May 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 46

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Member for Humber East and

proceeding to our routine business, there are a couple of matters related to

yesterday's proceedings which ought to be addressed. I want, firstly, to refer

to the point of order raised, relating to the utterance of an unparliamentary

expression by the Premier.

In my ruling yesterday, hon. Members will recall that I said

I would not require the Premier to withdraw at this point in time. Having

studied last evening the record of what proceeded yesterday, there was a

specific statement recorded in yesterday's proceedings May 8, 1991, page 1628,

which the Chair considered, if left unchecked, might result in hon. Members

taking leeway and calling each other trained monkeys, rats and all that kind of

thing. I am sure the Premier would not want to have that left, and therefore,

the statement to which I refer, the relevant statement, is that the Member is

displaying perhaps even less intelligence than I would expect from a trained

monkey. Under these circumstances, therefore, I am sure the Premier would want

to withdraw that statement and I kindly ask him to do so.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to have on

the record any statement attributable to me that Your Honour says is

unparliamentary. I accept Your Honour's ruling and I withdraw the statement. I

trust that this standard will be maintained by other Members, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The other matter I want to refer to, was the

matter raised by the Government House Leader relating to the orderliness, the

propriety, or the right of an hon. Member to wear a badge with a statement or

slogan that otherwise might be considered unparliamentary. Although our rules

and past practices do not cover every circumstance and every eventuality, by

following these procedures and the past practices of the House, we are pretty

much able to come up with a fairly accurate determination. In all of the

proceedings in the House, be it Question Period, written questions, presentation

of petitions, or debates, the Member's behaviour and presentation must adhere to

the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or

casting aspersions. These references are found in Beauchesne, page 141,

Section

481, and Sections (

e) and (

f) and they are particularly relevant. Also,

Beauchesne refers to the reading of materials and says, even with the reading of

materials, that Members must ensure that the rules of the House are followed.

And when we are talking about rules of the House, and in reading, our House has

made a lot of decisions based upon the expression that you cannot say

indirectly, what you cannot say directly, or that you cannot do, through the

back door what you cannot do through the front door, and we have had several

decisions based upon these principles. I refer hon. Members in our own House to

decisions made on March 4, 1981 and July 8, 1991, based on that principle of not

being able to say indirectly what one cannot say directly.

In the presentation yesterday, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader, mentioned in the exhibits saying that: `buttons, pins in lapels, and

this kind of thing were not considered as exhibits and were therefore

permissible; I think what hon. Members have to look at is what is on these pins,

what is inscribed on these pins, what is inscribed on these badges, and

obviously, if they do not adhere to the proprieties of Parliament, then

obviously, they are out of order. So any button, lapel pin, and so on, which has

inscribed upon it words, phrases, statements, which contravene the proprieties

of the House, for example, in terms of using offensive words against Members -

and this is found in Standing Order 52, of our own Standing Orders - in terms of

inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions and, in total, using

unparliamentary language, ought not to be worn or displayed by Members of the

House of Assembly.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that ruling, Mr. Speaker, I know you

did not suggest that I take this badge off, you said that probably, it might be

appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I apologise to you if I caused you any problems by

wearing this lapel pin, yesterday.

I did interpret the rules of the House and the rules in

Beauchesne literally, which actually say that lapel pins are not

unparliamentary, so that is the reason why I wore it, Mr. Speaker. But in

respect of your ruling today - and I have no problem in taking this off - in

respect of your ruling today, I have modified slightly, the lapel pin that I had

on yesterday. I ask one of the Pages to give it to the Speaker and maybe he

could rule if it is presently out of order; if it is not, then maybe I could

wear it, and if it is, I will not wear it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on that a little later.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I would like to take just a moment of the time

of the House to ask your Speaker to send messages on behalf of all hon. Members

to the outstanding artists who were honoured by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Council in an awards ceremony last night. Five artists were so honoured.

Edmund McLean, the Artistic Director of Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador in

Corner Brook, for the last ten years, was given the Artist of the Year award.

John White, a legend in our Province, was chosen as the artist deserving of the

Lifetime Achievement award. And three artists and arts administrators were

inducted into the Hall of Honour: Edith Goodridge, Paul O'Neil, and Flo

Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister of Social Services, with responsibilities for

persons with mental disabilities, I am pleased to inform this House that The Bay

St. George Community Employment Corporation has won the Atlantic Canada

Innovator of the Year award in the Community Service Category.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This corporation, based in Stephenville, has

become a model from which organizations across the country and around the world

are learning. It has been helping persons with mental disabilities perform real

work for real pay for the past five years.

Mr. Speaker, the corporation has assisted five individuals

set up their own businesses, and employ ten other individuals. These include a

mobile canteen service, a school cafeteria, a lobster trap manufacturing

operation and an operation which refurbishes nuts and bolds for the

Abitibi-Price paper mill.

The corporation was founded by the Bay St. George Association

for Community Living, an advocacy group for full integration of people with

mental disabilities into the community.

As Minister of Social Services I am delighted that the Bay

St. George Community Employment Corporation has been honoured in this way. My

Department is involved extensively in services to the mentally disadvantaged and

it is certainly rewarding to see a group such as this recognized. We, in Social

Services, are constantly striving to make the lives of these people more

meaningful and, indeed, encouraging to see a community such as Stephenville

leading the way here. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that the link between the

community economic development process and persons with disabilities is a world

wide innovation, and the Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation is

trying to evolve in a meaningful way the responsibility of a support group from

Government to the community as much as possible. The Stephenville operation has

been used as a model for more than sixty communities in Canada and has had

visitors from the World Health Organization and has received delegations from

Germany and from Sweden. In addition, it has been designed as a "partnership

project" by the Canadian Association for Community Living. It is interesting

that a national survey found that people serviced by the corporation had the

highest earned income of any program of this type in the country.

Mr. Speaker, this project is a living testimony that people

with mental problems can make significant achievements in the community, and I

congratulate the Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation for their

efforts in this area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the

Minister's comments and to say that I am just as proud and pleased as the

Minister. The Bay St. George Employment Corporation is made up of a number of

good friends of mine, and I have watched and seen the work that they have been

doing in the past years.

Mr. Speaker, there is something very unique and special that

is happening in the Bay St. George area, and I would invite all Members, and

some Members I know in this House of Assembly have seen some of the things that

the Bay St. George Employment Corporation are doing, but I would invite all

Members who have not, when they are in the Stephenville area, to have a look at

some of the things that they are doing so that they can relate it to their own

districts, and I would relate that to the media as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the Corporation has done is uplifting, it

is uplifting to the human spirit, and they are a world class group. I think that

the Bay St. George Employment Corporation can be very proud of what they have

done, and so can the people of Stephenville and the people of Bay St. George and

Port au Port Bay for whom they serve. So, again, I congratulate the group on the

fine work that they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the

House recognize that the people of this Province - particularly since the Budget

decisions quite regularly, most notably in the form of public demonstrations. I

want to ask the Premier whether the Government is considering limiting

demonstrations in any of the public buildings of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only limitation that the Government is

concerned with is safety limitations. The fire commissioner has limitations on

numbers of people that can be involved in any building area at any one time and

obviously the Government is concerned about that. So we have had to take a look

at places where demonstrations may take place and whatever is the maximum that

can be permitted for safety's sake, that limitation should be imposed.

We are concerned for example in the lobby of Confederation

Building. Sometimes if there is a large number of people in the lobby, they go

upstairs and they are over the rail, and they are leaning out, and in the

excitement of the moment it would be disastrous if somebody fell over the rail

or people got crushed or there was a reason to evacuate this building and there

was an inordinate number of people there that prevented safe and secure

evacuation and somebody was injured. It is too late then.

So I think the Government has to make sure that steps are

taken to comply with the fire commissioner's order for safety reasons.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Earlier Your

Honour used the words in a ruling: that you cannot do through the back door what

you cannot do through the front door, or will not do. The problem we hear now is

that you cannot get in through the front door. Can the Premier confirm that a

Minute in Council has been issued by Cabinet today that prevents demonstrations

in the lobby of Confederation Building?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, no Minute of Council has

been passed preventing demonstrations in the lobby of Confederation Building.

Any demonstration that the lobby of Confederation Building is capable of

accommodating is not only permitted, it is welcomed. I have no objection

whatsoever to it. But we do have a responsibility to ensure that we protect the

safety of people, whether they are demonstrators or the people who work in the

building, even hon. Members opposite, we have a responsibility to ensure their

safety and we will discharge that responsibility.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should direct my

supplementary to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, because I

can assure the Minister and the Premier that the direction that has been given

and the

interpretation of the Minute in Council from Cabinet is that there would

not be any demonstrations allowed in the lobby of Confederation Building. I have

been told that personally, by security people. Can the Minister confirm that it

is accurate? If not, would he call in his director of security and explain what

the

interpretation of the Minute in Council is supposed to be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the

Premier explained exactly what the situation is and the only instructions the

security people have as far as I am concerned is to maintain the safety of the

building. That is the only instruction as far as I know.

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

MR. SIMMS: We will pursue it further, Mr. Speaker, but

just a final supplementary, if I may. It would be unheard of, with mines closing

down, fish plants closing down, and everything else happening, with health care

cutbacks, education cutbacks, and everything else happening, it would be unheard

of to have that happen, but I can assure the Premier that is the direction that

the security people in this building have - that they understand. I am asking

the Premier if he would investigate it and check to make sure that is not the

interpretation that they should be taking on this issue, and secondly, can I ask

him why instructions were given to lock the front of Confederation Building

doors at 12:15 today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to can

demonstrate in Confederation Building, in the lobby of Confederation Building,

and if thirty, forty, fifty, 100, 150, if 200 people want to demonstrate in the

lobby of Confederation Building, they are welcome. The Government will not take

steps to stop them. The Government will take whatever steps are necessary to

ensure the safety of the persons who are involved in the demonstration, or the

persons in the building. Now, if that means you have 1000 people outside, all of

whom are going to rush to get in, the doors will be closed to stop them, of

course. There is no question about it. If you have 100, 150, or 200 people

outside, the doors will be opened and there will be no steps taken to stop them.

