May 9, 1991                   HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLI  No. 46


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Member for Humber East and proceeding to our routine business, there are a couple of matters related to yesterday's proceedings which ought to be addressed. I want, firstly, to refer to the point of order raised, relating to the utterance of an unparliamentary expression by the Premier.

In my ruling yesterday, hon. Members will recall that I said I would not require the Premier to withdraw at this point in time. Having studied last evening the record of what proceeded yesterday, there was a specific statement recorded in yesterday's proceedings May 8, 1991, page 1628, which the Chair considered, if left unchecked, might result in hon. Members taking leeway and calling each other trained monkeys, rats and all that kind of thing. I am sure the Premier would not want to have that left, and therefore, the statement to which I refer, the relevant statement, is that the Member is displaying perhaps even less intelligence than I would expect from a trained monkey. Under these circumstances, therefore, I am sure the Premier would want to withdraw that statement and I kindly ask him to do so.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to have on the record any statement attributable to me that Your Honour says is unparliamentary. I accept Your Honour's ruling and I withdraw the statement. I trust that this standard will be maintained by other Members, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The other matter I want to refer to, was the matter raised by the Government House Leader relating to the orderliness, the propriety, or the right of an hon. Member to wear a badge with a statement or slogan that otherwise might be considered unparliamentary. Although our rules and past practices do not cover every circumstance and every eventuality, by following these procedures and the past practices of the House, we are pretty much able to come up with a fairly accurate determination. In all of the proceedings in the House, be it Question Period, written questions, presentation of petitions, or debates, the Member's behaviour and presentation must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions. These references are found in Beauchesne, page 141, Section 481, and Sections (e) and (f) and they are particularly relevant. Also, Beauchesne refers to the reading of materials and says, even with the reading of materials, that Members must ensure that the rules of the House are followed. And when we are talking about rules of the House, and in reading, our House has made a lot of decisions based upon the expression that you cannot say indirectly, what you cannot say directly, or that you cannot do, through the back door what you cannot do through the front door, and we have had several decisions based upon these principles. I refer hon. Members in our own House to decisions made on March 4, 1981 and July 8, 1991, based on that principle of not being able to say indirectly what one cannot say directly.

In the presentation yesterday, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, mentioned in the exhibits saying that: `buttons, pins in lapels, and this kind of thing were not considered as exhibits and were therefore permissible; I think what hon. Members have to look at is what is on these pins, what is inscribed on these pins, what is inscribed on these badges, and obviously, if they do not adhere to the proprieties of Parliament, then obviously, they are out of order. So any button, lapel pin, and so on, which has inscribed upon it words, phrases, statements, which contravene the proprieties of the House, for example, in terms of using offensive words against Members - and this is found in Standing Order 52, of our own Standing Orders - in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions and, in total, using unparliamentary language, ought not to be worn or displayed by Members of the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that ruling, Mr. Speaker, I know you did not suggest that I take this badge off, you said that probably, it might be appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I apologise to you if I caused you any problems by wearing this lapel pin, yesterday.

I did interpret the rules of the House and the rules in Beauchesne literally, which actually say that lapel pins are not unparliamentary, so that is the reason why I wore it, Mr. Speaker. But in respect of your ruling today - and I have no problem in taking this off - in respect of your ruling today, I have modified slightly, the lapel pin that I had on yesterday. I ask one of the Pages to give it to the Speaker and maybe he could rule if it is presently out of order; if it is not, then maybe I could wear it, and if it is, I will not wear it.

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I would like to take just a moment of the time of the House to ask your Speaker to send messages on behalf of all hon. Members to the outstanding artists who were honoured by the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council in an awards ceremony last night. Five artists were so honoured. Edmund McLean, the Artistic Director of Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook, for the last ten years, was given the Artist of the Year award. John White, a legend in our Province, was chosen as the artist deserving of the Lifetime Achievement award. And three artists and arts administrators were inducted into the Hall of Honour: Edith Goodridge, Paul O'Neil, and Flo Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister of Social Services, with responsibilities for persons with mental disabilities, I am pleased to inform this House that The Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation has won the Atlantic Canada Innovator of the Year award in the Community Service Category.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This corporation, based in Stephenville, has become a model from which organizations across the country and around the world are learning. It has been helping persons with mental disabilities perform real work for real pay for the past five years.

Mr. Speaker, the corporation has assisted five individuals set up their own businesses, and employ ten other individuals. These include a mobile canteen service, a school cafeteria, a lobster trap manufacturing operation and an operation which refurbishes nuts and bolds for the Abitibi-Price paper mill.

The corporation was founded by the Bay St. George Association for Community Living, an advocacy group for full integration of people with mental disabilities into the community.

As Minister of Social Services I am delighted that the Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation has been honoured in this way. My Department is involved extensively in services to the mentally disadvantaged and it is certainly rewarding to see a group such as this recognized. We, in Social Services, are constantly striving to make the lives of these people more meaningful and, indeed, encouraging to see a community such as Stephenville leading the way here. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that the link between the community economic development process and persons with disabilities is a world wide innovation, and the Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation is trying to evolve in a meaningful way the responsibility of a support group from Government to the community as much as possible. The Stephenville operation has been used as a model for more than sixty communities in Canada and has had visitors from the World Health Organization and has received delegations from Germany and from Sweden. In addition, it has been designed as a "partnership project" by the Canadian Association for Community Living. It is interesting that a national survey found that people serviced by the corporation had the highest earned income of any program of this type in the country.

Mr. Speaker, this project is a living testimony that people with mental problems can make significant achievements in the community, and I congratulate the Bay St. George Community Employment Corporation for their efforts in this area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the Minister's comments and to say that I am just as proud and pleased as the Minister. The Bay St. George Employment Corporation is made up of a number of good friends of mine, and I have watched and seen the work that they have been doing in the past years.

Mr. Speaker, there is something very unique and special that is happening in the Bay St. George area, and I would invite all Members, and some Members I know in this House of Assembly have seen some of the things that the Bay St. George Employment Corporation are doing, but I would invite all Members who have not, when they are in the Stephenville area, to have a look at some of the things that they are doing so that they can relate it to their own districts, and I would relate that to the media as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the Corporation has done is uplifting, it is uplifting to the human spirit, and they are a world class group. I think that the Bay St. George Employment Corporation can be very proud of what they have done, and so can the people of Stephenville and the people of Bay St. George and Port au Port Bay for whom they serve. So, again, I congratulate the group on the fine work that they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House recognize that the people of this Province - particularly since the Budget was brought down - have been expressing their concerns about Government's decisions quite regularly, most notably in the form of public demonstrations. I want to ask the Premier whether the Government is considering limiting demonstrations in any of the public buildings of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only limitation that the Government is concerned with is safety limitations. The fire commissioner has limitations on numbers of people that can be involved in any building area at any one time and obviously the Government is concerned about that. So we have had to take a look at places where demonstrations may take place and whatever is the maximum that can be permitted for safety's sake, that limitation should be imposed.

We are concerned for example in the lobby of Confederation Building. Sometimes if there is a large number of people in the lobby, they go upstairs and they are over the rail, and they are leaning out, and in the excitement of the moment it would be disastrous if somebody fell over the rail or people got crushed or there was a reason to evacuate this building and there was an inordinate number of people there that prevented safe and secure evacuation and somebody was injured. It is too late then.

So I think the Government has to make sure that steps are taken to comply with the fire commissioner's order for safety reasons.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Earlier Your Honour used the words in a ruling: that you cannot do through the back door what you cannot do through the front door, or will not do. The problem we hear now is that you cannot get in through the front door. Can the Premier confirm that a Minute in Council has been issued by Cabinet today that prevents demonstrations in the lobby of Confederation Building?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, no Minute of Council has been passed preventing demonstrations in the lobby of Confederation Building. Any demonstration that the lobby of Confederation Building is capable of accommodating is not only permitted, it is welcomed. I have no objection whatsoever to it. But we do have a responsibility to ensure that we protect the safety of people, whether they are demonstrators or the people who work in the building, even hon. Members opposite, we have a responsibility to ensure their safety and we will discharge that responsibility.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should direct my supplementary to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, because I can assure the Minister and the Premier that the direction that has been given and the interpretation of the Minute in Council from Cabinet is that there would not be any demonstrations allowed in the lobby of Confederation Building. I have been told that personally, by security people. Can the Minister confirm that it is accurate? If not, would he call in his director of security and explain what the interpretation of the Minute in Council is supposed to be?

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the Premier explained exactly what the situation is and the only instructions the security people have as far as I am concerned is to maintain the safety of the building. That is the only instruction as far as I know.

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

MR. SIMMS: We will pursue it further, Mr. Speaker, but just a final supplementary, if I may. It would be unheard of, with mines closing down, fish plants closing down, and everything else happening, with health care cutbacks, education cutbacks, and everything else happening, it would be unheard of to have that happen, but I can assure the Premier that is the direction that the security people in this building have - that they understand. I am asking the Premier if he would investigate it and check to make sure that is not the interpretation that they should be taking on this issue, and secondly, can I ask him why instructions were given to lock the front of Confederation Building doors at 12:15 today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to can demonstrate in Confederation Building, in the lobby of Confederation Building, and if thirty, forty, fifty, 100, 150, if 200 people want to demonstrate in the lobby of Confederation Building, they are welcome. The Government will not take steps to stop them. The Government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety of the persons who are involved in the demonstration, or the persons in the building. Now, if that means you have 1000 people outside, all of whom are going to rush to get in, the doors will be closed to stop them, of course. There is no question about it. If you have 100, 150, or 200 people outside, the doors will be opened and there will be no steps taken to stop them.

MR. SIMMS: They were locked today.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check that. I do not know why they were locked today. I suppose somebody suggested there was going to be a major demonstration but it is obvious that the people of Mount Pearl are quite prepared to hear what the Government has to say on the issue, listen to it, and express their views on the issue at the time, Mr. Speaker, in due course that will be done, but I assure the House that the Government will take all measures that are appropriate to protect the lives and safety of the people in this building. In the meantime I will check and see what occurred today.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and I would like to say to the Minister: in an interview with CBC Radio, carried on the morning newscast, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said that his amalgamation package will be brought to the House sometime this month for some initial debate, these were the Minister's words, but the issue could then be left in limbo over the summer or perhaps even up until early fall when the House resumes later on in the year. Now, I want to ask the Minister: Given the intense emotions building around the issue of forced amalgamation, why would the Minister even think about another postponement? Why would he have the issue linger and fester for another six, seven, eight or ten months?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, obviously at this stage I cannot speak for Government or speak for the House because we have not yet brought any resolution to the floor of the House. Certainly, Government's intent is not to let this issue linger any longer than we have to. We will allow for debate in the House of Assembly. You are quoting me completely out of context. Your words are nowhere like my interview with the CBC. What I said in fact was that there would be a debate in the House of Assembly most likely following a resolution and a decision would have to be made on the procedures and Government would have to make decisions as to how to proceed in the House. We would have a debate, there is no question about it. We are anxious to resolve this issue as quickly as we can. We have had two years, well certainly a year and a half of good thorough briefing sessions, hearings, presentations by the councils, by the people, by interested community groups, there has been a good thorough debate, when it is time for a decision, Government intends to take one.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is under so much pressure these days I do not think that he himself knows what he is saying.

Now, let me ask the Minister this: Will the Minister tell the House if Government brings amalgamation legislation in the form of legislation or a resolution to this House during this sitting will it be dealt with before the House adjourns? I hope that it is not the Minister's intention to leave it on the order paper.

MR. SIMMS: Before the summer adjournment.

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

MR. GULLAGE: For anybody who heard the interview, Mr. Speaker, clearly I did not say what is being described as what I did say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are always right.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have every intention to resolve the matter of amalgamation on the north east Avalon. With some seventeen communities involved, it is obviously effecting some 30 per cent of our population. We do not intend to let it linger any longer than this sitting of the House.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been very coy with his words. This sitting of the House could very well mean that it would not be dealt with until we come back in the fall.

Now let me say to the Minister - sitting does not mean session. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: Rather than more postponement and delay, why does not the Minister do the right thing and Government change its policy, why does not the Minister forget about undemocratic forced amalgamations, why does not the Minster let communities and towns and cities in this Province make up their own minds about how they want to govern themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people, the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite right in correcting me, I meant to say session of the House. Certainly we intend, before this session ends -

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

MR. GULLAGE: Make up your mind, which way do you want to describe it, it cannot be described both ways, which way do you want it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Before we adjourn for the summer, could we put it that way?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we are going to leave a year and a half of work on behalf of commissioners, councils, people, community groups, Government Opposition, debate in the House and leave that and not do anything is ludicrous. Obviously, we are going to make decisions. We have Metro lands, we have communities growing up adjoining other incorporated bodies under the jurisdiction of Metro Board; they have to be annexed to other communities, that is crying to be done for years. We have a water supply, we have a fire department, we have municipal services, obviously we have to deal with the issue and we will deal with it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier: in view of the very strong show of support from the people of Mount Pearl last evening, which no doubt this Government is well aware of by their actions today, and the three petition which I hope to present this hon. House later this afternoon, in view of that show of emotion and support, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the Premier's position as it related to Meech Lake, as I asked him yesterday, and the view that he took that Newfoundland should have an opportunity to decide its own fate and not be dictated to by the rest of Canada, will he now, once again, assure us that he will extend that same courtesy and right to the people of Mount Pearl and hold a plebiscite in the city of Mount Pearl before any annexation is forced on the city?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl will have no less rights than the people in any other part of the Province, but they will have no greater rights either, and to do what the hon. Member asks, is to give them greater rights, which the Government is not prepared to do.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl will be treated fairly with all the other people of the Province; we are not going to give preferential treatment to any people in any district, in any community or any city of the Province, in the manner in which the former Government did.

