November

25, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 77

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the House last sat in

the spring, at that session, the Clerk sitting in the Clerk's chair, as

everybody knows, was Miss Bettie Duff. She had been the Clerk since, I believe,

1977 or for some considerable time. In August of this year she retired, and on

behalf of the Government a statement was made at that particular time, but we

have not had an occasion in the House to acknowledge the contribution that Miss

Duff made to the public service of this Province. At the time that she retired,

she had more than forty years of service with the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, having started in 1950 as a secretary, and she became personal

secretary to former Premier Smallwood.

When I was involved in Government in the late sixties, I

remember very well the efficiency and proficiency with which Miss Duff worked as

a secretary to the Premier. She then became an assistant to Mr. Ottenheimer, a

former Minister of Justice who also became Speaker, as one of Your Honour's

predecessors, as Speaker of the House, and served him faithfully as well, and

was subsequently appointed to be Clerk of the House.

As all hon. members will recall, she has served the entire

House, both sides and the middle, quite well, and I believe hon. members have,

in the past, acknowledged her tremendous record of service.

On behalf of the public of this Province, I want to

acknowledge once again, in this Chamber, the tremendous contribution that Miss

Duff made during her career in the public service.

Now that Miss Duff has retired, of course, it has been

necessary to find a replacement, so I am pleased to advise the House that Mr. A.

John Noel, who, of course, is sitting immediately in front of me, Senior

Legislative Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Clerk of the House of

Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of The Internal Economy Commission

Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I can see that the warmth of the response

to the announcement leaves very little more for me to say, except I will add,

for edification of those who do not know Mr. Noel, and for the general public,

Mr. Noel was born in Twillingate, and lived with his family in Bonavista and Bay

Roberts before settling in St. John's. He received an undergraduate honours

degree from Memorial University, a Masters Degree from the School of

International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, and a Bachelor of Laws

Degree from Dalhousie University. He was called to the Newfoundland Bar in 1974,

and has practised in Government ever since that time. He was a solicitor in the

Civil Division, and later in the Office of Legislative Counsel, before being

appointed to the position of Senior Legislative Counsel and Law Clerk of the

House of Assembly in 1979. This position became one of the Assistant Deputy

Minister positions in the Department of Justice in 1983.

Mr. Noel's background has prepared him well to take on the

duties of Clerk of the House of Assembly. His experience at the Deputy Minister

level will be valuable in administering the affairs of the House. But

significantly for members, his duties as Legislative Counsel and Law Clerk will

enable him to make an important contribution to the procedures and processes of

the House.

Consequential on the appointment of Mr. Noel, I am also

pleased to announce that Mr. Calvin L. Lake has been appointed to the position

of Senior Legislative Counsel, in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes

and Subordinate Legislation Act.

Mr. Lake received his early education in Fortune, and went on

to receive Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees from Memorial University. He

received his legal education at the University of New Brunswick, and was called

to the Bar of Newfoundland in 1980. He has served as a solicitor in the Office

of Legislative Counsel since that time.

I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating Mr.

Noel and Mr. Lake on their appointments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated

with the remarks of the Premier, particularly the remarks at the outset, where

he paid tribute to the service given by the former Clerk of the House, Miss

Bettie Duff. I had the privilege, of course, of serving with her during the

period of time that I was Speaker of the House and while she was Clerk, so I

know full well her capabilities and I know what her contribution has been over

the years, not only to the House, but in the years prior, as described by the

Premier.

Since this is really the first occasion that we have had to

publicly say something about Miss Duff's service, I would like to be associated

with those remarks and point out, by the way, that I happened to run into her

just a couple of days ago. She was here in the building. I think that she was

perhaps up to see the Premier, I am not quite sure, or he may have run into her.

Nevertheless, the second part of the statement, and the

statement itself, in fact, is something that we also concur with wholeheartedly.

I also had the privilege of working with the Clerk-elect, or the incoming Clerk.

As a matter of fact, in his statement, the Premier makes the point that he was

appointed to the position of Senior Legislative Counsel and Law Clerk of the

House of Assembly in 1979, and that coincided with yet another significant

happening in the House, that of the election of a new Speaker that year and that

was the Member for Grand Falls. So I had the occasion to work with Mr. Noel as

Law Clerk. I frequently called him and harassed him for information and advice.

He always served the office of the Speaker, I know, well, as he has continued to

do. We wish him well in his new duties and we would like to assure him of our

co-operation on behalf of the Official Opposition, at least, and, I am sure, of

everybody in the House.

Secondly, Calvin Lake is another individual with whom I have

been closely associated from time to time in roles that I have had here in the

House, as House Leader, and so on. He is a very good advisor, and I think it is

an extremely good choice on both counts. As well, I wish Calvin well, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the

House to address these remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take this

opportunity to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in paying

tribute to the former Clerk of the House, Miss Bettie Duff. Although my own

service in this House has been quite short, to date, I have found Miss Duff to

be a very knowledgable and very helpful Clerk of the House, and I was sorry to

see her retire. I made these remarks at the time, and I welcome the opportunity

to make them in the House. She served this House well and faithfully, and was

very helpful to all Members of the House when called upon to do so. I would also

like to congratulate the Government on the appointments announced today. I do

not think that one could find a better appointee for Clerk of the House. Mr.

Noel is an able and fair-minded individual; he is known to me as such in my

dealings with him, and by his reputation. Also, Mr. Calvin Lake is a very

capable individual, who, I am sure, will serve this House well. I look forward

to working with both Mr. Noel and Mr. Lake in their new capacities.

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to inform this hon.

House of changes in the responsibilities of senior officials of my department.

As of November 25, 1991 the branch structure of the

department will be reorganized to provide a clear distinction between program

delivery and program development. In order to achieve greater organizational

clarity, the department will be reorganized in the following branches, each

reporting to an Assistant Deputy Minister.

Client and Community Services. The five regional directors

and the Youth Corrections Division will be included in this branch. This will

streamline service delivery to the regions of the Province. Mr. Noel Browne has

been appointed as Assistant Deputy Minister.

Program Development. This Branch will be responsible for all

program areas. The program function will be one of policy development, research,

coordination and evaluation. The Assistant Deputy Minister position in this

branch is vacant due to the resignation of Mr. Beaton Tulk. Finance and Support

Services: reporting to this branch will be the directors of Finance, Human

Resources, Systems and Internal Audit. Mr. David Roberts has been appointed

Assistant Deputy Minister in this branch.

What I am outlining today is the beginning of a renewal of

this Department. In the months ahead, with the guidance and support of Treasury

Board and the Public Service Commission, it is my intention to streamline and

organize the Department to improve the delivery of our services to the people of

this Province. First, though, it is of the utmost importance and a main priority

of this Department to revive the morale of employees in the Department. This

began some months ago and this past weekend, in cooperation with NAPE, a most

successful and positive conference was held. It is just the beginning of a

consultation process with all employees - and I emphasize all employees - to

achieve the aforementioned goals.

The executive and senior management of the Department are

meeting today in consultation with Treasury Board and Public Service Commission

officials to work out the details to commence implementation of the changes I

have outlined here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the

Minister of Social Services on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Port au

Port, who is the official critic, who will be along a little bit later for an

advanced copy of his statement. The first thing I want to do sincerely is to

commend the Minister for acting promptly to deal with some of the issues and

some of the concerns that have been raised in that report that was prepared for

the National Association of Public Employees by Dr. Graham Lowe of the

University of Alberta.

One of the problems, I would point out to the Minister, that

has been identified in that report - I hope he has read the report - is the need

for greater organizational clarity within that Department. This statement that

the Minister is making today appears to be a beginning or a start being made in

that direction of refining the Departmental structure. But I would say to the

Minister that it must go a little beyond restructuring the Department, as the

Minister says in his statement, into three administrative units. It must also

address the roles and responsibilities of individual employees within the

Department of Social Services. Dr. Lowe's report again points repeatedly to a

lack of clear goals for departmental employees, and because of that morale is

seriously affected.

As an aside, I would say to the Minister as well, if there is

one thing that can affect morale, especially within a department like the

Department of Social Services, it is the appointment of former politicians to

very, very sensitive areas like child welfare and support services. That is a

very, very sensitive area within the Department of Social Services and I can see

appointments being made to other areas but within that particular department,

child services and youth support, that is a very sensitive area and I would

imagine that is one of the reasons why morale has been so affected

whereas the

Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A mistake from day one.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House on

Thursday and again I think on Friday, the Premier said that it was up to the

people of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive to decide whether or not

they wanted amalgamation; the Government is not going to force it upon them. I

think that is what the Premier said; he may begin by correcting me but I am

sure, pretty sure this time that is what he said.

I want to ask the Premier this question: Why then does the

Government have one set of rules for the people of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah

and Massey Drive and another set of rules for the people on the Northeast

Avalon? Why the inconsistency?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is no inconsistency. If

we were not satisfied that the majority of the people in the St. John's capital

city area, Mount Pearl, St. John's, Wedgewood Park, Goulds wanted a single

capital city, we would not have moved in that direction. We were quite satisfied

as to that. Now, if it is marginal or if there is any doubt about it, you can go

through the extra trouble if you want to, of holding a plebiscite; we could have

done that.

In some cases, maybe the Government or the Legislature should

act in any event, but this is not one of them. In the case of Corner Brook,

Mount Moriah and Massey Drive, the Government's position is no different. If the

people of the City of Corner Brook, together with Massey Drive and Mount Moriah,

the majority of them taken together do not want it, the Government will not push

through amalgamation of those three communities.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier continues

to claim that there is no inconsistency, yet the strongest opposition, I think,

to amalgamation has come from communities on the Northeast Avalon. May I ask the

Premier this question then? How does the Premier know that the majority of

people on the Northeast Avalon favour the amalgamation proposed by the minister

who, incidentally is not here, but out of the Province for the next ten days?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is not me who knows it,

the Government is generally satisfied, and I think you can judge these things

reasonably well. There are some things in respect of which you do not need a

count or a plebiscite in order to come to a conclusion. Now, the Town of Massey

Drive and the Town of Mount Moriah have both indicated very clearly what the

majority opinion is in their respective towns. If the City of Corner Brook are

of the view that the majority in Corner Brook also feel that way, then that is a

pretty fair indication -

MR. SIMMS: City council.

PREMIER WELLS: City council. That is a pretty fair

indication of what the situation is. If there is substantial doubt about it and

the city says, 'No, we think that the majority of people would want it,' we may

well have to go to a plebiscite. We may well have to.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for that little bit of new information about the plebiscite. I had not heard him

actually say that before.