MR. SIMMS: They were locked today.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check that. I do not know why

they were locked today. I suppose somebody suggested there was going to be a

major demonstration but it is obvious that the people of Mount Pearl are quite

prepared to hear what the Government has to say on the issue, listen to it, and

express their views on the issue at the time, Mr. Speaker, in due course that

will be done, but I assure the House that the Government will take all measures

that are appropriate to protect the lives and safety of the people in this

building. In the meantime I will check and see what occurred today.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs and I would like to say to the Minister: in an interview

with CBC Radio, carried on the morning newscast, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs said that his amalgamation package will be brought to the

House sometime this month for some initial debate, these were the Minister's

words, but the issue could then be left in limbo over the summer or perhaps even

up until early fall when the House resumes later on in the year. Now, I want to

ask the Minister: Given the intense emotions building around the issue of forced

amalgamation, why would the Minister even think about another postponement? Why

would he have the issue linger and fester for another six, seven, eight or ten

months?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, obviously at this stage I

cannot speak for Government or speak for the House because we have not yet

brought any resolution to the floor of the House. Certainly, Government's intent

is not to let this issue linger any longer than we have to. We will allow for

debate in the House of Assembly. You are quoting me completely out of context.

Your words are nowhere like my interview with the CBC. What I said in fact was

that there would be a debate in the House of Assembly most likely following a

resolution and a decision would have to be made on the procedures and Government

would have to make decisions as to how to proceed in the House. We would have a

debate, there is no question about it. We are anxious to resolve this issue as

quickly as we can. We have had two years, well certainly a year and a half of

good thorough briefing sessions, hearings, presentations by the councils, by the

people, by interested community groups, there has been a good thorough debate,

when it is time for a decision, Government intends to take one.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs is under so much pressure these days I do not think that he

himself knows what he is saying.

Now, let me ask the Minister this: Will the Minister tell the

House if Government brings amalgamation legislation in the form of legislation

or a resolution to this House during this sitting will it be dealt with before

the House adjourns? I hope that it is not the Minister's intention to leave it

on the order paper.

MR. SIMMS: Before the summer adjournment.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: For anybody who heard the interview, Mr.

Speaker, clearly I did not say what is being described as what I did say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are always right.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have every intention to

resolve the matter of amalgamation on the north east Avalon. With some seventeen

communities involved, it is obviously effecting some 30 per cent of our

population. We do not intend to let it linger any longer than this sitting of

the House.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been very coy

with his words. This sitting of the House could very well mean that it would not

be dealt with until we come back in the fall.

Now let me say to the Minister - sitting does not mean

session. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: Rather than more

postponement and delay, why does not the Minister do the right thing and

Government change its policy, why does not the Minister forget about

undemocratic forced amalgamations, why does not the Minster let communities and

towns and cities in this Province make up their own minds about how they want to

govern themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people, the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is

quite right in correcting me, I meant to say session of the House. Certainly we

intend, before this session ends -

AN HON. MEMBER: Make up your mind boy, make up your mind.

MR. GULLAGE: Make up your mind, which way do you want to

describe it, it cannot be described both ways, which way do you want it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Before we adjourn for the summer, could we

put it that way?

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we are going to leave a year and

a half-

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask your leaders to get together on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we are going to

leave a year and a half of work on behalf of commissioners, councils, people,

community groups, Government Opposition, debate in the House and leave that and

not do anything is ludicrous. Obviously, we are going to make decisions. We have

Metro lands, we have communities growing up adjoining other incorporated bodies

under the jurisdiction of Metro Board; they have to be annexed to other

communities, that is crying to be done for years. We have a water supply, we

have a fire department, we have municipal services, obviously we have to deal

with the issue and we will deal with it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier: in view

of the very strong show of support from the people of Mount Pearl last evening,

which no doubt this Government is well aware of by their actions today, and the

three petition which I hope to present this hon. House later this afternoon, in

view of that show of emotion and support, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the

Premier's position as it related to Meech Lake, as I asked him yesterday, and

the view that he took that Newfoundland should have an opportunity to decide its

own fate and not be dictated to by the rest of Canada, will he now, once again,

assure us that he will extend that same courtesy and right to the people of

Mount Pearl and hold a plebiscite in the city of Mount Pearl before any

annexation is forced on the city?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl

will have no less rights than the people in any other part of the Province, but

they will have no greater rights either, and to do what the hon. Member asks, is

to give them greater rights, which the Government is not prepared to do.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl will be treated fairly

with all the other people of the Province; we are not going to give preferential

treatment to any people in any district, in any community or any city of the

Province, in the manner in which the former Government did.

We intend to be fair with everybody, Mr. Speaker, and we will

handle this thing, this issue with fairness and balance in the same way we

handle all other issues.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: in

view of the fact that last Sunday the cities of Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer in

Quebec held a plebiscite, a similar plebiscite with a similar question, and that

the answer was loudly that the people of Hull wished to annex the other two

communities. The people of Gatineau and the people of Aylmer refused to join the

city of Hull, and the Province of Quebec said: unless all three were in favour

that amalgamation would not proceed. Is the Minister prepared to give the people

of Mount Pearl the same courtesy as the Government of Quebec gave to the cities

in Quebec? Is there democracy in Newfoundland or is it only in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there is real democracy

in Newfoundland. If we are going to decide whether or not the communities in a

given geographic area ought to be amalgamated instead of being separate

municipalities, we can only do so, in fairness, on the basis of a majority of

vote of the total people in that area. Now that is our concept of fairness to

everybody. You cannot let one group decide for the whole. You do it on the basis

of the majority of the total area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Extend it for example to Wedgewood Park -

just take that as an example. Wedgewood Park alone could make the decision

without regard to what the vast majority of the people of the St. John's area,

totally surrounding Wedgewood Park, would decide. We think that if a plebiscite

was held that would be an undemocratic way to proceed and if a plebiscite is

held we will not be proceeding in that way, we would be proceeding on the basis

of a single plebiscite.

But I do not want these comments, Mr. Speaker, to lead

Members to conclude that the Government is inclined at this stage to hold a

plebiscite. That will be decided shortly.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear the

Premier does not intend to hold a plebiscite in Mount Pearl, and perhaps not

anywhere else. Will the Premier not take the spoken word of the people of Mount

Pearl as represented by these petitions and accept this as the will of the

people of Mount Pearl, and ensure the people of Mount Pearl that they will not

be forced to be annexed with anybody else against their will?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government will probably

on Monday or Tuesday, or sometime early this coming week, I would expect, bring

its position before the House and make it known to all the Members of the House

and to the public of the Province, and in particular the people of Mount Pearl

and St. John's and all the communities in the surrounding area, so that

everybody will hear it. We believe the place to do it is in this House first and

that is what we intend to do.

In the meantime, we will not give the people of Mount Pearl

or the people of any other city or community or town an undertaking that we will

proceed in a way that is particularly preferential to that one community, town

or city.

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

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

the Premier as well. Now as the Premier is aware, the people of St. Lawrence

have been hit very hard over the years, specifically the families and widows of

deceased miners. And the Premier will be aware that hearings are presently

underway in St. Lawrence regarding benefits for these people. Mr. Gordon

Seabright has been appointed to conduct these hearings. Could the Premier please

indicate to whom Mr. Seabright will be reporting his findings? Will it be

reported directly to Government? Will it be reported to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, the Workers' Compensation Commission, because

the people of St. Lawrence have been waiting now for some time. They are quite

anxious, indeed, to have this matter resolved, and it is taking a lot of time.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter is being

addressed by my department and Mr. Seabright will be reporting to me after he

has had his discussions with the people of St. Lawrence.

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

MR. DOYLE: My supplementary is to the Premier. Maybe he

can answer this one. The Premier will be aware that Mr. Gordon Seabright is

Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal of the Workers' Compensation Board; he is aware

of that. And at some point in the whole process, the widows and the families of

these deceased miners will have recourse to appeal to the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal any of the decisions that Mr. Seabright is going to make at

these hearings.

Now, we have a problem here, because Mr. Seabright is also

Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, so they will appeal the

decision of Mr. Seabright, to the Appeals Tribunal, of which Mr. Seabright is

Chairman. Now, the question is obvious, Is this not a clear-cut case of conflict

of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If all of his assumptions were correct,

Mr. Speaker, it would be a conflict of interest, but there are two major

assumptions that are incorrect. The people of St. Lawrence will not, to the best

of my knowledge - and I will check this to make sure that it is correct - but to

the best of my knowledge, will not be appealing any decision that Mr. Seabright

is making to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Mr. Seabright is carrying

on an entirely different undertaking in relation to that.

If, subsequently, or at any time in the future, anybody

involved is on the receiving end of a decision of the Workers' Compensation

Commission that affects them, that may well be appealed to the Workers

Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and that is not a decision of Mr. Seabright, that

is a decision of the Board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if, in the meantime, anything that is

decided upon or done by the Workers' Compensation Board at the Workers'

Compensation Commission in the future affecting any of those people, is

determined by, or dependent upon, or reflects any decision or recommendation

that Mr. Seabright made during the course of his giving advice to the Minister

on this issue, I have no doubt that Mr. Seabright would not, in any manner, be a

participant in an appeal. There are two vice-chairmen, and the Board operates on

separate panels, just to ensure that it can operate with complete independence.

I would expect that one of those other panels would function, so I do not see

any problem.

