May 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were for the Minister of Health, but in his

absence, I will direct them to the President of Treasury Board. The President of

Treasury Board will no doubt be aware that over this past weekend, two

psychiatrists, Dr. John Angel and Dr. Sheila Lynch, went to the trouble of

placing notices in the weekend papers to inform the public that they cannot

accept any new references to their practice because of work overload created,

they say, by Government cutbacks in the health care system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of Treasury Board, Does

the Minister know if other doctors practising in other speciality areas have

informed referring physicians that they cannot take new patients or that they

must limit referrals because of the exodus of specialists from the Province?

Have Government been informed by other speciality practitioners that this is a

major problem?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health

could give a more succinct and complete answer than I can give, however, I will

attempt to answer the question.

First of all, the psychiatrists' problem, my understanding

is, goes back six or seven years, and during the last five or six years there

have been nine who have left the Province. I do not know how that can be blamed

on the cutbacks that took place in April. Also, there has been increasing demand

on that particular practice, I think it was indicated on the radio this morning,

over the past year or so, so they reached the point where they cannot take any

more patients. I cannot answer the question as to their motivation for placing

the ad. It has been something that has been ongoing for quite a number of years.

As to the question about other specialists, to my knowledge,

there are two specialists, I believe one of them has left and one is leaving.

One is a specialist who has been here for one year and intended to leave at the

end of the year. He did not even buy any furniture for his apartment. He left.

There is another who has been looking around for a couple of years and I believe

is planning to leave. These are the only two that I know of; but there have been

no official notifications to Government.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board would like to

spread this problem out over a five or six year period. Let me ask the Minister

this: Will the Minister confirm that six psychiatrists, nearly 20 per cent of

the total number of psychiatrists in the Province, have left the Province in the

past nine months, not five or six years, but nine months?

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

MR. BAKER: This is the 21st of May. I believe the

cutbacks were announced in March, and the details of the funding announced in

March, so I do not know how many have left in the last six months. I will

certainly check it out. I would be very interested, myself, in finding out. I

will certainly check it out and get back to the hon. member.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board

should be aware of the ad that was in the paper. It said that six psychiatrists,

20 per cent of the total number practising in the Province have left over the

last nine months. Now, I ask the Minister if he and the Government are concerned

about that, particularly in view of the fact that the demand for psychiatric

services in the Province have increased dramatically, so those professionals

say, over the last twelve months, and if there is a concern what plan does the

Government have to try to stop this exodus and, hopefully, attract those

speciality people, or some in that category, back to the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Government is concerned about

a lot of things that are happening, and one of them is the fact that this

Province, outside of St. John's, cannot attract a level of specialist care that

we would like to have. We are very concerned about that and we are always

looking at ways of improving the distribution in the Province with the help of

the Medical Association. This is an ongoing problem.

Mr. Speaker, there could, I suppose, be many solutions, but

one thing we are not going to do is guarantee people that they can make $500,000

a year. We are a Province that has limited money. There is capping of the amount

of money from Medicare coming into this Province. We have a limited amount of

money and we simply cannot pay extremely high, exorbitant amounts of money to

any professionals in the Province. It is as simple as that. The Government

cannot afford it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Health on the same

subject as just addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. Last week, the

Director of Communications for the Newfoundland Medical Association said, and I

quote, `The Association is very concerned about the exodus of health

professionals - doctors, nurses, and other professionals - from this Province,'

end quote. Has the Newfoundland Medical Association discussed its concerns with

the Minister? Has the Association reported to the Minister the number of doctors

and other health professionals who have left already, or who are planning to

leave the Province? Finally, does the Minister know what health or medical

services have been hurt by the exodus of health personnel?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all the questions

is yes. I meet with the Newfoundland Medical Association very, very regularly.

How many doctors, psychiatrists, the whole scale have left the Province because

of the cutbacks? Not a single one, Mr. Speaker, not a single one.

Now the Newfoundland Medical Association suggested to me that

in their opinion the cutbacks might result in this happening. My question was

how many have left to date? - not a single one to their knowledge. Now doctors

and nurses and other professionals have been leaving this Province, Mr. Speaker,

for the past 500 years. Are they leaving because of cuts? - there is no way of

knowing. Some of them may, indeed, have left because of the fiscal problems, but

there is no proof either by the Department of Health or the Newfoundland Medical

Association to say that is the reason. One of the people who was supposed to

have left because of the cutbacks has family in Ontario and has been planning to

move for the past three years and finally got a recall in place so he goes up to

a more lucrative service even than before the fiscal problems.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is passing strange

that the Newfoundland Medical Association issued a statement expressing their

serious concern about the exodus of health personnel. My next question has to do

with one of the Minister's health restraint measures, the capping of payments

for MCP claims. The effect, it seems, is that doctors are not being fully paid

for the work they are doing. Some doctors are saying that out of a five day work

week they are only being compensated for four days. Has the Minister been told

that doctors may react to this capping by limiting their practice either to

reduce their work time or to reduce the number of patients they see in

proportion to the reduction in compensation. Has the Minister determined what

impact such action by doctors might have on the provision of health care to

patients.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to be paid four days for working

five is absolute silliness, pure hogwash. There is no truth to it whatsoever. I

cannot think of words despicable enough to describe anyone who would raise that

in this House because there is no basis at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts will show that there have been

some doctors who have gotten, I think, up to ten per cent, I believe, the last

time, but it fluctuates from pay period to pay period. At one time it was 3

point something but it has not gone above 10, I think. The highest they have

gone is 10 per cent, and it looks like the next one which is coming up this

month is going back to 3 point something, however, Mr. Speaker, in fairness I

will say that we did not factor in normal utilization increases and the

Department is presently looking at that; normally utilization will increase by

four per cent every year, this has been going on, but we did not make any

allowance for that, so we are looking at that. However, there have been periods

over the last few weeks when utilization has gone up and down, and the

Newfoundland Medical Association and the Department of Health are trying to

ascertain what is driving up that utilization; one suggestion is that it might

be the meningococcus scare, but we do not believe that is the whole reason,

there might be some other reason which we are trying to look at.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister did not

answer my question. My question had to do with doctors re-acting to the MCP cap

by cutting back in their provision of services by seeing fewer patients or by

working less time; does the Minister have any reason to believe that doctors are

cutting back or are intending to cut back in such a way?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have absolute, total faith in

the doctors who are operating in this Province, and if a patient has to be seen,

those doctors will see those patients. I do not believe for one moment that

there is a single doctor in this Province or in the country, who would refuse a

patient who requires to be seen.

Now, some doctors may decide in the patient's interest that

the blood pressure test can wait an extra week but that is a decision which the

doctors are making, however, I am quite satisfied that the level of care which

is being provided by the doctors is quite adequate, and I want to go on record

as complimenting the doctors, Mr. Speaker, who are doing such an excellent job.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The Minister is proposing to create an enlarged City of St.

John's and he has told this House that he sees the structure as being more cost

effective, that the city can operate some of the regional services on a more

cost-efficient basis.

The Minister is proposing also, as part of that, to transfer

to the City of St. John's the regional water supply system at Bay Bulls which

serves most of the region. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the operating cost of that

regional system will not change because the City of St. John's takes it over,

all of the services now provided by St. John's Metropolitan Area Board will

still have to be provided.

Would the Minister like to tell us: where does he see the

efficiencies and what will be the rate for water charged after this system is

transferred to the City of St. John's? Will it be the same as it is now, or will

it be reduced because of these efficiencies he is talking about?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question

which is very difficult to answer because, until we put in place a transition

team comprised of officials of my Department and staff of the municipalities, to

facilitate the transfer if you like, of these assets over to the City of St.

John's and have them look at the costing of the various services, such as he

mentioned, water and fire and so on, it is very difficult to determine

obviously, what the costs are going to be.

But I would agree, I would think that the cost would remain

substantially the same; there will be some efficiencies there, obviously we will

not have a board in between the Government and the municipalities as we have

right now, and I would think that there will be economies of scale, particularly

with regards to staff, because we can use obviously, just one, the staff at City

Hall which is presently in place, with the addition I would think of some staff

who are in place now with the Metro Board, particularly the engineers and the

expertise that is available at the water site itself. So I think there will be

savings but that all has to be looked at as we go through the transition phase.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that

it will require just as many people to operate that system in the future after

it is transferred as it does now. What is incredible here is that the Minister

does not know what the cost will be. The reason he does not know is because no

feasibility studies have been undertaken, and that is a weakness with this whole

thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Let me ask the Minister one very clear,

concise question. If this should take place, once the City of St. John's has

complete control of the regional system, will there be one rate charged

throughout the region? Will every municipality pay the same? Will Paradise pay

the same as St. John's? Will Conception Bay South pay the same as St. John's?

Will Mount Pearl pay the same as St. John's? Will there be one rate applicable

to every municipality throughout the system?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, at present is

that St. John's and Mount Pearl - just to use two of the users of Bay Bulls as

examples - pay exactly the same water rates. Whether or not all communities

would pay the same rates is again something that will have to be determined

after we know, after resolutions hopefully passed through the House, and after

we know the makeup and the partners, if you like, in that particular system. And

who will be sharing the water or fire or whatever the service happens to be.

We do not presently have the same rates for fire service, for

example. They use other factors besides a per capita assessment. They look at

the distance away from stations, they look at the service that is being supplied

in the area, the distance between houses. And there is a rural aspect to the

charge as well as an urban aspect. Water may have some similar criteria, I do

not know, because we would have to put that together when we know the players,

when we know who the communities are sharing in the service. Right now though,

the communities of St. John's and Mount Pearl, being both urban communities

completely and substantially developed, have similar water charges. Now, whether

that same or a similar charge would apply to other communities accessing the Bay

Bulls supply is something that will have to be determined.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister we know

the players and we know the cost. The cost to the City of St. John's was zero

for the regional system because it was built by the Province and it serves all

the municipalities in the region at the moment.

Let me ask the Minister this question, Mr. Speaker: The

Windsor Lake water supply is now and has been owned by the City of St. John's,

that will now form part of the regional system, and we know that water from the

Windsor Lake supply is cheaper than from the regional supply because it was

developed so many years ago, will that now be blended into the overall cost

charged in the region? In other words, will all the municipalities now benefit

from the total cost of water throughout the whole region or will we have two

classes of citizens; St. John's buying cheap water from Windsor Lake and selling

more expensive water to the rest of the municipalities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question.