Now, on Friday past, as well, the Premier said that the City

of Corner Brook had originally favoured amalgamation, but was now concerned

about it placing an additional financial burden on the city. In fact he said,

and I quote from Hansard, "If it is going to place an additional burden on

Corner Brook, which the Province is not going to compensate them for, they may

well want to think about what their preferences are." In other words, they can

decide.

I want to ask the Premier if he will give the same option,

then, to the City of St. John's? Would he allow that the people of the City of

St. John's may not want amalgamation if it is going to place an additional

burden upon them, for which the Province has already indicated it is not going

to compensation them for? Would he give the same option to the City?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, one of the motivations for

the Government acting was pressures by the city to rationalize the irrational

situation that had been allowed to accumulate over a great number of years that

predated the time when the former members were in office, but was severely

aggravated during the period they were in office. So that that situation had

been created and the city, among others, wanted the thing resolved. We took

action to do that, we think we have done it in the right way, and we will do the

same thing for Corner Brook if that is what the majority of the people in the

area want.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I had to chuckle when the Premier

started talking about the previous administration aggravating the people of the

Province. I wonder who is aggravating the people of the Province these days with

amalgamation plans, certainly not this party.

I want to ask the Premier directly, will the Premier discuss

with the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon - this is their last kick at the

cat with Bill 50, I guess, going through the Legislature now - will he discuss

with them, and agree if that is their wish, to hold a plebiscite on the

Northeast Avalon to determine the will of the people with respect to their

amalgamation plans?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the decision is done. We

did it at the time on the basis that we were satisfied that that reflected the

wishes of the will of the majority of the people, and we are still so satisfied,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the Premier. Over 90 per cent, in fact

99 per cent, of the people of Wedgewood Park signed a petition opposing

amalgamation with the City of St. John's. Will the Government listen to the

people of Wedgewood Park, in my district, as it has listened to the people of

Mount Moriah, in the Premier's district? Will the Premier let the people of

Wedgewood Park decide whether or not they want amalgamation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Wedgewood Park

are being treated no differently than the people of Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah

is in my district, but I went to the district and I met with the people and

explained to them specifically what we were going to do, if that was the wish of

the majority of the people in the whole area. The Government would be grossly

irresponsible to allow a small cluster of people, whether it is in the hon.

member's district or the Premier's district, to hold up the proper management of

municipal manners in the Province, and we will not do it.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Amalgamation will double taxes in Wedgewood Park, costing

home owners an additional $350,000 to $400,000 per annum. The Premier is

apparently concerned about the cost of amalgamation for the citizens of Corner

Brook, Mount Moriah, and Massey Drive. What about the cost to the citizens of

Wedgewood Park? Is Government concerned at all about the people of Wedgewood

Park?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we are not concerned

with the citizens of Wedgewood Park to the exclusion of the citizens of St.

John's who are paying twice the tax rate for the same services. That is

fundamentally unfair, and we are not going to allow that kind of unfair

situation to continue. Now that was the approach that the former government

took, whoever could put political pressure on could squeeze whatever

preferential position they wanted. We committed, Mr. Speaker, to govern this

Province on the basis of fairness and balance, and that is what will be the

order of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Extern on a final supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: The Government, and indeed the Premier,

keeps talking about equality, fairness and balance. If it truly believes in

those principles, if he truly believes in those principles, it will give the

people of Wedgewood Park the same right to choose or reject amalgamation that he

has given the people of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah, and Massey Drive. Will the

Premier let the people of Wedgewood Park decide for themselves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: One of the unfortunate things of having

pre-prepared written questions is that once the question is answered, if you

have it pre-prepared for a supplementary, you have to ask anyway. Now let me

repeat the answer, Mr. Speaker, to the second time that the same question was

asked.

The people of Wedgewood Park are being treated exactly the

same as the people of Mount Moriah, no different, no less. We are not going to

let any one group of people, any small group of people, whether they are in

Mount Moriah or in Wedgewood Park, control the wishes of the majority of the

people in the area. That is precisely what I told the people of Mount Moriah and

Massey Drive in my district and in the district of the Member for Humber East,

and I say exactly the same thing to the people of Wedgewood Park. You cannot

create and allow to continue, or even if the former government created it, we

cannot knowingly allow to continue, a situation where people living in Wedgewood

Park are paying one-half the municipal tax rate and getting exactly the same

services and using the same in the surrounding area. Is that what the Member for

St. John's East, and the members for all the St. John's seats that are now on

this side of the House, is that what they want to continue? Of course they do

not, Mr. Speaker. Fairness and balance will be the order of the day.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

The Minister recently announced that an agreement was signed between Eastern

Harvesters, the Federal and Provincial Governments, and Abitibi-Price so that

they would be able to ship approximately 3100 cords of wood from Goose Bay to

the mill in Stephenville. Would the Minister now be prepared to table a copy of

that agreement in the House?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I ever

announced in the House that an agreement had been signed between the Federal

Government, Eastern Harvesters and the Newfoundland Government with regards to

the subject the hon. member is bring up. I read in my statement in the House

that Abitibi-Price had purchased 3100 cords of wood from Eastern Harvesters and

that the Province intended to support financially the cost of transportation,

but I am not aware that I announced there was any agreement signed between the

three parties he refers to.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Would the minister then table what it is

going to cost the Provincial Government to pay for the transportation sector of

this agreement between Abitibi-Price and the Government, the price per cord?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I am not sure it is necessary to table

anything. I can inform the hon. members that the cost to the Province is roughly

$15.00 per cord. There were 3100 cords and that is roughly $45,000. As a matter

of fact I think the exact cost to the Province is between $45,000 and $46,000

and that was to help subsidize, or our contribution to the cost of

transportation of the wood from Goose Bay to Stephenville.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Previous to this agreement being reached

with the people involved, Abitibi-Price and Eastern Harvesters, did the Minister

have any meetings with Abitibi-Price to determine what, if any, adverse effects

it would have on the loggers on the West Coast of the Province, in the Northern

Peninsula and the Springdale area, what effect this would have on those

particular people, people who are just waiting to quality for UI?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, there has been an effort ongoing

by the Department of Forestry and Agriculture for two full years now to

encourage Abitibi-Price in particular to look at the economics of purchasing

wood in Labrador, and for more reasons than one. The Opposition is aware that

there is, if not a real a perceived wood shortage problem that will effect

Abitibi-Price in particular sometime in the next ten or twelve years. Our ace in

the hole to get us over a certain period of time when there would be a real

shortage was the Labrador wood supply, which is an almost unlimited wood supply

of black spruce, the best pulp wood fibre in the world, Mr. Speaker. As a

Department we encouraged Abitibi-Price to purchase one or two boat loads of wood

and we agreed to help with the cost of transportation. The idea was to determine

once and for all whether or not it was economically feasible to bring wood from

Labrador to Stephenville. Now, Mr. Speaker, I admit the timing appeared to be

bad, the very time that Abitibi-Price was rationalizing their operations in

Stephenville with regard to their loggers and their wood supply, but remember,

Mr. Speaker, and hon. members should know this, we are talking about 3000 cords

of wood. Abitibi-Price uses close to 200,000 of wood, a very minute part of

Abitibi's wood supply in this Province. I will confirm, but I very seriously

doubt that that 3000 cords of wood has had any effect on the amount of wood that

Abitibi-Price is buying or proposing to buy from private operators, or

independent operators anywhere in Newfoundland.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member should ask some of

the loggers over there what kind of an effect it is having on them and he will

soon find out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: But having said that, Mr. Speaker, then

would the Minister now tell the House if there is another agreement or another

chance of another shipment of approximately 3,100 cords of wood to come in soon?

Especially before Christmas. If so, would the Minister take it upon himself to

make sure that it does not, especially at this time of the year? You hit the

nail right on the head when you said timing. It is causing severe hardships to

the people on the west coast of the Province, and especially the White Bay and

Springdale areas.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to timing I did

not necessarily mean the time of the year. I meant timing on the basis of the

rationalization that is going on in the paper industry in Newfoundland today,

relative to their wood supply and problems and everything else.

Also I will tell the hon. Member, that when we first started

to discuss over two years ago, we talked about, with Abitibi-Price, the

possibility of buying two boat loads of wood because I think we were talking in

the terms of 10,000 cords of wood, and a boat will normally take about 5,000

cords.

I can not tell the House with certainty that there will

indeed be another shipment to Stephenville this year. There may not be. I can

confirm that right at this moment I am not sure whether or not Abitibi is

attempting to secure a boat. The problem here is finding a boat that will

deliver this wood. But in the meantime I can not say with certainty that there

will be. I rather think there will not be, because the shipping is getting very

late for out of Goose Bay. But I will find out exactly what the intentions of

Abitibi-Price are (Inaudible) and so advise the House.

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

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

the Premier and concerns amalgamation. I wonder if the Premier could describe to

the House the process that was undertaken to consult with the various

municipalities in and around the St. John's area with respect to the

amalgamation. Is he satisfied that there was adequate consultation, particularly

with respect to the cost and other financial implications for these various

municipalities of amalgamation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as to the details of the

process of consultation I will take the question under advisement and when the

Minister returns, or through his officials, get the information in the meantime.

The second part of the question, am I satisfied that there was a reasonable

level and adequate consultation? I have no reason to believe that there was not

an adequate level of consultation. I assume that there was and I have no reason

to think that there was not an adequate level of consultation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps then the Premier can

advise why municipalities, such as the Town of Paradise, are unable to make up

their budget? The Mayor of St. John's, for example, is saying that they are not

certain yet as to the cost of amalgamation. The Town of Paradise has said over

the weekend that they could be facing possibly ten or more - fifteen or twenty

times - increased cost for fire protection for the Town of Paradise, as a result

of the regional responsibilities being given to the City of St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the Town of Paradise is

going to be facing an increase in cost of ten or fifteen times what it was

before, I can only assume they were being incredibly subsidized by the people of

St. John's, Mount Pearl, and the people of the Province generally, and were not

paying their fair share. So it needs to be corrected, if that is the situation.