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

MR. DOYLE: Let me assure the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that

they will have recourse to appeal, and it will be to the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal. I have checked it out quite thoroughly and I ask the Premier

to check it out, as well. Given that, why would the Government, and why would

the Premier, place the Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal in such an obvious and

blatant conflict of interest position, when it is so absolutely clear that

appeals will likely be made to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal? Does

it not bring into question the integrity of the whole process currently underway

down in St. Lawrence? And will the Premier, today, do one thing or the other,

either remove Gordon Seabright as Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal, or remove

him from the hearing process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is not an obvious and

blatant conflict of interest, it is an obvious and blatant misrepresentation of

the reality. Mr. Seabright, to the best of my knowledge, and I will check that,

is doing work that is not subject to appeal. His decision will not, as far as I

know, be subject to appeal by anybody. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

is doing an investigation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: He is doing an investigation and giving

advice to the Minister on some issues. Now, it may well be, Mr. Speaker, that

there may be some connection between applications that individuals may make to

the Workers' Compensation Commission in the future. They may be remotely

connected, they may be moderately closely connected, or they may even be closely

connected, I do not know, but if anything comes up that has, in any manner, any

connection whatsoever, there are two other chairpersons on that Board, two other

independent ones, and they operate on the basis of three different panels at

different times to ensure that they can operate independently and there would be

no conflict. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a blatant conflict of interest, it is a

blatant misrepresentation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question if for the Minister of Environment and Lands, and

it concerns the Robin Hood Bay landfill site, in which the City of St. John's,

on June 30, announced its intention of not accepting any more septic waste from

the Northeast Avalon. Can the Minister advise the House whether he is prepared

to avoid approving another landfill site, and rather, support an alternative

which would be more environmentally sound, in that others may be able turn this

waste into some useful product?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, similar questions were raised

by the hon. Member and others on Tuesday evening in the Estimates Committee. We

discussed it at some length, I think. It is a problem, and the fact that the

City of St. John's has given a deadline for the length of time they will accept

septic waste is a fact that has been well-known to the public. Now, we have

discussed on two occasions, with the Mayor of the City of St. John's, that

problem, and we have also corresponded with other communities in the Northeast

Avalon area that make use of that facility. It is not a simple problem to

overcome. There are, as we have discussed in the Estimates, some possible

alternatives to just dumping raw septic waste but it is not something that I, or

anyone, can solve overnight. We are in consultation with the City. My colleague,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, said he would revisit the

question of the availability of funding with respect to a study. Whether or not

that results in a recommendation of an alternate site or not is a little too

early and I can not prejudge that at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Can the Minister make a commitment, now, to

the House that he will refuse to approve a new site, and rather, use the money

that might be used for that site to support - subsidize if necessary, have a

demonstration project - to show that alternatives can be done that are more

environmentally sound and do not pollute the environment? Will he make the

commitment to avoid having other landfill sites and use every effort that would

otherwise be made to find alternatives that are safer, more environmentally

sound, and that show some leadership in that field by this Government?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make such a

prejudgemental commitment at this point in time.

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

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

Minister of Social Services. On May 1, this year, the Minister implemented new

procedures within his department with respect to transportation costs for

medical purposes for social services recipients. Can the Minister tell us what

these new changes were, the ones that were made as of May 1?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I had to give you every

detail in the new transportation, it would take me several minutes, but I will

give you an outline of what we are intending to do in the affairs of

transportation of social services recipients for medical reasons.

We have implemented a rule that we will not pay

transportation for people living within a community where there is a local

doctor, if the doctor is only a short space from where they live. They would

have to find their own transportation. If people have to travel a distance, to

give you an example, from Bay Roberts to St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that could possibly be.

- what has been happening in the past is, one person has been

getting a taxi and travelling to St. John's from a particular area, say sixty

miles, at the cost of $90 for a flat rate and $12 an hour waiting time. So, the

department is co-ordinating, and instead of having one person going, we will

make sure that if a trip is going to St. John's, if somebody needs to go the

Janeway Hospital for example, we will make sure that at least three or four

people will travel in the same car. We are trying to co-ordinate it and, instead

of spending $5 million a year in transportation, make sure that people still get

the same services with less cost, so that we can spend the monies in other ways

in the department, where people need it badly.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: It appears from the Minister's suggestion,

you have to take a number and get in line when you get sick. But, since the last

Budget did not include any increase for social services recipients, except for a

fuel allowance that comes into effect on November 1, of $55 a month for single

parents - and the Minister is aware that within district travels there can be

considerable distance involved, in my particular district, up to fifty

kilometers on a return trip - the department will not now pay the cost.

I ask the Minister, since he did not give any increase - he

has already said that the present allowance is inadequate - how does he expect

these people to avail of medical facilities in this Province if they did not

have enough before, and now you are charging them for it?

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

MR. EFFORD: The Member is almost as good as I was when I

was over there asking questions. Let me tell you one clear thing, nobody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, the hon. Member for Humber East found the

flashlight. Nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who requires

medical transportation - now, if the hon. Member wants the answer I will give it

to him. If not, I will sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. Members to maintain the orderliness of

Question Period, and I would ask the hon. Member for Fogo to continue with his

question.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister knows the letter that he sent out on May 1 does

not indicate what he has just said, that there is not service available for in

district travel. Furthermore, the Minister is having a review done now to look

at in district travel to a hospital for lab, X ray, and specialists. Is it the

Minister's intention to eliminate this service as well? What does he expect the

recipients of social services in this Province to do for medical care if the

Minister has now taken away the few benefits that they did have?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members know that the question has been asked and that

hon. Members get a chance to ask a supplementary. I do not know if they are

happy with the question asked but, I would ask hon. Members please to allow the

Minister to answer.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will say very clearly to the

hon. Member for Fogo that we do not intend to take away transportation necessary

for individuals who need medical services. What we have to do is to very clearly

co-ordinate something that has been abused by individuals, taxi operators and

everybody over the past number of years. When you hire a taxi and take one

individual to a hospital sixty or seventy miles away, and then have a waiting

time of $12 an hour, then you have to co-ordinate. So that same service will be

provided but it will not be for one special individual - I mean if the need is

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if a person requires

transportation because of an emergency situation because they are sick, they

will not be using a taxi, they will be using an ambulance the same as everybody

else and that transportation will be provided. But for general visits to an

outpatients clinic or to a general practitioner we are not going to spend $5

million and throw the money away. The monies will still be provided in a

co-ordinated fashion so that more people who need the service will be able to

get the service. I can assure you nobody in this Province who needs medical

transportation from their area will be denied it by the Department of Social

Services. It will be provided.

MR. SIMMS: Read the memo.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo, time for a short supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume from the

Minister's answer that if someone has the flu they have to wait for five other

people to get it so they can get pneumonia, so they can get a taxi to go, is

that what the Minister is saying they have to do? You have to have five people

now. They have to have a serious illness now before they can get medical

attention, because that is what you just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Surely goodness, the hon. Member is not

suggesting that because a person gets the flue we pay $120 to go to a hospital,

surely goodness, that is not what you are suggesting.

I said very clearly that we are trying to bring some sense to

the Department of Social Service in co-ordinating a proper transportation policy

instead of allowing every individual in the Province to hire a taxi at will.

There are 24,000 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador depending

upon social assistance and every individual case is assessed on its own merit

and that is what is going to be done while I am Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

On behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery today councillors from the City of Mount Pearl accompanied by

His Worship Mayor Harvey Hodder, and the Deputy Mayor Ms Bettney, and

councillors Derm Connolly, Dave Denine, Ed Grant, and Glorian Pearson, and also

a number of city officials and staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Also in the Speaker's Galley is councillor Atkinson from the

City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition, but before I do I want to thank

Your Honour for not ruling my button out of order. It reads, 'Mount Pearl, my

city, my home, pride in our past and confidence in our future', and I wear it

proudly.

I beg leave to introduce a petition, the first of three that

I have today, and I ask leave to present the three. First of all I would like to

present a petition, Mr. Speaker, which has some special significance. It is a

unique petition, I think, and I am not sure but it may well be the first time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Maybe we should establish what the Member is looking for. The

Member said he is going to present three together?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will present this one and

obviously hon. gentlemen opposite may wish to respond.

This particular one, Mr. Speaker, was taken up by a young

lady who is in the gallery today, in the Speaker's Gallery, by the name of

Vanessa Vincent. She is eleven years old and in Grade V1 at Mount Pearl. She, on

her own volition, because of her concern for the amalgamation issue, wrote out a

petition, took it up and down her street with the help of some of her friends,

Michelle Gibbons, Nicholle Jones, Bradley Jones, Kim Williams, and altogether,

Mr. Speaker, there are some 300 names on this petition. I would like for her to

stand to be recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is

in her own words, and she specifically stated to her parents that she did not

want to use long words such as amalgamation. She is dealing with her peers in

Grade V1. It say, very simply: to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

we want to tell you we do not support the joining of Mount Pearl with St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is very

straightforward and very simple. The message, I believe, from this young lady

and her friends is a very strong message. If you want to know the spirit of

Mount Pearl, as I said at our meeting in Mount Pearl last night, the spirit of

Mount Pearl is alive and well and never better represented than it is by this

young lady and the people who supported her in this particular petition.

Mr. Speaker, should I use the old cliche, 'Out of the mouths

of babes.'? We as civic leaders always talk about the future of our city. We

have a responsibility to lead the way and set the stage for future generations

and here we have an example of where future generations are speaking out loudly

and clearly for themselves, and that is why I think this petition has some

significance and a special meaning, because here are young people letting us

know through their voice. As I told the crowd last night, about two weeks ago I

had a group of students who came here from my district and I had the pleasure of

speaking with them, as I always do, whenever I have the opportunity to speak

with students who visit the Chamber. At that time, I explained to them the

workings of the House, what Government is all about, and what my role in the

House of Assembly is. One of my roles, as Your Honour knows, is that I have a

responsibility to present petitions to this hon. House on behalf of my

constituents. I am their voice in the people's chamber, and this is where we are

today. I told them at that time if they had an issue, and I do not believe

Vanessa was amongst that crowd, but if they had an issue they were concerned

about that they had every right to take up a petition and bring it to me and I

was duty bound under the rules of Parliament to present that petition to the

House of Assembly on their behalf. Little did I know at that time that just a

couple of weeks later I would indeed have the privilege of presenting such a

petition here. I think it is a significant petition for that reason alone, Mr.

Speaker, in that we are talking about young people.

Mr. Speaker, the Government needs a message. If they do not

want to listen to what I am saying, if they do not want to listen to what Mayor

Hodder, the members of council, the city staff, and what other people in Mount

Pearl are saying, perhaps they might listen to the children. Perhaps they might

listen to the young people who want to have a say in what the future of their

city will be. How much more real can a message be, Mr. Speaker, than one coming

from the young people of our community? How much more sincere can a message be

than when it comes from the children of our community who have enough concern,

and enough knowledge and insight into what is taking place in their city to take

the initiative to take up a petition such as this?