I would think all the services that are being used on a regional basis would be

costed out on a fair and equitable basis when we determine who the users of the

system are going to be. We do in fact now have only St. John's and Wedgewood

Park using the Windsor Lake source. But whether or not that cheaper rate will be

spread over the entire region is something that will have to be assessed and I

will have to seek advice on that before I can even consider arbitrating if, in

fact, that difficulty arises. That is something that will have to be looked at

again when we enter into the transition phase and we decide how best to

cost-share and allocate those charges.

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

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

I find it incredible that the Minister has not thought

through this policy. We do not have to look at the various costs or anything

else. We are talking a policy and a principle here. Will the benefits of

regional services go to only St. John's or will they accrue to every

municipality in the region? Is it all the other municipalities sharing with St.

John's, and St. John's not sharing with the rest. Which is it? Simple and

straightforward!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is making light of a

very difficult and complicated question. We have a water system that is

presently being, or will be, shared by a lot of municipalities that has to be

sorted out in terms of jurisdiction, and who will pay a particular rate given

the usage and distance from the water system and charges already for that are in

place because infrastructure was put there years ago. It is a very complicated,

detailed question. No different than the fire department where we have stations

that have been paid for, equipment put in place, and all of that has to be

looked at in the transition phase, whether it be the water system or the fire

department or garbage disposal. All those questions are very complicated and

just cannot be answered by a straightforward yes-or-no answer. It is impossible

to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

question for the Minister of Justice. On Friday past I asked the Premier a

question concerning transportation of a prisoner from Her Majesty's Penitentiary

to the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. And the Premier said,

and I quote from Hansard: "And I understand that there was a special leave for

him to go home because of a personal matter at home or for some reason, health

reason." That is the quotation from the Premier.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if that is a

correct statement by the Premier.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the person was in fact on a

leave, so the Premier's statement was not incorrect. Thank you.

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

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Did the Minister say the Premier's statement

was incorrect?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, what I said was the individual to

whom I suspect - without using the person's name - that the hon. Member refers

was on a leave. So the Premier's statement was not incorrect or, to put it

another way, it was correct.

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

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

like to ask the Minister of Justice, if that be the case, why did that prisoner

go to the correctional centre where he is at the present time, and has not gone

home, for the reason that the Premier has given?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The individual in question

was incarcerated on February 27 of this year at the Labrador Correctional

Institute. On April 7 of this year he was transferred to Her Majesty's

Penitentiary because of an ear ailment. On the date that the hon. Member sat

next to the individual on the aircraft - which I believe was May 15 - he was

being transferred back to Happy Valley - Goose Bay to the correctional centre

there, because his treatment had ceased. So he still has six weeks to serve in

his sentence, and I believe is due to be released in late June, I think it is

June 27 of this year.

I do not really know if that explains it, but the reason he

did not go home was he is still within our custody and is being transferred

between. And that is his special leave. He was given permission to travel -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

like to ask the Minister to table in this House as early as possible the number

of prisoners that have been transferred from the Stephenville Correctional

Centre to St. John's for similar reasons; from the Botwood Correctional Centre

for similar reasons; from the Clarenville Correctional Centre for similar

reasons; by other means than being escorted by security guards.

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

MR. DICKS: I do not know if the Member understands the

idea of leave, but there are individuals in our community, on any given day

approximately twenty to thirty, within our correctional system who get day

passes to attend correctional institutes, to attend community colleges, to do

work in the community, to visit doctors, and things like that. The matter that

is in question is whether or not the individuals form any sort of hazard to the

community. The fact is that in many cases they do not, and that part of the

rehabilitative aspects of running a penitential system is you try and help

individuals come back into society, so there are any number of individuals on

any given day that are given leave to be in the community. We also allow them,

from time to time, to transfer between facilities without escort if they are

considered not to be a risk. That is still considered within the norms, and it

is a common practice not only in Newfoundland but also in Canada.

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

a final supplementary.

MR. WARREN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister of Justice undertake to advise both the

Canadian Airlines, and also Air Nova, who travel from St. John's to Happy Valley

- Goose Bay, and to Labrador West, would he advise those companies to at least

advise passengers who are travelling on those airlines that there are prisoners

on those airlines who are not escorted back to the penitentiary in Happy Valley

- Goose Bay.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, with no offence, the hon. Member

is not doing a service to either the community or to the people who are

unfortunate to find themselves in trouble with the law, by making such a

request. I think that people commonly know there are any number of individuals

at liberty at any particular time, on parole, or on probation, who are being

transferred, or who are just on day release. If the hon. Member objects to the

practice he probably has the minority vote of one. I think most people recognize

the benefit of having individuals who are in trouble with society being able to

learn how to function again as members of society. So, if I will undertake to

advise the airlines, no, nor will I undertake to advise any person that somebody

they are sitting next to in a bus, or in a community college, might be a

prisoner. I think if we do that we may as well brand red 'Ps' on their forehead

or something like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make to the

hon. Member is that I will not do so because I think that would interfere with

the possible rehabilitation of people, and I do not think his comment, or

question, is well directed.

Thank you.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have a question for the Premier. On

April 19 the Premier confirmed to this House that an assessment had been

undertaken by the Public Service Commission to determine the validity of

allegations that one of the campaign workers, or one of the staff of the

Minister of Social Services, had given questions to a campaign worker of his

while applying for a job. The Premier told the House on May 3 that he did not

know whether the enquiry had been completed. Will the Premier tell the House

today if the investigation has been completed, and if so has he or his Minister

received a copy of the report from the Public Service Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister

responsible has been advised that it is not yet complete. I do not know why. It

seems to be taking an inordinate length of time. I do not disagree with the hon.

Member's comments in that regard. I would have expected that it would have been

completed and submitted long before this, but I understand from a discussion

last week with the Minister that we can expect it shortly. I would hope before

much longer, but it is not yet ready.

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

supplementary.

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

The Premier should know that if the allegation turns out to

be true it is a very serious matter and the integrity of the Public Service

Commission and the Public Service hiring process, I guess, would be brought

under repute, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier is aware of any other

instances where the Public Service Commission has had to investigate allegations

where a job applicant has had an unfair advantage over other applicants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know, Mr. Speaker; if it were of

consequence, I could ask them to find out, if there is anything in the records.

I do not see that it is of particular consequence. I also do not know that there

is any validity to the allegations, they are simply political allegations at

this moment. Whether or not there is any validity to them yet remains to be

seen, so I would caution all members against jumping to irrational conclusions

at this stage.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the

Premier that these are not political allegations; it was a member of the public

who brought this to public attention.

The Premier may or may not recall that the Chairman of the

Public Service Commission, in an

article in the Tuesday, September 14 Evening

Telegram, was noted as saying, one other instance where the Commissioner

determined that a candidate in competition for a Government position had an

unfair advantage over others, was reported. The Chairman of the Public Service

Commission has already said that there was one other instance.

Mr. Speaker, in light of this revelation, is not the Premier

concerned about the impartiality of the Public Service Commission? Would the

Premier consider the fact that the Public Service Commission, this time, has to

investigate itself? Would he provide, or consider providing, an independent

investigator if these allegations happen to be correct? And, would he report to

this House on the other instance which the Chairman of the Public Service

Commission has already reported?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the other instance to

which he is referring is an instance relating to the Sheriff's Office, when the

Sheriff's secretary typed up some questions that were suitable to ask any

applicants that the Sheriff (inaudible), and she subsequently applied for the

job. So, that was how that happened. I am not aware of any other instance, and I

think that is the item to which the Chairman may be referring. I know of no

basis to wildly set in place a judicial inquiry or other inquiry into the

operation of the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I think the suggestion the hon.

member has made is utter nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, again I would caution Members not to jump to

unfounded conclusions, merely because political allegations have been made which

have not been established to have any validity as yet. It may well be that they

will be established to have some validity. If, as and when they are so

established, then the appropriate action will be taken, but we are not going to

run through barrel hoops, at this stage, merely because the hon. Member wants to

create some political difficulty.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I tried to check out the

other instance, and the reason I asked the Premier the question was that I could

not find any information on what the instance was. Obviously, the Chairman of

the Public Service Commission, for some reason or other, did not want to speak

of it. Mr. Speaker, personally, I would be concerned if the Sheriff in our

Province were having people who are applying for a job, type up the questions on

it. That, in itself, is a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member he is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting to the

Premier that a public inquiry be set up, I am just asking, since this allegation

appears to be correct, would it not be more advisable to have some type of

private investigator put in place, Mr. Speaker, so the Public Service does not

have to investigate itself?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is crazy.

MR. TOBIN: Why is it crazy?

MR. R. AYLWARD: It would be beneficial to the Public

Service not to be investigating themselves, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), is that why it is crazy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can pursue it further, but

to the best of my knowledge, it was a relatively innocent accident that caused

the other one. I cannot vouch for it absolutely, but if it is of significance, I

will undertake to find out the full detail. To the best of my knowledge, what

occurred was, there was a position becoming available in the Sheriff's office

and the Sheriff was asked to provide advice on the kinds of questions that

should be asked. So the Sheriff dictated, to his secretary, a letter providing

the information and it went off to the Commission. When the invitations to apply

for the job went out the Sheriff's secretary applied. He did not know she was

going to apply. She typed up his questions; Who else would he ask but his

secretary? When it was discovered that she applied for the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Just listen now. When it was discovered

that she applied for the job, the competition was called off so there was no

unfair advantage given to anybody.

I do not think ill of people. Some people always think the

worst of people, because that is their nature. I do not think ill of people, I

operate on the assumption that most people operate on the basis of fairness and

balance and decency and so on. So, I assume this was a simple accident. I am not

prepared to attribute ill motives to anybody unless there is some reason to do

so and partisan politics, in my judgement, is not an adequate reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the gentleman from

Kilbride asked some questions concerning The Local Preference Act and, as I

pointed out to him, they were hypothetical questions. I would just like to enter

into the record, now, what actually did happen.

One of the questions he asked was, Were we abandoning the

principle of local preference? Well, I can assure the hon. gentleman, no, we are

actually trying to enforce The Local Preference Act much more than it ever was

over the last seventeen years. We are trying to correct some of the inequities

that crept into it and we will have that done shortly. So, we have recognized

the problems that are there.

I will give him the details of the question he asked

concerning the printing of a report. As he is aware, The Public Tendering Act

falls under my department, so, when a client of my department, any government

agency or department, requests that something go to public tender, they come and

give the specifications to the people in public tendering and they go ahead and

draw up the tender. But we were advised on April 17 that the Hughes Commission

Report would be available for printing on May 1 and the people in the Hughes

Commission wanted it available for May 16. We were also advised that the

Government were going to submit this report on May 30, so it would have to be

printed. We went back and told the people in the Hughes Commission there was no

way, we could go to public tender on this particular case because of the

shortness of the order, so the only thing we could do was to go out for quotes.

