November

29, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 81

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with routine business, on behalf of hon.

members we would like to extend a warm welcome this morning to fifty Level II

students, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Claude Taylor and Mr. Ed Neil, from

Ascension Collegiate High School, Bay Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise members

of this Honourable House of Assembly of the fact that Sunday, December 1, has

been designated by the World Health Organization as World AIDS Day. This day has

been recognized internationally on December 1 since 1988, and its purpose is to

promote co-ordinated action against AIDS through the exchange of information and

the development of social tolerance, compassion and understanding towards those

living with AIDS.

The theme for World AIDS Day 1991 is "Sharing the Challenge".

As members of a world society, we all must work together to halt the spread of

this devastating disease and to find a cure. Consequently, the focus of this

special day is on partnerships. Although individual contributions are

significant, working together in partnerships to educate ourselves and others

about the disease will best ensure that the barriers that keep us from working

well together will be broken down.

Focusing on partnerships, I would like to acknowledge the

dedication, hard work, and sacrifice of all those who on a daily basis, deliver

education and prevention programs and provide care and support for those

infected with HIV and AIDS, and their families and their friends. Commitment,

leadership and strength are required of those involved in all sectors of health

and community care in dealing with the complexities and social problems raised

by the existence of the HIV/AIDS virus.

The Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee plays an

important role in extending the reach and impact of education and family support

in the Province through projects like the Rural Community Support Network, a

joint effort of the Committee and the Newfoundland Haemophilia Society. The

Department of Health was pleased to work with the support of the AIDS Committee

in the development and presentation of three HIV/AIDS prevention television ads

to which there has been an overwhelming public response.

In support of the designation of World AIDS Day, 1991, I urge

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to avail themselves of any opportunities

available to learn more about AIDS and to volunteer their services in the fight

against the disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank

the Minister as well for an advance copy of his statement. It is a very short

statement but it is a very important statement on a very sensitive topic.

The designation by the World Health Organization as World

Aids Day I think should serve to heighten the awareness of all of us to the very

real problem that does exist and that AIDS poses all over the world. I think for

far too long we have taken cold and false comfort in the fact that the disease

can only affect certain groups in our society. But we are finding out every

single day that is not the case because we hear about children being affected,

the unborn being affected, pregnant women being affected. It is becoming clear

that the disease can affect all groups in our society, no matter where they

happen to live. Today provides the opportunity for all of us to focus on what we

can do to prevent that disease and to control the spread of that disease.

Sometimes of course it is difficult for us as lay people to

think that we can make any contribution in such a very complex and difficult

area. But I think we can all make sure that we make the effort to keep people

informed about what a devastating impact this particular disease is having all

over the world. That is why the work of the Newfoundland AIDS Committee is so

very important as well. We certainly support them in their efforts in this

regard.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On November 15 I

provided a status report on the Provincial emergency employment response

programs announcing that 708 projects, generating 3,488 jobs - in both the

short- and long-term categories - for 38,844 work weeks had been created since

the announcement of the program on October 4. The Federal Emergency Response

Program for the fisheries has funded an additional 22,933 work weeks in the

Province, creating a total of 3,593 jobs.

Despite the fact that between October 4 and November 15,

7,081 jobs for 61,777 work weeks have been approved, a major employment problem

still exists in the Province. Recognizing the significant problem that still

exists I have decided to redistribute some of the long-term job creation funds

into additional short-term projects.

In the long-term, the expected uptake of the sixty week

Employment Generation Program has been slightly less than expected, therefore a

further $750,000 will be transferred to short-term make-work to create an

estimated additional 2,000 weeks of work immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: As well, Mr. Speaker, the Linkages Program

which not only creates jobs but provides employment counselling and support

through community based agencies working with local employers has seen increased

support. The support of this initiative has been higher than expected and as a

result, an extra $500,000 will be transferred to this program to create

approximately eighty long-term jobs in partnership with community based

agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this additional job creation will not come close

to assisting all people who are in need and I intend to request my federal

colleagues to join me in creating more work throughout the Province immediately.

Early next week, Mr. Speaker, I will be announcing the locations of the

additional job creation projects represented in this statement. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

minister for providing me with an advanced copy. I hope this is not the job

creation to which the minister alluded in response to questions that I asked him

on Wednesday, when he announced that the Province will be having another job

creation program, because all this does is simply transfer funds from one

department and put them into another for jobs that he already announced some

weeks ago. It appears that this money is all coming from the Employment

Generation Program, that by the way, significantly, could not use up it's funds.

The demand has been slightly less than expected and that makes one wonder if

that program is being the unqualified success that the administration likes to

boast it is, since people did not avail of it when it was there.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing the minister failed to allude to

in his statement: $750,000 will be transferred to short-term make-work in what

department? - we are very much afraid that the short-term make-work programs

perhaps have already been decided. We saw an indication from this minister some

time ago when he announced a program, that the jobs had already been

pre-determined and in fact that some of them had started work, when the

announcement and the allocations of funds took place, so let's hope this is not

holding out the ribbon of hope to people that there are going to be some jobs,

only to find next week that, 'No, sorry, the jobs were already decided when we

made the announcement.'

Mr. Speaker, the statement also doesn't mention how one

applies for the jobs. Is it through applications already on file in the

minister's department, and in what departments? We are interested in finding out

exactly how one takes advantage of this $750,000, and the $500,000 in the

linkages program. As we said earlier, perhaps what is most significant is that

this additional job creation will not come close to assisting all the people who

are in need because it doesn't do anything except transfer from one program to

the other. What the minister should have done was find some new money, because

the need is so great.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, I have

just been handed a note about another very important group of students who have

arrived in the public galleries. I am sure hon. members would want me to extend

a warm and cordial welcome to these students. They are twenty-five Grade VII

students, accompanied by their teachers, Vice-principal, Ms. Maureen Roche and

Pat Kelly. They are from St. Paul's School here in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted this morning to ask

the Premier if he made up with Richard Cashin last night, but I think I will

move on to a more serious issue.

I want to return to an issue that I raised last week on

behalf of public service pensioners. I said at that time, and the Premier well

knows, every government since Confederation has given - except for a two-year

freeze - annual increases to their pensioners. This Government, in fact, gave an

increase of 2.5 per cent in 1989 but, since that time, these 7,000 pensioners

have been frozen.

Now, I know that the Premier has met with the pensioners'

executive. I would like to ask the Premier if he can tell the House what his

understanding is of their very specific request.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember in great detail what the request was. They

indicated to us that a certain amount of money had been paid into the Public

Service Pension Fund, and that if we were to take the interest from that money,

we could then pay them a 6 per cent, or whatever, increase in the pensions for

public service pensioners, Mr. Speaker. That was the gist of their financial

proposal.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary,

then. I wasn't sure if the Premier understood, that is the reason why I asked

the Premier the question. We recently met with the group, as well, and their

specific request is that the increase reflect the year 1990. They are prepared

to accept the freeze for 1991, as we understand it. Now, these public service

pensioners receive an average pension of about $8000. That is the average.

According to the Auditor General's statement, many of them receive pretty low

pensions, and surely, the minister would acknowledge that the value of their

pension incomes over the last two-and-a-half years, or whatever it has been, has

decreased at least in excess of 15 per cent since 1989, plus the increases in

the cost of living. I ask the Premier, or the minister, whoever is going to

answer the question, are they prepared to reconsider this request by the

Pensioner's Association and give them an opportunity, perhaps, to deal with the

cost of living rather than let them continue to slip into poverty?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know the President of

Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance are in the process of starting

discussions with the public sector unions to think in terms of providing a

future fund for pension increases. We are talking about how to provide for

indexing. Unfortunately, all the past years, former governments of all political

stripes, particularly the most recent one, that you would expect to be most

enlightened, has failed to do this and created a situation where there was no

provision for funding indexing or increase in pension that was necessary. We are

looking at trying to manage the finances of this Province in such a way that we

will not get to the point that former Premier Peckford talked about in February

1988 when he said, if we do not start managing our financial affairs properly,

in another few years it will be 1934 all over again. Now, we don't want that to

happen, so we want to manage things properly. Now, this is what is in process,

Mr. Speaker, and we intend to continue along those lines.

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to have the

Premier trying to lecture me. I was part of an administration that changed the

public service pension funding by initiating a fund where pensioners' money went

into a separate fund. He was part of an administration that did exactly the

opposite and put the money in the general revenue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: So, instead of playing politics with it, why

doesn't he answer the question? I asked him, if he would reconsider their

request or consider their request. They met with him and were told, seven months

ago, that they would be kept up-to-date, and they haven't heard a word since.

They simply want an answer. Are you going to give them the 5 per cent increase

that they asked for, which could be taken out of the investment earnings alone,

less than $3 million? Are you or are you not? That is what they are waiting for,

and they haven't heard anything back.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman - and I guess

it explains the mess that they left the Province in - does not understand the

functioning of a pension fund. The investment income is an integral part of the

fund that ensures that money is there to pay pensions, to pay basic pensions. If

you remove the investment income, you destroy the pension plan.

What has to be done, and something that the hon. gentlemen

opposite refused to even look at or did not even understand, is there has to be

a separate indexing proposal, indexing scheme, set up and properly funded,

before pension plans can be indexed. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to destroy

this Province the way these hon. gentlemen opposite started to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the question is, whether the

Government is going to show some compassion for their pensioners. The question

is, will they or will they not address their request, and it

has not been answered yet.

Let me ask him this: Can he confirm, then, that the Public

Service Pension Plan, which is the plan represented by this particular group of

pensioners about whom I am asking the questions, had a surplus of over $45

million last year, 1990? - that is according to the Auditor General's statement,

a surplus of $45 million in that particular fund. They are asking for an

increase that would total about $3 million, not from the taxpayers but from that

investment income. Why doesn't the Government say that it is going to show some

compassion and understanding for their plight, or at least give them an answer,

yes or no?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite

either does not understand or does not want to understand. The answer has been

given: we are in the process of developing a proper indexing proposal. That is

the solution to the problem. It is now being done. It is now being done, Mr.

Speaker. I repeat it again so that the hon. gentleman understands that process

is started.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with regards to the surplus in the pension

fund, again it indicates the lack of financial knowledge of Members opposite

that they exhibited when they were in power. There is no surplus in the pension

fund. As a matter of fact, if we continue to go the way we are going, in a

prudent manner, by the year 2014, I believe it is, there will be, even at that

point, only 50 per cent funding in that pension plan. So we have a mechanism in

place that will ensure that the pension plans continue to grow, and will

continue to provide sound, reasonable, sensible pensions for the pensioners in

this Province. We are not going to allow it to go bankrupt the way the Members

opposite were willing to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Look.

