May 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 56

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers. Oral Questions.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker.

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

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Justice

was intending to make a statement to the House of Assembly this morning. Perhaps

he did not hear Your Honour's call for Ministerial Statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Do hon. members want to revert to

Statements? I said it on two occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I rose at

the point you said `Admit strangers,' actually, and I was listening after that

but I did not hear you. I appreciate your intervening.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Member for Humber East said,

there is a statement I wish to make, which I think is of some importance.

I wish to advise the Members of this Honourable House of a

Cabinet decision made yesterday concerning the receipt and release of the Report

of the Hughes Royal Commission of Enquiry. It is anticipated that the Report

will be presented to Government on Friday, May 31, 1991 by Mr. Justice Samuel

Hughes, the Commissioner. This Report will be accepted on behalf of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council by the hon. the President of Treasury Board,

Winston Baker, the hon. John Efford, Minister of Social Services, and myself, as

Attorney General.

Upon receipt, one copy of the Report will be given to myself

and the Minister of Social Services so that the recommendations may be reviewed

and any immediate action required, taken. All remaining copies of the Report

will be held by the Clerk of the Executive Council.

As Members of this hon. House are no doubt aware, there are

criminal trials pending. It has been decided by Cabinet that the Report will not

be circulated to other Members of Cabinet, the Executive of Government

Departments or the general public, until the criminal trials have been

completed. This action has been taken following advice of the Director of Public

Prosecutions, Mr. Colin Flynn, in order to protect the integrity of the criminal

charges and ensure that the process of justice is not in any way impeded in the

pending criminal trials.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister has just announced that the Cabinet decided in

secret, to cover up a Report that was commissioned to probe a cover-up by public

authorities in the mid-1970s. Mr. Speaker, this astonishing announcement is

bound to worsen public skepticism in Government and in the legal system.

In making the statement, Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave no

indication that he has even read the Report. He says he expects to receive the

Report next Friday. Is it ever possible, Mr. Speaker, that this decision could

have been made by the Cabinet without having full knowledge of the facts? Mr.

Speaker, neither did the Minister indicate in his statement, that Mr. Justice

Hughes, the Commissioner, recommended that the Report be kept secret for an

indefinite period of time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Hughes is a senior justice, who is

well aware of the requirement for a fair criminal trial, who is sensitive to the

rights of accused people. The Commissioner's mandate was not to speculate on the

liability, or the guilt or innocence of the people who are charged with criminal

offenses. The mandate was to critically examine the way the police, the

Department of Justice, and the Department of Social Services responded, or

failed to respond, to complaints in the mid-1970s.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the Constitution. Has

the Premier decided that it is no longer acceptable for him, alone, in

patriarchal fashion, to state Newfoundland and Labrador's constitutional

positions? Is he now prepared to include in the current process of Canadian

constitutional reform, the Members of the House of Assembly and the citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Is he finally prepared to set up a legislative

committee on constitutional reform or, possibly, a task force comprising elected

representatives and unelected citizens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not now decided

that it is no longer acceptable for me to manage the situation in a patriarchal

manner for the simple reason that I never decided that it was in the first

place, so the question is rather stupid and silly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier feel he can get away much longer with

faulting other governments and other First Ministers for shutting the public out

of their processes of constitutional reform without himself taking the

initiative of opening up his process to the citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador? Will the Premier finally set up a legislative committee, or a task

force on constitutional reform and mandate that representative group to hold

public hearings in this Province to get the views of our citizens about the

stands Newfoundland and Labrador should be taking?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my

position, and it remains my position, that it should be opened up to the people

of Canada, as a whole, in which Newfoundland should participate, along with

everybody else. Mr. Speaker, I have explained, and have had the explanation

accepted by virtually everybody except those who have fixed positions and will

not alter them, that Newfoundland adopted this position of not putting in place

a Newfoundland committee for a primary reason. The objective is to try to get

the people in the different parts of this country to come together and moderate

their positions so as to achieve a national consensus. It is my personal

judgement - and it has been affirmed by the Government, by the Party on this

side of the House, and by a great many other people to whom I have spoken about

it - that if you put in place individual provincial commissions or committees,

what you tend to do is build a hardened position for each respective province,

and that makes it more difficult to achieve a national consensus. Now, I would

think it fairly sensible and logical, that any reasonable person, being

reasonably objective, might conclude that that is not an unreasonable position.

Now I discussed this the other day with Mr. Clark when I met

with him. We talked about the national process that was being used, whether it

should be a constituent assembly, and the arguments for a national constituent

assembly, or another process that would involve a federal parliamentary

commission. And while people might readily come to a conclusion that a

constituent assembly may be best for some purposes, they may think it may not be

best for the other.

It is probable, based on the comments I have heard so far,

that the Federal Government will not go with a constituent assembly, that they

will proceed with another process, namely a federal parliamentary commission;

that, in my judgement, would be the wrong process, but that is only my

judgement. If the national Government and other provinces agree to that kind of

a process, Newfoundland will participate.

Now, if we end up going definitely with that kind of a

process and it becomes necessary, because of that process, to put in place a

committee of this Legislature, the Government will be asked to take steps to

initiate that action, and I have no doubt the Government would come to the House

and ask that such a process be put in place. But, if we are going to go with a

national constituent assembly, if enough pressure develops for it and the

Federal Government makes what I believe would be the right decision in going

with such an assembly, then we would have a different approach. I would expect

there would be Members from both sides of the Legislature chosen by this

Legislature to participate in it, and I would certainly hope that there would be

Newfoundlanders at large, elected directly to it, to participate in it, so that

there could be direct democratic participation.

Now, frankly, I think that is the best process, but until it

is decided, I do not see any point, whatsoever, in creating a committee of this

House to develop a hard and fixed position for Newfoundland and narrow the

abilities to develop a national consensus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is one man in

this Province who has a hard and fixed position on the constitution and I am

looking right at him.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has already announced its

intention to establish a parliamentary committee on constitutional reform and to

have that parliamentary committee visit each province this fall to meet with

parallel provincial legislative committees or task forces. Now is the Premier of

our Province going to wait until the last minute to set up some kind of

committee here without giving our committee a chance to consult with our

citizens? Is that what the Premier is intending to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will explain my hard and fixed position

to which the hon. Member referred before dealing with them. My hard and fixed

position to which the hon. Member refers is to make sure that we put in place a

system that provides for the fair hearing of all the Canadian people and for

balanced treatment of people in all parts of Canada that Newfoundland will

express its opinion in a sound and objective way, and if the people of the

nation decide to go a different route than that recommended by Newfoundland we

will participate with the rest of the country, but we will not be cowed into

taking a position that we believe is not right for this Province merely because

the national government or some other groups in the country want to pressure us.

That is our hard and fixed position, Mr. Speaker, and it will remain so.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the primary part of her question,

will we wait until the last minute? No, we will not wait until the last minute,

but neither will we rush at a decision before it is appropriate to make it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Minister of Health today. Every day in this Province we try to get some

answers from the Minister of Health about what is happening to our health care

system. Earlier this week and since then we have received some information about

the cancellation of the three pre-natal clinics that were in Grand Falls, Gander

and Mount Pearl. I would like to ask the Minister: isn't he aware that the

pre-natal care has been more responsible than any other factor for the reduction

in infant deaths and the prevention of a host of diseases and disabilities to

which infants are highly susceptible if mothers are not able to obtain proper

pre-natal care? Will the Minister please inform us if he agrees that these

pre-natal clinics are a significant part of the health care system in the idea

of prevention or is he only going to solve problems when they arise in the form

of illnesses? Isn't prevention an important part of the health care system?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has any knowledge of

health care would have to agree that prevention is, indeed, a major part of the

health care system. As a matter of fact all the major strides in health care

over the years was done by prevention, developing a vaccine for polio.

Prevention, of course, everyone accepts that, however this particular program

that the hon. Member has tied his party to was attended to about 15 to 30 per

cent of the pregnant women of this Province. Fifteen to 30 per cent of the women

were taking advantage of it. In many cases it was found, Mr. Speaker, that the

groups of people who probably needed it best in medical terms were not taking

advantage of the program. So now in various parts of the Province we have

decided to target groups which specifically need it: the adolescent woman who is

pregnant, some low income people, and people who have special medical risks

which would need this pre-natal care, Mr. Speaker. So, there was not a case of

an overwhelming 100 per cent attendance and every pregnant woman rushed in to

have those pre-natal classes. The whole issue is one of education and most women

realize the educational process can be dealt with in other ways than pre-natal

classes.

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

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that the

Minister said that prevention is important, and that 30 per cent to 40 per cent

of women who are pregnant might have used the service, and yet they are going to

cancel the service because it is good and it is only getting to the 30 per cent

or 40 per cent. Should we also close up our education system because only 50 per

cent or 60 per cent of the people graduate? Is that the logic behind this

rationale of closing down the pre-natal clinics?

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister to give me a straight

answer: How much money is the Government saving by cancelling these pre-natal

clinics? Even more importantly, does he have any estimate of the cost to the

health care system if these pre-natal clinics are not available to even those 30

per cent or 40 per cent of the pregnant women in the Province who might have

used them? How much are you saving?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, two things I have to address in

the

preamble to the question. I said 15 per cent to 30 per cent, not 30 per cent

to 40 per cent. In the next supplementary the hon. Member will probably have it

up to 50 per cent to 70 per cent. I said, 15 per cent to 30 per cent, and let

the records show that.

The service is not cancelled, Mr. Speaker, that is another

conclusion the hon. Member is jumping to. The system is simply altered. We are

now targeting the groups who need this program most. How much money is being

saved, Mr. Speaker? I do not have the slightest notion how much is saved because

money is not an issue in this. This is simply reorganization in the way of

presentation of health delivery in this Province. It should have been done and

would have been done if we had had money flowing out through our ears, Mr.

Speaker. It was a program which was not being delivered effectively and properly

and we have made changes to it. Let hon. Members opposite watch and they will

see other progressive changes made by this Government over the years as we adapt

the medical care, the hospital system, to the realities. We are not going to

keep hospitals open just because they have been there for a 100 years and all

the demographics have changed. We are going to change with the times or else,

Mr. Speaker, we will lose the health care system, as hon. Members opposite

almost did. We got here just in the nick of time to save it and adapt it to the

next century, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Minister is

not going to say that he is doing something to expand the pre-natal programmes

which are very essential to some women in this Province at least.

