May 21, 1991                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLI  No. 53


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were for the Minister of Health, but in his absence, I will direct them to the President of Treasury Board. The President of Treasury Board will no doubt be aware that over this past weekend, two psychiatrists, Dr. John Angel and Dr. Sheila Lynch, went to the trouble of placing notices in the weekend papers to inform the public that they cannot accept any new references to their practice because of work overload created, they say, by Government cutbacks in the health care system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of Treasury Board, Does the Minister know if other doctors practising in other speciality areas have informed referring physicians that they cannot take new patients or that they must limit referrals because of the exodus of specialists from the Province? Have Government been informed by other speciality practitioners that this is a major problem?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health could give a more succinct and complete answer than I can give, however, I will attempt to answer the question.

First of all, the psychiatrists' problem, my understanding is, goes back six or seven years, and during the last five or six years there have been nine who have left the Province. I do not know how that can be blamed on the cutbacks that took place in April. Also, there has been increasing demand on that particular practice, I think it was indicated on the radio this morning, over the past year or so, so they reached the point where they cannot take any more patients. I cannot answer the question as to their motivation for placing the ad. It has been something that has been ongoing for quite a number of years.

As to the question about other specialists, to my knowledge, there are two specialists, I believe one of them has left and one is leaving. One is a specialist who has been here for one year and intended to leave at the end of the year. He did not even buy any furniture for his apartment. He left. There is another who has been looking around for a couple of years and I believe is planning to leave. These are the only two that I know of; but there have been no official notifications to Government.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board would like to spread this problem out over a five or six year period. Let me ask the Minister this: Will the Minister confirm that six psychiatrists, nearly 20 per cent of the total number of psychiatrists in the Province, have left the Province in the past nine months, not five or six years, but nine months?

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

MR. BAKER: This is the 21st of May. I believe the cutbacks were announced in March, and the details of the funding announced in March, so I do not know how many have left in the last six months. I will certainly check it out. I would be very interested, myself, in finding out. I will certainly check it out and get back to the hon. member.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board should be aware of the ad that was in the paper. It said that six psychiatrists, 20 per cent of the total number practising in the Province have left over the last nine months. Now, I ask the Minister if he and the Government are concerned about that, particularly in view of the fact that the demand for psychiatric services in the Province have increased dramatically, so those professionals say, over the last twelve months, and if there is a concern what plan does the Government have to try to stop this exodus and, hopefully, attract those speciality people, or some in that category, back to the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Government is concerned about a lot of things that are happening, and one of them is the fact that this Province, outside of St. John's, cannot attract a level of specialist care that we would like to have. We are very concerned about that and we are always looking at ways of improving the distribution in the Province with the help of the Medical Association. This is an ongoing problem.

Mr. Speaker, there could, I suppose, be many solutions, but one thing we are not going to do is guarantee people that they can make $500,000 a year. We are a Province that has limited money. There is capping of the amount of money from Medicare coming into this Province. We have a limited amount of money and we simply cannot pay extremely high, exorbitant amounts of money to any professionals in the Province. It is as simple as that. The Government cannot afford it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Health on the same subject as just addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. Last week, the Director of Communications for the Newfoundland Medical Association said, and I quote, `The Association is very concerned about the exodus of health professionals - doctors, nurses, and other professionals - from this Province,' end quote. Has the Newfoundland Medical Association discussed its concerns with the Minister? Has the Association reported to the Minister the number of doctors and other health professionals who have left already, or who are planning to leave the Province? Finally, does the Minister know what health or medical services have been hurt by the exodus of health personnel?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all the questions is yes. I meet with the Newfoundland Medical Association very, very regularly. How many doctors, psychiatrists, the whole scale have left the Province because of the cutbacks? Not a single one, Mr. Speaker, not a single one.

Now the Newfoundland Medical Association suggested to me that in their opinion the cutbacks might result in this happening. My question was how many have left to date? - not a single one to their knowledge. Now doctors and nurses and other professionals have been leaving this Province, Mr. Speaker, for the past 500 years. Are they leaving because of cuts? - there is no way of knowing. Some of them may, indeed, have left because of the fiscal problems, but there is no proof either by the Department of Health or the Newfoundland Medical Association to say that is the reason. One of the people who was supposed to have left because of the cutbacks has family in Ontario and has been planning to move for the past three years and finally got a recall in place so he goes up to a more lucrative service even than before the fiscal problems.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is passing strange that the Newfoundland Medical Association issued a statement expressing their serious concern about the exodus of health personnel. My next question has to do with one of the Minister's health restraint measures, the capping of payments for MCP claims. The effect, it seems, is that doctors are not being fully paid for the work they are doing. Some doctors are saying that out of a five day work week they are only being compensated for four days. Has the Minister been told that doctors may react to this capping by limiting their practice either to reduce their work time or to reduce the number of patients they see in proportion to the reduction in compensation. Has the Minister determined what impact such action by doctors might have on the provision of health care to patients.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to be paid four days for working five is absolute silliness, pure hogwash. There is no truth to it whatsoever. I cannot think of words despicable enough to describe anyone who would raise that in this House because there is no basis at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts will show that there have been some doctors who have gotten, I think, up to ten per cent, I believe, the last time, but it fluctuates from pay period to pay period. At one time it was 3 point something but it has not gone above 10, I think. The highest they have gone is 10 per cent, and it looks like the next one which is coming up this month is going back to 3 point something, however, Mr. Speaker, in fairness I will say that we did not factor in normal utilization increases and the Department is presently looking at that; normally utilization will increase by four per cent every year, this has been going on, but we did not make any allowance for that, so we are looking at that. However, there have been periods over the last few weeks when utilization has gone up and down, and the Newfoundland Medical Association and the Department of Health are trying to ascertain what is driving up that utilization; one suggestion is that it might be the meningococcus scare, but we do not believe that is the whole reason, there might be some other reason which we are trying to look at.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. My question had to do with doctors re-acting to the MCP cap by cutting back in their provision of services by seeing fewer patients or by working less time; does the Minister have any reason to believe that doctors are cutting back or are intending to cut back in such a way?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have absolute, total faith in the doctors who are operating in this Province, and if a patient has to be seen, those doctors will see those patients. I do not believe for one moment that there is a single doctor in this Province or in the country, who would refuse a patient who requires to be seen.

Now, some doctors may decide in the patient's interest that the blood pressure test can wait an extra week but that is a decision which the doctors are making, however, I am quite satisfied that the level of care which is being provided by the doctors is quite adequate, and I want to go on record as complimenting the doctors, Mr. Speaker, who are doing such an excellent job.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The Minister is proposing to create an enlarged City of St. John's and he has told this House that he sees the structure as being more cost effective, that the city can operate some of the regional services on a more cost-efficient basis.

The Minister is proposing also, as part of that, to transfer to the City of St. John's the regional water supply system at Bay Bulls which serves most of the region. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the operating cost of that regional system will not change because the City of St. John's takes it over, all of the services now provided by St. John's Metropolitan Area Board will still have to be provided.

Would the Minister like to tell us: where does he see the efficiencies and what will be the rate for water charged after this system is transferred to the City of St. John's? Will it be the same as it is now, or will it be reduced because of these efficiencies he is talking about?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question which is very difficult to answer because, until we put in place a transition team comprised of officials of my Department and staff of the municipalities, to facilitate the transfer if you like, of these assets over to the City of St. John's and have them look at the costing of the various services, such as he mentioned, water and fire and so on, it is very difficult to determine obviously, what the costs are going to be.

But I would agree, I would think that the cost would remain substantially the same; there will be some efficiencies there, obviously we will not have a board in between the Government and the municipalities as we have right now, and I would think that there will be economies of scale, particularly with regards to staff, because we can use obviously, just one, the staff at City Hall which is presently in place, with the addition I would think of some staff who are in place now with the Metro Board, particularly the engineers and the expertise that is available at the water site itself. So I think there will be savings but that all has to be looked at as we go through the transition phase.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that it will require just as many people to operate that system in the future after it is transferred as it does now. What is incredible here is that the Minister does not know what the cost will be. The reason he does not know is because no feasibility studies have been undertaken, and that is a weakness with this whole thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Let me ask the Minister one very clear, concise question. If this should take place, once the City of St. John's has complete control of the regional system, will there be one rate charged throughout the region? Will every municipality pay the same? Will Paradise pay the same as St. John's? Will Conception Bay South pay the same as St. John's? Will Mount Pearl pay the same as St. John's? Will there be one rate applicable to every municipality throughout the system?

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

MR. GULLAGE: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, at present is that St. John's and Mount Pearl - just to use two of the users of Bay Bulls as examples - pay exactly the same water rates. Whether or not all communities would pay the same rates is again something that will have to be determined after we know, after resolutions hopefully passed through the House, and after we know the makeup and the partners, if you like, in that particular system. And who will be sharing the water or fire or whatever the service happens to be.

We do not presently have the same rates for fire service, for example. They use other factors besides a per capita assessment. They look at the distance away from stations, they look at the service that is being supplied in the area, the distance between houses. And there is a rural aspect to the charge as well as an urban aspect. Water may have some similar criteria, I do not know, because we would have to put that together when we know the players, when we know who the communities are sharing in the service. Right now though, the communities of St. John's and Mount Pearl, being both urban communities completely and substantially developed, have similar water charges. Now, whether that same or a similar charge would apply to other communities accessing the Bay Bulls supply is something that will have to be determined.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister we know the players and we know the cost. The cost to the City of St. John's was zero for the regional system because it was built by the Province and it serves all the municipalities in the region at the moment.

Let me ask the Minister this question, Mr. Speaker: The Windsor Lake water supply is now and has been owned by the City of St. John's, that will now form part of the regional system, and we know that water from the Windsor Lake supply is cheaper than from the regional supply because it was developed so many years ago, will that now be blended into the overall cost charged in the region? In other words, will all the municipalities now benefit from the total cost of water throughout the whole region or will we have two classes of citizens; St. John's buying cheap water from Windsor Lake and selling more expensive water to the rest of the municipalities?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I would think all the services that are being used on a regional basis would be costed out on a fair and equitable basis when we determine who the users of the system are going to be. We do in fact now have only St. John's and Wedgewood Park using the Windsor Lake source. But whether or not that cheaper rate will be spread over the entire region is something that will have to be assessed and I will have to seek advice on that before I can even consider arbitrating if, in fact, that difficulty arises. That is something that will have to be looked at again when we enter into the transition phase and we decide how best to cost-share and allocate those charges.

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

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

I find it incredible that the Minister has not thought through this policy. We do not have to look at the various costs or anything else. We are talking a policy and a principle here. Will the benefits of regional services go to only St. John's or will they accrue to every municipality in the region? Is it all the other municipalities sharing with St. John's, and St. John's not sharing with the rest. Which is it? Simple and straightforward!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is making light of a very difficult and complicated question. We have a water system that is presently being, or will be, shared by a lot of municipalities that has to be sorted out in terms of jurisdiction, and who will pay a particular rate given the usage and distance from the water system and charges already for that are in place because infrastructure was put there years ago. It is a very complicated, detailed question. No different than the fire department where we have stations that have been paid for, equipment put in place, and all of that has to be looked at in the transition phase, whether it be the water system or the fire department or garbage disposal. All those questions are very complicated and just cannot be answered by a straightforward yes-or-no answer. It is impossible to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Justice. On Friday past I asked the Premier a question concerning transportation of a prisoner from Her Majesty's Penitentiary to the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. And the Premier said, and I quote from Hansard: "And I understand that there was a special leave for him to go home because of a personal matter at home or for some reason, health reason." That is the quotation from the Premier.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if that is a correct statement by the Premier.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the person was in fact on a leave, so the Premier's statement was not incorrect. Thank you.

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

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

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, what I said was the individual to whom I suspect - without using the person's name - that the hon. Member refers was on a leave. So the Premier's statement was not incorrect or, to put it another way, it was correct.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, if that be the case, why did that prisoner go to the correctional centre where he is at the present time, and has not gone home, for the reason that the Premier has given?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The individual in question was incarcerated on February 27 of this year at the Labrador Correctional Institute. On April 7 of this year he was transferred to Her Majesty's Penitentiary because of an ear ailment. On the date that the hon. Member sat next to the individual on the aircraft - which I believe was May 15 - he was being transferred back to Happy Valley - Goose Bay to the correctional centre there, because his treatment had ceased. So he still has six weeks to serve in his sentence, and I believe is due to be released in late June, I think it is June 27 of this year.

I do not really know if that explains it, but the reason he did not go home was he is still within our custody and is being transferred between. And that is his special leave. He was given permission to travel -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister to table in this House as early as possible the number of prisoners that have been transferred from the Stephenville Correctional Centre to St. John's for similar reasons; from the Botwood Correctional Centre for similar reasons; from the Clarenville Correctional Centre for similar reasons; by other means than being escorted by security guards.

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

MR. DICKS: I do not know if the Member understands the idea of leave, but there are individuals in our community, on any given day approximately twenty to thirty, within our correctional system who get day passes to attend correctional institutes, to attend community colleges, to do work in the community, to visit doctors, and things like that. The matter that is in question is whether or not the individuals form any sort of hazard to the community. The fact is that in many cases they do not, and that part of the rehabilitative aspects of running a penitential system is you try and help individuals come back into society, so there are any number of individuals on any given day that are given leave to be in the community. We also allow them, from time to time, to transfer between facilities without escort if they are considered not to be a risk. That is still considered within the norms, and it is a common practice not only in Newfoundland but also in Canada.

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

MR. WARREN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister of Justice undertake to advise both the Canadian Airlines, and also Air Nova, who travel from St. John's to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and to Labrador West, would he advise those companies to at least advise passengers who are travelling on those airlines that there are prisoners on those airlines who are not escorted back to the penitentiary in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, with no offence, the hon. Member is not doing a service to either the community or to the people who are unfortunate to find themselves in trouble with the law, by making such a request. I think that people commonly know there are any number of individuals at liberty at any particular time, on parole, or on probation, who are being transferred, or who are just on day release. If the hon. Member objects to the practice he probably has the minority vote of one. I think most people recognize the benefit of having individuals who are in trouble with society being able to learn how to function again as members of society. So, if I will undertake to advise the airlines, no, nor will I undertake to advise any person that somebody they are sitting next to in a bus, or in a community college, might be a prisoner. I think if we do that we may as well brand red 'Ps' on their forehead or something like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make to the hon. Member is that I will not do so because I think that would interfere with the possible rehabilitation of people, and I do not think his comment, or question, is well directed.

Thank you.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have a question for the Premier. On April 19 the Premier confirmed to this House that an assessment had been undertaken by the Public Service Commission to determine the validity of allegations that one of the campaign workers, or one of the staff of the Minister of Social Services, had given questions to a campaign worker of his while applying for a job. The Premier told the House on May 3 that he did not know whether the enquiry had been completed. Will the Premier tell the House today if the investigation has been completed, and if so has he or his Minister received a copy of the report from the Public Service Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister responsible has been advised that it is not yet complete. I do not know why. It seems to be taking an inordinate length of time. I do not disagree with the hon. Member's comments in that regard. I would have expected that it would have been completed and submitted long before this, but I understand from a discussion last week with the Minister that we can expect it shortly. I would hope before much longer, but it is not yet ready.

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

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

The Premier should know that if the allegation turns out to be true it is a very serious matter and the integrity of the Public Service Commission and the Public Service hiring process, I guess, would be brought under repute, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier is aware of any other instances where the Public Service Commission has had to investigate allegations where a job applicant has had an unfair advantage over other applicants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know, Mr. Speaker; if it were of consequence, I could ask them to find out, if there is anything in the records. I do not see that it is of particular consequence. I also do not know that there is any validity to the allegations, they are simply political allegations at this moment. Whether or not there is any validity to them yet remains to be seen, so I would caution all members against jumping to irrational conclusions at this stage.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the Premier that these are not political allegations; it was a member of the public who brought this to public attention.

The Premier may or may not recall that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, in an article in the Tuesday, September 14 Evening Telegram, was noted as saying, one other instance where the Commissioner determined that a candidate in competition for a Government position had an unfair advantage over others, was reported. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission has already said that there was one other instance.

Mr. Speaker, in light of this revelation, is not the Premier concerned about the impartiality of the Public Service Commission? Would the Premier consider the fact that the Public Service Commission, this time, has to investigate itself? Would he provide, or consider providing, an independent investigator if these allegations happen to be correct? And, would he report to this House on the other instance which the Chairman of the Public Service Commission has already reported?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the other instance to which he is referring is an instance relating to the Sheriff's Office, when the Sheriff's secretary typed up some questions that were suitable to ask any applicants that the Sheriff (inaudible), and she subsequently applied for the job. So, that was how that happened. I am not aware of any other instance, and I think that is the item to which the Chairman may be referring. I know of no basis to wildly set in place a judicial inquiry or other inquiry into the operation of the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I think the suggestion the hon. member has made is utter nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, again I would caution Members not to jump to unfounded conclusions, merely because political allegations have been made which have not been established to have any validity as yet. It may well be that they will be established to have some validity. If, as and when they are so established, then the appropriate action will be taken, but we are not going to run through barrel hoops, at this stage, merely because the hon. Member wants to create some political difficulty.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I tried to check out the other instance, and the reason I asked the Premier the question was that I could not find any information on what the instance was. Obviously, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, for some reason or other, did not want to speak of it. Mr. Speaker, personally, I would be concerned if the Sheriff in our Province were having people who are applying for a job, type up the questions on it. That, in itself, is a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting to the Premier that a public inquiry be set up, I am just asking, since this allegation appears to be correct, would it not be more advisable to have some type of private investigator put in place, Mr. Speaker, so the Public Service does not have to investigate itself?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is crazy.

MR. TOBIN: Why is it crazy?

MR. R. AYLWARD: It would be beneficial to the Public Service not to be investigating themselves, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can pursue it further, but to the best of my knowledge, it was a relatively innocent accident that caused the other one. I cannot vouch for it absolutely, but if it is of significance, I will undertake to find out the full detail. To the best of my knowledge, what occurred was, there was a position becoming available in the Sheriff's office and the Sheriff was asked to provide advice on the kinds of questions that should be asked. So the Sheriff dictated, to his secretary, a letter providing the information and it went off to the Commission. When the invitations to apply for the job went out the Sheriff's secretary applied. He did not know she was going to apply. She typed up his questions; Who else would he ask but his secretary? When it was discovered that she applied for the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Just listen now. When it was discovered that she applied for the job, the competition was called off so there was no unfair advantage given to anybody.

I do not think ill of people. Some people always think the worst of people, because that is their nature. I do not think ill of people, I operate on the assumption that most people operate on the basis of fairness and balance and decency and so on. So, I assume this was a simple accident. I am not prepared to attribute ill motives to anybody unless there is some reason to do so and partisan politics, in my judgement, is not an adequate reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the gentleman from Kilbride asked some questions concerning The Local Preference Act and, as I pointed out to him, they were hypothetical questions. I would just like to enter into the record, now, what actually did happen.

One of the questions he asked was, Were we abandoning the principle of local preference? Well, I can assure the hon. gentleman, no, we are actually trying to enforce The Local Preference Act much more than it ever was over the last seventeen years. We are trying to correct some of the inequities that crept into it and we will have that done shortly. So, we have recognized the problems that are there.

I will give him the details of the question he asked concerning the printing of a report. As he is aware, The Public Tendering Act falls under my department, so, when a client of my department, any government agency or department, requests that something go to public tender, they come and give the specifications to the people in public tendering and they go ahead and draw up the tender. But we were advised on April 17 that the Hughes Commission Report would be available for printing on May 1 and the people in the Hughes Commission wanted it available for May 16. We were also advised that the Government were going to submit this report on May 30, so it would have to be printed. We went back and told the people in the Hughes Commission there was no way, we could go to public tender on this particular case because of the shortness of the order, so the only thing we could do was to go out for quotes.

Now by going for quotes meant that we were outside The Public Tendering Act and it was an exception to The Public Tendering Act and provincial preference states that where a government-funded body invites tenders under The Public Tendering Act, the Government-funded body shall determine, in accordance with the Act, the preferred bidder. Tenders, as defined in The Public Tendering Act, 1984, means a call for tender by a written public advertisement. Since quotes were obtained rather than tenders advertised, The Provincial Preference Act does not apply.

We received quotes from the following people: Robinson Blackmore for $48,466; Dicks and Company, $39,362; Newfoundland Herald, $35,540; and Hawk Duplicating, $33,070. Hawk Duplicating subsequently withdrew their tender and the tender was awarded to Newfoundland Herald for $35,540, and Dicks and Company was the next at $39,362. Now, that is what the hon. gentleman asked for, and I now table this.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act, 1973," carried. (Bill No. 30)

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

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, the debate was adjourned by the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday in debate and I think I had approximately - I just checked with the Table - eleven minutes left in the debate. I had some remarks prepared for response to a petition which I understood a certain Member of this House has to be presented on behalf of her constituents, but it looks like the -

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

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is acting the way he is; I never mentioned his name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Has the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island a petition? That is the question now; he re-acted, Mr. Speaker, but nobody mentioned his name.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder, I wonder.

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

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

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

MR. WALSH: Obviously, I have two or three, with gangling necks, looking at me for some reason or other. If I have a petition to present in this House of Assembly, when I receive it, the same day I will present it; so now, if you know that I am supposed to have something that I may not physically have in my hands yet, say it! But do not sit there with gangling necks, saying, I wonder, I wonder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) something in that. Nobody said you had a petition.