I think it is a tremendous petition, and I think it is a

strong message. I beg the Government to consider this message. If you are not

prepared to listen to my words, listen to the words of Vanessa and her peers,

Mr. Speaker. Get the strong message that the people of Mount Pearl wish to

choose to live in the City of Mount Pearl and these children wish to grow up and

live in the City of Mount Pearl in the future as well. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it takes a terrific amount of

patience to share the City of Mount Pearl, jurisdiction wise, with the Member

for Mount Pearl because he continues to make, almost on every issue connected

with Mount Pearl - I can go back to the fire department as one - almost every

issue that we have discussed in this House of Assembly concerning Mount Pearl

eventually becomes a political issue, and this is clearly one of those. Last

night I understand that he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: - it was pretty well - I will not say it was

a gathering engineered by his district association, but it was clearly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - it was clearly, from his point of view,

meant to be a political campaign, I would sense, particularly against me.

Mr. Speaker, the annoying part about this is that - everybody

has a right to collect petitions, of course, and they are a part of the

democratic process, and I admire the people who have done that. But the fact of

the matter is we have not brought any resolution to this House of Assembly. The

Member for Mount Pearl has been quoted as saying, and perhaps incorrectly

because the press is often wrong, they have been seen to be wrong, but I have

heard him quoting a City of St. John's to be expanded to take in Mount Pearl,

Paradise, St. Thomas's, the Goulds, Petty Harbour, St. Phillips and Portugal

Cove. I mean that sort of speculation in the press before Government has even

announced its intention is totally and completely irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in

the north east Avalon with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. Minister take his place. Before we proceed too

far in this matter, the Chair wants to point out to hon. Members that in

presenting petitions we are not in a debating forum. In presenting petitions

hon. Members speak to the petitions, they know the addresses of the signatories,

the number of the signatories and the material allegations in the petition. The

Chair wants to rise here because it is sensing that we might be drifting into

the area of debate and the Chair wants to make sure that does not happen.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the wording from the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl correctly, that the petition from the young lady

that was collected clearly said, 'we do not support joining the people of Mount

Pearl with St. John's.' I think I am speaking to that very point, the fact that

we are not yet into this House of Assembly with a resolution that says anything,

because we are not debating a resolution. So my point is that the Member is, as

I just mentioned, with total speculation rhyming off eight or ten communities

coming together with no thought of the facts because the facts will not be known

until we come in here, obviously. I think that is totally irresponsible, Mr.

Speaker, but I do praise the young lady for collecting the petition and other

petitions that were collected. That is the democratic right of the people to do

that. We have petitions presented in this House on almost every issue

imaginable.

I also said, and I have been quoted as saying, that the fact

that both City Councils, the two main larger councils, the two cities if you

like, have had advice from public relations firms and have been carrying out a

campaign presenting the facts as they see them from their city's perspective,

and I think that they have every right to do that as well. There are those who

would say, 'do we need this great debate going on in the press?' I do not know,

but they have the right to do it. People have the right to say how they feel

about an issue, and people certainly have the right to collect petitions and say

how they feel about amalgamation. I am not denying that right. What I am saying

is my annoyance as a Minister with the misrepresentation of the facts and the

debate and the calling of public meetings to debate a Government measure and a

resolution that is not even on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, that is what

annoys me.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty believing what I just heard.

In July of 1989 this Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs launched a

wholesale campaign of amalgamating municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador,

including joining Mount Pearl with St. John's. Now a citizen of Mount Pearl who

is eleven years old wrote a message to the Government, `Don't join Mount Pearl

with St. John's.'

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

Provincial Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible) if they are going to make

statements, make sure they are correct. We did not enter the hearings process

with any amalgamation scenario that involved joining St. John's to Mount Pearl.

We did not proceed that way.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. Member

took advantage of the situation to make a point of - something.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an eleven-year-old citizen of Mount Pearl took

the initiative to write a message to the Government of her Province. The message

reads: `Do not join Mount Pearl with St. John's.' And the Minister, who

represents part of Mount Pearl, doubts her sincerity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this girl, Vanessa

Vincent, took the initiative to give a message to the Government and to collect

the signatures of her schoolmates and friends and neighbours, as the Member for

Mount Pearl said, is an example of tremendous community spirit. Now, Mount Pearl

is a municipality that is viable in every sense of the word. It is exceptionally

well run. It pays its way, and it operates in harmony with adjacent communities.

In addition to all of that, Mount Pearl has a vibrant community spirit. Vanessa

Vincent and the other 23,000 citizens of Mount Pearl, to a person, love their

community. It is a community, and Vanessa's message is: Do not take that away

from me. It is her home.

The message that these people are trying to get across to the

Government is that there is more to life than balance sheets, than impersonal

facts and figures. You have to think about people's feelings. Mount Pearl has a

heart and a soul. Leave well enough alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to

introduce a second petition. This one has been taken up by the Mount Pearl Youth

Advisory Group. it reads: `We, the youth of Mount Pearl, are against the

Provincial Government's supercity concept, which would see Mount Pearl become a

ward of St. John's. Again, Mr., Speaker, the wording is quite simple,

straightforward, the message very clear.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have just heard from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, that he would impute motives to the young people

of Mount Pearl. If he thinks this is a political petition - this petition was

taken up by the youth of Mount Pearl, not at the meeting last night, but on

their own volition, in the schools, a strong message from the youth of Mount

Pearl, without my knowledge.

Vanessa's petition was presented to me last night. The first

knowledge I had of it was when she walked into the room last night with her

father and with Mayor Hodder and presented me with that petition. And if the

Minister thinks that the meeting last night was organized as a political

meeting, I assure him it was organized by the City of Mount Pearl and that there

were many people in that hall who campaigned and worked for him in the last

election, and who spoke last night at that meeting. Many of them who spoke to me

have called me since and asked: `When is our Member going to speak for us? Who

is representing us now?'

I can assure him that 6,000 or 7,000 names in this petition

come from his district. He should be presenting this petition in the House of

Assembly, for those people, not I. These people who campaigned for him - he

walked into their living rooms and asked them to campaign for him in the last

election - they now have signed their names to this. Are they political as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I rose a little while ago to remind hon. Members that in

speaking to a petition, we ought not to get into debate. I have allowed the hon.

Member to retort to some of the comments made by the Minister, allowing a little

tit for tat, but I believe, now, that the Member should get into the proper

presentation of the petition and address the signatures and the allegation.

The hon. Member.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I accept

your ruling entirely. You are correct, and I thank you for allowing me the same

leverage as the Minister enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 1,680 names, I believe, on this

particular petition. This petition came from the youth of Mount Pearl, and again

it is a very strong message from the young people of Mount Pearl, to raise their

concerns, the concerns of the young people of Mount Pearl as to what may take

place. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are people who are enjoying, perhaps more than

the rest of us, recreation facilities, for example, in the City of Mount Pearl.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to this House, that we enjoy recreation

facilities second to none in this Province. And before anybody jumps on his feet

and says, `Oh, well, look what the Province has given you,' I reject that

outright, Mr. Speaker. Recreation facilities in Mount Pearl have been paid for

by the people of Mount Pearl, and paid for very, very, well. I will challenge

anybody who would deny me that. They are well utilized, and they are utilized,

by the way, not only by the people of Mount Pearl. Many people from outside come

in to the City of Mount Pearl. We have a track and field facility which is a

regional facility. I am hearing so much about regional facilities being provided

to the people of Mount Pearl at no cost. We have a regional facility. Yes,

indeed, there was a contribution to that facility by the Provincial Government,

but a large percentage of it was paid for by the taxpayers of Mount Pearl and,

in fact, by the school system of Mount Pearl. Some funding was put into that

whole thing by the school boards, in fact, because of the benefit it would give,

and it is providing an international standard track and field facility to this

entire region, a little different from the Aguarena in St. John's which serves,

yes, the whole region, but it was built entirely by the Provincial Government

and is operated and subsidized entirely by the Provincial Government. So, if we

want to talk about regional services, the cost of regional services, and who

benefits from them, I can talk just as long as hon. gentlemen opposite can talk.

What I am talking about here are the youth of Mount Pearl,

some 1600 of them, who have again, on their own, taken the initiative to sign a

petition, to send another message to this Government, a loud and clear message,

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they, indeed, are concerned about the future of their

city, that they, indeed, value the community identity that my colleague just

talked about, in Mount Pearl, an identity which I believe, Mr. Speaker, is more

important to the people of Mount Pearl than you will find in any other community

in the Province, and for which we are well-known, particularly in recreation

circles, Mr. Speaker. You talk to people involved in recreation in this

Province, you talk about minor hockey, or minor soccer, or any of the other

major sport governing bodies, and they talk about Mount Pearl as setting the

standards in recreational groups in the Province of Newfoundland. These are the

young people, the youth, the future of our city and our Province, and the

message from them, Mr. Speaker, is also very clear.

I take great pleasure in tabling this petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy and pleased today to rise in my place to

support my colleague who so ably presented a petition on behalf of the youth of

Mount Pearl. I think I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not say to

Vanessa, it is great to have you among us, because it is you, and people like

you, that we look to for the future. We want to thank you today for standing on

your own initiative and doing something that you think is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the petition mentions the

Provincial Government and the concept of a supercity. There is an area in my

constituency, namely, Wedgewood Park, which was first mentioned, as well, in

that supercity concept, but like many other people on the Northeast Avalon, they

are confused, as well as I and everyone else. We have heard reports in the last

number of days that this new city core, or this new urban core will go farther

afield and perhaps include many other areas we did not know of. When we had

those hearings, Mr. Speaker, they did not deal with a supercity, they dealt with

amalgamation, almost, of your own backyard people, of joining Torbay with Flat

Rock, of joining perhaps some other communities, but this supercity was never a

part of what it was all about.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier, today, speak specifically

of Wedgewood Park and what a fine community it is, completely surrounded by St.

John's. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was not always the case. In

1959, a contractor started the housing project that is now Wedgewood Park. The

people there saw the need, and the Government of the day saw the need, of some

kind of improvement within that status and, in 1967, they formed the local

improvement sort of Government we have today in Wedgewood Park, a model town

since 1967.