The Auditor General's report is the report that said there was a surplus of over

$45 million in 1990 in the Public Service Pension Plan; $24 million of that

surplus was from investment earnings. The Auditor General's report said that,

not me.

But the question is this, and I ask it for the last time

because the President of Treasury Board seems to be intent on playing politics

with it. Why won't he give this pensioner's group a direct answer to the request

they made to him, the Premier and the Minister of Finance months ago? Are you

going to give them a 5 per cent to 6 per cent increase for the year 1990? They

are not talking about indexing. They welcome that as we all do. That is not the

question. Will you give them an increase represented for the year 1990 because

of their loss? That is the question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not know

the meaning of the word "surplus" to start with. He does not understand it.

There may have been - I could check the figures - a certain amount less money

paid out last year than was put into the fund, certainly. The object is to build

the fund and to put money in to pay pensions in the future, to ensure that these

people have a source of money to give them pensions in the future. That is the

object. If in fact we do not do that, then that is what causes the pension plan

to deteriorate and go bankrupt. So there is no surplus in the fund.

The communications with the public service pensioners will

continue. They know that we are in the process of considering certain options in

terms of indexing with the teachers of the Province. That condition is written

into the collective agreement. Only two nights ago I had a meeting with a group

of public service pensioners in Gander to explain the whole situation to them -

representatives from all over central Newfoundland, the Member might be

interested to know, including some from Grand Falls.

So the communication is there, will continue to be there. We

will continue to ensure that the pension plan will be able to provide pensions

to our workers. We will continue to ensure that. We will continue to ensure that

the pension plan is solid and is on a sound footing, contrary to the way it was

treated in the last seventeen years.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries. This week at the Fishermens' Union

convention there was talk again of an income support program for fishermen. I

would like to refer the minister to the campaign policy manual of the Liberal

Party from 1989 where it said: a Liberal government will work to develop an

assistance program to relieve the hardship suffered by those who work full time

in the inshore fishery but experience poor seasons and substantial reduction of

income, or sometimes even the total loss of income.

I want to ask the minister: is the Province giving serious

consideration to an income support program for fishermen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being pursued now

with the Federal Government by Dr. Doug House, who is the Chairman of the

Economic Recovery Team. He is having meetings now with the Federal Government. I

have had discussions with the Federal Minister concerning the need for such a

program. We have offered to take

part in studying the need for it. I expect

there will be some announcement made soon by the minister exactly as to what he

intends to do. I know at the union meeting this week he made reference to it,

and also to the fact that he had invited Mr. Cashin, I believe, either to chair

the meeting or to be a member of it. But I can only tell him the Province is

very interested and it will be very much involved in the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am wondering if the minister can tell the House whether or

not he has held detailed discussions with the Fishermens' Union to seek their

input. It is obvious that Mr. Crosbie has talked to them. I am wondering if the

minister, himself, has had discussions with the Fishermens' Union to get their

feelings and input. Does he in some way see this as being sort of a three-party

program with the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, and the union

participating financially and otherwise?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had discussions

with the Fishermens' Union. In fact, the Advisory Council to the Minister, of

which the Fishermens' Union is a part, have discussed the matter. As for exactly

how it will be structured, I am not able to say at this point in time.

I understand Mr. Crosbie has had a study commissioned with

instructions to report back to him by, I believe, April 1 of next year. So, I

guess we will have to wait and see, Mr. Speaker, just what progress we can make

by that time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, a short

question to the minister.

Will the Provincial Government be participating financially

in an income support program for fishermen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not a decision

I can make here this morning, and I cannot make any statement on that here this

morning, until the whole thing has been studied and some kind of a proposal put

together. Then we will have to see just to what extent the Province will be

participating.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the Minister

of Health is aware, medical research is a very big and rapidly expanding

industry all over Canada now. The total expenditures on medical research have

increased from $825 million in 1987 to approximately $1,170,000,000 in 1990.

Research funding by the pharmaceutical companies more than doubled over the same

period, from $138 million up to $236 million.

Could the minister tell us - and I know it is a technical

question and he may not immediately have the answer - but could he tell us what

the value of medical research is at Memorial University in the Province, and how

would that be funded?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact amount

of the total research for the whole university, but it is in the vicinity of $28

million. The part of that which is specifically related to the medical school, I

do not have that at hand, but I will be quite pleased to get it for the hon.

member.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, has Memorial University made

representations or proposals to Government for assistance to take advantage of

opportunities in that field? I am referring in particular to funding to

establish a toxicology center here in St. John's, so that pharmaceutical

companies can do their product testing right here. We do not have a toxicology

center right now in Eastern Canada, and I am given to understand that Memorial

University - as a matter of fact, we met with them - is very enthused and they

consider it to be very important, so that they can take advantage of the

opportunities that come from that field. So, have they made representation to

the minister in that regard?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about

the university, I have to explain to him that there are two schools there. There

is the general university and the medical school. The medical school in this

Province is indeed funded through the Department of Health, which is unlike

other provinces of the nation.

With regard to the toxicology center, there have been very

preliminary discussions, but whether or not there was a formal presentation

made, we will not know that until we go through the budgetary process when all

the various institutions and hospital boards and schools and what not submit

their budgets to Government for ratification or whatever. So, I cannot say

whether or not there has been an absolute formal request received at this time.

Judging by the preliminary discussions I have had, I will not be surprised if

during the budgetary process this request will indeed come up.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate if

Government has a plan to attract more medical research dollars to the Province,

and is Government offering any incentives in this regard to have that toxicology

center established and to get that center here in Newfoundland, because it is

very, very important to Memorial?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,

governments in democracies tend to operate at arm's length from universities

and universities operate at arms length from governments, and

that is a good way for it to be. So the university is master of its own ship.

They go and get the research money. They get it wherever they can. This Province

helps them as much as we can. They bring in millions of dollars from federal

agencies, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few days ago I read the Royal Commission which was

done by British Columbia into their health costs out there, and one of the

recommendations they made is that the Government of BC would encourage

telemedicine, which is the kind of research which - and they referred to

Newfoundland as an example of where they could learn some things on that.

Memorial University can take second place to no one in this country in their

research, Mr. Speaker, and I commend them for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: But as for the actual funding of that, as I

pointed out earlier, this Province assists wherever we can, but we have to

maintain it at arms length from the university. We could not dare get into

telling them what to research, or we might end up saying look, go and research a

way to defeat the Tories in the next election, and that is not what we want the

university doing.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Government House Leader, who is

responsible for guiding Bill 50 through the House, in the absence of the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I want to ask the minister: Will

the citizens of Wedgewood Park and the citizens of the Goulds have to pay the

St. John's mil rate for property and business taxes when those communities

become part of the city on January 1, 1992, and how much extra will this cost

the taxpayers of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ordinarily the setting of mil rates is the responsibility of

the town or, in this case, city council. However, Mr. Speaker, I will look into

the matter and see what discussions have been held with regard to that, and get

back to the hon. gentleman.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the communities in the Northeast Avalon, which now have

volunteer fire brigades, be forced to pay for the St. John's Regional Fire

Department? How much will that service cost the citizens of Torbay, Flatrock,

Pouch Cove, Bauline, Paradise, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, and Outer Cove? Can the

minister tell the hon. House this?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, these are detailed questions and

obviously there is an answer somewhere. I do not have amounts at my fingertips,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINDSOR: You should not be bringing legislation

before the House if you do not know. That is your whole problem - you do not

know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, please-

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible). He finds it funny.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is speaking. I ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl

to restrain himself. I understand that the Member for St. John's East Extern is

presently asking the questions. The hon. the President of Treasury Board was

answering.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was about to say, I will certainly look into that matter

and see if I can dig out any detail that the hon. gentleman wants.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister proceed

with Bill 50 when obviously he does not know the cost of amalgamation to the

people involved in the Northeast Avalon? How can he proceed with the bill, and

why isn't the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs here to answer those

questions? Mr. Speaker, is it a fact of life that he does not know either? He is

in Bristol's Hope. I suppose he is not trying to form some kind of an

amalgamation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bristol.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. gentleman to get to his question.

MR. PARSONS: He is not trying to form some kind of an

amalgamation over there with the Northeast Avalon is he?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. gentleman's

desire to make a point here; however, I should point out to him that a bill that

is going through this House, and will go through this House, deals with a matter

in principle, and all the details are then worked out. At no point in time would

it be reasonable to assume, that because a bill that is going through the House,

that any individual in Government would have to have detailed knowledge as to

the effect down to the cent of that bill, ten years in the future, especially

when the control in terms of mil rates and costs and so on are in the hands of

the municipal authority who can raise, lower and make whatever decisions they

want. They have their own particular authority outside the confines of this

House, Mr. Speaker, because we are providing a situation and that situation will

then be controlled by the municipal authorities, so we cannot prejudge what a

municipal authority may do next year or the year after or the year after. Mr.

Speaker, it is simply unreasonable to expect it.

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Speaker, anyone who attended the fishermen's

union convention or talked to the fishermen there would know of the sense of

hopelessness the fishermen have about (inaudible) particularly, and I want to

ask the minister about a particular question that he may be able to help

fishermen out with next season, and that is lobster fishermen.

Can the minister advise the House how many lobster pots the

Government has had prepared and built under make-work programs? I understand it

is some 20,000 lobster pots and can he tell the House whether he is prepared to

make these available to fishermen for the next season, particularly those

fishermen who have lost their lobster pots last season and are not going to be

able to re-enter the fishery without some assistance from this Government?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the House exactly

how many lobster pots are out there. I know we do have lobster pot banks, in

fact these were started back some years ago, and these pots are available to

fishermen for a very nominal charge and I expect that this year, the same policy

will be practised. In the meantime, I am quite willing to get the information

for Monday and let him know just how many lobster pots we have out there.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised the

minister is not aware of his situation there and particularly not aware of the

price at which he is prepared to make them available. I am told, Mr. Speaker,

that he is prepared to sell them for seven dollars a pot and that the fishermen

tell me that they cannot afford to buy them for that. Now, is he prepared to do

something to make this equipment available to fishermen at a more reasonable

price, not a seven dollar price, or make them available free so they can get

back into the fishery? Is he prepared to do that or is he going to let them rot

and have to be thrown away to the dump like a large number were in the past? Is

he prepared to do something to make these pots available to fishermen next

spring?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, these pots are banked in various

parts of the Province, so I should explain to the House that I do not have the

time to go around every second day or so and count these pots. I take it for

granted there are still some out there but if it will make the hon. member any

happier, I will have a count made and report back to the House. With respect to

the cost, I believe the cost is something like seven dollars per pot and I have

not had too many complaints, Mr. Speaker, from fishermen who have had to buy

those at that price. It seems to me that that is a reasonable price and one that

most fishermen are quite willing to pay.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious

that the minister has a degree of levity about this that the fishermen do not

share. Mr. Speaker, I am told by fishermen that without making these pots

available perhaps for free, because they still have to put buoys and ballast and

ropes to these pots, they will not be able to re-enter the lobster fishery next

spring -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and please get to the

question.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister say that in addition to

counting the pots, which he promised to do, that he will tell the House next

week that he is prepared to make these pots available in a special program for

lobster fishermen for next spring?