But I do not know the detail of it. I will undertake to get the detail when the

Minister returns or get it from his officials and advise the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier would know, or

should know, that certain towns have been serviced by volunteer fire brigades,

and now with the regional fire services are going to be a full time professional

fire fighting service at greater, increased cost. Will the Premier not admit

that this amalgamation process that he has undertaken has been haphazard at

best, that taking and picking and choosing, and not doing a full job of

amalgamation (Inaudible) proper consultation beforehand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is a strong argument to be put, no

doubt, for the fact that there should have been a larger amalgamation as the

hon. Member may be suggesting in his question. However, by reason of the

position taken by Mount Pearl - they wanted some consideration for the fact that

they had been a cohesive community - we were prepared to make a concession, and

we did make a concession to Mount Pearl. But that does not mean that we should

abandon the principles of good municipal management in terms of providing the

basic municipal services. Prior to this time, the Town of Paradise obviously had

the services of a dedicated group of volunteers. Now, they will have the

services available to them on a full-time and regular basis of professional

full-time fire fighters. And I believe they will be better off and will have a

greater level of protection, so I don't think it is unusual or inordinate that

they should pay for that kind of service, the same as other municipalities in

the area pay for the service.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the

Premier. It has come to our attention that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, along with some others including, I think, the acting

Minister of Justice, left the Province Friday past, returning next Monday, we

are told, a ten-day absence. Now, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, of course, is the minister responsible for piloting Bill 50 through

this Legislature, a piece of legislation that will likely pre-occupy this House

for the rest of this week, certainly, maybe longer, who knows. Does the Premier

realize that had occurred and does he agree, or does he not think it is rather

extraordinary?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is insulting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I realize that at some time

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and others were leading a group

to meet with the officials in Bristol, England to promote what we consider to be

a major event, the development of a program to celebrate the 1997

quin-centennial. Now, this is of prime importance and hon. members opposite have

been chasing the Government to get involved in this and do something. Well, it

has been done. It takes time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, one of them was not a minister at

the time the commitment was made, but I do not think that it is ten days or

something; it is the Member for Bonavista, he has that responsibility, as well.

So they are discharging that responsibility.

Now, I have every confidence in the President of the Council,

as the House Leader, to pilot legislation through the House. I will make myself

available to the committee to answer any question in detail that I can answer,

and I am sure other ministers will get any information that members of the House

may want with respect to the matter, but they need not worry about the

Government getting the bill through the House. It would be preferable if the

minister were here, that is true, but the timing of it was unavoidable, I

assume.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. Since the

Government eliminated the Ombudsman's office just about a year ago, there has

not been an independent agency with a mandate or the power to deal with

complaints about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Over the past several

months, the Premier has indicated that he is intending to put in place a Police

Commission; I remind him on March 22 past, he told the House of Assembly, 'We

are looking at it.' He said, 'In the year and a half we have been there we have

not done so, but I think we ought to get on with it.'

I ask the Premier, Why has he not gotten on with it, and why

is there not a bill before this House of Assembly, now, creating a Police

Commission? If legislation is not passed now, as he can appreciate, presumably,

the next chance to put legislation in place is next spring. Are we looking at a

two-year hiatus in the presence in the Province of an independent agency to deal

with complaints about the Constabulary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to find out,

but to the best of my knowledge, the bill is either complete, drafted, getting

ready, it is in the process. As hon. members know, it takes time to co-ordinate

and get legislation prepared and in the final stages. It is in the process of

preparation, but I will undertake to find out exactly at what stage it is, Mr.

Speaker, and advise the House.

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

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

which really should go to the Minister of Justice. He is downtown doing legal

work for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and we understand the acting

minister is over in Bristol. 'The Evening Telegram' seems to think that the

Member for Humber West is still the minister. Would somebody over there answer a

question about the St. John's Penitentiary? Would a representative of the

Government confirm that over the past few days, correctional officers at the St.

John's Penitentiary discovered ammunition in the possession of inmates? Would a

Government representative explain how that happened, and what measures are being

taken to improve security policies and procedures to prevent this type of

occurrence?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the

Minister of Justice or the acting Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister

advised me, this morning, of these events that occurred over the weekend,

advised me of the general nature of them, and that a full police investigation

is ongoing, and I am confident the matter is being properly handled.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Minister of Fisheries.

On Friday, in response to a question in this House on

part-time fishery the minister said, and I quote: "we are going to have to take

a hard look at what is happening in the fishery in terms of part-time fishermen.

We have as many registered part-time fishermen as we have full-time fishermen,

so there is going to have to be some arrangement whereby that number will be

decreased."

Is the minister now aware that the proposal put forth by the

Federal Government does not call for a decrease in the number of part-time

fishermen, it calls for the total elimination of part-time fishermen - not a

decrease, with the exception of new entrants into the fishery - that the

proposal will eliminate completely the classification know as part-time

fisherman?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I also told the

member that that matter has been addressed by officials in my department, and by

the Fishing Industry Advisory Council, and that would be the subject of

considerable discussion, I guess, when the White Paper is introduced in the

House, which I am hoping will be in a few weeks.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Is the minister also aware, then, that in

parts of this Province, fishermen hold lobster licenses, but are classed as

part-time fishermen. Since they will not now be eligible for any kind of

licensing, would this proposed regulation eliminate entirely these people from

the fishery?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what he is talking

about, quite frankly. I know that considerable discussion is taking place. I

know that the union has had considerable discussion with my department and with

the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they are now putting

together - in fact they have put together a proposal that we have looked at, and

that will be outlined in our White Paper.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: The Minister of Fisheries should know that

every fisherman in this Province has been given notification of the change in

regulations effective January 1993.

Let me ask him this: Does the minister know that the proposal

will eliminate completely part-time fishermen, except for personal use? Does he

know how many people in this Province qualify for UIC by increasing the number

of weeks of employment through engaging in the fishery? Does he also know the

number of people who supplement their weekly earnings with their income from

part-time fishing; has he any indication of the numbers?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, of course, I know there are

a lot of people who supplement their income by way of a part-time fishing

license, but I should remind the hon. gentleman that the matter of licensing is

the prerogative of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are

working with that department and with the union to ensure that any changes,

brought about in the licensing policy will have as little effect as possible on

those who depend on the fishery even for part of their income.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

realize there is not that much time left, so I will try to squeeze a couple of

questions into one. Last week we asked some questions about the awarding of

contracts for hospital clinics and the $6.3 million thrown away by the

Government to a friend of the Liberal party, Tom Hickman.

Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning on the radio of another

contract that was given to the same person, the person who probably contributed

to the 50,000 salary the premier used to get. By Hydro, it also again was not

the lowest tender. Because of these very serious things that have come to light

in the past couple of weeks, would the Premier ask the Public Accounts Committee

to do an investigation into the awarding of the contracts of the hospital

clinics?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee

is the master of its own agenda, it can do what it pleases. I don't direct the

Public Accounts Committee as to what it does.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

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

debate adjourned on Friday.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words on this bill, Bill 50.

Mr. Speaker, the implications of what might be accompanying

this bill, which was introduced by the minister some five or six days ago, has

just this weekend, I think, finally hit home to the people of this Province. Mr.

Speaker, I think the Saturday paper said it all. The Premier's explanation of

what has actually transpired in some of these areas is a fair indication of what

happened, when he said, 'Maybe the people of Paradise, who are only paying

$33,000 a year, should be paying much more.' We have said all along that this

bill is an attempt to down-load the cost of Government to the municipalities,

and the Premier's statement confirms that.

What has been more interesting in this debate in the last

couple of days, Mr. Speaker, has been the Premier's insistence and the Premier's

stand that the West Coast has a standard or a set of principles that are going

to be followed for amalgamation, but the same set of principles cannot apply to

the Northeast Avalon. The Premier has not convinced anyone in this Province, not

convinced anyone, I say again, that the process he used is one that can be

adhered to by the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps talking of how the people of

the Northeast Avalon wanted to have amalgamation, wanted to have combined

services and everything else. Mr. Speaker, while the Premier might think they

do, there are large numbers of people on the Northeast Avalon who thinks the

Premier is wrong. Mr. Speaker, we on this side have said many times that it is

not amalgamation, it is not sharing of services that we are opposed to, we think

that is a good idea, it is a principle that we see here, a principle that is

being violated for the people who live in the affected areas, that is the

principle of having the democratic right to do here as you do in other parts of

the Province.

When this process was started some time ago we were led to

believe that feasibility studies would be carried out into amalgamation of

certain communities and certain services, and the sharing of certain services.

None of this process occurred. The Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed some

of his officials and other people within municipal governments to conduct some

studies. None of them were pointed specifically at what we find here in Bill 50.

What we see at

Section 7, the resolution part of Bill 50, makes it quite clear

what the real intent of this Bill is. It is to give to the Cabinet the approval,

the power, the authority to amalgamate a town with a town or city and annex

areas to a city or town, to establish an area as a town and to disestablish a

town.

Why did that have to be included in this Bill? Is there some

other plan, is this a part of a greater plan for the northeast Avalon? - one

that the Premier really intended to implement when he had his amalgamation

process? But because of protests that came from certain communities he backed

down on it, the number of councils and people who protested made the Premier

back down a little. He tried to do it through his regional services, and now

once this is put to bed he will get on with the process that he ultimately feels

- now the Premier himself feels it, but not the people of this Province - that

we should have sharing of services and amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon.

There is no question that regional services is a concept that

should be explored more. But we cannot have it the way it is now. Because this

Bill gives the City of St. John's the right to own the Department, to determine

how the residents of Paradise, Mount Pearl, Goulds and other outlying areas -

possibly Torbay, Pouch Cove and so on down the road - how they are going to be

billed for municipal services.

What is interesting in all of this is that is not what the

people want. There has not been one person living in these affected communities

who has had any say in what goes on. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in your

district this weekend, in the district of Bonavista North, I had an occasion to

attend a function with the Minister of Mines and Energy, and there is quite some

concern in these areas too about the amalgamation process and what occurred.

Major concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, I will do it for him, since His Honour

cannot do it. A number of the communities there while agreeing with the

principle of amalgamation disagreed with the process that was used. They felt it

came too fast, that there was a small number of councils in the area, and

perhaps acted against the best interests and wishes of a number of residents of

the community. What this is about is municipalities having the right to

determine their future. That future now has been taken from the municipalities.

It has been passed on to the City of St. John's.

If the residents of the area wanted it then that would be

fine. But we have no indication that the residents in the outlying areas want to

become a part of St. John's. Some time ago they were given the right by a vote

of the community to determine whether or not they wanted municipal government.

Every community that had one had to go through some kind of a plebiscite. The

residents voted in favour or not in favour of having a council, and so it

occurred. Now these same people have had that right taken from them. A right

that they have held since incorporations of municipalities came about in this

Province.