Mr. Speaker, when they started that town, they immediately

went to St. John's and asked St. John's to take them in, but St. John's refused,

saying they would be an impediment to the City of St. John's. They did not want

them. Now, when they are considered to be affluent, the same as Mount Pearl,

everyone wants them, and who would not, Mr. Speaker?

If I had a business, today, that was making all kinds of

money and everyone knew it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why would

not everyone come in there and say, `Let us buy your company, let us take over

your company'?

Mr. Speaker, it is a business venture; there are no morals in

this; I mean, St. John's might surround Wedgewood Park, but Wedgewood Park

created what is there! Mr. Speaker, there are forty-one businesses in Wedgewood

Park; there are 600 workers in Wedgewood Park, 600 people who go to work. A

great number of them work outside of Wedgewood Park, but there are sixty people

from other areas who work in Wedgewood Park. All we listen to is, you are using

the roads, you are using the infrastructure that was placed there by the City of

St. John's. Mr. Speaker, we are not; there are just as many outside going to St.

John's and working, just as many working in Wedgewood Park from St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, from the community of Flatrock, a lot of our

people work in St. John's, but 90 per cent of our money is spent in St. John's,

spent in organizations, companies, operations that form the tax base of St.

John's. We owe no one anything. The people of Mount Pearl do not and neither do

the people of Wedgewood Park.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I would like to welcome two more councillors

to the gallery today. Firstly, I would like to welcome Councillor Woodford of

the Town of Triton in Green Bay; secondly, I would like to extend a warm welcome

to another Councillor from the City of Mount Pearl, Councillor Simms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I said about the earlier

petition, I would certainly like to commend the Youth Advisory Group of Mount

Pearl for their initiative in taking the time to put together the commission to

take it up, to go door-to-door and solicit support for their petition, but, as I

said in my earlier reply to the Member for Mount Pearl, my point was not with

the petitions.

I think everybody has a right to express his view by way of

collecting names in support of a particular point of view. Both the Youth

Advisory Group and the young lady have done just that, and I commend them for

it. I certainly commend the Council of Mount Pearl for having a public meeting

to discuss the issue, they have every right to do that; they have done so on

other occasions. They have had public meetings and they have certainly had a lot

of public debate in Mount Pearl about the issue of amalgamation since we started

some year-and-a-half ago.

My main point earlier - and I repeat it once again - is that

I think the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for 60 per cent of Mount Pearl,

let us put it that way, should change the name really. His seat, I think, is a

real misnomer. He should find some way to better identify who clearly represents

Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, for the Member to carry on a political campaign

in the middle of such a serious issue, I think, is what I am mainly disturbed

about. So far, the Member for Mount Pearl has been dealing with speculation of

the worst degree. I am not sure what he has said to other press, but in the

press I have read there is no resemblance at all to any scenarios I have seen

about amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon, so clearly he is speculating. And

the same speculation that he talked about in the press, no doubt, was portrayed

last night in the public meeting in Mount Pearl.

Until we come into this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, as a

Government and present a resolution on the floor, political involvement of the

Member in this process is doing nothing but fuel a debate, if you like, between

the two cities, an unhealthy debate, and, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have been sitting here listening to the Minister's

comments, and the Minister now is getting in on the area of debate. I ask the

hon. Member, please, to keep his remarks to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, without carrying on that same

line of speaking, although I think it is pertinent to the petition, I do feel

that the Member for Mount Pearl played a

part in a role and has been playing a

part in a role that is unhealthy in the process. As far as the petition is

concerned, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Youth Advisory Group, as I do the young

lady, for the initiative, and the fact that they are playing an important

part

in this process. Whether they be from our youth or our other citizens of Mount

Pearl, St. John's and other communities, all points of view are welcome and

important as we carry on this process and ultimately arrive at what I hope will

be a good, agreeable and sensible decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a third petition on

behalf of the people of Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, there is a cover sheet on this

petition entitled, `Mount Pearl has spoken'. The prayer of the petition - if I

may, I will read through it - says: `To the hon. House of Assembly in

legislative session convened.

Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has given notice of intent to revise the municipal boundaries and

reduce the number of municipalities within the Northeast Avalon region; and

whereas the City of St. John's has proposed a creation of one large municipality

which has been commonly referred to as the supercity concept; and

whereas the

creation of one large municipality is not in the best interest of the citizens

of Mount Pearl and could result in increased taxation and a lower level of

service; and

whereas the City of Mount Pearl is financially self-sufficient and

pays a fair share of the costs of all regional services provided to it; and

whereas the identity of Mount Pearl would be lost within the supercity concept;

therefore, the undersigned residents of Mount Pearl hereby petition the hon.

House of Assembly to reject the Government's proposal and to introduce only such

changes as are acceptable to the communities involved and proven to be

economically sound by a thorough feasibility study.

Mr. Speaker, that is the prayer of the petition. It is signed

by 12,470 residents of the City of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, add to that the 300 names on

Vanessa's petition, 1,800 names on the petition from the Youth Advisory Group,

and you have a total number of signatures presented here this afternoon of

14,570. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wants a message, I believe that is,

indeed, a message. The Minister thinks I am speculating. I say to the Minister,

we have no choice but to speculate. The Minister has set fears in every

municipality across this Province. If he had not been so tardy in dealing with

the situation, if he had been able to make a decision, if the Government had

come forward and been clean with the people of the Province, maybe we would not

be speculating, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the Minister would end our speculation

and assure us that we will not be amalgamated with the City of St. John's. Maybe

the Minister will say in this House what he has told me privately, that he does

not favour amalgamation of Mount Pearl with St. John's. Maybe he will come clean

with the people of Mount Pearl now and let us know if he indeed would favour

such a thing. And if he indeed does not, then assure us that he will not bring

into this House any resolution or legislation which will force or otherwise

combine the City of Mount Pearl with the City of St. John's against the will of

14,570 constituents of his riding and mine.

Let him come forward and tell us where he stands. Not attack

the youth of our city when they come forward with their position. Not attack me

on politics. I made it very clear last night that this is well above partisan

party politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Hon. gentlemen opposite may not be able to

recognize a sincere approach to the House of Assembly, but I can assure you I

speak today on behalf of at least these 14,570 people. I assure the Minister

also, the next election we will see what party politics is all about though, we

will have another go at it then.

This is a very sincere petition aimed at trying to get a

message across to this Government that this is not only Mount Pearl and St.

John's. There are many communities across this Province that are concerned as to

what this Government may try to impose on them. What we are here to talk about

today are basic democratic rights. That is the issue here. Not St. John's versus

Mount Pearl, or the cost of bus services or fire departments or anything else.

We are talking about the basic democratic rights of 23,000 people to decide the

municipal structure that is appropriate for them. We are talking about the basic

democratic rights of these young people who have told this Government that they

choose to live in the City of Mount Pearl. That they do not want to be forced to

be living in another city against their will.

It is basic democracy. The same kind of democracy, as I

indicated during Question Period, that took place in Quebec, at Hull and

Gatineau and Aylmer. And the Government of Quebec gave them a choice and said:

we will not force it, and if all three communities do not wish that

amalgamation, we will not impose it on you. Why then is this Government not

prepared to assure this House that the people of Mount Pearl will enjoy the same

basic democratic rights?

I will have more to say on that as the afternoon goes on, but

I have great pleasure and great pride indeed in presenting this petition on

behalf of, in total, 14,570 residents of the City of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have

the opportunity to support again this petition presented by my colleague, the

Member for Mount Pearl, who has done a tremendous job on behalf of his

constituents here today in making sure that their views are at least aired on

the floor of the people's House.

Now that is all the Member can do, that is all the people of

Mount Pearl can do. I have been in this House for sixteen years and I have seen

a lot of petitions presented in this House in my time here. I do not believe I

have ever seen one come close to bearing the wishes, desires and aspirations of

almost 15,000 people. I do not think I have seen one come close to that.

That is what is happening in this House today. And the

Minister for Municipal Affairs, the Member for part of Mount Pearl, can only get

up and reflect politically on what people are doing to save their city, to save

their town.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, use Beauchesne to quiet that

Member. He should be seen and not heard. You have insulted your constituents

here today.

What is this about? The Minister says Government has not made

up its mind. Well, that is what it is about! The Government has been dragging

its heels for two years. The Government has frightened dozens of municipalities

in this Province, because they have threatened to rewrite the

political-municipal map of Newfoundland and Labrador. And don't the citizens of

Mount Pearl have a right to be concerned? Don't people in other communities -

Wedgewood Park, or Mount Moriah out in Corner Brook - all of those people have a

right to be concerned because they do not know what this Government is going to

do.

What the people of this Province know is this, they know that

this Government is undemocratic. They know that this Government could not give

two hoots about what people think. They are scared that the voice of 15,000

people will be washed away by the whims of this Government.

The Minister in his opening remarks talked about democracy,

he accepts the petitions because it is democracy. Well, there is another part to

democracy, Mr. Speaker, and that is those who are elected listening to the will

of those who elected them and those who are elected having a responsibility to

act in accordance with the will of those who elected them. There are 23,000

citizens in the City of Mount Pearl 15,000 of whom have come here today and

begged this Government to leave them alone. Why does the Minister and the

Government, Mr. Speaker, not say we are going to leave you alone? They are not a

drag on anybody. They are a positive contributor to the north east Avalon and to

Newfoundland and Labrador. Why does the Minister and the Government not get off

their backs and let them go about making their lives and controlling their own

destiny in their own city, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What is it about this Government, Mr.

Speaker, that makes it want to beat up on people? What is it about this

Government that wants to tell people you do not know what is good for you? What

is it about this Government, Mr. Speaker, that wants to run a dictatorship where

the voice of the people and the will of the people does not mean anything

anymore. I mean, where is democracy gone in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1991,

Mr. Speaker. Where is it? I mean today in the Soviet Union, you can get inside

the walls in Red Square and parade in front of the Lenin Mausoleum, you cannot

get through the doors of Confederation Building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, where is democracy gone in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your Honour has twice ruled in the last twenty minutes that

rather than get into the area of debate we should stick to the prayer of the

petition and so on, and I would suggest to Your Honour that the Leader of the

Opposition is getting very far into the realm of debate and should be brought

back to the point of the petition.