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

MR. CARTER: It seems to me that is the identical question

that he asked before but I can only repeat that I will let the House know how

many pots are in the lobster pot banks and I can only tell him that the price

has been established and I can only repeat that most fishermen to whom we have

talked are quite willing to pay that amount for the pots.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. We all know

for some time now that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

been relieved of his duties as minister while awaiting the outcome of some

private matters. While the minister is relieved of his ministerial duties, or

while he is not looking after that department anymore, is the Province still

paying for an executive assistant for the Minister, and if so, why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister has not been relieved of his

duties pending the outcome of some private matters. Let me tell the House what

it is so that the hon. members opposite will not be in a position of

misrepresenting the reality. A complaint had been filed with the police and I

was advised that the police were conducting an investigation. The minister and I

both agreed that it would be inappropriate for him to carry out the duties as

minister while the investigation was being completed. Now, I do not know where

the investigation stands at the moment but there has been a long enough time

that perhaps I should check and enquire as to why it is not completed. So, Mr.

Speaker, just to correct that misrepresentation.

Now, with respect to the other matter: the minister's status

as a minister has not changed in any respect, except he is not performing those

duties of office because of this investigation by the police. All other things

remain the same.

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

supplementary.

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

A minister who is not performing ministerial duties is quite

a big change in my mind, Mr. Speaker. We notice that he did not answer the

question. The minister who is not performing ministerial duties and getting paid

$104,000 a year to do nothing while he has an executive assistant to do his

district work, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that in this era of

restraint. I asked the Premier if the minister still had an executive assistant,

and if so, why? Besides that I have another question for the Premier. Is the

Province still paying a salary to Deborah Coyne, a former constitutional advisor

to the Premier, and if so, why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me correct the hon. member again with

respect to the minister. It is very simple and straightforward. I understand

their difficulty in understanding principle. I know they have great difficulty

with understanding principle. I know they have that difficulty and with that

understanding expressed, Mr. Speaker, let me say again: somebody made an

allegation and under our system of justice everybody is presumed to be innocent

until they are proven guilty. That is the principle we operate under. I know

they do not like that principle when it is not for their benefits. I know they

have difficulty understanding principle, but for that reason we took the steps

of making sure that the minister would not be in a position that could in any

manner affect the investigation. All else remains the same except he is not in a

position to in any manner affect the investigation and it is carried on totally

independently and objectively. When the report comes in a decision will be made

and whatever is appropriate will be followed. The Member for St. John's East

understands that principle. He understands and clearly approves of that

principle, but the members opposite, I know, have difficulty.

The second question that was asked concerned Deborah Coyne

being paid. Deborah Coyne was paid up to the day she left and has not been paid

since.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the routine business of the House I want

to remind hon. members about a couple of regulations and principles governing

Question Period. The Question Period is primarily a period when the Opposition

is seeking information, and bringing out the Government's accountability. It is

not to be a forum for debate, and hon. members on both sides ought to remember

that, and that is why we have some firm guidelines, I should say, affecting

questions and affecting answers as well.

This morning there were a couple of points that the Chair

ought to remind hon. members about, and I quote from Beauchesne page 121,

section 409, which were rules and guidelines established in

Section 409,

subsection 8 says: "A question that has previously been answered ought not to be

asked again." Then again

section 410 following along the same line in rulings

made in 1986,

section 410, subsection 9 says: "Questions should not repeat

questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the

same point are our of order."

Along that line, I would also like to remind hon. members

about their supplementary questions. As hon. members know, in the first question

the Chair grants a degree of flexibility in terms of the

preamble, but I notice

hon. members are invariably getting into

preambles on the supplementary. One

could tolerate that to an extent, but what happens is hon. members get into

debating the answer and then proceed with another

preamble, and that makes it

very difficult for the Chair at times because sometimes a member has a unique

way of asking a question, and the question comes out of the

preamble.

So I want to remind hon. members of those rules. Please,

under no circumstance should a member debate the answer, and in the

supplementary question proceed immediately to the supplementary question. These

rules were designed for very specific purposes, to keep debate out of the

Question Period, and to make were that the purposes for which Question Period

were designed are executed properly, maintaining the proper decorum of the

House.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked

questions about the representations that were made, and when representations

were made with respect to joint management and fishing matters. I am now tabling

a list showing some fifty-nine, starting back on May 26, 1989 and ending on

November 21, dealing with joint management and foreign overfishing. There is a

list of letters, exchanges of letters and meetings with the Prime Minister, the

various ministers of fisheries, and the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries, the

Prime Minister and myself.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to ask

leave to introduce a bill entitle, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control

Act." (Bill No. 57).

On motion, Bill No. 57 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14, the continuation of the adjourned

debate on Bill No. 50. I do not know if there was an hon. member doing that or

whether we are into a new speaker.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I adjourned the debate yesterday, I think it was at 4:50, and

I believe I have twenty minutes left. I do not know if someone could inform me

really.

MR. SIMMS: Two minutes.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is two minutes now. I conclude my

remarks about the six month hoist motion that was put forward by the Member for

Burin - Placentia West calling upon the Government to put on hold this Bill 50,

an act to amalgamate certain municipal services in relation to the Northeast

Avalon to delay that for six months, to give the municipalities and the people

involved an opportunity to get answers to some of the questions that they have

been trying to get answers to. Again we saw this morning in Question Period

where the Member for St. John's East Extern asked the Government House Leader

and President of Treasury Board what it was going to cost the people in

Wedgewood Park and the Goulds once the amalgamation plan is complete, what

impact this amalgamation plan will have on the tax payers of those two

particular towns. Of course, once again today the Government House Leader could

not give him an answer. That is the whole problem that we have, Mr. Speaker,

with this piece of legislation. There are too many unanswered questions. We do

not know what the cost is going to be to the taxpayers. We do not know what the

effect on services is going to be. Some of these municipalities that are being

amalgamated need their infrastructure upgraded. No one knows the capital cost of

upgrading.

There are just too many unanswered questions on this

particular piece of legislation; therefore, we are calling upon the Government

to delay implementation for six months to allow the opportunity for further

consultation amongst the various communities, the community councils and town

councils, so that when we come back in the fall, all the questions would be

answered and everyone would have a greater understanding.

So, that is the purpose for our asking for the six-month

hoist, and I am very pleased to support my colleague from Burin - Placentia West

in his request. In conclusion, I ask the Government House Leader and members

opposite to be considerate, to give serious consideration to delaying this bill

for six months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

have a few words on this bill. I fail to understand the Premier's rationale

behind the whole thing. On one hand, he is saying that Corner Brook, Mount

Moriah and Massey Drive do not have to be amalgamated if they don't want to. On

the other hand, he is not giving the same opportunity to the people of the

Northeast Avalon.

I think that is unfair, very undemocratic, and that this bill

definitely should be given the six-month hoist. I feel that my hon. colleague,

the Minister of Social Services, really believes this bill should be given the

six-month hoist. I believe the people of the Northeast Avalon should,

themselves, be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to be

one supercity.

My hon. colleague from St. John's East Extern asked a

question today in this Legislature, and the question was very important, but

unfortunately, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is over in Bristol, England,

looking for John Cabot.

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

The Chair calls members to order, please. There is an hon.

member speaking. The Chair, again, reminds hon. members about the ruling I have

made about members turning their backs to the House. I want hon. members to

realize that the Chair is going to be very firm about this. I could have

somebody, a Page, perhaps, demonstrate what I mean by turning one's back to the

House - I have said, on occasion, 'to the Chair', and that is not exactly

correct. The Chair is not going to be calling members to order for half-turns

and quarter-turns and that kind of thing, but, when the member's back is clearly

to the Table and he is directly facing the wall behind him, then that cannot be

tolerated. I remind hon. members about that for a final time.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I was saying, before we were brought to order, that the

Government House Leader tried to answer the questions my hon. colleague asked

this morning. Unfortunately, the hon. House Leader did not know the answers,

although he is bringing into this Legislature a bill that is going to cost the

taxpayers in the Goulds, Wedgewood Park and other places in the Northeast Avalon

as high as $300 or $400 more a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps more than that.

MR. WARREN: At least $300 or $400 more a year, and, Mr.

Speaker, that is unfair.

The Premier asked the other day, in the debate, 'Why should

people in Wedgewood Park pay less than someone down on Elizabeth Avenue?' Mr.

Speaker, Wedgewood Park is a town, St. John's is a city, the Goulds is a town,

and they determine the mil rate. All of a sudden, because of this bill, we are

now going to see a dramatic increase in the mil rate for all the people in this

super St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, quite often during lunch period, I avail of the

facilities at the Aquarena. And, day after day for the last number of months,

the patrons using the facility are really concerned about the future of the

Aquarena. They are concerned, not so much that the fee is going to increase

substantially, which will happen, but the concern that a lot of the patrons are

expressing to me is whether the Aquarena will continue to operate. You must

realize, Mr. Speaker, that only a few days ago, a member of the St. John's City

Council expressed concern as to whether the City could afford to have this

facility operating to its full potential.

That facility, Mr. Speaker, belongs to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it should not be given to the City of St. John's.

It doesn't belong to the City of St. John's. The Premier says the people of St.