Will the Minister now confirm that this progressive approach

he is talking about in health care in effect is going to lead to user pay for

these types of services? And even in fact in central Newfoundland there may be

privatization of that service where people are going to get charged? Is this his

way to make sure that programme is accessible to all those people he mentioned

earlier, the people who should benefit from the programme but are not taking

advantage of it, is to charge those people?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is probably

aware that two of the nurses who were laid off in Gander have indeed started a

private consulting firm and they are operating on a fee for service. And people

who want to have prenatal classes, men or women - and men and women do take

part

in those classes - they can have them for a fee for service.

However the targeted group - the adolescents and some of the

low income people and the special medical risks - these services are made

available free of cost by the Government of this Province, notwithstanding the

pressure we are receiving from his buddies in Ottawa who have taken away the

established programme funding. Notwithstanding all that we are making this

programme available to the people who need it and I am proud of that.

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

Capes.

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

Minister responsible for Social Services. Some time ago the Member for Fogo

brought to the Minister's attention problems being caused by cuts to travel

being paid to those who qualify. I wonder if the Minister has reviewed these

regulations and if he has made any changes?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the policy on

transportation we realized that it was a totally new policy, in fact, not a new

policy, it is the first policy that was ever brought in to the Department of

Social Services on transportation. And it had to deal with the tremendous amount

of money that we were spending on a yearly basis, some $5 million across the

Province with no tenders called, nobody asking for prices - inter-district

travel. When I say "inter-district" I mean within the social services district,

not the political district. People wanting to go to (Inaudible). So it was a

major new policy and you have some 435 social workers across the Province and

FAO offices interpreting on a day-to-day basis a new policy, with different

interpretations.

So we have asked the regional managers to meet with each

district office across the Province and bring in all the staff and go over the

policy and make sure that each social worker understands the full

interpretation

of each new policy that we brought in affecting transportation.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister: does he

realize that the policy is having a very detrimental affect, especially on those

who have to travel from rural districts to St. John's for such things as medical

attention or therapy, whatever? And does he realize that his people apparently

do not understand the implications (Inaudible) new policy? Because they are just

saying to them: look, all we can say to you is to complain to somebody on high.

So if they complain to the Minister will the Minister guarantee that some of

these wrongs will be righted?

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

MR. EFFORD: That is one

interpretation by the hon. Member

for St. Mary's and it is not a very correct or exact

interpretation. Very

clearly nobody requesting medical transportation, in need of medical

transportation, or requesting it, or who does not have the means of paying who

will be refused by the Department of Social Services. No social worker should

refuse. The

interpretation of the policy first (Inaudible) that clearly

happened, we understand that. And that is what I very clearly said.

What we are saying is that if anybody lives within a

particular community and there is a doctor's office there, what happened in the

past was, somebody would have a doctor in a community twenty miles away or

whatever and they would get transportation. We are saying that you must use the

nearest medical service. That is not unfair. If a person needs to go a hospital

and they need transportation it is being given by the Department of Social

Services. What we are doing, we are eliminating special taxis. Where one person

will call up the Department of Social Services and get a special taxi, sometimes

costing as much as $200 and $300. It is not necessary, except in the case of an

emergency. In an emergency, use an ambulance. If members of this House of

Assembly needed to go to a hospital, they would not pay $200 or $300, they would

use the cheapest rate; you would take your own vehicle or be co-ordinated

through the regular taxi route, and that is what the Department is doing. We are

not throwing away money, we are, in the best possible way, giving service to the

people who need it, and nobody is being refused.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: There is an old saying, there is an exception

to every rule. I ask the Minister, in light of his statement that one person

will not receive direct assistance to get a taxi, or whatever, what would the

Minister tell the mother of a child who has had a serious operation on the

muscles and sinews of the legs, so that the child will be able to walk properly

from now on, and it is mandatory that the child take daily therapy? The amount

being offered for the 90 kilometre distance, or 180 kilometre return, is $24.00,

approximately fifteen cents a kilometre. The parents are unable to find anybody

who will take the child on a regular basis for fifteen cents a kilometre, which

is much less than the Minister takes to drive back and forth to work every day.

What does the Minister tell a person like that, who is unable to find

transportation, due to the cuts from $45.00 to $25.00? What is that person

supposed to do?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if an individual, or a member of

the family, had his own car, he would be given the cost of going back and forth

to that hospital, or the medical service, whether it be ninety kilometres, one

hundred kilometres, two hundred kilometres, or whatever. Now, if any person in

the Province does not have a means of transportation, the Department of Social

Services will provide that transportation, regardless of the cost.

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

Capes, on a final supplementary.

MR. HEARN: The Minister says, if the person has a car.

Let me ask the Minister: If the family, a large family, has one antiquated

vehicle that must be used to take the father to work so he can support the

family, how, then, can somebody else, e.g., a mother who does not drive, take

the child to the hospital on a daily basis? Are you suggesting that the father

give up his job? It is extremely hard to find a job in this Province, since this

Government took over.

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

MR. EFFORD: I am surprised at the hon. Member, because if

the father were working, they would not be on social services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, hon. gentlemen opposite find it amusing that

people cannot afford to go for medical treatment in this Province today.

My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Two days ago, three security employees at the Grand Bank court

house received layoff notices. This brings the total to five security, or public

works employees who have received layoff notices since the Government announced

cutbacks. In light of the economic situation in the town of Grand Bank, would

the Minister reconsider on those layoff notices to those people?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Grand Bank

is well aware that the program put in place by his Government was to automate

the security and fire protection systems in the various government buildings and

facilities throughout the Province, and we have continued it. This is the third

year, and we are in the process, this year, of going into the trade schools

throughout the Province with the equipment for security and fire protection. The

program is there, and we feel that this is the most efficient and effective way

to go. We will not be making any changes in it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the Minister, there is no automated system in

place in either the Grand Bank Court House or the Seaman's Museum at Grand Bank.

There is none in place. I ask the Minister, with three security employees left

in place now to look after both the Grand Bank Court House and the Seaman's

Museum, where there are many valuable artifacts, and so on, belonging to the

Province and the people, how does the Minister propose to provide security for

two of those facilities with three employees?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: As I indicated, we are now in the process of

installing the security equipment in the museum and the trade school in Grand

Bank. The people are receiving their notice. As the work will be completed over

the summer months, we will be making adequate provisions for protection while

the transition is being completed. Tell him not to fear, we will look after the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank on a

supplementary.

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

I would like to thank the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation for providing Grand Bank with a trades school since the House

started at nine o'clock this morning. I was asking about the Court House and the

Seaman's Museum. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, he really knows what is going on,

to talk about trade schools when we are talking about a court house and a

seaman's museum which does not yet have an automated system.

I would like to go to the Premier on a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker.

I am sure the Premier is aware that since his Government took

office, particularly during the last twelve months, there have been fifty-seven

provincial government employees in the town of Grand bank who have lost their

jobs with the hospital, the group home that the Minister is closing down and the

security situation with the two facilities. The fish plant is due to close next

Friday, which will bring the town to its economic knees.

In light of that, I ask the Premier, Would the Government

reconsider the laying off of those security employees, because every job is

going to be so important to a town that is about to be devastated within a week

or so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government is as

concerned as I know the hon. Member is about the economic situation in Grand

Bank. The decisions we had to make, were made on a sound basis, and were

applicable throughout the Province. They were not made on the basis of giving a

preferential or a priority position to any community for any particular reason.

In terms of the hospital, that was a decision, as the hon.

Member is fully aware, that ought to have been made when his Government was in

power, and was a consequence of a decision to build a regional medical facility

on the Burin Peninsula. So, we had to do that which was right, because the

former Government failed.

When the fish plant closure was announced for Grand Bank,

Government took that into account, and together with all the other communities

that are affected, we provided the money, some $14 million, to ensure that the

four communities affected would have the fish plants operating for a prolonged

period that would allow for time to try to find alternatives. That is the

measure of the concern of this Government for the whole community of Grand Bank,

and that concern remains.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve the problems of Grand Bank

by giving three people jobs, who by normal provincial standards of applying a

fair and balanced test to everybody in the Province, would not be given those

jobs; that cannot solve the basic problems of Grand Bank. We have to focus in

another direction, and I am sure we will, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question, to the Minister of

Environment and Lands, is a follow-up to my question of yesterday. No doubt, the

Minister will, by now, know the results of tests that were done on the Come by

Chance Oil Refinery. Perhaps he can confirm the information I was given, that

tests performed in the community of Sunnyside demonstrated a level of hydrogen

sulfide, apparently, almost 100 times the recommended standard for community

living. Can the Minister tell the House the results of the tests that were done,

and can he assure the people of Sunnyside and the surrounding area that they

will not be in danger from these emissions?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not had the

opportunity to do a follow-up on the hon. Member's questions, as I indicated

yesterday, but I will undertake to get all the information he requires and make

it available as soon as possible.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the House was advised, and the

Minister was advised, as of yesterday, that these emissions were continuing and,

in fact, I understand that Department of Health officials were out to Arnold's

Cove, yesterday. What is the Minister waiting for? Is he waiting for people's

health to be affected before he can respond and find out what is going on in his

own department, while people are complaining about these emissions?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of

involving myself in a political charade with the hon. the Member for St. John's

East. I undertook to get the information for him. I am not here to play

political games. As soon as I get that information, I will make it readily

available to him. I might mention to him now, that my colleague the hon. the

Minister of Health, has some information on the subject, if he cares to address

a supplementary in that direction.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know,

and `as soon as possible' is not really good enough, if the people of Arnold's

Cove are still suffering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: How about giving us a definite time when he

thinks it will be possible for him to know what is going on in his own

department? Perhaps the Minister of Health can tell us what the results of these

public health studies are, so at least the people of Arnold's Cove and Sunnyside

will have some information they can rely on.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: There is some information I have not had the

opportunity to read yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will, as soon as possible. I

suggest, if the hon. Member would like to come to my office immediately after

the House closes, I would give him whatever information is available, if he

cannot wait until Monday.

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

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

I have a question for the President of Treasury Board.

The President of Treasury Board is no doubt aware that the

Allied Health Workers, this morning, took the drastic step of strike action. I

am sure, if he drove along the Parkway today, he would see that all of these

people, for the first time in the history of their organization, had to take the

drastic step of strike action.

The professional people, the people we desperately need in

our hospital systems to make them work properly, are out on the street. Mr.

Speaker, what is the Minister's impression of the outstanding issues which

remain in the dispute between the Allied Health Workers and the Hospital Board?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the

AHP has withdrawn services for one day and that this is the day. Secondly,

Members will recall my answer to similar questions yesterday, posed by the

Opposition House Leader, where I indicated that, up to a day-and-a-half or two

days ago, the issue was money. I outlined that to the House yesterday, but I

understand now, that the issue may not be money, it may be simply a study, as

put by the Opposition House Leader.