Now by going for quotes meant that we were outside The Public

Tendering Act and it was an exception to The Public Tendering Act and provincial

preference states that where a government-funded body invites tenders under The

Public Tendering Act, the Government-funded body shall determine, in accordance

with the Act, the preferred bidder. Tenders, as defined in The Public Tendering

Act, 1984, means a call for tender by a written public advertisement. Since

quotes were obtained rather than tenders advertised, The Provincial Preference

Act does not apply.

We received quotes from the following people: Robinson

Blackmore for $48,466; Dicks and Company, $39,362; Newfoundland Herald, $35,540;

and Hawk Duplicating, $33,070. Hawk Duplicating subsequently withdrew their

tender and the tender was awarded to Newfoundland Herald for $35,540, and Dicks

and Company was the next at $39,362. Now, that is what the hon. gentleman asked

for, and I now table this.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act, 1973,"

carried. (Bill No. 30)

On motion, Bill No. 30, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, the debate was adjourned by the

Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4. The hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday in debate and I think I had

approximately - I just checked with the Table - eleven minutes left in the

debate. I had some remarks prepared for response to a petition which I

understood a certain Member of this House has to be presented on behalf of her

constituents, but it looks like the -

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Premier just told him not to do it.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island is acting the way he is; I never mentioned his name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Has the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island a

petition? That is the question now; he re-acted, Mr. Speaker, but nobody

mentioned his name.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder, I wonder.

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, on a point

of order.

MR. WALSH: Obviously, I have two or three, with gangling

necks, looking at me for some reason or other. If I have a petition to present

in this House of Assembly, when I receive it, the same day I will present it; so

now, if you know that I am supposed to have something that I may not physically

have in my hands yet, say it! But do not sit there with gangling necks, saying,

I wonder, I wonder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, who said the hon. Member had a

petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) something in that. Nobody

said you had a petition.

MR. TOBIN: I do not where he is coming from. I am very

suspicious of the conduct of the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, very

suspicious.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He had his secretary hide it.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the other day we were having

some discussion on this piece of legislation, at which time we contended that

the resolution before the House is illegal, that it does, indeed, contravene The

Municipalities Act, that we have known for some time.

My time, Mr. Speaker, is probably not as long as I would

like, to finish my debate. I have some very strong issues that I would like to

get to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Basically, this resolution that is before the

House is asking us, as Members of the Legislature, to provide a cover for what

is, indeed, an illegal act.

Mr. Speaker, we are not passing a law with this piece of

legislation, not rescinding existing legislation, not amending existing

legislation. We are not doing any of that. What we have been asked is to do

something that contravenes The Municipalities Act.

If the Government want to do this, if they want to bring in

this mess that they are proposing, let them bring in legislation to rescind the

existing provisions of The Municipalities Act and substitute new legislation

which will enable them to proceed in a proper manner; that is what the

Government must do, but they have not done that.

Mr. Speaker, there are some questions I would like the

Minister to address, when he speaks to this piece of legislation, and I think it

is important that the Minister listen to what is being said about it, because,

it is obvious that he has listened to no one in the past two or three years,

when it comes to the amalgamation issue.

I have some questions that I would like the Minister to

consider: What is going to be the tax base for these new municipalities? The

Minister confirmed, today, for my colleague from Mount Pearl, that he did not do

what should have been done, in the first instance, that is, as outlined, now, in

The Municipalities Act, Government must make a specific amalgamation proposal,

publish the proposal in the affected communities, appoint a commissioner or

commissioners to study the feasibility of Government's proposal and report to

the Minister, who in turn, makes a recommendation to Cabinet.

What has happened here is that the amalgamation proposal in

the resolution was not published, communities affected were not subject to a

feasibility study, were not recommended by the commissioners appointed to

conduct a feasibility study, and were not proposed by any municipality. So in

answer to all of that and where the Minister has bungled in this, I would now

like to ask him to tell us what is going to happen in these groupings.

What is the tax base going to be? What services are required

and how costly are they to provide? Does the municipal unit include properties

that can be developed as residential and industrial areas which can produce

revenue to cover the cost of services or expansion of the services? Is it

appropriate to include agricultural land within the boundaries of an urban

municipality? Should urban municipalities be barred from revenue producing urban

developments and agricultural land within its boundaries? Should municipalities

be solely responsible for recreation and cultural facilities? What will be the

effect on the Provincial policies and programmes in the area of culture and

recreation if they depend on facilities controlled and financed exclusively by

municipalities? What will happen to the arts, to theatre, to Provincial sports

organizations, to education, to health, in respect to the general area of

fitness? How will the policies of the Province mesh with the facilities and

financial resources of municipalities?

What is the effect of these proposals on individual

taxpayers? What is the effect of the ability of communities to finance municipal

infrastructure and services? And what will be the effects of deficiencies in any

of these areas of economic development in the Province? How will the Provincial

economic development policies mesh with the capability of municipalities to

maintain and develop necessary service systems and infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, the House has none of this information. We were

told one day last week by the Premier that we had some general sense of how

these things may be affected. Some general sense of how they may be affected is

what the Premier said. I ask Members opposite and on this side, as it is a free

vote: is that statement by the Premier and the statements today by the Minister

in response to the question from my colleague for Mount Pearl good enough? Can

any Member of the House honestly make an informed decision on the Minister's

proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Can we? Based on what the Premier has said and

what the Minister has told us. Now, I have listed a lot of questions that have

been brought - these are questions by the way that I have asked people in

certain municipalities about, and if they had the answers. No one seemed to have

the answers to these questions. So we are asked to make a decision on something

that will affect the way of life, the cultural aspect, the financial aspects, of

individuals throughout this Province. And yet we do not have the answers, and

Government has not provided us with the answers.

So when we have to stand in our place over the next number of

days to make a decision on amalgamation we do not have the information to help

us make it. Members of the House of Assembly have been told that they can have a

free vote on this issue. What does a free vote mean? It means that Members can

vote regardless of their political stripe or regardless of - as a matter of

fact, my friend from Placentia East and myself from Placentia West could

actually vote the same way. That is basically what we would be doing with a free

vote. But neither myself nor the Member for Placentia East has the information

that we need to make the decision on amalgamation. There is nobody in this House

of Assembly - there is nobody on this side of the House of Assembly who has the

information necessary to make the right decision. There is nobody going to vote

on this resolution who will have the information necessary to make the decision.

Whether they be on that side of the House or this side of the House. And I would

say that that is wrong.

And I heard the other day, I was driving in one day last week

and there was a caller to the open line programme. And they were wondering what

would happen if the Federal Government decided to divvy up Canada into provinces

in the same way that this Government has decided to bring in amalgamation, to

force it upon people. And he said: what would happen if the Federal Government,

even though the Constitutional aspect of it is one issue, decided that Atlantic

Canada should be one province with the headquarters or the capital in Halifax?

How would this Province react? I would say we would be violently opposed to

anyone who does anything to destroy the way of life of us who have been living

in this Province. Who have loved to live in this Province and this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs I

know exactly what I am saying. Who knows - that is what we are saying here. I

would say we would be violently opposed. So why should the Premier and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs be shocked by the fact that the people for example

from the Goulds are opposed to this mess that he brought in.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the Member

for Placentia is getting instructions on how to vote on this resolution the same

as the Members who spoke against it the other day, such as the Member for

Carbonear and others, who I have been told had been called to the Eighth Floor

after their statements and stands, and told what to do. The same as the Member

for Pleasantville is going to try and bring in, I would suggest, an amendment to

this to include Mount Pearl to save face for the Liberal Members in the Party.

That is what is going to happen, so they can save face. The Premier has

orchestrated, may I suggest, or some of the Cabinet Ministers, have orchestrated

a deal with the Member for Pleasantville to bring in a resolution that will

allow the Members in St. John's to look at City Council and say I supported it,

but at the same time ensure that the resolution passes excluding Mount Pearl.

That is the game that is being played but I think the Government have been too

smart by a half because the people can see through that, Mr. Speaker, the people

will be able to see through that type of a system that is being invented by the

Premier and by the Government. I do not think they will let it happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and in conclusion let

me say to all Members opposite and on this side of the House, that when we vote

on this piece of legislation consider that we are living -

MR. MURPHY: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's

South does not want to give me the time to clue up then sobeit. But the City

Council and the residents of St. John's know exactly where I was coming from.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is just incredible nobody

opposite wants to speak. Do they not know that we are not just talking about the

northeast Avalon region? This Government is setting the scene for amalgamations

throughout this Province and setting the tone as to how they are going to do it,

as to how they are going to do the amalgamations, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the

message that is going across this Province from Government's resolution here is

that this Government is prepared to force such legislation through the House of

Assembly, democracy is no longer alive and well as it relates to municipalities

in this Province. The message the Minister is giving municipalities is very

clearly that they are pawns which he will use as he sees fit. He has no respect

for the wishes of the people of the municipalities, has no respect for the

spoken word of the elected representatives, has no respect for a very strong

opposition to these moves coming from many of the municipalities in the area. He

is very clearly showing that he is no longer representing municipalities. He is

now only representing his own political will, nothing else. Very clearly, Mr.

Speaker, this proposal is based on raw politics and absolutely nothing else.

There is no feasible basis for it. We have not even had a feasibility study done

on this particular proposal.

The Minister gave his commissioners a number of options and

said look at them. The commissioners looked at them and made recommendations.

The recommendations did not include taking Wedgewood Park into St. John's, nor

did it include decreasing the size of the City of Mount Pearl. In fact, it

recommended increasing it. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the

recommendations that the Minister is coming forward with, if you look at the

Minister's proposal it is based on raw politics and raw politics alone. Only

three districts essentially had municipalities disappear or greatly decrease.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, all three districts are represented by

Members from this side of the House: the Member for Kilbride, the Member for St.

John's East Extern, and myself. The only three, very hurriedly I suggest to the

Premier last weekend, he juggled all of the pieces of the puzzle to try to come

up with something that satisfied the various backbenchers. He could not satisfy

all of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could not satisfy Jim Walsh.