John's use it. People all over Newfoundland and Labrador use it. Every day there

are bus loads of school children or other people coming in from all over

Newfoundland to use the facility. It is a provincial facility and, therefore, it

is up to all the taxpayers of the Province to absorb that cost, not just the

people of the Northeast Avalon, which is going to happen in this case.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fire hall - this was brought

to my attention, I think just the day before yesterday, and it is most

interesting. Mount Pearl has a new fire hall, and a few days ago, I am told, a

fire alarm sounded at the O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl, and right across

the street, available within one minute, was the Mount Pearl fire hall with new

trucks and everybody ready to move, but they couldn't go across the street to

answer that fire alarm. The fire trucks had to come in from Brookfield Road and

the school was only across the street from the new fire hall. If that had been a

major fire, Mr. Speaker, no one knows what the consequences would have been, and

there was a fire truck right across the street from where the alarm sounded.

That, again, is unfair.

Mr. Speaker, we have said publicly, and I will repeat it

again, we on this side are not against amalgamation. What we are against is the

process this Government is following. That's what is wrong. Unfortunately, it is

decided by one person and one person only. And the main reason why the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not now in the Legislature is that the

Premier does not want him to be here because he feels uncomfortable and hopes

that this bill -

MR. PARSONS: He is in Bristol hoping to amalgamate that

with the Northeast Avalon.

MR. WARREN: Now, you got the answer from my hon.

colleague for St. John's East Extern. He is in Bristol, hoping.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is wrong. The question was

asked by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, Why not give the people the

opportunity in a referendum or a plebiscite to decide whether they want it? I am

surprised that my hon. colleague for Mount Scio - Bell Island hasn't got up and

said a few words on this particular bill because, in his own district, and the

member knows what I am talking about, the member knows he will be defeated in

the next election because of this bill.

MR. WALSH: Heber Walters (inaudible) last campaign

manager,

if I remember -

MR. WARREN: I definitely think Heber Walters will have

some effect on getting you defeated, yes.

MR. WALSH: This time, the old school tax man, Myrle

Vokey, will work for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get nasty over there now.

MR. WARREN: You can see, Mr. Speaker, as soon as I

mentioned Mount Scio - Bell Island, I struck a cord. I must say to my hon.

colleague that this bill will be the cause of his defeat in the next election.

The Mayor of Paradise is not too pleased about this piece of

legislation, and neither, of course, is the Mayor of St. Phillips. Mr. Speaker,

I understand the member had that great petition with 3000 or 4000 names signed

to it. All those people are against this particular piece of legislation, and

they are voters in the next election.

In conclusion, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should

definitely have a six-month hoist on this bill, let it go back to the drawing

board, and give the people on the Northeast Avalon an opportunity to decide

whether or not this is going to be good for them.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the

amendment. Essentially, the amendment, of course, is the traditional amendment

of a six-month hoist.

The reason for the amendment being put is to try to persuade

the Government to rethink this whole process, to give it the time that it needs,

in our opinion at least, to provide information to people, to communities, to

town councils, city councils, to individuals, to people, who do not have the

answers, Mr. Speaker. That is simply what we are debating here today and have

been debating for the last couple of days. It is an amendment for a six-month

hoist.

Now, the reason for moving that amendment is because there

are many unanswered questions. We are dealing, not only with financial

unanswered questions, but there are many other unanswered questions. There is

the whole question of democracy; the whole question of the legalities - whether

what has been undertaken was legal in the true sense of the word; the whole

question of compensation, particularly compensation to the larger municipalities

which will be taking on additional loads; the whole question of a sudden tax

load being applied to the smaller municipalities that will be swallowed up in

the amalgamation process; the whole question of down-loading the increasing cost

on to the municipal governments from the Provincial Government - not for the

sake of greater efficiency, but to make the Province's bottom line better.

There is the whole question of the regional services board,

or the regional services board's approach, which this Government, a year or so

ago, November of 1990, rammed through the House of Assembly using the

little-used, or normally little-used, process of closure, where they cut off

debate because they wanted to get the legislation in place to allow the creation

of municipal services boards. There is the whole question of costs associated

with the whole process, before and after, for that matter. There are some

dangers that need to be considered, and the whole question of fairness and

balance, and on and on it goes.

The reason for the amendment to delay the debate on this

particular bill is, therefore, fairly obvious. Anybody who listened to some of

the points that I just made, some of the unanswered questions, would have to ask

themselves, going through it, well, what are the answers, particularly the

answers to the fiscal questions?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I posed questions in the Legislature to the

Premier, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs over the last number of days and weeks. One of the questions

I remember asking very specifically was: Who is now going to pay the $1.2

million that the Provincial Government budgeted for fire services? That was

after all the municipalities receiving fire services paid their share. The

Provincial Government still paid $1.2 million.

I asked the Premier the question, Who now is going to pay

that $1.2 million? I asked, Was it going to be the City of St. John's? The

Premier got up and said, 'Well, except for our share, it will be the City of St.

John's. But at the same time, unbeknownst to the Premier, the Minister was

sitting behind and shaking his head 'no.' Which was a perfect example of the

confusion that exists, I would submit, and I would argue.

The other question I asked was the question of the Aquarena.

Unlike my friend from Torngat Mountains I am not necessarily opposed to giving

the Aquarena to the City of St. John's to operate. I do not necessarily disagree

with that approach. But I wonder, and the City of St. John's wonders, who is

going to pay the cost? Now, in this Legislature, we were told there would be

very little cost. Yet, outside the Legislature, in news interviews and the like,

we see the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and the City Manager of St. John's, Mr.

Power, saying, indeed, there will be a deficit, there will be funds required to

take over the operation of the Aquarena.

Anybody with a degree of sense at all would know that this

year, for example, I think the Province's budget was somewhere in the area of

$900,000. Nearly $1 million, I believe it is, this year's budget for the

Aquarena. That could be for all kinds of reasons, I do not know, but annually

the cost to the Province was somewhere in the area of $400,000 to $600,000

unless there was a specific reason. One year I remember that the roof had to be

replaced, and that was several hundred thousand dollars.

Who is going to pay the $400,000 or the $200,000 or whatever

it is? Let us face it - there is going to be a cost associated with it - unless,

of course, they close it down and the city only runs it for a few weeks of the

year, or they do cuts like that. But if it were to be operated on a regular,

ongoing basis, it is going to cost the City of St. John's hundreds of thousands

of dollars to operate that facility. So the question was: Who is going to pay

that additional cost? The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stands in

the House and says: There will be no additional cost. Now that is what he said.

It is in Hansard. But anybody with a grain of sense would know that is not

accurate. So the whole question, Mr. Speaker, of who is going to compensate the

larger or the more developed municipalities in this whole amalgamation process,

for providing the services to their new residents, is a question that is still

outstanding in the minds of people on this side of the Legislature, in the minds

of some people on that side of the Legislature, in the minds of the general

public, in the minds of residents of the new community, and certainly in the

minds of the elected municipal representatives of all the communities affected.

It was only last weekend that the Mayor of Paradise, Dianne

Whalen I think, publicly said that their fear was that it was going to cost them

thousands of dollars additional costs for fire services. We heard the Mayor of

the Goulds. In the Goulds, for example, and it is a good question, where you

have a volunteer fire department, if their mil rate were to increase from what

it is now - I think it is 6 mils or something - Bob, what is the mil rate in the

Goulds? Six?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Six and one-half.

MR. SIMMS: Six and one-half mils. Let us say it is going

to increase to eleven, which is the city's mil rate. That is almost doubling the

tax burden of individual residents who live in the Goulds, and that is only now

under the existing-

MR. R. AYLWARD: Plus there is an assessment (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And that is without an assessment which will

take place, and then it will go up every year anyway. These are all questions I

submit to the Government House Leader. People do not have the answers. The

Government has not been providing the answers. Today we asked the Government

House Leader, my friend from St. John's East Extern, and the minister got up and

dillydallied, and skated around, and talked all around it, and never answered

the question directly because, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know the

answer. The Premier does not know the answer. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs does not know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. That, Mr.

Speaker, is our whole argument, and the whole basis for asking the Government to

take its time, wait for six months or whatever, and do the right thing. Have

some studies. Do the feasibility studies required under the legislation, and let

us get some answers to the questions. That is all that we are asking. That is

all the people are asking.

But to get back to the Goulds, just as a further argument. So

their tax rate is going to jump from 6.5 to 11 mils. Let us take that as given,

it will be sometime. Hopefully it will not be done right away, but-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, we do not know. We do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but they may decide to phase it in or

something. Who knows? There are too many unanswered questions. That is the whole

point of the argument. But in the case of the Goulds, where you have a volunteer

fire department, do you think the Goulds residents, who are now going to pay 11

mils instead of 6.5 mils, almost double taxation, are going to be content then

with having a volunteer fire service when the rest of the City of St. John's has

a paid fire service? Not likely. They are going to want the same services. So

there is more cost - more cost - to providing fire services to that

municipality, for example, in the Goulds.

Mr. Speaker, again it is just another example of unanswered

questions, particularly unanswered financial questions, which the Government has

not been forthcoming in answering and that is why members on this side are

fighting the legislation, because we think we are doing it on behalf of the

people. The people in these communities who have not been given the information

and the people in these communities who have not been given the proper

opportunities for consultation. They have not been given the proper opportunity

for consultation. Members opposite, when they participate in the debate flick

out the argument that - oh, there have been studies done over the years and

everything. But this particular proposal has not met the requirements of the

law, in our view and in the view of others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question of legality is one that has

arisen. In fact, at the beginning of the debate on this particular piece of

legislation we immediately - I think it was the Opposition House Leader or the

Member for Mount Pearl, I am not quite sure; I cannot recall now - but we

immediately moved that this bill be put on hold because of the fact that the

City of Mount Pearl was challenging the legislation in the courts and that of

course, Your Honour ruled against whatever the motion was we put. So there are a

whole bunch of legal questions in the minds of a lot of municipalities and you

cannot just dismiss those kinds of concerns, when the City of Mount Pearl

pursues a legal case, I mean they are not doing it for fun and enjoyment.

Surely they believe in their cause; surely they believe their

argument is valid and surely they have the right to pursue that kind of an

approach if they wish. They have the right. You do not get up in a public forum

somewhere and attack the City of Mount Pearl for overriding or, what was the

word he used, I just forget the word, he considered anyway their approach to be

a slap in the face to the Legislature.

MR. MATTHEWS: Theatrics.

MR. SIMMS: What was it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Histrionic theatrics.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but he considered it to be a slap in the

face to the Legislature because the City of Mount Pearl would dare challenge a

piece of legislation in the courts. Now, this is the same Premier, by the way,

who came into this Legislature and overturned a decision that had been made in

the Legislature itself a couple years before that. I am referring to Meech Lake.

So that is pure hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that will wash in the

eyes of the public but time will tell. All we can do is remind people of it and

bring the case forward in the Legislature.