However, the details were not as simple as was indicated

yesterday; there were several items relating to the nature of the study that had

to be discussed and analyzed and that was being done yesterday, when the

questions were being asked, and should be completed some time today. So, things

are progressing, and I suppose, sometime this morning, or this afternoon, as

soon as the papers are finalized, something will be presented to the negotiators

for AHP. The issue, right now, I am happy to report, is not money, it is a study

that is now being discussed with AHP.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to other routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today 29 Grade V

students from St. Lawrence School, Portugal Cove accompanied by their teachers,

Mr. Hiscock and Mrs. Warren, and Ms. Green.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

galleries nineteen levels 1 to 3 students from the Glovertown high school,

Glovertown. Also with them are nineteen students from Quebec and they are

accompanied by their teachers, Sherman Wiseman and Pierre Belanger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the hon.

Member for Grand Bank raised some questions concerning the leasing of the

facility owned by the Province situated in Port de Grave. I want this morning to

table some of the relevant documents to that lease and at the same time explain

what the situation is. The Marine Service Centre in Port de Grave is a community

stage facility as opposed to the other marine service Centres with lifts and

storage capabilities. For some time the department has considered eliminating

Port de Grave facility from the Marine Service Centre Program, and this was

recently confirmed, Mr. Speaker, by a recommendation contained in a consultants

report on a review of the Marine Service Centre Program, I believe they call

themselves Coastal Associates was commissioned by the Government to undertake a

study of the Marine Service Centre Program, and in that study they recommended

that there was no further use for the Port de Grave facility and recommended

that it be disposed of.

During the 1991-92 budget exercise the department decided to

terminate the position of manager of that centre and to close out the

operations. And again given the fact that it is only six miles actually from the

major centre in Harbour Grace, certainly there was no need for a continuation of

it or an extension on it. The department discussed alternative uses of the

building with the local fisherman's committee. In addition a public meeting was

co-ordinated by the Fisherman's Committee at which time the department called

for proposals to lease and operate the centre on a commercial basis, and I

should add that the fisherman's committee advertised the meeting, gave their

reason for it namely to discuss the proposed use of the building. As a result of

the proposal call, Mr. Speaker, two proposals were received and assessed by the

department and the Fisherman's Committee, two. Subsequently, the department

entered into a lease agreement with Pettens Marine Products Limited for a one

year term. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have here the analysis done

on both the proposals by my department and I shall table that this morning. The

other was Dawe's Welding: Dawe's Welding offered 60 cents per square foot for

the building. Pettens Marine offered $1.20, and at the same time offered to

allow the fishermen to continue using the building almost on the same basis as

before. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, Pettens Marine was the best offer and we

accepted the best offer given the fact that that building and its operation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House

that the operation of that facility that was serving no real purpose in the

community was costing the Province on an average of $54,000 a year. We have now

leased it to Pettens Marine for one year and we are receiving about $8,600

revenue, so there is a net gain there for the Province, naturally. I should

point out, by the way, contrary to what the hon. gentleman said yesterday, that

my colleague from Port de Grave had absolutely no input whatsoever except that

it was a Cabinet decision and naturally he was part of that decision. But

certainly he had no influence whatsoever on that decision. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

the hon. gentleman opposed the closing of that facility, and he is about the

only person I know in the area who actually took that action, but he did oppose

it and certainly had no part whatsoever in making that decision. I have here,

Mr. Speaker, the documents pertaining to the lease and I am prepared to table

them.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. the Member

for Ferryland asked me how many members of the Allied Health Professionals in

the Province were laid off because of the recent restructuring in the health

program. I believe, or at least the impression that I got, was that the hon.

Member was suggesting that there were massive layoffs of this particular

profession. I undertook to get this information for the hon. Member and I have

it this morning, Mr. Speaker.

Throughout the Province in that particular branch there were

four people laid off, Mr. Speaker. Now, we have not been doing any tracking to

see where they eventually ended up but I feel confident that for any who would

have chosen to do so, they could have gotten work in other parts of the

Province. So, the answer, Mr. Speaker, to the massive numbers which were laid

off in the Allied Health Profession, four.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I would ask the Opposition to restrain

themselves, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked for order on a couple of occasions now and have

recognized another Minister and there is still conversation going on between

other people.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, save me from the

rabble.

Some information in the questions raised by the hon. Member

for St. John's East yesterday and today comes from my colleague the Minister of

Health. As I suggested to the Member he could have directed a supplementary

question to the Minister of Health. I did not hear him do that, I thought it was

directed to me.

When complaints were received at my Department, Mr. Speaker,

with respect to the H 2 S levels there was some monitoring and checking

done and the people concerned were referred to the Department of Health. The

Department of Health through their regional medical health officer did some

investigation to determine what the levels were and I am sure the hon. Member, I

think he quoted those figures, but nevertheless the H 2 S levels range

from 1.9 to 3.1 part per million which is higher than the acceptable community

levels based on a twenty-four hour a day basis of 0.03 ppm and the occupational

level based on an eight hour shift basis of 10.0 ppm. They were advised, as I

said, to contact the Department of Health. The Department of Health had a look

and advised these individuals that short-term exposure at that particular level

while it could cause some irritation would not have any significant health

affects. Long-term exposure to that level would be unacceptable. However, the

determination was that the emissions were caused by the burning of sour gas from

the refinery, they refer to it as. Mr. O'Dea, the environmental engineer,

confirmed that this burning would stop and another method of disposal would be

looked at.

The Mayor of Sunnyside in the meantime complained shortly

thereafter they were still getting the effects, however, once the burning of the

sour gas stops the level should decrease. But monitoring will be taking place, I

believe, during this week and is probably under way right now. Hopefully, that

will give the information. Our intention is, of course, to monitor as well and

to ensure that levels are not exceeded.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the adjourned debate with respect

to amalgamation.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, and am delighted to have the opportunity, in

desperation I suppose in what one would call a last ditch effort to implore, to

plead with the Members of the House, to beg if necessary, to take another look

at the resolution before this

hon. House. Before I go into details on the resolution there

are a couple of things I would like to address. A couple of days ago the hon.

Member for St. John's South, I have to say, delivered a fine speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for St. John's South. A fine

speech orientated towards the people of St. John's, the people who he

represents, and I must say that he did a good job, but he went a bit too far. He

said the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern does not know anything about St.

John's West. Well, I have to clarify that statement, clear it up, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member did live in St. John's West on Hamilton Avenue, but apart from

that I think he was assuming, or trying to get the message out to the House,

that the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern knew very little about St.

John's. Well, Mr. Speaker, looking at it in a historical background, or

accountability, I perhaps have more background historically in this hon. House

as it pertains to St. John's than any other Member. My grandfather came from

Bond Street and in the 1850s when that disaster occurred my grandfather moved to

Flatrock. Now, let me tell you something else that the hon. Member does not know

about what participation our family had in St. John's. It is too bad the

Minister of Finance is gone because he is about the only one who would recall

it. My grandfather also built the old King's Bridge. I do not know if the hon.

Member for St. John's South will remember or not but down on the foot of Kenna's

Hill, between Kenna's Hill and the Stadium that we have today, there was a range

of houses called Bulger's range - Cotters was right across the way. Well, my

grandfather built Bulger's range. Have we got an association with St. John's

historically? Yes, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps more than anyone else in St. John's.

I do not want to repeat it again but I am sure that the Minister of Finance

remembers Bulger's range.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Do you remember it? It was down on King's

Bridge. From King's Bridge south towards the Stadium was known as Bulger's

range. I just wanted to explain that to the hon. Member for St. John's South.

The other thing I want to say before I get into the

resolution itself concerns the hon. Member for Pleasantville. He was up the

other day talking about how easy it was for me to get up here and talk about the

district that I represent, and he mentioned one community, the community where I

live. He said that per household income in Flatrock was higher than anywhere

else in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a myth, Mr. Speaker. I do not know

where he got his information. There are as many poor people in Flatrock as there

are in any other community, or any other small town. I want to correct the hon.

Member for Pleasantville and tell him that Flatrock today has no services

whatsoever. They pay 5.4 mils and their commercial rate is 15 mils. We are not

there looking for something for nothing. Let me tell the hon. Member as well

that the town hall in Flatrock that was built a number of years ago did not cost

one cent to anyone, neither Government. They did not put a plugged nickel in

there. The recreational facility that is there is worth $500,000 but did not

cost one cent of Government money. The hon. Member then comes up with the idea

that we should all pay some kind of a rate to help St. John's. Let me say to the

hon. Member that that recreational facility is used by as many people from St.

John's as from Flatrock, or the surrounding area. Are we going to charge them?

There was never a charge put on those facilities. Let me tell the hon. Member as

well that the grotto in Flat Rock from last June when there is a book comes out,

only every fine day, they put a book on the stand for people who visit the

grotto last year. From thirty-nine countries. Five thousand people. Now the fine

days - it was taken in again in October - 5,000 people signed their name in that

book from thirty-nine different countries. Are we going to put a surcharge on

them? Are we going to tell them that they are using our roads, our community?

I mean, what hogwash! Poppycock! I am surprised at that

Member to be going on with this old stuff. It is outdated. The people outside

are not paying their fair share. They are paying their fair share. If we had the

facilities that St. John's have, sidewalks, the supermarkets, the arena down

there, the stadium, do you think that we would care about paying 11 mils? Indeed

we would not. But at the rate we are paying now, 5.5 mils, and 15 mils

commercially, that is enough, until this Government gets off its end and gives

us some money to extend our services. We are paying plenty.

Just to point out to the hon. Member again. This weekend

people from St. John's are in Flat Rock holding a boxing tournament. Are we

going to tell them they can not do it, they can not come in there? I mean, we

are sharing with everyone and everyone else, all the communities on the east

end. There is no line drawn. I would be the last person to say that some of the

statements that the Member said were not right. But the point remains, do not do

it on the backs of the people who do not have any services whatsoever. I mean,

the people who are paying that in Flat Rock do not have even a light. I mean,

you have the bus service, you have all the necessities of life.

You know, I listened to the Premier this morning and he said:

the whole deal on the Constitutional bit was the expression of opinion. People

to have the right to express their opinions. I believe he is using a double

standard. Because the people in Wedgewood Park and in the Goulds certainly

expressed an opinion. And the opinion was that we do not want to amalgamate with

St. John's with the information that we have. And that is where the trouble is.