We intend to be fair with everybody, Mr. Speaker, and we will handle this thing, this issue with fairness and balance in the same way we handle all other issues.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: in view of the fact that last Sunday the cities of Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer in Quebec held a plebiscite, a similar plebiscite with a similar question, and that the answer was loudly that the people of Hull wished to annex the other two communities. The people of Gatineau and the people of Aylmer refused to join the city of Hull, and the Province of Quebec said: unless all three were in favour that amalgamation would not proceed. Is the Minister prepared to give the people of Mount Pearl the same courtesy as the Government of Quebec gave to the cities in Quebec? Is there democracy in Newfoundland or is it only in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there is real democracy in Newfoundland. If we are going to decide whether or not the communities in a given geographic area ought to be amalgamated instead of being separate municipalities, we can only do so, in fairness, on the basis of a majority of vote of the total people in that area. Now that is our concept of fairness to everybody. You cannot let one group decide for the whole. You do it on the basis of the majority of the total area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Extend it for example to Wedgewood Park - just take that as an example. Wedgewood Park alone could make the decision without regard to what the vast majority of the people of the St. John's area, totally surrounding Wedgewood Park, would decide. We think that if a plebiscite was held that would be an undemocratic way to proceed and if a plebiscite is held we will not be proceeding in that way, we would be proceeding on the basis of a single plebiscite.

But I do not want these comments, Mr. Speaker, to lead Members to conclude that the Government is inclined at this stage to hold a plebiscite. That will be decided shortly.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear the Premier does not intend to hold a plebiscite in Mount Pearl, and perhaps not anywhere else. Will the Premier not take the spoken word of the people of Mount Pearl as represented by these petitions and accept this as the will of the people of Mount Pearl, and ensure the people of Mount Pearl that they will not be forced to be annexed with anybody else against their will?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government will probably on Monday or Tuesday, or sometime early this coming week, I would expect, bring its position before the House and make it known to all the Members of the House and to the public of the Province, and in particular the people of Mount Pearl and St. John's and all the communities in the surrounding area, so that everybody will hear it. We believe the place to do it is in this House first and that is what we intend to do.

In the meantime, we will not give the people of Mount Pearl or the people of any other city or community or town an undertaking that we will proceed in a way that is particularly preferential to that one community, town or city.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier as well. Now as the Premier is aware, the people of St. Lawrence have been hit very hard over the years, specifically the families and widows of deceased miners. And the Premier will be aware that hearings are presently underway in St. Lawrence regarding benefits for these people. Mr. Gordon Seabright has been appointed to conduct these hearings. Could the Premier please indicate to whom Mr. Seabright will be reporting his findings? Will it be reported directly to Government? Will it be reported to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Workers' Compensation Commission, because the people of St. Lawrence have been waiting now for some time. They are quite anxious, indeed, to have this matter resolved, and it is taking a lot of time.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter is being addressed by my department and Mr. Seabright will be reporting to me after he has had his discussions with the people of St. Lawrence.

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

MR. DOYLE: My supplementary is to the Premier. Maybe he can answer this one. The Premier will be aware that Mr. Gordon Seabright is Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal of the Workers' Compensation Board; he is aware of that. And at some point in the whole process, the widows and the families of these deceased miners will have recourse to appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal any of the decisions that Mr. Seabright is going to make at these hearings.

Now, we have a problem here, because Mr. Seabright is also Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, so they will appeal the decision of Mr. Seabright, to the Appeals Tribunal, of which Mr. Seabright is Chairman. Now, the question is obvious, Is this not a clear-cut case of conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If all of his assumptions were correct, Mr. Speaker, it would be a conflict of interest, but there are two major assumptions that are incorrect. The people of St. Lawrence will not, to the best of my knowledge - and I will check this to make sure that it is correct - but to the best of my knowledge, will not be appealing any decision that Mr. Seabright is making to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Mr. Seabright is carrying on an entirely different undertaking in relation to that.

If, subsequently, or at any time in the future, anybody involved is on the receiving end of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission that affects them, that may well be appealed to the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and that is not a decision of Mr. Seabright, that is a decision of the Board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if, in the meantime, anything that is decided upon or done by the Workers' Compensation Board at the Workers' Compensation Commission in the future affecting any of those people, is determined by, or dependent upon, or reflects any decision or recommendation that Mr. Seabright made during the course of his giving advice to the Minister on this issue, I have no doubt that Mr. Seabright would not, in any manner, be a participant in an appeal. There are two vice-chairmen, and the Board operates on separate panels, just to ensure that it can operate with complete independence. I would expect that one of those other panels would function, so I do not see any problem.

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

MR. DOYLE: Let me assure the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that they will have recourse to appeal, and it will be to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I have checked it out quite thoroughly and I ask the Premier to check it out, as well. Given that, why would the Government, and why would the Premier, place the Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal in such an obvious and blatant conflict of interest position, when it is so absolutely clear that appeals will likely be made to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal? Does it not bring into question the integrity of the whole process currently underway down in St. Lawrence? And will the Premier, today, do one thing or the other, either remove Gordon Seabright as Chairman of the Appeals Tribunal, or remove him from the hearing process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is not an obvious and blatant conflict of interest, it is an obvious and blatant misrepresentation of the reality. Mr. Seabright, to the best of my knowledge, and I will check that, is doing work that is not subject to appeal. His decision will not, as far as I know, be subject to appeal by anybody. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is doing an investigation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: He is doing an investigation and giving advice to the Minister on some issues. Now, it may well be, Mr. Speaker, that there may be some connection between applications that individuals may make to the Workers' Compensation Commission in the future. They may be remotely connected, they may be moderately closely connected, or they may even be closely connected, I do not know, but if anything comes up that has, in any manner, any connection whatsoever, there are two other chairpersons on that Board, two other independent ones, and they operate on the basis of three different panels at different times to ensure that they can operate independently and there would be no conflict. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a blatant conflict of interest, it is a blatant misrepresentation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question if for the Minister of Environment and Lands, and it concerns the Robin Hood Bay landfill site, in which the City of St. John's, on June 30, announced its intention of not accepting any more septic waste from the Northeast Avalon. Can the Minister advise the House whether he is prepared to avoid approving another landfill site, and rather, support an alternative which would be more environmentally sound, in that others may be able turn this waste into some useful product?

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

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, similar questions were raised by the hon. Member and others on Tuesday evening in the Estimates Committee. We discussed it at some length, I think. It is a problem, and the fact that the City of St. John's has given a deadline for the length of time they will accept septic waste is a fact that has been well-known to the public. Now, we have discussed on two occasions, with the Mayor of the City of St. John's, that problem, and we have also corresponded with other communities in the Northeast Avalon area that make use of that facility. It is not a simple problem to overcome. There are, as we have discussed in the Estimates, some possible alternatives to just dumping raw septic waste but it is not something that I, or anyone, can solve overnight. We are in consultation with the City. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, said he would revisit the question of the availability of funding with respect to a study. Whether or not that results in a recommendation of an alternate site or not is a little too early and I can not prejudge that at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Can the Minister make a commitment, now, to the House that he will refuse to approve a new site, and rather, use the money that might be used for that site to support - subsidize if necessary, have a demonstration project - to show that alternatives can be done that are more environmentally sound and do not pollute the environment? Will he make the commitment to avoid having other landfill sites and use every effort that would otherwise be made to find alternatives that are safer, more environmentally sound, and that show some leadership in that field by this Government?

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

MR. KELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make such a prejudgemental commitment at this point in time.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. On May 1, this year, the Minister implemented new procedures within his department with respect to transportation costs for medical purposes for social services recipients. Can the Minister tell us what these new changes were, the ones that were made as of May 1?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I had to give you every detail in the new transportation, it would take me several minutes, but I will give you an outline of what we are intending to do in the affairs of transportation of social services recipients for medical reasons.

We have implemented a rule that we will not pay transportation for people living within a community where there is a local doctor, if the doctor is only a short space from where they live. They would have to find their own transportation. If people have to travel a distance, to give you an example, from Bay Roberts to St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that could possibly be.

- what has been happening in the past is, one person has been getting a taxi and travelling to St. John's from a particular area, say sixty miles, at the cost of $90 for a flat rate and $12 an hour waiting time. So, the department is co-ordinating, and instead of having one person going, we will make sure that if a trip is going to St. John's, if somebody needs to go the Janeway Hospital for example, we will make sure that at least three or four people will travel in the same car. We are trying to co-ordinate it and, instead of spending $5 million a year in transportation, make sure that people still get the same services with less cost, so that we can spend the monies in other ways in the department, where people need it badly.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: It appears from the Minister's suggestion, you have to take a number and get in line when you get sick. But, since the last Budget did not include any increase for social services recipients, except for a fuel allowance that comes into effect on November 1, of $55 a month for single parents - and the Minister is aware that within district travels there can be considerable distance involved, in my particular district, up to fifty kilometers on a return trip - the department will not now pay the cost.

I ask the Minister, since he did not give any increase - he has already said that the present allowance is inadequate - how does he expect these people to avail of medical facilities in this Province if they did not have enough before, and now you are charging them for it?

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

MR. EFFORD: The Member is almost as good as I was when I was over there asking questions. Let me tell you one clear thing, nobody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, the hon. Member for Humber East found the flashlight. Nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who requires medical transportation - now, if the hon. Member wants the answer I will give it to him. If not, I will sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. Members to maintain the orderliness of Question Period, and I would ask the hon. Member for Fogo to continue with his question.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister knows the letter that he sent out on May 1 does not indicate what he has just said, that there is not service available for in district travel. Furthermore, the Minister is having a review done now to look at in district travel to a hospital for lab, X ray, and specialists. Is it the Minister's intention to eliminate this service as well? What does he expect the recipients of social services in this Province to do for medical care if the Minister has now taken away the few benefits that they did have?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members know that the question has been asked and that hon. Members get a chance to ask a supplementary. I do not know if they are happy with the question asked but, I would ask hon. Members please to allow the Minister to answer.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will say very clearly to the hon. Member for Fogo that we do not intend to take away transportation necessary for individuals who need medical services. What we have to do is to very clearly co-ordinate something that has been abused by individuals, taxi operators and everybody over the past number of years. When you hire a taxi and take one individual to a hospital sixty or seventy miles away, and then have a waiting time of $12 an hour, then you have to co-ordinate. So that same service will be provided but it will not be for one special individual - I mean if the need is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if a person requires transportation because of an emergency situation because they are sick, they will not be using a taxi, they will be using an ambulance the same as everybody else and that transportation will be provided. But for general visits to an outpatients clinic or to a general practitioner we are not going to spend $5 million and throw the money away. The monies will still be provided in a co-ordinated fashion so that more people who need the service will be able to get the service. I can assure you nobody in this Province who needs medical transportation from their area will be denied it by the Department of Social Services. It will be provided.

MR. SIMMS: Read the memo.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume from the Minister's answer that if someone has the flu they have to wait for five other people to get it so they can get pneumonia, so they can get a taxi to go, is that what the Minister is saying they have to do? You have to have five people now. They have to have a serious illness now before they can get medical attention, because that is what you just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Surely goodness, the hon. Member is not suggesting that because a person gets the flue we pay $120 to go to a hospital, surely goodness, that is not what you are suggesting.

I said very clearly that we are trying to bring some sense to the Department of Social Service in co-ordinating a proper transportation policy instead of allowing every individual in the Province to hire a taxi at will. There are 24,000 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador depending upon social assistance and every individual case is assessed on its own merit and that is what is going to be done while I am Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

On behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery today councillors from the City of Mount Pearl accompanied by His Worship Mayor Harvey Hodder, and the Deputy Mayor Ms Bettney, and councillors Derm Connolly, Dave Denine, Ed Grant, and Glorian Pearson, and also a number of city officials and staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Also in the Speaker's Galley is councillor Atkinson from the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition, but before I do I want to thank Your Honour for not ruling my button out of order. It reads, 'Mount Pearl, my city, my home, pride in our past and confidence in our future', and I wear it proudly.