MR. TOBIN: I do not where he is coming from. I am very suspicious of the conduct of the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, very suspicious.

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

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the other day we were having some discussion on this piece of legislation, at which time we contended that the resolution before the House is illegal, that it does, indeed, contravene The Municipalities Act, that we have known for some time.

My time, Mr. Speaker, is probably not as long as I would like, to finish my debate. I have some very strong issues that I would like to get to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Basically, this resolution that is before the House is asking us, as Members of the Legislature, to provide a cover for what is, indeed, an illegal act.

Mr. Speaker, we are not passing a law with this piece of legislation, not rescinding existing legislation, not amending existing legislation. We are not doing any of that. What we have been asked is to do something that contravenes The Municipalities Act.

If the Government want to do this, if they want to bring in this mess that they are proposing, let them bring in legislation to rescind the existing provisions of The Municipalities Act and substitute new legislation which will enable them to proceed in a proper manner; that is what the Government must do, but they have not done that.

Mr. Speaker, there are some questions I would like the Minister to address, when he speaks to this piece of legislation, and I think it is important that the Minister listen to what is being said about it, because, it is obvious that he has listened to no one in the past two or three years, when it comes to the amalgamation issue.

I have some questions that I would like the Minister to consider: What is going to be the tax base for these new municipalities? The Minister confirmed, today, for my colleague from Mount Pearl, that he did not do what should have been done, in the first instance, that is, as outlined, now, in The Municipalities Act, Government must make a specific amalgamation proposal, publish the proposal in the affected communities, appoint a commissioner or commissioners to study the feasibility of Government's proposal and report to the Minister, who in turn, makes a recommendation to Cabinet.

What has happened here is that the amalgamation proposal in the resolution was not published, communities affected were not subject to a feasibility study, were not recommended by the commissioners appointed to conduct a feasibility study, and were not proposed by any municipality. So in answer to all of that and where the Minister has bungled in this, I would now like to ask him to tell us what is going to happen in these groupings.

What is the tax base going to be? What services are required and how costly are they to provide? Does the municipal unit include properties that can be developed as residential and industrial areas which can produce revenue to cover the cost of services or expansion of the services? Is it appropriate to include agricultural land within the boundaries of an urban municipality? Should urban municipalities be barred from revenue producing urban developments and agricultural land within its boundaries? Should municipalities be solely responsible for recreation and cultural facilities? What will be the effect on the Provincial policies and programmes in the area of culture and recreation if they depend on facilities controlled and financed exclusively by municipalities? What will happen to the arts, to theatre, to Provincial sports organizations, to education, to health, in respect to the general area of fitness? How will the policies of the Province mesh with the facilities and financial resources of municipalities?

What is the effect of these proposals on individual taxpayers? What is the effect of the ability of communities to finance municipal infrastructure and services? And what will be the effects of deficiencies in any of these areas of economic development in the Province? How will the Provincial economic development policies mesh with the capability of municipalities to maintain and develop necessary service systems and infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, the House has none of this information. We were told one day last week by the Premier that we had some general sense of how these things may be affected. Some general sense of how they may be affected is what the Premier said. I ask Members opposite and on this side, as it is a free vote: is that statement by the Premier and the statements today by the Minister in response to the question from my colleague for Mount Pearl good enough? Can any Member of the House honestly make an informed decision on the Minister's proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Can we? Based on what the Premier has said and what the Minister has told us. Now, I have listed a lot of questions that have been brought - these are questions by the way that I have asked people in certain municipalities about, and if they had the answers. No one seemed to have the answers to these questions. So we are asked to make a decision on something that will affect the way of life, the cultural aspect, the financial aspects, of individuals throughout this Province. And yet we do not have the answers, and Government has not provided us with the answers.

So when we have to stand in our place over the next number of days to make a decision on amalgamation we do not have the information to help us make it. Members of the House of Assembly have been told that they can have a free vote on this issue. What does a free vote mean? It means that Members can vote regardless of their political stripe or regardless of - as a matter of fact, my friend from Placentia East and myself from Placentia West could actually vote the same way. That is basically what we would be doing with a free vote. But neither myself nor the Member for Placentia East has the information that we need to make the decision on amalgamation. There is nobody in this House of Assembly - there is nobody on this side of the House of Assembly who has the information necessary to make the right decision. There is nobody going to vote on this resolution who will have the information necessary to make the decision. Whether they be on that side of the House or this side of the House. And I would say that that is wrong.

And I heard the other day, I was driving in one day last week and there was a caller to the open line programme. And they were wondering what would happen if the Federal Government decided to divvy up Canada into provinces in the same way that this Government has decided to bring in amalgamation, to force it upon people. And he said: what would happen if the Federal Government, even though the Constitutional aspect of it is one issue, decided that Atlantic Canada should be one province with the headquarters or the capital in Halifax? How would this Province react? I would say we would be violently opposed to anyone who does anything to destroy the way of life of us who have been living in this Province. Who have loved to live in this Province and this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs I know exactly what I am saying. Who knows - that is what we are saying here. I would say we would be violently opposed. So why should the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs be shocked by the fact that the people for example from the Goulds are opposed to this mess that he brought in.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the Member for Placentia is getting instructions on how to vote on this resolution the same as the Members who spoke against it the other day, such as the Member for Carbonear and others, who I have been told had been called to the Eighth Floor after their statements and stands, and told what to do. The same as the Member for Pleasantville is going to try and bring in, I would suggest, an amendment to this to include Mount Pearl to save face for the Liberal Members in the Party. That is what is going to happen, so they can save face. The Premier has orchestrated, may I suggest, or some of the Cabinet Ministers, have orchestrated a deal with the Member for Pleasantville to bring in a resolution that will allow the Members in St. John's to look at City Council and say I supported it, but at the same time ensure that the resolution passes excluding Mount Pearl. That is the game that is being played but I think the Government have been too smart by a half because the people can see through that, Mr. Speaker, the people will be able to see through that type of a system that is being invented by the Premier and by the Government. I do not think they will let it happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and in conclusion let me say to all Members opposite and on this side of the House, that when we vote on this piece of legislation consider that we are living -

MR. MURPHY: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's South does not want to give me the time to clue up then sobeit. But the City Council and the residents of St. John's know exactly where I was coming from.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is just incredible nobody opposite wants to speak. Do they not know that we are not just talking about the northeast Avalon region? This Government is setting the scene for amalgamations throughout this Province and setting the tone as to how they are going to do it, as to how they are going to do the amalgamations, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the message that is going across this Province from Government's resolution here is that this Government is prepared to force such legislation through the House of Assembly, democracy is no longer alive and well as it relates to municipalities in this Province. The message the Minister is giving municipalities is very clearly that they are pawns which he will use as he sees fit. He has no respect for the wishes of the people of the municipalities, has no respect for the spoken word of the elected representatives, has no respect for a very strong opposition to these moves coming from many of the municipalities in the area. He is very clearly showing that he is no longer representing municipalities. He is now only representing his own political will, nothing else. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, this proposal is based on raw politics and absolutely nothing else. There is no feasible basis for it. We have not even had a feasibility study done on this particular proposal.

The Minister gave his commissioners a number of options and said look at them. The commissioners looked at them and made recommendations. The recommendations did not include taking Wedgewood Park into St. John's, nor did it include decreasing the size of the City of Mount Pearl. In fact, it recommended increasing it. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the recommendations that the Minister is coming forward with, if you look at the Minister's proposal it is based on raw politics and raw politics alone. Only three districts essentially had municipalities disappear or greatly decrease. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, all three districts are represented by Members from this side of the House: the Member for Kilbride, the Member for St. John's East Extern, and myself. The only three, very hurriedly I suggest to the Premier last weekend, he juggled all of the pieces of the puzzle to try to come up with something that satisfied the various backbenchers. He could not satisfy all of them.

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

MR. WINDSOR: He could not satisfy all of them, but he satisfied some of them. He satisfied the Member for Mount Scio. Now let me say I congratulate the Member for Mount Scio who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say: I will not have something foisted on the people who I represent, against their will. I congratulate him and the Member for Carbonear who similarly spoke up. The Member for Mount Scio has come out of this very, very well.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, indeed you are. The overall result here is that you are a dictator and you have proven it very, very clearly. This piece of paper known as the Municipalities Act, Mr. Speaker, is not worth the paper it is written on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. WINDSOR: This Government has absolutely and totally ignored their own legislation. Now my friend just spoke out very, very well. My colleague from Burin - Placentia West just outlined very clearly that the proposal brought forward by the Minister is illegal. It is clearly illegal because there are clear requirements as to what must be done before boundaries of municipalities and cities can be changed. First of all the Minister must know that he is not only dealing with the Municipalities Act, he is also dealing with the City of St. John's Act and the City of Mount Pearl Act. Now I am lead to believe that there may not even be a section in the City of St. John's Act that allows him to do this.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, in the City of Mount Pearl Act it says that the Minister may make certain changes, but he can only do it under section 3 sub-section 2, 'subject to a feasibility study being conducted to establish and alter the boundaries of the City and amalgamate towns or communities with the City or annex areas to the City.' Under Section 5, and section 5 says: 'The Minister shall order the preparation of a feasibility report in the prescribed form prior to the making of a recommendation for an order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under section 3 and shall appoint a person to prepare a report. And the person conducting the feasibility report shall hold public hearings in relation to the preparation of the report.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, very clearly that is in relation to a specific proposal. So the Minister has to come forward with a specific proposal, refer it through that very proper feasibility study and public hearing process before he can even make a recommendation to the Lieutenant- Governor in Council. Now the Premier tries to defend the overall action by saying the House of Assembly is all powerful, the House of Assembly is here to make laws, I agree with that.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is a resolution.

MR. WINDSOR: This is a resolution, but in effect it becomes a law because it -

MR. RIDEOUT: It gets around the law.

MR. WINDSOR: It will have the effect of a law when it is passed and my friend the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, what it is doing is getting around the law, using the power of the House of Assembly to do what this Government cannot do legally. I say to the Government that what they are doing now is not legal either. They do have the right to do certain things, but under this Act, their own legislation, Mr. Speaker, under their own legislation they have acted. They have used a section of the Act which says: appoint a commissioner and do feasibility studies, and that commissioner did not recommend this. The House, through this piece of legislation and through the subsequent actions of this Government and the Minister in appointing that commissioner has given away any right they have just by passing the Act saying that this is the process that is required and it is required for good and valid reason, Mr. Speaker, so that the people of a municipality have some protection, that they know there has to be a rational basis. The feasibility of the proposal has to be proven and there has to be some public input so that everybody will have an opportunity. I did not bother to read all the sections in the Act but it outlines all the requirement for publishing notice in the Gazette that such action is to be taken, for formally notifying the council that such action is to be taken. All of that is designed to ensure that there is democracy. That municipalities have a right of self-determination. And that is what is being denied here.

That is why I say to all hon. Members who refused to stand in their place and be heard on this issue a moment ago, that you may not be directly involved, and that your district may not be involved in this particular issue but this Government is setting a scene. It is setting a mechanism which is contrary to the Act and contrary to the spirit of the Act. And I say to the Government that by initiating a public hearing process and just by having it in this Act you have said that here is how it should be. And yes, the Government and the House have the authority to change it, but they must first change it, they must first change the Act. If they wish to take the action they should have come in to this House with an amendment to the Municipalities Act, eliminating all the requirements for feasibility studies and public hearings, eliminating all of that. They did not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What they are trying to do is use the House to break the law and that is neither proper nor is it legal and we shall see in due course what is being done here today. Now, Mr. Speaker -

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

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

I would ask hon. Members to my left to restrain in their private conversations. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They may not like what they are hearing but it will be said, let me assure them. Now, let me say, let me be very clear, the Premier of the Province has misled the people of this Province. He has misled the people of this Province. He said in this House - and I have quoted it before and I will not bother to quote it again - but basically he made statements to the effect that no municipality will be amalgamated against their will. That is what he said first. And then he very quickly backed up, then he said: however, perchance there is a situation whereby not to amalgamate two communities against the will of one of them, if there are two or three that want to do it and one that does not, and if that adversely affects the rights and privileges of all the other municipalities, the region as a whole, and if that is to put an unfair burden on the other municipalities or the region as a whole, then this Government might come to the House of Assembly and ask the House to make a decision. Now that is what he said, very clearly, and his words are clear in Hansard.

And he also said: but I cannot foresee that ever taking place. In other words he was saying: that would be such an unusual exception, I cannot possibly foresee this ever taking place, it cannot happen - not likely. I will say that such a rare occasion may possibly happen but I really do not envisage such a thing. In other words he is saying it would have to be such a blatant and obvious miscarriage of justice in order for the Government to take such action.

I do not think anyone would fault the Government for taking such action if it was clear that there was a blatant miscarriage of justice. But on what basis is this action therefore being taken? What miscarriage of justice are we talking about here? On the basis of what feasibility studies is that miscarriage of justice evident? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no miscarriage of justice, nor is there a feasibility study carried out on this proposal that could even remotely indicate a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, just the opposite is true. The Minister did appoint commissioners to consider various proposals, and those commissioners, without going into the details of all the various options, those commissioners, for example, suggested that Wedgewood Park should be left alone. In other words the feasibility study that has been carried out by the commissioners, and on the basis of public meetings and public hearings, the Minister's own commissioners have recommended to him, and through him to the Government and to this House, that Wedgewood Park should be allowed to stay as it is. In other words those commissioners decided that not only is it not unfair, but that Wedgewood Park is looking after itself quite nicely, thank you, and does not represent a burden on either neighbouring municipalities or the region as a whole, and the same, Mr. Speaker, can be said, and it is true, as it relates to the proposal to change boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl. The proposal to remove the Southlands from the city, Mr. Speaker, was never even considered. The first discussion of such a proposal was when the Minister's resolution was brought before this House. Never has such a proposal been looked at by the commissioners, or any feasibility studies, or public hearings. Indeed, again, those same commissioners, Mr. Speaker, recommended that the City of Mount Pearl should be allowed to expand and to take in part of Paradise, Conception Bay South, St. Thomas, and certain other areas, Evergreen Village and the Greenwood subdivision. Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not indicate that Mount Pearl is a burden as proposed by the commissioners. Clearly there is no great miscarriage of justice here and I will go into some lengths in a moment to outline how the City of Mount Pearl pays its own way. But clearly there is no miscarriage of justice here, and clearly, Mr. Speaker, the commissioners have not even examined the concept of removing the Southlands from the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, how does this Minister justify, not only not accepting the recommendations of the commissioners, but going directly opposed to the recommendation of the commissioners? On the basis of which feasibility study does he do this, when his own Act clearly requires a feasibility study be undertaken before the Minister can even make such a recommendation? Mr. Speaker, this is so far from any notion of justice as to be absolutely incredible. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, there can be absolutely no motive other than crass politics, the most blatant form of political interference in municipal government that this Province has ever seen, the greatest miscarriage of justice on people and on their right to self determination at the municipal level, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely incredible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what would happen to hon. Members opposite who represent districts outside of the northeast Avalon if this Government was to say to them, that we are going to ask the House of Assembly to force certain amalgamations? I wonder how the Member for Exploits would feel if Bishop Falls were forced to amalgamate with Botwood, or Botwood was forced to amalgamate with Grand Falls, or if Peterview was forced to amalgamate with Botwood against their view? How would the Members feel about that, Mr. Speaker? How would the Member for Lewisporte feel if little Burnt Bay and Embree were forced to be part of Lewisporte against their wishes, and Brown's Arm, and Campbellton, and all the other communities in the region? How would the Member for Lewisporte feel? Well, he would not say anything because he does not say much about his district down there. He got his fingers burnt in the last municipal by-election, too. We will hear more about that in due course.

Mr. Speaker, how would the Members feel about that, though, because that is what we are talking about here? We are not talking about just the northeast Avalon. We are talking about the basic principle of democracy in municipal government in this Province. This Minister has now said that the Municipal Affairs Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of Corner Brook Act and the City of St. John's Act no longer apply. This Government will do as it sees fit.

The Minister tries to rationalize this by saying: well, regional services will be more efficient. We discussed that briefly during the Question Period today, as to how much more efficient it might be. Why would the Minister not obtain any such regional efficiencies that may be available - and there may well be areas where certain regional services could be provided to the northeast Avalon more efficiently on a regional basis. But the Minister has a mechanism for it. There was a mechanism in the Municipalities Act as passed in 1979 and recently the Minister introduced a new Act which basically provided an Act to develop regional governments in the Province. It really did not accomplish very much except remove the requirement for public hearings, so now he can do it without public hearings. Must have feasibility studies with some public input but he does not require public hearings any more. And that is all that the regional services bill did.

And that Minister not too many months ago forced that piece of legislation through this hon. House, using closure. This Government felt so strongly about the need for regional services and regional cooperation, and they continuously during the debate referred to the northeast Avalon region as their example. And obviously it is a prime example in this Province where regional servicing is required. Within a short period of time thereafter how can this Minister justify totally ignoring his regional services legislation? If he could come in to this House with a clear conscience and try to justify that legislation to this House only a month or two ago, how can he come in to this same House now and justify absolutely and totally ignoring that legislation?

Now that legislation provided a mechanism as well for sharing of these services. It provided a mechanism that gave every municipality that took advantage of these services an opportunity to have input at the management level, to decide how those services would be provided and to have some influence on the cost of those services. It made all kinds of sense. It was in the Municipalities Act. The Minister chose to pick it out and change it slightly. But he made almost no changes to it except to give him more absolute authority. We should have seen, I guess, then, the stage was set. I spoke in that debate and I abhorred the fact that the Minister was taking for himself more absolute authority in creating regional services boards. But what we are seeing here is ten-fold worse. The Minister is not only taking for himself, he is now imposing a regional authority without representation from any of the member municipalities. Any of the municipal authorities now that will be purchasing services from the regional authority, none of them will have any input any more. They are now subservient to the City of St. John's.

Now let me say it is time that this Minister stopped acting like a city councillor and began acting as a Minister of the Crown responsible for all municipalities in this Province. It is time he started treating them all equally. He had very clearly and blatantly discriminated against every municipality in his region in favour of the City of St. John's. I do not know how long it was after he was Minister before he resigned as a councillor down there. I do not know if that has ever been heard of before in the democratic system. He was so reluctant to resign his seat as a city councillor that he actually was here a period of time as I recall acting as both the Minister and as a city councillor. Most unusual that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would actually take a seat in City Hall. Unusual indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Shannie?

MR. WINDSOR: She never sat in both. She resigned her seat here and ran for city council and she resigned her seat in city council before she ran for the House of Assembly. The honourable way to do it. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has exposed himself as representing the City of St. John's first and the people of the Province second. And he will now be suspect in any action that he takes in the future.

Now the regional services legislation would have provided for some representation on a regional services board. The Minister can say: well, we eliminated the board. Well, there is very little cost to the actual operation of the board itself, the Chairman and five or six or seven members. Very little, a nominal amount, negligible amount. But the staff at St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, for example, that is now operating the regional water supply system, I suspect will all need to be required. The Minister may, or the City of St. John's may, be able to make some minor cutting. There may be efficiencies that Metro Board should have done that the City of St. John's may be able to find. I do not know. I am told that Metro Board is reasonably efficient. But there may be a couple of positions out of - I do not know how many people are specifically designated to operate and maintain the regional water supply system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us about five minutes as to how you would propose it should be done (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So the Minister might be able to do that. But he cannot show any significant savings on that regional water supply system. They are not there. The cost of the personnel would not be a significant portion, it is a fairly capital intensive system. There is $35 million just went in, I think, (Inaudible) it was when it was built in the mid-seventies. There is probably more gone into that since in the expansion of it, it may be over $50 million now. And there is a major improvement or refurbishing of the treatment system at Bay Bulls Big Pond under way over the last number of months. And so there is more investment there. But I suspect that the Minister cannot show - he will not be able to show - any economies as a result of his action.

Now why then would the Minister not go with the regional services in this particular issue? Where is the free flow of information? And how will there be a free flow? Let's assume for the moment that the Minister's proposal will proceed. Let's assume that the City of St. John's will operate the regional water supply system. Now that in itself is not the end of the world as far as other municipalities are concerned, provided there is an opportunity for some input. Now I honestly believe that the regional system with representation on the board was by far the most democratic way of doing it. But let's assume that this Government will force through this House this resolution which changes that, how then will those municipalities that purchase service from the City of St. John's now operate in the regional system? What free flow of information will there be? What information will be available to the other municipalities so they can determine whether or not they are paying their fair share of the cost of those services?

What input will they have? Will there be a committee established from the staff of the City of St. John's? Will there be a committee of councillors to meet with other municipal councillors, committees from other councils, or from staff from other councils, to outline how they are determining the costs, to justify it? Will the books be open, in other words? Will the other municipalities have access to the actual costs? Will that information be made available to the other municipalities so that they can determine whether or not they are indeed receiving a fair billing? And what arbitration system will be established?

Now the Minister in debate on Friday, I think it was, indicated that he may look at the Public Utilities Board. Well let me ask the Minister directly now: will he use the Public Utilities Board, if we are to assume that this miscarriage of justice will go through, will the Minister at least assure the House that the Public Utilities Board will be available to either party that may be aggrieved? Will it be possible, for example, for Mount Pearl to apply to the Public Utilities Board and say: the City of St. John's is unfairly charging us for the water that we are using?