They do not have any information. And I ask the Members opposite and the Members

on this side, they are supposed to be responsible human beings, responsible men

and women. I ask them today to reconsider the situation, reconsider what is

taking place here. Perhaps the best thing that ever happened could be the

central core or the urban core to be the one municipality. Perhaps that could be

the best things ever happened. But how do we know?

Can the hon. Member, the hon. Minister, anyone, the Premier,

tell me what services are going to be lost in Wedgewood Park? Is Wedgewood Park

going to be brought up immediately to 11 mils? Is the tax rate going to change?

What services do they gain? Can someone tell me what the cost is going to be in

the Goulds? Can someone tell me what the services, what the cost is going to be

as far as transportation and the roads are concerned - the roads to Black Head,

to Long Pond, Long Pond nearly out to Witless Bay, which now will be taken over

by the City? What the cost is going to be? Look, this is not alone illegal, it

is immoral.

I have to speak directly to the Members for St. John's,

especially the Ministers, who might have some weight over there to change this

decision. I mean, what they are doing, they are putting a burden on the heads of

the people of St. John's. I mean, St. John's is going to be the loser in this,

not the other areas. Six point five mils in Wedgewood Park, 6.5 mils in Mount

Pearl, 11 mils in St. John's. So we take in the monetary pluses we have in

Wedgewood Park, and the minuses that will be caused by taking in the Goulds, one

will not even offset the other, there will be a greater minus situation than the

pluses, so what did this resolution accomplish? - nothing. It puts St. John's in

a worse position than they were in before the resolution came to the House.

I cannot, for the life of me, see how the Ministers -

especially those from St. John's - and the Members, can tolerate or accept this

resolution, It is impossible! And I ask them again today, as responsible human

beings, responsible to the people who elected them, to say to the Minister, to

say to the Premier - the Premier is an expert on constitutional matters in the

country; still, he does not realize that the Municipal Act is a constitution of

the municipalities; he does not understand that, he does not want to understand

it, because he has tunnel vision and sees exactly what he wants to see. And he

brings in this resolution so he will not have to amend the Municipalities Act.

If the Ministers and the Members for St. John's cannot see

that this is doing nothing - let me just say to the Members: The biggest

argument the Ministers and the Members had, and I had, was that, over the years

we created two satellite cities, one in Wedgewood Park - that was the argument -

and the other in Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, what are we doing now? The Town of

Paradise is proposed to expand with the inclusion of adjacent Elizabeth Park,

Evergreen Village and the Town of St. Thomas'; you are creating another

satellite city, now, just to please the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, who

would not sign a petition yesterday. That is all that is - I mean, put politics

aside.

If politics were the rule of the day a number of years ago,

and this Government says we are going to change, well then, do not create

another one, because ten years down the road that is going to be a problem for

some other government; and that is what you are doing. If this Government were

doing things in a righteous manner, then the Town of Paradise should be within

the city boundaries.

Now, what did we do? Nothing. We have not done a thing, we

have not solved one problem. If the people of Mount Pearl had been told, if you

had done the right thing, if the Minister had, after the studies came in,

appointed a commissioner or commissioners to look at the study, go to the people

and ascertain from them, what their feelings were on the options, explain to

them, give them the right to know - because today no one knows. The Minister was

asked the question, by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, the other day, What

happens to the water? We all know the situation with the water. Bay Bulls Big

Pond is expensive water, Windsor Lake is cheap water. Will the people in the

West have to pay more than the people down in - will St. John's share, will it

become an even playing field?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not cheap water (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, it is cheap water compared to Bay

Bulls Big Pond.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, because it was put there

(inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am saying. Will that average

itself out, now?

AN HON. MEMBER: That will be all upgraded now,

MR. PARSONS: It needed to be upgraded but the city was

not satisfied for the Government to upgrade it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier talked this morning about openness;

now we are going to have a vote, presumably today, on this resolution, and, do

we really look at one another as men and women and seriously say that there is

going to be a free vote? If there were a free vote today, then we would not vote

in favour of this resolution, especially the people from St. John's.

I represent part of St. John's.

MR. NOEL: You would never say it.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I do. I do say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would not be up to you, it would be up

to the people.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, now, now, now! I put my chances of

winning the election next time up against yours any day of the week.

All I am saying to hon. Members, especially, the hon. Members

for St. John's, is give it some consideration. You are not doing anything for

the City of St. John's, and by the time the next election comes around, the

people are going to realize it. They have 11 mils now, it will be 12.5mils,

because taxation will have to rise. Who is going to pay for the Aquarena? The

Premier says they are not going to put one plugged nickel in it. Eight hundred

and ten thousand dollars was the subsidy last year to the Aquarena, from this

Government. Now, that Aquarena is part and parcel of the liabilities of the City

of St. John's. The Premier says they are not putting any money in it, so that

means the City Fathers are going to have to cough up $810,000 to keep it viable.

Now, the Premier says - and this is ironic, the weakness in his argument - he

says, `Well, it is a regional facility.' The Aquarena is not a regional

facility. I mean, there are people in the Trades College - the two gentlemen

over there who were professors at the University know that many people coming in

from the bays, from the Strait of Bell Isle to Port aux Basques, use that

facility and they are charged for it. They are charged enough now; they hardly

can afford to attend University now. You cannot charge them any more.

But what I am saying is, that is a provincial facility. It is

a Provincial facility that now, the people of St. John's are going to have to

pay for. I mean, I cannot understand that the Minister of Finance, who is from

St. John's, who represents a St. John's district, cannot see what they are

doing. Look boy, you have to pay for the highways out in the Goulds that they

did not have to pay for before. You have to pay for the Aquarena. Someone has to

pay for it. The Government is not going to pay for it. All this Government did

was put the burden on the municipal taxpayer, that is all they did. And the

President of Treasury Board realizes it. It is a schemozzle. It is wrong. It is

illegal.

I have said over and over, where is the freedom, the

democracy that we all love, when people are subdued or subjected to the whims of

a few? And I say, when all the studies were done - and the people in the

department, the Assistant Deputy Ministers, were people who did the study. As I

said, I have almost finished, and all I am asking now is for the people on the

other side, especially the Members for St. John's, to vote this time, not as the

Premier says, but to vote with your conscience. And I want to leave them with

one little point, vote with your conscience and vote against the resolution. We

all remember the old Pied Piper story. Well, do not let him blow the horn and

all of you follow along behind him. Stand on your own two feet and protect the

place that has elected you, the residents of St. John's, the people who put you

here. Do not sell them down the river.

I believe this little paragraph from a book I was reading the

other day, fills the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is appropriate.

MR. PARSONS: `Appropriate' does not, I think, express it

deeply enough; it is not the right word. "We will have travelled in a mere week

from a condition in which we have an equal distribution of blessings to one in

which we have an equal distribution of miseries," that is what we will have done

if we pass this resolution. So, I ask the people, again, on this side and on

that side, to vote against that resolution. It is a bad, bad, resolution.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Finance, I want to welcome to the House, on behalf of all hon. Members,

twenty-three Grade V1 students from the Inter Island Pentecostal School in

Summerford, accompanied by their teachers, Mabel Rideout, Alvin Quinlan, Shelia

Cooze, and Bruce Bowers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a generation in this area has avoided tackling a

very serious problem. Every Government and every council has tried to confront

the problem of amalgamation in the capital region. Every one of them have

commissioned studies and studies, yet they have made no move. Then, suddenly,

after a whole generation of avoiding the subject, of dodging away from it, of

fear of coming to grips with a problem, we finally get a Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs who is prepared to come to grips with the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Not only is that Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs prepared to come to grips with the problem in the city, he is

also prepared to come to grips with the problems in other parts of the Province,

the whole municipal problems. Let us take the Grand Falls - Windsor situation,

which has been a problem for thirty years. There has been a serious problem of

inequity and we had people from Grand Falls who ran for the leadership of the

Party over there - we will not say any names - ran for the leadership and almost

made it; yet, that Party over there, which has represented Grand Falls for quite

a few years, had refused to do anything about it. Now, we have a Minister who is

prepared to come to grips with the problems of amalgamation across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Courage.

DR. KITCHEN: Courage. Mr. Speaker, we have a great

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, a great man, a man whom history

will regard as courageous, perhaps the greatest of all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I must say this, he had to convince Cabinet.

It was not part of any manifesto that we ran under. He got into his portfolio in

Municipal Affairs, looked at the problems and said, I must come to grips with

this, and he did come to grips with it. We have had in our history, William the

Conqueror, Alfred the Great, Joey the Confederator, and now we have Eric the

Amalgamator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, history will record that he did

what had to be done. Now, Members opposite are saying, let us have another

feasibility study. Another one? How many more do we want? I ask them, what

happened to the feasibility studies on Sprung? They are suddenly coming up with

the need for new feasibility studies, as another reason for inaction. I do not

know what hon. Members opposite have against the City of St. John's. I know,

they did not vote for them last time, but they have been treating the Tory Party

fairly well over the years. I do not know why they are against St. John's, but

they are against St. John's. All of them over there are against St. John's. St.

John's, I must remind them, is the capital city of Newfoundland. It was for

years the capital of our country. When we were a country, St. John's was the

capital, a city whose history goes back for 500 years, the oldest city in the

New World, and one of the finest cities in the world.

In recent years the city has become a clean city under Mayor

Murphy and other people in council who did a tremendous job in sprucing up the

image of the city. Where else in Canada are you going to find a city with as

many beautiful parks as St. John's? Just think about it. I want the Members to

appreciate this city. Look at Bowring Park. A park that goes back pretty well

eighty years. A beautiful park which every person should be familiar with. And

let us look at another park, the park that is next to Government House and the

Colonial Building, Bannerman Park. So many people have memories of Bannerman

Park.

I remember as a student in Montreal years and years ago,

maybe half a century ago. We went out one night, I remember this very well, to a

club as students usually do on Friday and Saturday nights. We were doing what

you normally do in a club. And we noticed over there in the corner a fellow who

was humming to himself and he broke out into song. "Down in Bannerman Park, down

in Bannerman Park/ You take your girl out for a walk/ Down in Bannerman Park."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Down in Bannerman Park!"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: And I forgot the other line. "You gotta get

home (Inaudible)."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will skip over Victoria Park

and the other verses of that one. And let us come to another great park which

was created in Mr. Smallwood's day. Pippy Park! Hundreds of beautiful acres. A

wilderness park in the midst of the city. You can play golf, you can walk for

miles, there are ponds up there, you can pick berries and catch trout if no one

is looking, you can have a great time. Pippy Park. There are people -

AN HON. MEMBER: Victoria Park.