MR. WINDSOR: He could not satisfy all of them, but he

satisfied some of them. He satisfied the Member for Mount Scio. Now let me say I

congratulate the Member for Mount Scio who had the intestinal fortitude to stand

up and say: I will not have something foisted on the people who I represent,

against their will. I congratulate him and the Member for Carbonear who

similarly spoke up. The Member for Mount Scio has come out of this very, very

well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Normally you are saying I am a dictator.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, indeed you are. The overall result here

is that you are a dictator and you have proven it very, very clearly. This piece

of paper known as the Municipalities Act, Mr. Speaker, is not worth the paper it

is written on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. WINDSOR: This Government has absolutely and totally

ignored their own legislation. Now my friend just spoke out very, very well. My

colleague from Burin - Placentia West just outlined very clearly that the

proposal brought forward by the Minister is illegal. It is clearly illegal

because there are clear requirements as to what must be done before boundaries

of municipalities and cities can be changed. First of all the Minister must know

that he is not only dealing with the Municipalities Act, he is also dealing with

the City of St. John's Act and the City of Mount Pearl Act. Now I am lead to

believe that there may not even be a

section in the City of St. John's Act that

allows him to do this.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, in the City of Mount Pearl Act it says

that the Minister may make certain changes, but he can only do it under

section

3 sub-section 2, 'subject to a feasibility study being conducted to establish

and alter the boundaries of the City and amalgamate towns or communities with

the City or annex areas to the City.' Under

Section 5, and

section 5 says: 'The

Minister shall order the preparation of a feasibility report in the prescribed

form prior to the making of a recommendation for an order of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council under

section 3 and shall appoint a person to

prepare a report. And the person conducting the feasibility report shall hold

public hearings in relation to the preparation of the report.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, very clearly that is in relation to a

specific proposal. So the Minister has to come forward with a specific proposal,

refer it through that very proper feasibility study and public hearing process

before he can even make a recommendation to the Lieutenant- Governor in Council.

Now the Premier tries to defend the overall action by saying the House of

Assembly is all powerful, the House of Assembly is here to make laws, I agree

with that.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is a resolution.

MR. WINDSOR: This is a resolution, but in effect it

becomes a law because it -

MR. RIDEOUT: It gets around the law.

MR. WINDSOR: It will have the effect of a law when it is

passed and my friend the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, what it is

doing is getting around the law, using the power of the House of Assembly to do

what this Government cannot do legally. I say to the Government that what they

are doing now is not legal either. They do have the right to do certain things,

but under this Act, their own legislation, Mr. Speaker, under their own

legislation they have acted. They have used a

section of the Act which says:

appoint a commissioner and do feasibility studies, and that commissioner did not

recommend this. The House, through this piece of legislation and through the

subsequent actions of this Government and the Minister in appointing that

commissioner has given away any right they have just by passing the Act saying

that this is the process that is required and it is required for good and valid

reason, Mr. Speaker, so that the people of a municipality have some protection,

that they know there has to be a rational basis. The feasibility of the proposal

has to be proven and there has to be some public input so that everybody will

have an opportunity. I did not bother to read all the sections in the Act but it

outlines all the requirement for publishing notice in the Gazette that

such action is to be taken, for formally notifying the council that such action

is to be taken. All of that is designed to ensure that there is democracy. That

municipalities have a right of self-determination. And that is what is being

denied here.

That is why I say to all hon. Members who refused to stand in

their place and be heard on this issue a moment ago, that you may not be

directly involved, and that your district may not be involved in this particular

issue but this Government is setting a scene. It is setting a mechanism which is

contrary to the Act and contrary to the spirit of the Act. And I say to the

Government that by initiating a public hearing process and just by having it in

this Act you have said that here is how it should be. And yes, the Government

and the House have the authority to change it, but they must first change it,

they must first change the Act. If they wish to take the action they should have

come in to this House with an amendment to the Municipalities Act, eliminating

all the requirements for feasibility studies and public hearings, eliminating

all of that. They did not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What they are trying to do is use the House

to break the law and that is neither proper nor is it legal and we shall see in

due course what is being done here today. Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, you cannot hear your ears

(Inaudible).

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

I would ask hon. Members to my left to restrain in their

private conversations. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They may not like

what they are hearing but it will be said, let me assure them. Now, let me say,

let me be very clear, the Premier of the Province has misled the people of this

Province. He has misled the people of this Province. He said in this House - and

I have quoted it before and I will not bother to quote it again - but basically

he made statements to the effect that no municipality will be amalgamated

against their will. That is what he said first. And then he very quickly backed

up, then he said: however, perchance there is a situation whereby not to

amalgamate two communities against the will of one of them, if there are two or

three that want to do it and one that does not, and if that adversely affects

the rights and privileges of all the other municipalities, the region as a

whole, and if that is to put an unfair burden on the other municipalities or the

region as a whole, then this Government might come to the House of Assembly and

ask the House to make a decision. Now that is what he said, very clearly, and

his words are clear in Hansard.

And he also said: but I cannot foresee that ever taking

place. In other words he was saying: that would be such an unusual exception, I

cannot possibly foresee this ever taking place, it cannot happen - not likely. I

will say that such a rare occasion may possibly happen but I really do not

envisage such a thing. In other words he is saying it would have to be such a

blatant and obvious miscarriage of justice in order for the Government to take

such action.

I do not think anyone would fault the Government for taking

such action if it was clear that there was a blatant miscarriage of justice. But

on what basis is this action therefore being taken? What miscarriage of justice

are we talking about here? On the basis of what feasibility studies is that

miscarriage of justice evident? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no

miscarriage of justice, nor is there a feasibility study carried out on this

proposal that could even remotely indicate a miscarriage of justice. Indeed,

just the opposite is true. The Minister did appoint commissioners to consider

various proposals, and those commissioners, without going into the details of

all the various options, those commissioners, for example, suggested that

Wedgewood Park should be left alone. In other words the feasibility study that

has been carried out by the commissioners, and on the basis of public meetings

and public hearings, the Minister's own commissioners have recommended to him,

and through him to the Government and to this House, that Wedgewood Park should

be allowed to stay as it is. In other words those commissioners decided that not

only is it not unfair, but that Wedgewood Park is looking after itself quite

nicely, thank you, and does not represent a burden on either neighbouring

municipalities or the region as a whole, and the same, Mr. Speaker, can be said,

and it is true, as it relates to the proposal to change boundaries of the City

of Mount Pearl. The proposal to remove the Southlands from the city, Mr.

Speaker, was never even considered. The first discussion of such a proposal was

when the Minister's resolution was brought before this House. Never has such a

proposal been looked at by the commissioners, or any feasibility studies, or

public hearings. Indeed, again, those same commissioners, Mr. Speaker,

recommended that the City of Mount Pearl should be allowed to expand and to take

in part of Paradise, Conception Bay South, St. Thomas, and certain other areas,

Evergreen Village and the Greenwood subdivision. Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not

indicate that Mount Pearl is a burden as proposed by the commissioners. Clearly

there is no great miscarriage of justice here and I will go into some lengths in

a moment to outline how the City of Mount Pearl pays its own way. But clearly

there is no miscarriage of justice here, and clearly, Mr. Speaker, the

commissioners have not even examined the concept of removing the Southlands from

the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, how does this Minister justify, not only not

accepting the recommendations of the commissioners, but going directly opposed

to the recommendation of the commissioners? On the basis of which feasibility

study does he do this, when his own Act clearly requires a feasibility study be

undertaken before the Minister can even make such a recommendation? Mr. Speaker,

this is so far from any notion of justice as to be absolutely incredible. Very

clearly, Mr. Speaker, there can be absolutely no motive other than crass

politics, the most blatant form of political interference in municipal

government that this Province has ever seen, the greatest miscarriage of justice

on people and on their right to self determination at the municipal level, Mr.

Speaker. It is absolutely incredible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what would happen to hon. Members

opposite who represent districts outside of the northeast Avalon if this

Government was to say to them, that we are going to ask the House of Assembly to

force certain amalgamations? I wonder how the Member for Exploits would feel if

Bishop Falls were forced to amalgamate with Botwood, or Botwood was forced to

amalgamate with Grand Falls, or if Peterview was forced to amalgamate with

Botwood against their view? How would the Members feel about that, Mr. Speaker?

How would the Member for Lewisporte feel if little Burnt Bay and Embree were

forced to be part of Lewisporte against their wishes, and Brown's Arm, and

Campbellton, and all the other communities in the region? How would the Member

for Lewisporte feel? Well, he would not say anything because he does not say

much about his district down there. He got his fingers burnt in the last

municipal by-election, too. We will hear more about that in due course.

Mr. Speaker, how would the Members feel about that, though,

because that is what we are talking about here? We are not talking about just

the northeast Avalon. We are talking about the basic principle of democracy in

municipal government in this Province. This Minister has now said that the

Municipal Affairs Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of Corner Brook Act

and the City of St. John's Act no longer apply. This Government will do as it

sees fit.

The Minister tries to rationalize this by saying: well,

regional services will be more efficient. We discussed that briefly during the

Question Period today, as to how much more efficient it might be. Why would the

Minister not obtain any such regional efficiencies that may be available - and

there may well be areas where certain regional services could be provided to the

northeast Avalon more efficiently on a regional basis. But the Minister has a

mechanism for it. There was a mechanism in the Municipalities Act as passed in

1979 and recently the Minister introduced a new Act which basically provided an

Act to develop regional governments in the Province. It really did not

accomplish very much except remove the requirement for public hearings, so now

he can do it without public hearings. Must have feasibility studies with some

public input but he does not require public hearings any more. And that is all

that the regional services bill did.

And that Minister not too many months ago forced that piece

of legislation through this hon. House, using closure. This Government felt so

strongly about the need for regional services and regional cooperation, and they

continuously during the debate referred to the northeast Avalon region as their

example. And obviously it is a prime example in this Province where regional

servicing is required. Within a short period of time thereafter how can this

Minister justify totally ignoring his regional services legislation? If he could

come in to this House with a clear conscience and try to justify that

legislation to this House only a month or two ago, how can he come in to this

same House now and justify absolutely and totally ignoring that legislation?

Now that legislation provided a mechanism as well for sharing

of these services. It provided a mechanism that gave every municipality that

took advantage of these services an opportunity to have input at the management

level, to decide how those services would be provided and to have some influence

on the cost of those services. It made all kinds of sense. It was in the

Municipalities Act. The Minister chose to pick it out and change it slightly.

But he made almost no changes to it except to give him more absolute authority.

We should have seen, I guess, then, the stage was set. I spoke in that debate

and I abhorred the fact that the Minister was taking for himself more absolute

authority in creating regional services boards. But what we are seeing here is

ten-fold worse. The Minister is not only taking for himself, he is now imposing

a regional authority without representation from any of the member

municipalities. Any of the municipal authorities now that will be purchasing

services from the regional authority, none of them will have any input any more.