I beg leave to introduce a petition, the first of three that I have today, and I ask leave to present the three. First of all I would like to present a petition, Mr. Speaker, which has some special significance. It is a unique petition, I think, and I am not sure but it may well be the first time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Maybe we should establish what the Member is looking for. The Member said he is going to present three together?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will present this one and obviously hon. gentlemen opposite may wish to respond.

This particular one, Mr. Speaker, was taken up by a young lady who is in the gallery today, in the Speaker's Gallery, by the name of Vanessa Vincent. She is eleven years old and in Grade V1 at Mount Pearl. She, on her own volition, because of her concern for the amalgamation issue, wrote out a petition, took it up and down her street with the help of some of her friends, Michelle Gibbons, Nicholle Jones, Bradley Jones, Kim Williams, and altogether, Mr. Speaker, there are some 300 names on this petition. I would like for her to stand to be recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is in her own words, and she specifically stated to her parents that she did not want to use long words such as amalgamation. She is dealing with her peers in Grade V1. It say, very simply: to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we want to tell you we do not support the joining of Mount Pearl with St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is very straightforward and very simple. The message, I believe, from this young lady and her friends is a very strong message. If you want to know the spirit of Mount Pearl, as I said at our meeting in Mount Pearl last night, the spirit of Mount Pearl is alive and well and never better represented than it is by this young lady and the people who supported her in this particular petition.

Mr. Speaker, should I use the old cliche, 'Out of the mouths of babes.'? We as civic leaders always talk about the future of our city. We have a responsibility to lead the way and set the stage for future generations and here we have an example of where future generations are speaking out loudly and clearly for themselves, and that is why I think this petition has some significance and a special meaning, because here are young people letting us know through their voice. As I told the crowd last night, about two weeks ago I had a group of students who came here from my district and I had the pleasure of speaking with them, as I always do, whenever I have the opportunity to speak with students who visit the Chamber. At that time, I explained to them the workings of the House, what Government is all about, and what my role in the House of Assembly is. One of my roles, as Your Honour knows, is that I have a responsibility to present petitions to this hon. House on behalf of my constituents. I am their voice in the people's chamber, and this is where we are today. I told them at that time if they had an issue, and I do not believe Vanessa was amongst that crowd, but if they had an issue they were concerned about that they had every right to take up a petition and bring it to me and I was duty bound under the rules of Parliament to present that petition to the House of Assembly on their behalf. Little did I know at that time that just a couple of weeks later I would indeed have the privilege of presenting such a petition here. I think it is a significant petition for that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, in that we are talking about young people.

Mr. Speaker, the Government needs a message. If they do not want to listen to what I am saying, if they do not want to listen to what Mayor Hodder, the members of council, the city staff, and what other people in Mount Pearl are saying, perhaps they might listen to the children. Perhaps they might listen to the young people who want to have a say in what the future of their city will be. How much more real can a message be, Mr. Speaker, than one coming from the young people of our community? How much more sincere can a message be than when it comes from the children of our community who have enough concern, and enough knowledge and insight into what is taking place in their city to take the initiative to take up a petition such as this?

I think it is a tremendous petition, and I think it is a strong message. I beg the Government to consider this message. If you are not prepared to listen to my words, listen to the words of Vanessa and her peers, Mr. Speaker. Get the strong message that the people of Mount Pearl wish to choose to live in the City of Mount Pearl and these children wish to grow up and live in the City of Mount Pearl in the future as well. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it takes a terrific amount of patience to share the City of Mount Pearl, jurisdiction wise, with the Member for Mount Pearl because he continues to make, almost on every issue connected with Mount Pearl - I can go back to the fire department as one - almost every issue that we have discussed in this House of Assembly concerning Mount Pearl eventually becomes a political issue, and this is clearly one of those. Last night I understand that he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: - it was pretty well - I will not say it was a gathering engineered by his district association, but it was clearly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - it was clearly, from his point of view, meant to be a political campaign, I would sense, particularly against me.

Mr. Speaker, the annoying part about this is that - everybody has a right to collect petitions, of course, and they are a part of the democratic process, and I admire the people who have done that. But the fact of the matter is we have not brought any resolution to this House of Assembly. The Member for Mount Pearl has been quoted as saying, and perhaps incorrectly because the press is often wrong, they have been seen to be wrong, but I have heard him quoting a City of St. John's to be expanded to take in Mount Pearl, Paradise, St. Thomas's, the Goulds, Petty Harbour, St. Phillips and Portugal Cove. I mean that sort of speculation in the press before Government has even announced its intention is totally and completely irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in the north east Avalon with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. Minister take his place. Before we proceed too far in this matter, the Chair wants to point out to hon. Members that in presenting petitions we are not in a debating forum. In presenting petitions hon. Members speak to the petitions, they know the addresses of the signatories, the number of the signatories and the material allegations in the petition. The Chair wants to rise here because it is sensing that we might be drifting into the area of debate and the Chair wants to make sure that does not happen.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the wording from the hon. Member for Mount Pearl correctly, that the petition from the young lady that was collected clearly said, 'we do not support joining the people of Mount Pearl with St. John's.' I think I am speaking to that very point, the fact that we are not yet into this House of Assembly with a resolution that says anything, because we are not debating a resolution. So my point is that the Member is, as I just mentioned, with total speculation rhyming off eight or ten communities coming together with no thought of the facts because the facts will not be known until we come in here, obviously. I think that is totally irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, but I do praise the young lady for collecting the petition and other petitions that were collected. That is the democratic right of the people to do that. We have petitions presented in this House on almost every issue imaginable.

I also said, and I have been quoted as saying, that the fact that both City Councils, the two main larger councils, the two cities if you like, have had advice from public relations firms and have been carrying out a campaign presenting the facts as they see them from their city's perspective, and I think that they have every right to do that as well. There are those who would say, 'do we need this great debate going on in the press?' I do not know, but they have the right to do it. People have the right to say how they feel about an issue, and people certainly have the right to collect petitions and say how they feel about amalgamation. I am not denying that right. What I am saying is my annoyance as a Minister with the misrepresentation of the facts and the debate and the calling of public meetings to debate a Government measure and a resolution that is not even on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, that is what annoys me.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty believing what I just heard. In July of 1989 this Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs launched a wholesale campaign of amalgamating municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, including joining Mount Pearl with St. John's. Now a citizen of Mount Pearl who is eleven years old wrote a message to the Government, `Don't join Mount Pearl with St. John's.'

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible) if they are going to make statements, make sure they are correct. We did not enter the hearings process with any amalgamation scenario that involved joining St. John's to Mount Pearl. We did not proceed that way.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. Member took advantage of the situation to make a point of - something.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an eleven-year-old citizen of Mount Pearl took the initiative to write a message to the Government of her Province. The message reads: `Do not join Mount Pearl with St. John's.' And the Minister, who represents part of Mount Pearl, doubts her sincerity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this girl, Vanessa Vincent, took the initiative to give a message to the Government and to collect the signatures of her schoolmates and friends and neighbours, as the Member for Mount Pearl said, is an example of tremendous community spirit. Now, Mount Pearl is a municipality that is viable in every sense of the word. It is exceptionally well run. It pays its way, and it operates in harmony with adjacent communities. In addition to all of that, Mount Pearl has a vibrant community spirit. Vanessa Vincent and the other 23,000 citizens of Mount Pearl, to a person, love their community. It is a community, and Vanessa's message is: Do not take that away from me. It is her home.

The message that these people are trying to get across to the Government is that there is more to life than balance sheets, than impersonal facts and figures. You have to think about people's feelings. Mount Pearl has a heart and a soul. Leave well enough alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce a second petition. This one has been taken up by the Mount Pearl Youth Advisory Group. it reads: `We, the youth of Mount Pearl, are against the Provincial Government's supercity concept, which would see Mount Pearl become a ward of St. John's. Again, Mr., Speaker, the wording is quite simple, straightforward, the message very clear.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have just heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that he would impute motives to the young people of Mount Pearl. If he thinks this is a political petition - this petition was taken up by the youth of Mount Pearl, not at the meeting last night, but on their own volition, in the schools, a strong message from the youth of Mount Pearl, without my knowledge.

Vanessa's petition was presented to me last night. The first knowledge I had of it was when she walked into the room last night with her father and with Mayor Hodder and presented me with that petition. And if the Minister thinks that the meeting last night was organized as a political meeting, I assure him it was organized by the City of Mount Pearl and that there were many people in that hall who campaigned and worked for him in the last election, and who spoke last night at that meeting. Many of them who spoke to me have called me since and asked: `When is our Member going to speak for us? Who is representing us now?'

I can assure him that 6,000 or 7,000 names in this petition come from his district. He should be presenting this petition in the House of Assembly, for those people, not I. These people who campaigned for him - he walked into their living rooms and asked them to campaign for him in the last election - they now have signed their names to this. Are they political as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I rose a little while ago to remind hon. Members that in speaking to a petition, we ought not to get into debate. I have allowed the hon. Member to retort to some of the comments made by the Minister, allowing a little tit for tat, but I believe, now, that the Member should get into the proper presentation of the petition and address the signatures and the allegation.

The hon. Member.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I accept your ruling entirely. You are correct, and I thank you for allowing me the same leverage as the Minister enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 1,680 names, I believe, on this particular petition. This petition came from the youth of Mount Pearl, and again it is a very strong message from the young people of Mount Pearl, to raise their concerns, the concerns of the young people of Mount Pearl as to what may take place. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are people who are enjoying, perhaps more than the rest of us, recreation facilities, for example, in the City of Mount Pearl. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to this House, that we enjoy recreation facilities second to none in this Province. And before anybody jumps on his feet and says, `Oh, well, look what the Province has given you,' I reject that outright, Mr. Speaker. Recreation facilities in Mount Pearl have been paid for by the people of Mount Pearl, and paid for very, very, well. I will challenge anybody who would deny me that. They are well utilized, and they are utilized, by the way, not only by the people of Mount Pearl. Many people from outside come in to the City of Mount Pearl. We have a track and field facility which is a regional facility. I am hearing so much about regional facilities being provided to the people of Mount Pearl at no cost. We have a regional facility. Yes, indeed, there was a contribution to that facility by the Provincial Government, but a large percentage of it was paid for by the taxpayers of Mount Pearl and, in fact, by the school system of Mount Pearl. Some funding was put into that whole thing by the school boards, in fact, because of the benefit it would give, and it is providing an international standard track and field facility to this entire region, a little different from the Aguarena in St. John's which serves, yes, the whole region, but it was built entirely by the Provincial Government and is operated and subsidized entirely by the Provincial Government. So, if we want to talk about regional services, the cost of regional services, and who benefits from them, I can talk just as long as hon. gentlemen opposite can talk.

What I am talking about here are the youth of Mount Pearl, some 1600 of them, who have again, on their own, taken the initiative to sign a petition, to send another message to this Government, a loud and clear message, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they, indeed, are concerned about the future of their city, that they, indeed, value the community identity that my colleague just talked about, in Mount Pearl, an identity which I believe, Mr. Speaker, is more important to the people of Mount Pearl than you will find in any other community in the Province, and for which we are well-known, particularly in recreation circles, Mr. Speaker. You talk to people involved in recreation in this Province, you talk about minor hockey, or minor soccer, or any of the other major sport governing bodies, and they talk about Mount Pearl as setting the standards in recreational groups in the Province of Newfoundland. These are the young people, the youth, the future of our city and our Province, and the message from them, Mr. Speaker, is also very clear.

I take great pleasure in tabling this petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy and pleased today to rise in my place to support my colleague who so ably presented a petition on behalf of the youth of Mount Pearl. I think I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not say to Vanessa, it is great to have you among us, because it is you, and people like you, that we look to for the future. We want to thank you today for standing on your own initiative and doing something that you think is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the petition mentions the Provincial Government and the concept of a supercity. There is an area in my constituency, namely, Wedgewood Park, which was first mentioned, as well, in that supercity concept, but like many other people on the Northeast Avalon, they are confused, as well as I and everyone else. We have heard reports in the last number of days that this new city core, or this new urban core will go farther afield and perhaps include many other areas we did not know of. When we had those hearings, Mr. Speaker, they did not deal with a supercity, they dealt with amalgamation, almost, of your own backyard people, of joining Torbay with Flat Rock, of joining perhaps some other communities, but this supercity was never a part of what it was all about.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier, today, speak specifically of Wedgewood Park and what a fine community it is, completely surrounded by St. John's. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was not always the case. In 1959, a contractor started the housing project that is now Wedgewood Park. The people there saw the need, and the Government of the day saw the need, of some kind of improvement within that status and, in 1967, they formed the local improvement sort of Government we have today in Wedgewood Park, a model town since 1967.

Mr. Speaker, when they started that town, they immediately went to St. John's and asked St. John's to take them in, but St. John's refused, saying they would be an impediment to the City of St. John's. They did not want them. Now, when they are considered to be affluent, the same as Mount Pearl, everyone wants them, and who would not, Mr. Speaker?

If I had a business, today, that was making all kinds of money and everyone knew it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why would not everyone come in there and say, `Let us buy your company, let us take over your company'?