DR. KITCHEN: I mentioned Victoria Park, just very

shortly, because it is a small beautiful park there by the railway station. But

Pippy Park is a great park. And not only that, but let me look at this. Look at

another great park we have - Signal Hill. Look at Signal Park. You know, I think

Signal Hill is perhaps the greatest of all our parks. If you go up on Signal

Hill on a clear day and look westward, if you have a good eye, and if you are

Irish, you can see the mountains of Kerry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: East, you have to look east!

DR. KITCHEN: You look east. You look west if you have a

mirror. And you know some people say they can see the city of Cork, and

Waterford, but I do not believe they can. But the point I want to make is that

we can look over there and there are our origins of half the population of this

Province. And you look a little bit south, and you can try but I do not really

believe, you can try, and there is Land's End. The counties of Cornwall and

Devon from which so many of us have come, and the Scilly Isles. No other city in

Canada has the parks and the beauty of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I have lived in Montreal and you have La

Fontaine Parc and the mountains, very nice places. But nothing compared to what

we have here. You go to Edmonton and you go down to Emily Murphy Park (?), good

park, but it is not like anything we have here. I could mention all the

beautiful ponds and the river systems here in this city. We have more than a

dozen beautiful ponds. And the rivers - Waterford, Rennies, (Inaudible). All

these wonderful ponds collected up the rivers flowing out into the harbour. We

have a history of 500 years. The oldest European city in the New World.

Archaeologists are digging beneath our streets to find out what went on years

ago. Truly, this is the greatest city of Canada.

And yet the Members opposite are against this city. They are

trying to restrict our growth. They want to keep us back, and they would not

act. For seventeen years they did not make a move, these - I will not call them

cowardly - these timid legislators over there, too timid to come to grips with

some of the problems. And now, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: One of them made a move.

DR. KITCHEN: I am not biased about St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, no, not you.

DR. KITCHEN: My people are from Harbour Grace. I have

only been living here for twenty-five or thirty years, but I am a townie now,

there is no doubt about that. But we have to pay tribute where tribute is due,

and St. John's truly is the Capital and there is no sense in trying to make

Wedgewood Park the Capital or Mount Pearl the Capital or anything else. There is

one City, one Capital and that is St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: We will not allow our city to be hemmed in

or torn apart. We cannot have any Ottawa - Hull situation here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is right.

DR. KITCHEN: We are not going to have any Halifax -

Dartmouth situation here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

DR. KITCHEN: We are going to have St. John's. Now if it

were St. John's - Bonavista I could understand it, or even St. John's -Harbour

Grace, but not St. John's - Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

DR. KITCHEN: There is no history here. We have to have

this sense of Capital and the sense of heritage that St. John's has.

Now, the Minister has come up with an appropriate plan. It is

a gentle plan, it is not going to hurt anyone. You do not want to tear people

apart. We have to pay respect to the people of Wedgewood Park. The Wedgewood

Park people are great people in a fine suburb. They have perhaps the richest

suburb in the city, or one of the richest areas in the city, a very able group

of people on city council. The mayor there is a tremendous person even though he

has been associated perhaps with other political groups. But that does not

matter, a good person, and the other members of council are great. I look

forward to the time - I do not know how the Minister is going to appoint

representation from or elect representation from Wedgewood Park, but I look

forward to the time when someone from Wedgewood Park is on the city council of

St. John's because I believe it will elevate the city council tremendously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: And I would like to pay tribute to the

Goulds too, and we are so glad that they are going to become part of the city,

and if we can help with municipal services there, we look forward to helping out

there as well, and we look forward to them participating in the affairs of this

great city and to bringing in an agricultural area into the city. It is one

thing we have really lacked over the years is a good agricultural area.

I want to pay tribute to Mount Pearl as well. The people of

Mount Pearl have built up their city through their own efforts. I remember when

Mount Pearl was sort of a Cinderella in this area, and they grew up and became

powerful, but we cannot allow this region to be split in two, but I do not think

that we should move in and destroy the wishes of the people of Mount Pearl who

are obviously so strongly in favour of remaining separate at the present time.

So we are not going to move at that. There is a very large area and I think the

Minister is showing admirable restraint in not moving in. I would suggest this,

the gentle approach, I would say this: what about the future? What about the

future? I think the future should not be decided now. We will see how things

happen. It may be that Mount Pearl will remain a separate city forever. It may

be that other changes may be made to Mount Pearl either to enlarge or not, but

that is not our decision now. Our decision now is what is proposed in this

resolution, and I believe it is a wise resolution. It is not the hobnailed boot,

it is a reasonable approach to amalgamation, it is the art of the possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It is going to be hard for the City of St.

John's to administer all of these new services, to be charged fairly, to service

the Goulds, but I am convinced that the City of St. John's can rise to this

challenge and the citizens of St. John's and the new citizens too will rise to

this challenge and we will have a great city, continue to have a great city and

a capital region.

I might point out too that this is not just changing from

seventeen down to eleven. Actually there are a number of other areas that were

in the metropolitan areas, little communities, which are now going to have

democratic representation for the first time, and that is good. I think all

twenty-three communities, you could call them that, they were not councils, but

communities of sorts, and now there is going to be eleven. From twenty-three to

eleven and that is a reasonable compromise at this stage in the game. There is

one thing that has been mentioned and that I would also like to mention again.

Members opposite have mentioned it, and Members on this side have mentioned it,

that is the whole question of urban planning. We need very firm urban planning.

We do not want uncontrolled housing and industrial growth that will cause future

generations turmoil in trying to bring in municipal services. I understand from

the Minister that he is going to, where necessary, beef up this whole question

of urban planning outside the City of St. John's, so that we can come to grips

with this whole question of uncontrolled residential and industrial growth in

the area, as that is very important.

Mr. Speaker, we are putting our financial house in order,

this Government is. We are putting our pension house in order. We are putting

our economic house in order. We have put our Hibernia house in order. We are

putting our constitutional house in order and we are putting our municipal house

in order. This is another great achievement, Mr. Speaker, of the Wells

administration.

Thank you.

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

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

I want to have a few more brief words on this resolution.

First of all I want to thank the Minister of Finance for a very entertaining

speech, and a very good promotional speech for the City of St. John's, and I

agree with most everything he said. I was wondering while he was speaking why

the Minister of Finance was supporting this resolution with so much enthusiasm.

He is a likeable fellow in that he does not always get up in this House of

Assembly and support things with that much vim and vigour. He is usually fairly

calm and answers the questions, a man of few words, but he was very, very

enthusiastic in supporting this resolution. Finally, while he was getting on to

the end of his speech, I knew why, Mr. Speaker, because he has the most to gain

as Minister of Finance from this resolution.

The City of St. John's taxpayers, the Goulds and Wedgewood

Park, will pay extra so he can save a few million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and that

is why he was so enthusiastic in supporting this amalgamation plan. He saves

money in this Budget next year for the Department of Highways, quite a bit of

money, millions, as a matter of fact. He will save money from Municipal Affairs

because he will not have to give them money for the Aquarena and things like

that. He will save money in the grant system that has just been brought in

because the larger the city gets the less they will get in the grant system as

provided by the Minister now. That is the reason why the Minister of Finance is

so enthusiastic in supporting this. He does not care about the City of St.

John's taxpayers as he was making out to do, Mr. Speaker. He cares about saving

his money, getting his grubby little fingers into their pockets and hauling the

money out of their pockets, getting his hands around their wallets and squeezing

it so tight that there will be nothing left in it for them to spend. That is why

the Minister of Finance made a very entertaining, but not so logical speech. If

he had followed his logic he would have stood in this House yesterday and voted

for the NDP Members resolution, but he did not do that, Mr. Speaker. He ignored

the resolution prepared by the NDP Member, and betrayed by the couple of Members

over there, actually where he did not get his name on it. I did not agree with

his resolution. I voted against it. I know I voted against it and I know why I

voted against it, Mr. Speaker, because it is forcing amalgamation on people and

I do not agree with forcing amalgamation on people. That is the bottom line and

that is the principle that I am working on.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should have voted for

it. If he has other Members in his caucus over there who agree with that, they

should have voted for it, and it should have passed. Yet, when the vote came

yesterday, I heard three voices supporting that. I am going to put it on the

record because we did not take a standing vote of who actually did support that

resolution, Mr. Speaker. It was the Member for Pleasantville who brought it in,

the Member for St. John's South who seconded it, and he had to vote for it, and

the Member for St. John's East. Those were the only three Members in this House

that I heard voices of supporting this resolution, yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I say

for clarification that I did not support it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon? They were brought in 1985 after

three votes. If you want me to go over that again, I did in my last speech, but

if you want me to go over that again: they opposed it in 1978 or 1979, and the

Government of the day said, okay, we will have to go back to the drawing board

and see what we can do. In 1982 it came up again and the Government of that day

said, okay, we will go back to the drawing board again and see if we can make it

more acceptable. In 1985, when they had their feasibility study done and a

commissioner recommended that their bus service was not in jeopardy and a

commissioner recommended that we have a phase in in taxes over a five year

period and a commissioner recommended that there were some capital monies to

upgrade the town of Kilbride to try to complete the water and sewer in that

area, which is not done, because in the last two years it was ignored by the

Provincial Government. Mr. Speaker, when that happened and the residents of

Kilbride who lived in the subdivisions were paying virtually the same taxes, I

think, they were paying 10 mils and the city were paying 10.5 at the time, or

paying just about, when they became over 60 per cent of the community they said,

well, we are paying for the services let us go in anyway. That is how Kilbride

went in there.

We did the feasibility study and we gave recommendations to

people so that they could make a decision. Is that unfair to do? I do not see

that is so unreasonable. That is what the people of the Goulds would like to

see. They are not unreasonable people. They want to have - show me what this is

going to do for me, come into the Goulds and tell me, Mr. Minister. That is what

they are asking at the public meetings. If this is so great for the people of

the Goulds come in here and sell it to me. I am not an unreasonable person, I

know I am going to be paying more taxes whether I stay with the Goulds alone, or

whether I go with the city. I just want to see what the advantages are of this

great amalgamation plan. That is not being unreasonable. It is not being

obstructionist. You will get some in there who will be obstructionists, some who

just did not want to go with St. John's at all. But I would say close to 50 per

cent of the people living in the Goulds now are from St. John's. Most of the

ones who lived in Kilbride when it was amalgamated are from St. John's. Most of

the people who live in Wedgewood Park are from St. John's originally. Well, why

are they out there? There is some reason why they are away from St. John's.