The Member for Mount Pearl is going to fight this legislation

personally, I can assure you, and the members on this side of the House will

fight - as we have. I think we have been debating the bill now, this is the

second week, so there is certainly no intent on our part to slack off. If the

Government wants this piece of legislation, my suspicion is they are going to

have to revert to their favourite practice and they know what that is. They know

what that is.

And, Mr. Speaker, other questions that have developed

throughout the debate and that are in the minds of people, that have not been

answered yet, is the question of the Regional Services Boards approach. Now I

sat on the House of Assembly Committee, my colleague from Kilbride and I were

members of the committee which travelled around the Province and heard

presentations, had a presentation from the City of St. John's, I remember the

former mayor, Mr. Murphy. Had a presentation from the City of Mount Pearl, I

remember Mayor Hodder being there. And had presentations from a number of

municipalities on the Northeast Avalon. None of them, to my recollection,

opposed the approach of regional services. None of them to my recollection

opposed the approach of regional services -

AN HON. MEMBER: They almost all supported you.

MR. SIMMS: In fact I think they all did support me -

AN HON. MEMBER: Anybody who addressed it supported it.

MR. SIMMS: - yes, I believe they did. Now they had

questions, how it would work and how best to implement it and all the rest of

it, which is fair ball and that is acceptable, and when we came to the House,

Mr. Speaker, to debate the Regional Services Board legislation, and we were

asking questions of the Government in the House about that legislation, and once

again we could not get the answers and by golly, the Government decided it was

going to have the legislation anyway. In fact, the minister said, after

introducing closure, in fact he said when he opened the debate on the bill on

November 1st, 1990, talking about the regional services legislation: 'We have

situations where these boards are imminently necessary. In fact, we would have

like to have them created long ago.'

MR. MATTHEWS: Who said that?

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that on

November 1st, 1990, and then we debated that legislation. We asked question

after question after question and could not get answers, in the same way as this

debate is going. We cannot get answers. Then they brought in closure on December

3rd, rammed through the Regional Services Boards legislation, which, if it was

in effect now, might have been able to resolve some of the disputes that are

going on, might very well have been the answer if they had used it, and if they

had a sense of compromise over there at all on that side of the legislature,

understood how to govern, understood that governing means finding compromises.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was given Royal Assent on December 7th, 1990.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a question in people's minds. Why

did you ram through that legislation? Why did members on that side of the House,

I dare say stand, because it was probably a standing vote, why did they support

ramming through Regional Services Boards legislation back in December of 1990

when it has not been used since? What was the purpose?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Pleasantville can.

MR. SIMMS: Can anybody over there tell us? Can the Member

for Pleasantville explain to us?

MR. MATTHEWS: He can. He is smiling. He knows the answer.

MR. SIMMS: Now I am not sure if he does know the answer

because nobody else knows the answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: He knows, but he will not say.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They figured they would not have to do

this one, that is why they did it.

MR. SIMMS: Again, if someone was honest over there and

could get up and tell the people the answers to all the questions that I am

posing here today, I mean who knows what might come out of it.

MR. MATTHEWS: What about (inaudible) over there, does he

know?

MR. SIMMS: I doubt it.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I doubt it. Now the latest furore over this

whole issue is coming from the City of St. John's, lo and behold. The City of

St. John's, who implied day after day after day were totally happy with

everything that was happening, and we know the difference of that, Mr. Speaker.

We know the difference of that because my colleagues and I - many of us - have

talked to representatives of the council, and have talked to representatives on

the city staff, and we know that they are not happy with the process, we know

they are not happy with what is about to happen on January 1st because they do

not know what it is going to mean to them. They do not know what the costs are

going to be. They do not know if there are going to be any funds provided to the

city to help in this transition period. There is not even going to be a

transition period as far as we can understand. So the one ally that the

Government used to tell us they had day after day after day in this House when

we debated this question, the City of St. John's, are just as upset for their

own reasons as every other municipality in the region seem to be. So with all of

the confusion, with this mess, with what is happening with the issue falling

down around the Government's ears, they get up in this House day after day and

continue to defend the indefensible. I do not know why they are so stubborn. I

do not know why the backbenchers over there do not get up and ask some questions

in caucus. Why can't this process wait for six months? Why can't it wait?

MR. MATTHEWS: They are muzzled.

MR. SIMMS: Why must it be rammed down the throats of the

people now who do not know the answers? That is a pretty simple fundamental

question, and a fair question for the people to ask. Now unfortunately, we ask

the questions as elected representatives of the people in the House, we try to

get the answers, and unfortunately we are having the same problem that the

people are having, we cannot get the answers either.

Now one of the best examples I saw - I have to come back to

it - was the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader today,

trying to answer the question put by the Member for St. John's East Extern.

First of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it was a very good question, an extremely

good question, and a simple question. A pretty simple, straightforward and

fundamental question. As a matter of fact the Premier leaned over to the

Minister and told him how to answer it, you may recall. The Premier leaned over

and said: oh, that's detail, that's detail. Winston, that's detail, that's

detail. Right? So, you can always say: well, when the minister comes back, it's

detail, we will take the question as notice. But what did the minister do? He

got up and walked right into the trap. Never answered the question directly at

all, and talked about everything under the sun expect what we wanted him to talk

about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, it was a lousy answer. As a

matter of fact it was not an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the best answers I have heard

(Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well now, that does not - now, Mr. Speaker,

let me assure you. I am not at all surprised that it is one of the best answers

the Minister of Health has ever heard. I am not at all surprised to hear that.

The only answer the Minister of Health hears these days - and is going to hear

in the near future if the new Minister of Justice is successful in getting in

the House - is: move over, Chris. That is what is coming, and I daresay he knows

it.

Anyway, I am not going to be sidetracked by rabbits, as Mr.

Roberts will say. I am sure he will say when he comes back into the House: when

you are hunting elephants I am not going to be sidetracked by rabbits. Then he

will say: if the Member wants to engage in a battle of wits I am afraid he comes

half-prepared, half-armed. All of those old sayings. We will be hearing them

again now when Mr. Roberts - well, I am not so sure, by the way, Mr. Roberts is

going to get in the House. That is another question. It depends on where he

runs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, it depends. Oh, and the Member for

Bellevue now, I would say, the Member for Bellevue is a well-know -

AN HON. MEMBER: He must be going to step down

(Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: He's going to (Inaudible), going to step

down!

MR. SIMMS: That is another rumour. The Member for

Bellevue is aware of that rumour, is he?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard he had been told to step down

(Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Has the Member for Bellevue applied for

the presidency of the Avalon Community College yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Hear what the Minister of Education said?

He is not getting it! That is what he said. Look! He is not getting it, he said.

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot blame the Minister.

I must say, this is one time I agree with the Minister of Education, one time I

agree with him wholeheartedly. If ever he sees an application come across his

desk from the Member for Bellevue for the presidency of the Avalon Community

College, give it the thumbs down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now the Minister of Education is already

getting one pension from one facility, aren't you? You don't need another one

now, just relax.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be sidetracked, as I said,

because this is an important issue and a very serious matter for the thousands

of people who live on the Northeast Avalon. But it goes broader than that. Let's

not forget that Bill 50 does some other things as well, aside from dealing with

just the Northeast Avalon. The way I read it - perhaps I am wrong, and somebody

over there will tell me I am sure if I am in the end.

MR. MATTHEWS: You're never wrong.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I am not like the

Premier. I would never say that.

MR. MATTHEWS: You're never wrong.

MR. SIMMS: But near the end of the bill on page 23 it

talks about in

Section 10 (3): "In addition to establishing and altering the

boundaries of the cities and towns under subsection (2)" - that is, those on the

Northeast Avalon - "the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" - the Cabinet - "may, in

the order referred to in that subsection, (

a) amalgamate a town with a town or

city and annex areas to a city or town; (

b) establish an area as a town; and (

c) disestablish a town, and the boundaries of those cities and towns shall be

delimited in the order."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? I have not heard the

minister tell us what it means. I have not heard anybody on that side explain in

the debate what it means, although I do not know if anybody has spoken over

there. Has there been anybody else beside the minister?

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Members for Pleasantville and

Carbonear.

MR. SIMMS: The Member for Pleasantville. But the fear is

that the Cabinet will now have the authority to amalgamate a town, to

disestablish a town, to change boundaries, do it all, by Cabinet order - with no

requirement for feasibility studies, public hearings, or anything else. Now,

that is the way I would read that section, and if it just applies to the

Northeast Avalon, for example, which I do not think it does, the point then is,

how long before it becomes the rule of thumb anyway, that the Cabinet can now do

all of this without having to have public hearings, conduct feasibility studies

and the like? If that is what that

section means then I tell you we are heading

- I talked in the past about heading back to the politics of the 60s, this would

be going back to the politics earlier than the 60s, if that is what it means.

The minister looks a bit dazzled over there. I do not know if

he can tell me exactly what it means. I suspect he is not certain. I understood

I had an hour in the debate. Do I not, Mr. Speaker? Yes, I have an hour in any

debate, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. That is an unusual notice.

I did not say I was going to use an hour. The minister does not need to get

excited about this, but I do want to go back and revisit this point I was trying

to make. I noticed the minister looking over at me, nodding and shaking, nodding

and shaking, but I do not know if he can answer the question for me. What is

more I do not know if members opposite have looked at that last

section of this

bill.

MR. REID: I did.

MR. SIMMS: The Member for Carbonear did? Now, does the

Member for Carbonear interpret it the same way as I just explained it?

What does he think it means? In fact I would sit down because

I would like to hear his

interpretation of it. He is the former president, I

believe, of the federation. Was he president? Could the former president of the

federation explain it to me, since the minister is not here, because I would

really like to hear an explanation of it before I carry on with the last half of

the debate. I would really like to know what that

section means. It is

Section

10, Subsection (3), Page 23, the last page of the bill. It talks about: in

addition to establishing and altering the boundaries of the cities and towns

under subsection (2), which is the Northeast Avalon area, the

Lieutenant-Governor, that is the Cabinet, may in the order referred to in that

subsection, that is the order that is used, amalgamate a town, annex areas to a

city or town, establish an area as a town, and disestablish a town, and the

boundaries of those cities and towns shall be delimited in the order.

Now, I read it as saying that the Cabinet has the power and

authority to do it and that there is no requirement for feasibility studies, no

requirement for any public hearings, and that sort of thing, which is certainly

a slap in the face to democracy once again if that is what it means. I am simply

asking. That is certainly my understanding of it from reading it.