Mr. Speaker, it is a business venture; there are no morals in this; I mean, St. John's might surround Wedgewood Park, but Wedgewood Park created what is there! Mr. Speaker, there are forty-one businesses in Wedgewood Park; there are 600 workers in Wedgewood Park, 600 people who go to work. A great number of them work outside of Wedgewood Park, but there are sixty people from other areas who work in Wedgewood Park. All we listen to is, you are using the roads, you are using the infrastructure that was placed there by the City of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, we are not; there are just as many outside going to St. John's and working, just as many working in Wedgewood Park from St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, from the community of Flatrock, a lot of our people work in St. John's, but 90 per cent of our money is spent in St. John's, spent in organizations, companies, operations that form the tax base of St. John's. We owe no one anything. The people of Mount Pearl do not and neither do the people of Wedgewood Park.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I would like to welcome two more councillors to the gallery today. Firstly, I would like to welcome Councillor Woodford of the Town of Triton in Green Bay; secondly, I would like to extend a warm welcome to another Councillor from the City of Mount Pearl, Councillor Simms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I said about the earlier petition, I would certainly like to commend the Youth Advisory Group of Mount Pearl for their initiative in taking the time to put together the commission to take it up, to go door-to-door and solicit support for their petition, but, as I said in my earlier reply to the Member for Mount Pearl, my point was not with the petitions.

I think everybody has a right to express his view by way of collecting names in support of a particular point of view. Both the Youth Advisory Group and the young lady have done just that, and I commend them for it. I certainly commend the Council of Mount Pearl for having a public meeting to discuss the issue, they have every right to do that; they have done so on other occasions. They have had public meetings and they have certainly had a lot of public debate in Mount Pearl about the issue of amalgamation since we started some year-and-a-half ago.

My main point earlier - and I repeat it once again - is that I think the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for 60 per cent of Mount Pearl, let us put it that way, should change the name really. His seat, I think, is a real misnomer. He should find some way to better identify who clearly represents Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, for the Member to carry on a political campaign in the middle of such a serious issue, I think, is what I am mainly disturbed about. So far, the Member for Mount Pearl has been dealing with speculation of the worst degree. I am not sure what he has said to other press, but in the press I have read there is no resemblance at all to any scenarios I have seen about amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon, so clearly he is speculating. And the same speculation that he talked about in the press, no doubt, was portrayed last night in the public meeting in Mount Pearl.

Until we come into this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, as a Government and present a resolution on the floor, political involvement of the Member in this process is doing nothing but fuel a debate, if you like, between the two cities, an unhealthy debate, and, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have been sitting here listening to the Minister's comments, and the Minister now is getting in on the area of debate. I ask the hon. Member, please, to keep his remarks to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, without carrying on that same line of speaking, although I think it is pertinent to the petition, I do feel that the Member for Mount Pearl played a part in a role and has been playing a part in a role that is unhealthy in the process. As far as the petition is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Youth Advisory Group, as I do the young lady, for the initiative, and the fact that they are playing an important part in this process. Whether they be from our youth or our other citizens of Mount Pearl, St. John's and other communities, all points of view are welcome and important as we carry on this process and ultimately arrive at what I hope will be a good, agreeable and sensible decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a third petition on behalf of the people of Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, there is a cover sheet on this petition entitled, `Mount Pearl has spoken'. The prayer of the petition - if I may, I will read through it - says: `To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened. Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has given notice of intent to revise the municipal boundaries and reduce the number of municipalities within the Northeast Avalon region; and whereas the City of St. John's has proposed a creation of one large municipality which has been commonly referred to as the supercity concept; and whereas the creation of one large municipality is not in the best interest of the citizens of Mount Pearl and could result in increased taxation and a lower level of service; and whereas the City of Mount Pearl is financially self-sufficient and pays a fair share of the costs of all regional services provided to it; and whereas the identity of Mount Pearl would be lost within the supercity concept; therefore, the undersigned residents of Mount Pearl hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to reject the Government's proposal and to introduce only such changes as are acceptable to the communities involved and proven to be economically sound by a thorough feasibility study.

Mr. Speaker, that is the prayer of the petition. It is signed by 12,470 residents of the City of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, add to that the 300 names on Vanessa's petition, 1,800 names on the petition from the Youth Advisory Group, and you have a total number of signatures presented here this afternoon of 14,570. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wants a message, I believe that is, indeed, a message. The Minister thinks I am speculating. I say to the Minister, we have no choice but to speculate. The Minister has set fears in every municipality across this Province. If he had not been so tardy in dealing with the situation, if he had been able to make a decision, if the Government had come forward and been clean with the people of the Province, maybe we would not be speculating, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the Minister would end our speculation and assure us that we will not be amalgamated with the City of St. John's. Maybe the Minister will say in this House what he has told me privately, that he does not favour amalgamation of Mount Pearl with St. John's. Maybe he will come clean with the people of Mount Pearl now and let us know if he indeed would favour such a thing. And if he indeed does not, then assure us that he will not bring into this House any resolution or legislation which will force or otherwise combine the City of Mount Pearl with the City of St. John's against the will of 14,570 constituents of his riding and mine.

Let him come forward and tell us where he stands. Not attack the youth of our city when they come forward with their position. Not attack me on politics. I made it very clear last night that this is well above partisan party politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Hon. gentlemen opposite may not be able to recognize a sincere approach to the House of Assembly, but I can assure you I speak today on behalf of at least these 14,570 people. I assure the Minister also, the next election we will see what party politics is all about though, we will have another go at it then.

This is a very sincere petition aimed at trying to get a message across to this Government that this is not only Mount Pearl and St. John's. There are many communities across this Province that are concerned as to what this Government may try to impose on them. What we are here to talk about today are basic democratic rights. That is the issue here. Not St. John's versus Mount Pearl, or the cost of bus services or fire departments or anything else. We are talking about the basic democratic rights of 23,000 people to decide the municipal structure that is appropriate for them. We are talking about the basic democratic rights of these young people who have told this Government that they choose to live in the City of Mount Pearl. That they do not want to be forced to be living in another city against their will.

It is basic democracy. The same kind of democracy, as I indicated during Question Period, that took place in Quebec, at Hull and Gatineau and Aylmer. And the Government of Quebec gave them a choice and said: we will not force it, and if all three communities do not wish that amalgamation, we will not impose it on you. Why then is this Government not prepared to assure this House that the people of Mount Pearl will enjoy the same basic democratic rights?

I will have more to say on that as the afternoon goes on, but I have great pleasure and great pride indeed in presenting this petition on behalf of, in total, 14,570 residents of the City of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to support again this petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, who has done a tremendous job on behalf of his constituents here today in making sure that their views are at least aired on the floor of the people's House.

Now that is all the Member can do, that is all the people of Mount Pearl can do. I have been in this House for sixteen years and I have seen a lot of petitions presented in this House in my time here. I do not believe I have ever seen one come close to bearing the wishes, desires and aspirations of almost 15,000 people. I do not think I have seen one come close to that.

That is what is happening in this House today. And the Minister for Municipal Affairs, the Member for part of Mount Pearl, can only get up and reflect politically on what people are doing to save their city, to save their town.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, use Beauchesne to quiet that Member. He should be seen and not heard. You have insulted your constituents here today.

What is this about? The Minister says Government has not made up its mind. Well, that is what it is about! The Government has been dragging its heels for two years. The Government has frightened dozens of municipalities in this Province, because they have threatened to rewrite the political-municipal map of Newfoundland and Labrador. And don't the citizens of Mount Pearl have a right to be concerned? Don't people in other communities - Wedgewood Park, or Mount Moriah out in Corner Brook - all of those people have a right to be concerned because they do not know what this Government is going to do.

What the people of this Province know is this, they know that this Government is undemocratic. They know that this Government could not give two hoots about what people think. They are scared that the voice of 15,000 people will be washed away by the whims of this Government.

The Minister in his opening remarks talked about democracy, he accepts the petitions because it is democracy. Well, there is another part to democracy, Mr. Speaker, and that is those who are elected listening to the will of those who elected them and those who are elected having a responsibility to act in accordance with the will of those who elected them. There are 23,000 citizens in the City of Mount Pearl 15,000 of whom have come here today and begged this Government to leave them alone. Why does the Minister and the Government, Mr. Speaker, not say we are going to leave you alone? They are not a drag on anybody. They are a positive contributor to the north east Avalon and to Newfoundland and Labrador. Why does the Minister and the Government not get off their backs and let them go about making their lives and controlling their own destiny in their own city, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What is it about this Government, Mr. Speaker, that makes it want to beat up on people? What is it about this Government that wants to tell people you do not know what is good for you? What is it about this Government, Mr. Speaker, that wants to run a dictatorship where the voice of the people and the will of the people does not mean anything anymore. I mean, where is democracy gone in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1991, Mr. Speaker. Where is it? I mean today in the Soviet Union, you can get inside the walls in Red Square and parade in front of the Lenin Mausoleum, you cannot get through the doors of Confederation Building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, where is democracy gone in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your Honour has twice ruled in the last twenty minutes that rather than get into the area of debate we should stick to the prayer of the petition and so on, and I would suggest to Your Honour that the Leader of the Opposition is getting very far into the realm of debate and should be brought back to the point of the petition.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no point of order, this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government House Leader who knows that I only have five minutes to speak in this debate, to waste it as fast as he can as he cannot take the heat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members know the rules with respect to the presenting of petitions and I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue there is a very short time left.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion just let me simply say this to the Government: for God's sake for once in two years will you listen to what the people are saying to you? Will you stop closing your mind to the will of a vast, vast majority of a viable city and community in this Province who want you to do nothing for them but to leave them alone and let them govern themselves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to take a couple of minutes to respond to the petition by 16,000 people in Mount Pearl. I would like to congratulate the Council on the very efficient job they did last night. I know that it is not easy. I myself was part of a similar kind of thing a few years ago. I know it takes a lot of work to put that thing together in one night.

I would like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what is happening here and the amalgamation process in the Province: First when this was mentioned by Government and our intentions were announced, the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Mount Pearl and most Members opposite, that I can recall, was that we were going too fast. After we were at it for about six months or so, you are going too fast, slow down, take some time, consider properly what you are doing or what you plan to do. So we took our time, and we considered. Then what did they say: you are going too slow, why did you not do it a year ago? Why did you not hurry up and do this?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member says that their comments bear no relation to political activity. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious from what I have just said that they will take whatever position at any point in time that happens to be political for their own political ends.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do not apologize for taking our time and trying to make the best decision for all concerned. We do not apologize for that, for taking our time and doing it properly. Had we done anything else I feel we would have a greater chance of making some serious errors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, you have done enough of that.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition, and I point out again that I have been involved with many of these petitions brought to the House. I can understand the people in Mount Pearl expressing their opinions regarding amalgamation. If they do not want to join with St. John's, they should express that opinion, and that is all very well. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to object to in the prayer of the petition is the fact that it was directed against some kind of Government proposal. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it had been to express the views to Government that would have been fair but to somehow stir up 20,000 or 25,000 people against a Government proposal that does not exist was a point that I thought had to be mentioned. The Government proposal, we have made clear, will be obvious in a few days. I believe the Premier said Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week, or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes. What Government proposes will then be made clear. We have said for a couple of weeks that soon we would make clear what we propose for the north east Avalon, and we will. And at that time, if there is need to protest a Government proposal, then great, marvellous! But as of this point in time there is no Government proposal before anybody to be rejected. So in that context, that is really the one quarrel that I have with what the Member for Mount Pearl said. And I am sure that everybody would want the truth to be made clear. There is no Government proposal at this point in time. I am sure that everybody will want to make that clear.

I think it indicates that there is a little more to the petition than simply expressing an opinion. The Member for Mount Pearl knows what I am talking about. If somebody is telling the people of Mount Pearl that there is a Government proposal before the House, or Government has said what its proposal is going to be and to reject it, if people are saying that then that is simply not true. There is no Government proposal. The Opposition Leader knows it, the Member for Mount Pearl knows it, and the Member for Grand Falls knows it. There is no Government proposal.

So aside from that one point I would once again like to congratulate the people who so very quickly put together a tremendous petition in a very short time. I believe two or three hours is all it took. Who organized it, put it together -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. BAKER: If I could have ten seconds, Mr. Speaker? I cannot help but mention in a lighter vein -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province," carried. (Bill No. 29).

On motion, Bill No. 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," carried. (Bill No. 31).

On motion, Bill No. 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the rules have changed now it happens the rules of debate have changed and this being a money bill we can say anything we wish to say. It will be no surprise to hon. Members opposite what my topic may be for the day.

Now I want to get back to the basis of what we are talking about, what the people of Mount Pearl are concerned about in the three great petitions that I presented here today.