Either they were driven away by past city councils where it was made too

expensive for them to live in the city or they wanted to go out in the rural

areas to look at the farmland. The more of them who go out to look at the

farmland, the more farmland is destroyed. I do not know what the reason is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Wedgewood Park, see you do not

understand. When Wedgewood Park was built that was a rural area. I was surveying

around this city for twenty years. I know what it was like in Wedgewood because

I surveyed Wedgewood Park. It was a rural area with a little subdivision in the

middle of it that nobody in the world wanted. Chester Dawe developed it actually

and nobody wanted it. They said, okay, we are here now, we are a little

subdivision, we are not going to do much on our own, our services are going out

to the city, let us get a delegation and go down to City Hall and say it is just

as well to expand your boundaries to here because we are not going to make it on

our own, we are too small. What did the city council tell them at the time?...

we do not want you. Go away, we are not interested in you, we have no interest

in going up in that area of the Avalon to develop. Go back on your own and

survive and suffer. Do what you like. We will allow you to run your sewer and we

will give you the water and you will pay us for that.

Now, what has happened in recent years when Wedgewood Park

got a little bit of land around it and K-Mart happened to want to build a

shopping center in Wedgewood Park and a couple of other businesses wanted to

build in Wedgewood Park, it is a different story now. Now, we want to get some

money out of you. Now, we want you in the City of St. John's. Well, Mr. Speaker,

I do not disagree with Wedgewood Park going into the City of St. John's. But

from a person who lives in Wedgewood Park's perspective, a person who lived

there from the beginning and asked to go into the city and were refused and told

that we do not want you, I can understand their frustration now. When they

survived the hard times and they developed their community very rationally and

economically, and provide services that the City of St. John's cannot provide

and they provide them cheaper, I do not understand why anyone would expect them

to say: yes, let's all go into the City anyway. I mean, I do not expect them to

do it.

But the people of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds are not

asking for any unreasonable conditions. They want to see an independent

commissioner's report to say why we should go in the City, so they can make up

their mind.

MR. HARRIS: What about Mount Pearl - Newtown? How did

they get in?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have nothing to do with Mount Pearl -

Newtown. I do not what they did or how they got in or where they went.

MR. HARRIS: How did they get into Mount Pearl?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have no idea. Ask someone else from

Mount Pearl. I never did represent them so I do not know. But I do know who I

represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You were a Member of the Government.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was a Member of the backbench at the

time, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Government.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the Government is the Cabinet, I

understand. Those are the guys who make the decisions. You ask some of your own

Members over there if they think they are in the Government or they are not in

the Government. Yes, you ask them sometimes where they think they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, I - pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did I oppose it? I do not think we had a

vote in this House on it. I do not remember having to oppose it or support it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not think so, no. But I do not know

if it was discussed. This is only being discussed... do not think that your

Premier brought this in here to expand the democratic system. This resolution is

brought here because the process that the Minister went through is illegal. That

is the only reason that it is before this House. You cannot do it the way you

are supposed to do it, it is illegal. So the Premier says he can override the

laws of this Province by bringing it in to this House and vote on it. And the

President of Treasury Board says that is right, or no, the Minister of Finance,

sorry. I was not looking.

But you can bring it in here and change your laws or override

the laws that are existing, that people had a chance to review, and do this. So

this is no great democracy by having a vote in this House on this resolution.

Actually, it is just the opposite. If we had to stick with the regulations I

would say you would have a significant number of people, had there been a

reasonable feasibility report done, you might have a significant number of

people in the Goulds now who would not be objecting as strenuously as they are

now. You might have been able to get this to work. You might have been able to

sell this package, this proposal that you have, to some of the people in the

Goulds at least.

But all this is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, it is not my job to sell it. If you

can give me the ammunition I will try to sell it. If I believed this was better

for my constituents in the Goulds I would try to sell it. I tried to sell it in

Kilbride and I did it, it worked. The proposition I am putting forward has

worked in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I am trying to represent what the

people of the Goulds want. The questions they ask I cannot give them the answers

to, because there is no independent report done to suggest - they ask me: what

is going to happen to our school bus system if the City moves in here? I do not

know. I have no idea. Very important issue to the people of the Goulds. There

are probably 2,000 kids in that area being bused, probably that many. Some go to

St. John's with the Avalon Consolidated School Board, some go to high school and

elementary in St. Kevin's. That is a big issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: They are still being bused in Kilbride

and Shea Heights because their feasibility study recommended that it be done.

Don't you understand that? I can say that 500 times and if you are not willing

to listen it is just as well to forget it. There is no feasibility study. I

cannot tell him that, I do not know if it is going to change. If the City moves

in there with their - the St. John's Transportation Commission expands their

franchise, technically they can lose it. Technically it is illegal to run school

buses in Kilbride if the City expanded its franchise in there. All the City is

doing in Kilbride is having a shuttle bus service go in the main road pretty

well and come out to the Village Mall. It is not an expansion of the franchise.

Maybe that is what will happen in the Goulds again but I cannot answer that

question for them.

They ask me: well if we do go in and our taxes are going to

raise some 65 per cent to 69 per cent, will the Government at least phase it in

for us because I cannot afford it today. I really cannot afford, as of 1

January, to have my taxes increased between 60 to 65 per cent, or whatever it is

going to be. I just do not have the money. I have five children in school, I

have a house to try and pay off, car payments to make, and my budget is

strapped. My wife just got laid off when she worked with the Health Sciences.

Many of the public servants who lost their jobs, at least one in the family,

live in that area of the Goulds. Many public servants live in that region of the

Goulds and they are affected. They asked me if the Government would phase their

taxes in over a five year period. I said it makes sense if they are going to do

it. If they intend to expand it would make sense to give the people an

opportunity to increase by 20 per cent a year. That is what we did in Airport

Heights, in Kilbride, and in Shea Heights. This Government will not say what

they will do so how do you expect that person to be in favour of amalgamation?

They cannot be because they do not know the answers. They are scared. They are

worried that they are going to have to sell their houses, actually. Some of the

people who called me asked if they would lose their house if the city comes in.

I said, I do not think you will. I doubt very much if you can scrape and do

without some other things. You will probably survive. Mr. Speaker, that is why

the people of the Goulds are objecting so much to this amalgamation proposal.

The people of the City of St. John's are not following this issue close enough.

The residents of the City of St. John's in my district and who I represent, and

who I get a call from every now and then, are not following this issue close

enough. Now, I say that flat out against my constituents. They are not as

concerned as much as they should be against this issue. They are not concerned

that next year, 1992, when the city takes over these areas there is going to be

a bill come to the city for services that they are going to take over that I

would estimate will range between $5 million and $7.5 million more than they

have right now. Now, I do not know what $5 or $7.5 million would mean to the

budget of the city. I am sure the Member for Pleasantville knows. Mr. Speaker,

that $5 to $7.5 million has to have an impact on the city taxpayers. We are now,

this day, in the City of St. John's, because of snow clearing, $2 million short

in this year's budget. That is $2 million we have to make up before we even take

on anyone else. That is a fact. It has been in the media. I have not gone down

there to check it. They were $1.1 million out before the last two snowfalls.

They had people out and it costs them $700,000 a snowfall, I think, to really do

a job on it. Now, it would not cost that much for the last two but it costs

some. We are close to $2 million in the hole now and we are going to get another

$6 or $7 million tacked onto that next, so is that going to stabilize the taxes

in this city? I doubt very much if it will stabilize it. That is what the City

Council is telling me. That is what the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor have been

saying, if we expand this area it will stabilize taxes. They do not say it will

go down because they know it will not go down, but stabilizing may mean

inclining gradually. I do not know what stabilization is. I would expect it

means to sit where it is for awhile. It is going to sit at the same mil rate

because we are doing a property assessment in there now, so everyone in this

city will probably, for the last five years who have not had an assessment, are

going to get about a 20 per cent tax increase, or 20 per cent value in their

home in the next little while. I had my house appraised only two days ago. In

1986 when I bought it, Mr. Speaker, I paid $79,000 for it and when I had it

appraised two days ago, early this week, the value of that house is now $95,000,

so when the city finishes I have to pay that increase in taxes because the value

has gone up. Then I have to pay for the extra services that you are going to put

on my back, and all the residents of Kilbride, because of this amalgamation.

Now, that is not fair, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the Minister of Finance is

so enthusiastically supporting this resolution, because he can see where he can

get his hands down in your pockets again and drag out the last three or four

cents you have. The trouble this time is he is going to take the liner out of

your pocket and you are going to have no pants to wear because the pockets will

be gone out of them after he is finished with you.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be defeated.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is there a 20 per cent increase in

welfare since you took over? Are there 50,000 people on welfare this year, a 20

per cent increase since you took over? That should really pump up the economy.

You put 50,000 people on welfare, that will pump up the economy. That is going

to kickstart it really well, I would say. You have an unemployment rate of -

what do we have now? ...twenty two per cent. That certainly has pumped up our

economy. The highest time it has been since the early 'seventies, I believe it

was. Twenty-two per cent unemployment rate. That is what the Minister has said

is going to - as the economy improves.

The economy is going down the drain! Our economy is dead.

Talk to people in the country in business. They are going bankrupt! They can

just survive. There would be many of them gone bankrupt now except the banks do

not know what to do with them, because there is no one else to take them over.

[There was a Disturbance in the Gallery.]

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

I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the galleries

please.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, there is the Minister of Finance.

This is the man who is going to increase the taxes for these people and they

have to be out on the street today to make a point. They want a study to look at

the issues in their collective agreement that are not settled - a study. How

much more reasonable can anyone be? They have the wages settled, they have the

wage issue settled. They said we are going to do the same as everyone else, even

though they think they deserve more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is what this Government

is doing. That is what our increased economy is doing for the Province. Probably

the first time in the twelve years that I have been in here that someone

actually got up and spoke. That union has to be the most reasonable group of

unionized people in this Province. Never heard a sound from them before. They

had to come in to this House of Assembly and plead from the galleries for this

Government to try to listen to them. To give them a study to look at the

outstanding issues. Gods, I do not understand it, Mr. Speaker, I will never

understand what they are doing.

If anyone in this House has concern for the City of St.

John's - and we have many Members over there who represent the City of St.

John's - they will vote against this. The Members for Placentia and Carbonear

have already said they do not support it and they intend to vote against it. So

maybe we will have enough. Any other Members in this House of Assembly who

notice that their areas are to be amalgamated and the residents have concerns

should be looking at this resolution very carefully. Because they are going to

have to make a decision fairly soon. What the Government gets away with on this

one they are going to impose all over the Province.

