in exceptional

cases. In doubtful cases the Speaker should rule in favour of debate and against

the convention." Then 510 says, "The Speaker has pointed out "that the House has

never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration

of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the

House." The last one, "The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament

is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance

of their duties. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only

in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do otherwise could be harmful to

specific individuals." Having Beauchesne's reference and examples in the House

of Assembly where bills cannot be subjected to the sub judice convention, I

rule, therefore, that the sub judice convention does not apply in this

particular case with respect to a bill.

The Government House Leader called for second reading, so I

now call upon the minister to give second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise to

speak on this particular bill which, of course, has already gone through the

resolution stage in the spring, with considerable debate at the time, and now,

of course, we are looking at second reading.

Bill 50 deals with

an act to facilitate the amalgamation of

certain municipal services in relation to the Northeast Avalon region. This is a

wide-ranging bill, Mr. Speaker, which deals with a lot of issues. The Northeast

Avalon is a relatively large area in Newfoundland and Labrador terms, not that

large, of course, in the context of similar urban areas across Canada, but it

is, indeed, in Newfoundland terms, approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the

population of the Province. It is a very important location in the Province and

a very important area of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have some seventeen cities or towns in the

Northeast Avalon, all staffed with city councillors and administrative staff,

various fire departments, volunteer, and, in the case of St. John's, a paid fire

department. St. John's, of course, is presently a regional fire service in every

sense of the word because it serves more than the immediate City of St. John's,

it also services Mount Pearl, Paradise, St. Thomas's, St. Philip's, Portugal

Cove and Wedgewood Park. So it is, indeed, regional in every sense of the word,

and has been for a long number of years with the jurisdiction, of course, of

that fire department incorporated overall and encompassing all of those areas

that I just mentioned, all of those municipalities. In addition to that, of

course, Metro Board, which is interspersed in between, is comprised of

communities such as Topsail Pond, Three Island Pond, Evergreen Village, Windsor

Heights, Elizabeth Park, some 5,000 or 6,000 people who up to this point in

time, Mr. Speaker, until we proceeded with the amalgamation feasibility process,

until we started that over two years ago now, all these people were represented

by the Metropolitan Area Board comprised of representation from the councils of

the area, and appointed people from the Province. So for the first time, Mr.

Speaker, when we complete the amalgamation of the various communities involved

and the Metro Board, all of these 5,000 to 6,000 people will be residing in one

newly formed community or another and will have elected direct representation

for the first time, elected by the people themselves.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are accomplishing a lot with this Bill.

Not only are we taking the number of communities down from seventeen, if you

want to include the Metro Board communities, of course, it is probably down from

something like twenty-three or seventeen down to seven or eight. It is quite a

rationalization of jurisdiction, quite a change in terms of rationalization of

services. A great savings, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this region. The fact

that we are able to combine all of the various services into larger areas,

larger cities or towns, is going to be a tremendous savings to the people, Mr.

Speaker. Duplication of staff, duplication of facilities, duplication of

equipment - and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker - is maybe tolerable to some

degree in a very large urban area. I could point out some on the mainland where

we could tolerate it in communities side by side where you have 200,000 to

400,000 people, but when you look at 130,000 or 140,000 people in this area it

is not good planning, and that is, of course, why we started in this process in

the first place. It is not good planning to have so many municipalities side by

side with elected councils, with duplication of staff and so on. It is just not

good planning and not good economic sense from an industrial, commercial

standpoint, as well, because all of these communities, Mr. Speaker, up to this

point are all competing with one another.

I do not think there is a community on the northeast Avalon

that would not like to have an industrial park, and would not like to have a

commercial base, would not like to have a shopping centre. Of course, you bring

that to its extreme and we would have seventeen, eighteen or nineteen

communities that all have a large major regional shopping centre, they would all

have an industrial park, and that makes absolutely no sense, Mr. Speaker. It is

mainly an urban area surrounded by a group of rural communities, and the rural

communities, Mr. Speaker, are being proposed to stay much like they are. We did

not feel that it was necessary at this time to proceed with joining a lot of the

rural communities that really had not grown together to the extent that the

urban core had. In the urban core, Mr. Speaker, we have these communities side

by side with adjacent boundaries and literally one house next to another, with

two communities side by side representing those people, and no way to

distinguish really between the two communities.