The Minister stopped short of telling me this afternoon that there would be one rate. The Minister talked about all kinds of differences in fire departments and everything else. Yes, there are differences in some things. But we have a regional water supply system that serves five or six municipalities in this region. There is no capital cost associated with it to any of the municipalities. It was all paid for by the Federal and Provincial Governments. That is being handed over to the City of St. John's and it does not take too much intelligence to know that when you are handed $35 million or $50 million worth of infrastructure that there is a real benefit to the overall financial stability of the City of St. John's. Their net worth has increased by that much, their strength in the financial market has increased tremendously, because this huge asset with no capital debt has been transferred to it.

So there is a distinct benefit to the City of St. John's. Well, the basis of this is that it is not democratic. Absolutely and totally non-democratic. There is no mechanism here to assure that the rights of the participating municipalities are looked after. Certainly the mechanism being used to institute this action is absolutely and totally undemocratic. No one can justify such action being forced on municipalities. And we on this side, and me personally, very, very strongly, oppose anything that is against the wishes of municipalities.

I will recognize that there may be - as the Premier indicated several months ago, and we took him at his word - a most unusual and abnormal circumstance where the House may wish to correct an injustice, an inequity. But I suggest that that is not the case here now.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by my friend for St. John's East Extern, the following amendment:

That Motion number 4 be amended by adding before the phrase, "AND THE HOUSE FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the timing of the consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and administrative details be set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council," the following words, and I quote: "AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT prior to any such changes taking effect, that feasibility studies, public hearings and a plebiscite be held in each municipality affected and that these changes would only take effect in each municipality on the basis of recommendations coming from the feasibility studies, and with the approval of at least 50 per cent of the persons that cast a ballot in the plebiscite held in that municipality."

I have a copy for the hon. Government House Leader and no doubt he will wish to see it. There are several copies there for the desk.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will wait until Your Honour rules that that resolution is indeed in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will confer with the Clerk.

The House will recess for a few moments as I have a look at the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has conferred with the Clerks and indicates that the amendment is in order, as per our Standing Order No. 36.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, speaking to the amendment: I thank Your Honour for your ruling and, of course, the motion is in order. It does not change the resolution, it simply lays down certain procedures which must be followed before the resolution can be put into effect, and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life of me, believe that any hon. members opposite would vote against it, because the procedures I have laid down in the amendment are precisely those procedures embodied in The Municipalities Act and in The Regional Services Act.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, these are the procedures that this House and this Government and previous Governments have accepted as being a rational, fair, democratic way of determining whether such changes shall take place. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how any hon. member opposite can vote against feasibility studies, public hearings and plebiscites taking place before this goes into effect.

MR. RIDEOUT: That crowd can do anything.

MR. WINDSOR: To vote against this amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be, very clearly, voting against democracy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the time I have remaining to me, I would like to deal with certain details of the proposal, specifically, as it relates to the City of Mount Pearl.

First of all, I do not think that anyone in this hon. House on either side, will disagree that Mount Pearl is one of the most successful and efficient municipalities in the Province, one of the most successful and efficient municipalities in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What I find amazing, therefore, is why this Government would seek to take away from that municipality its future, and that is what this Government has done, it has stolen Mount Pearl's future. Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude from that, that this Government is very deliberately and directly attempting to destroy the City of Mount Pearl and all it stands for.

What other rationale would this Government have for example, for making the Southlands part of the City of St. John's? Now, Mr. Speaker, I challenged the Minister on that. When he introduced his resolution, he said it made sense. What sense can it possibly make, to take an area of land that is slated for urban development, that is in no way connected with the existing urban development of the City of St. John's, nor can it ever be - between the urban development of the City of St. John's, even the expanded area, even including the Goulds and all of that area out to the southeast, that the City of St. John's could develop, let us assume all of that was to proceed as the Minister has proposed - even with that, there is no physical connection between this development, some 2,500 building lots in the Southlands with the City of St. John's, except through the agricultural zone and the watershed.

It is just like saying to my friend from Harbour Grace, we are going to amalgamate Harbour Grace and Victoria, and we are going to leave Carbonear in the middle, that is an exact comparison, it is precisely what we are saying; or, we are going to say to my friend from Placentia, we are going to amalgamate Placentia and Dunville, but we will leave Jerseyside and Freshwater in-between. Now, how much sense does that make, Mr. Speaker, and on what basis? Surely, there can be no feasibility study that the Minister could even remotely - and I could say to my friend from Exploits, we will amalgamate Botwood and Grand Falls, but we will leave Bishop's Falls in-between. It would be just as foolish as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want us to include Mount Pearl and make sense out of it.

MR. WINDSOR: You wanted to include it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you want us to.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I do not want to include it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. WINDSOR: I am asking the Minister what basis does he have: (a) for justifying putting Southlands with St. John's, at all; (b) and even more importantly, for taking Southlands away from Mount Pearl. Surely, an undeveloped piece of land cannot be a great financial burden on the Province, it cannot be a great financial burden on the region, it cannot be a great financial burden on the City of St. John's. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, of what the City of St. John's motives are. The City of St. John's wants Mount Pearl. A few weeks ago we were listening to the Mayor and the councillors from the City of St. John's, and hon. Members opposite, saying, `We have to have this great expanded urban core, St. John's, Mount Pearl and all these other things.' Well, the Government came in with St. John's, and all these other things, and left Mount Pearl out, and now everybody is crying, `Foul! Foul! This is terrible!' In other words, what we wanted was Mount Pearl.

The Mayor of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, in an open letter to all Members of the House of Assembly, circulated during the weekend, says, `Failure to include Mount Pearl places a disproportionate burden on the taxpayers of the amalgamated city, and, indeed, on all municipalities in the Province. Why? Because it will force the new city to compete with other municipalities for increasingly scarce Government funding to finance additional municipal infrastructure needs.' So what is she saying? - You have to give us Mount Pearl so that the taxpayers of Mount Pearl can finance the infrastructure in the Goulds - that is what she is saying. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that is the motive behind all of this. I mean, the Mayor should know that kind of infrastructure is done with a loan through the Department of Municipal Affairs and paid back over a period of time. That is not what she wants, though. She does not want to borrow the money, she wants to get what she perceives is a great nest egg from Mount Pearl and pay for it up front very quickly. She refers to Mount Pearl as a municipal enclave. What an insult! Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute and a direct insult from the Mayor of St. John's, against the people of Mount Pearl, a city of some 25,000 people - now we are a municipal enclave!

Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen have talked about Mount Pearl now being totally surrounded. We are only surrounded perceptually, because of this undeveloped piece of land known as the Southlands. You see, if the Southlands were left with Mount Pearl, as it should be, as a natural expansion on the planned ongoing development of the Mount Pearl - Newtown Development Scheme Plan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Goulds.

MR. WINDSOR: No, not the Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. WINDSOR: If it were left as it was, the orderly development - Mount Pearl can only develop as far as the agricultural zone and the watershed. We are then bound by the agricultural zone and the watershed, a good natural buffer between the City of Mount Pearl and any other municipalities, interfering with no one. And it does not really make a great deal of difference that all of those peripheral areas now, the agricultural land and the watersheds, would be deemed to be a part of the City of St. John's, because no development is going to take place, anyway. No development will take place in those areas, anyway, because they are restricted to agricultural usage, and they are protected for watershed purposes.

So, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that really takes away from Mount Pearl is the loss of their future development. That is the only thing that says, `Mount Pearl, you are now surrounded'. St. John's butted on Mount Pearl on two sides before and Paradise butts on one side with St. Anne's Industrial Park. So the only area that was not bound, basically, was the southwest side, which is represented by the Southlands. And the City of Mount Pearl had requested that the Southlands simply be expanded by about 30 per cent to get us out to Cochrane Pond, to the agricultural zone, in other words, that metropolitan area land that is slated for some future development as part of the Southlands, to get us to Cochrane Pond so the city can proceed with the plan that they had to develop a municipal water park using Cochrane Pond, and that, essentially, would have been the limits of development of the City of Mount Pearl. That is where it would have stopped. And I and the Mayor of Mount Pearl, in the twenty-odd years that we have been representing that city at one level or another, have never asked that the City of Mount Pearl expand beyond that. Indeed, when the Minister and the commissioner suggested that Mount Pearl should take in part of Paradise and St. Thomas and some other areas there, our response was: `if those people wish it. We are not out asking those people to come in, but, if those people wish to be part of the City of Mount Pearl, and if it is deemed to be in the best interest of those people and the region as a whole, the City of Mount Pearl is prepared to co-operate, and we would welcome those people into the City.' But it was not something that we actively pursued. We agreed with it, in trying to be fair and reasonable and to take some responsibility within the region.

The question is: If feasibility studies are required under the Act, under any one of these Acts, before any changes are made to the municipal boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, where is the feasibility of taking from Mount Pearl its growth for the next fifteen years? We are now restricted, Mr. Speaker, to growth of about seven years. At the present level of growth, we are looking at about seven, maybe ten years, because perhaps some of these peripheral areas will not develop quickly. We are averaging around 210 housing units per year. But perhaps we will not get that rate of development in in-filling, the same rate as we would have had we proceeded with the Southlands development. The next couple of years, we still have the balance of Admiralty Wood and Westminster to develop, but the balance will be in-filling, basically, on Topsail Road, some small sub-divisions that can be built there, and a few building lots that are still available. And we have some small area available for expansion.

The interesting thing is that we had a municipality, as I said, that was the most successful municipality in this Province and, in fact, I will say, one of the most successful municipalities in Canada. It had been built well. It had been financed well, thanks to the Federal-Provincial partnership -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander.

MR. WINDSOR: - as was Gander, as was Cowan Heights. I hear all of this `Oh, Mount Pearl only survived because they have a housing corporation in there developing all of the new areas.' Well, what is the difference between that and Cowan Heights? What is the difference between Donovans Industrial Park and the O'Leary Avenue Industrial Park? - absolutely no difference, whatsoever. No favouritism was given to the City of Mount Pearl.

So you had your most successful municipality, the fourth largest municipality in the region, the fourth largest, Pouch Cove, larger simply because it has a large boundary, Torbay, the City of St. John's, of course, and Conception Bay South, being a huge municipality. So what has happened to Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker? We are now the second smallest. Only Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove, another little enclave, was left, for whatever reason. If it does not make sense to leave Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, well, what rationale is there for leaving Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove? If Paradise can be so viable and we should allow it to grow by giving it St. Thomas and Evergreen Village and Elizabeth Park sub-division and parts of other areas around it, if that should be allowed to grow - and that makes sense - how do you justify taking your most successful municipality and decreasing it by 40 per cent, stealing its future growth? How do you justify it?

Somebody gave me what I thought was a prime example. You know, whenever anybody gets ahead in Newfoundland they seem to get dragged down. I have seen it in business. Whenever a businessman becomes successful, everybody will go around saying he is a crook. The most successful businessman in this Province, who has made tremendous contributions to the economy and to the social life of this Province, people looked at him and said: `He is a crook, boy, he has made millions of dollars.' They cannot believe that anybody can do anything honestly and fairly on their own strength. Somebody gave me this example: They said, `We were having a lobster boil the other day,' and they had two pots there, Mr. Speaker, one had a cover on it and one did not. The guy said, `How come you have one lobster pot covered and the other lobster pot not covered?' He said, `The one with the cover on it, those are Nova Scotia lobsters, and the ones in the other pot are Newfoundland lobsters.' He said, `Well, what is the difference between them?' He said, `Boy, Nova Scotia lobsters are alive. If we did not have a top on them, they would jump out. But the Newfoundland lobsters, if one of them tries to jump out, another fellow is going to pull him back.' Now, how much truth is in that, Mr. Speaker?

That is exactly what is happening here. The City of Mount Pearl was getting ahead, and we see jealousy coming from everywhere, and, so, we are going to be pulled back. So now, Mr. Speaker, we are to become subservient to the City of St. John's. All the municipalities in this region are now subservient to the City of St. John's, and the Minister tells me, he does not know what mechanism will be put in place, yet, to protect the rights of other municipalities. He does not know what arbitration procedure will be put in place. He does not even know the basic policy that will apply in apportioning costs of regional services to the various municipalities, Mr. Speaker. He does not know! He does not know, Mr. Speaker, because he has not carried out feasibility studies, and he has not complied with his own Act, with the legislation in place in this Province. He is coming to this House and trying to get around the law.

The Minister stands and says, `Oh, yes, but the City of St. John's will be fair.' The most audacity I have ever heard in my life was the Mayor of St John's coming out and saying, `Well, we are going to have all kinds of bickering from these municipalities, now.' Well, just the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker, if one wants to look at what has taken place over the years. I remember when I was Town Engineer in Mount Pearl, in 1973, we were in dispute with the City of St. John's, because, at that time, Mount Pearl got its water supply from St. John's. We purchased water from the City of St. John's at an agreed rate, to be controlled by the Minister. The Minister was the arbitrator at that time, under the Act, and that was not unreasonable. The City of St. John's were billing us for, what we figured to be, three times the amount of water that we could physically be using.

I undertook a study in the whole town, as it was then, to determine if there were any large leaks, because I gave them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps we were losing a lot of water somewhere. We spent a fair bit of time and money and determined there were no leaks. Finally, I convinced somebody - because the city controlled the meter and we did not have control of it - that we should have a study done on the meter. We found out, Mr. Speaker, that, first of all, the meter was reading in U.S. gallons and we were being charged Imperial, or vise versa. At any rate, that automatically put 20 per cent on it. Then the meter was in error by something like 50 per cent. I was right, the city was charging us 30 per cent more.

I recall being in the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or in the board room of the Department of Municipal Affairs, with the Mayor, at the time, Mayor Wyatt, the city councillors, who were there at the time, and the Deputy Minister, Mr. Keeping, who later became City Manager in Corner Brook. He was the Deputy Minister at the time. I do not recall who the Minister was. I believe it would have been the Hon. Mr. Earle. I am not sure if the Minister, himself, was there. I think the Deputy Minister had to represent him, as the Minister was called away. I remember sitting around the table in the board room and laying down the basis of my analysis of the Town of Mount Pearl, what it could possibly be using, and showing that we had to be using three times that much. They finally had to admit, `Yes, we found an error.' That was after years of arguing, years of public bickering, and the City of St. John's saying, `The Town of Mount Pearl will not pay their water bill.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a similar situation going today. I heard city councillors, last week, and, in fact, I do not know but I heard an hon. member opposite, last week, saying, `Mount Pearl will not pay for the use of Robin Hood Bay.' Well, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a couple of very brief facts. I know I am running out of time, unless hon. gentlemen are going to grant me leave after. I would like another bit of time, but anyway, Mr. Speaker, the City of Mount Pearl paid for the use of Robin Hood Bay, up to, and including, 1984, in 1983 we paid for it, the city then proposed an increase. Now, a reasonable increase, Mr. Speaker, we could live with, but the city proposed a 77 per cent increase, so Mount Pearl went to them and said, how do you justify this 77 per cent increase? Would you please give us some numbers, give us some information, show us how you can say that the amount of garbage we are contributing to that dump should be increased to the tune of 77 per cent, the cost of putting that garbage there, so the city said we will go and look at it. We never heard from them, Mr. Speaker, until 1991. In 1991 they finally established a fee and that was on the basis of a candidate for city council who was unsuccessful and who realized that there was a lot of money outstanding. The city of Mount Pearl in the meantime had put into a trust fund every year the amount of money they estimated to be a legitimate cost. I think they put in more than they would normally have paid under the old rate. It was building up there. This candidate finally disclosed this so the city came rushing in and established a rate of $8.20 per metric ton and the City of Mount Pearl said, thank you, very much, and they are paying on the basis of $8.20 per metric ton. That was less than we were being charged before because the City of St. John's admitted they had been charging too much, and this was ten years after the fact, we have been charging you too much, so instead of saying, St. John's we want a rebate, St. John's said, no, no, no, you owe us what we said you owed us until now. We have not changed the rate until now so you owe us that. The City of Mount Pearl sent a cheque for $379,000 out to St. John's and they refused to take it. This is for what they owed them in the past. They refused to take it so the City of Mount Pearl said, well, fine, we will go with the $8.20, because they had said it should not have been that much before, we will prorate it a little bit, we will go with the $8.20 and we will offer you $424,881,18 which is $8.20. That is what it is costing in 1991. Mount Pearl is saying, good, charge us that, for the last eight years. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is doing the bickering and squabbling here? Where is the co-operation coming from the Mayor of St. John's on that one? If Mount Pearl ever pays one cent more than $424,000 the city council will hear from me and every other taxpayer because that is more than fair.

Bus service, Mr. Speaker. People say you are getting free bus service from the City of St. John's. Nonsense! For bus service in 1991 we paid $456,000. How is that calculated, Mr. Speaker? By taking the total miles, I think it is eight million miles Metrobus runs a year, and it cost about $8 million. These figures may not be accurate but they are representative, so it is about $1 per mile, or $1 per kilometre, and that is the overall cost of operating the bus, the garage, all the administration, the works, that is the overall cost, so about $1 per kilometre. Should Mount Pearl pay $1 per kilometre for every mile therefore that the Mount Pearl bus runs? No, $3.25, thank you very much, and to make it worse, Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl route was deemed to be from the Village Mall to Mount Pearl and back again so that there would be a connection made, and that anybody travelling there could take a transfer or pay to get on another bus the same as anybody else. No, that bus goes to Hotel Newfoundland and back again and we are charged for complete mileage down from Hotel Newfoundland and back in to Mount Pearl. Now, anybody can get on a bus at Hotel Newfoundland and go to the Village Mall and the people of Mount Pearl are subsidizing it. Now, there is your regional co-operation. When I ask the Minister what arbitration process will be put in place I do not think I am being unreasonable. I do not think that is unfair. And when I do not believe the Minister and I do not believe the Mayor when they tell me that the City of St. John's will be fair and reasonable and that you do not have to worry about it, they will treat you fairly, I do not believe I am being unreasonable. I have good reason to think that otherwise will be true.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Donovan's Industrial Park, how many times have I had that shoved down my throat, this great gift horse that the City of Mount Pearl has been given; what nonsense! Donovan's Industrial Park was always planned as part of that great overall development which included the Southlands, and the industrial area of Donovan's is deemed to be the industrial base for all of the City of Mount Pearl including the Southlands, all of that area, and what do we get, Mr. Speaker, right now?

Today, in 1991, the City of Mount Pearl gets $1.6 million in tax revenue from Donovan's Industrial Park, $1.6 million; the City of St. John's, from the Village Mall only, just from the Village Mall, and I would hazard a guess that maybe 60 per cent of every dollar that is spent in the Village Mall, comes from the people of Mount Pearl, but outside of that, St. John's gets $1.1 million, from the Village Mall. So this great gift horse of Donovan's Industrial Park, gives us $1.6 million and St. John's gets $1.1 million just from the Village Mall alone, so, Mr. Speaker, when the City of St. John's looks at Donovan's Industrial Park as being the great saviour, that is not the great saviour, it is the people of Mount Pearl they are looking at to be the great financial saviours, they want to increase tax rates.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of Mount Pearl will not object to increasing taxes in the City of Mount Pearl, if we are not paying our way, but, tell me where we are not paying our way. We are paying for regional water supply, we are paying for regional trunk sewers, we are paying for regional bus service, we are paying for regional fire protection far more than we should be, we are paying for the use of the regional dump at Robin Hood Bay, tell me where we are not paying our way? We will gladly pay it; give me a fair apportionment of the cost of those services to the people of Mount Pearl and there will not be one person in Mount Pearl who will object to increasing the tax levels to ensure that the people of Mount Pearl are paying their way, not one.

Show me any feasibility studies that tell me that the City of Mount Pearl and the people of Mount Pearl are a burden on the region, show me one feasibility study, give me one basis for which the City of Mount Pearl should not be left alone? Why, in fact, not only left alone, Mr. Speaker, why does not this Government hold it out as a model for every other municipality in the Province to follow, because it is by far the most efficient and effective municipality in this Province.

There can be only one basis, Mr. Speaker, for the action this Government has taken, nothing but raw politics; a very clear attack on the people of Mount Pearl -

MR. EFFORD: Are you saying you want to amalgamate it?

MR. WINDSOR: - I did not say that for a moment. Let that -

MR. EFFORD: What are you saying? If it is not to be (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not to be interrupted by that Member for Port de Grave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: You are something else (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am not chasing rabbit tracks now, as one great politician said, I have far greater things on my mind than the hon. Minister of Social Services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but straightforward politics on behalf of this Government; it is nothing more than a money grab on behalf of the City of St. John's. The Mayor of St. John's is going off crying in her beer because she got everything she wanted against this great political plum, this great financial plum in Mount Pearl -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: What is wrong with the Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there anything in Beauchesne you can use to stifle that?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's says: Mount Pearl is getting an unfair amount of the industrial and commercial tax base. I think I used these numbers last week but I would like to use them again.

The City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, has 57 per cent of the population of this region and it collects 76 per cent -

MR. MATTHEWS: Nastiness!

MR. WINDSOR: - of the commercial and industrial tax base, 19 per cent more, a higher percentage; Mount Pearl, on the other hand services 14 per cent of the population and collects only 12 per cent of the commercial and industrial tax base, 2 per cent less.