They are now subservient to the City of St. John's.

Now let me say it is time that this Minister stopped acting

like a city councillor and began acting as a Minister of the Crown responsible

for all municipalities in this Province. It is time he started treating them all

equally. He had very clearly and blatantly discriminated against every

municipality in his region in favour of the City of St. John's. I do not know

how long it was after he was Minister before he resigned as a councillor down

there. I do not know if that has ever been heard of before in the democratic

system. He was so reluctant to resign his seat as a city councillor that he

actually was here a period of time as I recall acting as both the Minister and

as a city councillor. Most unusual that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would

actually take a seat in City Hall. Unusual indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Shannie?

MR. WINDSOR: She never sat in both. She resigned her seat

here and ran for city council and she resigned her seat in city council before

she ran for the House of Assembly. The honourable way to do it. Clearly, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister has exposed himself as representing the City of St. John's

first and the people of the Province second. And he will now be suspect in any

action that he takes in the future.

Now the regional services legislation would have provided for

some representation on a regional services board. The Minister can say: well, we

eliminated the board. Well, there is very little cost to the actual operation of

the board itself, the Chairman and five or six or seven members. Very little, a

nominal amount, negligible amount. But the staff at St. John's Metropolitan Area

Board, for example, that is now operating the regional water supply system, I

suspect will all need to be required. The Minister may, or the City of St.

John's may, be able to make some minor cutting. There may be efficiencies that

Metro Board should have done that the City of St. John's may be able to find. I

do not know. I am told that Metro Board is reasonably efficient. But there may

be a couple of positions out of - I do not know how many people are specifically

designated to operate and maintain the regional water supply system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us about five minutes as to how you

would propose it should be done (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So the Minister might be able to do that.

But he cannot show any significant savings on that regional water supply system.

They are not there. The cost of the personnel would not be a significant

portion, it is a fairly capital intensive system. There is $35 million just went

in, I think, (Inaudible) it was when it was built in the mid-seventies. There is

probably more gone into that since in the expansion of it, it may be over $50

million now. And there is a major improvement or refurbishing of the treatment

system at Bay Bulls Big Pond under way over the last number of months. And so

there is more investment there. But I suspect that the Minister cannot show - he

will not be able to show - any economies as a result of his action.

Now why then would the Minister not go with the regional

services in this particular issue? Where is the free flow of information? And

how will there be a free flow? Let's assume for the moment that the Minister's

proposal will proceed. Let's assume that the City of St. John's will operate the

regional water supply system. Now that in itself is not the end of the world as

far as other municipalities are concerned, provided there is an opportunity for

some input. Now I honestly believe that the regional system with representation

on the board was by far the most democratic way of doing it. But let's assume

that this Government will force through this House this resolution which changes

that, how then will those municipalities that purchase service from the City of

St. John's now operate in the regional system? What free flow of information

will there be? What information will be available to the other municipalities so

they can determine whether or not they are paying their fair share of the cost

of those services?

What input will they have? Will there be a committee

established from the staff of the City of St. John's? Will there be a committee

of councillors to meet with other municipal councillors, committees from other

councils, or from staff from other councils, to outline how they are determining

the costs, to justify it? Will the books be open, in other words? Will the other

municipalities have access to the actual costs? Will that information be made

available to the other municipalities so that they can determine whether or not

they are indeed receiving a fair billing? And what arbitration system will be

established?

Now the Minister in debate on Friday, I think it was,

indicated that he may look at the Public Utilities Board. Well let me ask the

Minister directly now: will he use the Public Utilities Board, if we are to

assume that this miscarriage of justice will go through, will the Minister at

least assure the House that the Public Utilities Board will be available to

either party that may be aggrieved? Will it be possible, for example, for Mount

Pearl to apply to the Public Utilities Board and say: the City of St. John's is

unfairly charging us for the water that we are using?

The Minister stopped short of telling me this afternoon that

there would be one rate. The Minister talked about all kinds of differences in

fire departments and everything else. Yes, there are differences in some things.

But we have a regional water supply system that serves five or six

municipalities in this region. There is no capital cost associated with it to

any of the municipalities. It was all paid for by the Federal and Provincial

Governments. That is being handed over to the City of St. John's and it does not

take too much intelligence to know that when you are handed $35 million or $50

million worth of infrastructure that there is a real benefit to the overall

financial stability of the City of St. John's. Their net worth has increased by

that much, their strength in the financial market has increased tremendously,

because this huge asset with no capital debt has been transferred to it.

So there is a distinct benefit to the City of St. John's.

Well, the basis of this is that it is not democratic. Absolutely and totally

non-democratic. There is no mechanism here to assure that the rights of the

participating municipalities are looked after. Certainly the mechanism being

used to institute this action is absolutely and totally undemocratic. No one can

justify such action being forced on municipalities. And we on this side, and me

personally, very, very strongly, oppose anything that is against the wishes of

municipalities.

I will recognize that there may be - as the Premier indicated

several months ago, and we took him at his word - a most unusual and abnormal

circumstance where the House may wish to correct an injustice, an inequity. But

I suggest that that is not the case here now.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by my friend for St.

John's East Extern, the following amendment:

That Motion number 4 be amended by adding before the phrase,

"AND THE HOUSE FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the timing of the consolidations and the

amalgamations and other technical and administrative details be set by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council," the following words, and I quote: "AND THE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT prior to any such changes taking effect,

that feasibility studies, public hearings and a plebiscite be held in each

municipality affected and that these changes would only take effect in each

municipality on the basis of recommendations coming from the feasibility

studies, and with the approval of at least 50 per cent of the persons that cast

a ballot in the plebiscite held in that municipality."

I have a copy for the hon. Government House Leader and no

doubt he will wish to see it. There are several copies there for the desk.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will wait until Your Honour rules that

that resolution is indeed in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will confer with the Clerk.

The House will recess for a few moments as I have a look at

the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has conferred with the Clerks and

indicates that the amendment is in order, as per our Standing Order No. 36.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, speaking to the amendment: I thank Your Honour for your

ruling and, of course, the motion is in order. It does not change the

resolution, it simply lays down certain procedures which must be followed before

the resolution can be put into effect, and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life

of me, believe that any hon. members opposite would vote against it, because the

procedures I have laid down in the amendment are precisely those procedures

embodied in The Municipalities Act and in The Regional Services Act.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, these are the procedures that

this House and this Government and previous Governments have accepted as being a

rational, fair, democratic way of determining whether such changes shall take

place. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how any hon. member opposite can vote

against feasibility studies, public hearings and plebiscites taking place before

this goes into effect.

MR. RIDEOUT: That crowd can do anything.

MR. WINDSOR: To vote against this amendment, Mr. Speaker,

would be, very clearly, voting against democracy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the time I have remaining to me, I

would like to deal with certain details of the proposal, specifically, as it

relates to the City of Mount Pearl.

First of all, I do not think that anyone in this hon. House

on either side, will disagree that Mount Pearl is one of the most successful and

efficient municipalities in the Province, one of the most successful and

efficient municipalities in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What I find amazing, therefore, is why this Government would

seek to take away from that municipality its future, and that is what this

Government has done, it has stolen Mount Pearl's future. Mr. Speaker, I can only

conclude from that, that this Government is very deliberately and directly

attempting to destroy the City of Mount Pearl and all it stands for.

What other rationale would this Government have for example,

for making the Southlands part of the City of St. John's? Now, Mr. Speaker, I

challenged the Minister on that. When he introduced his resolution, he said it

made sense. What sense can it possibly make, to take an area of land that is

slated for urban development, that is in no way connected with the existing

urban development of the City of St. John's, nor can it ever be - between the

urban development of the City of St. John's, even the expanded area, even

including the Goulds and all of that area out to the southeast, that the City of

St. John's could develop, let us assume all of that was to proceed as the

Minister has proposed - even with that, there is no physical connection between

this development, some 2,500 building lots in the Southlands with the City of

St. John's, except through the agricultural zone and the watershed.

It is just like saying to my friend from Harbour Grace, we

are going to amalgamate Harbour Grace and Victoria, and we are going to leave

Carbonear in the middle, that is an exact comparison, it is precisely what we

are saying; or, we are going to say to my friend from Placentia, we are going to

amalgamate Placentia and Dunville, but we will leave Jerseyside and Freshwater

in-between. Now, how much sense does that make, Mr. Speaker, and on what basis?

Surely, there can be no feasibility study that the Minister could even remotely

- and I could say to my friend from Exploits, we will amalgamate Botwood and

Grand Falls, but we will leave Bishop's Falls in-between. It would be just as

foolish as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want us to include Mount Pearl and

make sense out of it.

MR. WINDSOR: You wanted to include it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you want us to.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I do not want to include it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. WINDSOR: I am asking the Minister what basis does he

have: (

a) for justifying putting Southlands with St. John's, at all; (

b) and

even more importantly, for taking Southlands away from Mount Pearl. Surely, an

undeveloped piece of land cannot be a great financial burden on the Province, it

cannot be a great financial burden on the region, it cannot be a great financial

burden on the City of St. John's. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, of what the

City of St. John's motives are. The City of St. John's wants Mount Pearl. A few

weeks ago we were listening to the Mayor and the councillors from the City of

St. John's, and hon. Members opposite, saying, `We have to have this great

expanded urban core, St. John's, Mount Pearl and all these other things.' Well,

the Government came in with St. John's, and all these other things, and left

Mount Pearl out, and now everybody is crying, `Foul! Foul! This is terrible!' In

other words, what we wanted was Mount Pearl.

The Mayor of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, in an open letter to

all Members of the House of Assembly, circulated during the weekend, says,

`Failure to include Mount Pearl places a disproportionate burden on the

taxpayers of the amalgamated city, and, indeed, on all municipalities in the

Province. Why? Because it will force the new city to compete with other

municipalities for increasingly scarce Government funding to finance additional

municipal infrastructure needs.' So what is she saying? - You have to give us

Mount Pearl so that the taxpayers of Mount Pearl can finance the infrastructure

in the Goulds - that is what she is saying. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker,

that is the motive behind all of this. I mean, the Mayor should know that kind

of infrastructure is done with a loan through the Department of Municipal

Affairs and paid back over a period of time. That is not what she wants, though.

She does not want to borrow the money, she wants to get what she perceives is a

great nest egg from Mount Pearl and pay for it up front very quickly. She refers

to Mount Pearl as a municipal enclave. What an insult! Mr. Speaker, that is an

absolute and a direct insult from the Mayor of St. John's, against the people of

Mount Pearl, a city of some 25,000 people - now we are a municipal enclave!

Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen have talked about Mount Pearl now

being totally surrounded. We are only surrounded perceptually, because of this

undeveloped piece of land known as the Southlands. You see, if the Southlands

were left with Mount Pearl, as it should be, as a natural expansion on the

planned ongoing development of the Mount Pearl - Newtown Development Scheme Plan

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Goulds.

MR. WINDSOR: No, not the Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. WINDSOR: If it were left as it was, the orderly

development - Mount Pearl can only develop as far as the agricultural zone and

the watershed. We are then bound by the agricultural zone and the watershed, a

good natural buffer between the City of Mount Pearl and any other

municipalities, interfering with no one. And it does not really make a great

deal of difference that all of those peripheral areas now, the agricultural land

and the watersheds, would be deemed to be a part of the City of St. John's,

because no development is going to take place, anyway. No development will take

place in those areas, anyway, because they are restricted to agricultural usage,

and they are protected for watershed purposes.

So, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that really takes away from

Mount Pearl is the loss of their future development. That is the only thing that

says, `Mount Pearl, you are now surrounded'. St. John's butted on Mount Pearl on

two sides before and Paradise butts on one side with St. Anne's Industrial Park.

So the only area that was not bound, basically, was the southwest side, which is

represented by the Southlands. And the City of Mount Pearl had requested that

the Southlands simply be expanded by about 30 per cent to get us out to Cochrane

Pond, to the agricultural zone, in other words, that metropolitan area land that

is slated for some future development as part of the Southlands, to get us to

Cochrane Pond so the city can proceed with the plan that they had to develop a

municipal water park using Cochrane Pond, and that, essentially, would have been

the limits of development of the City of Mount Pearl. That is where it would

have stopped. And I and the Mayor of Mount Pearl, in the twenty-odd years that

we have been representing that city at one level or another, have never asked

that the City of Mount Pearl expand beyond that. Indeed, when the Minister and

the commissioner suggested that Mount Pearl should take in part of Paradise and

St. Thomas and some other areas there, our response was: `if those people wish

it. We are not out asking those people to come in, but, if those people wish to

be part of the City of Mount Pearl, and if it is deemed to be in the best

interest of those people and the region as a whole, the City of Mount Pearl is

prepared to co-operate, and we would welcome those people into the City.' But it

was not something that we actively pursued. We agreed with it, in trying to be

fair and reasonable and to take some responsibility within the region.

The question is: If feasibility studies are required under

the Act, under any one of these Acts, before any changes are made to the

municipal boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, where is the feasibility of

taking from Mount Pearl its growth for the next fifteen years? We are now

restricted, Mr. Speaker, to growth of about seven years. At the present level of

growth, we are looking at about seven, maybe ten years, because perhaps some of

these peripheral areas will not develop quickly. We are averaging around 210

housing units per year. But perhaps we will not get that rate of development in

in-filling, the same rate as we would have had we proceeded with the Southlands

development. The next couple of years, we still have the balance of Admiralty

Wood and Westminster to develop, but the balance will be in-filling, basically,

on Topsail Road, some small sub-divisions that can be built there, and a few

building lots that are still available. And we have some small area available

for expansion.

The interesting thing is that we had a municipality, as I

said, that was the most successful municipality in this Province and, in fact, I

will say, one of the most successful municipalities in Canada. It had been built

well. It had been financed well, thanks to the Federal-Provincial partnership -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander.

MR. WINDSOR: - as was Gander, as was Cowan Heights. I

hear all of this `Oh, Mount Pearl only survived because they have a housing

corporation in there developing all of the new areas.' Well, what is the

difference between that and Cowan Heights? What is the difference between

Donovans Industrial Park and the O'Leary Avenue Industrial Park? - absolutely no

difference, whatsoever. No favouritism was given to the City of Mount Pearl.

So you had your most successful municipality, the fourth

largest municipality in the region, the fourth largest, Pouch Cove, larger

simply because it has a large boundary, Torbay, the City of St. John's, of

course, and Conception Bay South, being a huge municipality. So what has

happened to Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker? We are now the second smallest. Only Petty

Harbour - Maddox Cove, another little enclave, was left, for whatever reason. If

it does not make sense to leave Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, well, what

rationale is there for leaving Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove? If Paradise can be

so viable and we should allow it to grow by giving it St. Thomas and Evergreen

Village and Elizabeth Park sub-division and parts of other areas around it, if

that should be allowed to grow - and that makes sense - how do you justify

taking your most successful municipality and decreasing it by 40 per cent,

stealing its future growth? How do you justify it?

Somebody gave me what I thought was a prime example. You

know, whenever anybody gets ahead in Newfoundland they seem to get dragged down.

I have seen it in business. Whenever a businessman becomes successful, everybody

will go around saying he is a crook. The most successful businessman in this

Province, who has made tremendous contributions to the economy and to the social

life of this Province, people looked at him and said: `He is a crook, boy, he

has made millions of dollars.' They cannot believe that anybody can do anything

honestly and fairly on their own strength. Somebody gave me this example: They

said, `We were having a lobster boil the other day,' and they had two pots

there, Mr. Speaker, one had a cover on it and one did not. The guy said, `How

come you have one lobster pot covered and the other lobster pot not covered?' He

said, `The one with the cover on it, those are Nova Scotia lobsters, and the

ones in the other pot are Newfoundland lobsters.' He said, `Well, what is the

difference between them?' He said, `Boy, Nova Scotia lobsters are alive. If we

did not have a top on them, they would jump out. But the Newfoundland lobsters,

if one of them tries to jump out, another fellow is going to pull him back.'

Now, how much truth is in that, Mr. Speaker?

That is exactly what is happening here. The City of Mount

Pearl was getting ahead, and we see jealousy coming from everywhere, and, so, we

are going to be pulled back. So now, Mr. Speaker, we are to become subservient

to the City of St. John's. All the municipalities in this region are now

subservient to the City of St. John's, and the Minister tells me, he does not

know what mechanism will be put in place, yet, to protect the rights of other

municipalities. He does not know what arbitration procedure will be put in

place. He does not even know the basic policy that will apply in apportioning

costs of regional services to the various municipalities, Mr. Speaker. He does

not know! He does not know, Mr. Speaker, because he has not carried out

feasibility studies, and he has not complied with his own Act, with the

legislation in place in this Province. He is coming to this House and trying to

get around the law.

The Minister stands and says, `Oh, yes, but the City of St.

John's will be fair.' The most audacity I have ever heard in my life was the

Mayor of St John's coming out and saying, `Well, we are going to have all kinds

of bickering from these municipalities, now.' Well, just the opposite is true,

Mr. Speaker, if one wants to look at what has taken place over the years. I

remember when I was Town Engineer in Mount Pearl, in 1973, we were in dispute

with the City of St. John's, because, at that time, Mount Pearl got its water

supply from St. John's. We purchased water from the City of St. John's at an

agreed rate, to be controlled by the Minister. The Minister was the arbitrator

at that time, under the Act, and that was not unreasonable. The City of St.

John's were billing us for, what we figured to be, three times the amount of

water that we could physically be using.

I undertook a study in the whole town, as it was then, to

determine if there were any large leaks, because I gave them the benefit of the

doubt, perhaps we were losing a lot of water somewhere. We spent a fair bit of

time and money and determined there were no leaks. Finally, I convinced somebody

- because the city controlled the meter and we did not have control of it - that

we should have a study done on the meter. We found out, Mr. Speaker, that, first

of all, the meter was reading in U.S. gallons and we were being charged

Imperial, or vise versa. At any rate, that automatically put 20 per cent on it.

Then the meter was in error by something like 50 per cent. I was right, the city

was charging us 30 per cent more.

I recall being in the office of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, or in the board room of the Department of Municipal Affairs, with the

Mayor, at the time, Mayor Wyatt, the city councillors, who were there at the

time, and the Deputy Minister, Mr. Keeping, who later became City Manager in

Corner Brook. He was the Deputy Minister at the time. I do not recall who the

Minister was. I believe it would have been the Hon. Mr. Earle. I am not sure if

the Minister, himself, was there. I think the Deputy Minister had to represent

him, as the Minister was called away. I remember sitting around the table in the

board room and laying down the basis of my analysis of the Town of Mount Pearl,

what it could possibly be using, and showing that we had to be using three times

that much. They finally had to admit, `Yes, we found an error.' That was after

years of arguing, years of public bickering, and the City of St. John's saying,

`The Town of Mount Pearl will not pay their water bill.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a similar situation going today. I

heard city councillors, last week, and, in fact, I do not know but I heard an

hon. member opposite, last week, saying, `Mount Pearl will not pay for the use

of Robin Hood Bay.' Well, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a couple of very brief

facts. I know I am running out of time, unless hon. gentlemen are going to grant

me leave after. I would like another bit of time, but anyway, Mr. Speaker, the

City of Mount Pearl paid for the use of Robin Hood Bay, up to, and including,

1984, in 1983 we paid for it, the city then proposed an increase. Now, a

reasonable increase, Mr. Speaker, we could live with, but the city proposed a 77

per cent increase, so Mount Pearl went to them and said, how do you justify this

77 per cent increase? Would you please give us some numbers, give us some

information, show us how you can say that the amount of garbage we are

contributing to that dump should be increased to the tune of 77 per cent, the

cost of putting that garbage there, so the city said we will go and look at it.

We never heard from them, Mr. Speaker, until 1991. In 1991 they finally

established a fee and that was on the basis of a candidate for city council who

was unsuccessful and who realized that there was a lot of money outstanding. The

city of Mount Pearl in the meantime had put into a trust fund every year the

amount of money they estimated to be a legitimate cost. I think they put in more

than they would normally have paid under the old rate. It was building up there.

This candidate finally disclosed this so the city came rushing in and

established a rate of $8.20 per metric ton and the City of Mount Pearl said,

thank you, very much, and they are paying on the basis of $8.20 per metric ton.

That was less than we were being charged before because the City of St. John's

admitted they had been charging too much, and this was ten years after the fact,

we have been charging you too much, so instead of saying, St. John's we want a

rebate, St. John's said, no, no, no, you owe us what we said you owed us until

now. We have not changed the rate until now so you owe us that. The City of

Mount Pearl sent a cheque for $379,000 out to St. John's and they refused to

take it. This is for what they owed them in the past. They refused to take it so

the City of Mount Pearl said, well, fine, we will go with the $8.20, because

they had said it should not have been that much before, we will prorate it a

little bit, we will go with the $8.20 and we will offer you $424,881,18 which is

$8.20. That is what it is costing in 1991. Mount Pearl is saying, good, charge

us that, for the last eight years. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is doing the bickering

and squabbling here? Where is the co-operation coming from the Mayor of St.