What we are dealing with here is a loss of democracy. It is

very regrettable at a time when most of the residents of the world are looking

for democratic rights, and asking for reforms in governments, because people

have had their rights trampled on. It is highly ironic that this Legislature

sets upon itself a course that is going to take away the democratic right of a

community or a group of communities to decide their agenda for the place that

they live for the next number of years.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments many, many times in

this Legislature as to why Mount Pearl and other communities should have the

right to exist. With regard to the question of regional services, the Town of

Mount Pearl I think has made it quite clear, quite clear to the Provincial

Government on many occasions, that they are quite willing to share in regional

services of water supplies, waste disposal and fire protection if the cost is in

line with what they can provide it for themselves. In a meeting which our caucus

had with them the issue was not whether they could do it as cheaply but as long

as it was within reason. It is their figure that $600,000 of savings could

accrue to the Town of Mount Pearl by having their own fire department. Mr.

Speaker, they have been asked by the residents of that town to run their town.

Any responsible council would have to question: can we afford that extra

expenditure of $600,000 per year? The question has to be asked, should the

residents of Mount Pearl have to pay for that increased burden? It is

fundamentally unfair to ask these townspeople to pick up the cost for someone

else.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the problem that lies with the City of

St. John's is that a number of agencies, particularly the Provincial Government,

does not pay its fair share. Perhaps the real reason the city has such problems

is that there are so many Provincial Government buildings that pay no taxes,

that do not contribute to the running of the city, whether it is in snow

clearing, waste disposal, or whatever. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it is

the Province that should have to pay the burden, not the residents of the

Goulds, or the residents of Mount Pearl.

The Premier gave some indication the other day that fire

fighting: I think the Province was going to pay something like $l.2 million

towards it, and he said it was for the protection of property that is owned by

the Province in the City. Mr. Speaker, if that is the problem, that the $1.2

million is not enough for the water that comes to Confederation Building and all

the other buildings in this city that are owned by the Province, then the

Government needs to subsidize the taxpayers of St. John's. That is where the

process has gone wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: My friend and colleague from Pleasantville

finally comes to the defence of the city and says it is right, Mr. Speaker. If

that is the problem, that the City of St. John's is being unfairly treated by

the Provincial Government, then it is unfair to ask taxpayers of the rest of the

urban area to have to pay that cost for the entire Province, because it is the

seat of Government here. Because I live out in Carmanville I am not going to be

asked to pay taxes to the City of St. John's, just because I am here, so why are

the residents of Mount Pearl, just by the reason of proximity?

MR. NOEL: Carmanville will if (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: If the Province pays, exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should.

MR. NOEL: Are the people of Carmanville prepared to do

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: They should. They are doing it now.

MR. WINSOR: We do it through the Province, through our

taxes.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you should. You pay taxes on your

buildings. The Federal Government does it. Ottawa does it.

MR. WINSOR: The member may know that presently Federal

Government buildings pay the city. They pay every town in the Province, which is

an incorporated municipality, a sum of money. They pay them taxes, grants in

lieu of taxes, or whatever.

MR. A. SNOW: Parasites do not pay - these parasites. Well

that is what they are. They are parasites.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker if that is the problem -

MR. NOEL: Are you saying St. John's people are parasites?

MR. A. SNOW: No, just the one in Pleasantville.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to speak in this

debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: The parasite from Pleasantville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member may continue.

MR. WINSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could get on with my

remarks. I am saying to the Member for Pleasantville that, yes, if the problem

with St. John's, the reason that we have to annex all those areas, to charge

them rates that they feel are far in excess of their ability and what they

should have to pay - yes, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province should have

to subsidize buildings, and so they should do it for every community in this

Province, not only here, but throughout the entire Province.

If we have to provide that level of service, we should give

grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes, whether it is for the local

department of highways depot or whatever it is, perhaps that is what is needed

to be looked at. My colleague for Gander: I am sure his friends on council out

there, being a President of Treasury Board, he would say that the Town of Gander

would love to have some money given to the town from the Province for the

buildings that it has there, similar to the money they get from the Federal

Government for MOT, when they get those big windfalls sometimes for various

things and I am sure he can even agree with this. So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the

process that we have used is all wrong; trying to balance the books I guess, the

budget of the people of St. John's on the people who now live in the surrounding

areas. Perhaps we have a flawed system that should have been looked at instead

of attacking the small regions that are in close proximity to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw going on the last number of days

here, when the Premier got up, I think it was the Premier and the minister

particularly, accusing the people of Mount Pearl and the city council of playing

politics. Mr. Speaker, I find that offensive, to see the minister responsible

casting aspersions, because it was not only on the tax payers of the council of

Mount Pearl, it was all of the surrounding region. We saw the contempt again

when the Mayor of Paradise tried to determine what her town was going to have to

pay and, what we have also just discovered this week, is the City of St. John's

is now expressing some concerns about the process whereby they are going to be

given certain institutions, certain facilities - I think the latest one that

came up this week was the Canada Games Park, the Aquarena as it is known.

There is some concern now in city council that the price that

is going to accrue to the City of St. John's as a result of acquiring this piece

of property is going to be much more significant than initially thought. We hear

talks of having to pay higher wages, that the $200,000 that initially appeared

to be the amount is going to be substantially higher and the citizens of St.

John's will have to pay more. Well, Mr. Speaker, what was even more interesting

the other day, was to hear the Premier, say that, yes, perhaps we should make

them pay for Arts and Culture centres. If we take it to its logical conclusion,

perhaps the next one will be to pay for the total cost of police protection for

the area and a whole range of other services that the Provincial Government is

now providing. That seems to be the intent of this piece of legislation, to

increase the tax base of the St. John's urban area so the Provincial Government

itself will have to contribute less to the area by laying the burden, the

responsibility of providing the money, the dollars for both infrastructure and

services on to the people who live there, by down-playing the role of

Government, down-sizing the amount that this Government is going to contribute.

Mr. Speaker, what was the rush in all of this? If the Premier is sincere about

fairness and balance, why doesn't he conduct a plebescite on the Northeast

Avalon and see what people are saying?

Mr. Speaker, this process has been ongoing now for over two

years, since this concept of amalgamation came up.

MR. WARREN: Twenty-eight or twenty-nine months.

MR. WINSOR: Twenty-eight or twenty-nine months now, Mr.

Speaker, and suddenly, it has to be pushed through. In that twenty-eight or

twenty-nine months, the Premier and the minister have had ample opportunity to

spell it out, let residents know exactly what is in store, the advantages and

disadvantages, and allow (inaudible) the Premier says, the residents of the

entire area to have a say.

I am not sure that, at this point in time, if the residents

of the area voted, the Premier would get the results that he expects he would

get.

MR. NOEL: We would bring in Mount Pearl also.

MR. WINSOR: Pardon?

MR. NOEL: We would bring in Mount Pearl, also, if there

were a plebiscite.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No. You wouldn't.

MR. WINSOR: We would see what would happen if there were

a plebescite, provided, of course, that the people are told what the real costs

are going to be. Now, if we just say a plebescite, and there is a mind set out

there that the taxes in St. John's are going to stay the same, and we are going

to get this big infusion of money from the outlying areas, perhaps you might be

able to sell it, then, to everyone. Many of the residents of St. John's would

naturally rush out thinking they were going to get a tax break. Mr. Speaker,

with the things that seem to be in store, the plans that this Government has in

place, I am not sure that they could get it. If the people of the entire area

were told what really was the intent, what it was going to cost each and every

individual, what it was going to cost the taxpayers of St. John's to bring the

same level of services to the Goulds, to Portugal Cove, and all the outlying

areas, to Paradise -

MR. SIMMS: How much would it cost to bring water and

sewer out to the Goulds?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Twelve million dollars (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Twelve million dollars left to do in the

Goulds to bring it to the standard in St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Today's figures.

MR. WINSOR: Today's figures, $12 million, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) find it gross to bring Mount Pearl

in without paying for it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: And they might do that.

MR. SIMMS: So, will St. John's pay for it? St. John's

taxpayers will pay for it.

MR. NOEL: Yes, I know, that is (inaudible) Mount Pearl.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps if they were told what the cost is going

to be - because we see some indications throughout this Province today, we see

it out in CBS where water and sewer was recently installed and residents are

being asked to pay the cost. Cost recovery has become the big term. That is the

new catch phrase in municipalities. We saw some things happening with the

municipal grant, and now the new thing is cost recovery.

Mr. Speaker, when these residents are going to have to pay

that cost of $12 million, or the only alternative is that the residents of St.

John's and Mount Pearl are going to have to pay for it. There is no question,

Mr. Speaker, that that will have to happen. Now the question is how much revenue

can be taken from the Town of Goulds into St. John's to pay for the cost? Can

they come up with $12 million? The answer most likely is no; therefore, we are

going to have to subsidize that cost - from where? The areas that make up what

is going to be St. John's at some point in time.

Mr. Speaker, if that will not substantially increase the cost

to the residents of this city by having these areas annexed - obviously, perhaps

the plumb would have been to take Mount Pearl and leave the rest where they are.

The Member for Pleasantville agrees.

AN HON. MEMBER: The parasite from Pleasantville.

MR. WINSOR: He agrees that is what they would like to

have had, but that does not solve the problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINSOR: Once in a while, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy his

advantage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Pleasantville interjects once in a while with

a good line that we can have some debate on. I am hoping that he is going to get

up in a while and defend this position of Government. I really hope what he is

going to do is get up and say, Hold on now, let's look at this again. I think we

have moved too fast, that we should have that six-month hoist that the Member

for Burin - Placentia West proposed. We should have another look at this, and

perhaps see if we can come up with a better solution for financing municipal and

regional services on the Northeast Avalon, and perhaps in the entire Province,

Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that is what we need to have a look at.

So the six months would give us a fair chance to examine what

goes on, to look at the kinds of municipal services that are needed for the

entire area and, at the conclusion of that six months, perhaps we will have

convinced the people of the Northeast Avalon that we should share certain common

services, like water and sewer, waste disposal, fire protection, and the people

can live in harmony with each other, believing that their democratic rights have

been preserved, because now, they feel they have been trampled upon. No one is

quite sure why it is being done. There is a mind set out there. I happen to live

in Mount Pearl, too, and I talked to a number of people on the street who feel

that the Premier has some kind of an agenda, in fact, they are even feeling

there is a spirit of vindictiveness now, to get Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker,

surely, that cannot be the motive behind all this, to get Mount Pearl.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is now, yes.