Now, I do not have a problem with the City of St. John's collecting more, as they say, there are many regional buildings in this city contributing towards the cost of operating the Capital City. I do not think that too many municipalities in this Province would object to contributing to some special fund for a provincial capital commission, if it could be justified that certain things are needed in the City of St. John's, because it is the provincial capital, and because we have international guests coming here on a regular basis. But I think 20 per cent more commercial industrial tax base than they are getting, than they are servicing people, is a pretty fair contribution. Where do they get all of that tax base? From servicing the whole Province, the people of every community in this Province, I think, almost without exception. Perhaps Labrador City and Wabush, a couple of communities in Labrador, may be an exception. Somehow, I would say even there, goods and services from St. John's are sold to those people. They do business with them, and the City of St. John's benefits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. WINDSOR: I am not going to get leave, I am sure, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible how they back away from the truth. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this whole fiasco, as it pertains to amalgamation, deals with my entire constituency, from Bauline right to MacDonald Drive, both urban and rural. Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss if I did not mention what is happening in that entire area.

I will start off with Bauline, Mr. Speaker, a very small community of about 500 people, sort of away from the rest of my constituency. They were serviced by metro board, and about three years ago, because of pressure exerted on me by people from the community, I sought the help of Government to make them a town, to incorporate them. Mr. Speaker, that was done because they were not receiving any services whatsoever from metro board, like many of the other areas that were serviced by metro board. The efficiency of metro board was always in doubt, in my mind, and in the minds of many other people like me.

Bauline was incorporated and became a town, and, Mr. Speaker, I had misgivings when that little town was incorporated, because to realize what happened down there, you would have to know specifically about the geographics of the area. Bauline is sort of out on its own. It has many people who work in St. John's, but the great majority of its peoples' incomes come from the fishery.

Mr Speaker, Bauline was left alone because Bauline really did not have time to prove if they could do it or not. During the time of the studies, it was recommended that Bauline go with Torbay, which I thought was a mistake at the time, and I think the same thing today, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a mistake, again, because of the geographics of it.

Mr. Speaker, I attended many meetings in Bauline, and they have problems with snowclearing, and they do not have any services, with the exception of a waterline that runs down from the top of the hill, which was financed by the previous Government, and which, since it was installed, the people there pay an annual rate which keeps that line in place and serviced.

Mr. Speaker, they have a major problem, because they only have about a kilometre of secondary roads, and to find someone to come in and put a piece of machinery in place in the wintertime is almost inconceivable. For a contractor to go down there very day, because of the distance, again is inconceivable. So they do have problems as it pertains to their snowclearing, and they also have major problems as it pertains to their water supply. But, Mr. Speaker, the Government saw fit to leave them alone and let them try to iron out their difficulties, and there are many there.

Mr. Speaker, we made several recommendations to Government, to give them some extra land to develop, but the Government, and I am not sure that they were not right in what they did, all the crown land or all the metro land outside of Bauline that stretches northeast towards Pouch Cove was given to the Town of Pouch Cove which I think perhaps could better service the area and better control the area because within there lies the provincial park and I think that Pouch Cove, being the larger community, and with the services close to it but not within about two kilometres, I think that if there are services to go in there I think they should come from Pouch Cove.

Pouch Cove also received in the Minister's statement some additional land as it pertains to the water source, which was always within the town boundaries of the Town of Flat Rock. And I do not disagree with Government there, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Government in saying that Pouch Cove should have that land so they can be responsible for the land surrounding their water source which is three island pond.

Mr. Speaker, in Flat Rock they were left alone and as I recommended and as all the people in the area recommended, in all the studies those communities were left alone, they were viable communities and there was not really any duplication of effort in any of those communities. They had their own snow clearing and the waste was on a per household basis, and each one had their own source of water. So the mil rate is six with no services. Mr. Speaker, Flat Rock did not think that there was anything really wrong with what Government did because Government did not do anything. But, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of discrepancies as it pertains to municipal infrastructure, not alone in Flat Rock, but through the whole district, but that would be left, Mr. Speaker, for another day.

In Torbay, Mr. Speaker, I would be less than truthful if I did not say that Torbay agreed with Torbay being left alone. Why shouldn't they, they are a viable community, perhaps one of the largest communities on the Avalon Peninsula and usually is a town that does well and the Government found themselves the common sense - the good sense to leave Torbay alone, to leave Torbay as it was, a very viable town.

Mr. Speaker, then we come to Middle Cove-Outer Cove-Logy Bay, again only a comparatively new town, a town with very little needs as it pertains to Government funding, very little if anything. I mean they do not have any services there, Mr. Speaker, as it pertains to water or sewer. But, Mr. Speaker, they lost what is known as Snow's Lane, and a portion of Snow's Lane on the left hand side of Snow's Lane which is agricultural. Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand the rational behind that because here is a rural town, the Town of Outer Cove-Middle Cove-Logy Bay and an urban centre like St. John's acquiring the agricultural land from that rural town, and eventually, I suppose, it will be developed. But on one hand this Government is saying that we should preserve and safeguard our agricultural areas, which I think there is some promise in, but again in the Goulds now I wonder what is going to happen down the road. But down on Snow's Lane, Mr. Speaker, what the Town of Outer Cove-Logy Bay-Middle Cove are saying is very simply that we were there to protect that agricultural area and will it protect it now because it has moved in with the City of St. John's?

I had three calls over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, from people from Snow's Lane who felt that they were being discriminated against, who felt that they did not want to be a part of the City of St. John's. I suppose you have to be realistic and truthful in saying that one of the reasons was the lesser cost, but they were prepared to go along with lesser costs because they were getting no services and people there had their septic tanks and were on large parcels of land. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything wrong with those people being left as they were. But apart from that Outer Cove-Middle Cove-Logy Bay were left alone and I think they are happy. They are happy at just being left to themselves to govern their own town, and I think in the end the Government showed common sense. They left that part of the northeast Avalon on its own. Mr. Speaker, then we come up to Wedgewood Park. The hon. Member for St. John's South does not understand, he is not a bad sort of fellow but his understanding is very limited as it pertains to the northeast Avalon. He lived in a part of St. John's but now he has move up the shore and, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they are going to keep him up there. I think he was turned out of St. John's, almost, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Harbour Main says they turned him out of Conception Bay, but be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member does not understand that Wedgewood Park was an improvement district. It had no council, no nothing in 1977, and that town grew because no one else wanted them. They wanted to organize themselves, no one else wanted them, so they had a rural improvement district, and that worked so well that they asked Government to make them a town, and when the Government did accede to their requests the Town of Wedgewood Park was formed. In 1977 the Town of Wedgewood Park went to the City of St. John's and asked to become part of the City of St. John's and the City of St. John's then refused, on the pretence at that particular time, I suppose you would not call it a pretence, because I suppose it was actual fact, that they would be a liability to the City of St. John's. That was in 1977. Then a group of people from that area had the initiative to go and get a group together and form a council to make that community viable, make that town, as the commissioner's report suggested, a model community. But, what happened, Mr. Speaker? When Wedgewood park encouraged development, development did not just happen, it was encouraged by the council in Wedgewood Park, people were brought to the area. Entrepreneurs were brought to the area and told how viable this community would be in the future and how their businesses could expand, and what a nice place it was to start a business, that the future was bright. People took the council up on it, saying, if this is the way it is going to be, and if council is showing us that there is a future here for our investment, then this is where we will invest. Now, Mr. Speaker, seeing they are taking in some money from these investments, from the people who went there and formulated what we have in Wedgewood Park today, now every one wants to take them over. They are out there with open arms saying Wedgewood Park should be part of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, Wedgewood Park, if nothing else, perhaps to look at it geographically, Wedgewood Park should be part of St. John's. I cannot argue that, or no one can, but, Mr. Speaker, it is a viable town within the boundaries of St. John's. So what? What difference does that make? When you go into Wedgewood Park you find a group of happy people, content, and satisfied, happy with what they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not broke so they have to be fixed.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member is right, there is nothing broken so they are going to fix something. There is nothing broken there. Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the hon. Members on the other side. The feeling I got from Government when they were espousing to this amalgamation deal was, here we had two level playing grounds, two level fields, we had Mount Pearl and Wedgewood Park, and then we had this sort of mound up in the middle, a pedestal sort of. Here were the two towns paying comparatively less than the town in the centre, and that was not fair. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that I gave that a lot of serious thought. I thought to myself: Well, if that is the reasoning behind it, that St. John's is not getting their fair share, through taxation or whatever, then there has to be some reasonable grounds for stability. But, Mr. Speaker, when the amalgamation, as proposed by the Minister, was brought to the House, that is not what happened. We have to use some common sense, away from the political aspect of it altogether.

There is Wedgewood Park, which is paying, what -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was.

MR. PARSONS: It still is, until we decide in this Legislature, and hope that cool heads will prevail, honest heads will prevail, and sensible men and women will vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, here was Wedgewood Park paying less, I will agree, than the City of St. John's, here was Mount Pearl paying less than the City of St. John's, and the Goulds paying much less than the City of St. John's. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was a monetary request from Government, to all members of this House, to stabilize the City of St. John's, and to help the City of St. John's that was in serious trouble, then, I would have to give that some serious thought, I really would. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what happened. Wedgewood Park was brought in, and I will have to say that it will be a plus for the City, but, then, Mr. Speaker, the Goulds was brought in and the Goulds has to be a minus factor for the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, let us just look at what they did in the Goulds. Here was some of the prime farmland on the Avalon Peninsula, I suppose, perhaps 80 per cent of the prime farmland on the whole Avalon Peninsula, now gone into an urban area. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I will bet dollars to donuts, that within ten years a lot of that land is going to be developed. That is farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the rationale behind it. Those highways that lead out through the Goulds now, that are now provincially owned, provincially serviced, provincially maintained, are now going to become a part of the Goulds, a part of the City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: About $2 million extra.

MR. PARSONS: About $2 million extra, monies that are going to have to be paid out by the City of St. John's, where those monies were paid before by the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That will come back through taxation.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. member says it will come back through taxation. Well, is that fair?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the last time.

MR. PARSONS: I said that in the first instance, that if that was wrong, then perhaps it should be recognized.

You know, Mr. Speaker, years ago, when we would come in from Flatrock, Torbay, Outer Cove, Middle Cove, and Logy Bay, those places, we were considered, at that time, to be brown baggers. We would not even buy our lunches in St. John's, we would come in with a brown bag under our arm. Well, Mr. Speaker, you talk about baloney! Mr. Speaker, I lived in St. John's for a number of years. That is correct, that we all do come in here to work. I work at the Confederation Building or I am in the Confederation Building.

AN HON. MEMBER: You spend your money in here, too.

MR. PARSONS: But, Mr. Speaker, when they did the survey down there, as to where the money was being spent, 87 per cent, I think, of the overall monies that came in through people working were spent in the City of St. John's, into the Sobey's stores and the Dominion Stores and the Ron Pollard's, and the other institutions. I will not mention the hon. member's shoe store, because I might get myself in trouble, and I think it would be conflict of interest, and I do not want to put him in a way that he would have to get up on a point of order. I want to continue.

Mr. Speaker, those are the areas in which we spent our money. We spent our money in IMP, and here at the service stations. I go into Moores and buy my clothes.

MR. DOYLE: Even me, all the way out in Avondale, I spend about eighty cents out of every buck in here.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, out much further than I am, in Avondale. He spends about 80 per cent of every dollar, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there were a financial problem and if this situation would solve the financial problem, then I would have some problem with it, but it did not solve anything. Mr. Speaker, also, I say to the President of Treasury Board, and I hope he is listening, I have been told on good authority that the decision was not made on this resolution until Monday and it was brought before the House on Tuesday. Now, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the President of Treasury Board will not deny it. The actual resolution was drawn up on Monday, one day before it was presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier always said in this hon. House and to the media that it would never be brought in through the back door; it would never be a Cabinet decision behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, there was our constitutional expert telling us that what went on with Meech Lake - his big deal with Meech Lake was that it was done behind closed doors, there was not enough openness. But, Mr. Speaker, here is our constitutional expert who forgot what the constitution of all those municipalities represented. The Municipalities Act, Mr. Speaker, is the council's constitution. I mean, that is the council's constitution, there is no other thing by which to govern them. How does a country govern itself? - by its constitution. How does a municipality govern itself? - by its constitution.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier said would not take place behind closed doors, could not take place behind closed doors. It would be illegal - it would be illegal, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to bring that in as a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet could not make the decision without bringing The Municipalities Act before the House of Assembly, and debating changes in the Act, to allow this type of thing to happen. And this is the man who tells us that he is the top person, the highest echelon, when we talk about constitutions. And, Mr. Speaker, he defied all the municipalities in the area by doing what he did. First of all he told us he was not going to do it behind closed doors. We all know now, Mr. Speaker, that he could not do it, anyway, if he want to, without bringing in legislation in the House to amend The Municipalities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, for a few minutes, to talk about what that Municipalities Act says. It says a specific amalgamation proposal has to be made and it has to be published in the affected communities. A commissioner or commissioners have to be appointed to study the feasibility of the Government's proposal, who, in turn, make a recommendation to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, it has to be done by the process established in The Municipalities Act, and it was not done. The amalgamation proposals in this resolution were not published in any of the communities. They were not open to a feasibility study. There were no feasibility studies on the proposals. They were not recommended by any study which was held and they were not proposed by any municipality, because each and every municipality affected, in the Northeast Avalon, voted against amalgamation.

What we are being asked to do here is to supply a cover up for the Government. Mr. Speaker, we are not passing a law, we are not rescinding existing legislation, we are not amending existing legislation, we are simply being asked to pass a resolution - to do what? - to overrule, override what is in place at this particular time under The Municipalities Act. Mr. Speaker, does voting on this resolution make it legal?

The Municipalities Act remains intact, it has not been changed; the Legislature certainly can rescind laws, it can rescind The Municipalities Act, and make changes in it, but the Assembly was never asked to make those changes. Mr. Speaker, it is a cover up for something the Cabinet could not do. There are no rules, regulations or sanity attached to that resolution. The resolution should be voted on for what it is, a document that tried to trample on, befuddle, confuse and eventually take over a great number of people who want to remain viable, happy people in their own communities.

I would now like to take a few moments to go back to May 9, 1990. The Minister, himself, says, and I quote: `The Provincial Government will not put a gun to the heads of communities opposed to amalgamation by forcing legislation, and if they come to me, saying that they do not want to be amalgamated, then I will consider it'. But, here we are, with the Towns of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds certainly not wanting any part of this scenario, and what is the Minister doing? He is forcing it, driving it down the throats of people who just do not want to be part of it.

The other day, I was thinking, in this new deal, did the Minister put any thought at all, into it? I do not know if the Member for Kilbride can tell me or not, What happens to the Goulds Volunteer Fire Department?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Nobody knows.

MR. PARSONS: Nobody knows. The Minister was questioned today, Mr. Speaker, on who pays what share of water, sewerage cost, solid waste cost? No one knows within Government, the Minister does not know, the Premier does not know because, as I told you in the first instance, this whole deal of amalgamation was never formalized in detail until Monday, and it was brought before the House, here, on Tuesday.

I have, today, to support the amendment to which I am speaking, so ably proposed by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl and, in supporting that amendment, I want to say that I am firmly convinced the same as that hon. gentleman, that before anything takes place, and before we sell our own neighbours and friends down the river, I think we should have done what is right; we should have the process done in a righteous manner, people should be given the chance, they were given the chance once during those studies.

Every one of the studies recommended that those communities not be amalgamated, particularly, the Goulds and Wedgewood Park.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying to hon. Members over there, is give democracy one more chance. We are a democratic people, perhaps more democratic than the rest of this part of the world, because we were first here. Our ancestors lived under a democratic shield. Mr. Speaker, I am saying to hon. Members on the other side, the content of the resolution, might be alright, but the process was flawed, illegal and should not be borne on the backs or the heads of the people who do not want to be amalgamated.

What can one say? We have a Government here of thirty-three Members who are not going to listen, because their leader cracks the whip.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: But, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to them today. I support the amendment, and I appeal to the Members on the opposite side of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. PARSONS: - especially the Members for St. John's, who are directly involved, to get some thought behind it and say to the Premier: We just cannot support this resolution; we will have to go back and give the people their democratic right to govern themselves.

Again, in closing, I want to reiterate that amalgamation, itself cannot be ruled out in areas of concern, in areas where needed. But what we are saying is the process was flawed, it is an illegal resolution, and therefore, the members of this Legislature should vote against it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: I do not know whether Your Honour recognized it or not, but the Member for St. John's South stood to speak on the resolution, consequently, nobody stood from this side. We are not finished yet.

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

MR. MURPHY: Ah, you cannot get away with it, John.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I though for one minute, Mr. Minister -I would sit right down so fast it would make your head spin.

I want to make a few comments about the whole subject of amalgamation in the Northeast Avalon area. I think, what we have seen, I suppose, over time - and who can remember more than the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern. I suppose he has been around longer than most of us, and he has a great knowledge of community development in the Province. He remembers Flat Rock, Pouch Cove, Shoe Cove, Outer Cove, and he remembers fondly, I am sure, as the Member for the Goulds and Kilbride and all established communities throughout the Province.

But, for him to stand in his place and get on with the foolishness about 1,300 people and political whatever, fandangling, that went on, to let a sub-division within the City of St. John's called Wedgewood Park even develop, even let it come into existence, is beyond me. I have listened to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl with his rhetoric because, of course, the Member for Mount Pearl is in a very difficult position and he has to back it up. He has to get his amendment in place, I suppose, and hopefully try and get it through, or at least to tell the people in Mount Pearl he tried to amend it.

And every time something comes up in this House that this Government has to make a decision on - we are only here just to sit here and ask every time a Bill or a resolution comes in, to send it back to the people and have a plebiscite and say to the people: Well, tell us what to do now. You voted us in a couple of years ago but now we are not sure on this particular issue, so tell us what to do. Utter foolishness!

Now, the other hon. Members opposite went along year in and year out and put up with the status quo. They let the status quo go on and they dished out little grants here and little favours there and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Changed nothing.

MR. MURPHY Exactly - and did nothing, only just go along. I have sat time after time with people and argued about the seventeen years administration, and what they tried to do for this Province. And I really could not come up with one solid project, not one.

So the same thing applies. They went along and they borrowed this Province down in a hole, so far down, throwing their money around, doing their favours, hiring all kinds of people just before elections, and all of these wonderful things. I spoke in this House about it before and I will continue to speak about it, St. John's is the oldest city, I suppose, and they lay claim to it, in North America - not in the Province, not in Canada, not in the United States, but in North America - the oldest city, celebrating very soon, 500 years, alright, with Bonavista, and so forth and so on. St. John's, whether you like it or not, whether you talk about brown bags, or corner boys, or all this old foolishness that went on over time, it has absolutely nothing to do with what has developed in this urban core. I remember Mount Pearl when it was called Steady Waters. The people from St. John's had summer homes in there.

MR. HEWLETT: You did not want it then, did you?

MR. MURPHY: We did not want it, we had it. What are you talking about? You were up fighting about your grandfather's pension, or some other such foolishness. The Member for Mount Pearl has a short memory, a convenient memory. We started a little community in there. People had summer homes, they put little pieces on them, and what have you, and they made application under the name of Mount Pearl - Glendale. Now, for those who lived in Glendale, I am sorry, you have been amalgamated somewhere along the road, you are gone, you are history.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I listened to you for thirty minutes, listen to me, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: A good question. Now, nobody, but nobody, ever thought that a residential area of the City of St. John's would ever become a separate municipality, nobody in their wildest imagination thought that. We saw, obviously, both Governments, the lack of foresight, and the lack of understanding. I can understand the hon. the Member for Kilbride being a little bit perturbed, because the Goulds was there, an established town, and Kilbride was there, an established town. The hon. Member's district was loaded with established towns. We can come around from Cape St. Francis, down into Bauline, back up through Portugal Cove, St. Phillips, St. Thomas, and into Conception Bay South, but the City of St. John's surely and truly must have had an opportunity to be able to grow and expand. It was the capital city, the service centre of the Province, and it was where most things happen. Now, that is saying nothing about rural Newfoundland, and St. John's may have been classified and called parasitic and it lived off rural Newfoundland, and it sent out this and it sent out that, and all Government buildings, both federal and provincial were located in St. John's, and everything associated with Government, and the hospitals. That is the way life was and we all understood it. People in Newfoundland understood that. What happened, of course, was that people escaped from St. John's, those who worked in St. John's, and I think the hon. Member knows it. They moved out for one reason, to avoid having to pay their fair share of the services that were provided in the city and the property tax structure that was in place. And they had more room than in St. John's, since St. John's, because of fires and all those things that happened centuries ago, found itself with very narrow streets, houses attached, etc., and getting more and more astute, as we became more and more affluent, beginning to make a few more dollars, people wanted to have more room, so they moved to the outskirts of St. John's. They did not move into new cities because the new cities were not there. They were not in place. They did not belong. They were a figment of someone's imagination. It was St. John's spreading itself. That is all it was, nothing less than that. However, people being people, and people playing the game smart, using their heads, doing their lobbying and politicking, and all these good things, found themselves in an area that was not as congested as the city, with larger homes, with an entirely different tax base, with an entirely different tax structure. Now, surely heavens, in 1991, when we look at the way the situation is in the Northeast development and the urban core concept, I am in favour of the urban core concept because it is in reality - look, I tell the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern, I do not really care if the people in Kilbride and the Goulds are known as the Goulds and Kilbride. There is nothing wrong with that, and I am sure that will never change. Maybe it should not change. I have an area in my district called Shea Heights, and that is what that will always be as part of St. John's. But it is Shea Heights. And the hon. Member has Airport Heights.