John's on that one? If Mount Pearl ever pays one cent more than $424,000 the

city council will hear from me and every other taxpayer because that is more

than fair.

Bus service, Mr. Speaker. People say you are getting free bus

service from the City of St. John's. Nonsense! For bus service in 1991 we paid

$456,000. How is that calculated, Mr. Speaker? By taking the total miles, I

think it is eight million miles Metrobus runs a year, and it cost about $8

million. These figures may not be accurate but they are representative, so it is

about $1 per mile, or $1 per kilometre, and that is the overall cost of

operating the bus, the garage, all the administration, the works, that is the

overall cost, so about $1 per kilometre. Should Mount Pearl pay $1 per kilometre

for every mile therefore that the Mount Pearl bus runs? No, $3.25, thank you

very much, and to make it worse, Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl route was deemed

to be from the Village Mall to Mount Pearl and back again so that there would be

a connection made, and that anybody travelling there could take a transfer or

pay to get on another bus the same as anybody else. No, that bus goes to Hotel

Newfoundland and back again and we are charged for complete mileage down from

Hotel Newfoundland and back in to Mount Pearl. Now, anybody can get on a bus at

Hotel Newfoundland and go to the Village Mall and the people of Mount Pearl are

subsidizing it. Now, there is your regional co-operation. When I ask the

Minister what arbitration process will be put in place I do not think I am being

unreasonable. I do not think that is unfair. And when I do not believe the

Minister and I do not believe the Mayor when they tell me that the City of St.

John's will be fair and reasonable and that you do not have to worry about it,

they will treat you fairly, I do not believe I am being unreasonable. I have

good reason to think that otherwise will be true.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Donovan's Industrial Park, how many times

have I had that shoved down my throat, this great gift horse that the City of

Mount Pearl has been given; what nonsense! Donovan's Industrial Park was always

planned as part of that great overall development which included the Southlands,

and the industrial area of Donovan's is deemed to be the industrial base for all

of the City of Mount Pearl including the Southlands, all of that area, and what

do we get, Mr. Speaker, right now?

Today, in 1991, the City of Mount Pearl gets $1.6 million in

tax revenue from Donovan's Industrial Park, $1.6 million; the City of St.

John's, from the Village Mall only, just from the Village Mall, and I would

hazard a guess that maybe 60 per cent of every dollar that is spent in the

Village Mall, comes from the people of Mount Pearl, but outside of that, St.

John's gets $1.1 million, from the Village Mall. So this great gift horse of

Donovan's Industrial Park, gives us $1.6 million and St. John's gets $1.1

million just from the Village Mall alone, so, Mr. Speaker, when the City of St.

John's looks at Donovan's Industrial Park as being the great saviour, that is

not the great saviour, it is the people of Mount Pearl they are looking at to be

the great financial saviours, they want to increase tax rates.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl will not object

to increasing taxes in the City of Mount Pearl, if we are not paying our way,

but, tell me where we are not paying our way. We are paying for regional water

supply, we are paying for regional trunk sewers, we are paying for regional bus

service, we are paying for regional fire protection far more than we should be,

we are paying for the use of the regional dump at Robin Hood Bay, tell me where

we are not paying our way? We will gladly pay it; give me a fair apportionment

of the cost of those services to the people of Mount Pearl and there will not be

one person in Mount Pearl who will object to increasing the tax levels to ensure

that the people of Mount Pearl are paying their way, not one.

Show me any feasibility studies that tell me that the City of

Mount Pearl and the people of Mount Pearl are a burden on the region, show me

one feasibility study, give me one basis for which the City of Mount Pearl

should not be left alone? Why, in fact, not only left alone, Mr. Speaker, why

does not this Government hold it out as a model for every other municipality in

the Province to follow, because it is by far the most efficient and effective

municipality in this Province.

There can be only one basis, Mr. Speaker, for the action this

Government has taken, nothing but raw politics; a very clear attack on the

people of Mount Pearl -

MR. EFFORD: Are you saying you want to amalgamate it?

MR. WINDSOR: - I did not say that for a moment. Let that

MR. EFFORD: What are you saying? If it is not to be

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not to be interrupted by

that Member for Port de Grave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: You are something else (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am not chasing rabbit tracks now, as one

great politician said, I have far greater things on my mind than the hon.

Minister of Social Services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but straightforward

politics on behalf of this Government; it is nothing more than a money grab on

behalf of the City of St. John's. The Mayor of St. John's is going off crying in

her beer because she got everything she wanted against this great political

plum, this great financial plum in Mount Pearl -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: What is wrong with the Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there anything in Beauchesne

you can use to stifle that?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's says:

Mount Pearl is getting an unfair amount of the industrial and commercial tax

base. I think I used these numbers last week but I would like to use them again.

The City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, has 57 per cent of the

population of this region and it collects 76 per cent -

MR. MATTHEWS: Nastiness!

MR. WINDSOR: - of the commercial and industrial tax base,

19 per cent more, a higher percentage; Mount Pearl, on the other hand services

14 per cent of the population and collects only 12 per cent of the commercial

and industrial tax base, 2 per cent less.

Now, I do not have a problem with the City of St. John's

collecting more, as they say, there are many regional buildings in this city

contributing towards the cost of operating the Capital City. I do not think that

too many municipalities in this Province would object to contributing to some

special fund for a provincial capital commission, if it could be justified that

certain things are needed in the City of St. John's, because it is the

provincial capital, and because we have international guests coming here on a

regular basis. But I think 20 per cent more commercial industrial tax base than

they are getting, than they are servicing people, is a pretty fair contribution.

Where do they get all of that tax base? From servicing the whole Province, the

people of every community in this Province, I think, almost without exception.

Perhaps Labrador City and Wabush, a couple of communities in Labrador, may be an

exception. Somehow, I would say even there, goods and services from St. John's

are sold to those people. They do business with them, and the City of St. John's

benefits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. WINDSOR: I am not going to get leave, I am sure, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible how they back away from the

truth. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this whole fiasco, as it

pertains to amalgamation, deals with my entire constituency, from Bauline right

to MacDonald Drive, both urban and rural. Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss

if I did not mention what is happening in that entire area.

I will start off with Bauline, Mr. Speaker, a very small

community of about 500 people, sort of away from the rest of my constituency.

They were serviced by metro board, and about three years ago, because of

pressure exerted on me by people from the community, I sought the help of

Government to make them a town, to incorporate them. Mr. Speaker, that was done

because they were not receiving any services whatsoever from metro board, like

many of the other areas that were serviced by metro board. The efficiency of

metro board was always in doubt, in my mind, and in the minds of many other

people like me.

Bauline was incorporated and became a town, and, Mr. Speaker,

I had misgivings when that little town was incorporated, because to realize what

happened down there, you would have to know specifically about the geographics

of the area. Bauline is sort of out on its own. It has many people who work in

St. John's, but the great majority of its peoples' incomes come from the

fishery.

Mr Speaker, Bauline was left alone because Bauline really did

not have time to prove if they could do it or not. During the time of the

studies, it was recommended that Bauline go with Torbay, which I thought was a

mistake at the time, and I think the same thing today, Mr. Speaker, that it

would be a mistake, again, because of the geographics of it.

Mr. Speaker, I attended many meetings in Bauline, and they

have problems with snowclearing, and they do not have any services, with the

exception of a waterline that runs down from the top of the hill, which was

financed by the previous Government, and which, since it was installed, the

people there pay an annual rate which keeps that line in place and serviced.

Mr. Speaker, they have a major problem, because they only

have about a kilometre of secondary roads, and to find someone to come in and

put a piece of machinery in place in the wintertime is almost inconceivable. For

a contractor to go down there very day, because of the distance, again is

inconceivable. So they do have problems as it pertains to their snowclearing,

and they also have major problems as it pertains to their water supply. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Government saw fit to leave them alone and let them try to iron out

their difficulties, and there are many there.

Mr. Speaker, we made several recommendations to Government,

to give them some extra land to develop, but the Government, and I am not sure

that they were not right in what they did, all the crown land or all the metro

land outside of Bauline that stretches northeast towards Pouch Cove was given to

the Town of Pouch Cove which I think perhaps could better service the area and

better control the area because within there lies the provincial park and I

think that Pouch Cove, being the larger community, and with the services close

to it but not within about two kilometres, I think that if there are services to

go in there I think they should come from Pouch Cove.

Pouch Cove also received in the Minister's statement some

additional land as it pertains to the water source, which was always within the

town boundaries of the Town of Flat Rock. And I do not disagree with Government

there, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Government in saying that Pouch Cove should

have that land so they can be responsible for the land surrounding their water

source which is three island pond.

Mr. Speaker, in Flat Rock they were left alone and as I

recommended and as all the people in the area recommended, in all the studies

those communities were left alone, they were viable communities and there was

not really any duplication of effort in any of those communities. They had their

own snow clearing and the waste was on a per household basis, and each one had

their own source of water. So the mil rate is six with no services. Mr. Speaker,

Flat Rock did not think that there was anything really wrong with what

Government did because Government did not do anything. But, Mr. Speaker, there

are a lot of discrepancies as it pertains to municipal infrastructure, not alone

in Flat Rock, but through the whole district, but that would be left, Mr.

Speaker, for another day.

In Torbay, Mr. Speaker, I would be less than truthful if I

did not say that Torbay agreed with Torbay being left alone. Why shouldn't they,

they are a viable community, perhaps one of the largest communities on the

Avalon Peninsula and usually is a town that does well and the Government found

themselves the common sense - the good sense to leave Torbay alone, to leave

Torbay as it was, a very viable town.

Mr. Speaker, then we come to Middle Cove-Outer Cove-Logy Bay,

again only a comparatively new town, a town with very little needs as it

pertains to Government funding, very little if anything. I mean they do not have

any services there, Mr. Speaker, as it pertains to water or sewer. But, Mr.