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

point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no point of order, this is a deliberate attempt on

the part of the Government House Leader who knows that I only have five minutes

to speak in this debate, to waste it as fast as he can as he cannot take the

heat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members know the rules with respect to

the presenting of petitions and I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to

continue there is a very short time left.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion just let me

simply say this to the Government: for God's sake for once in two years will you

listen to what the people are saying to you? Will you stop closing your mind to

the will of a vast, vast majority of a viable city and community in this

Province who want you to do nothing for them but to leave them alone and let

them govern themselves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to take a couple of minutes to respond to

the petition by 16,000 people in Mount Pearl. I would like to congratulate the

Council on the very efficient job they did last night. I know that it is not

easy. I myself was part of a similar kind of thing a few years ago. I know it

takes a lot of work to put that thing together in one night.

I would like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what is

happening here and the amalgamation process in the Province: First when this was

mentioned by Government and our intentions were announced, the position of the

Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Mount Pearl and most Members

opposite, that I can recall, was that we were going too fast. After we were at

it for about six months or so, you are going too fast, slow down, take some

time, consider properly what you are doing or what you plan to do. So we took

our time, and we considered. Then what did they say: you are going too slow, why

did you not do it a year ago? Why did you not hurry up and do this?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member says that their comments bear no

relation to political activity. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious from what I

have just said that they will take whatever position at any point in time that

happens to be political for their own political ends.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do not apologize for taking our time and

trying to make the best decision for all concerned. We do not apologize for

that, for taking our time and doing it properly. Had we done anything else I

feel we would have a greater chance of making some serious errors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, you have done enough of that.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition, and I point out

again that I have been involved with many of these petitions brought to the

House. I can understand the people in Mount Pearl expressing their opinions

regarding amalgamation. If they do not want to join with St. John's, they should

express that opinion, and that is all very well. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing I

would like to object to in the prayer of the petition is the fact that it was

directed against some kind of Government proposal. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it had

been to express the views to Government that would have been fair but to somehow

stir up 20,000 or 25,000 people against a Government proposal that does not

exist was a point that I thought had to be mentioned. The Government proposal,

we have made clear, will be obvious in a few days. I believe the Premier said

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week, or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes. What Government proposes will then be

made clear. We have said for a couple of weeks that soon we would make clear

what we propose for the north east Avalon, and we will. And at that time, if

there is need to protest a Government proposal, then great, marvellous! But as

of this point in time there is no Government proposal before anybody to be

rejected. So in that context, that is really the one quarrel that I have with

what the Member for Mount Pearl said. And I am sure that everybody would want

the truth to be made clear. There is no Government proposal at this point in

time. I am sure that everybody will want to make that clear.

I think it indicates that there is a little more to the

petition than simply expressing an opinion. The Member for Mount Pearl knows

what I am talking about. If somebody is telling the people of Mount Pearl that

there is a Government proposal before the House, or Government has said what its

proposal is going to be and to reject it, if people are saying that then that is

simply not true. There is no Government proposal. The Opposition Leader knows

it, the Member for Mount Pearl knows it, and the Member for Grand Falls knows

it. There is no Government proposal.

So aside from that one point I would once again like to

congratulate the people who so very quickly put together a tremendous petition

in a very short time. I believe two or three hours is all it took. Who organized

it, put it together -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. BAKER: If I could have ten seconds, Mr. Speaker? I

cannot help but mention in a lighter vein -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Land Surveyors In The

Province," carried. (Bill No. 29).

On motion, Bill No. 29 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," carried. (Bill No. 31).

On motion, Bill No. 31 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the rules have changed now it

happens the rules of debate have changed and this being a money bill we can say

anything we wish to say. It will be no surprise to hon. Members opposite what my

topic may be for the day.

Now I want to get back to the basis of what we are talking

about, what the people of Mount Pearl are concerned about in the three great

petitions that I presented here today.

Let me say that the people of Mount Pearl are simply, in my

view, representing thousands of other people from around the Province. I do not

wish to get into too many specifics of the debate between Mount Pearl and St.

John's. That unfortunately is the nasty side issue that is taking place, that

has been allowed to take place. The Minister tries to accuse me of inciting the

people of St. John's. I say to the Minister that he is solely responsible for

inciting the people of St. John's in his lack of leadership in moving forward

with whatever proposal there is going to be. He says there is no proposal before

the House. Well, there should be. Or maybe he should tell us what he is

proposing to do.

But he can hardly expect the people of Mount Pearl to sit on

their laurels and wait until Government has made a decision and comes into this

House with the usual sledgehammer and closure that they normally put legislation

through this House with. The people of Mount Pearl have acted extremely

responsibly in letting this Government and this House know their position on

whatever proposals may come forward. And the main thrust of what we are saying

is that we are not prepared to accept being annexed by force into a supercity or

any municipal structure that is not acceptable to the people of Mount Pearl.

That is simply a statement of basic democratic freedom. And

as I said, we are leading the way for the rest of the Province, for other

municipalities all across this Province, the 130 odd municipalities the Minister

included in his review of municipal structures. And what we are talking about

here are the rights and freedoms of every municipality to choose the structure

that is appropriate for them. The Premier stands in his place and says: well, we

will not force anybody to amalgamate against their will unless it is in the

greater public good.

Now I can accept that to a degree. If we had a situation

where a municipality by staying separate was clearly influencing the rights of

other municipalities, if it was a drain on the public purse, if it required huge

subsidies from the Province, if it interfered with the rights of neighbouring

municipalities, then I could accept it with some serious reservations, but I can

accept it to a degree. I still protect the rights of municipalities to decide.

But when you are talking about the third largest city, the

third city in the Province, about a model community, a community that has grown

on its own, against popular opinion, or contrary to popular opinion, without

undue support from the Province. In fact, history will record that over the

years Mount Pearl has received less subsidy than most municipalities in this

Province, and that can be documented quite clearly. So when you have a city that

has enjoyed that measure of success, that has shown time and time again the

excellence of the structure that is in place, the excellence of its planning and

servicing, the excellence of services for the people of the municipality, and I

say without hesitation the excellence of the administration in that city, why

then would any government even suggest that that municipality should disappear

against the wishes of the people of that municipality? Where is the democracy in

that?

If hon. gentlemen opposite could tell me that the city of

Mount Pearl was costing the Province millions of dollars every year in special

subsidies, or that it was costing the city of St. John's millions of dollars a

year in special subsidies of any kind, or costs of any nature, or if it was

receiving free services from the city of St. John's or another region then that

will be a different matter, but indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is not and I hear

people speaking about this issue suggesting that Mount Pearl somehow is not

paying its fair share of services and that the people of St. John's are paying

too much for the services they receive. Well, Mr. Chairman, I remind this

honourable House, that there are indeed regional services in this area, indeed

we do have a regional structure already in place.

The City of Mount Pearl receives certain services from the

City of St. John's, it uses Robin Hood Bay solid waste disposable site and it

pays for the use of that waste disposable site. Now, are we paying a fair share?

Well, ask the City of St. John's, they decide what we pay; if they are not

satisfied that the City of Mount Pearl is paying a fair share of the cost of

operating Robin Hood Bay, let them tell us so, let them document that for us and

we are happy to pay a fair share of the cost of that facility.

The City of Mount Pearl receives bus service from the St.

John's Transportation Commission; are we paying a fair share for that service,

Mr. Chairman? Many would suggest we are paying too much; the service in Mount

Pearl is of a far lower standard than it is in the City of St. John's, but the

fact is, Mr. Chairman, that we pay for that service. The City of Mount Pearl

pays the City of St. John's for bus service, are we paying enough? Well, we will

have to ask the City of St. John's again, Mr. Chairman, because, once again they

decide on what we are to pay.

Where do we get our water supply, Mr. Chairman? From the same

system that much of the City of St. John's receives its water supply, we buy it

from the regional system at Bay Bulls Big Pond, built, owned by the Province,

operated by St. John's Metropolitan Area Board on behalf of the region. Who

decides how much we pay for that, Mr. Chairman? The Province, through the St.

John's Metropolitan Area Board. Are we paying enough? Nobody has told us that we

are not; we are prepared to pay our fair share of the cost of regional water

supply; we pay the same rate as does the city of St. John's for that regional

water supply.

Mr. Chairman, I will get into the fire department, there is

another issue; here we are paying far too much to the Province, not to the City

of St. John's. Fire protection services in this region are provided by the St.

John's Fire Department which is a misnomer, owned and operated by the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador and we pay, I think more than a fair share. Studies

have shown in fact that we pay more for the service provided by the City of St.

John's through the St. John's Fire Department by the Province, we pay more for

that service than if we indeed were allowed to operate our own fire department

and the city of Mount Pearl has gone ahead, built its own fire department, has

state-of-the-art equipment in that fire department and this Government has

refused to allow them to operate the fire department and it is costing us a half

million dollars a year; now, Mr. Chairman, where is the justice in that?

Five hundred thousand dollars a year more to operate, to pay

for the service from the St. John's Fire Department, than if we were allowed the

same rights and privileges that every other municipality in this Province has,

to own and operate its own fire department. Why then are the people of Mount

Pearl being discriminated against as it relates to operating a fire department,

and the city has been very receptive, they have said we are prepared to

participate in a regional fire department.

If that is what is suggested and if it can be shown that it

is in the best interest of the region, if it can be shown that the service

provided to the people of Mount Pearl will be of a high standard and if it can

be shown that the cost is reasonable -

MR. BAKER: A co-operative approach.

MR. WINDSOR: A good co-operative approach, I say to the

President of Treasury Board, the city of Mount Pearl has led the way in

co-operative approach, has led the way. I regret what is taking place now is

going to set that co-operative approach back in this region by thirty years

because the Minister has succeeded by his lack of action, in pitting

municipalities against each other.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. WINDSOR: I hope? No, it is not my hope. The City of

Mount Pearl, Mr. Chairman, and I have always advocated regional co-operation in

this area. We have advocated a regional authority to operate regional systems.