MR. REID: My

interpretation of it would be that after

(inaudible) the necessity of (inaudible) would be heard and that would again

give Cabinet the - to make the decision based on recommendations.

MR. SIMMS: But that does not say that. I understand what

the Member for Carbonear is trying to say.

MR. FUREY: If you amalgamate.

MR. SIMMS: Now, the Minister of Development will try it.

If you amalgamate. Where does it say that?

MR. FUREY: It says in addition to establishing and

altering the boundaries -.

MR. SIMMS: In addition.

MR. FUREY: Because you are amalgamating a new town. In

order to do that you have to create the new town, and in order to create the new

town you have to disestablish the old town.

MR. SIMMS: But that is not what it says.

MR. FUREY: Read it. That is what it says.

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. Let me read it

again to the minister. 'In addition to establishing and altering the boundaries

of the cities and towns under subsection (2).

AN HON. MEMBER: Limited to subsection (2) in other words.

MR. SIMMS: No, in addition to the boundaries of the

cities and towns under subsection (2) the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may,

etc., etc. Anyway, we will not get into that argument now because it is a

technical point.

MR. FUREY: Read on because it is important.

MR. SIMMS: I did read on.

MR. FUREY: In the order referred to in that subsection.

That is the subsection we are talking about.

MR. SIMMS: That is just the order that is used in

subsection (2). The Lieutenant-Governor may in the order referred to in that

subsection, still amalgamate a town, establish a town, or disestablish a town. I

am raising the

MR. FUREY: That subsection meaning subsection (2).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Chuck (Inaudible) -

MR. FUREY: Well, that is what it says, (Inaudible) read

it!

MR. SIMMS: No. Look, I say to the Minister of

Development, it does not say that, it simply says -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) "In addition to establishing and

altering the boundaries of the cities and towns-"

MR. SIMMS: Cabinet may!

MR. FUREY: "- under subsection (2)".

MR. SIMMS: Yes, in addition to those.

MR. FUREY: In addition, under subsection (2).

MR. SIMMS: And what is in subsection (2)!

MR. FUREY: Read it. "For the purposes of" -

MR. SIMMS: Well, you tell me!

MR. FUREY: Well, want me to read it to you?

MR. SIMMS: No, do you know?

MR. FUREY: Of course I do.

MR. SIMMS: Well, what's in subsection (2)?

MR. FUREY: Let me read it to you. "For the purpose" -

MR. SIMMS: It's the municipalities on the Northeast

Avalon.

MR. MATTHEWS: That's right.

MR. FUREY: Correct!

MR. SIMMS: Yes! But in addition to the ones outlined in

subsection (2) Cabinet may....

MR. MATTHEWS: May do whatever they want!

MR. SIMMS: I mean, the Minister needs to read the Bill

and so do Members over there. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, now that I have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: No, you're very confused, my friend. You're

very (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, maybe it is confusing. That is exactly

my point. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Development. Because he

has now made the point. He said: this is very confusing.

MR. FUREY: No, I said: You're very confused, my friend.

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, maybe I am.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) you are, you do not see anybody

else confused.

MR. SIMMS: Most of the people over there haven't even

seen it, Mr. Speaker!

MR. FUREY: Your Leader is confused, and that's saying

something.

MR. SIMMS: All the Ministers have not even seen it over

there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Your House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: You have to think to get confused.

MR. FUREY: Brilliant, brilliant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) logic (Inaudible)!

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

I was tolerating a bit of exchange because it looked like the

Leader of the Opposition was responding accordingly, but the Chair has to remind

hon. Members that we can only permit that with the consent of the Member

speaking.

It is an appropriate time also to address the matter where

the Leader of the Opposition mentioned about his time. I do not think there was

any dispute, but the Chair just wants to read it. It is our Standing Order 49

(2), which says: "The Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a

government order and a member replying thereto immediately after such Minister,

a member moving a motion of non-confidence and the Minister replying thereto,

shall not speak for more than sixty minutes at a time in any debate." What that

does of course in simple language is simply tell who and under what

circumstances Members may speak for sixty minutes. So clearly the Leader of the

Opposition has sixty minutes.

The real reason why I stood was to point out to Members that

the decorum in debate - I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition was

getting a little fidgety (Inaudible) he wanted to continue with his speech

uninterrupted.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that protection.

No, I did not mind it too much. In fact I asked for

interpretation from Members

on that side because I was interested in hearing what their

interpretation was.

More importantly, I was interested in trying to find out if they actually knew.

I am convinced now more than ever that they do not, with any degree of

certainty, understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sure, the Minister - I have no problem, sure.

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

MR. SIMMS: Now, make sure it is the same as what Art

said. You heard what he said.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it says, I do not know if the

hon. Member is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The

section that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition is referring to is 10 (3), which states that: "In addition to

establishing and altering the boundaries of the cities and towns under

subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" - he is quite correct in

saying the Cabinet - "may, in the order referred to in that subsection...." What

subsection? Subsection (2). Therefore there is a limitation on what the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do.

Now what the hon. Member is saying, he is playing on the

words "In addition." "In addition" is where he hangs his argument. As though in

addition to subsection (2) the Cabinet can go out and do anything. That is not

what it says. Clearly the language is restrictive. It says: "In addition to

establishing and altering the boundaries of the cities and towns under

subsection (2)..." - what cities and towns? The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The

City Of St. John's Act, The St. John's (Metropolitan Area) Act, The

Municipalities Act, regulations under the Act.

Now: "In addition to establishing and altering the boundaries

of the cities and towns under subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

may, in the order referred to in that subsection..." - which subsection?

Subsection 2. So the hon. Member is playing games - he is playing semantic

games, is all he is playing. There is nothing outrageous in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: - nothing that is going to cause any great

(Inaudible) to go out.

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

The hon. Member has indicated that he is satisfied.

MR. SIMMS: No, no, Mr. Speaker, no no. As a matter of

fact I am far from satisfied. If anything the Minister of Development now has

opened up a more explosive issue than we previously were asking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Because, Mr. Speaker, if you read as he did

subsection (2), it talks about The Municipalities Act. The Municipalities Act

covers - what? The City of St. John's, the Town of the Goulds? No, The

Municipalities Act covers the entire Province.

That is precisely my point. I thank the Minister of

Development for just emphasizing the point I was trying to make. Because he has

now confirmed that the Cabinet will have the power and the authority to

amalgamate a town with a town or a city, annex areas to a town or a city,

establish new towns, disestablish towns, without having to go through any kind

of feasibility process. Without having to have any kind of public hearings. The

Minister of Development just proved it! Because it talks about The

Municipalities Act which covers the entire Province.

Now if that is an accurate

interpretation - that is my

interpretation. My

interpretation is that it could apply Province-wide. Because

it covers The Municipalities Act in subsection (2), and that deals with the

whole Province, not just the Northeast Avalon. If that gives the Government the

power, the Cabinet the power in fact - as you can see from the debate going on

over there it is a valid question that I put, because they are not certain

themselves. That is precisely - I am almost willing to rest my case, because it

just points to the confusion that exists on this matter.

Now we will hear more about this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: There is no town of Grand Falls. It is Grand

Falls - Windsor. You just amalgamated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. Now, does Grand Falls have

to be disestablished in order to create (Inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: So, Mr. Speaker, aside from all of the other

issues that I have raised in my brief few moments in this debate, aside from all

of the other concerns that the people out there have who are involved in the

Northeast Avalon amalgamation process - who is paying the cost; why are you

taking away the democratic rights of a municipality or the City of Mount Pearl

from having its own fire department when they are allowed to have it under their

own law, when every other municipality in the Province, in the country, is

allowed to have a fire department - aside from the democracy, legality, cost,

downloading and the regional services boards questions, aside from all of those

outstanding questions which nobody over there has yet been able to provide

answers to, is this overriding question, this major issue in my mind.

Now I might be wrong, and if I am wrong I will eat crow, I

have no problem with it. But if I am right, if this applies to everywhere in

this Province, then I am afraid I can give the Minister notice right now, he

will have to use closure, and closure, and closure, in order to get this bill

through this Legislature. Because we will not as a Party agree to give this

Cabinet that kind of power.

MR. MATTHEWS: It eliminates The Municipalities Act.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly!

MR. MATTHEWS: Cancels out The Municipalities Act.

MR. SIMMS: It gives the Cabinet the authority to do what

it wants without having any hearings, feasibility studies. Now that is the

point. Now if it is wrong, we will see. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we

will get a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister's voice carries

fairly heavily. Perhaps the Minister could go out. Maybe the Minister and the

Member for Mount Pearl will have a little chat behind us, sure, if they like, no

problem. But I cannot make my point if the Minister is over there shouting.

Perhaps we have already got a legal opinion that gives us

reason to cast that kind of

interpretation on this act. Maybe we already have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you can get a legal opinion

to say anything.

MR. SIMMS: Well, ah-hah! Now that's good, I hope that is

in Hansard. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations just said - and I

hope it is in Hansard - in case they did not pick it up let me repeat it: You

can get a legal opinion to say anything. Now that is what he said. So, we will

see now if that is going to be able to be used in any future debates.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this legislation. I made

most of the points that I want to make in justifying the reason for the six

month hoist. There are members opposite who, if they were honest with

themselves, would have to agree that there are an awful lot of unanswered

questions. All we are saying is, take the time; do the studies; give the people

the answers that they want to have; and, in fact, in the end perhaps they might

do the honourable thing - after doing all of the studies that could be done and

should be done in the next few months - after doing all of that and providing

the information and answers to the Town of Paradise and to the Town of Goulds,

and to the Town of Wedgewood Park, and Outer Cove and all of these places, the

City of St. John's, Mount Pearl - after they have done that - perhaps the

Government might even be interested and prepared to conduct a plebiscite, or a

referendum, depending on your description of - referendum and plebiscite these

days is being debated in the House of Commons as a matter of fact. But perhaps a

referendum or a plebiscite could be conducted on the Northeast Avalon, and let

us see what the people think in the end. That is probably the best, most

democratic, way to see this thing end, or dealt with.

How much time do I have left, Elizabeth?

Miss Murphy: Twenty minutes.