I just want to say once more that the residents of the City

of St. John's deserve better than this resolution and what this Government is

doing for them. And the philosophy of the Members for Pleasantville and St.

John's East when they were speaking, who suggest that we should amalgamate Mount

Pearl and put it into this so that the St. John's region would not be coming to

Government looking for money - well, I do not see what is so objectionable about

that. The people in this region pay most of the income tax and the retail sales

tax and every other tax that is paid to this Government, and I do not see why

they do not deserve a share of that back. I do not see why we should be pushing

a full region to amalgamate in order to allow them - so they will not have to

come to the Government to look for the regular grants that are done for every

other community. I do not agree with that.

I think the City of St. John's should be treated the same as

every other community. And the roads leading into St. John's - the Goulds road,

Torbay Road, Logy Bay Road, Portugal Cove Road - should be all plowed by the

Department of Highways. That is how you straighten up the inequities if that is

what you want done. The Provincial Government pay property tax on the buildings

they own. That straightens the economic inequities that the City of St. John's

are having trouble with.

Every other city or town in the Province has their main

arterial roads plowed by the Department of Transportation, except St. John's. I

do not understand why that would be. If the Department of Transportation took

over that road network that brings everyone in to the City to work - which I am

glad they do, because they spend money when they are in here - then part of the

financial problems that the City is having would be solved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know they are not going to listen to me,

over there; they are not going to listen to the reasonable requests of the

people from the Goulds; they are not going to listen to the reasonable

representation I am making on behalf of the City of St. John's. But, I hope some

of them will, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to have to stand and be

accounted for, before this vote is over. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition Party Whip, the Member for

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on this

particular resolution as it pertains to the part of the District of Conception

Bay South that I represent. I am very disappointed that the Member for

Conception Bay South has taken the position that she is not going to speak in

this debate, and I am very disappointed, as well, that CBS apparently has not

been adequately represented around the Cabinet table on this particular issue.

Let us not forget that while there are some very good and legitimate and grave

concerns with respect to the Goulds, Mount Pearl, St. John's and Wedgewood Park,

there is also another area of the Province that has very deep concerns, as well,

namely, the Town of Conception Bay South. We should not forget, either, that the

Town of Conception Bay South is, right now, the largest town in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not believe that the Member for Conception Bay

South fully understood the impact of these boundary changes upon that community.

If she did understand it, Mr. Speaker, and watched it all happen, without

comment, then I believe that she has done a grave disservice to the largest town

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When these boundary changes occur - and I do not believe the

Member is aware, I do not believe any of the Members are aware - when these

boundary changes occur, you will see the Town of Conception Bay South hemmed in,

the same way that Mount Pearl is being hemmed in under these boundary changes.

But, still, the Member for Conception Bay South says today, in a copy of the

Shoreline Newspaper that she is not concerned. She says she is not concerned

about that. The headline reads: `Cowan says CBS did just fine under

amalgamation.' Well, let me inform the Member and the Government that CBS did

not do just fine under amalgamation.

I cannot imagine that anyone could possibly think that CBS

did well under this particular scenario and under this resolution that we see

before us today. All you have to do is look at the map. All you have to do is

look at the boundary changes as outlined by the Department of Municipal Affairs,

and you will know that the Town of Conception Bay South did not do very well, at

all. And all of these outlandish statements are being made by the Member for

Conception Bay South while the town council and the Town Fathers are saying that

amalgamation is going to prevent future growth in the town, by permitting St.

John's to move its boundaries right into the Trans-Canada alongside the Town of

CBS. The boundaries of St. John's will now take in a portion, believe it or not,

of the Foxtrap access road.

Now, it is obvious that the Member for St. John's South has

not taken out the map and had a look at it, but that is the reality of the

situation. The boundaries for St. John's go right up the Trans-Canada Highway,

on out the Foxtrap access road and out to Fowlers Road in the Town of Conception

Bay South, taking in a number of houses in the Town of CBS. Now, how anyone

could sit down in the Department of Municipal Affairs and draw up a boundary

like that, is beyond me. This is why I say, the Member for Conception Bay South,

obviously had to be totally unaware of what was happening. I say to the Member

for CBS, and other Members, as well, the boundaries of St. John's are now going

to take in the Conception Bay South dump, believe it or not. It takes in, as I

said, a portion of Fowlers Road and a few houses in that area and a great deal

of the farmland in Conception Bay South, as well, and that is why people are

concerned, but still, the Member for the area, in today's Shoreline newspapers,

says that is just fine, there is really no need to worry about that at all, and

as a result, Mr. Speaker, of the St. John's invasion of the CBS boundary, some

farmers in Conception Bay South will now be doing their farming in St. John's,

as a matter of fact. Of course, that does not disturb the Minister of Finance,

he will be able to get - as the Member for Kilbride says - his fingers on a few

more pennies of the people of Conception Bay South; but the Member for

Conception Bay South, says that is okay, there is no need to worry about it.

As I said, the CBS dump is now located in St. John's, and

everyone in Conception Bay South, including the Town Council, is wondering if

the Town of CBS is now going to have to pay dumping fees to the St. John's City

Council. These are very, very legitimate concerns that have not yet been

answered by the Department of Municipal Affairs. As well, the hemming in of the

Town of CBS is a very legitimate concern.

The Member for the area is saying that they do not need to

expand any more, that they have enough land available to them right now, and

what they should be doing is in-filling, it does not need any future expansion.

The largest town in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, possibly, the

fastest growing, I believe, does not need, according to the Member for CBS, any

further room for expansion, that it does not matter!

Now, I am beginning to wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Member for

Conception Bay South is asleep when all of this is going around the Cabinet

table, when it is all being mulled over and discussed, because the interests of

CBS have not been very well represented by the Member for that area. The Town is

moving backwards, not forward, over the last two or three years, in particular,

and since we cannot get the Member for CBS to give any information to the Town

Council, I am wondering if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will

kindly answer some of the concerns that the people of the area have.

Is Government in effect, saying, that there will be no future

expansion in CBS? The Member for the area saying that water and sewer, while it

might be a problem, is one thing, what they should be doing is looking after the

areas that are built up. If you have a piece of land now, outside of the in-fill

area, you cannot use it, and this is what it is going to mean, if you are not

going to allow people to expand. Mayor Suter and Deputy Mayor Hillier, are very

concerned with these boundary changes and they cannot get any satisfactory

answers from the Member for the area.

What is effectively happening, is that you have the town

bounded now, and hemmed in on all four sides, on one side by the Trans-Canada

Highway, which is now the property of the St. John's City Council, on another

side by the ocean, on another side by the Paradise Town Council, and on the

fourth side by the Holyrood Town Council. So, where does it expand, I am asking

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs?

Is it the intention of the Department, is it a devious plan

that in the not-too-distant future, the Town of CBS will be in the same position

as Mount Pearl is right now? Mount Pearl is currently, as a result of these

changes, the Wedgewood Park of St. John's, so, is it a devious plan to have the

boundaries run up around the Town of CBS and have it eventually taken into the

City of St. John's, as well?

So, there are a whole lot of questions which remain

unanswered and, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to spend any great deal

of time on this, but I am quite anxious, indeed, to have the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs give some answers to the Town of CBS, since

they cannot get any answers from their own member.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words

on this resolution.

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with

amalgamation, under the right circumstances. I want, particularly, to talk about

a situation which is happening in my own district, which I understand will take

place at some time, if we are to believe what the Minister and other Ministers

are saying, and what the Premier is saying.

Mr. Speaker, amalgamation, first of all, should take place in

a democratic manner. There is no way this can be considered a democratic manner.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are here in the House of Assembly, and yes, we have the

power to pass bills and make legislation, bring down budgets and do all the

things that we do. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another way, and I am sure that

Members who have spoken before have alluded to it. The fact is that people

should have the right to say what is happening. People are normally sensible.

People are reasonable. It might surprise a lot of hon. members opposite, but

people, when they look at a situation for what it is - and yes, they will look

at their own self-interests first - most importantly, realize when something is

logical and sensible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is, Why is the Government

forcing this here in St. John's? Everybody has said, it is not going to help

anybody. The Mayor of St. John's has done the thing that will upset everyone in

the whole town.

There are two ways of looking at this thing. First of all,

the Government seems to be going on the assumption that larger is better. Now, I

think, perhaps, we should - it is too late now, I guess, from the way we

understand this will take place, I suppose, sometime in the very near future.

But, Mr. Speaker, is bigger better?

I have no experience of living in St. John's. I went to

university here and I presently reside in the City of Mount Pearl. But, if you

look at City Hall in St. John's, and at City Hall in Mount Pearl, if you look,

in my district, at a town that is about to be amalgamated - or so we understand

- if we look at their town hall, which is not much larger than two or three

Members' offices with one employee full-time, and you look at the town hall in

Stephenville, you realize, the bigger the town, the larger the bureaucracy. I am

sure that, after this amalgamation attempt, and the Government forces this on

the people, in a short time you will see another expansion of city hall down

here.

All I can say is, I do not believe when you have a big

bureaucracy - and we have to remember that almost half the people of

Newfoundland live on the Avalon Peninsula. If St. John's continues to grow, I

mean, where do they stop? Certainly, the population is continuing to grow.

One of the hon. Members spoke here, today, about Wedgewood

Park. The Member for Kilbride said that Wedgewood Park was just a little spot in

the wilderness that St. John's did not want. They asked to be taken into St.

John's and they were refused. Mr. Speaker, that trend will continue. Perhaps, it

is better to have smaller towns with smaller administrations, particularly - and

I also can see why, in a city where you are in a pure urban area, it might be of

some advantage to have people in under that yoke.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province, prefer to live

in a rural area. Many people in Stephenville moved to the town of Kippens,

because they wanted to be in a rural area.

What has happened since 1949, up until the time this present

Government came in, is that amalgamation was very often encouraged, and

amalgamation took place. Once you force - I think, Mr. Speaker, we will live to

regret the forcing of people to live under the same rules. I noticed, living in

Mount Pearl, that there is a tremendous community spirit there. High school

teams are knocking on your doors on Saturday mornings, there is a lot of

contact. People on the street on which I live get together once a year and have

a social occasion.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not going to change.