But in the rural context that is not the case. We still have

in most cases in the rural communities - from Conception Bay South right along

the coast up to Middle Cove, Outer Cover, Logy Bay - a fair separation land-wise

and people-wise, and we have left those communities essentially alone. But we

are proposing to do some amalgamation in the rural areas. We are proposing to

put together St. Thomas', Paradise, Three Island Pond, Topsail Pond, Evergreen

Village and Elizabeth Park into one community. We are also proposing to put

together St. Phillips and Portugal Cove into one community, and Windsor Heights

of course, which is now in Metro Board, and Hogan's Pond.

Other than that the rural communities surrounding St. John's

will remain essentially the same. In the St. John's area we are proposing to

join the Goulds and Wedgewood Park to St. John's, enlarging the City to now

become approximately 108,000, 107,000 to 108,000 people. And to give the City of

St. John's jurisdiction over regional services that were mainly previously

either under their jurisdiction anyway - for example, the fire department - or

under the jurisdiction of -

AN HON. MEMBER: The fire department is not under their

jurisdiction.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, under the jurisdiction in the sense

that they were the main players, certainly. The Member is quite right. It was

under the Province up to this point, with the sharing of the expenses being

shared out to the various municipalities, and 15 per cent of the costs being

paid by the Province. That formula has to be looked at, as was raised in the

House today. We have to look at the formula to see whether or not it is a still

a good formula. Whether it should be 15 per cent or 14 per cent or 17 per cent

or whatever. That has to be looked at. But certainly the Province will continue

to pay its share of the firefighting services, recognizing the fact that we have

a large presence in this region with Provincial buildings. That has to be

recognized of course, as it has in the past.

But, Mr. Speaker, we do propose that the regional services

that will be delivered will be administered by the City of St. John's. The

alternative was to create another level of bureaucracy, a regional services

authority or board or government or whatever you want to say, and the

municipalities perceived that as being another level of government above them.

We saw fit to make a decision to give the responsibility and the administration

to the City of St. John's to deliver, and to cost share with the member

municipalities in those cost sharing arrangements.

If a given municipality accesses a particular service, such

as a water supply, a waste disposal site or a fire department, whatever it

happens to be, then usually on a per capita basis - although there are other

formulas - but a formula agreed to, they would be cost shared, they would pay

their share of whatever service they happened to access. Not all the

municipalities will access every service. We have some communities that have

their own water supply right now, just as an example, and we would not expect

them to tie into Bay Bulls, Big Pond or Windsor Lake and access and use those

water services, but would continue to use the existing water service. If a

community is accessing a regional service they would be expected to be part of

the region as far as paying their share of that particular service.

We believe also that rationalizing and enlarging the

communities that we have identified will bring better planning to the area. A

greater focus and a greater ability by the communities to plan for future

development whether it be residential growth or whether it be industrial or

business growth. This has been a problem, Mr. Speaker, in the past, as they have

identified, where we have great competition going on, a competition that has

been very difficult to stop, where all communities all want similar services,

all want to grow in competition to one another. That is unhealthy, Mr. Speaker,

and creates an unhealthy competition which is totally unnecessary with the

numbers of people we have in this particular region.

Mr. Speaker, I might say, in answer to some criticism about

having proceeded with the northeast Avalon, I know there are other amalgamations

throughout the Province, but indeed amalgamation, contrary to comments I have

heard, is going very, very well. Mr. Speaker, we are now more than halfway

through. Just Tuesday past, the results of the nomination procedures were

completed in the Badger's Quay area, in the Centerville area and in the

Twillingate area, where we see nine communities being amalgamated down to three

larger communities.

Mr. Speaker, prior to that, of course, I had announced

amalgamations in Grand Falls-Windsor and in several other groupings throughout

the Province. We still have to deal with three major groupings that have not

been announced: Stephenville and Kippens; Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey

Drive; and Deer Lake and the surrounding communities. Those are the three

largest groupings that remain.