MR. SIMMS: Twenty minutes. Well, Mr. Speaker, just to

show that I do not intend to abuse my rights, and the speaking time that I am

allowed, I have made my points on this issue, which is really the amendment -

the six month hoist. I say to the Government House Leader that we have concluded

- the Government House Leader might want to hear what I am trying to say. I am

saying to the Government House Leader that I do not intend to abuse my rights

and privileges and use the full sixty minutes. It is not necessary. I have made

the few points I wanted to make on the amendment, which is the six month hoist,

but I still have not spoken on the main resolution, and I intend to address that

as well, in another way. But I think we have concluded on this side, in terms of

speaking. Everybody has spoken to it, as a matter of fact, so unless you have

speakers on that side, it is probably time to put forward the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question on the

amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment, which is basically the

six month hoist, please say 'aye'. Those against the amendment, please say

'nay'.

I declare the amendment defeated.

Back to the main motion, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke to the amendment and now, Mr. Speaker, I intend to

speak to the main motion.

While my hon. colleague was speaking this morning, some

interjections came over about my questioning the House Leader this morning and I

said about Bristol's Hope. I want to clarify that first of all, before I get

into this debate.

It was a bit of a tongue twister there, Mr. Speaker, from an

interjection. What I meant to say really was that the Minister was in Bristol,

in hopes of amalgamating Bristol with the Northeast Avalon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In hopes. Now, Mr. Speaker, that might seem

far fetched, but this Government and this minister recommended on one occasion

last year that three of the islands in Green Bay district would be amalgamated.

So the distance, I think, is irrelevant when you would have to go from one

island to the other by boat, or by helicopter, or by plane or whatever, so

perhaps that is what the minister is doing. I think definitely that the minister

was perhaps sent there by the Premier at this particular time. Remember, the

celebrations are not to begin until 1997, which left plenty of time for the hon.

minister to go.

MR. FUREY: Why didn't you go over and get some

Confederation?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of

Development is talking about Confederation. It has nothing to do with

Confederation - I suppose, that is not right either, it is relevant. Because

when we joined Confederation we looked to justice, to democracy, and said Canada

was so democratic, so full of justice that you hardly could lose. It took some

time for me to digest that, I mean, I didn't until after we were really into

Confederation. But here we are, a part of this wonderful country, and now, Mr.

Speaker, we look at what is happening in this Legislature.

I have to be truthful in saying that last year, when we did

the resolution relating to the Northeast Avalon, I said, well, we all talked as

much as we could about it, we tried to get the Government members to go along

with us and, with the exception of one hon. member, the Member for

Pleasantville, all the members on the other side voted against us, but, Mr.

Speaker, I was prepared at that time to abide by the decision of the House,

which is the way the thing works. That is the democracy, the democratic

aspirations of the people who are here to make the rules, to make the

regulations, the laws which govern this Legislature and the Province.

But the Premier, in his speech in Corner Brook, has set up a

whole new ball game. The people on the Northeast Avalon didn't have a chance to

vote. The only chance the people on the Northeast Avalon had to object to what

was happening, was by petition, and they objected; 99 per cent of Wedgewood Park

objected, 90-odd per cent of Mount Pearl objected, I am sure, 80 per cent to 90

per cent of the Goulds, I don't know but that 100 per cent objected -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was 87 per cent.

MR. PARSONS: - 87 per cent. There was no other

alternative for those people. But now, the Premier goes to Corner Brook, because

this is where he hopes he will be re-elected in the next general election, and

because of his own aspirations, he decides to allow the people of the West Coast

to have a plebiscite to see if Mount Moriah wants to become part of Corner

Brook. Mr. Speaker, that is discrimination.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible). You don't know (inaudible) about

the East End.

MR. PARSONS: I remind the hon. the Minister of Services

that I know as much about the East End, and will defend the East End, far more

than he has defended Placentia, when he sat idly by and watched all the

facilities that were put there by the former Government fall by the wayside. So,

Mr. Speaker, the next time around, I have to say, as good friends as we are - we

have been friends over the years - I will be saying good-bye to him as a member

of this hon. House. Because, I say to the hon. the Member for Placentia, after

what he let this Government do, by cutting out and destroying every bit of

infrastructure they had out there in the area of health and in other areas, I

will be saying good-bye to the Member for Placentia.

But let us go back to what we are talking about here. The

Premier says that he will allow the people of Mount Moriah, themselves, to

choose if they want to amalgamate. So, because the Premier has changed the

ground rules, all we are asking of hon. members is the same treatment, that is

all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! There is nothing unreasonable

about that.

MR. PARSONS: What is unreasonable about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. PARSONS: Would someone on the opposite side of the

House get up and tell me what's wrong with it? All we are asking is for

Wedgewood Park, the Goulds, Evergreen Village, St. Phillips, all those areas to

be given that right. The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island would have

to agree. I mean, that is nothing great to ask. Give them that right.

I told the hon. member the other day that the petition he

should have presented in the House, that was not presented, showed that the

people of St. Phillips don't want to be amalgamated, don't want any part of it,

so why not give them the right, that is all. Give the people the right in

Portugal Cove, give people the right in Evergreen Village and Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: They agreed with it.

MR. PARSONS: No, they did not agree with it. The member

is misleading the House, Mr. Speaker. He is misleading the House when he says

that those people agree with it. Those people adamantly disagreed with it. By

way of every petition that came before the House they disagreed with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What petition?

MR. PARSONS: What petition? One of those that you failed

to let this House have one look at. Because even then, we wanted to present the

petition, and the hon. member refused to allow us to present the petition. Now,

those are the people on whose behalf I am speaking this morning.

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville was up speaking the

other day, and he made some good points. I am sure, that hon. member would say

the same as I am saying this morning, verbatim, all we want is to be treated

fairly. All that the people on the Northeast Avalon want is the same privileges,

the same treatment as the people in Corner Brook and Mount Moriah. That is all.

I mean, it is nothing great. Just let it bide, let it stay there for six months,

and give the people time to digest it; tell the people what the advantages are,

which they don't know today. They don't know the advantages or the disadvantages

of being amalgamated.

So many times, people look at me with a grin and say, Now,

you know very well that Wedgewood Park had to become part of St. John's. On this

side of the street one fellow was paying 6.5 mils, and on the other side of the

street the other fellow was paying 11 mils. Where is the fairness?

Mr. Speaker, it is so far-fetched, it is not even reasonable.

Sure, it is an -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That could be said, yes. But, Mr. Speaker,

let's look at it this way, the services in Wedgewood Park were the same services

that were being delivered by the City of St. John's. They had no problem with

paying extra money for fire fighting, no problem with paying extra money for any

other services that came from the City of St. John's. They never beefed. They

did not have one beef about paying for the services. But the services they could

perform for themselves on a daily basis, could be performed much more cheaply

than by the larger centre of St. John's.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker: only last week, we saw

that the City of St. John's, at times, spends money, where perhaps there could

be savings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I am talking specifically of snow

clearing. I read an item in the paper by the Deputy Mayor. On October 7, they

had a very small 'scad' of snow, I suppose we would call it for want of better

terminology, and the people then went on standby. Now, that was October 7. We

are running two months now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The hon. minister can 'tut-tut' all he

likes, but 'tut-tuts' are not going to save money, and the point remains that

this was all created because of monetary problems within the City. But I say

from reading this that the City has mammoth problems with its own

administration. Are the people of Wedgewood Park and the people of the Goulds

going to be brought into the same situation as we are here, since October 7,

without one bit of snow falling, with the cost to the citizens of St. John's an

astronomical amount. People are on standby with loads of salt out by their doors

since October 7, and the trucks are still there with the same loads of salt. The

only thing that worries me about it is the poor people of St. John's, especially

on Barter's Hill and those places, if they ever want to take that salt out - I

do not know if they have ever taken it out and perhaps shaken it around a bit so

it will spread easily, but I know that the salt has been in the trucks since

October 7. I mean, that is an added cost to the people of St. John's.

Now, the other thing about this amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, is

that we have heard over and over and over that amalgamation had to take place

because the City of St. John's was supplying services and they were the only

people who were being stamped upon, were being -what is the right word for it? -

being deprived of their rights because of the surrounding areas getting services

much cheaper than the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that worries me - I represent a part

of St. John's, and I have both a rural and an urban area, and I represent part

of the north end of St. John's - is, when all the dust dies down, January 1, and

people start to realize what the costs are going to be for the people of the

city of St. John's. We have an aging city, Mr. Speaker, where a great number of

the younger people have moved out to the suburbs, the rural areas. Those people,

or a great number of them, who are on fixed incomes, are paying now to the

maximum amount that they are capable of paying. I am sure the Minister of Mines

and Energy will agree with me, that it would be almost a sin to tax many

residents in the downtown area of St. John's any further than what they are

being taxed now. Their capabilities are such that they just cannot or could not

pay an additional cost.

Mr. Speaker, when all this comes about - we realize the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries is a resident of Wedgewood Park, and we realize that

the hon. the House Leader this morning could not tell me, could not even come

close, could not even make a guess, as to what it is going to cost the people,

but the tax rate of the hon. the Minister of Fisheries is going to go from 6.5

per cent, presumably, to 11 per cent. Now, in that sense, the City of St. John's

will gain from amalgamating Wedgewood Park. But let us go to the south and talk

about the Goulds where, at the present moment, this present year, they have a

budget of about $1 million.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I will get to the Member for Carbonear in a

few minutes. The budget in the Goulds is about $1 million. So let us go to

extremes and say that with amalgamation, the City of St. John's will take in an

extra $1 million, but $1 million will not even come close to the costs incurred

by amalgamating the Goulds with the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we said before here - I don't think the members

want to listen, I don't think even the members for St. John's want to listen.

What we are saying here is when they take over the Goulds, automatically they

take over the highway to Bay Bulls Long Pond. With our weather conditions, our

seasons as such, Mr. Speaker, the cost alone to the City of St. John's to clear

the snow, to de-ice the surface of the highway, with any bad weather at all,

will be astronomical.

I went in through the Goulds the other day and saw the city

trucks going around with the big tanks, those stainless steel tanks putting

water in wells. Mr. Speaker, the hon. House Leader, who is pretty definite,

usually, when he stands on his feet, he usually has his wits about him, if he

could tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this morning that it is going to

cost the people of Wedgewood Park an extra $400 or an approximate ball park

figure of $400 or $500 extra per annum, or, if the people in the Goulds are

going to have to come up with an extra $500,000, extra taxation or if he could

tell me - and he could not - what are the costs going to be for fire fighting

services in the towns of Outer Cove, Middle Cove and Logy Bay. What are the

costs going to be of that fire fighting service?

The hon. House Leader was pushing through the bill, is

ramming the bill down our throats-

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true at all.

MR. PARSONS: - you will see when it comes twelve o'clock.