The Provincial Government should not be operating a fire department. It should

not be operating a water supply system. They should all be controlled by a

regional authority. The City of St. John's should not be operating a regional

transportation system or a regional solid waste disposal system. All of those

regional facilities should be operated by a regional authority and paid for on a

user basis, Mr. Chairman, it is clear and simple. We have been advocating that

for twenty years, so how can anybody suggest the people of Mount Pearl are not

prepared to participate in the region? There are other regional services that

could and should be operated as well. We have no problem with that, Mr.

Chairman. What we have a problem with is being forced to participate in a

municipality against the wishes of the people - against the wishes of the

people. There is something basically wrong with being forced to do anything

against your will. We do live -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - in a democratic society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon.

House Leader. I will not abuse the privilege or the right given to me by the

hon. House Leader. I will speak for just a few more moments, and then - other

Members wish to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the city has always agreed to co-operate and

wishes to co-operate in a regional approach to this area. That does not mean

that the City of St. John's should be expanded to the point where it, in fact,

becomes a regional authority. That will, in fact, have a tremendous imbalance.

There must be and there will be an imbalance at any rate because of the City of

St. John's being so much larger than any other municipalities. There is always

an imbalance in any regional authority. The City of St. John's will have a much

greater influence over the workings of that regional authority.

Mr. Chairman, what is being proposed by the city is that the

city become the regional authority. That is not co-operation, Mr. Chairman, and

we are not talking amalgamation here, we are talking annexation and that is what

we object to. If the people of Mount Pearl chose to become part of the City of

St. John's, then sobeit, that is amalgamation. But if the Government forces the

people of Mount Pearl to become part of the City of St. John's, that is

annexation and that is wrong. That is not democratic and it is not acceptable to

the people of Mount Pearl and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is not

acceptable to the people of this Province generally. That is the issue here.

That is the only issue here.

Do the people of Mount Pearl and the people of other

communities around this Province have any basic rights to determine the future

municipal structure under which they live? That is what we are talking about. It

is as simple and basic as that, and all of these other side issues of the cost

of services and who is paying taxes and the provincial Government buildings

being in the City of St. John's, and I heard the mayor this morning on the radio

saying that the city is paying for the paving, street lighting and snow

clearing. She left the impression that the parking lot around the Confederation

Building was paved by the city and that snow clearing was done on the parking

lot by the city. Of course, that is not true. I could spend all day arguing that

the Province paid and built Prince Philip Drive, the Crosstown Arterial, and the

Federal Government built Pitts Memorial Drive, all the regional arterial roads.

Hopefully the Province and the Federal Government jointly will build the outer

ring road. These are special contributions to this area because it is a capital

city and because so many people come to the capital city to do business. But the

same council that is complaining today because they have to provide services to

provincial buildings in the City of St. John's scream their heads off when we

put a provincial building in Mount Pearl, the Motor Registration Building, and

the council in Mount Pearl welcomes provincial buildings. We would welcome the

tens of thousands of jobs that the provincial buildings in the City of St.

John's mean to the city of St. John's and the economic impact that has. We would

love to have more of them. If I could pick this building up today and bring it

in to Mount Pearl I would be delighted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It would look very good.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would love to live in Gander. Probably a

mistake that was made many years ago, was that the capital city should have been

more central.

But I do not want to get into those parochial issues. I can

debate them all day. I have heard so many inaccuracies over the past twenty-four

hours coming from the Mayor of St. John's and others. They are just not

accurate. The fact is that the City of Mount Pearl is indeed paying its way, its

fair share. And if the City of St. John's or the Province can show us where we

are not paying our fair share, the people of Mount Pearl will be delighted to do

so. Show us that we are not paying our fair share. I suggest that you cannot do

that. But if there is a case to be made, if there is a case that the City of St.

John's bears an unfair burden because there are certain facilities necessary in

the Provincial capital, perhaps we should have a Provincial capital commission,

as we have a National Capital Commission in Ottawa. Perhaps there is a case to

be made that the Province, that the people of all of the Province, and every

municipality through the Province or through whatever mechanism, should

contribute to a Provincial capital fund, if there are facilities necessary here

because of the Provincial Government being in the city.

I think the people of Newfoundland would accept that. But to

get on with parochialism, saying that: you are using our streets, you are coming

in here and working and going home. We also spend our money here. And I have

heard it said that Mount Pearl has an unfair advantage because we have Donovans

Industrial Park. I refer to my notes on the numbers. I think these are important

numbers to bring forward.

The City of Mount Pearl has 14 per cent of this region by

population. Fourteen per cent of the people in the region that we are talking

about live in the City of Mount Pearl. The City of Mount Pearl collects 12 per

cent of the industrial and commercial dollar. Fourteen per cent of the

population we service, 12 per cent of the commercial and industrial dollar we

collect.

The City of St. John's, on the other hand, services 57 per

cent of the population of this region. And they collect 77 per cent of the

commercial and industrial dollar.

Now, where is the fairness and balance? Where is the

inequity? The City of Mount Pearl collects 2 per cent less commercial tax

dollars then they have people to serve, the City of St. John's collects 20 per

cent more. Very clearly the City of St. John's benefits by the economic impact

of all of these people living and working and spending their money in the

region.

I made mention the other day, the new American Hockey League

franchise. The city is paying money to bring them here. I suspect the city will

lose money on having that franchise in the City of St. John's. I am delighted to

see it. It will do a great deal for the image, not only of St. John's, but of

Newfoundland generally. It will give us tremendous exposure. The tourism

potential is incredible from having that franchise here, these are dollars I

believe well spent.

We welcome these people, we welcome tourists coming in from

outside of Newfoundland. And yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I will wind up. I realize I am abusing

(inaudible). We welcome tourists from outside of Newfoundland and yet we have

23,000 people on our doorstep who somehow are being somewhat of a burden on the

City of St. John's because we come here - some of us come here - to work and to

spend our money.

Now I did not want to get into those parochial arguments. But

I can go on with them all day if we wish to debate those. I would prefer to

stick to the basic question of democratic rights. The right to determine the

municipal structure that is appropriate and desirable of the people of Mount

Pearl or any other municipality in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. gentlemen opposite for giving me

leave. And I will sit down, I will have another opportunity. Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, again, just for a few minutes, I

would like the Member for Mount Pearl to get up and respond to a couple of

questions that I have about the issue.

The first question is, that the City Council of Mount Pearl,

represented here in the Gallery today, asked the 25,000 or so people in Mount

Pearl to sign a petition to reject a Government proposal, what I would like to

know is, what this Government proposal is that the citizens were asked to

reject? What were they told the Government proposal was, and why was it put that

way, if not to turn an information petition into an open, political petition

that was, in fact, not giving information to Government but was purely

anti-Government. I would really seriously like him to deal with that, because I

think this is the only flaw in the petition, otherwise, everything was perfect

and it was a superb job. But there is a flaw in that, obviously, all these

people have been told about a Government proposal that I know nothing about. So

I would like the Member to respond to that. That was the gist of one of my

comments earlier, when I suspected there were political overtones in this. So,

which Government proposal and when was it formulated, because I know nothing

about it.

The second point is, I would like to ask the Member for Mount

Pearl if he is now reacting in exactly the same way he reacted previous to

Newtown becoming part of Mount Pearl. My understanding, at that time, was that

there was a plebiscite taken in Newtown and the residents of Newtown did not

want to become part of Mount Pearl, and yet they were added. I was wondering

what the Member's position was at that point in time. Maybe my understanding of

the events is incorrect, because obviously I was not closely tied to the

situation and I was not there. It seems to me I remember there was a plebiscite

and the residents of Newtown did not want to become part of Mount Pearl, and yet

somehow they did. So, I would like him to react to that.

I really believe it is unfortunate that this issue has taken

on narrow, political overtones. I think that is really unfortunate, because it

is a very important issue, and one that is a serious issue for everybody

concerned and will be dealt with shortly.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Member for Mount Pearl could

deal with those two issues?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the hon. Member, and I will respond briefly.

His first question is: What is the Government proposal? That,

indeed, Mr. Chairman, is the question. What is the Government proposal? That is

the question. The problem here is that there has been so much said about what

this Government may choose to do, that it is somewhat unclear. But the message

came to us very clearly, through the Minister, in conversations with the

Minister, in conversations with other Members opposite, through public

statements made by hon. Members opposite, who have spoken out, two of the hon.

Members opposite, two backbenchers, who have said they are not prepared to

support forced amalgamation. There is enough information available, Mr.

Chairman, to give the people of Mount Pearl and the rest of this Province

concern, as to what indeed may be taking place.

We admit Government has total control of what they may bring

forward next week, as the Premier tells us, by way of a resolution or

legislation or whatever. Government has total control of what proposal they may

bring forward. Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, if Government does not bring forward

a proposal to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's, I, for one, will be

absolutely delighted.

AN HON. MEMBER: You reject that, then?

MR. WINDSOR: Reject what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Government's proposal.

MR. WINDSOR: I did not say that. What I have said very

clearly, Mr. Speaker, let me be clear here, if the Government brings forward a

proposal that does not force Mount Pearl to be amalgamated with St. John's, or

anybody else against their will, then I will be delighted to say, well, maybe

they did not propose to them. Maybe they were not going to do that. We have

every reason in the world to believe that is, in fact, what this Government is

proposing to do. The Government House Leader is quite correct, they have not

laid that proposal on the table of the House. I accept that. I think I said in

my petition, the proposal of the City of St. John's to create a supercity.

MR. BAKER: Reject this Government proposal.

MR. WINDSOR: Reject the Government proposal.

MR. BAKER: Which does not exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. Member would permit me to announce the

questions for the Late Show?

The first question is, I am unsatisfied with the answer from

the Premier on amalgamation. That is the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, and it was

recorded on May 7, 1991.

The Member for Kilbride, I am unsatisfied with the answer of

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on the Agricultural task force.

And, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl is unsatisfied with the

answer from the Premier on amalgamation.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the Government

House Leader is saying, that the Government has not placed on the table of this

House any resolution, or any proposal, but it is well known as to the concepts

that are being considered, at least, by Government. We have reason to believe,

from the Minister's words, and the Minister may wish to confirm or deny it, but

from the Minister's words, privately and otherwise, that indeed there was a

distinct possibility that an expanded urban core concept may be brought into

this House of Assembly.