Mr. Speaker, as in St. John's, amalgamation in the northeast

Avalon area is very, very important. Too often the positive benefits are

downplayed and the negative aspects, or so-perceived negative aspects, are

concentrated on. Mr. Speaker, that is, I suppose, natural because any great

change - and this is great change - is going to be controversial, it is not

going to be easy. As I said in the previous debate in the spring, Mr. Speaker,

we could have sat back and relaxed and done nothing and not caused any change to

take place in municipalities, but that would have been wrong. It was obvious,

and has been obvious for years - nine commission reports on the northeast

Avalon, prior to our taking over as Government, nine commission reports, all in

one way or another identifying the need for amalgamation and rationalization of

services. And finally, Mr. Speaker, a Government that has the courage to take

action and to make changes. Mr. Speaker, we think that these changes are going

to be, in the long-term and the short-term, a benefit to the people of this

region.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we have not had input, I find

amusing. We have had over two years now, almost two and a half years, of the

feasibility process, if you want to include the months beyond the Commissioner's

report, where we have had hearings, we have had briefs presented by the

municipalities, we have had oral presentation, and we have had discussions with

councils. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have ever seen - well I know we have

not, at least from what I have been able to investigate and find out - an

amalgamation scenario in the country, in Canada, in any other Province that has

given as much time and as much study and as much opportunity for dialogue as the

procedure that we have carried out, Mr. Speaker, on the northeast Avalon and in

the rest of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being four-thirty, there is a motion before the House to

adjourn. I am going to have to ask the Minister to adjourn this portion of the

debate right now.

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have covered the main, the salient, important

points to this, and I will have the opportunity later to carry on with this most

important and crucial Bill, Mr. Speaker, for the northeast Avalon.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe the Minister should say the right

words, that he adjourns the debate.

MR. GULLAGE: I adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

I have two question for the Late Show. I am not sure that I

have them in the right order, but I believe it is the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes who has expressed his dissatisfaction with answers to his question on

school tax given by the Minister of Education.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the answers, but

that is nothing new because I have always expressed dissatisfaction, as

everybody else has. In the two and a half years I have been asking the Minister

questions, I have not yet received a satisfactory answer. I am beginning to

wonder whether the Minister knows the answers or whether he is just being

evasive.

In this case I discovered that the Minister did not know very

much about it because the Premier had gone out as he usually does, on his own,

and made a statement as to what he was going to do. Then the Minister found out

about it when he read it in the paper.

Mr. question to the Minister was about school tax

authorities. What is really happening? We are getting all kinds of conflicting

stories on the radio and in the press. We read headlines and hear headlines

which state 'school tax authorities have been abolished, or will be abolished.'

The Premier says, 'No, I did not say it. I was misunderstood.' How many times

have we heard the Premier say, 'I was misunderstood.' I think if we added up the

number of questions we had to the Premier in the House since it opened, in each

one of them if we mentioned a quote, the Premier would say he is misunderstood.

The fact is, the Premier did say at the Board of Trade

meeting that school tax authorities would be abolished. The Minister did not

know anything about it. He is talking about reforming that. Around the island we

have a number of people employed by school tax authorities. We have a tremendous

number of people who sit on school tax authorities in a voluntary way in order

to collect money to put into schools, to provide for the needs of children at

the local level, which is something that Government should be doing and is not

doing.

The Minister and Premier, in commenting on this, talk about

the unfair way the school tax is collected and distributed, and the inequalities

in the system. I say yes, and that always has been recognized.

A few years ago a former government decided to do something

about that. They brought in what they called a tax equalization programme, which

gave areas which could not collect large amounts of money, larger sums than the

more lucrative areas, to the point where it would balance out in the five year

plan that was put in place. At the end of the five years, which should have been

this past year, it would have balanced out across the Province where each area,

each child in each school, would have the same number of dollars spent on him or

her as in any other part of the Province. This Government sat on that new

innovative plan that had been brought in by the previous administration, and

have balked on bringing to fruition full equalization. Consequently, the Premier

and his Cabinet found themselves caught in a bind because during the last

election campaign ministers were going around the Province, or candidates who

became ministers, and candidates who are still backbenchers, promising that the

first thing they would do was get rid of the school tax. Well they found out

that they cannot really get rid of school tax, because money has to go into the

educational system, one way or another.