MR. WINSOR: If that is the motive, then we are doing all

this for the wrong reasons. What should be looked at here is what best we can do

for the area and what the people can best support, because I happen to believe

there is a better way to do things than to bully it through. Mr. Speaker, there

has been no consultation. There has been a one-way dialogue. The Premier or the

minister makes some kind of statement, people are forced to respond to it and

there are confrontations and hostilities. Every negotiation that has taken place

between these communities have all been at the barrel of the gun. It has been

forced all the time, instead of sitting down and trying to negotiate, as

happened in Grand Falls - Windsor where it took a long period of time to flash

out all the ideas, Mr. Speaker. From the number of trips I make through there

and in talking to people, I think it is working quite well. There are some bugs

in it, but it took a long time to become what it is today. I think the same

process could work on the Northeast Avalon, providing that the people have the

opportunity to have input, because that is what democracy is all about. That is

the process we were elected to do. That is the kind of thing that has to go on

if municipal government is going to work. The autonomy of the town has to be

protected and they have to feel they have a role.

We saw another example last week with school boards, Mr.

Speaker. Whether you agree or disagree with school tax authorities, the process

that the Premier used last week was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree with school tax?

MR. WINSOR: I agree with dedicated funding for education.

I don't care what the mechanism is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Carbonear will have ample

opportunity to discuss school tax, amalgamation, and everything else, over the

next number of weeks. We will deal with the Member for Carbonear as time

progresses on what he agrees with and disagrees with.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a process, and

that process has fallen by the wayside. It now appears as if Government intends

to use the Legislature, because this is not going to be a free vote or anything

of that nature. The Premier has already instructed every individual on that

side, whether they know it or not, they had better not show up in the House if

they are going to vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. WINSOR: I will not ask the Member for Pleasantville.

He is going to get up and discuss this legislation. I suspect that the Member

for Pleasantville liked my idea of the Provincial Government paying a fair share

for the services that are around to help municipalities through it. He is keen

enough on the idea that I think he is going to get up and say, maybe that is the

solution to the problem we have, that the six-month hoist will give him an

opportunity to convince his fellow members from St. John's that this is a method

we should use. We should not be attacking the people with whom we want to live

in harmony. It is a bigger issue, it is a provincial issue. If the member can

convince some of his colleagues there on the other side, then we can have this

six-month hoist, and he might. He said to the Premier, when he asked him to go

on the Constitutional Committee, 'No, I am not going unless I am Chairman,' and

he stuck by his guns. He stuck by his guns and he would not go unless he was

Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Because he said - and I will tell you what he

said - 'If the Chairman is appointed by you from Cabinet, he will be carrying

out your directive and your wishes, and that is not the way it should be.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, he stood up and said no. So, on

occasion, Mr. Speaker - in fact, we saw him on another occasion in the old

Legislature when the bill for the Economic Recovery Commission or Enterprise

Newfoundland was being voted on and the Speaker had to force him out of his seat

and say, 'If you are going to be in this Legislature, you cannot abstain, you

must vote.'

MR. SIMMS: Then where did he vote though?

MR. WINSOR: He went with Government, but under great

duress and great pressure. He still believes that he voted wrong. He will be the

first to tell you that he voted wrong. Mr. Speaker, he might think today when he

votes on this bill he is going to be voting wrong, if he votes the way that

members on his side want him to.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will not be here.

MR. WINSOR: That is a possibility, but I still think he

will, Mr. Speaker. I am expecting him, over the next two or three days, to see

if he can put together a lobby on his part to have the Province take a greater

share of paying the cost of the services to this area.

MR. SIMMS: The rest of them are not talking to him.

MR. WINSOR: No, they will not do that, Mr. Speaker,

because the member would tell us if his colleagues are offended and will not

talk to him. Besides that, he had not been on our side very often for

companionship, so someone must talk to him over there on occasion.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No interruption! No interruption!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the member is going to have lots

of time. I see I only have a minute or a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, I ask people on the Government side to give some

serious thought to implementing this piece of legislation down the road a long

ways. The six-month hoist proposed by the Member for Burin - Placentia West is

the one we should vote on now, and we should give some thought to allowing

people to have democratic rights, to run their towns and their cities as they

see fit.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is over there amalgamating Bristol

with that in mind.

MR. WINSOR: With Bonavista, yes. He is amalgamating

Bristol and Bonavista today. That is his latest game. He is going to bridge the

2,000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean, Mr. Speaker. I think, on this one, Mr.

Speaker, never the twain shall meet.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask members opposite to give

some thought to the six-month hoist. Why the rush? We have had twenty-eight

months, Mr. Speaker, of procrastination, doing nothing. What would six months

more do to give people the democratic right to do as they see fit?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Exploits agrees with you.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits has some

problems out in his own area, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he agrees with you, he said.

MR. WINSOR: He has two or three communities out in his

own district, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Be quiet there, please! The Member for

Exploits has lots of opportunity to address this, because he has three or four

communities that are napping at his heels.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this

particular piece of legislation, which I think will go down in history as one of

the most cowardly pieces of legislation ever introduced into a Legislature

anywhere.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the minister's

introduction of the bill. I thought it was the most incompetent, pathetic

introduction of a piece of legislation that any minister has ever made. I am

still prepared to give that minister, having known him all my life, the benefit

of the doubt, that he certainly did it without conviction. I do not believe his

heart was in it. I think it is very clear that that minister and, I suspect, a

large number of hon. members opposite, are being very much dictated to by the

Premier with regard to this particular piece of legislation.

I know too many of them, particularly those who have come up

through municipalities, and there are several former mayors and councillors

sitting opposite - I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that those hon. gentleman

really believe in the principle of this legislation, and taking away all

democratic rights from municipalities.

Because that is precisely what this bill does. It eliminates

the right of self-determination at the municipal level and confirms what we have

been saying for some time, that in the minds of this Government, municipalities

are mere pawns. They have no authority other than that which the Government

chooses to give them as they see fit from time to time.

We have had municipal legislation in place in this Province

for many years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing new about that.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is nothing new about that.

MR. WINDSOR: Nothing new about that. No, Mr. Speaker, as

I was about to say, we have had legislation in place for many years and

municipalities are creatures of the provincial government. They are created by

the provincial government and controlled under the authority of the minister,

but under the authority given to the minister by this Legislature by way of a

piece of legislation. That piece of legislation, indeed, gives the minister a

certain authority, but it also builds in certain rights and privileges to

municipalities. It gives them a certain amount of autonomy, as well.

This bill does not change the law. I must be very clear. I do

not think this Government would attempt to do that. That would certainly be

going one step too far. They would not change the Municipalities Act to take

away from all municipalities the rights and privileges that this legislation is

taking away from municipalities in the Northeast Avalon. That would be too

blatant. So what they have done, in trying to bring forward an amalgamation

proposal in the Northeast Avalon - the minister has bungled the whole thing

badly to start off with. He has gotten himself into a situation that he couldn't

get out of. Because the process that was followed, very clearly, was illegal,

was, very clearly, illegal.

The Municipalities Act lays down certain requirements of

feasibility studies with public input, consultation with municipalities,

financial analysis. The minister, indeed, came forward with a proposal. He

appointed a commission. That commission, I understand, received some eighty-four

briefs. They held nine public hearings, had numerous oral submissions in

addition to the eighty-four written proposals. They studied the studies on this

area that were carried out by previous commissions, and they did other research

on their own, including hiring some financial experts to do a financial analysis

of the proposal, all of this at great cost and taking a great amount of time.

The commission reported but the commission did not report on

this proposal that we have before us today. Never, during those hearings, never,

in the submission the minister put forward, never, in any of the briefs

submitted by any of the municipalities or other groups and individuals

concerned, was the question of the City of St. John's being the regional

authority ever discussed. That was never an issue that has been debated.

So, when the Premier stands in his place, as he did again

today, for the second time, and says: We are confident that we know how the

people of the Northeast Avalon region feel on this issue, we are confident that

the majority of people in the region support this proposal, he knows that is not

true. He knows what he is saying is not true. Because the people of this region

have never been given an opportunity to speak. There was no commission that

studied this proposal, there were no feasibility studies carried out, and there

were no public hearings. That is why municipalities in this region including, I

say to the hon. the Member for Pleasantville, the City of St. John's, do not to

this moment know the financial ramifications of what is being debated in this

House. Because no study has been carried out.

I say to this House that the City Council of St. John's and

their senior staff are just now, over the past couple of days, starting to

realize some of the problems that they are going to be faced with if this bill

is allowed to pass before this Legislature. There has not been study, and that

is why the resolution that we are debating now, which is the traditional

six-month hoist, is not simply a resolution to delay proceedings. It makes

eminent sense in a situation such as this, when proper procedures have not been

followed, when there has not been any consultation whatsoever, absolutely none,

and any hon. members opposite who think that there has been are only fooling

themselves. There has been no consultation on this proposal. There was another

proposal, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister put forward; there was a report by his

commissioners, chaired by his own Assistant Deputy Minister, but that is not the

proposal that came forward, nowhere, was the City of St. John's suggested as

being the regional authority.

Now, the Minister stood in his place and I could not believe

what he was saying. He said: we are bringing in a regional approach. What he is

doing, Mr. Speaker, is destroying a regional approach. We have had a regional

approach in this area for many years. We had a regional fire fighting service

that was operated by the Province, at least an independent body, and the cost

was carried by all municipalities that benefitted. We all paid our share, but it

was regional.

What the Minister is proposing now is not a regional fire

service and he is being blatantly dishonest when he calls it a regional fire

service; it is a City of St. John's fire service that is being forced down the

throats of other municipalities against their will. There is nothing regional

about it and if it was not that very Minister, who, not a year ago, brought

through this House of Assembly, using closure, a regional services bill, I would

be prepared to say that he does not understand the concept of regional services,

but he must! He brought forward a piece of legislation that we opposed because

it gave him a little bit too much power, but the principle of regional

government, Mr. Speaker, we did not oppose and that Minister stood here a couple

of days ago and said the municipalities of Northeast Avalon did not want

regional government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he should read his own commissioner's

reports because they do not substantiate what he is saying. Municipalities in

this region do want regional services; they do want a regional authority but

they do not want to be dictated to by another municipality and made subservient

to them, but that is precisely what this legislation does. It gives the city

council of St. John's the opportunity and the authority to dictate the level of

taxation that must be assessed in other municipalities, because the City of St.

John's will now control most of the major expenditures of those municipalities.