And these areas - when Conception Bay South was amalgamated, you start in Topsail and you end now in Seal Cove. But everybody knows there is Chamberlains and Foxtrap and Long Pond and Kelligrews. It is all one municipality but the towns have not changed their identity. We are not changing anything here. We are only putting a new fairness and balance face on municipal tax structure. Pay for your services the same amount of money as somebody on Cook Street or on Smallwood Drive or down in Wedgewood Park. And it is time to cut out the foolishness and the political rhetoric. I heard the Member for Mount Pearl get up today and talk about politics! He should be ashamed of himself!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Ah! Now, see, good question. Will the resolution solve the problem? Well, maybe the resolution in my mind is somewhat short. Because in reality, as I look at it, I think - and you know, I suppose the residents of St. John's would be awful upset if we called the city and the urban core, 'Mount Pearl.' But in conscience, and in the real reality, if we were sitting in Mount Pearl right now fifteen years from now, I do not know people would say what happened to the City of St. John's that is over 400 years old? Or if we were sitting in the City of Wedgewood Park, and we were all paying our fair share for all the services that we get, whether it be land-fill, recreation, water and sewer, snow clearing, whatever, and we were all paying our fair share.

But the hon. Member knows it is not right for somebody making $17,500 a year on Cook Street to have to pay 11.5 or 11 mils of property tax, $100 water and sewerage tax a year, and somebody down in Wedgewood Park paying the same taxes. Because his house in Wedgewood Park is valuated at $200,000, and the man up on Scott Street or down on Patrick Street is valued at $65,000. And you pro rate it out and he is paying the same amount of taxes.

Now the hon. Member knows that that is not right. Now you can get up and wave your arms and talk about who is going where, and this Government has put a resolution in to capture Mount Pearl, and we have run roughshod over the Goulds and we are going to do away with all the farmland and all that so - hypothetical baloney. That is what it is. There is lots of property in the Goulds and Kilbride that you could never farm on. And the hon. Member knows it. You could never farm on it. It is even as rocky as Flat Rock.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh, I can take you up and show you. You told this Member that he knew nothing about the east end. Well, I can tell you, you do not know much about the west end. And never the twain shall meet. And never they shall come together.

But you know, let's be realistic here. I can understand the Member for Mount Pearl having to come in to this House and represent the people that elected him. If he did not do it then obviously he would not be fulfilling what he was elected to do. And he has to come in here and stand up and make his point. And I admire the Member for St. John's East Extern doing likewise. But when you boil all the rhetoric and issues down, it all should come out the same. That the people who are going to take advantage of the services that are provided, not in St. John's, lots of times I went to the hon. Member's district and bought fish, bought lobsters, whatever I could get down there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, lots of times.

AN HON. MEMBER: From a Tory district?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, bought it from the hon. Member's cousin.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It was alright, there was nothing wrong with it, and when you boil it all down-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tory district.

MR. MURPHY: Well let me say this. The hon. Member got up and talked about buying his suit at Moores; now the first reason he was at Moores is because he could not buy a suit big enough anywhere else, and I know, myself and Mr. Hogan, the hon. Member for Placentia, we know what he is talking about, but the hon. Member must realize that he could have bought his size at about four different price levels; the one he has on is obviously the best because he has lots, and lots and lots of money, so it was the most expensive one in there, but he could have bought a suit -

AN HON. MEMBER: $39.99

MR. MURPHY: Whatever. He had an option to pay a lot less; now, therein lies it, you get the quality for the price and that is what you expect when you go to shop. Well, let me ask the hon. Member again: is it fair for a resident in this city to have to pay more for service than what I would call, in honesty and reality, a suburb of this city?

Now, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl makes good points when he stands in his place and says: but the City of St. John's is not as efficient as the City of Mount Pearl, and we can get more done for less money in Mount Pearl; he may very well be right, I do not know, I have no idea; I would have to sit down I suppose, and listen to Mayor Hodder and Mayor Duff and Councillors debate who gets the most for their tax dollar, but I know one thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know it for sure and certain, it is not fair for the residents of St. John's to have to pay a mil rate and only have the same advantage in the northeast Avalon than any other community.

Now, I do not think it is right to stop Mount Pearl from growing, I do not think it is right - well, Wedgewood Park, I will not even talk about it because in my mind, it should never have been allowed, it was a disaster, it was terrible, however, Mount Pearl -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, whatever it is or it is not, Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, again as I said earlier, was really only St. John's expanding itself, that is all it was, that is all that was taking place. We have seen burroughs in New York and we have seen suburbs in larger cities throughout the country; we have seen all kinds of municipal structures that go on, but surely heavens, if, the City of Mount Pearl takes advantage of anything associated with the provincial tax dollar and/or the taxes that are charged the residents of St. John's, then the citizens of Mount Pearl, and most of them I am sure, do not mind paying what they classify as their fair share of what is going on.

Now, the resolution in front of me is one and the amendment, I cannot go back to the amendment because the hon. Member knows only too well, we are here to do what needs to be done and every time he has an issue, you cannot bail out ballots to everybody, 50 per cent here, 50 per cent there; life does not work like that and the best plebiscite of all is the general election, that is the best one and then the residents tell you, and if they turf this crowd out over here, they fire them all, well, that is life, that is the way she goes.

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Green Bay, this time last year was in a frenzy about his father's pension. He could hardly stand upstairs, he was shaking in his shoes; he was on CBC with the hon. Member for Bonavista South -

MR. HEWLETT: My father's pension is still in jeopardy.

MR. MURPHY: It is still in jeopardy, but your severance is not. Your poor father has a problem but you are okay; that is the way life goes I suppose for the hon. Member. Look after yourself, that is right.

A municipal reform is an important aspect of tax reform and financing restructuring and if it takes this Government to do it right, then let it be. Is it fair to capture a city 450 years old as the hon. Member for Mount Pearl would want to happen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it fair to leave Paradise out?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: What program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Oh, they took them off.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MURPHY: Oh! Oh, he is replaced! Well, things can only improve. Things can only improve.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and the hon. Member made a few statements and she got a lot of her own (inaudible) and she better check with them before she says anything else. Oh yes, the word is out. The word is out that the hon. Member was chastised today in Caucus. 'Don't speak for me', she was told. She was told in no uncertain terms and I know. Now I would not say who told me. I would not say who told me. I would never let it cross my lips, and its got nothing to do with bumper stickers who told me. It has absolutely nothing to do with bumper stickers who told me. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with bumper stickers.

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would like to stay and stand, rant and rave, roar and shout about the whole issue of amalgamation what it all comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is the people of this Province paying their fair share for the services that are provided to them. There is no name changing, never mind all of this stuff. St. John's is not going up the southern shore, St. John's is not going down to Flat Rock, St. John's is not going out through Paradise, nor should it go out through Paradise, nor should it go out through Conception Bay. But one thing for sure and certain is that the people are going to have to pay for landfill, for solid waste, the people are going to have to pay for water and sewer, we got to start cleaning it up. The hon. Member knows it. We got a harbour down there you can almost walk on - a disgrace. And all the waste from Mount Pearl runs through my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: It runs right out through my district. Now there are times that if I had ahold of that valve I would shut it off and let him figure out what to do with it, but that is not the way life is. Life is giving, sharing and helping your neighbour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. MURPHY: So when the time comes and we need a sewerage waste disposal system adequate for a tremendous amount of people in another twenty or thirty years that will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) study, how come the Province has not put up their share? Their share of the (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member well knows how many studies have been done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well then let's get it going. Where is the money to do it?

MR. MURPHY: Ah, where is the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fair share.

MR. MURPHY: Well the hon. Member's colleague in Ottawa made sure that the City of Halifax and Dartmouth found the money. Now where is the money from the hon. Member's colleagues in Ottawa? Halifax and Dartmouth is now over there enjoying that while we are sitting on raw sewerage and the hon. Member knows it only too well. He just introduced a (inaudible) program and not a nickel. Why not? Because we do not have the population to pick up on the funding. That is why not. But if we had Mount Pearl and all the urban core in we would be close to the population to pick up on the federal funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not be so foolish.

MR. MURPHY: Do not be so foolish, sure, because it does not suit the hon. Member. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he knows the score. Is it fair, Mr. Speaker? Almost 64 per cent of the population of the Goulds work in St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: 64 per cent?

MR. MURPHY: It is out of the city limits. l.25 of their total income is taxation. Their mil rate is 5.8 residential, and 5.8 in commercial. In Mount Pearl, 77 per cent of the people who live in the City of Mount Pearl work in the City of St. John's.

MR. WINDSOR: 77 per cent of the people who work in Mount Pearl live outside of Mount Pearl, so what is the difference?

MR. MURPHY: Well, there is a big difference. Well, what is the difference? The residents of Mount Pearl pay l.39 of their income in taxation and the mil rate is 8.7, 8.7 through residential and industrial. Now, the City of St. John's, I suppose rightfully so, 94 per cent of the residents of the city work in the city, but 2.33 of their income is what they pay in municipal taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Oh, yes, sure. The hon. Member is against anything that is fair. He is against anything that is balanced. What is the mil rate, Mr. Speaker? 11 per cent residential. How can St. John's do anything from an industrial base when it has to charge 16.5 for someone to put up a small business. Is that fair? The hon. Members can stand and prate and rant all they like. In Wedgewood Park 99 per cent of the people work in St. John's paying l.18 of their income on taxes, and what is their mil rate, 6.5, half of what it is in St. John's, half of what it is of their neighbour across the street, and the hon. Member stands up and tries to protect Wedgewood Park. What foolishness, what silliness.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are efficient.

MR. MURPHY: They are efficient alright, they are efficient on the backs of the residents of St. John's, that is how they are efficient, and the hon. Member knows it. The hon. Minister brought in his resolution and he left the City of Mount Pearl (Inaudible), Mount Pearl is Mount Pearl as it is, now with Donovans Industrial a tremendous tax base, still some room to grow. I ask, is Southlands closer to Mount Pearl or closer to the Goulds or Kilbride?

AN HON. MEMBER: Closer to Mount Pearl.

MR. MURPHY: Oh yes, sure, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: By a stone's throw.

MR. WINDSOR: Come over and look at the map, I will explain it to you, you are too stunned to understand.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, sure, I am stunned. I am stunned alright. Because the hon. Member knows two things - money and greed! Money and greed!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

This Chair has ruled on many occasions that in context the word 'stunned' is unparliamentary. And I ask the hon. Members for St. John's South and Mount Pearl to withdraw.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if I uttered that I certainly do withdraw, thank you.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I was only responding to what the hon. Member said. I only said -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Member for St. John's -

MR. MURPHY: I withdraw, no problem. Now the hon. Member for Mount Pearl knows only too well that it boils down to one thing, the tax base and the dollars that go in to the coffers of the people that he represents. I understand that. I have no problem with that and he should fight for it. But -

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolute greed, that is what it amounts to.

MR. MURPHY: Now the empty barrel is rolling down over the hill over there. The old cigar lighter. He still has 222 Bics he does not know what to do with. I will buy them off the hon. Member because I cannot kick the habit.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be the first time you paid for one!

MR. MURPHY: Is that right? And so for the hon. Member. Oh no, I pay for my lighters, sir, I do not mind telling you I pay for them. Not only did I pay for my lighters but I paid for my cigars. But you are trying, and it is working.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion. You know, no matter how many times that the hon. Members opposite want to go to the well, and no matter how many times they expect the people and the residents of this city to support the suburbs, the bedroom communities that have developed and were let develop for no good reason, under no circumstances should the people of this city or the people of St. John's South, East, Centre or North have to pay an increased tax burden to support anybody else. If they have to pay their equal share, sobeit. But under no circumstances should the residents in St. John's be assessed and captured for anymore dollars than anybody else, and I do not care if you use amalgamation, intimidation or what words you want to use, I could not care less. And the time has come, Mr. Speaker, for this resolution, at least this resolution -

MR. WINDSOR: What is the price of democracy in your mind? What is the value of democracy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: You notice the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, every statement that comes out of him is price. 'What is the price? What is the price? What is the price?' I do not know, what is the price? I do not know, what is the price? You tell me the price. No, there is no price is right. There is no price is right. And the hon. Member will go and sit down and cuddle up to his friends and say, 'we got him captured'. The only place they can go, and he said it, is to Ireland. That is the only place left for the residents in St. John's to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the right place for them.

MR. MURPHY: That is right. It is the right place for them. Sure. The truth comes out. The old greed comes out of the Member because he doesn't know what else to say. But now the hon. Member knows there is a resolution here that gives St. John's some room, a small corridor to go get the water that it rightfully owns, Mobile Big Pond, Tors Cove Pond all allocated and owned by this city, and the hon. Member knows it full well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. MURPHY: Nonsense all right, sure. The Member the engineer, everything is nonsense. If anybody does not talk to him it is nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Move adjournment.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for -

MR. MURPHY: You were on a point of foolishness.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized - The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It is 5:00 and no motion for adjournment.

MR. MURPHY: I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to move adjournment of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: I move that this House at its rising adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House at its rising adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. All in favour of the motion, please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust that hon. Members will join me at 7:00 p.m.


 

May 21, 1991 (Night)       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLI  No. 53A


The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have lost a lot of my enthusiasm after that delicious supper that was tendered me by the President of Treasury Board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on where I was this afternoon, it is incredible to think that here we are, in and around St. John's, the people of St. John's who have always paid their fair share in municipal taxes - but I have confidence enough in the Minister to know that when the appropriate Acts come into place and the appropriate legislation is on the books, the City of St. John's will have an opportunity, in conjunction with its neighbours - and I say neighbours, because I think the City of Mount Pearl will still be the City of Mount Pearl - I know that the City of St. John's will have a right to go and get a fair assessment for its water, its garbage disposal, the services it provides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, the water may come out of the Goulds. There is good water in the Goulds, and the hon. Member for the Goulds knows that the water on the Southern Shore, right up to Mobile Big Pond, I think, or even further, maybe Tors Cove Pond or Big Country Pond, are all water reserves for the City of St. John's. If the City of St. John's had to stop at Corpus Christi or stop at Sesame Park somewhere, then the City of St. John's would not have had a natural access to what rightfully belongs to the city. So I know when the time comes, and the appropriate legislation goes through this House, the people of the Goulds, the people of Kilbride, the people of Shea Heights and Airport Heights, the people of the Battery, people of Pleasantville, the people of the defunct Town of Wedgewood Park and what have you, will all pay their fair share for the services that are provided to all the residents who live in the urban core.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Just a quick second - I understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I did not give leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will have more to say, you can be assured, when we get down to the main resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South was somewhat more genteel when he rounded off his remarks than he was when he adjourned the debate at five o'clock this evening. At that particular time, I think it safe to say, the gentleman was in high flight, considerably worked up. Such a display, I would say, of chauvinism and parochialism on the part of an hon. member, I have never before seen in this honourable Assembly.

When I was in school, Mr. Speaker, I learned of the word `imperialism', and it had to do with matters between nation states, where one nation state, through very forceful diplomacy or through force of arms, took over other countries in its neighbourhood, or halfway around the world when it comes to that, and thereby expanded its sphere of influence, its economic power, etc. That was known as `imperialism'. I thought that imperialism was something restricted to the arena of nation states, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. the Member for St. John's South, in his remarks this afternoon, when he was, indeed, in high flight, certainly gave me a whole new outlook on what can only be described as municipal imperialism. I must say, it was both a learning and a frightening experience. I can only thank the good Lord, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Green Bay reside some three hundred-odd miles from this particular city, otherwise the Town of Triton, the Town of Pelley's Island, the Town of Beachside and Nick's Nose Cove - can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, Nick's Nose Cove would come under the ambit of the hon. the Member for St. John's South and would be a target for municipal imperialism. Now, I know the industrial tax base of Nick's Nose Cove is not the largest in the Province, I must say, but given the hon. member's ilk, one would think that any municipality, literally, on the Island of Newfoundland is fair game for his rhetoric and his ambitions.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a few remarks with regard to this bill. I find this is not a bill, number one, Mr. Speaker, it is a resolution which basically rides roughshod over bills which have been before this House and passed into law. It shows no respect for the act regarding municipalities, and it shows no respect for a piece legislation we passed in this Assembly some time ago regarding regional service boards. It is an act of a Government that, for the most part during its tenure, has shown limited respect for the persons and groups of persons with which it has to deal. We have seen it in the matter of union contracts which were recently torn to shreds with the labour legislation that was recently before this honourable House. We have seen it in the way they treated the nation state of Canada, in the way the Meech Lake debate was handled in this House. After many rough and rowdy days in this Assembly, with many people wearing their hearts on their sleeves, Mr. Speaker, and speaking their minds and their souls, this House was denied a vote. So, what it all boils down to, is that this Government has very little respect for the democratic process, and the way they are handling this resolution certainly backs that up considerably.

Mr. Speaker, this massive amalgamation scheme which started approximately two years ago, for want of something better to do

on the part of this Administration, it having been surprised at being elected, has thrown municipal government throughout this Province into considerable turmoil. When you add to that the recent changes in the municipal financing system, this crowd has managed to take a municipal government system which, for most of the Province, was in its relative infancy, and put it back into the pre-natal stages.

In Green Bay, when the grand amalgamation list came out some time ago, we had three communities on that list. That was nearly two years ago. They have not heard a sound, one way or the other, since. There was, to the Government's credit actually, a public hearing and people were allowed to make briefs in that particular case, with regard to that proposed amalgamation of three communities, Brighton, Triton and Pelley's Island. It so turned out I think, Mr. Speaker, that they were added to the list from the desk of some bureaucrat in St.John's, and it was only when they went out there for the public hearing that they found out that they were trying to amalgamate three separate communities, each with its own distinct identity, separated by seven or eight kilometres of wooded coastal scenery and a causeway spanning the North Atlantic. When I asked that these communities be immediately exempted from the amalgamation list - I asked the Premier, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier exempted, I believe, Steady Brook from amalgamation with Corner Brook, because it was physically separated from Corner Brook by the Humber River and the towering walls of the Humber River gorge. Somehow that separation, involving rocky cliffs and fresh water, did exempt Steady Brook but, unfortunately, it didn't seem to apply to three separate islands in Green Bay, even though the distance separating them was as great, or probably even greater, than is the distance between Steady Brook and Corner Brook. I left it, after pursuing it for some time, with the hope that perhaps Government would just forget this entire matter, just let matters be, and sort of, quietly and in an embarrassed fashion, half back out the door on this and leave well enough alone.

Now they have brought forward this massive proposal for the Northeast Avalon involving groupings that were not on the original list, groupings that have not, in themselves, been put forward as packages for public hearings and feasibility studies. So, in that regard, they are sort of flouting the existing law of the land and the requirements. I know this legislature is free and you can bring a resolution or a bill into this House that can change any law on the books, Mr. Speaker, providing, of course, it meets the challenge of the Constitution of Canada. But it shows very little respect for existing laws, if we pass laws or resolutions that sort of ride roughshod over them. If we are going to change the rules of the game, Mr. Speaker, then the first thing to do would be to amend existing legislation on the books, to allow for the circumstances we are in here this evening.

What we are seeing here is one of these, believe General Schwarzkopf called it a ` Hail Mary play', where you throw the football high and long and hope that someone can run out around the existing structures and catch the ball on the fly in the far end, Mr. Speaker. What we have seen here is an end run around the existing laws and statutes of the land. But I doubt, Mr. Speaker, very much, if Her Majesty the Queen is going to confer a knighthood on Sir Eric the Amalgamator, as she did on Mr. Schwarzkopf for this action.

Mr. Speaker, this Government has no respect whatsoever for due process, existing municipal structures, or people's rights, be they statutory or moral. In the least, this resolution before the House in its current form and format, is immoral, because it totally disregards the wishes of many of the peoples involved, many of the communities involved. It is shameful that we have to deal with this in this particular House, at this particular time, in this particular way.

As I indicated, I have three communities on hold in my district for nearly two years, now, waiting for word. Hopefully, come the summer or fall, we will get word. Hopefully, they are on the short list the Minister indicated, that the commissioners had recommended against amalgamating. I certainly do hope so for the sake of those communities and the sanity of the people involved therein, because amalgamation of separate islands makes no sense, makes no municipal sense, makes no financial sense, and makes no geographic sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say on this particular thing. I totally disagree with the way this Government is going about things. There is nothing wrong with amalgamation, in its own right, providing people want it. I have communities in my district that have voluntarily amalgamated to form larger municipalities, but nothing was rammed down their throats, Mr. Speaker. What we have over there is a Government that basically has no respect for people's and communities' democratic rights.