Speaker, they lost what is known as Snow's Lane, and a portion of Snow's Lane on

the left hand side of Snow's Lane which is agricultural. Mr. Speaker, I just do

not understand the rational behind that because here is a rural town, the Town

of Outer Cove-Middle Cove-Logy Bay and an urban centre like St. John's acquiring

the agricultural land from that rural town, and eventually, I suppose, it will

be developed. But on one hand this Government is saying that we should preserve

and safeguard our agricultural areas, which I think there is some promise in,

but again in the Goulds now I wonder what is going to happen down the road. But

down on Snow's Lane, Mr. Speaker, what the Town of Outer Cove-Logy Bay-Middle

Cove are saying is very simply that we were there to protect that agricultural

area and will it protect it now because it has moved in with the City of St.

John's?

I had three calls over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, from people

from Snow's Lane who felt that they were being discriminated against, who felt

that they did not want to be a part of the City of St. John's. I suppose you

have to be realistic and truthful in saying that one of the reasons was the

lesser cost, but they were prepared to go along with lesser costs because they

were getting no services and people there had their septic tanks and were on

large parcels of land. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything wrong

with those people being left as they were. But apart from that Outer Cove-Middle

Cove-Logy Bay were left alone and I think they are happy. They are happy at just

being left to themselves to govern their own town, and I think in the end the

Government showed common sense. They left that part of the northeast Avalon on

its own. Mr. Speaker, then we come up to Wedgewood Park. The hon. Member for St.

John's South does not understand, he is not a bad sort of fellow but his

understanding is very limited as it pertains to the northeast Avalon. He lived

in a part of St. John's but now he has move up the shore and, Mr. Speaker, I do

not know if they are going to keep him up there. I think he was turned out of

St. John's, almost, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Harbour Main says they

turned him out of Conception Bay, but be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member does not understand that Wedgewood Park was an improvement district. It

had no council, no nothing in 1977, and that town grew because no one else

wanted them. They wanted to organize themselves, no one else wanted them, so

they had a rural improvement district, and that worked so well that they asked

Government to make them a town, and when the Government did accede to their

requests the Town of Wedgewood Park was formed. In 1977 the Town of Wedgewood

Park went to the City of St. John's and asked to become part of the City of St.

John's and the City of St. John's then refused, on the pretence at that

particular time, I suppose you would not call it a pretence, because I suppose

it was actual fact, that they would be a liability to the City of St. John's.

That was in 1977. Then a group of people from that area had the initiative to go

and get a group together and form a council to make that community viable, make

that town, as the commissioner's report suggested, a model community. But, what

happened, Mr. Speaker? When Wedgewood park encouraged development, development

did not just happen, it was encouraged by the council in Wedgewood Park, people

were brought to the area. Entrepreneurs were brought to the area and told how

viable this community would be in the future and how their businesses could

expand, and what a nice place it was to start a business, that the future was

bright. People took the council up on it, saying, if this is the way it is going

to be, and if council is showing us that there is a future here for our

investment, then this is where we will invest. Now, Mr. Speaker, seeing they are

taking in some money from these investments, from the people who went there and

formulated what we have in Wedgewood Park today, now every one wants to take

them over. They are out there with open arms saying Wedgewood Park should be

part of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, Wedgewood Park, if nothing else, perhaps to

look at it geographically, Wedgewood Park should be part of St. John's. I cannot

argue that, or no one can, but, Mr. Speaker, it is a viable town within the

boundaries of St. John's. So what? What difference does that make? When you go

into Wedgewood Park you find a group of happy people, content, and satisfied,

happy with what they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not broke so they have to be

fixed.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member is right, there is nothing

broken so they are going to fix something. There is nothing broken there. Mr.

Speaker, let me speak to the hon. Members on the other side. The feeling I got

from Government when they were espousing to this amalgamation deal was, here we

had two level playing grounds, two level fields, we had Mount Pearl and

Wedgewood Park, and then we had this sort of mound up in the middle, a pedestal

sort of. Here were the two towns paying comparatively less than the town in the

centre, and that was not fair. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that I gave that a lot

of serious thought. I thought to myself: Well, if that is the reasoning behind

it, that St. John's is not getting their fair share, through taxation or

whatever, then there has to be some reasonable grounds for stability. But, Mr.

Speaker, when the amalgamation, as proposed by the Minister, was brought to the

House, that is not what happened. We have to use some common sense, away from

the political aspect of it altogether.

There is Wedgewood Park, which is paying, what -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was.

MR. PARSONS: It still is, until we decide in this

Legislature, and hope that cool heads will prevail, honest heads will prevail,

and sensible men and women will vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, here was Wedgewood Park paying less, I will

agree, than the City of St. John's, here was Mount Pearl paying less than the

City of St. John's, and the Goulds paying much less than the City of St. John's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was a monetary request from Government, to all members

of this House, to stabilize the City of St. John's, and to help the City of St.

John's that was in serious trouble, then, I would have to give that some serious

thought, I really would. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what happened. Wedgewood

Park was brought in, and I will have to say that it will be a plus for the City,

but, then, Mr. Speaker, the Goulds was brought in and the Goulds has to be a

minus factor for the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, let us just look at what they did in the Goulds.

Here was some of the prime farmland on the Avalon Peninsula, I suppose, perhaps

80 per cent of the prime farmland on the whole Avalon Peninsula, now gone into

an urban area. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I will bet dollars to

donuts, that within ten years a lot of that land is going to be developed. That

is farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the rationale behind it. Those

highways that lead out through the Goulds now, that are now provincially owned,

provincially serviced, provincially maintained, are now going to become a part

of the Goulds, a part of the City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: About $2 million extra.

MR. PARSONS: About $2 million extra, monies that are

going to have to be paid out by the City of St. John's, where those monies were

paid before by the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That will come back through taxation.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. member says it will come back

through taxation. Well, is that fair?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the last time.

MR. PARSONS: I said that in the first instance, that if

that was wrong, then perhaps it should be recognized.

You know, Mr. Speaker, years ago, when we would come in from

Flatrock, Torbay, Outer Cove, Middle Cove, and Logy Bay, those places, we were

considered, at that time, to be brown baggers. We would not even buy our lunches

in St. John's, we would come in with a brown bag under our arm. Well, Mr.

Speaker, you talk about baloney! Mr. Speaker, I lived in St. John's for a number

of years. That is correct, that we all do come in here to work. I work at the

Confederation Building or I am in the Confederation Building.

AN HON. MEMBER: You spend your money in here, too.

MR. PARSONS: But, Mr. Speaker, when they did the survey

down there, as to where the money was being spent, 87 per cent, I think, of the

overall monies that came in through people working were spent in the City of St.

John's, into the Sobey's stores and the Dominion Stores and the Ron Pollard's,

and the other institutions. I will not mention the hon. member's shoe store,

because I might get myself in trouble, and I think it would be conflict of

interest, and I do not want to put him in a way that he would have to get up on

a point of order. I want to continue.

Mr. Speaker, those are the areas in which we spent our money.

We spent our money in IMP, and here at the service stations. I go into Moores

and buy my clothes.

MR. DOYLE: Even me, all the way out in Avondale, I spend

about eighty cents out of every buck in here.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, out much further than I am, in

Avondale. He spends about 80 per cent of every dollar, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there were a financial problem and if this

situation would solve the financial problem, then I would have some problem with

it, but it did not solve anything. Mr. Speaker, also, I say to the President of

Treasury Board, and I hope he is listening, I have been told on good authority

that the decision was not made on this resolution until Monday and it was

brought before the House on Tuesday. Now, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the

President of Treasury Board will not deny it. The actual resolution was drawn up

on Monday, one day before it was presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier always said in this hon. House and

to the media that it would never be brought in through the back door; it would

never be a Cabinet decision behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, there was our

constitutional expert telling us that what went on with Meech Lake - his big

deal with Meech Lake was that it was done behind closed doors, there was not

enough openness. But, Mr. Speaker, here is our constitutional expert who forgot

what the constitution of all those municipalities represented. The

Municipalities Act, Mr. Speaker, is the council's constitution. I mean, that is

the council's constitution, there is no other thing by which to govern them. How

does a country govern itself? - by its constitution. How does a municipality

govern itself? - by its constitution.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier said would not take place

behind closed doors, could not take place behind closed doors. It would be

illegal - it would be illegal, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to bring that in as

a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet could not make the decision without bringing The

Municipalities Act before the House of Assembly, and debating changes in the

Act, to allow this type of thing to happen. And this is the man who tells us

that he is the top person, the highest echelon, when we talk about

constitutions. And, Mr. Speaker, he defied all the municipalities in the area by

doing what he did. First of all he told us he was not going to do it behind

closed doors. We all know now, Mr. Speaker, that he could not do it, anyway, if

he want to, without bringing in legislation in the House to amend The

Municipalities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, for a few minutes, to talk about

what that Municipalities Act says. It says a specific amalgamation proposal has

to be made and it has to be published in the affected communities. A

commissioner or commissioners have to be appointed to study the feasibility of

the Government's proposal, who, in turn, make a recommendation to Cabinet. Mr.

Speaker, it has to be done by the process established in The Municipalities Act,

and it was not done. The amalgamation proposals in this resolution were not

published in any of the communities. They were not open to a feasibility study.

There were no feasibility studies on the proposals. They were not recommended by

any study which was held and they were not proposed by any municipality, because

each and every municipality affected, in the Northeast Avalon, voted against

amalgamation.

What we are being asked to do here is to supply a cover up

for the Government. Mr. Speaker, we are not passing a law, we are not rescinding

existing legislation, we are not amending existing legislation, we are simply

being asked to pass a resolution - to do what? - to overrule, override what is

in place at this particular time under The Municipalities Act. Mr. Speaker, does

voting on this resolution make it legal?

The Municipalities Act remains intact, it has not been

changed; the Legislature certainly can rescind laws, it can rescind The

Municipalities Act, and make changes in it, but the Assembly was never asked to

make those changes. Mr. Speaker, it is a cover up for something the Cabinet

could not do. There are no rules, regulations or sanity attached to that

resolution. The resolution should be voted on for what it is, a document that

tried to trample on, befuddle, confuse and eventually take over a great number

of people who want to remain viable, happy people in their own communities.

I would now like to take a few moments to go back to May 9,

1990. The Minister, himself, says, and I quote: `The Provincial Government will

not put a gun to the heads of communities opposed to amalgamation by forcing

legislation, and if they come to me, saying that they do not want to be

amalgamated, then I will consider it'. But, here we are, with the Towns of

Wedgewood Park and the Goulds certainly not wanting any part of this scenario,

and what is the Minister doing? He is forcing it, driving it down the throats of

people who just do not want to be part of it.

The other day, I was thinking, in this new deal, did the

Minister put any thought at all, into it? I do not know if the Member for

Kilbride can tell me or not, What happens to the Goulds Volunteer Fire

Department?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No