The cost of fire department; the cost of regional water

supply; the cost of trunk sewers; the cost of storm sewers; the cost of regional

transportation and the cost of solid waste disposal and the cost of recreational

facilities; these municipalities are no more than hewers of wood and drawers of

water. They have taken away all authority and autonomy from these

municipalities, made them totally subservient to the City of St. John's. Now,

Mr. Speaker, if that is democracy, then I have got to go back to school; because

that is not what I thought was democracy. That is not what I thought this House

of Assembly stood for. Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed of this hon. Chamber today;

that a piece of legislation that is blatantly as anti-democratic as this, could

even get to the stage that it is being debated in this House. I am ashamed, to

think that it can happen, and clearly, unless hon. gentlemen opposite realize

what they are about, this Government will force it through; they will force it

through, they have the majority and when the great one speaks - interesting, Mr.

Speaker, nobody opposite is speaking; have they been told not to speak to this

legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Later.

MR. WINDSOR: They will later.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They will later. It is time the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island get on his feet and represented the people of Paradise.

The Mayor of Paradise is pretty clear on the position of the Town Council of

Paradise; they are starting to find out just what this means to them. It is

about time the Member for Carbonear get on his feet as a former mayor, and the

Member for Placentia, as a former mayor, and told us how they feel about a piece

of legislation that takes away autonomy from municipalities; they are former

mayors. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that either one of those two hon.

gentlemen support this legislation, or the member for Pleasantville, who

believes, I think very strongly in Municipal Government in this Province. I

think he supports the concept of people in a community having the right to run

their own affairs within that community. I cannot believe that he supports this

legislation, or the Member for Lewisporte. I ask the Member for Lewisporte to

speak on this one. It is time he put himself on record. It is time we hear how

he feels and whether he would like to see the municipalities in the district of

Lewisporte treated like this. I would like to hear his response to that, Mr.

Speaker. The people of Lewisporte will hear his response. He knows that full

well, too. I will make sure that they hear his response.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was it?

MR. WINDSOR: We have not heard it yet. He has not been

allowed to speak. He has not spoken on very many issues since he has been in

this House. I cannot believe that the views of the hon. Member for Fortune -

Hermitage, as a former executive member of the Federation of Municipalities,

changed so much since he ran from this side to that. He was a great champion of

municipalities and very vocal when he stood on this side of the House but now he

sits there quietly. I cannot believe that he is going to sit back and let this

legislation go through. I say to all hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, they

should stand up and be counted, because this Bill is not dealing only with the

Northeast Avalon. There are more important issues here than whether this

Government steals the Southlands away from Mount Land, or whether this

Government takes Mount Pearl's Fire Department and forces it into the City of

St. John's and charges us way more than we should have to pay for service. Those

are important issues to me, Mr. Speaker, and to the people I represent, but this

legislation is important to the whole Province because if municipalities on the

Northeast Avalon can be treated in this manner then what chance does Placentia,

Lewisporte, or St. Albans, what chance do they have, Mr. Speaker, when this

Government decides what is best for them. The Premier stands in the House and

says: we know what the people of the Northeast Avalon want. How does he know?

Did the great one look in his crystal ball again? Does he not listen to the

resolutions, the five resolutions, passed by the Federation of Municipalities?

Is he standing here saying they do not know what they are talking about, the

Federation of Municipalities, the five resolutions approved at their Gander

meeting a couple of months ago? He is ignoring them. Is he ignoring all the

submissions that came in from the concerned mayors in the region? Is he ignoring

all the comments in newspapers and on open line shows, and everyone else, Mr.

Speaker? Is he the only one who knows? Is he not listening to the Mayor of the

Goulds, the Mayor of Paradise, and the Mayor of Wedgewood Park?

I know he is not listening to Mount Pearl. He came into Mount

Pearl a couple of weeks ago and he gave the sermon from the Mount. He insulted

the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce who invited him in to speak on the economy,

but when he saw thirty young fire fighters sitting in front of him he could not

resist an opportunity to give them a lecture like a bunch of school children. He

could not resist the chance to give them a lecture and in the process he

insulted, not only those fire people, but he insulted the Mayor, the

councillors, and all the people of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker. He certainly

insulted the Chamber of Commerce. He had a great audience that day. There were

about twenty people from Mount Pearl who showed up. There were thirty fire

fighters and the rest were from St. John's. There were not 150 in total that

came to hear him because people knew what he was about. That is how welcome he

is in Mount Pearl. I would suggest before this year is over, Mr. Speaker, that

is how welcome he will be anywhere in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: He was made welcome before. He was made

welcome three weeks, or a month earlier by Rotary in Mount Pearl when they gave

him an opportunity to come in and present a reasonable case to the people of

Mount Pearl. He made the same sermon from the mount then as he did to the

Chamber of Commerce, almost word for word. The first time they did him the

courtesy of inviting him in to hear his position: let the Premier come in here

and tell us why he is so intent on this course of action. They did not need it

the second time. They did not need the arrogance and the inflexibility that he

has shown, Mr. Speaker. It is amazing.

The Premier spoke earlier today in relation to some questions

dealing with Corner Brook and Mount Moriah and he said: Oh, we will have a

plebiscite, and maybe we will do the same thing in this area. He said 'no' to

that. But he said he might consider it. He had considered it. But he has decided

now we will not even do that; we have made a decision. Even if we did do a

plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that if the majority of the people of

the region of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive say yes, we want it,

then he will do it. The people of Mount Moriah and Massey Drive, if they choose

not to, 100 per cent, their voice will not be heard. We will do it anyway. We

will decide what is best for them. Yet last year at Meech Lake: why should the

majority of Canadians tell Newfoundland what is best for it? It is funny how he

is selective in his justice, Mr. Speaker. It is funny how he can apply it one

time to suit his own purposes, and not apply it at another. It is funny how the

Premier feels that the citizens of St. John's should be given the right to

dictate to the 23,000 people in Mount Pearl, and the tens of thousands of people

in the other municipalities surrounding St. John's. It is amazing how he feels

that they should have that right.

This is the Premier's form of selective democracy, Mr.

Speaker, of selective justice. I, for one, am not sure that we should ever

confuse justice with this hon. Chamber any more. When I can see a piece of

legislation brought forward by this Government, this type of legislation forced

through in this manner, then I am not so sure there is any justice left in this

society at all. I am not so sure there is one bit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) about the businesses in Mount Pearl

paying half the taxes of businesses in St. John's (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: They are more efficient boy; they are more

efficient. Are you going to penalize them because they are a more efficient

municipality? (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If the Member for Pleasantville wants to

speak, let him stand up and represent the people who elected him to do that.

Never mind his interruptions. He will have an opportunity to represent his

people if he is ever allowed to get on his feet.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation will go down in

history as the 'Notwithstanding Bill'. Five times in this piece of legislation

the word 'notwithstanding' comes forward. As I started to say in my opening

remarks, all of the existing legislation is in place for good and valid reason,

and it provides some safeguards that Government cannot do whatever they choose

to do. This legislation takes it away, and it says that notwithstanding all

legislation, we will give Cabinet, not the House of Assembly, not subject to

feasibility studies or public hearings, we will give Cabinet the absolute

authority on any Thursday morning in Cabinet, to eliminate the City of Mount

Pearl, to eliminate the Town of Paradise, I say to the Member for Mount Scio-

MR. REID: We will not eliminate it.

MR. WINDSOR: You will not eliminate it? Well you have a

lot more confidence in the dictator than I do, I will tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well that will be the death of you. That

will be the death of you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disestablish (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Disestablish, alter, establish, combine,

separate, whatever we want; never in the history of municipal government has any

government been given this kind of authority over municipalities, and if the

Member for Carbonear thinks that this Government will not do it in Carbonear if

they choose to, or in Placentia, or in Fortune - Hermitage, they will do it.

Whenever they see fit, they will take away from other municipalities. This is

discriminatory legislation, Mr. Speaker, that takes away from municipalities in

the Northeast Avalon, the protection that is afforded by the Municipalities Act,

that requires certain legal procedures to be followed. But this Act, Mr.

Speaker, circumvents the law. That which we cannot do legally we will ask the

House to approve.

That is the bottom line here. It cannot be done legally. The

existing legislation prohibits it. It gives certain protection to people to know

that this Government cannot come in, as I think my colleague said, like thieves

in the night and disestablish a municipality. There has to be some public input.

There has to be consultation with the municipalities. There has to be a

commission appointed, and a feasibility study carried out. It has to make

economic sense, it has to be desired by the people in the region.

This piece of legislation takes away those rights from

municipalities in the Northeast Avalon and treats them differently than any

other municipality in North America. Now, how can hon. Members opposite support

such a piece of legislation?

Painfully quiet all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is

quiet. He did not even have the intestinal fortitude to stay here and support

his legislation. The Premier of course, as he always does, takes the cowardly

route and disappears upstairs whenever there is a heavy piece of legislation

being debated. That is typical. But I am amazed at hon. gentlemen opposite. I

thought there was a little bit of backbone over there but it is being well

hidden.

To think that this action can be taken without any of the

safeguards, without even requiring any debate in this Legislature. The

resolution that was approved in May was bad enough but at least they had the

nerve to bring it before the Legislature and debate. Now they have a piece of

legislation here that says they may do whatever they want without reference to

the Legislature. A stroke of a pen on Thursday morning in Cabinet and the whole

Northeast Avalon could change.

I do not believe that the Member for Pleasantville supports

that. It could work both ways. Government could change, you know, as it will,

very soon. Government will change very, very soon. The hon. gentleman needn't

kid himself. That legislation will still be in place. With a stroke of a pen on

a Thursday morning Pleasantville could be part of Torbay! Does the hon.

gentleman realize that? Pleasantville could be part of Torbay, with the stroke

of a pen on a Thursday morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman does not consider that.

The hon. gentleman for Mount Scio says: ah, but we would not do it. I sat in

Cabinet long enough, Mr. Speaker, to learn that what you would not allow

somebody else to have the opportunity to do, you should not give to yourself.

You should not take upon yourself power that you would not want others to have.

In other words, that Government should not today pass legislation that they

would not want us to have available when we take office again. The wheels do

turn.

Amalgamation is not something that municipalities in this

region reject. What they rejected was the Minister's proposal for amalgamation.

That is what they rejected. The commissioners' heard all of the arguments and

came forward with a proposal that was not ideal but it was a compromise, and I

believe most municipalities probably would have lived with it. Because the

commissioners themselves recognized that unless there is a willingness at the

municipal level, and unless it made financial sense, then it could never work.