My honourable colleague for St. John's East is a socialist, Mr. Speaker. Because people add certain negative connotations with regard to the word `socialist', they call their party the New Democrats. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we were in power, we didn't ride roughshod over people like that, so I guess you can call us the old Democrats. Mr. Speaker, the party opposite we can only call that the un-democratic party.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words to say, not very many, actually, on the amendment moved by the Member for Mount Pearl earlier today, suggesting that we might have a plebiscite in each of these areas. That proposal, in itself, has some merit. I tend to agree with it. But first, I would like to see a proper feasibility study done so that the people in these areas, when the vote is being taken, will have all the information necessary for them to make a wise choice; and that would be every individual area.

What I see about this particular proposal, from the experience I have of these matters - and I do have some, I represent Kilbride, and I represented Shea Heights when they were annexed to the City. It was not quite the same as an amalgamation but it had a similar outcome. Mr. Speaker, the advantage or the main difference I see between these two occasions is that when Kilbride and Shea Heights were annexed to the City, a study was done, a commissioner made a report, and some facts and figures were produced by an independent person for the people in the area to judge. Recommendations were made to the minister at the time by the commissioner so that the people could look at these proposals and feel they had something to vote on.

Now, it was not a unanimous decision, either on Shea Heights or in Kilbride, when they annexed by the City of St. John's. I know, in Kilbride, in particular, there was a slight majority of people who accepted, somewhat grudgingly, to go with the City of St. John's. And these residents in that area were residents of the built-up areas, the subdivisions, as we call them, who happened to form the majority at the time, who had bought their own lots, paid for their services, installed their own sidewalks and paid for their own pavement. And they were paying the Metro Board just about the same taxes as were the people in the City of St. John's.

Then we had in Kilbride, the rural areas, or the semi-rural areas, I call them. They did have water and sewer. These would be the main roads - Bay Bulls Road and Old Petty Harbour Road. They had water and sewer installed but the roads were not up to City standards. The sidewalks and storm sewers were not in place. So, as part of the annexation programme when it started, monies were allotted to upgrade some of these roads. Some of the roads done at the time to bring them up to City standards were Elliot's Road, Griffins Lane, there was about $1 million to $1.5 million spent on Old Petty Harbour Road, and the main road left undone is the road through Kilbride called Bay Bulls Road. That was supposed to be done. There was supposed to be money in the five-year phase-in to do that road, although it never got done. It is not this Government's fault, it is as much my fault as anyone's. But once the Department of Highways gets away from an area, I suppose, with all the cutbacks over a few years, they want to stay away from them and don't want to spend too much money on them, any money, actually.

So, once the City took in Kilbride and took over the main highways of Bay Bulls Road and Old Petty Harbour Road, the Department of Transportation was not long hightailing it out of there without spending the proper amount of money to upgrade it to City standards. But most of the communities were upgraded to City standards. Most of Kilbride, and Shea Heights - although some improvements have been done since that day - had water and sewer. The Member for St. John's South got some of them, after I had most of it done, but he did get some of them, I must say.

But, on Shea Heights, most of the area, except one spot up by Beaver Pond, was fully serviced, had water and sewer, paved roads and some sidewalks, not many at the time. But they, too, although it was not a unanimous decision, said: `Alright, we have to go, we cannot go on our own. The Metro Board was supposed to be disappearing at the time, so there was not much choice.

Mr. Speaker, I say, that with the same type of a feasibility report in this amalgamation, I believe, if the Minister is serious about trying to provide these areas with equal service, it is alright to say that the taxes in the Goulds are less than the taxes in the City, but so are the services. The fact that the taxes in the City will be equal to that of the Goulds does not mean the services will be equal. That is the problem. When the people of the Goulds see that they are going to pay 60 per cent more in property tax alone as of January 2, 1992, they wonder why they are paying all of this money. They pay 5.8 or 6 mils now, for services that are semi-urban, semi-rural. They get roads cleared, they get garbage picked up by contractor - very cheaply, by the way, I think it is about 25 per cent of what it costs in the City to pick up garbage. They dump it at Robin Hood Bay and pay for it. They have streetlighting in place. I do not know what difference there would be in the City and outside the City. It is probably the same cost per light, anyway.

They have some recreation facilities that they worked very hard to get, not many, but they do have a recreation programme, a recreation director and a fair recreation system - not great. The City will improve that. That will probably be a service that will be improved - probably. In Kilbride, the City did improve the recreation service, but the Kilbride Community Recreation Committee is still in place and they still have to get the Canada Works' grants and their student summer grants to assist the City to keep their programme going. The City does provide some capital money every now and then, but recreation activities or facilities in Kilbride are not up to average City standards yet, after six years in the City.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if there were a proper feasibility study done in this case, what we had from day one, on this amalgamation - `fiasco', I called it before, and I still think it is - is a wrong approach. The minister, when he first became Minister - and I can understand him being inexperienced and expecting to do things fairly quickly - said in July, 1989 that he would have this amalgamation proposal in place before the municipal elections. Now, the elections were in November, and anyone who has worked - I am surprised, he did work with City Council - in the government system would know that to get such a big change in an area in four or five months was impossible. So, the elections were delayed for a year and the Minister got working on it.

But still, he did not do it right. It was supposed to be done first without any studies at all, because the place was studied and studied. That was the reason used, and I do not disagree with him, there were many studies. Many of those studies were submitted to a government of which I was a part. Mr. Speaker, we tried to look at the studies, tried to rationalize them and tried to listen to what a lot of the people told us. Most often, it was the City Council that spoke for all the residents of the City of St. John's, and certainly, they were elected to do that. But there was no ground swell of support for City Council from the residents of the City of St. John's. They were complacent about it for a long time, and I think most of them are still complacent about what is happening today. They do not understand it, or they do not want to follow it, or - and most likely, it is this scenario - they have elected a city council to look after their needs and it is city council they are going to depend on.

That, in itself, could be a reason why there is not the same emotional outpouring in the City of St. John's as has been in the Goulds, in Mount Pearl, in Wedgewood Park, at least, in those areas. Maybe, the residents of the City of St. John's are depending on their city council.

Well, I think, especially with the proposal before us right now, it is time for them to stop relying on their city council, because the proposal before this House of Assembly now, if approved, as is, will cost the City of St. John's millions of dollars, I do not know an exact figure because there was no feasibility study done; I know it will be at least millions.

It is $1 million alone for the Aquarena, $800,000, pretty close; there are roads in my district alone - the city will be taking over Brookfield Road from the city boundary to Mount Pearl boundary, a very expensive road to look after; also, the city will be taking over Bay Bulls Highway, or Bay Bulls Road, whatever you want to call it, from the city boundary now, which is near Purcell's Turn to Middle Pond Hill, on the other side of Middle Pond, an extremely expensive road to look after, and, Mr. Speaker, we have to keep it clear so that the Member for St. John's South can get back and forth to the House every day.

So, the City is going to have to work very hard to get the Member for St. John's South in here from Tors Cove every day to work in the city and hopefully, he will be paying his share of the taxes when that happens. He has residence in the city too, and he is paying taxes in the city, so he is paying his share, but, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's does not realize, as it did not realize in Kilbride, that the area from Stanley Flowers, as I know it - nobody else here will know it - in to the city boundary, is an extremely expensive piece of road, just to keep the snow off it. Because there are farm fields there, the snow blows out onto the road and blocks the road. That will be only a joke when they start Bay Bull Big Pond. It will not come close to the cost of Bay Bulls Road, which they now have, when they start tackling Bay Bulls Big Pond.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they have to look after Ruby Line, again, an extremely expensive road in our area just to keep the snow clear; there are no sidewalks, no drainage, there are open drains in the area and there are high maintenance costs but just for snow clearing. So, they have Bay Bulls Road up to Middle Pond to look after, they have Ruby Line, which is expensive, they are going to have Old Bay Bulls Road, Pearl Town Road, Brookfield Road, Heavy Tree Road, and that is just in my district, extra roads that the City will have to look after that contain very little tax base.

They are mostly surrounded by agricultural land, which the Premier tells me will still be protected, I hope he is right; but I do not see the City of St. John's maintaining those roads now. Then, when they get into the Goulds, there are a couple of roads that the Goulds Town Council is looking after. The council has been trying to get out from under them for years because they found it expensive looking after roads around the farm lands, out of which they could not get a proper tax dollar. Well, Mr. Speaker, they will have to take those over too.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Highways walks away on January 2, and the City of St. John's is in there; they have no increased taxes to look after those areas; that, besides the Aquarena which is $800,000 to $2 million, that cannot go down, it is not going to go down any more, I am sure of that, so it will be $1 million the next three or four years; they have a couple more million dollars on just roads that the Department of Transportation is looking after now.

There is a reason for the Department of Transportation to be looking after these now because, there is a Provincial policy in place to say that the farm land in that area is a provincial resource, therefore, most of the cost of maintaining those roads is borne by the Province; that is fairly logical in my mind, but, maybe I am out of whack.

A taxpayer on - what was the road that the Member for St. John's South used today, a taxpayer on Cook's Avenue or Cook's Street? I think that is downtown or somewhere in St. John's Centre; a taxpayer in St. John's Centre should not have to be burdened with the full cost of protecting a provincial policy, which is the agricultural zone. Mr. Speaker, that cost, in itself, will place extra strain on the City taxpayers, it will cause extra concern for the farmers in the area. Two or three young farmers, two, in particular, of whom I know, both under forty years old, have invested half-a-million dollars in their farms over the last five years. Today, they do not know whether they should continue with their business, they are not sure whether they should invest more money into their dairy farms. Because they expect, as a lot of people expect, that when the City takes over this area, they will have more political clout and maybe not as much resolve as the Metro Board did to protect that area. So, we are putting in jeopardy, a fairly significant part of the dairy industry in this Province.

Now, a place has been cleared over the past ten years, the Burnt Hills, in behind the Goulds. There are arguments being made for moving farmers in there from the City of St. John's. That does not help. The idea of developing the Burnt Hills was prompted by the fact that the farmers had no land base in this area, and they were pumping milk out of the cows and sending all that money to the mainland to buy hay. That is not good for our economy. We have to develop a land base in this area to produce our own cattle feed, as much of it as we can, so that they can survive. Well, with this proposal to move farmers in, that is all in jeopardy.

The most unfair part of all of this is that it is being forced upon people who are not well enough informed to make a judgement as to whether it is good or bad for them. In the Goulds, they cannot see where they are going to get the extra services for the extra money they pay for them, they just cannot see it. People are not being unreasonable. They gave me a petition to present the other day and most of them at the meeting were not saying, `To heck with St. John's, I do not want them, they are not coming in here and that is it.' Most of them said to me, `I would like to go around with this petition. Can you tell me the advantages and disadvantages?'

And I couldn't tell them because no feasibility study has been done. I could tell them what I know is going to happen with their taxes, what I thought might be improvements in service, what happened in Kilbride since the City took over, but I do not know that there are great improvements to the Goulds. Mount Pearl: I cannot see - Mount Pearl now has a very well developed community. The City moving in there cannot improve Mount Pearl; I do not think they can improve Mount Pearl at all. But there could be improvements made in the Goulds had there been a proper study done and recommendations made by an independent commissioner to suggest this is the way that St. John's should move into the town: the Province should pay so much, the City, so much, and the Goulds taxpayers, so much. That way, I think you could have a saleable product.

But, Mr. Speaker, this proposal before the House now is not saleable. It is not saleable in the Goulds, it cannot be. Wondering whether I should support it, I could not go in there and argue for it, if I were on the Government side and had to support it, or on this side. If I thought for a minute that the taxpayers in the Goulds would benefit from this amalgamation, I would have no problem in supporting it, but I cannot go in there and tell them what the benefits will be. I do not know and the people of the Goulds do not know what the benefits will be. If some used-car salesman phoned me and said: `I have a pick-up here, I want you to give me $5,000 for it right now and when you come in we will give it to you,' well, I would not do that. I would go in and look at it. I would try to check it to see if it was any good, see if it would start, at least, so I would have an idea of what I was buying. And that is all the people in the Goulds are asking. They are asking for some idea of what they are buying; what are they getting into for a 60 per cent increase in taxes?

Now, there is nobody to tell them. This whole amalgamation scheme got off on the wrong foot. What the minister should have done, is, if he agreed with the supercity, or if he agreed with the proposal now, he should have presented that proposal and then had public hearings on it. That is not too much for the residents of the Goulds to ask, since it is going to be such a major change for them.

What we have in this amalgamation proposal is probably the worst possible scenario imaginable. It will be forced on the residents of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, and Mount Pearl, maybe. I do not know what is going to happen with the Member for Pleasantville. He might move an amendment here and it might be forced on the residents of Mount Pearl. Maybe that will pass here if he moves it, I do not know. But those who are going to lose the most with this proposal - and this is the only proposal I have in front of me to try to judge - and those who should be most upset are the City of St. John's taxpayers.

I am firmly convinced of that. I am firmly convinced that our mil rate will be at least 14 mils in two years time. And that, no doubt, will be the highest in the Province.

MS. VERGE: Even higher than Corner Brook.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Fourteen mils, that will be higher than Corner Brook. It is thirteen-something in Corner Brook now. But just to cover the added cost to the City in this particular proposal, our mil rate, I am sure, will go to at least 14 mils. Now that is not fair to the city taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) scaremongering.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am trying to give people - I do not know if it is scaremongering. I really do not know, because no feasibility study has been done. If there were something I could look at to show me in dollars and cents that this would not happen, I would support you. I would say yes, okay - well, I would not have any choice, I would have to. But there is nothing done. That is the whole problem with this whole scheme that is going on in the Northeast Avalon. There is no major feasibility study done so that I can tell people this, this and this, some will be good, some will be bad. And that is where the people who oppose this amalgamation have a legitimate point, I believe, they have a very legitimate point.

But again, by the residents of the City of St. John's relying on what the City Council is doing, they are getting themselves in trouble. And I would recommend to the City of St. John's and the Council of the City of St. John's that they oppose this resolution that is before this House of Assembly with all its political might. They should do that.

Now, the understanding I have from talking to the Mayor is, `We will accept this - although grudgingly, we do not like it - for a couple of years and then we will get Mount Pearl. We will grab what we can now and we will get Mount Pearl in a little while. That is not the approach that should be taken by what I thought to be the professional Council of the City of St. John's. I completely disagree with what they are doing and their approach on this matter. They should immediately try for a court injunction against this. Two weeks ago before it was announced, if Mount Pearl were not included, I know their plan then was to take out a court injunction and, in that event, they were going to be supported by the Goulds.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since that time I do not know what changed. Maybe it was just one councillor I was talking to - it happened to be the Mayor. Maybe it was just the Mayor's idea and the City Council did not support her on it. I am not sure what happened. But they had better sit up and take notice of what is going on here, because it is they who are going to be blamed for it. When they raise the mil rate, they will be blamed for what has happened. The Provincial Government will be long gone before the full effects of it are seen by the city taxpayers. The city councillors then will suffer and we have a good Council at the City of St. John's, a good group of people there. I think we have a good Council. I do not think there is anything partisan about that.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with their approach on this issue. I received a letter from them addressed to all St. John's members: `We urge you give full consideration to the resolution when it is called.' In this letter, somewhere, they say they wish the city MHAs to take a stand.

Now, I took a stand with them in a private meeting they called. They know my stand, I do not know why they are still asking for it; I took a stand when we debated this a little while ago. When I got up in another debate, I took a stand on it. I am against this proposal completely.

I do not believe there is anything ambiguous about that. It is clear what I told the City in the beginning and I still say that this proposal will cost the city taxpayers money, and the City of St. John's should, with all its strength, be opposing it; yet, Mr. Speaker, I understand they are not opposing it. And they are not opposing it because they figure they will take what they can now and get Mount Pearl in a couple of years time.

Maybe that is a good gamble, I really do not know. I don't have any facts and figures to say it is good or bad; If I had the city's proposal, or the supercity proposal - when they made their studies, there were facts and figures in them which showed that they would need $25 million or $30 million to get everything in shape. I have not heard anything coming from that side of the House to say they are going to get any of that.

The only thing on which I can make my judgement when I vote on this resolution, is what the Premier said a couple of days ago. He said he wanted to make it clear that the hon. member - referring to me -and that is a big change to become an hon. member from a trained monkey, but I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, he said he wanted to make it clear to the hon. member and to this House and to the city council, that there is no pile of money coming with this amalgamation. The city's own studies show they need a lot of money, that is why I say to the members on that side of the House who represent the city, consider what you are doing with this proposal, think it out before you vote in favour. It would be better - and you might take some political heat for it - it would be better to throw this in - well, I would not say throw it in the garbage but, as should have been done in the beginning, have a commissioner do an independent feasibility study on it; give him some resources to see what is needed to get this proposal in place and if you want to give him this proposal and a proposal with Mount Pearl included, give him that, too, but let us have a feasibility study done to see where the benefits are.

We residents of the Goulds, are told over and over again that there will be savings, that this will be an advantage to the region, and the people in the region will be better off. Well, how can we tell them that when we did not do a study, we don't know? They certainly don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want Mount Pearl included, too?

MR. TOBIN: Get up and tell us your stand.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Give me a feasibility study and show me some facts and figures on it, that is what I want!

AN HON. MEMBER: Three of you, so far today, have wanted Mount Pearl included, is that how you are going to vote?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Don't want, or do want? I want a feasibility study. Are you so dense that you cannot get that through your head? I mean, all I am asking for is a feasibility study; and if any independent commissioner can show me that Mount Pearl is being included, then I will have to give it some thought, and I will cross paths with the Member for Mount Pearl by doing that, no doubt. But, Mr. Speaker, I will have to give it some thought if that is the conclusion of an independent commissioner, who had accountancy and engineering studies done to show that this would benefit the region.

The people in the Goulds would like to see a strong region, they have never argued against that; they would have liked, a long time ago, as would the residents of Kilbride, to see a regional service board or a regional government put in place. The only objection that I know of, to that, at the time, was from the City of St. John's, and part of the reason why we have so many problems - and we do, don't hide away from it, we have many, many problems in this region from a municipal standpoint. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the major reasons why we have them is because there was no regional services board or regional government put in place at that time, some five or six or seven years ago; and had that been put in place and cost-shared in the region, then taxes probably would be fairly much the same in all areas.

Some day, when everything is an even playing field, some bright person will reach a conclusion and ask, Well, why have we a regional government, let us get rid of that and we will call it all the City of St. John's. That is what would happen, that is how it should evolve; and then you will have had all the acrimony and all the emotions being voiced through the media and being displayed in this House by petitions, over and done, and you would not have a war between St. John's and Mount Pearl, which will have to continue for the next four or five or six or how ever many years Mount Pearl will last. I do not believe Mount Pearl will last very long, because the argument by the next Government is going to be that Mount Pearl is surrounded, the fellow on this side of the street is paying taxes, the fellow on that side of the street is paying less taxes, that is not fair, let us change it. That is what will happen. I mean, that is not hard to see. We did the same thing with Wedgewood Park this time. The only proposals I have from the Government - I had no proposal when this started. The only report I have, done by a member of the Minister's staff, which is suspect right off the bat, says that Wedgewood Park and Mount Pearl should stay out of it. I do not agree with that. I do not agree that that report was right, but that is the only report I have. And now I have this proposal put forward by the Government, based on nothing, no facts, no figures to support his proposal. Had a feasibility study been done, and had this proposal come down as the proposal most advantageous to this region, Mr. Speaker, I could not stand here and argue against it now.

The only point I want to make in my somewhat rambling speech over the last half-hour is that if you had a feasibility study done, and from that, the residents of the cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl and the towns of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park could see a great advantage in amalgamation, they would sit down and look at it, Mr. Speaker. They are all rational people. They are not irrational people, in this area. They would, I would suspect, support the proposal from an independent study. But right from day one, they have no faith in what the minister has done. He started out as an inexperienced minister; that is not a shame, we all go through that. And we started out with an inexperienced Government. But, Mr. Speaker, when they knew they were going wrong, they did not withdraw and change and try to follow the Municipalities Act, which spells all this out quite clearly, and try to present a reasonable and factual proposal to all the towns and residents of this area. Had that been done, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would be in half the trouble we are in now with this amalgamation issue. And I still say that the war continues and will continue between St. John's and Mount Pearl, which is unfortunate, because that cannot help our region; it cannot do any good for this region. And we will have a lot of residents of the City of St. John's now who are dragged in there kicking and screaming, and they will always be upset with what the city council does, because they will always feel that they are getting the short end of the stick, whether or not that is true from now on. We have upset still with Airport Heights, as we have had for years, we have still some in Kilbride, we have every now and then some in Shea Heights but not very much; maybe the Beaver Pond area is upset a bit.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation is going to walk away, also, from the road to Blackhead - which I forgot - very expensive and the road to Petty Harbour boundary going into Maddox Cove, also very expensive. Mr. Speaker, this proposal will cost the City of St. John's millions of dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just one final sentence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just one minute, Mr. Speaker. This proposal will cost the city taxpayers a lot of money. It would cost all the areas that are being amalgamated, the Goulds and Wedgewood Park in particular, plus the agricultural area under the Metropolitan Board, which has quite a few people living in that area. And as the minister said when he opened this, they never had a vote, they never had a council to elect, which is true, and that was a concern. But they would rather stay under that system and be governed by the Metro Board, and know what is happening, than go into a larger city as is proposed now, not knowing what is going to happen to them in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words. I guess what prompted me most to get involved in this debate again was basically the attack - and that is the only way it can be termed - this evening by the Member for St. John's South on places -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it was basically an attack, particularly upon the City of Mount Pearl, the way you got on in this legislature this evening. I thought it was unwarranted. The Member for St. John's South can twist and squirm and do whatever he likes. He basically attacked the City of Mount Pearl this evening, for no reason, whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon, in my remarks, not at any time did I say anything about the residents and/or the City of Mount Pearl. As a matter of fact, I said that the people in Mount Pearl had every right to -

AN HON. MEMBER: You said they were greedy!