Let me say that the people of Mount Pearl are simply, in my view, representing thousands of other people from around the Province. I do not wish to get into too many specifics of the debate between Mount Pearl and St. John's. That unfortunately is the nasty side issue that is taking place, that has been allowed to take place. The Minister tries to accuse me of inciting the people of St. John's. I say to the Minister that he is solely responsible for inciting the people of St. John's in his lack of leadership in moving forward with whatever proposal there is going to be. He says there is no proposal before the House. Well, there should be. Or maybe he should tell us what he is proposing to do.

But he can hardly expect the people of Mount Pearl to sit on their laurels and wait until Government has made a decision and comes into this House with the usual sledgehammer and closure that they normally put legislation through this House with. The people of Mount Pearl have acted extremely responsibly in letting this Government and this House know their position on whatever proposals may come forward. And the main thrust of what we are saying is that we are not prepared to accept being annexed by force into a supercity or any municipal structure that is not acceptable to the people of Mount Pearl.

That is simply a statement of basic democratic freedom. And as I said, we are leading the way for the rest of the Province, for other municipalities all across this Province, the 130 odd municipalities the Minister included in his review of municipal structures. And what we are talking about here are the rights and freedoms of every municipality to choose the structure that is appropriate for them. The Premier stands in his place and says: well, we will not force anybody to amalgamate against their will unless it is in the greater public good.

Now I can accept that to a degree. If we had a situation where a municipality by staying separate was clearly influencing the rights of other municipalities, if it was a drain on the public purse, if it required huge subsidies from the Province, if it interfered with the rights of neighbouring municipalities, then I could accept it with some serious reservations, but I can accept it to a degree. I still protect the rights of municipalities to decide.

But when you are talking about the third largest city, the third city in the Province, about a model community, a community that has grown on its own, against popular opinion, or contrary to popular opinion, without undue support from the Province. In fact, history will record that over the years Mount Pearl has received less subsidy than most municipalities in this Province, and that can be documented quite clearly. So when you have a city that has enjoyed that measure of success, that has shown time and time again the excellence of the structure that is in place, the excellence of its planning and servicing, the excellence of services for the people of the municipality, and I say without hesitation the excellence of the administration in that city, why then would any government even suggest that that municipality should disappear against the wishes of the people of that municipality? Where is the democracy in that?

If hon. gentlemen opposite could tell me that the city of Mount Pearl was costing the Province millions of dollars every year in special subsidies, or that it was costing the city of St. John's millions of dollars a year in special subsidies of any kind, or costs of any nature, or if it was receiving free services from the city of St. John's or another region then that will be a different matter, but indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is not and I hear people speaking about this issue suggesting that Mount Pearl somehow is not paying its fair share of services and that the people of St. John's are paying too much for the services they receive. Well, Mr. Chairman, I remind this honourable House, that there are indeed regional services in this area, indeed we do have a regional structure already in place.

The City of Mount Pearl receives certain services from the City of St. John's, it uses Robin Hood Bay solid waste disposable site and it pays for the use of that waste disposable site. Now, are we paying a fair share? Well, ask the City of St. John's, they decide what we pay; if they are not satisfied that the City of Mount Pearl is paying a fair share of the cost of operating Robin Hood Bay, let them tell us so, let them document that for us and we are happy to pay a fair share of the cost of that facility.

The City of Mount Pearl receives bus service from the St. John's Transportation Commission; are we paying a fair share for that service, Mr. Chairman? Many would suggest we are paying too much; the service in Mount Pearl is of a far lower standard than it is in the City of St. John's, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that we pay for that service. The City of Mount Pearl pays the City of St. John's for bus service, are we paying enough? Well, we will have to ask the City of St. John's again, Mr. Chairman, because, once again they decide on what we are to pay.

Where do we get our water supply, Mr. Chairman? From the same system that much of the City of St. John's receives its water supply, we buy it from the regional system at Bay Bulls Big Pond, built, owned by the Province, operated by St. John's Metropolitan Area Board on behalf of the region. Who decides how much we pay for that, Mr. Chairman? The Province, through the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. Are we paying enough? Nobody has told us that we are not; we are prepared to pay our fair share of the cost of regional water supply; we pay the same rate as does the city of St. John's for that regional water supply.

Mr. Chairman, I will get into the fire department, there is another issue; here we are paying far too much to the Province, not to the City of St. John's. Fire protection services in this region are provided by the St. John's Fire Department which is a misnomer, owned and operated by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we pay, I think more than a fair share. Studies have shown in fact that we pay more for the service provided by the City of St. John's through the St. John's Fire Department by the Province, we pay more for that service than if we indeed were allowed to operate our own fire department and the city of Mount Pearl has gone ahead, built its own fire department, has state-of-the-art equipment in that fire department and this Government has refused to allow them to operate the fire department and it is costing us a half million dollars a year; now, Mr. Chairman, where is the justice in that?

Five hundred thousand dollars a year more to operate, to pay for the service from the St. John's Fire Department, than if we were allowed the same rights and privileges that every other municipality in this Province has, to own and operate its own fire department. Why then are the people of Mount Pearl being discriminated against as it relates to operating a fire department, and the city has been very receptive, they have said we are prepared to participate in a regional fire department.

If that is what is suggested and if it can be shown that it is in the best interest of the region, if it can be shown that the service provided to the people of Mount Pearl will be of a high standard and if it can be shown that the cost is reasonable -

MR. BAKER: A co-operative approach.

MR. WINDSOR: A good co-operative approach, I say to the President of Treasury Board, the city of Mount Pearl has led the way in co-operative approach, has led the way. I regret what is taking place now is going to set that co-operative approach back in this region by thirty years because the Minister has succeeded by his lack of action, in pitting municipalities against each other.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. WINDSOR: I hope? No, it is not my hope. The City of Mount Pearl, Mr. Chairman, and I have always advocated regional co-operation in this area. We have advocated a regional authority to operate regional systems. The Provincial Government should not be operating a fire department. It should not be operating a water supply system. They should all be controlled by a regional authority. The City of St. John's should not be operating a regional transportation system or a regional solid waste disposal system. All of those regional facilities should be operated by a regional authority and paid for on a user basis, Mr. Chairman, it is clear and simple. We have been advocating that for twenty years, so how can anybody suggest the people of Mount Pearl are not prepared to participate in the region? There are other regional services that could and should be operated as well. We have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman. What we have a problem with is being forced to participate in a municipality against the wishes of the people - against the wishes of the people. There is something basically wrong with being forced to do anything against your will. We do live -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - in a democratic society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. House Leader. I will not abuse the privilege or the right given to me by the hon. House Leader. I will speak for just a few more moments, and then - other Members wish to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the city has always agreed to co-operate and wishes to co-operate in a regional approach to this area. That does not mean that the City of St. John's should be expanded to the point where it, in fact, becomes a regional authority. That will, in fact, have a tremendous imbalance. There must be and there will be an imbalance at any rate because of the City of St. John's being so much larger than any other municipalities. There is always an imbalance in any regional authority. The City of St. John's will have a much greater influence over the workings of that regional authority.

Mr. Chairman, what is being proposed by the city is that the city become the regional authority. That is not co-operation, Mr. Chairman, and we are not talking amalgamation here, we are talking annexation and that is what we object to. If the people of Mount Pearl chose to become part of the City of St. John's, then sobeit, that is amalgamation. But if the Government forces the people of Mount Pearl to become part of the City of St. John's, that is annexation and that is wrong. That is not democratic and it is not acceptable to the people of Mount Pearl and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is not acceptable to the people of this Province generally. That is the issue here. That is the only issue here.

Do the people of Mount Pearl and the people of other communities around this Province have any basic rights to determine the future municipal structure under which they live? That is what we are talking about. It is as simple and basic as that, and all of these other side issues of the cost of services and who is paying taxes and the provincial Government buildings being in the City of St. John's, and I heard the mayor this morning on the radio saying that the city is paying for the paving, street lighting and snow clearing. She left the impression that the parking lot around the Confederation Building was paved by the city and that snow clearing was done on the parking lot by the city. Of course, that is not true. I could spend all day arguing that the Province paid and built Prince Philip Drive, the Crosstown Arterial, and the Federal Government built Pitts Memorial Drive, all the regional arterial roads. Hopefully the Province and the Federal Government jointly will build the outer ring road. These are special contributions to this area because it is a capital city and because so many people come to the capital city to do business. But the same council that is complaining today because they have to provide services to provincial buildings in the City of St. John's scream their heads off when we put a provincial building in Mount Pearl, the Motor Registration Building, and the council in Mount Pearl welcomes provincial buildings. We would welcome the tens of thousands of jobs that the provincial buildings in the City of St. John's mean to the city of St. John's and the economic impact that has. We would love to have more of them. If I could pick this building up today and bring it in to Mount Pearl I would be delighted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It would look very good.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would love to live in Gander. Probably a mistake that was made many years ago, was that the capital city should have been more central.

But I do not want to get into those parochial issues. I can debate them all day. I have heard so many inaccuracies over the past twenty-four hours coming from the Mayor of St. John's and others. They are just not accurate. The fact is that the City of Mount Pearl is indeed paying its way, its fair share. And if the City of St. John's or the Province can show us where we are not paying our fair share, the people of Mount Pearl will be delighted to do so. Show us that we are not paying our fair share. I suggest that you cannot do that. But if there is a case to be made, if there is a case that the City of St. John's bears an unfair burden because there are certain facilities necessary in the Provincial capital, perhaps we should have a Provincial capital commission, as we have a National Capital Commission in Ottawa. Perhaps there is a case to be made that the Province, that the people of all of the Province, and every municipality through the Province or through whatever mechanism, should contribute to a Provincial capital fund, if there are facilities necessary here because of the Provincial Government being in the city.

I think the people of Newfoundland would accept that. But to get on with parochialism, saying that: you are using our streets, you are coming in here and working and going home. We also spend our money here. And I have heard it said that Mount Pearl has an unfair advantage because we have Donovans Industrial Park. I refer to my notes on the numbers. I think these are important numbers to bring forward.

The City of Mount Pearl has 14 per cent of this region by population. Fourteen per cent of the people in the region that we are talking about live in the City of Mount Pearl. The City of Mount Pearl collects 12 per cent of the industrial and commercial dollar. Fourteen per cent of the population we service, 12 per cent of the commercial and industrial dollar we collect.

The City of St. John's, on the other hand, services 57 per cent of the population of this region. And they collect 77 per cent of the commercial and industrial dollar.

Now, where is the fairness and balance? Where is the inequity? The City of Mount Pearl collects 2 per cent less commercial tax dollars then they have people to serve, the City of St. John's collects 20 per cent more. Very clearly the City of St. John's benefits by the economic impact of all of these people living and working and spending their money in the region.

I made mention the other day, the new American Hockey League franchise. The city is paying money to bring them here. I suspect the city will lose money on having that franchise in the City of St. John's. I am delighted to see it. It will do a great deal for the image, not only of St. John's, but of Newfoundland generally. It will give us tremendous exposure. The tourism potential is incredible from having that franchise here, these are dollars I believe well spent.

We welcome these people, we welcome tourists coming in from outside of Newfoundland. And yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I will wind up. I realize I am abusing (inaudible). We welcome tourists from outside of Newfoundland and yet we have 23,000 people on our doorstep who somehow are being somewhat of a burden on the City of St. John's because we come here - some of us come here - to work and to spend our money.

Now I did not want to get into those parochial arguments. But I can go on with them all day if we wish to debate those. I would prefer to stick to the basic question of democratic rights. The right to determine the municipal structure that is appropriate and desirable of the people of Mount Pearl or any other municipality in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. gentlemen opposite for giving me leave. And I will sit down, I will have another opportunity. Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, again, just for a few minutes, I would like the Member for Mount Pearl to get up and respond to a couple of questions that I have about the issue.

The first question is, that the City Council of Mount Pearl, represented here in the Gallery today, asked the 25,000 or so people in Mount Pearl to sign a petition to reject a Government proposal, what I would like to know is, what this Government proposal is that the citizens were asked to reject? What were they told the Government proposal was, and why was it put that way, if not to turn an information petition into an open, political petition that was, in fact, not giving information to Government but was purely anti-Government. I would really seriously like him to deal with that, because I think this is the only flaw in the petition, otherwise, everything was perfect and it was a superb job. But there is a flaw in that, obviously, all these people have been told about a Government proposal that I know nothing about. So I would like the Member to respond to that. That was the gist of one of my comments earlier, when I suspected there were political overtones in this. So, which Government proposal and when was it formulated, because I know nothing about it.

The second point is, I would like to ask the Member for Mount Pearl if he is now reacting in exactly the same way he reacted previous to Newtown becoming part of Mount Pearl. My understanding, at that time, was that there was a plebiscite taken in Newtown and the residents of Newtown did not want to become part of Mount Pearl, and yet they were added. I was wondering what the Member's position was at that point in time. Maybe my understanding of the events is incorrect, because obviously I was not closely tied to the situation and I was not there. It seems to me I remember there was a plebiscite and the residents of Newtown did not want to become part of Mount Pearl, and yet somehow they did. So, I would like him to react to that.