They also said, by the way, that unless there are some transitional grants to

municipalities who are absorbing other areas that it will never work. This

Government seems to have ignored that particular recommendation altogether. They

do not seem willing to provide any transitional grants.

Well, amalgamation is not something that municipalities have

rejected, but this is not amalgamation. Amalgamation is the willing joining

together of two or more municipalities for common benefit, for the sharing of

common services. Jointly and willingly. This is not an amalgamation, this is

annexation. The Town of Wedgewood Park is being annexed, it is not being

amalgamated. The Southlands area of Mount Pearl: You could say they were being

annexed, I say they are being stolen away.

The Minister talked about good planning, as if the Minister

knew anything about planning. Now does it make any sense to have this area

adjoined to this area? Do hon. Members opposite know that there are four

kilometres between the Southlands area and the developed area of St. John's?

Four kilometres! It is just like taking Mount Moria and Massey Drive and making

them one municipality. Does that make any sense? Four kilometres between the

nearest point in the Southlands and the nearest residential development in St.

John's. Now how does St. John's propose to provide them with services?

They will be serviced through Mount Pearl. All services are

totally dependent on Mount Pearl. All roads are designed in accordance with the

hierarchy of roads in the Mount Pearl system. All water and sewer systems. The

educational facilities are designed to deal with it. Institutional facilities,

churches, the whole works, designed as one comprehensive community.

So where is the good planning? How can the Minister say that

it provides for better planning? It does no such thing. Does the Minister not

know that there is a regional plan in place at this point in time that was done

on a co-operative basis that had input from all municipalities, that has been

adopted by all municipalities and that everybody works within? A great master

plan. Another regional service. So where is the benefit from a planning point of

view?

The Minister talked about a regional services board. He says

that the City of St. John's will be the regional council. Again, it is not a

regional council. A regional council is one comprised of representatives of all

the municipalities that are participating in various services. This is not a

regional council. It is a council to which all other councils are subservient

against their will. That is not regional. That flies in the face of the

Minister's own legislation. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything that

is regional.

Now, the Minister says we will have a regional fire

department. We now have a regional fire department, as I said earlier, but it

will not be a regional fire department from hence. It will be a St. John's fire

department. Why is this Government so intent on not allowing Mount Pearl to

operate its own fire department? Why will the Minister not listen to the Fire

Commissioner whose report recommends that Mount Pearl operate its own fire

department? Why will the Minister not listen to municipalities all across

Canada? Does he not know that there is only one regional fire department in

Canada? Is the Minister so far ahead of the rest of Canada that he knows that a

regional fire department in this area is the best for this area when it has not

worked anywhere else in Canada? There is only one anywhere in Canada! Does the

great city of Toronto have a regional service? No, Mr. Speaker!

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

MR. WINDSOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I have about two

hours left yet.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I thank hon. gentlemen, Mr. Speaker. I will

not abuse the courtesy. But does the Minister not know that there is only one

regional fire service in Canada? Only one! The Fire Commissioner's report, which

the Minister refuses to release, our own Fire Commissioner has recommended

against it. The Ontario Fire Marshall - and I have a report here if hon.

gentlemen would care to see it - does not recommend regional fire services in

that area, or the city of New York, which was used as an object of study by the

Ontario fire department.

Why is this Government so determined that Mount Pearl shall

not operate? Is it because Mount Pearl will save some money? We can save

$600,000 a year. More than that, I suspect. Because the Minister also has an

arbitration report that he has been sitting on for some time, an arbitration

report which will no doubt add probably 10 per cent additional cost to the

operation of the present St. John's Fire Department. Of course, if this proposal

goes through and the Mount Pearl station is activated, that will add an

additional cost to the St. John's Fire Department. You are not going to man that

station and operate it for no cost.

So Mount Pearl's share of the cost of the regional - I use

that term lightly - service will be far more than the $1.9 million we are

presently paying. I suspect it will go to $2.3 million or $2.4 million. That

means that the City of Mount Pearl by operating its own fire service can reduce

taxes by 15 per cent because that saving will represent 15 per cent of all taxes

collected in Mount Pearl. That is pretty significant. That is $30 for every man,

woman and child in Mount Pearl, $120 on the average per household. That is a few

dollars to pay out for something that you do not want.

Let me be very clear. The Minister has misled this House on a

couple of occasions in saying that Mount Pearl was not prepared to participate

in a regional service. That is absolutely untrue and there is documentation to

prove it. Mount Pearl indeed has always been one of the forerunners in

recommending regional services and in saying that a regional fire service may be

appropriate. Let's have a look at it. But at a reasonable cost. But an

additional $800,000, $900,000 or $1 million a year - is not reasonable. That is

money that is being paid out for nothing extra.

The Minister came into Mount Pearl and he said Mount Pearl

went ahead without authority. Well, they had absolute, every authority. I have

already tabled copies of the Cabinet document I think that authorized Mount

Pearl back in 1988 to establish their fire department. They had full authority

to do that, they had full authority to purchase the equipment. The only thing

they have not had is a commitment from this Government that they would cost

share the equipment. That happens to be a programme that is in place for every

municipality in the Province. Seventy-five per cent of all vehicles and

equipment is paid for by the Province.

Now if the Province were to do that then the savings to Mount

Pearl would be even greater, wouldn't they? Because right now, in the numbers

that I am using, that I have quoted, Mount Pearl is amortizing the full cost of

the fire fighting equipment as well as the buildings. The building they must.

There is no subsidy on buildings, generally. There have been a couple of

exceptions made I am told. Generally speaking the programme does not cover

buildings. The 75/25 on the equipment is always covered. Mount Pearl again is

being discriminated against. I wish the Premier was here, Mr. Speaker, to answer

for himself because on October 12, 1989 the Premier and the Minister - and I

want this clearly put into the record - the Premier and the Minister met with

Mount Pearl City Council and their senior staff. They said at that time that it

was Government's intent to put in place a regional fire service, but that it

would be streamlined, the cost of the service would be brought in line through

negotiations with the union of the existing fire service. So he said: we will

bring it in line, and there will be a regional board that will administer that

fire department with equitable representation on it. They made the commitment,

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister in front of the Mayor and all of the

councillors, and the senior staff. They said: if we cannot bring it in line we

will allow you to operate your own fire department. We will allow you to operate

your own fire department if we cannot get the cost within reason. They failed to

do that, that is pretty clear. It is pretty clear they were not able to

negotiate. That is why the Minister is sitting on the arbitration report, no

question about that. That is why they are sitting on the arbitration report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is the negotiation with the fire

department. There has been an arbitration report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That was months ago given to the Government.

The Minister has refused to make it public. He has refused to make it public

because it will confirm, as we told him, that he will not be able to negotiate

the cost of the existing fire service down to a reasonable level, and he has

not, Mr. Speaker, tabled the fire commissioner's report because the fire

commissioner's report says that Mount Pearl should operate it's own. St. John's

should operate it's own. It should be passed over to St. John's, and that

volunteer fire departments should be left alone and allowed to expand because

what this Government has done now is destroy that volunteer effort in the Goulds

and in Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: There are no economies of scale here, Mr.

Speaker. The cost of fire service in those areas will increase because you will

not get those volunteer firemen and firewomen, if there are any. I think we have

the only female fire fighter in the Province in the Mount Pearl department, and

we are proud of her. I do not think there are any outside, if there are, I

apologize to them. But, Mr. Speaker, those volunteers will not make the same

effort, and if the people in the Goulds and Paradise are going to pay the same

taxes as the people of St. John's, they are not going to accept the volunteer

fire fighting service. They will demand full-time fire fighters in their fire

stations, and so they should.

The Premier made it clear, and the Minister made it clear,

January 1, taxes go up for all of these municipalities. It does not make any

difference that their own commissioner said that could never work. There must be

transitional grants. Why do we spend the time and the money? Why did eighty-four

people take the trouble to present written briefs to this commission? The

proposal was never considered. This Government came in with its own proposal

that has never been put forward for consultation or debate either outside of

this House or inside this House up till now.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is fooling himself if he thinks

there are any economies of scale by bringing those volunteer fire departments

under the ambit of the St. John's Fire Department because union agreements,

union wages, and union benefits will apply - immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And so there will be. There will be

additional costs. Will there be a saving because the St. John's Fire Department

takes over Mount Pearl? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. You will still need thirty

fire fighters in Mount Pearl to operate that station. Can we take them from

Brookfield Fire Station, Mr. Speaker? Will that decrease the requirement for the

Brookfield Fire Station which now services Mount Pearl? Of course not, the Fire

Commissioner's report which is locked away in the Minister's draw says that as

well.

The area surrounding the Brookfield Fire Station, in

Kilbride, in Sesame Park and in Cowan Heights has grown so rapidly that the

Brookfield Fire Station now has an area larger than it really should have, so

there is no question that not only is the Mount Pearl station needed, but

operating the Mount Pearl station will not reduce requirements for any of the

stations presently existing in St. John's, none whatsoever. So there is no

impact on the St. John's fire department, none whatsoever and there is no saving

by joining the two together.

The saving is in allowing Mount Pearl to operate its own fire

station because they have shown that they can do so for probably $1 million a

year less than an amalgamated service would cost. Why is this Government so

intent on spending an additional million dollars of Mount Pearl tax payers

money? This is the question. Mr. Speaker, I have gone over my time and I thank

hon. gentlemen. Let me conclude this time because I will have other

opportunities to speak as this debate goes on.

As I said, this Bill really covers up the Minister's

bungling. He handled the issue badly; he has abused legislation and gone outside

the authority of existing legislation. The courts will decide that. The courts

will decide that. As I said last week, I am not sure if we should be debating

this, because the resolution on which this Bill is based is before the courts,

and I honestly believe that resolution will be declared invalid because it was

not arrived at in accordance with the legislation in place, The Municipalities

Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act and The City of St. John's Act, but the courts

will decide that and when they decide that, this legislation will also be

invalid because it is based on that resolution, so if the resolution is faulty,

which, I believe the courts will decide it is, then this legislation is also

faulty.

Except for the notwithstanding clause of course, because the

notwithstanding clause says it does not matter all of the fair legislation that

is already in the books, there are five, by the way, Mr. Speaker, references to

the word 'notwithstanding', and that is why I say this Bill will go down in

history as the 'notwithstanding Bill', a wonderful clause.