MR. MURPHY: I did not say they were greedy -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

MR. MURPHY: - I said the member was greedy.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour knows and the member knows that is not a point of order. I do not even think it could properly be termed a disagreement between two hon. members. But, the fact of the matter is, and Hansard will show, that the Member for St. John's South carried on a vicious attack on the City of Mount Pearl, this evening, in his remarks, that he said they were greedy, and a lot of other things. And, if he cannot stand the heat of debate, in rebuttal, then, Mr. Speaker, he should leave the Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew there was no point of order before the member got up. I submit to the Member for St. John's South that if he wants to get involved in this debate and take the side of the City of St. John's, sobeit, that is his right. But it can be done without referring to people as being greedy and things such as that. There is no need for that type of attack in this legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: He can put forth his arguments, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents that he represents without getting into that type of debate. It is not warranted. We all know that this Government and this Minister of Municipal Affairs has dragged his feet so long, has caused so much confusion, that there has been a sort of ill feeling created between the two cities. And that came about as a result of an incompetent Premier, an incompetent Minister, and an incompetent Government who had set a course to destruction. It was not a course to bring places together, because their statements are so conflicting that they do not even make sense.

We heard the Premier the other day in this legislature saying basically -

MS COWAN: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Employment stay quiet and go back to her own seat? I have the right to be heard, instead of having her shouting across the House.

Now, the Premier said the other day that there was going to be no money, or nothing for this amalgamation issue. But it is a strange thing - on July 26, 1989, what did the Premier say?

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Placentia would listen he would know.

Here is what was said by the Premier: `Premier Clyde Wells says no municipality will be adversely affected financially as a result of the proposed amalgamation of 113 communities in Newfoundland. Premier Wells made the comments Tuesday night in response to statements Monday by the mayors of four Newfoundland communities who said their taxes may rise by 30 to 40 per cent as a result of amalgamation.'

Now, what did the Premier say? - Amalgamation will not hurt any municipality in terms of Government money. `Of that I am certain,' Mr. Wells said, `no municipality will be adversely affected.' Now, why is there an about-face on this issue? That is the question that has to be answered. I mean, how many times are they going to change their position? I am interested in seeing the vote. As I pointed out the other day, the Member for Fortune - Hermitage - and I have it here, July 21 - had his picture in the paper as one of our caucus opposing the amalgamation issue. Now, is he going to do an about-face, as well, and not support it? That is the question that has to be answered in this debate. Where do these members stand today?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fortune - Hermitage is hurting now, but the fact remains, he was in our caucus that stood and spoke against the amalgamation issue, had his picture taken with myself and my colleague for Mount Pearl and our Leader in the paper, standing totally against the amalgamation issue. Now, he cannot do an about-face, he has to stand in this legislature and vote against the resolution that is before the House. You cannot twist all over the place. The member has to take a position, and you cannot go all over the place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oliver Twist!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do you know whom he left out? He left out the Member for Bonavista South, my campaign worker. Now, that is what is taking place here.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Your campaign worker?

MR. TOBIN: Former campaign worker - poll captain, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia! Do you remember when you ran for the PC nomination? - if he wants to talk about people moving around. They should be careful, getting on with this type of stuff. I will tell you something, it is not just the Member for Fortune - Hermitage who opposed amalgamation. I have an article here in the paper, an interview with the Member for Placentia - I have it here someplace - where he said, basically - and I do not have it at my fingertips - `The area of Placentia will not be forced by Government to amalgamate unless it is satisfactory to the undersigned. Bill Hogan, MHA Placentia.'

Now why can't that happen for everybody else? Why do this Government and this Minister decide, for example, to box in Mount Pearl? Do you know, that in Mount Pearl today, there are people who started that community, who grew up in Mount Pearl and who, I am sure, would like to have their children build houses and continue to live in that city. But this Government has destroyed that dream. This Government has boxed in Mount Pearl in such a way that the only way people will have a house in Mount Pearl is if they buy one, because there will be no land left there to build. That is what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your position on Lewin's Cove?

MR. TOBIN: What is my position on Lewin's Cove? If Lewin's Cove does not want amalgamation, it should not be forced, that is my position, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The old hobnailed boots that climbed when you were called to the eighth floor last week, that is your problem. Tell the House (inaudible) you were called to the eighth floor because of your stand on amalgamation. That is the question. You have changed your position again, today - the old hobnailed boots treatment. If the people of Lewin's Cove do not want to be amalgamated with Burin or anyplace else then they should not be amalgamated. The people should decide, not a bunch of people over there who do not live in these places or have any input into them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to be in the city of Grand Bank before you are finished.

MR. TOBIN: Well, probably I will be in the city of Grand Bank. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, there are worse places to live than Grand Bank. But I can tell you one fellow who never lived in Grand Bank or on the Burin peninsula, and never will, or will not be back looking around the fish plants in Grand Bank or anywhere else on the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. He burned his bridges, although Vic called him in and changed his mind on the seal hunt. I know what is going on. He is pretty nervous about not getting his seat back the next time, when he is in sucking around FPI. Ask him what changed his position on the resolution he had to bring in on the seal hunt? Ask him who changed his mind on that?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will get on to the issue of amalgamation, because there are some other things we have to say here. This what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had to say about amalgamation: `I hope I have not given the impression that we are going to mandate amalgamation on anyone.' Now, Mr. Speaker, he did not give that impression. He brought it into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How would someone get any other impression, when you say to the people of the Goulds and the people of Wedgwood Park that you are going to be amalgamated with St. John's? Then he turns around and says, `I hope I have not given the impression that we are going to mandate amalgamation.' What a scholar, Mr. Speaker! What a way to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time! That is what the minister said. There it is. Then he went on to suggest, `There may be the odd situation where communities should have to amalgamate.' Well, I would suggest that Mount Pearl and Wedgewood -

Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting thing the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said. Now, when you consider what happened to Mount Pearl as it relates to the City of St. John's having a mandate, basically, to bring in the services without a service board, what did the minister say on that when he was talking about the amalgamation of the Northeast Avalon and the regional service boards? He said, `Each board will be responsible for providing services such as watershed management, garbage disposal and fire protection.' Mr. Gullage noted that other services such as planning and recreation may also be included. Participation in the boards will be mandatory.

Mr. Speaker, was Mount Pearl told that their participation in the board that is going to govern fire protection, the water area and the solid disposal area, was going to be mandatory? Is that this great democracy that we live in?

AN HON. MEMBER: We do not have a board.

MR. TOBIN: No, you do not have a board, but why do you not have a board? The City of St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. What will happen, then, in this scenario, is the City of St. John's will send a bill - Mr. Speaker, what is the Member for LaPoile saying? - every year to the residents of Mount Pearl for $3 million, $4 million or $5 million without the people of Mount Pearl having any say in what is happening, and that is wrong. That is wrong. It should not be allowed to happen.

For example, where is the water supply coming from? Is it coming from the City of St. John's, or is it coming from the area that is going to be amalgamated with the City of St. John's? Why should the City Council in St. John's have the right to tell their staff: We are going to charge this much to the City of Mount Pearl and send them a bill? Is that not taxation without representation of the worst kind? Is that not what people fought for over in Europe last year and the year before, to get away from that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there goes the Member for (inaudible) again. I suppose we are greedy now, too. I suppose we are like the residents of Mount Pearl, greedy, too, are we, because we stand up and fight for democracy? Is that what the member is saying, that we are greedy like the residents of Mount Pearl?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the NDP Leader, Mr. Newhook, blasts the amalgamation plan. So we are going to (inaudible) - my colleague is not here. We are going to be interested to see how my colleague - he is over there - stands on the issue of amalgamation of the Northeast Avalon, whether he agrees with his leader and blasts the amalgamation plan, or whether he does not agree with his leader. That is another question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's East doesn't know what he said. Read it for him.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not read it. I have a letter here. The Member for St. John's South just asked me about Lewin's Cove. Well, I submit to the Member for St. John's South that if there is a decent bone in the Premier's body, if the truth has any meaning to the Premier of this Province, the people of Lewin's Cove have nothing to worry about; because, in a letter dated September 24 1989 to Mr. Gilbert Inkpen, Mayor of Lewin's Cove, the Premier said: `I assure you that if the majority of residents of Lewin's Cove are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality, then there are no plans to force the issue.'

Now, if every button, hat, T-shirt, badge and every bumper sticker that is going around this city today, with the words that were - we all know what I am talking about. If they have any meaning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What words?

MR. TOBIN: I can't say it because it is unparliamentary. I am not a person to say something that is unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who lied?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I would say, who lied? Was it C-l-i-e-d? But in any case, if the Premier has any word of honour, it is in that letter to the people of Lewin's Cove. And if it is not, and he enforces amalgamation on the people of Lewin's Cove, I will come to the House with my T-shirt, cap, button and pens.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will be thrown out, then, for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) of Burin.

MR. TOBIN: Don't the people of Lewin's Cove have any rights?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. Do the people of Burin have any?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if Lewin's Cove is going to be forced to be amalgamated, then Lewin's Cove have the right to make up their own minds. That is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say what I want to say in this legislature. I can say to the people who sent me here, I am not like to Member for St. John's South, who says one thing one day and something else the next day. I believe that people have rights, and I believe that people have the right to make up their own minds whether or not they want to amalgamate with anyone else. I believe the people of Mount Pearl and the people of the Goulds, and the people of Wedgwood Park, and the people of St. Phillips and all of those places have a right to have a say in whether or not they want to be amalgamated. Who told this Government they have all the answers? Who told the Member for St. John's South that all the people in Mount Pearl are wrong or greedy because they do not want to be amalgamated?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not fair.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you should not say it if it is not fair. I know it is not fair, nor is the Member for Mount Pearl greedy because he stands up and defends his constituents. As a matter of fact, I would like to say to my colleague for Mount Pearl, that one of the sincerest speeches I have ever heard in this Assembly was made to day by my colleague, on behalf of his constituents. One of the sincerest speeches I have ever heard in this Assembly was made today by my colleague from Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. TOBIN: Because he is one of the people who started to build Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). You should see all the votes (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it would be more interesting to see how the Members for St. John's vote. I will be looking forward to seeing how the Minister of Finance is going to vote, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You are going to vote against the amendment. What about the resolution?

DR. KITCHEN: I am going to vote for it.

MR. TOBIN: You are going to vote for the resolution. What about the Member for Pleasantville's resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I said the other day, and I say it again, that the amalgamation brought in by the Member for Pleasantville was orchestrated by the Premier to let the St. John's members off the hook, so that they would look good to the City Council of St. John's, because the pressure is on the St. John's members. They have this little gimmick tied up now, where the Member for Pleasantville will bring forward a resolution and the Members for St. John's can vote in favour of this resolution, provided the amendment does not defeat the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would not bet any money that his resolution will not carry, that his amendment will not carry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I tell you, there is a dangerous game being played in this legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have one there, `Graham' is with you.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for LaPoile, I tell you, will be independent when he votes, the same as with that great stand he took against his hospital closing over in Port aux Basques, when he came in here and said, `Mr. Speaker, I am against the hospital closing, but I do not want to upset the Premier, I am going to stay with him.' Who is he trying to hoodwink?

AN HON. MEMBER: He told Ron Pumphrey but he (inaudible) say he was against it, though.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he told Ron Pumphrey that he was against it and came in here and voted to close his hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sick and tired of listening on Ron Pumphrey in the nighttime about the hospital closing and he comes in here and votes for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when you look around this legislature on both sides of the House and you see people who have served their community as a councillor or as a mayor and have done a fairly good job, and you see others like my friend from Carbonear, the Member for Placentia, and the Minister of Environment and Lands -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. TOBIN: - yes, and Fortune - Hermitage, who are all actively involved in the Federation of Municipalities, you wonder what has changed? For example, when the Member for Carbonear was President of the Federation, did he go around advocating to Government that they should have forced amalgamation, that all smaller centers should be gobbled up by the City of St. John's and by some other places?

MR. DOYLE: He used to crucify me when I was the minister.

MR. TOBIN: Is that what he did? Did the Member for Placentia, when he was President of the Federation, go around trying to force all the smaller places into one big centre? Bigger is not better. What did the Government do when they saw that they could not handle the battle in Mount Pearl with the arguments put forth by the Council and by my colleague? When Government saw that, what did they do? They said, `We will fix them anyway, so we will box them in. We will take all their lands,' and they moved -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How can the City of St. John's get the Southlands, if they do not have the Goulds?

Mr. Speaker, I tell you one thing the City of St. John's does not have, that is great representation in the South.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I mean that. I do not think you are doing a good job representing your constituents. I really don't. As a matter of fact, your constituents don't think you are doing a good job. At least, that is what some of your colleagues told me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I have nothing against the City of St. John's, but I don't think the City of St. John's should be allowed to gobble up every municipality that is close to them. I don't think that should be allowed to happen. The people who live in those other smaller centres have no say in the matter.

We saw amalgamation take place in Central Newfoundland. It was done with the agreement of Grand Falls and Windsor, but it didn't happen in two or three months, or two or three years. It took time, Mr. Speaker, and when it happened, it was done right. It was done for all the right reasons, when it happened. But this Government comes in, and we can say what we like, and they can nod their heads and everything like that, but the long and short of this is that what they are doing is illegal, no question about it.

That brings me to the point I raised today. The Municipalities Act clearly states that if Government is going to bring in amalgamation, they must make a specific amalgamation proposal. That was not done. That was not done, Mr. Speaker. They had to publish the proposal in the affected communities. That was not done. They had to appoint a commissioner or commissioners to study the feasibility of the Government's proposal and report to the minister who, in turn, makes a recommendation to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, that was not done either. So how can the members opposite vote for something when they do not know what it is all about?

The Premier told us the other day, we had some general information as it relates to amalgamation. He said we have some general sense of how things may be affected. So how can members of the House honestly make a decision on the amalgamation issue facing the Northeast Avalon, based on the fact that we have some general information about how it is going to be affected? I don't think that is fair to the members on this side, or on that side of the House. I don't think it is fair to those who want to support the resolution, nor is it fair to those who oppose the resolution, because we are being asked by the minister and by the Government to make a decision on something that we don't have any information about.

I don't know why the Minister of Municipal Affairs refuses to give us the information, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why he continues to refuse to give us the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have any.

MR. TOBIN: That is the point. Would it be because he doesn't have the information? Is it because he is breaking the law in contravening the Municipalities Act? Is that why he will not give us the information?

If Government want to do this deed and force this amalgamation on the people, then let them bring in the legislation to rescind the excess supervision of the Municipalities Act and substitute new legislation which will enable it to proceed in a proper manner. That is what has to happen, but why will the minister not do it?

Mr. Speaker, the minister should not forget that Mount Pearl is part of his constituency, as well as St. John's. The minister should not turn his back on one part of his district over another, and that is basically what this minister has done. The minister should not be guided, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance, in particular, two St. John's Ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said the Minister of Municipal Affairs should not be guided by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education, among others.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for Mount Pearl; he is the other half.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only one in this Province who does not know that is the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The only one who does not know he represents part of Mount Pearl is the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't know how he can sit around the table and see this Government - and be part of it, be the minister responsible - box in part of his constituency. I don't know how he could do it. I would like to see someone trying to box in part of Burin or Marystown or Lewin's Cove or Port au Bras, or Fox Cove, Mortier, or Parkers Cove, or Rushoon, or Baine Harbour, or Boat Harbour, or Red Harbour, or Epworth or Corbin, or Big Salmonier. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see someone trying to box in one of those, while I sit around the table and support it, in order to get even. I would like to see that happening, and I can tell you right now, if you ever try to bring that amalgamation issue of Lewin's Cove before the House, you have not seen anything yet, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier will eat those words.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you will be gone out of the House.

MR. TOBIN: Well, if I am, sobeit; fellows have been thrown out of the House before over an issue. But I tell you, I will do everything I possibly can. As a matter of fact, my colleague from Grand Bank was the last person to be expelled from the legislature. And there was nothing wrong with the other side of an (inaudible), I suppose, having a few minutes out there either, but if we believe in something, if the people of the Burin Peninsula believe in something, we will take it to the bitter end.

And by the way, the Member for St. John's South should know that the Mayor of Mount Pearl is originally from Marystown.

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is, and I know he is proud of it. And I can tell you, as I said, we will take it to the bitter end, and not only that, to make it even stronger, my colleague from Mount Pearl worked in Marystown for many years; he worked there as an engineer. So, when you have that combination - and the Deputy Mayor of Mount Pearl, her people are from Marystown. So, when you have that kind of blood in you from the Burin Peninsula, make no mistake that this issue is not about to die, and there is nothing on the Southside, including the member, that will shake it.

There is determination in this group, and the Member for St. John's South can call them greedy and all the names he wishes, but he will not deter them from the real issue, which is to see that the City of Mount Pearl is allowed to continue to grow and prosper under that which was set down -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, not everybody paid his way. Mount Pearl can pay their own way and have paid their own way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good performance.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, good.

MR. MURPHY: They insinuate that (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I never said that. I never said that at all. It is the Member for St. John's South who said the people of Mount Pearl have not paid their own way.

MR. MURPHY: I never said it.

MR. TOBIN: No? We just heard you. What did you just say?

MR. MURPHY: I said, `if everybody paid his fair share'.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, and let Mount Pearl grow and prosper and become the city that it is supposed to become, with the land they had to develop; and let the people come and move in and let their children and their grandchildren build on the land, because right now, there is no more construction worth talking about, and if this minister and this Government continue to box them in, then, the City of Mount Pearl becomes another Wedgewood Park, and within a couple of years - well, if it is after the next election they have nothing to worry about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak for a few minutes on the particular amendment proposed by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

I can only think of it as a demagogic play to the public to try to say that we cannot pass laws that may affect people in a way they do not want to be affected unless they agree to it. I mean, he would have us think that we cannot pass laws against smokers unless we have a vote amongst smokers, to see if they are going to agree to it. We cannot increase the tax on businesses unless we have a vote amongst all the businesses in the Province to see if they will find it acceptable. If you really believe that people should be allowed to have what they want, then let us have a vote down in Pleasantville to see if they would like to join Wedgewood Park, and have a tax rate of 6.5 mils instead of 11 mils.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe we should all join Wedgewood Park.

MR. NOEL: That is a reasonable proposal, if the Government were not strong enough to decide to move on this matter, which the previous administration failed to do for so many years, and only continued to build up and exacerbate the problems we have in this Province.

To propose that a government should not move on an amalgamation effort without the consent of all the individual communities to be affected is ludicrous, in my view. Nobody is going to vote - the people of Wedgewood Park, for instance, are not going to vote voluntarily to have their mil rating doubled. You cannot expect that. The people of Mount Pearl, whose residential tax is 25 per cent less than the residential tax in St. John's, and whose business tax is only half the business tax in St. John's, a community that is today paying, according to the City of Mount Pearl's own figures, $2 million less a year in municipal taxes than they would pay if they were taxed at the rate of St. John's, naturally, are not going to vote in favour of joining St. John's and having the St. John's mil rate to pay. What a ludicrous proposition! And it is obviously only intended to be demagogic, you know, to look democratic.

If our friends on the other side of the House were so democratic and so interested in paying attention to the wishes of the people of the Province, and the wishes of the people in their own districts, why did they take the position they did a year ago on the Meech Lake issue? How democratic were they then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Why are you not content to defend your own actions rather than worrying about other people's actions who are perfectly acceptable to the electors of this Province? If you want to have a vote on this amalgamation question, then it would make more sense, probably, to have it amongst all of the people who are being considered for amalgamation. I would not favour that. I do not think that is necessary, and I would not favour it because I think it would be a fraud. I know how St. John's would vote. We have a poll showing that St. John's is 68 per cent in favour of amalgamation, and all the people I talk to in my district are in favour of it. So, to have a plebiscite of the whole proposed area would, in my view, be a farcical thing to do. It would be having recourse to doing something that you are not prepared to do directly and openly. You are not prepared to assume your responsibility and do what you have been elected to do, you are trying to get the people to take the heat for you. So I do not think that makes reasonable sense.

All that those of us who are trying to get this matter straightened out are trying to do is to ensure that we have equitable taxation in the Province and that we have the best planning set-up that we can have, and that we can have the most efficient delivery of services. Now, we do not have equitable municipal taxation in this Province today, and what we have to remember is that municipal reform is another version of tax reform in this Province. It is hard to get the figures on it, but I think that this Province will probably collect a total of about $200 million in municipal taxes this year, throughout the whole Province. It amounts to about half of what will be collected in personal income tax in the Province, and something like 12 per cent of all the taxes to be collected by Government in the Province this year. So, municipal tax is an important component of the entire tax system in this Province. We have to ensure that it is collected fairly and equitably.