I really believe it is unfortunate that this issue has taken on narrow, political overtones. I think that is really unfortunate, because it is a very important issue, and one that is a serious issue for everybody concerned and will be dealt with shortly.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Member for Mount Pearl could deal with those two issues?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the hon. Member, and I will respond briefly.

His first question is: What is the Government proposal? That, indeed, Mr. Chairman, is the question. What is the Government proposal? That is the question. The problem here is that there has been so much said about what this Government may choose to do, that it is somewhat unclear. But the message came to us very clearly, through the Minister, in conversations with the Minister, in conversations with other Members opposite, through public statements made by hon. Members opposite, who have spoken out, two of the hon. Members opposite, two backbenchers, who have said they are not prepared to support forced amalgamation. There is enough information available, Mr. Chairman, to give the people of Mount Pearl and the rest of this Province concern, as to what indeed may be taking place.

We admit Government has total control of what they may bring forward next week, as the Premier tells us, by way of a resolution or legislation or whatever. Government has total control of what proposal they may bring forward. Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, if Government does not bring forward a proposal to amalgamate Mount Pearl with St. John's, I, for one, will be absolutely delighted.

AN HON. MEMBER: You reject that, then?

MR. WINDSOR: Reject what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Government's proposal.

MR. WINDSOR: I did not say that. What I have said very clearly, Mr. Speaker, let me be clear here, if the Government brings forward a proposal that does not force Mount Pearl to be amalgamated with St. John's, or anybody else against their will, then I will be delighted to say, well, maybe they did not propose to them. Maybe they were not going to do that. We have every reason in the world to believe that is, in fact, what this Government is proposing to do. The Government House Leader is quite correct, they have not laid that proposal on the table of the House. I accept that. I think I said in my petition, the proposal of the City of St. John's to create a supercity.

MR. BAKER: Reject this Government proposal.

MR. WINDSOR: Reject the Government proposal.

MR. BAKER: Which does not exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. Member would permit me to announce the questions for the Late Show?

The first question is, I am unsatisfied with the answer from the Premier on amalgamation. That is the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, and it was recorded on May 7, 1991.

The Member for Kilbride, I am unsatisfied with the answer of the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on the Agricultural task force.

And, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl is unsatisfied with the answer from the Premier on amalgamation.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the Government House Leader is saying, that the Government has not placed on the table of this House any resolution, or any proposal, but it is well known as to the concepts that are being considered, at least, by Government. We have reason to believe, from the Minister's words, and the Minister may wish to confirm or deny it, but from the Minister's words, privately and otherwise, that indeed there was a distinct possibility that an expanded urban core concept may be brought into this House of Assembly.

MR. BAKER: That is true.

MR. WINDSOR: The Government House Leader now confirms it, that there is reason to believe that it could be brought here, and that is what we are saying. We cannot wait until it is here. We know full well that the minute Government brings a proposal into the Chamber that proposal will go through, it will be approved, Government will use the majority.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. WINDSOR: I am sorry, I do not accept that. The Government House Leader shakes his head, and says, no, it will not automatically go through. That is totally out of character, I am afraid, with the past record of this Government. Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, once Government makes the decision on this issue and comes into this Chamber with a proposal, a resolution, legislation, however they wish to frame it, we may debate it for four days, five days, twenty days, or 100 days, but in the end the Government majority will rule. In the end it will rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you do about Newtown?

MR. WINDSOR: I will deal with Newtown in due course. So, I think the people of Mount Pearl have every reason to be concerned. You may try to deflect by saying it is political but I assure you it is not. I assure you there were very real concerns as expressed by 15,000 people today. What they were shocked at, Mr. Chairman, was they could not believe this Government would even consider it. They could not believe that this Government would consider forcing such amalgamation against the wishes of the people. That is the amazement that we met when we spoke with the people, but I think we had every right, and every responsibility, to assure them, and the Government House Leader has confirmed, that it is an option that is being considered. I think we had a responsibility to let this House, and this Government know, the wishes of the people on that issue before it is done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: I am not going to spend all day talking about words. The message is clear, Mr. Chairman. The words may not be as clear as the Government House would like but I am not going to spend all day arguing over words.

The hon. Member asked me about Newtown. I remember it very, very well. I was very much involved in it. The reason that we had a difficult with what is known as the Newtown area was because the Government of the day was tardy and refused to deal with it. It was simply an expansion area of Mount Pearl. The boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, the town of Mount Pearl as it was then, should have been expanded before the development started, and it was not. I could tell you why but that would be (Inaudible). Alright? I know full well why the boundaries were not expanded. The development was planned, a great master plan, the Mount Pearl - Newtown Government scheme plan in 1970 by Murray Jones and Associates of Toronto. I was the town engineer at the time and it was given to me as my bible. When I was hired that was my bible, that was the guide to development in Mount Pearl and it included all of the existing undeveloped area of Mount Pearl and all of the adjacent lands. There were two development schemes, the Mount Pearl Development scheme plan and the Mount Pearl - Newtown development scheme plan. Two of them went hand in hand and they were intertwined, but unfortunately part of the Newtown area became developed before the Government of the day was prepared to deal with the boundary issue and Dovonans, I say to my friends opposite, was part of it.1868.

The plebiscite was taken as I said because by the time it became an issue, from the time the Government was prepared to deal with it, there were 3,000 to 4,000 people living in Newtown and if I am not mistaken, the present Deputy Mayor was very vocal as a resident of Newtown, am I correct, at that time, I believe she was and there are other people. Many people who were at the meeting last night, in fact who were residents of so called Newtown, which was simply a neighbourhood and who at first, rejected the concept of being part of the Town of Mount Pearl -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - No, they were not. in public meeting. Eventually there was a plebiscite, eventually there was a plebiscite held in due course and the people accepted, they chose, the plebiscite was in favour of joining the Town of Mount Pearl. At that time neither the Government nor the Town of Mount Pearl was prepared to force those people, even though it made all kinds of sense and it was just simply because the Government of the day refused to expand the boundaries, no other reason and we did give them the choice and they joined by choice and are extremely happy they did so, now, obviously play very fully role in the city of Mount Pearl as they should and so I have no problem with that.

So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your indulgence and I will have another chance to speak, but some of my colleagues want to address this question as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Thank you -

AN HON. MEMBER: Finally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: You mean finally. I thought you were tired of hearing me on this subject.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: The Member for Mount Pearl and so many other people talked about the possibility that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - that the communities of this region may be put together being undemocratic; everybody knows that you cannot live in the kind of society we have today and do whatever you want, have whatever kind of community you want. In my own area of the region, Wedgewood Park has a mil rate of something like 6.5 compared to people who live in Pleasantville who have a mil rate of 11, so if you have a $100,000 home and you live in Pleasantville you have to pay municipal tax, if it is assessed at $100,000, you have to pay municipal tax of $1,100 a year; if you live in Wedgewood Park, you have to pay $650 a year.

Well if we are going to say that people can have their right, they have a democratic right to live wherever they want, then I suspect we could organize the people of Pleasantville to want to join Wedgewood Park, and the people of the other sections of St. John's, you have a plebiscite and ask them all where they want to live, then everybody will want to live in their own community and have a small tax rate, a small mil rate and we will find that there is not enough municipal revenue coming in to keep the St. John's region functioning. Now, who would expect to have that kind of system prevail? So how can you say that it is being undemocratic to try and bring in an equitable and fair system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Now there are - quite a standard of democracy you know - I mean we could talk about figures, the Member for Mount Pearl said that the city has 57 per cent of the population of the area, the north east Avalon, I suppose he was talking about, and collects 77 per cent of the commercial and industrial tax revenues in the area, but what he does not mention, is that, 87 per cent of the jobs provided in the area are provided in the city of St. John's, 86 per cent, 86 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Be sensible now; if you are going to debate, be sensible. Do not talk about silly things, but you know, the important thing that we have to remember -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - is that this Province is in a very difficult situation when it comes to financing -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - financing the provision of municipal services and the only way and I would urge people from rural Newfoundland to pay particular attention to this. The only way we are going to be able to continue providing services in the rest of the Province and throughout the Province, is if people pay a fair share of the burden in accordance with their ability to pay and in accordance with their capacity to pay and in accordance with the services they derive.

You know, we have different kinds of taxation in this Province, we have consumption taxes, income taxes, business taxes, municipal taxes, and various entities collect various amounts. But when it comes down to how the province really operates, there is one tax pot in this province, and the provincial Government determines how it is going to be collected and how it is going to be spent. And while lots of municipalities are allowed to set their own mil rates and collect as much money as they want themselves, most of them are dependent on contributions from the other levels of Government.

So we all have to look at the provincial tax situation if we are going to have a viable system in this Province. Now the personal tax we pay in accordance with our ability to pay. Consumption taxes we pay in accordance with how we consume, retail sales tax, GST and all that sort of thing. Municipal taxes are supposed to be allocated on the basis of services enjoyed and estimated on the basis of property assessment. So everybody who enjoys a same level of services in this Province should pay the same level of municipal taxation.

Now people in Mount Pearl enjoy the same level of municipal services as the people down in my district, but they do not pay the same level of taxation. They have an advantage because their mil rate is lower and they have an advantage because their assessments are lower.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). What is wrong with that?

MR. NOEL: As for their commercial assessments they pay half the mil rate of people in St. John's. This new Pearl Gate Shopping Centre that is being proposed will save $500,000 a year in taxes because it is located in Mount Pearl as opposed to St. John's. I do not know what the hon. Member is laughing about.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is laughing at you, boy. You do not know about Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: He should not be amused by his own ignorance.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know about Newfoundland, that is your problem!

MR. NOEL: You should not be amused by your own ignorance. You were speaking here a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it is to provide municipal services down in your district.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. NOEL: Well if we are going to have - this province is going to have the money to provide those services, they have to collect it from the people who are able to pay it. You say your people cannot pay it. Well who do you expect to pay it?

AN HON. MEMBER: You.

MR. NOEL: That is right! You expect the people of St. John's to pay it -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you - rich men.

MR. NOEL: - but we are already paying the highest level of taxes in the whole Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: By far.

MR. NOEL: - by far, as my friend here says. Now that has to be levelled out. That has to be equalled out, and this is a way of doing it, and this is a fair way of doing it. Now I do not say that you have to put the towns together, that amalgamation is the only way. If people think that we can work out some other system whereby everybody pays an equitable share of the taxes in accordance to the level of services received, then I would certainly look at supporting that and I am sure that a lot of other people would, but nobody else has suggested a very concrete proposal, and certainly not the people on the other side who have loaded this Province with the tremendous albatross of debt in order to buy themselves - in order to buy power in this province. They went out promising municipal services all throughout the province without putting the proper financing in place and now the whole province is in a bind, and we have to find the most equitable way out of it. This Government is probably going to propose one way for this region, and for gentlemen opposite who are not prepared to support what might be proposed, I hope that we will hear alternative options from them, and they certainly have not done it to date, and they have a responsibility to do so. They have a responsibility to the whole province because that is what we have to realize, we are not just talking about St. John's here.

The Member for Mount Pearl says that you have to be democratic, you have to let people do what they want. Well we are not going to have a province if we allow people to say, 'we don't want to pay taxes'. And if he is going to make the argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: If he is going to make the argument that the people of Mount Pearl should be allowed to retain the present system of Government then he is going to have to extend that argument to Wedgewood Park and say that people down in Wedgewood Park are going to have to be allowed to retain their present set up. If we are going to say to the people of Newfoundland that a little community like Wedgewood Park, which is entirely surrounded by another municipality and has half the tax rate, has to be allowed to continue to enjoy that benefit, if we say that around the Province, there is not going to be any money for the municipalities and the District of the Member for Grand Bank, to improve the services he wants improved there, but we have to say that. If we say it for Mount Pearl, if we say they have a right to have whatever kind of system they want, then we have to extend the same right to Wedgewood Park.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you want, a great big bureaucracy here in St. John's?

MR. NOEL: No, that is what you want, because you say we should have reached some sort of regional system. The Member for Kilbride, on the radio with me today, said, `What we should have is some sort of regional system of government that provides some of these services in the region and bills out the various municipalities.' Well, in order to do that, we will need another level of bureaucracy. He wants to create more expense. What we have to do is try and economize. We have to try to make the delivery of municipal services throughout the whole Province as efficient as possible. We have to keep expenses down to the extent we can, and you are not going to do that by creating another level of bureaucracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a few words to say, today, in the debate on the Estimates of the Executive Council, during which time we can talk about any policy of the Government, or proposed policy, or thought-of policy, or flicked-out policy, anything that we wish to talk about.

You know, Mr. Chairman, as I sit back and listen to the debate that has gone on and gone on and gone on and gone on for the last several weeks and months and, yes, indeed, years, the one thing I have noticed, particularly lately, is that, because of the incompetence of the Minister responsible and the Government, itself, in its dealing with this whole issue of amalgamation, is it has caused so much distress, I suppose, among people in our Province, in all parts of our Province, an awful lot of distress and anxiety and needless argument and debate. If only the Minister had acted more promptly or if the Government had dealt with the issue much more promptly!