MR. MATTHEWS: I understand Clyde would not (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Notwithstanding all legislation that is

deemed to be fair and just in the rest of North America, we will do something

different in this particular case and it covers up the Minister's incompetence;

it covers up - I cannot say he broke the law, that I believe, Mr. Speaker, you

would rule unparliamentary, but it covers up what I believe the courts will

decide has been a breach of the law and the method used to arrive at that

resolution. I have never seen anything that is as undemocratic and as

discriminatory as this piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, I am ashamed that this House would even

entertain this as long as we have, and allow it to get to this stage. A piece of

legislation that makes such a mockery of democracies in general, but more

specifically, that it makes such a mockery and is so insulting to the integrity

of municipal politicians across this Province. We are being told by this

legislation: you are there only as long as we choose to have you there and when

we choose to do away with you, regardless of how you or the people whom you

represent feel, then we will do so.

So, it is for no other reason than the fact that this

legislation, this proposal, has never been aired publicly; has never been given

an opportunity for consultation; there have been no feasibility studies or

public hearings; no commission has studied this proposal and brought forward

recommendations; then if for no other reason this Bill should indeed be deferred

for six months and then we will have an opportunity to find out how the people

of this region feel. I do not accept, and I tell this hon. House that the people

of this region do not accept the fact, that if the Premier says that is what

they want that it is so. The Premier is only fooling himself, Mr. Speaker. He

should stop looking in the mirror so much.

Thank you.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I could not sit here and listen to

my hon. colleagues on the other side talk about what we as a Government are

doing in 1991 and not sit here and, I suppose, cringe and almost get sick to my

stomach thinking back over the years that I served as the Mayor of Carbonear and

served as president of the Federation of Municipalities, and I was involved with

the Federation of Municipalities. I would come in here and crawl on my hands and

knees to try to get in on the eighth floor to see the Premier and he would turn

his back on me. How many of us have sat in the Federation for years begging and

crying out for help from this crowd over here, and what did we get?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Talk to me, talk to me! You, who sat in the

previous Chamber for seventeen years, talk to me about what the previous

administration did to municipalities in the Province! Talk to me about the grant

system that was cut out from under us without any consultation, when they cut it

back from fifty cents to forty-five cents. Talk to me about the charges to the

municipalities around this Province for the assessments that all of a sudden we

had to do as communities in the Province that we did not know anything about,

until bango! - one day it showed up on our desks.

I cannot sit back and listen to that. I cannot sit back and

listen to a Member in this House talking about volunteer fire departments and

the rights that they have to serve the community. Every volunteer fire

department in this Province, as every one of you know, is today looking for

equipment and maintenance that costs this Province millions of dollars. There is

nothing wrong with volunteers sitting on a fire department, there is nothing

wrong with that. I am living in an area out in Conception Bay North where four

or five years ago there was a group of people in Makinsons looking for a bit of

decent drinking water. They asked this Province, under the previous

administration, for $10,000 for a drop of drinking water. What did you say to

them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. REID: Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy. I am out in

Conception Bay -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure Harbour Main did that.

MR. REID: Yes, Harbour Main did it. I am out in

Conception Bay North and just about every day of my life, as soon as I hit

Roaches Line, I am faced with a fire department in Brigus, in Clarke's Beach, in

Bay Roberts, in Spaniard's Bay, in Island Cove, in Harbour Grace, in Carbonear,

in Victoria and a fire department Small Point to Adams Cove. I will bet you that

we have more fire equipment in that area than they have in any, I suppose,

proportional area anywhere on the North American continent.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) done all that since you've been

elected?

MR. REID: And you are going to tell me - no, I did not.

But you are going to tell me that we, in the state that we are in today in

Newfoundland and in Canada, can continue promoting a situation where people are

just coming with hands out and expecting to get service? Service for nothing,

that is not going to cost us anything?

I stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, the spring this year and

I was the only Member on this side that stood up and supported Mount Pearl. I

said Mount Pearl should not be amalgamated with St. John's. Because I believed

that Mount Pearl was an entity to itself that was put there - it was not, I

suppose, the people of Mount Pearl's fault that the previous administration

happened to have the right person at the right time in Government that could

pump millions and millions and millions of dollars into Mount Pearl.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is why they elected him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: And people in Makinsons could not get $10,000

for a drop of water!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit here and listen

to the hypocrisy of these people, and most of them were ministers - I believe

all of them were ministers at the time - when the previous Premier of this

Province would not even speak at our annual dinner because Art Reid was labelled

as a Liberal, and was President of the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. CRANE: Well you know he could not (inaudible).

MR. REID: Would not go to a dinner; would not come to our

annual meeting.

MR. CRANE: You know he could not do that.

MR. REID: I think about it, and I listen to some of these

hon. gentlemen stand on the other side and make comments about what we should do

as a Government; what we, over here, should do as a Government. Well I say we

are doing more, and have done more as a Government to improve the lot of

Newfoundlanders in the last two and one-half years than you crowd did in the

seventeen years that you were over there - seventeen!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CRANE: How did you get in, Garfield?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what volunteer fire

departments are doing in the Province. I appreciate what the paid fire

departments are doing in the Province, but there has to be some control over

what we are doing. I do not know, maybe twenty years ago we probably had plenty

of money to throw around. At least I thought that maybe ten years ago we had a

lot more money than we have right now. I do not believe, and I do not mind

saying it to you gentlemen who are in the gallery, I do not believe that Mount

Pearl should have their own fire department, when there are other places in this

Province who have their own fire department because they can afford it. Yes,

they can afford it because of the millions and millions of dollars that are

going into that. What about me in Lower Island Cove? What about somebody in

Bonavista Bay? What about somebody in the West Coast? What about down in Baie

Verte district where there is not a decent road for anyone to drive on down

there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. REID: It is true. It is true. I was down there and

saw it myself. What about it? What about these people? No, make the people of

Mount Pearl and the people of St. John's start paying for some of the services

that they are getting. Wedgewood Park is out there stuck right in the middle of

St. John's - right in the middle of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. REID: I am not ashamed of myself. Go out and walk

around your district.

MR. CRANE: Yes, you tell him Art. Tell him. There is

nothing up there in-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, I do not agree with it. I do not agree with

having separate entities spread all over this Province, and everybody off doing

their own thing, and everybody coming to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs or to the Premier with their hand out saying: give me this

and give me that, and give me something else. I do not agree with it. I do not

agree with it at all.

I stood here in the House last year and I must say I was, I

will not say condemned, but I had some rude remarks made to me by my own side

when I supported Mount Pearl, because there were a number of my colleagues here

who did not. I appreciated their comments, and I think that they came to learn

and appreciate mine. I supported Mount Pearl and I said, no, they should not be

amalgamated. Mr. Speaker, for the record, that was one of the biggest mistakes

that I made since I have been sitting in this House - one of the biggest

mistakes that I have made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: And I will tell you why. Last spring, Mr.

Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl and Mr. Hodder, the Mayor of Mount Pearl who

is a personal friend of mine, lobbied I suppose every single person who is in

this House to keep St. John's from swallowing up Mount Pearl, and I thought it

was a horrible thing. As soon as this side decided that they were not going to

do that, that was not enough for Mount Pearl. That was not enough, to leave

Mount Pearl, to have Mount Pearl, and to walk away and say that was it. No. What

happened? The next thing they do is go contrary to the wishes of the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and set up their own fire department;

Eastlands or Westlands or whatever you call it, that is the next racket they had

over it. They were not happy enough to be left alone. I honestly believe, and I

know, because if, at that particular point in time last spring, Mount Pearl had

been taken in and amalgamated with the City of St. John's, there would be none

of this. It would be gone.

MR. MATTHEWS: It would have gone away, yes.

MR. REID: It would have been gone.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right on!

MR. REID: And we, over here, would not have to deal with

it, you fellows over there would not have to deal with it, and these young

gentlemen, who have been hired on at the fire department, would not be sitting

in the gallery. That would be it, no problem whatsoever.

I just wonder what would happen. I heard the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl say, 'Consultation, consultation.' I wonder what would happen if we,

over here, or whoever makes the decision, be it the Minister and the Cabinet and

so on, agreed to a referendum. There is no way in this world that Mount Pearl is

going to win a referendum.

I used to know a little place there in the West End of St.

John's called Newtown. Newtown it used to be called.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that? It does not ring a bell.

MR. REID: Where is it? What happened to it? What happened

to Newtown? I do not remember any great referendum or consultation process or

people running around the Province? What happened to it?

AN HON. MEMBER: There was a big (inaudible).

MR. REID: It had what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A reputation for (inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I know. Newtown disappeared overnight and

no one knew what happened to it. Where did it go? Seal Cove, is that what it is

called now, Seal Cove, or is it Portugal Cove? Where is it gone? It does not

exist anymore.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did all the NLHC money go?

MR. REID: Hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, very hypocritical! I

am not going to argue, I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that we are

sitting in this Chamber, and I am listening - I followed Government as closely

as anyone else did, and I can tell you stories that happened back in 1984, 1985,

1986 and 1987. This crowd over here on this side do not hold a candle to some of

the things that the previous administration did. But that has nothing to do with

the question.

If the City of Mount Pearl, knowing full-well what the wishes

of this Government were and what the wishes, I guess, of the general public

were, if they hadn't gotten involved in introducing a fire department, then we

would not have any problems again, would we?

My friend, the Mayor, had the audacity to come out the other

day - I am sure I read this somewhere, where he would make a deal with the fire

department and Southlands. I am sure he was quoted last week as saying that if

we could get our hands on Southlands we would trade off the fire department. The

fire department does not mean very much to him, does it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Did he say that?

MR. REID: I am sure he said it. I read that in the paper

somewhere or I heard it on the radio or somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Offered the Premier a deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. REID: Offered a deal. No, it cannot be true. I know

it cannot be true.

Mr. Speaker, when I travel around this Province and see the

disparities that exist in this Province in the outports - and the majority of us

represent the outports - and I hear the people living in the outports of

Newfoundland saying, 'What is wrong with that crowd in St. John's and Mount

Pearl? What have they got to complain about. They are living in the best part of

the Province. They have everything they could possibly want, and we are out here

with neither road to drive on, neither bit of water and sewerage.'

Go down in Walter Carter's district. Go down and look at the

sewerage running in the drains, and you say to someone down in Twillingate or

Morton's Harbour, or go down in the Baie Verte district and say to them down

there, 'What do you think of the fire department in Mount Pearl and the racket

being kicked up in the House now about whether St. John's or Mount Pearl should

own the fire department,' and what do you think they are going to say to you? It

is a pile of nonsense. The council in Mount Pearl and the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs can sit down and settle this if both of them would only

be reasonable enough, I suppose, to sit down long enough and talk and discuss

this wi