Ramming the bill down our throats, trying to do it by exhaustion if nothing

else, to try and get up here and defend what we think is right, that the

Northeast Avalon is not being treated fairly. Now if the minister had been able

to get up this morning and say, yes the cost of fire fighting - let me just go

through the district with you. Outer Cover, Middle Cove and Logy Bay are

serviced by Kent's Pond. Torbay has its own volunteer fire station which

services Flatrock because Flatrock is involved in it. Pouch Cove has its own

volunteer fire department and that services Bauline. Portugal Cover has its own

which runs at times to St. Phillips and that particular area.

Now, under a state of emergency, Kent's Pond will answer a

call in Torbay, but for routine problems like a chimney fire, forest fire or

whatever, Torbay answers themselves. Flatrock pays - I forget what component is

there, but a certain amount is charged to the Town of Flatrock by Torbay, the

same way for Pouch Cove, Bauline and those places. But now, Mr. Speaker, the

question is that I asked the Government House Leader this morning, the head of

Treasury Board, how much is that fire fighting service now, which will be given

to the people on a regional basis from the City of St. John's, going to cost the

people of Outer Cove, Middle Cove and Logy Bay, going to cost the people of

Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Bauline, Portugal Cove, Paradise?

I saw a piece in the paper the other day, where the cost of

fire fighting in Paradise alone is going I think from $25,000 or $30,000 to

perhaps $600,000. Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board did not have a

clue, he did not know one single iota as it presented itself about the financial

aspects of amalgamation. What is amalgamation? I mean you have to look at the

monetary side of it, is it going to cost people? What way is it going to benefit

people?

The minister was sent over to England in the middle of the

debate by the Premier. I suppose he must have thought that he could not answer

the questions anyway, he did not know either, he did not know. The President of

Treasury Board who handles the dollars, whom the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador look at and say he must be a responsible person, he does not know how

much extra fire fighting is going to cost. He does not know how much extra

services are going to cost. What are we getting ourselves into? There has to be

some rationale.

The Member for Carbonear was up the other day, I had the

speaker on, I had a few telephone calls to make but I was listening to him and

he tried his best. He was mayor I think, of the Town of Carbonear and he was

also a member of the Federation of Municipalities. I think he was the chairman

and I heard him the other day saying: you know, it is time, we have little fire

stations all over the place, right through to Conception Bay and all other areas

in Newfoundland and I had to agree with him, that we do have small fire

departments but those small fire departments, and those men, have played a major

role in the safety of that particular are. As far as a small fire department

costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars to install in the first place, that

is peanuts if that small fire department saved one life. It is very hard for a

Province like Newfoundland, where we are so widely spread out over such a vast

area, to have paid fire department. St. John's and Corner Brook are unique

because the people live in congested areas and they have to have people on call

at all hours.

MR. REID: A regionalized serviced fire department could

easily be paid for by the towns without Government putting any money into it.

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps the hon. Member for Carbonear is

right. This is what our philosophy is all about. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon.

member is right but the people were never told that. The hearings were the

biggest bluff. No one knew anything at all about it. We had two people from

Municipal Affairs there and if I wanted to ask something about municipal affairs

I do not know but I would go over to my old colleague, my old friend over there,

the Minister of Social Services and ask him, because I am sure he would be

better equipped to answer my question than some of the staff at Municipal

Affairs. We had two people there from Municipal Affairs and they could not

answer a thing. All they said was that it was in the planning, that they were

taking notes of the questions and were certainly going to have answers, but the

people never did get the answers.

The hon. Member for Carbonear also said that people came in

looking for a few dollars and they could not get it, and there was vast sums of

money being spent in other areas, especially around the Avalon Peninsula. Mr.

Speaker, he might be right. He could possibly be right, but if mistakes were

made by the previous administration, and I am sure they were not infallible,

then why does this Government want to make a drastic mistake at this particular

time? That is all we are asking. Mistakes were made before but my mistakes we

should learn. When talking to one of my colleagues this morning, and we were

talking about the same thing, I said, when I was Mayor of the town of Flatrock

for ten years, I was adamantly anti-regional government. Now, I was not

anti-regional services but that one word disturbed me, regional government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were anti-St. John's.

MR. PARSONS: No, I was not. Indeed I was not. I was

anti-regional government because I felt that would be another tier of

Government. I saw people who had applied to get a septic system in having to go

through two tiers of Government, to bureaucrats who would not listen, and who

did not have time to come down and inspect it. The poor fellow was trying to get

his septic waste flowing but they did not have time to come down and inspect it.

I then looked at the regional government and I said, well, here we go. They

apply to council, now council will have to apply to regional government, then

regional government will go to the minister and the Department of Municipal

Affairs, and what took one month is now going to take three months. I was

teetotally, absolutely against it. Mr. Speaker, I have to be truthful, I then

associated the Regional Services Board with regional government. That was the

only thing wrong with what they tried to bring in at that particular time, I

think it was in the 1980s anyway. The regional government bill should have been

the regional services bill and it would have been passed because no one has any

problem with regional services. The frightening aspect of it is when you put

that word in 'government'.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is regional services going to run by

itself?

MR. PARSONS: No, regional services could be run from the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It could easily be run. What I

was afraid of was the snowballing thing and on many more people like me, that

you were going to start a small government organization, a regional government,

and that was going to snowball, and we were going to have added costs to the

people involved - added cost to the people involved, Mr. Speaker.

I want to state categorically that if I thought today that

amalgamation of those areas with the City of St. John's would, in any way, add

to the prosperity of this particular region, then I would certainly not be

standing here today in my place and doing what I am doing. I really do feel that

the people of St. John's are going to be discriminated against because of what

is an added burden of taxation. I have said here before that the acquisition of

the Aquarena and Canada Games Park will be an added cost to the people of this

city. The additional monies that will be taken in from the amalgamation of

Wedgewood Park will be overrun, overshadowed, by the deficit created by the

addition of the Goulds, and services such as the Aquarena. I feel great

justification in saying this morning that I do not think that the people of St.

John's can afford it. I do not think that the people of St. John's can afford

this extra tax burden.

Up until three or four weeks ago the people of St. John's,

and indeed their elected representatives, thought that this was the best thing

since sliced bread, but they are having afterthoughts now. Now they have really

gotten into the situations that are going to occur, and they can see it as

readily as we can, that this is not such a good deal for the City of St. John's.

I have heard the Premier stand in his place and say there will be no

subsidization. The transfer of powers, which is going to be a costly operation,

there are going to be no monies involved. There are going to be no monies given

to the City of St. John's for the changeover, for the takeover. I say to the

hon. House Leader, the President of Treasury Board, that again that is wrong. It

is going to be a costly operation. There are going to be monies involved, and I

do not think it should be a blanket statement by the Premier saying that there

is going to be no monies allocated to this transition. The transitional period

should - again, see, what we are talking about here, no one knows. The Premier

really does not know. He will not give you a straight answer. The President of

Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, does not know. He will not give you

an answer. He does not know about the monetary side of it at all. He knows that

the bill is before the House, and it is coming into place, and that is it,

because you people on that side certainly have the majority, and you can do

practically what you like, and sometimes not within reason.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to point out on

Page 23 in Bill 50, where it says: In addition to establishing and altering the

boundaries of the cities and towns under subsection (2), and subsection (2) is

the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, and

all other municipalities. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, in the order

referred to in that subsection (2), amalgamate a town with a town or city and

annex areas to a city or town; establish an area as a town; and disestablish a

town.

Mr. Speaker, you do not need to have great foresight in

seeing what could happen and what will happen. Towns will disappear. We do not

need a Municipalities Act now. This act overrules all other jurisdiction that we

had before, with the Municipalities Act.

Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker, by leave?

Mr. Speaker, what I say to the people opposite is, give it

some thought. Give it some thought. All we are asking about -

MR. REID: It does not say the City of Corner Brook Act,

it says the Mount Pearl, St. John's metropolitan area. It does not say Corner

Brook. Don't be misleading.

MR. PARSONS: But the Municipalities Act, I want to remind

the hon. gentleman -

MR. REID: No, no. The City of Corner Brook -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The City of Corner Brook is not under the

Municipalities Act, they have their own act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: St. John's has its own act.

MR. REID: That is right, but it does not mention the City

of Corner Brook.

MR. PARSONS: Well, I suppose with the Premier making a

distinction between Mount Moriah and amalgamating Mount Moriah with Corner

Brook, certainly he could make the distinction between St. John's and Corner

Brook, but they have two separate acts, we all know that, but would there ever

be a distinction drawn?

Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank the hon. gentlemen

for giving me leave to finish up. I say to my hon. colleagues that we are not

asking for anything great. All we are asking for is that the same latitude be

given to the people of the Northeast Avalon as the Premier told the people in

Corner Brook and Mount Moriah he would give them. The chance to vote to see if

the people really want to become part of this amalgamation set-up. That is all

we are asking, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I ask my hon. colleagues this

morning, to please give it some thought. Once this bill is passed, then perhaps

that will finger, Mr. Speaker, some things that might happen in the future with

other municipalities, and I do not think I have to spell it out. Mr. Speaker,

this is something we should give added consideration to, we should give added

thought to, and I hope that members on the government side will vote against

this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is a pleasure once again to rise in debate on the bill

this time - not on the six month hoist - but to speak on the bill itself, Mr.

Speaker, and the big concerns that we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It must have been a panic situation there,

Mr. Speaker, they are moving at fast speeds down to the door. I do not know what

they were expecting. It is the fastest time I have seen them move for a while.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Larry is upset today.

MR. MATTHEWS: Larry is upset. It is the precedent that is

being set here is one other concern that we have here, Mr. Speaker, a precedent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you speaking on the hoist?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am not speaking on the hoist I say to

the Reverend Mr. Black over there. I am not speaking to the hoist. I am speaking

to Bill 50, I tell the hon. minister, my good friend the stress doctor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Bill Hogan.

MR. MATTHEWS: As a matter of fact, when I came in this

morning I thought there must have been a new minister, because there are so many

new ministers in that department in the last while that it makes one wonder who

you are going to see next, but anyway, I am speaking to bill 50 I say to the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you very much, Sir (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You are very welcome. We have a precedent

being established here, and what is really confusing about all this is when the

minister announced his amalgamation process way back when, there were a number

of groupings he had targeted for amalgamation. Once the communities became aware

of the groupings that were established by the minister, then we had different

reactions out and about. In a number of cases where communities were deadly

opposed to the minister's amalga