The Premier seems now to want to be sloughing it off to

municipalities. We have to remember that there are areas in this Province where

we do not have municipalities. We have areas where we have municipalities that

are having a job trying to keep their heads above water doing what work they

have to do already, and certainly do not want to be burdened with extra duties

like collecting school tax.

The Premier just wants to abdicate himself from the

responsibility so that he can say, 'I fulfilled a promise.' Who is paying the

price is what I would like the Minister to tell us. The answer of course,

because I know he will not give it, is the children of the Province. It is also

the people who are working at the school tax authorities who, this last year and

one-half, do not know from one day to the next whether they are going to have a

job or not. They are being treated just like the public service, where last year

they were just being axed without any notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education is on his way to a speaking

engagement. He is unavailable at the present time, so I will attempt to answer

the question for the hon. Member.

First of all, I am very surprised that he is dissatisfied

with the answer because I thought the answer given was absolutely superb. The

Minister did not hedge; he did not try to obfuscate; he gave a very direct

answer and a very full answer to the Member's question.

Some time ago, when the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was

the Minister of Education, all of a sudden there was an awakening, and the

awakening was this, that there was something wrong, something unfair about the

school tax system. So the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, I suppose, was

jolted awake by somebody and was told that there was something that was unfair

in the educational system in terms of the school tax. So he and his government,

after recognizing that there was great inequity, then decided to really not

correct the inequity, and they tried to throw a few bucks out there to keep the

school boards quiet, which is in essence what they did. So instead of

equalizing, and instead of providing the same opportunity for the students on

the Great Northern Peninsula as is provided in St. John's, they threw them a

little bit of money, a few crumbs to try and keep them happy.

MR. HEARN: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened.

They did not equalize. They did not even equalize 80 per cent. They did not even

equalize 50 per cent. They did not equalize the educational funding in this

Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, you look at the school tax authorities and the way

they were administered. Just look at it. The students all over this Province get

provided money by the Provincial Government - 94 per cent of their funding comes

directly from the Provincial Government in some way or another. They get funding

to provide them with teachers, to provide them with schools, school

construction, and money for the running of the schools. Those are the basis

amounts that are provided all across this Province. Some allowances are made for

school boards that have a little more difficulty than others and have more small

schools than others in terms of their teacher allocation. But basically the same

general service level is provided by the Government to students all over this

Province. Then along comes the school tax authorities, and we all know why they

came into existence in the first place, but along come the school tax

authorities, Mr. Speaker. So the School Tax Authority on the great northern

peninsula provides it's schools with $80 per student. Now that is great. That is

wonderful. Eighty dollars extra over and above what the Government has provided.

Mr. Speaker, look at the other side of it. The school tax authorities in St.

John's because this is where the business is, this is where the activity is,

this is where the salaries are being paid, the school tax authorities in St.

John's provide the schools with $400 per student extra; $400 per student over

and above the basic amount. Mr. Speaker, this inequity is all across this

Province, and that is what the school tax authority does, it perpetuates, it

perpetuates inequity. Now this Government is committed one way or another to

eliminate the inequity in educational funding. Something the previous government

- they say they recognized it was there, but refused to do anything about it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do it one way or the other. Either the school

tax authorities will be reformed, in which case they will not exist as they are

now, or they will be eliminated, in which case they will not exist as they are

now. This is precisely what the Premier said. That is exactly what the Premier

said in his speech. That is exactly what the Minister of Education told this

House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second item to be debated is the hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains stating his dissatisfaction with an answer

given by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs regarding the

Emergency Response Programme.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I find it most interesting to note that the Minister is not

even in his seat for such a particular concern that I have. In fact, I think

what is most interesting today - and I notice the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations is listening - was the question that was asked by the Member

for Port de Grave. It was a very important question.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your opinion, (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague,

the Minister of Social Services, it was a very important question because the

Member asked the Minister of Employment about the delay with the federal

projects.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question concerned Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, about unemployment insurance

while we are waiting. I have, in fact, in my colleague's district from Eagle

River where this particular call came from, we have people now who have been

working for five weeks and the association has not received one penny from this

Government, and, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague, in another

community in the Eagle River district, there are people who have been working

for two weeks. They have approved the project but there is no money there at

all, so the Minister writes a letter, of which I have a copy here, should the

minister want it, and said: 75 per cent of the money would be released

immediately. Now, October 18th, Mr. Speaker, the money is not there and now we

are talking about November 20th. What does the word 'immediately' mean in

Webster's dictionary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say October 8th or (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: October 18th, and let me say the Minister