MR. HODDER: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, yes. These things change

with a larger administration, once there is a sports and recreation directors

department down in City Hall which runs everything. Most things are now being

run voluntarily. The hon. Member should come out to Kippins which has one

full-time employee but yet is a very large town. Now what happens, Mr. Speaker,

when they come under the yolk of Stephenville, when they are forced into

Stephenville? I will tell you what will happen, Mr. Speaker, suddenly the

recreation department will be in charge of this and that and all the bureaucracy

that we see in this Government and in this city will come to bear. It seems to

me, Mr. Speaker, that the smaller the town, very often the larger the community

spirit. All I am asking the hon. Member -and I am not saying that amalgamation

is bad, I am just putting forward a point of view because I do not believe that

bigger is always better. That is why I say when the Government decides to

amalgamate rural and urban areas that this is not necessarily the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the Stephenville - Kippins

area: there was a feasibility study, but the feasibility study was done by a

Member of the Minister's staff and one other person. After reading the study,

even I who has been involved in that community I suppose since I have been

elected, it has tripled in growth, could pick all sorts of holes in that report,

and it did not say amalgamation, it said annexation. Stephenville should annex

Kippins.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to save money. The people

in Kippins are willing to live without certain amenities of life. They knew that

when they went there. They are also willing to pay taxes. Now we have a

situation there where we have the mayor of one town wants to take over and the

mayor of the other town is resisting, and now the mayor of Kippins has taken

away the use of the fire trucks. I do not know whether it is right or wrong.

Whether that is right or wrong, I do not know because I do not know the issue or

what the thinking was, but I will say that the Member for Stephenville says it

is wrong and he may be right. I do not know. But the question that I have to ask

is: because two communities are in dispute why not ask the people what they

want. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that if the people of Stephenville were

polled that they would want to take over Kippins. Would they want to take on a

tax burden, because once the towns come together then the Town of Kippins are

going to want what the Town of Stephenville has. They are going to want all the

amenities of life. And oddly enough, the Town of Kippins, a non-unionized town,

and the Town of Stephenville, a very unionized town, the town of Kippins does

their snow clearing and does the work very cheaply.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying they should not amalgamate,

all I am saying is that they should have a fair chance, and there should be the

people, the people, not the councils. I do not care if they fight forevermore,

if one mayor wants to stay away and one mayor wants to stay there, and one mayor

wants Kippins in and the other Mayor wants Kippins out. I do not care how they

go. I think the people should have the right to speak, and the people have not

had the right to speak in this. The people have not had a right to speak in St.

John's. The people have not had a right to speak in the Goulds or in Wedgewood

Park or in all of the other communities that are coming together and we all have

their letters here from all over the northeast avalon who are complaining. So

why, Mr. Speaker, what great brain? We know the great brain behind

centralization, it was Parzival Copes, but what great thinker, what great brain

down in the Minister's office or outside the Province brought this about because

bigger is not necessarily best, and we might see a trend one of those days where

people are going back to smaller communities.

So when the Government takes a step in which they have to

force through their majority in the House of Assembly people to go together from

rural and urban areas of this Province then, Mr. Speaker, I predict that the

Government will live to see the day when they will shake their heads and say we

should not have done that. I make that prediction, Mr. Speaker.

But, Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Minister of Finance is

so happy about this. That is the real reason behind it because the Minister of

Finance wants to unload a few things on the taxpayers. They have already taxed

the taxpayers as much - the personal income tax is higher in Newfoundland than

it is anywhere else, I could go on and on and on. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have

found a new way of taxation because the larger the communities get the smaller

the grants get.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say except for the

fact that I do hope when they look at the other communities around this

Province, they look them over more carefully than they have looked at this one

because, Mr. Speaker, this is not democratic. People should have a right to

speak. These are institutions that, in some cases, have been there for thirty or

forty years in some communities around this Province and communities right here

in St. John's. So, they should have the right to the determination of their own

destiny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak fairly briefly on this resolution,

drawing on my experience as the MHA for Humber East. Humber East is a district

that comprises two municipalities that are the product of amalgamation.

The City of Corner Brook comprises four towns that came

together in 1956. Now, I was not old enough in 1956 to have observed the

processes that led to amalgamation, but it is a fact that the City of Corner

Brook is made up of four towns that joined together in 1956. The combined

territory is large and sprawling and I heard a few years ago that Corner Brook

has the distinction of having more miles or kilometres of municipal roads per

capita than any other municipality in Canada. I am not sure if that is still

true.

The other municipality in the District, which is the product

of a merger, is Pasadena, a town with a current population of 3,500. Pasadena is

a product of the amalgamation of the former towns of Pasadena and South Brook in

I would like to explain to the House of Assembly how that

amalgamation took place to illustrate a good municipal amalgamation, to point

out an example of the correct process for municipal amalgamation, a very

different experience from what has been occurring in this Province over the last

two years under the Liberal 'Real Change' Administration. In the case of

Pasadena, there was discussion at the local level involving municipal

councillors with provincial authorities, preliminary, exploratory talk about the

idea of combining Pasadena and South Brook following that local initiative the

PC Administration of the day followed the law, observed both the letter and the

spirit of The Municipalities Act and appointed an independent commissioner,

somebody with no connection with the Provincial Government to carry out a

feasibility study. The independent commissioner held public hearings, invited

submissions written and oral from the citizens of the two municipalities and

allowed plenty of time for that discussion to take place. The commissioner

received mixed reviews. There were some people who were in favour of

amalgamating the two municipalities but there were others, particularly

residents of the smaller of the two communities, the town of South Brook, who

were quite leery about the proposition. Indeed, there were a few who opposed it

outright. The larger municipality, Pasadena, had been well planned, developed

and enjoyed a good level of services. South Brook, the smaller of the two,

however, was in grave need of municipal improvements. There was no proper modern

sewage disposal system. Households used septic tanks for sewage disposal and

with the growth in population through the late 70s and early 80s the community

had outgrown septic tanks. Sewage was literally seeping to the surface of the

ground. Very few of the roads in South Brook were paved. So there was some

concern in Pasadena, the more prosperous municipality, that amalgamating the two

might result in an unreasonable tax burden being put on Pasadena to finance the

needed improvement in services in South Brook. All these concerns were aired

fully. The commissioner listened to them and in his report the commissioner

noted the differing opinions and advice from the residents. The commissioner

went on to say that the Provincial Government had an important part to play and

he called on the Province to pledge extra financing for the enlarged

municipality in the event that amalgamation came about, extra financing that

would allow the badly needed upgrading of services in South Brook without

draining the taxpayers of Pasadena. After that report was written and made

public, Mr. Speaker, the council of South Brook decided to have a plebescite and

they carried out a referendum in their community, just South Brook. The result

of that plebescite was that a majority indicated agreement with amalgamation, so

with those democratic preliminaries out of the way the Provincial Government

made a decision to amalgamate Pasadena and South Brook, to have the enlarged new

municipality called the town of Pasadena, to provide extra provincial financing

to the new municipality, specifically to upgrade services in South Brook, now

know as Pasadena West, and the two former municipalities had worked out an

agreement for the transition. That agreement included the new municipality

employing all the former staff of both earlier municipalities. That agreement

included having two extra seats added to the Pasadena council designated for

what had been the community of South Brook for the first municipal term of

office following the amalgamation. Six years later, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of

Pasadena, both the former municipalities of Pasadena and South Brook, are very

happy. It is a case where the Provincial Government acted in a democratic

fashion, where the residents were listened to, where their wishes were

respected, where the Provincial Government provided additional funding, where

there were appropriate mutually agreed upon bridging, or transitional

arrangements, and where people have been very satisfied with the change, with

the transition, with the implementation, and with the results. How different

that is from what this Liberal 'Real Change' Administration is doing. First of

all a short two months after assuming office the Minister, without having taken

the time to even talk to citizens around the Province, or their municipal

leaders, like a bolt out of the blue, proposed a campaign of amalgamating some

115 municipalities combining them into some forty-odd groupings.

Now, for many of the municipalities on that list, the

proposition that they be joined with their neighbours was foreign. It was a new

concept that had never been discussed locally and, not surprisingly, the

pronouncement of the Minister coupled with his expression of determination to

use the force of Government to achieve the mergers within a short two months

prior to the 1989 fall municipal elections got people's backs up. I am told by

some leaders, one sitting opposite me, that a couple of cases where

municipalities had been talking amalgamation, where progress in neighbours

coming together had been noted, the Minister's crusade set back the clock.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has retreated steadily ever since.

Soon after his original edict he agreed to take Steady Brook off the list. He

initially proposed combining Steady Brook along with Massey Drive, Mount Moriah

and Corner Brook to make an enlarged City of Corner Brook. A few days after his

announcement he removed Steady Brook from the list saying the physical

separation by a few miles of the Humber River Valley made joining it with Corner

Brook nonsensical. He did not follow through by taking Brighton, Triton, and

Pilley's Island off the hit list however. Similarly, he called off the threat to

Labrador City and Wabush recognizing that special funding agreements with the

Iron Ore Mining Companies and those two municipalities might be jeopardized if

the Government were to force merger of the two municipalities. But, he has

stubbornly persisted in keeping the gun on all those other municipalities, Mr.

Speaker.

Now a couple of them have come together amicably, Grand Falls

and Windsor, and in that instance, as the Member for Exploits has to

acknowledge, there had been many previous years of discussions. The way had been

paved by the previous Administration and by the municipal leaders for the

amalgamation of Grand Falls and Windsor, that has come about from what I know

quite amicably. But, with those couple of exceptions, Mr. Speaker, eighty-odd

municipalities from the Minister's original hit list are still living under the

Government's threat. Now, after procrastinating for almost two years, finally

the Premier has come to this House of Assembly with the resolution we are now

debating.

The Premier has made a show of this procedure being

democratic. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, as many members on this side

have pointed out is that the Premier did not have the legal authority to achieve

the sought after amalgamations in the St. John's area by Cabinet order. So, his

claim that he is doing us a favour by refraining from having Cabinet in secret

decide on these mergers is a fraud. The law does not empower the Cabinet to make

these amalgamations because the required preliminaries, the required feasibility

studies have not been carried out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the process we are are now taking

part in,

not voluntarily I might add, is similarly flawed. The passage by the Liberal

majority here of the resolution before us does not authorize the intended

result. This Legislature could authorize the result that the Premier desires but

we would have to change the law. The Premier, yet, has not worked up the nerve

to come before us with a bill to amend The Municipalities Act or the city's

legislation. We will see what happens but, in my opinion, this is a flawed

process. It is flawed legally, as well as morally. We, as Members of the House

of Assembly, are being abused by the Premier in his effort to resolve the

municipal amalgamation fiasco for the St. John's area to contain the damage in

the St. John's area. Similarly, the rights of the citizens of the Northeast

Avalon, and the current municipalities, are being violated. Under the present

law, those people have a right