Now, the President of Treasury Board made some reference, in speaking to a petition earlier, that Members on this side had been saying, first of all when this came up a couple of years ago, `Go slowly!'. He accused us of saying, `Go slowly!', when what we, in fact, said, was that they should proceed cautiously. That is what we said, not, `Go slowly!' - `Proceed cautiously!'. We also suggested that they should make sure that the public had input, had public hearings, and had feasibility studies. That is what we were arguing, but we never, ever, thought for a moment, that the process would come to a complete and utter halt. That is what has happened to this amalgamation process over the last two years. It has come to a complete halt, for all intents and purposes. After the Minister two years ago, started talking about his plans to ram amalgamation down the throats of people, the Premier had to come in publicly and try to save him by saying, `No, we will not ram it down the throats of people.' Then the Premier, in his own way, said, `What we will do, in an area where the people do not particularly want it, is, we will bring it to the Legislature.'

Now, you know, Mr. Chairman, he must think, and the Government must think, that the people are too green to burn, for anybody to think that that is not the same thing. You people think the people of Newfoundland are too green to burn. That is your problem.

Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the points put forward by Members opposite, the Member for Pleasantville who just spoke, I was thinking of the old saying, "There are none so blind, as those who will not see." He is one perfect example, a living example, Mr. Chairman, of that old adage, a living example of it. The apparent lack of understanding and knowledge of anything that happens outside the City of St. John's, is unbelievable, in rural Newfoundland, and particularly from a Member like the Member for Pleasantville, who, I suppose, made his living years ago trudging around rural parts of Newfoundland with his shoe bag over his back trying to sell his shoes and earn a living off the people in rural Newfoundland. They were fine then. Everything was hunky-dory then, Mr. Chairman. That is what is really amazing, the lack of understanding and knowledge.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear that?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, You should have heard what the councillor just said as he went out. I will not repeat it. Let the Member for Pleasantville hang himself. He is doing a marvellous job of it, Mr. Chairman.

Then, he gets up and speaks, Mr. Chairman, and threatens rural Newfoundland. He says, `Now, rural Newfoundland, you had better watch out, because we are on the move.' I mean, why do they not just bring everything into the City of St. John's? Why do they not bring it all in under one umbrella? That is what the Member for Pleasantville would like to have.

MR. NOEL: Don't be so foolish!

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is what you are espousing. What you are missing in this entire debate are the feelings and the rights that people have in the Province to determine where they want to live themselves, and how they want to live. That is what you are missing, and that is what your Government is missing. There is no feeling, no compassion, and no understanding among anybody in the Government, none of them. All they talk about, Mr. Chairman, is facts and figures, this tax and that tax.

MR. NOEL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: He just had a chance to speak. Why does he not let other people speak? We did not interrupt him.

MR. NOEL: The hon. Member is attributing inaccuracies to me. He is saying we are trying to bring everything to St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is quoting you.

MR. NOEL: He is not quoting me. What I am trying to do is help -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: The longer you keep talking the more of it you will take up yourself. Why do you not keep talking? You know what you are saying from your seat is not being heard. You do not want to get up on your feet and say things that people will hear, and that will go down on the record, because you will be embarrassed by what you are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a point of order.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, my point of order, is that what the Member is attributing to me -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would you let the hon. Member get to his point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Did I hear a bad word?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member pretends to be concerned that his time is being wasted, but, of course, he is trying to waste the time of everybody else and get through the clock before he has to continue in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would the hon. Member get to his point of order?

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point of order I wish to make is that, what I am trying to do is help bring about a system of taxation in this Province which will enable -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member has not convinced the Chair, at this point, that there is any point of order. The hon. Member is engaging in debate. I will give you twenty seconds to give me the reason for your point of order.

MR. NOEL: The point I am trying to make is I am proposing a system of municipal taxation -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member is not dealing with a point of order.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that the Member for Pleasantville has to resort to these silly tactics. Because a Member is getting to him and he cannot take the heat, he has to stand up and use three minutes of that Member's speaking time to try to make a silly point of order.

The Members have only ten minutes to speak in the debate and I was just getting rolling, just trying to make my point about the ignorance of the Member for Pleasantville about rural Newfoundland. There is nothing wrong with that point. All I said was that he is ignorant of rural Newfoundland, and his apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of rural Newfoundland came through and comes through time and time again in the Member's comments in debate.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that, and if he thinks it is an unfair accusation, do not get up on a point of order and take a Member's speaking time away from him - he only has ten minutes - get up in the debate again and say, `No, you are wrong about that because I know all about rural Newfoundland, I have compassion, I have understanding.' Prove to me that you have compassion and understanding, prove to me that one of the most important issues in this whole amalgamation debate is not the issue of people's right to decide what they would like to do. Tell me that is not an issue. That is what I detect from everything the Government says on the issue. They argue this tax, they argue that tax; the Member, himself, has been up time and time again, arguing about this figure, that figure and arguing with the Member for Mount Pearl about this, that and the other thing, and I am saying, all of that is parochial argument. What is important is if the people of Stephenville do not want to amalgamate with Kippins or vice versa, then they should not be forced into it, that is what I am saying, and that has been our position from day one.

In the case of Grand Falls-Windsor, for example, the Member would be aware, it took about fifteen years, at least fifteen years, of ongoing discussion and argument before the people of the two communities finally came together and a majority of the people, it was clear, agreed it was time to amalgamate.

But the approach being used by this Government is not like that at all; as my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, says, it is the hobnailed boot approach. You are going to do it whether you like it or not, that is what we are saying this Government is doing and that is what we are saying the Government is doing wrong. They should listen for a change, they should listen to the people. They should listen to the people. People have a right to be heard, people have a right to be listened to, but, people do not, should not expect their Government to ram things down their throats, simply because the Government says, We think this is right for you. That is not right, that is not fair; I do not think it is proper.

It is better to use other methods like consultation and discussion and if it takes three years or five years or seven years or eight years or ten years, sobeit, at least it will be done -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: - because people have compassion and understanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I did not get time to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, no leave?

MR. SIMMS: He used three or four minutes out of my speaking time, so I thought, on a point of order -

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is all included in the time.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER: It being close to 4:30, I guess we can now move into the Late Show.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

It was agreed that I would go first with this question, because the Premier will be here in a few minutes to answer the question for the Member for Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, one day this week - yesterday I guess it was - I asked the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture a question on the task force report on Agri-Foods, which was presented in this Province some time ago. It was a report that the farmers of this Province expected to plot a strategy for the next so many years, ten years, I guess, into what the agricultural industry could expect. And I know, last weekend out at Gander, the Minister attended - and I congratulate him for staying around at the meeting for quite so long, I know he is a busy man, but he stayed around with the producers and tried to get a good feeling on what they felt about the agricultural task force report. And I think he would agree with me that the assessment of that report by the farmers at the meeting, when they had a chance to question the Chairman of the agricultural task force, it would be safe to assume that some 60 or 70 per cent of that report, as far as the producers are concerned, should never be. It is wrong, they do not agree with it, and it is completely the wrong approach, as far as the producers are concerned.

I would have a tendency to agree with the producers. I would like to be able to agree with the task force report because it is trying to direct our industry to a market-driven agricultural industry. And that is great, it sounds very good. It is certainly a goal that you would like to see. Any person involved in business in this Province would like to see it. But, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural industry in this Province cannot be the first to do it. You have to start with the GATT negotiations which fell apart this year because of agricultural subsidies. The whole world trade deal fell apart because of agricultural subsidies. Then, when you get to Canada, you have subsidies, all different kinds of them, in all different provinces. So, for a task force report to start out with the premise that we have to direct ourselves to a market economy or a market-driven agricultural industry is impossible. Newfoundland cannot do it. The Newfoundland industry cannot do it first. It has to start from the top and filter down. It has to start, at least, across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when this report was tabled and the producers finally got a copy of it, and the Province did, and the producers were asked to assess it, the Federation of Agriculture did not take a position on it immediately. They wanted to hear what the producers said first before they took a rigid position on it. So, they got the report and held their meeting last weekend, and last weekend the question was asked of the Chairman: Was a financial implications report done, along with this task force report? Were there some facts and figures, dollars and cents, to show what the implications of this report would be on the industry?

And the Chairman said, yes, there was. And the farmers at the meeting said, `Well, how can we tell you what our comments are on this report if we only have half the report? It is not possible for us to do a proper assessment of the report until we get the full report.' That does not sound illogical to me. It sounds fairly sensible that if you want the farmers to give you the comments on a report that was prepared on their behalf, you would give them all the report so they could assess it. And, when the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture released his task force report on Agri-Foods, he should have released it all. I do not know what he is trying to hide. He would not answer the questions yesterday as to why he did not release it, and when I asked him if he would release it to this House, he tried to avoid the issue and said no. Well, he did not say yes or no, he just tried to dance around it.

I do not know how a government can expect an industry to assess a report that was done on behalf of that industry. These are the people who have to work with it, who have to try to get this agricultural report to work in this Province. If we are going to do any of these recommendations at all, certainly farmers would have to be the ones to assess it and make recommendations to the government committee that is looking into implementing the regulations. The producers are going to have to make more recommendations to them, but they do not have all the report.

Now I ask the President of Treasury Board on behalf of the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture if he will release it? If he does not want to release it publicly, at least release it to the Federation of Agriculture confidentially.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a few comments on the question put forth by the hon. Member for Kilbride to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture for a couple of reasons. First of all, for my own reason, because I represent an area - I always talk about the fishing industry in my particular area, but there are quite a number of farmers, very productive farmers, out from the Conception Bay area, and over the last three or four years since becoming involved in the political arena I have had occasion a number of times to have several meetings with those individuals. The one thing that was clearly expressed by the farmers in my area, and I have a lot of confidence in their ability to produce and make money and they have been at it for quite a long time, one particular gentleman from the community of Shearstown, has been involved in the farming industry for something like thirty-five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is one of the gentlemen, and a very productive individual who never came to Government for any subsidies or any handouts or whatever, and survived on his own, except sometimes he sought direction for some crown lands or whatever he could access. But apart from that, Mr. Speaker, they survived on their own ability to do so. The one thing that he always expressed to me in the past four or five years was that they could not always get the proper direction from Government they wanted, the proper studies and information that should be accessible to farmers within the Province, so that they can expand on their own in the farming industry, because we underestimate the farmers in this Province and what they can contribute towards the financial ability of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in providing food for the Province and possibly even exporting somewhat. We are talking in particular about what they can provide within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador themselves.

Now the recent report was just prepared, Mr. Speaker. There is nobody on this side of the House or anybody in the Province who said that everything in the report was perfect and everything is going to be followed, but it has set out a mandate that can happen, possibly not in 90-91 but in the future. We are not just looking at what is going to happen today. That is one of the reasons for the mistakes and the failures of the past administration. They never looked into the future for a decade or two to see if we could expand our ability in the farming industry in the Province. The one clear message that I have gotten, from not only the one particular farmer that I just spoke about, is that subsidies are not the answer that these people are looking for. They are looking for some direction in marketing, that is very clear. But subsidies are not the answer to every problem that we encounter on a day to day basis in trying to increase our productivity.