announced the programme on October 4th, but October 18th is when he wrote the

letter, and I believe that we have to be fair to the people who need these

particular projects. Those projects have been approved by the Minister - and I

say to the Minister, yes, Mr. Minister, the White Bear Development Association

has gone to the bank to get money to pay those workers. In fact tomorrow the

White Bear Development Association will not have enough money to pay those

workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WARREN: They will not have enough money tomorrow to

pay them for their last week's work, and this Minister told me four or five days

ago, he would check it out, so, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, again is showing

contempt for the people. He said in his letter on October 18th, that: I will

immediately release funds to you, 75 per cent of the funds. Now, 75 per cent of

$15,000 is, I think $12,500 that should have been in the hands of the

Development Association.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in Charlottetown or Williams

Harbour, in Pinsent Arm, Norman Bay, it is also in Makkovik; it is in Hopedale,

it is in Nain. The Nain council has now paid something like $100 in interest to

the banks to draw money out in order to pay the workers - the Minister is going

to get up with directions from my hon. colleague for Eagle River, who has a copy

of the letter that was sent to the Development Association, a copy to him and a

copy to Mr. Price, who is the recreation director for the area.

But what surprised me - the Minister can say what he would

like to say now, but four or five days ago when I brought it to his attention,

he thought they had the money. Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague - and I

must say I met a worker from the social services who had very positive comments

about the Minister; I am sure my hon. colleague knows who the particular person

is but I do not want to get side-tracked by rabbits now when I am talking about

elephants, so, we were talking about concerns on the Labrador Coast. We are

talking about concerns of people who are working there and, in Norman Bay, there

are people who have been working two weeks who have not been paid and it is the

obligation of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to make sure that

cheques are released to all those groups whom he had promised in his letter of

October 18; so I say to the Minister, let us not procrastinate any longer, let

us get the letters and the money out to the people who need it. Thank you very

much.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe

sometimes the sort of questions you get in this House. The question from the

hon. Member dealing with projects in Labrador that we saw fit to announce early,

as quickly as we could get our programme in place, we saw Labrador as a priority

and the twenty odd projects that were announced were the first ones announced in

this Province.

They are being well received in Labrador. They are in areas

where they are very necessary. He mentioned the date of October 18. If I

recollect correctly I think that was at a time when we were simply advising what

procedures should be followed in advance if communities were successful, so that

there would not be any delay in receiving payment.

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for municipalities, or any

others receiving Government assistance, whether it be loans or grants, or

whatever, to use their co-operative or bank on an interim basis to get projects

started. I would guess, Mr. Speaker, without much fear of being contradicted,

that the vast majority of the twenty-odd projects, the twenty communities have

already done that and have already got money in place to see that the projects

are not delayed, because of all places to have projects delayed, in Labrador at

this time of the year we have to get started as quickly as possible. I would

suggest that they have already accessed the necessary funding. Mr. Speaker, they

have signed contracts, they know the procedures and I can assure the hon. Member

that, as the Minister, I will see that we see that these projects are paid 75

per cent, or whatever the cost-sharing formula, is paid as soon as we can, Mr.

Speaker. I am confident that no project is delayed and that money is made

available. In all of the twenty-odd areas of Labrador work is proceeding and

funds are in place. Mr. Speaker, I will check out the Member's question on the

funding from the Province but I am quite confident that there has been no undue

delay and the projects are on time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want first of all to say we re-arranged the Late Show at

the request of the Government House Leader, because the Premier wanted a little

more time to be here, which we respect and appreciate because of his schedule. I

apologize to the Premier for having him come down here but the Member for Humber

East had put in the question for the Late Show and is now at the Constitutional

Committee Meeting. I am sorry for the inconvenience but I think it happened

probably without her having too much advance notice. So I apologize on her

behalf and on our behalf for bringing the Premier down from his office when

there was no need to do so.

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

MR. BAKER: I just want to advise hon. Members, tomorrow

we are continuing on with the same Bill that we dealt with today.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow,

Friday, at 9:00 a.m.