MR. BAKER: That is true.

MR. WINDSOR: The Government House Leader now confirms it,

that there is reason to believe that it could be brought here, and that is what

we are saying. We cannot wait until it is here. We know full well that the

minute Government brings a proposal into the Chamber that proposal will go

through, it will be approved, Government will use the majority.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. WINDSOR: I am sorry, I do not accept that. The

Government House Leader shakes his head, and says, no, it will not automatically

go through. That is totally out of character, I am afraid, with the past record

of this Government. Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, once Government makes the

decision on this issue and comes into this Chamber with a proposal, a

resolution, legislation, however they wish to frame it, we may debate it for

four days, five days, twenty days, or 100 days, but in the end the Government

majority will rule. In the end it will rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you do about Newtown?

MR. WINDSOR: I will deal with Newtown in due course. So,

I think the people of Mount Pearl have every reason to be concerned. You may try

to deflect by saying it is political but I assure you it is not. I assure you

there were very real concerns as expressed by 15,000 people today. What they

were shocked at, Mr. Chairman, was they could not believe this Government would

even consider it. They could not believe that this Government would consider

forcing such amalgamation against the wishes of the people. That is the

amazement that we met when we spoke with the people, but I think we had every

right, and every responsibility, to assure them, and the Government House Leader

has confirmed, that it is an option that is being considered. I think we had a

responsibility to let this House, and this Government know, the wishes of the

people on that issue before it is done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: I am not going to spend all day talking

about words. The message is clear, Mr. Chairman. The words may not be as clear

as the Government House would like but I am not going to spend all day arguing

over words.

The hon. Member asked me about Newtown. I remember it very,

very well. I was very much involved in it. The reason that we had a difficult

with what is known as the Newtown area was because the Government of the day was

tardy and refused to deal with it. It was simply an expansion area of Mount

Pearl. The boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, the town of Mount Pearl as it

was then, should have been expanded before the development started, and it was

not. I could tell you why but that would be (Inaudible). Alright? I know full

well why the boundaries were not expanded. The development was planned, a great

master plan, the Mount Pearl - Newtown Government scheme plan in 1970 by Murray

Jones and Associates of Toronto. I was the town engineer at the time and it was

given to me as my bible. When I was hired that was my bible, that was the guide

to development in Mount Pearl and it included all of the existing undeveloped

area of Mount Pearl and all of the adjacent lands. There were two development

schemes, the Mount Pearl Development scheme plan and the Mount Pearl - Newtown

development scheme plan. Two of them went hand in hand and they were

intertwined, but unfortunately part of the Newtown area became developed before

the Government of the day was prepared to deal with the boundary issue and

Dovonans, I say to my friends opposite, was part of it.1868.

The plebiscite was taken as I said because by the time it

became an issue, from the time the Government was prepared to deal with it,

there were 3,000 to 4,000 people living in Newtown and if I am not mistaken, the

present Deputy Mayor was very vocal as a resident of Newtown, am I correct, at

that time, I believe she was and there are other people. Many people who were at

the meeting last night, in fact who were residents of so called Newtown, which

was simply a neighbourhood and who at first, rejected the concept of being part

of the Town of Mount Pearl -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - No, they were not. in public meeting.

Eventually there was a plebiscite, eventually there was a plebiscite held in due

course and the people accepted, they chose, the plebiscite was in favour of

joining the Town of Mount Pearl. At that time neither the Government nor the

Town of Mount Pearl was prepared to force those people, even though it made all

kinds of sense and it was just simply because the Government of the day refused

to expand the boundaries, no other reason and we did give them the choice and

they joined by choice and are extremely happy they did so, now, obviously play

very fully role in the city of Mount Pearl as they should and so I have no

problem with that.

So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your indulgence and

I will have another chance to speak, but some of my colleagues want to address

this question as well.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you -

AN HON. MEMBER: Finally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: You mean finally. I thought you were tired of

hearing me on this subject.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: The Member for Mount Pearl and so many other

people talked about the possibility that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - that the communities of this region may be

put together being undemocratic; everybody knows that you cannot live in the

kind of society we have today and do whatever you want, have whatever kind of

community you want. In my own area of the region, Wedgewood Park has a mil rate

of something like 6.5 compared to people who live in Pleasantville who have a

mil rate of 11, so if you have a $100,000 home and you live in Pleasantville you

have to pay municipal tax, if it is assessed at $100,000, you have to pay

municipal tax of $1,100 a year; if you live in Wedgewood Park, you have to pay

$650 a year.

Well if we are going to say that people can have their right,

they have a democratic right to live wherever they want, then I suspect we could

organize the people of Pleasantville to want to join Wedgewood Park, and the

people of the other sections of St. John's, you have a plebiscite and ask them

all where they want to live, then everybody will want to live in their own

community and have a small tax rate, a small mil rate and we will find that

there is not enough municipal revenue coming in to keep the St. John's region

functioning. Now, who would expect to have that kind of system prevail? So how

can you say that it is being undemocratic to try and bring in an equitable and

fair system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Now there are - quite a standard of democracy

you know - I mean we could talk about figures, the Member for Mount Pearl said

that the city has 57 per cent of the population of the area, the north east

Avalon, I suppose he was talking about, and collects 77 per cent of the

commercial and industrial tax revenues in the area, but what he does not

mention, is that, 87 per cent of the jobs provided in the area are provided in

the city of St. John's, 86 per cent, 86 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Be sensible now; if you are going to debate, be

sensible. Do not talk about silly things, but you know, the important thing that

we have to remember -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - is that this Province is in a very difficult

situation when it comes to financing -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - financing the provision of municipal services

and the only way and I would urge people from rural Newfoundland to pay

particular attention to this. The only way we are going to be able to continue

providing services in the rest of the Province and throughout the Province, is

if people pay a fair share of the burden in accordance with their ability to pay

and in accordance with their capacity to pay and in accordance with the services

they derive.

You know, we have different kinds of taxation in this

Province, we have consumption taxes, income taxes, business taxes, municipal

taxes, and various entities collect various amounts. But when it comes down to

how the province really operates, there is one tax pot in this province, and the

provincial Government determines how it is going to be collected and how it is

going to be spent. And while lots of municipalities are allowed to set their own

mil rates and collect as much money as they want themselves, most of them are

dependent on contributions from the other levels of Government.

So we all have to look at the provincial tax situation if we

are going to have a viable system in this Province. Now the personal tax we pay

in accordance with our ability to pay. Consumption taxes we pay in accordance

with how we consume, retail sales tax, GST and all that sort of thing. Municipal

taxes are supposed to be allocated on the basis of services enjoyed and

estimated on the basis of property assessment. So everybody who enjoys a same

level of services in this Province should pay the same level of municipal

taxation.

Now people in Mount Pearl enjoy the same level of municipal

services as the people down in my district, but they do not pay the same level

of taxation. They have an advantage because their mil rate is lower and they

have an advantage because their assessments are lower.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). What is wrong with that?

MR. NOEL: As for their commercial assessments they pay

half the mil rate of people in St. John's. This new Pearl Gate Shopping Centre

that is being proposed will save $500,000 a year in taxes because it is located

in Mount Pearl as opposed to St. John's. I do not know what the hon. Member is

laughing about.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is laughing at you, boy. You do not

know about Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: He should not be amused by his own ignorance.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know about Newfoundland, that

is your problem!

MR. NOEL: You should not be amused by your own ignorance.

You were speaking here a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it is to

provide municipal services down in your district.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. NOEL: Well if we are going to have - this province is

going to have the money to provide those services, they have to collect it from

the people who are able to pay it. You say your people cannot pay it. Well who

do you expect to pay it?

AN HON. MEMBER: You.

MR. NOEL: That is right! You expect the people of St.

John's to pay it -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you - rich men.

MR. NOEL: - but we are already paying the highest level

of taxes in the whole Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: By far.

MR. NOEL: - by far, as my friend here says. Now that has

to be levelled out. That has to be equalled out, and this is a way of doing it,

and this is a fair way of doing it. Now I do not say that you have to put the

towns together, that amalgamation is the only way. If people think that we can

work out some other system whereby everybody pays an equitable share of the

taxes in accordance to the level of services received, then I would certainly

look at supporting that and I am sure that a lot of other people would, but

nobody else has suggested a very concrete proposal, and certainly not the people

on the other side who have loaded this Province with the tremendous albatross of

debt in order to buy themselves - in order to buy power in this province. They

went out promising municipal services all throughout the province without

putting the proper financing in place and now the whole province is in a bind,

and we have to find the most equitable way out of it. This Government is

probably going to propose one way for this region, and for gentlemen opposite

who are not prepared to support what might be proposed, I hope that we will hear

alternative options from them, and they certainly have not done it to date, and

they have a responsibility to do so. They have a responsibility to the whole

province because that is what we have to realize, we are not just talking about

St. John's here.

The Member for Mount Pearl says that you have to be

democratic, you have to let people do what they want. Well we are not going to

have a province if we allow people to say, 'we don't want to pay taxes'. And if

he is going to make the argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: If he is going to make the argument that the

people of Mount Pearl should be allowed to retain the present system of

Government then he is going to have to extend that argument to Wedgewood Park

and say that people down in Wedgewood Park are going to have to be allowed to

retain their present set up. If we are going to say to the people of

Newfoundland that a little community like Wedgewood Park, which is entirely

surrounded by another municipality and has half the tax rate, has to be allowed

to continue to enjoy that benefit, if we say that around the Province, there is

not going to be any money for the municipalities and the District of the Member

for Grand Bank, to improve the services he wants improved there, but we have to

say that. If we say it for Mount Pearl, if we say they have a right to have

whatever kind of system they want, then we have to extend the same right to

Wedgewood Park.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you want, a great big bureaucracy

here in St. John's?

MR. NOEL: No, that is what you want, because you say we

should have reached some sort of regional system. The Member for Kilbride, on

the radio with me today, said, `What we should have is some sort of regional

system of government that provides some of these services in the region and

bills out the various municipalities.' Well, in order to do that, we will need

another level of bureaucracy. He wants to create more expense. What we have to

do is try and economize. We have to try to make the delivery of municipal

services throughout