Now the Minister of Agriculture clearly explained to the hon. Member the other day that he did have a report on some of the implications of the costing in the direction of the report that was just submitted to the House of Assembly, but he also said very clearly that he did not have the chance and he was not ready to bring in that information until he had the officials of his department take a look at that particular costing report, compare it to and bring it in with the report of the Task Force and see if it is accurate. I mean you are not going to jump and force the issue and bring it in. Then the first thing the hon. Member opposite will be criticizing is why didn't you take your time? Why didn't you do a proper analysis of the costing of the report and then he would have an opportunity to get out and say that the Minister released it before he knew what he was talking about. Well I think the Minister of Agriculture made a very wise decision and a correct answer to the hon. Member when he said very clearly, when the officials of his department are ready to do a good and proper analysis of the report of the costing and he is ready to present it to the Minister and the Minister is satisfied that the report should be made available to the farmers in this Province, then he will do that. And we have to commend the Minister for making that decision and not rushing something like the former administration used to do many, many times, and that is the reason why the farmers in this Province in the 1990s are still without proper direction. But you do not make direction for just the year in which you are doing something, you make it for a future direction. If the hon. Member had the patience that the farmers of this Province had, then he would not be so upset in trying to make a political point. But I am sure we have the confidence in the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that when he is ready to release whatever information is necessary the farmers of this province will receive it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I think it was, I asked the Premier a question during Question Period relating to holding a plebiscite in Mount Pearl. We have made some progress this afternoon. The President of the Council has told us that Government is still unsure as to what resolution, if any, will come forward in this House, and I take him at this word. As I said earlier in debate, I would be delighted if we do not have a resolution that needed to be dealt with by the petitions that I brought in here today, but I say again, I had every reason in the world, and the people of Mount Pearl had every reason in the world, from the debates that have taken place over the last couple of weeks, and from conversations with the Minister and with other Members opposite, to deal with the very real possibility that such a resolution would come before the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he would indeed hold a plebiscite, should he be considering such a resolution, would he indeed hold a plebiscite in Mount Pearl to give the people of Mount Pearl an opportunity to have their voice heard, and to get a clear concise feeling from the people of Mount Pearl as to their wishes on any proposal that he might chose to bring forward? His answer, Mr. Speaker, is that he will not delegate the legal rights of this House to the citizens of Mount Pearl. I was not asking him, Mr. Speaker, to do that, but I would like to remind the Premier that the legal rights of this House were given to him by these people, by the people of this Province. This House only has the rights and privileges afforded to it by the people of this Province, and when the Government refuses to listen to those people, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed abusing the rights and privileges of the House, the rights and privileges given by those people. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all we are saying to the Premier, will he allow the people of Mount Pearl to have a voice? I mentioned earlier today of a similar referendum held last Sunday in Quebec, where the Government of Quebec was proposing to amalgamate the City of Hull, Gatineau, and Aymer. The Government of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, chose to hold a referendum with the clear understanding that unless all participants in that referendum chose to agree with the proposal it would not be put forward. In fact, it was not agreed. The voters of Hull agreed two to one in favour of the amalgamation, the people of Gatineau were two to one against, and the people of Aymer were almost three to one against the proposal. In fact 72 per cent of Aymer said, no, 65 per cent of Gatineau said no, and only 35 per cent of Hull said, no, and it did not proceed. It has been accepted that it is not the will of the people in these communities. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is the democratic approach to take. Why is that an acceptable democratic approach in Quebec, and in other parts of Canada? We have had examples before. The President of Treasury Board questioned me on the amalgamation of an area that was known as Newtown in Mount Pearl some time ago. That was done on the basis of a plebiscite and it was accepted by the people. It was not imposed on them. Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this Province, not only the people of Mount Pearl, the people of this Province generally reject the notion of any forced amalgamation of any kind. I spoke earlier, and the Premier was not here, of the very remote possibility that there may be in some instance a community that is clearly detrimental to the region, or to the Province, clearly a burden on other taxpayers of the Province. The Premier spoke sometime ago in this House and he said, perhaps, in that case we might consider coming to the House, but he also said, 'I think it highly unlikely that it would ever come before the House.' What he was telling us at that time, Mr. Speaker, was that clearly this would be an exception that we really cannot comprehend. We cannot foresee such an incidence taking place in this Province, that amalgamation would be unwanted by a municipality, but it would be so absolutely necessary for the Province, and for other municipalities in a neighbouring area, that that municipality would be such a burden, but clearly that is not the case here. Clearly, the City of Mount Pearl the most financially viable area in the Province is not a burden on the region or on neighbouring municipalities. It is very clearly so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier once again, if he would indeed consider a plebescite, if indeed he is going to bring such a resolution forward?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. Member and the rest of the Members of the House for the third time this week, the answer is no. We will not bring in provision for a separate plebiscite for Mount Pearl. And I will explain to the House why.

It is not the so-called democratic process that the hon. Member puts forward. Such a decision affects not only the people of Mount Pearl. A decision not to amalgamate St. John's and Mount Pearl affects the people of St. John's as well as the people of the Goulds and other parts of this area of the Province. So you cannot leave to a confined group the sole exclusive right to make a decision that may significantly, adversely affect the people in surrounding areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: So we will not bring forward - now, Mr. Speaker -

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

PREMIER WELLS: - the Member asked me to answer the question. I am quite prepared to do it. If the Member for Kilbride wants to take over the answering of the question, then that is okay. But not because I refuse to do it, but because he will not obey the rules of the House and allow me to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the explanation is very simple and it is one that is very sensitive to the democratic rights of everybody. Not just the democratic rights of a confined group of a special area. Any decision to amalgamate or not to amalgamate, or to amalgamate in a particular way affects all of the people in the area concerned. And it is most undemocratic to give each one an absolute veto over what is to happen. Because that, I believe, is very unfair. And we would not, for that reason, provide for a separate plebiscite for Mount Pearl.

If we are to bring in a proposal for a plebiscite it will be a proposal that will provide for a plebiscite in the total area concerned. If we are talking about St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Conception Bay South or whatever, it will be a plebiscite for the total area and the Government would consider that it would have to accept the will of the majority of the people in the area concerned. Otherwise it would be pointless to have it.

But we would not allow any particular segment of it to veto the operation of the whole. So the answer for the third time this week is no, we will not bring in provision for a separate plebiscite for Mount Pearl. That is not because we do not respect the democratic rights of the people of Mount Pearl, or because we do not have respect for fundamental democratic principles. That is because we accord to others the same democratic rights that we would accord to the people of Mount Pearl.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as painfully curious that the Premier would refuse to give the people of Mount Pearl the same democratic rights that he chose for himself and the people of Newfoundland in the Meech Lake Accord debate, when this Premier, Mr. Speaker, exercised a veto against the will over basically the rest of Canada. It was a vote that he had agreed to take, he put his signature to a piece of paper on national television, an agreement with all other Premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada to hold a free vote in this Legislature. My second question, Mr. Speaker, by the way, deals with both a plebiscite and the holding of a free vote on this issue.

Now the Premier thought it was just, at that point in time, that he could destroy the whole constitutional process in Canada by exercising a veto; it was fine for Newfoundland at that time, to control a veto over a constitutional amendment formula, Mr. Speaker, for all of Canada; he did not think it was right then to impose the will of a majority of Canadians on Newfoundlanders, yet, Mr. Speaker, he thinks now it is right to impose a majority view of people of this region on one municipality, and I speak not only of this region but of every region in this Province and all the amalgamation proposals that this Government has brought forward.

Is the Minister saying, Mr. Speaker, therefore, that should the people of Canada hold a referendum as to whether or not Labrador should take over Quebec and if the majority of Canadians think it is right that, that is acceptable to the Premier, is that the kind of democratic justice he is talking about or is it democratic justice only when it suits the Premier's purposes as we have seen so many times, Mr. Speaker, in this House.

The Premier's justice and his concept of justice seems to change with what seems to be in accordance with his wishes; if it is not in agreement with the Premier's wishes, then it cannot be just and I think we are seeing that once again.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what really amazed me here, was the Premier's answer last week when I asked him, or a couple of days ago when I asked him, if he would hold a free vote, should such a resolution come before the House, plebiscite or not, would he hold a free vote in this House, and he said he might, but I found that just amazing and I can say to the Premier, a number of his backbenchers found it amazing. I think up until that point in time, they were quite convinced that indeed there would be a free vote on this issue; many of them were quite taken back when the Premier gave them reason to believe that perhaps there was a possibility that there would not be a free vote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy here again and basic rights, the rights of his own Members to vote in accordance with their conscience; they too, Mr. Speaker, represent people in this Province; they were given not a right, but a privilege to sit in this Chamber and speak on behalf of the people that they represent, and that gives them the responsibility to speak according to their conscience, and the Premier, Mr. Speaker, may take that away from them, he may use the same approach he took in the Meech Lake debate here, when he refused to hold a vote. After sending fifty-two Members around this Province and spending $150,000 of taxpayers' money to determine the wishes of the people of the Province he refused to have the voice of the people of this Province heard. He is refusing, now, to hear the voice of the people of Mount Pearl, and he is even suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that he may refuse to hear the voice of his own backbenchers. That is the Premier's idea of democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the arguments I have heard coming from the hon. Member are no more valid, or no more accurate than his comments about Meech Lake in the plebiscite, and my position on that, and I will demonstrate to the House, why. His proposition is that I personally vetoed the whole of the rest of the people of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is true.

MR. WINDSOR: And you destroyed Canada in the process.

PREMIER WELLS: I personally vetoed all of the people of Canada, that is his proposition. I exercised the right to veto over the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Canada.

MR. WINDSOR: You refused to hold a vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is, this Government refused to be browbeaten and pressured by ten other First Ministers and acted in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Canada. Talk about plebiscites! Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to have the same kind of plebiscite for Canada that I am asking now for the people in this part of the Province. If we take a plebiscite, that is the kind it will be. I stood in this country, Mr. Speaker, and asked them to hold a national plebiscite. I said to them, if the majority of the people of Canada want it I will go to the people of Newfoundland and ask them to support it. That is what I did, not Newfoundland do it. Now, the Minister's comments about the Government's position on this is just as valid, just as accurate as his comments about the Government's position on Meech Lake, that is, it has no accuracy and no validity at all, none whatsoever.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you for calling me Minister.

PREMIER WELLS: The Member's comments.

MR. SIMMS: My God, he made a mistake.

PREMIER WELLS: If Members of this House are prepared to be honest with their constituents, and honest with the people of this Province, they will acknowledge, as will the hon. Member, that it was I who proposed a national referendum to decide, not a referendum in Newfoundland, but a national referendum. Let me tell them something else, Mr. Speaker, and remind them, that the resolution we brought before this House provided for a referendum in Newfoundland but to be overridden by the results of a national referendum. That is what it provided for. And the Member now stands in the House and says, He will not accord to the people of Mount Pearl the same rights he claimed for Newfoundland. I am doing exactly the same standard. Not the double standard that the hon. Member would have represented because it is his favourite part of the Province. I understand, he represents a portion of the City of Mount Pearl, and I understand that he gave Mount Pearl all sorts of preferential treatment when he was in government. I understand that.

We do not operate on that basis, Mr. Speaker, we operate on the basis of providing fair and balanced treatment for all parts of the Province, and we intend to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And I say in the presence of the Mayor and a number of the councillors of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, that we will not give St. John's, alone, the right to decide, Mount Pearl, alone, the right to decide, Conception Bay South, alone, the right to decide, we will provide for everybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - having an equal and fair say in determining the final solution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the other part of the hon. Member's commentary. It was not as much a question as it was a commentary, about a free vote in the House. I urge all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, to wait until the Government brings in its proposal, and if they do not like it or they think it is wrong, they can speak against it. They can campaign against it, organize demonstrations against it, solicit petitions against it, vote against it, they can do anything they want. But I made a commitment two years ago to the people of this Province that we intend to honour. The commitment was this, that we would not sit in the Cabinet room and make these decisions in secret. If we were going to require the amalgamation of any communities in this Province, we would bring the proposal before this House of Assembly to have the decision made here.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if there was amalgamation agreed upon, it was not necessary. Where there was consent you could do as we did in the case of Grand Falls-Windsor, where the people of Grand Falls-Windsor came together and recognized the great merit of amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: After fifteen years of discussion.

PREMIER WELLS: Not after fifteen years of discussion, after years of persuasive presentation and fair understanding by this Government, which they never had from the former government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite do not like the degree of success that we have had with a number of amalgamations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Premier's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Do you want me to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. Members to wait until the Government makes its final decision on the issue. I say to you quite frankly, we have considered all sorts of proposals. Everybody knows there was a proposal for a supercity for the whole north east avalon, a single supercity, and I tell hon. Members we considered that and considered the pros and cons of it. We considered the wishes of people to live in a more rural setting in some parts and not to be related to the cities, Mount Pearl or St. John's, and we considered that and that is a factor of it. We considered the additional cost that is incurred all in this area for seventeen separate municipalities. We considered how we took into account the fact that the water system is a single water system for the majority of the municipalities, not all of them, but the majority of the municipalities. We considered the fact that for the moment, at least, the fire fighting services are provided by a single system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, I will not be very long. We considered all of these proposals, Mr. Speaker, and we also considered as to how it is best to handle it. We are still considering it and there is some fine tuning that we have yet to do. Now in the next few days -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: In the next few days, Mr. Speaker, we will bring our proposal before the House. It may require the amalgamation of a major group of municipalities, it may not. It may require three or four separate amalgamations. It may require a variety of other things, and it may provide for a different procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Can we have an agreement to stop the clock at 5:00?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is a new experience for me. Normally the Members opposite are trying to stop me from speaking, and I am going to savour this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I am going to savour this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Members will know two things, what the Government is bringing before this House and asking the House or suggesting that the House accept, and the second thing that they will know is the process that the Government intends to follow. When the Minister stands in his place and a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I must have made a Cabinet shuffle and forgot about it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: When the Minister stands in his place on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, whenever he does it, and it will be some time very soon, he will explain to the House exactly what the Government is proposing to the House for consideration, and the process that we intend to use to deal with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about the free vote?

PREMIER WELLS: That will be announced then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I remind hon. Members and the press that in the House tonight at 7:00 p.m. the Department of Justice will have its estimates thoroughly examined, I suppose. And I believe in the Colonial Building, Municipal and Provincial Affairs is still scheduled?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BAKER: There have been no changes recently? Good. So there are two committee meetings tonight. Tomorrow morning Members will be pleased to note, I am sure, that we will be leaving the estimates of the Executive Council - it is a sad moment for me, but I am sure Members will be very pleased with it - moving on to the public service pension plan and perhaps the loan bill, depending on how things go. So that is the legislative plans for tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.