Income tax is collected on the basis of ability to pay. Consumption taxes are collected on the basis of consumption, you pay, in accord, 12 per cent on everything you consume. Municipal taxes are paid on the basis of services received. We have to ensure that people pay taxes on an equitable basis in comparison with services enjoyed in our Province. Now, the people of Mount Pearl enjoy the same quality of municipal services as the people of St. John's, but the people of St. John's, as a proportion of their household income, pay 2.36 per cent of their household income in municipal taxes, and the people of Mount Pearl only pay 1.36 per cent. Now, that is not fair and it has to change.

MR. WINDSOR: It is fair.

MR. NOEL: You know, we do not have the rich people in this region -

MR. WINDSOR: It depends on the household income.

MR. NOEL: What does? The percentage?

MR. WINDSOR: No, the amount that is gained. Maybe your higher percentage of the lower family income is less money than a lower percentage of a higher family income.

MR. NOEL: Gee, the Member for Mount Pearl is brilliant. Is he a mathematician as well as an engineer? I am sure there was nobody else in the House who realized the point you make. But the fact of the matter is that, as a percentage of household income, the people in St. John's pay 2.33 per cent and the people in Mount Pearl pay 1.39 per cent. And it is not because the people of St. John's are rich people, you know. As a matter of fact, there are eighteen communities in this particular region that people use statistics on when we are talking about these matters, and, of the eighteen, six of them have an average family income higher than St. John's. Mount Pearl's average family income, according to the most recent census statistics, was higher than St. John's, but the people out there are paying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Listen, my friend, there is a difference between having a slightly higher income and paying half of your household income in municipal taxes. The figures - I cannot find the piece of paper here now that I had them on - but the figures are something like $36,000 in St. John's and slightly over in Mount Pearl. And you know, the highest income average in the whole region - and I am sure this will not surprise many of the people around here who are familiar with the Member for St. John's East Extern and the imbalance he creates in his own district - the highest income average in the last census was in the Town of Flat Rock, $40,000 a year compared with $36,000-something in St. John's. There may be an imbalance due to the wealth of the Member for St. John's East Extern.

But the municipal taxes, as a percentage of household income in Flat Rock, is less than 1 per cent. Now, I am not saying that the people in Flat Rock should pay the same tax rate as the people in St. John's, but they should pay something towards the cost of operating St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why? Why?

MR. NOEL: Because that gentleman is coming in to St. John's to work in this building. Because there are certain costs to running this region that are higher in St. John's and higher for the people who are taxpayers in St. John's. But it is not fair that people who happen to reside in St. John's have to pay all of that. It is not fair, and what we have to do is find a method to increase fairness in municipal taxation.

MR. HEWLETT: Well, give us some Government buildings and Government workers, and that would increase the fairness (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: They have some Government buildings in Mount Pearl.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, but you took fifty jobs out of Springdale (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: They have Government buildings in Mount Pearl but we still cannot get their tax rate up to where it will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: No, St. John's wants to have all the development it can have, just like all of the other communities around, but you cannot expect St. John's to continue paying higher tax rates than people in the surrounding areas who enjoy some services in the city. Now, there is a way to achieve this, aside from making one big city, or aside from bringing into the City of St. John's, communities that do not want to come, and that would be to find a formula by which the people of Paradise, for instance, the people of Flat Rock and the people of Mount Pearl would help, on a reasonable basis, to share the cost of operating this urban core city. Perhaps you can do that by allowing St. John's, for instance, which has been designated as the regional city - and it, in effect, is going to be after this resolution passes, if it passes - to assess a mil rate on these other communities surrounding the city, on the basis of what proportion of their people work in St. John's, how far they are from the city, what level of services they have and that sort of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I have heard that many places. I am not suggesting that it is a new idea. But it is the kind of thing that we have to look at if people do not want to create one large city. However, I am drifting away form the few points I wanted to make during this intervention.

The main point I want to make is that it is very illegitimate for the Member for Mount Pearl to suggest that we should be prepared to take votes in all of these individual communities before we proceed with amalgamation in the area. To do that would mean you would never do anything in this whole region. And this Province cannot afford that.

The people who live in the rural parts of this Province have to realize that they have a stake in what is being done here, as well. Something like one-third of our population is involved in this Northeast Avalon, and they pay well over half of all of the municipal taxes collected in this Province. So, that is a good bit in excess of $100 million this year, to the extent that the - and I believe that this St. John's region should be self-sufficient municipally. We should be able to collect enough taxes in this area to pay the municipal cost of operating the area. Today, St. John's and Mount Pearl receive about 20 per cent of their budget from the Provincial Government, and the other fifteen or sixteen communities in the Northeast Avalon receive over 50 per cent of their budgets from the Provincial Government.

Now, for people who live and represent rural Newfoundland in this Province, you should understand what is at stake here. Why should the Provincial Government have to be contributing over 50 per cent to the budgets of these bedroom communities around St. John's, who are paying four, five, six and seven mils, on assessments that are much below assessments in St. John's and Mount Pearl, a very unfair contribution to the municipal tax take in this Province, and consequently, not contributing as much to the welfare of the whole Province as they should, if the Provincial Government was not being required to put money it should not be required to put, into this St. John's region.

We have the capacity in this region to be self-financing to a lot greater extent than we are, but it is not happening because we do not have a proper municipal organization system in this region. And I am very disappointed in the members from the other side who will not help us come up with a solution to this. It is obviously a very difficult question, but the members opposite are against everything we might propose. They are against what the minister is proposing, and while I would like the minister to do more than he is doing, at least, it is a step in the right direction.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I gave you a solution but you did not listen.

MR. NOEL: I asked you if you would support bringing Mount Pearl into St. John's. You will not support that. The only way you will support it is if everybody agrees to it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Status quo.

MR. NOEL: The Status quo, yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If you could get a proper feasibility study done, then the reasonable people in the area would agree to that study.

MR. NOEL: And you would -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) argue that it is not practical to do this.

MR. NOEL: Nobody is going to tell you that it is not practical to do what we are proposing to do.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Get a study done.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your answer to every problem, get another study, another study, another study.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Would you support imposing the amalgamation plan on the whole region, if a feasibility study said you should do it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. NOEL: You would support it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. NOEL: You would not require the plebiscite that our friend, here, is proposing? So you are going to vote against this amendment?

MR. R. AYLWARD: If I had something to sell it, to explain to them what the advantages are -

MR. NOEL: So you are going to vote against this amendment, right?

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) feasibility study (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: No, but you are going to vote because you do not think a plebiscite should be required?

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) and I will vote for it.

MR. NOEL: No, that is only one aspect of it; if you do not agree with the whole amendment, you have to vote against it. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, those are the few points I wanted to make in this intervention. I do not think people should expect that we should have these individual plebiscites in all of the communities in order to something sensible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to say a few words on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Mount Pearl.

I was just listening to the Member for Pleasantville and, Mr. Speaker, I am as confused now as I was when he started, because the rationale that he was trying to explain, does not jive at all with the way the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to operate.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) explain it.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my little saucy crackie from Eagle River -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I remind the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, that remark is unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Medium-sized crackie.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw those remarks, but he does resemble one.

My hon. colleague and friend from Pleasantville, I think in his last remarks, speaking to my colleague from Kilbride, said, `No one is going to tell us' - he is talking about a feasibility study or plebiscite - `what we are doing with this issue is wrong.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pretty well sure that is what the Member for Pleasantville said a few minutes ago, that no one is telling us the way we are approaching this issue is wrong. That is what the Member said, and tomorrow, Hansard will record it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. gentleman (inaudible) or not, I would think he should have because the letter is addressed to the Premier and all Members of the Legislature and it is from the Mayor of St. Phillips. I would suggest that the Mayor of St. Phillips is definitely not in favour of the amalgamation process. I think he gave some good reasons. He even said - I think there were five or six WHEREASES and he went down through the different whereases. I would like to read some of the concerns that the Mayor of St. Phillips brought forward to the Premier and to all the Members of this Legislature. They are worth noting. They will show that all of a sudden the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: You might have read it, Mr. Speaker, but I want this to go in Hansard, where other people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have the opportunity to read it. Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden this Government is saying to the people in St. Phillips, now, you are tax free and debt free. Portugal Cove owes money, so the residents of St. Phillips will now help to pay off that debt. That is what this Government is trying to do to the people of St. Phillips.

I was surprised today, Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island came into this Legislature - and I would suggest, if he does not present a petition in this legislature tomorrow from the people of St. Phillips, then I will be obliged, Sir, to get up and make some comments, because I know that the petition has been delivered to the hon. member. Therefore, we hope that petition will be put forward tomorrow by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. HEWLETT: He is duty-bound to deliver his petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: My colleague for Bonavista South gets awfully touchy once in a while. The most interesting thing about this legislature is that on this side, when we have an issue we want to discuss, we get up and speak for five, ten, fifteen or twenty minutes, but, Mr. Speaker, on that side over there they are only allowed to speak at the Premier's say-so. The only time the Member for Bonavista South or the Member for St. John's South, or the Member for Eagle River are allowed to stand in this legislature is if the Premier has given his blessing.

MR. HEWLETT: Simon says.

MR. WARREN: As my colleague said, if Simon says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us go back to this particular letter.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Anderson (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there are many Mr. Andersons in my district. If the member would refer to a particular Mr. Anderson, I am sure I would be able to tell him everything he would want to know about any particular Mr. Anderson.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He will (inaudible) you on the ballot next time.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, no! I find this very, very interesting. You know, for the last two-and-a-half years I have been trying to find out whom one of my opponents would be. Now, we have it down to the first letter of the alphabet.

Mr. Speaker, in my district 33 per cent of the voters have the name Anderson.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you are gone.

MR. WARREN: Let us look at the results of the last election, since my hon. colleague brought it up. Mr. Speaker, in Makkovik, where most of the Andersons are, I won by 131 to 40. In Nain, where the other Andersons are, I won by something like 410 to 91. Mr. Speaker, in order for me to win with such a majority, I had to get 90 per cent of the Anderson vote, and I can name three, out of all of the Andersons, who did not vote for me. I say to my colleague, it means a lot about amalgamation, let me explain to the hon. gentleman. I have been sidetracked by the little rabbit tracks from Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague, don't worry about the Anderson name being on the next ballot. I suggest to him, he had better look at the Andrews name that may be on the ballot against him in Eagle River, at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting carried away from the issue I am speaking about.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville also said he does not agree with a plebiscite in individual communities. If there were one plebiscite taken for all the towns concerned, with St. John's, which has the largest population of those affected, I am convinced it would be a very, very close vote.

MR. GRIMES: You are against (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to my hon. colleague from Exploits is what I would say to my hon. colleague from Pleasantville, that if all the areas concerned were combined for one overall plebiscite, I would think the people of St. John's, knowing that next year they are going to have pay extra taxes - because that for sure is coming - if not, Mr. Speaker, here are two other items of interest to everybody.

Let us talk about Mount Pearl and the Goulds area. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my hon. colleague from St. John's South could see this as a possibility: I think my colleague knows that this Government is going to take over, for commercial development, all the farmland on the right and left sides of Brookfield Road, between there and Kilbride. This is where some of the taxes will be derived to offset the cost. So, we can say goodbye to the farmers, because Government is planning freeze the farmers out of this area. The only way to get a return from it, to reduce taxes, is to freeze the farmers out. That is what this Government is planning to do. They are doing it by the back door.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Pleasantville know this is the motive behind this resolution, because shortly after this resolution is passed, if it does pass, the St. John's City Council is going to come to the Government and ask to have this farmland re-zoned. That is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. That is the move of this Government.

Let us look at something else, Mr. Speaker. Now, all of a sudden, they have Mount Pearl boxed in. Now, what is going to happen to the largest shopping mall to be built in Eastern Canada, that is on the drawing boards, and will be close to the overpass on the arterial road, and to Mount Pearl? Now, I wonder would that be the next move. If that shopping centre were moved roughly one-eighth of a mile, then it would be in Southlands, taken away from Mount Pearl. Is this another smart move by somebody with the St. John's City Council or the devious way of our Premier? I wonder is this what is happening, Mr. Speaker. These are two possibilities for reducing taxes to the people in St. John's, taking the farmland away from the farmers and putting that large proposed shopping centre in the Southlands division.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, it will not work for another reason, the developers. The developers who were proposing this large shopping centre may say no completely to any development, because, if Mount Pearl, where they were hoping to get their taxes, cannot expand and the customers to this big shopping centre are reduced in number, here is another way that St. John's will stop any major development from going into Mount Pearl. `Let us close in Mount Pearl, let us stop Mount Pearl. We have the Village Mall, we have Zellers Mall, we have enough big malls here now. Let's not let one go in there because we will be taking the customers from St. John's into this big mall.' So there is another devious move on behalf of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that have gone through -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleagues that I may not be here after the next election, if my colleague stands. But I would think, Mr. Speaker, three or four years down the road or probably ten or twenty years down the road, regardless of whether I am here or not, my hon. colleague from Eagle River - I would think he might be still here. I have no doubt about that. I would think my hon. colleague could be a member for some time to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up-along.

MR. WARREN: Oh my, Mr. Speaker, God give us grace that he doesn't go up-along!

Mr. Speaker, I would say that ten or twelve years from now he will be saying he remembered the Member for Torngat Mountains saying in this House on May 21 that the farmland was going to be taken away from the farmers, and it had happened, and the big mall in Mount Pearl didn't go ahead. In five, six or ten years from now that is what my hon. colleague will be saying.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this before I close because I did not want to go much further, but I want to say to my colleague for Eagle River, I believe if he can convince his federal colleagues, his federal party - and I will do my best to convince our federal party - I would be willing, in the next federal election, to take him on in Labrador. I think I would try it. I think I would try it, Mr. Speaker. He has sort of said he might be running federally in the next election, and I think if he could convince his colleagues federally, I will try to convince my colleagues federally. I would be most interested in going to the battlefront with the hon. gentleman. I had a call today from his district and they said they heard him on the radio saying nobody from his district works with Marine Atlantic or CN Marine, whatever the case may be. I will not tell the hon. gentleman who called - and I know my hon. colleague is only young - but I suggest he check out the facts, and he will find that there have been people from his district who worked with Marine Atlantic. The hon. gentleman is saying there is no one in his district working with Marine Atlantic.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I never said that.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, he did say that on the radio this morning. And, in his community, in every community, Marine Atlantic is contracting out to individuals to look after their freight, coming and going, every year. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is completely ill-informed about his own district, so just imagine what would happen if, in the other three districts in Labrador, I take him on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is showing me something to read. In fact, I say it is a good editorial; however, the hon. gentleman should also show the other story on page two in the same paper. I have to agree with the hon. gentleman. He is standing up for the people of Labrador. I give him full credit. My colleague from Menihek is standing up for the people of Labrador, my colleague from Naskaupi is standing up for the people of Labrador and I am trying to stand up for the people of Labrador, so, if we all work together, I think Labrador will be better off and, I think, will be better served if we fight for something together instead of against each other.

I think we will be better off and I think the people of Labrador will be better off; but my hon. colleague will not do that, because he will not even present the petitions that are given to him, so I have to present his petitions, Mr. Speaker.

Now, my hon. colleague is getting me off the track a bit, but I will get back on track again. If I can have quietness, Mr. Speaker, I will continue, but as long as I am interrupted by my colleagues, I have to go off the track once in a while.

I want to say to the House Leader, I hope when the Premier responds to this letter from Heber Walters, the Mayor of St. Phillips, he will definitely respond in a very positive manner to the concerns that Mr. Walters expressed, and to what my hon. colleague from Mount Pearl was saying about a plebiscite. And, if this Government goes against having a plebiscite in the individual communities, well, then, let us go for the next best thing, an overall plebiscite. I would be interested in knowing what the Member for Pleasantville would do when we bring in a resolution to that effect, if this one is defeated.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am completely against amalgamation being forced down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without their having been consulted. That is the problem with what is happening here now.

We have a plan put forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that has not been thought out. I think we are all probably - in fact, in my district, I always look at the larger community when election time rolls around and say, `I know I have to win this particular community,' because you always look at the majority of the votes in the area and sort of concentrate there. And, apparently, we are all alike, because even when we are running for elections, this is the angle that we play. Whether it is the Member for Bellevue or the Member for Exploits, we play the angle where we can get the most votes.

Mr. Speaker, this Government is doing the same thing with this amalgamation issue. They are seeing St. John's as the larger of the whole area and trying to play into the hands of the Mayor and councillors in St. John's, at the same time, knowing that poor little St. Phillips, with a population of only 1,500 or 2,000, or Mount Pearl, with a population of 18,000 or 20,000, is not going to affect the overall course that this Government is planning to bring forward. And I say to my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, I cannot run in the Bellevue district in the next election, because the next federal election is going to be called before that, and my colleague and I will be drumming the grounds of Labrador for 60 days. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague that after the next federal election -

AN HON. MEMBER: So we get a PC nomination fight.

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker, I said to my hon. colleague, if he could convince his colleagues, I will try to convince my colleagues. Meanwhile, I say to my colleague that if my friend from Menihek wants to run for the federal seat against my hon. colleague for Eagle River, I think I would go as campaign manager -

AN HON. MEMBER: An unbeatable combination.

MR. WARREN: - because then, I think my colleague from Eagle River would withdraw from the scene altogether.

So, with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, forcing amalgamation down the throats of individuals, which is what this Government is doing, is not what I support.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you support?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I support - as my colleague from Kilbride has said, let's have a full feasibility study done, and then let the people decide what they want, whether by an individual or an overall plebiscite among those affected. Let's go and do it. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that whether - it will go through because the Government has the bodies to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And there is no free vote.

MR. WARREN: And there is no free vote. In fact, I found interesting what my colleague from Pleasantville was saying about Meech Lake, and I could not believe - I am sure the hon. gentleman was either asleep when the Meech Lake debate was ongoing, or else he was dreaming when he was speaking a few minutes ago, because exactly what he said happened. There was no democracy. Your Premier would not allow you to vote. That was the problem, you were not allowed to vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. WARREN: That is true. The Premier came into this House, the whole House, and said you are not allowed to vote. That was the decision. Mr. Speaker, this Government is run purely by a dictator.

So, I suggest that I will support any amalgamation done in a reasonable, conscious manner that will help all people concerned, but not just those people whom the Premier wants to help, because it is the Premier who is calling the shots, not the Minister of Municipal Affairs, not the Member from Pleasantville, but the Premier. If the Premier says we are going to have it this way, we are going to have it this way. The twelve or thirteen Cabinet Ministers are like pawns on a checkerboard, you move them when you want to, and the Premier treats the ministers the same way, they are just there to be used when he wants to use them. And this is the way that the Premier has been using his Cabinet Ministers since the election in April of 1989. Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak on the amendment proposed by the Member for Mount Pearl. I move to speak on it because I think there are a lot of things wrong with the resolution proposed by the Government. The resolution, as I said in the House the other day, is a hodgepodge cobbled together, and part, at the last minute; I am told that the decision, for example, not to include Mount Pearl, which was already planned to be included, was only made on Monday and they came into the House on Wednesday to announce it. So it was all very well thought out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you that? (Inaudible) starting rumours.

MR. HARRIS: No, I was told that from a reliable source, a very reliable source. It looks like it, anyway. You don't even have to have these good sources to know that this is something slapped together. The minister, in the preambles, talks about studies going back to 1957 and 1990, and seventeen municipalities, and all these figures, and basically, what they come up with is the lowest common denominator of all the studies, that there are seventeen municipalities and there should be less. That is the basic principle.

The only principle contained in the resolution that has any commonality with any of the studies that have been done is that everybody recognized the need to reduce the number of municipalities. All the nine commission reports and all the studies that have been done since 1957 agreed that there should be less municipalities. So that is the only principle they were able to salvage. The only principle that the Government could salvage from all of these reports and all of the talk of the last two years about amalgamation, the only one they had left, was that there should be less than seventeen municipalities.

So working from this great principle, they came up with this resolution. The bits and pieces of moving around, redirecting the map, putting this in and taking that out, and making some people pay for others, for example, with the towns of St. Phillips, Hogan's Pond and Portugal Cove, what they are proposing to do is make the people of St. Phillips and Hogan's Pond help pay for the municipal debt of Portugal Cove. That is what they are proposing. They want the people who don't have water and sewer service provided by the Municipal Government to pay for those who do have to have it. Because of the nature and the history of their town, they want to make them all pay.

Now, that is one of the principles or one of the results of their decision, we should have fewer municipalities, but they don't say how many less, and there is no real principle behind that except that `We will put these together because we have the power to do it,' essentially.

I want to speak about the amendment. I cannot support the amendment. I don't think we should go back and study all this again, having more feasibility studies and more votes, or the idea of votes and plebiscites, because I think it is a fundamental misinterpretation, an oversimplification of the notion of democracy.

There are people in the last number of decades who have had the notion that having a vote is somehow democratic, that if you can resolve a decision by a vote, therefore it is democratic, that anybody who is affected by this resolution - What if you had a vote in St. Phillips and Hogan's Pond and Portugal Cove? Well, I can tell you what would happen - the people in St. Phillips would vote against it and the people in Portugal Cove would vote for it. Why? The sensible people of Portugal Cove would see it in their interest to vote in favour of it, because the price of their expensive municipal services which they must have to have water and sewer, would be shared by a larger group of people. So they will vote in favour of it. You don't need to have a plebiscite to figure that out; that is just common sense to enlightened self-interest. And the people of St. Phillips would vote against it. Why wouldn't they? Why would they vote in favour of it? I mean, there may be a few magnanimous souls there, a few people who would say, `Yes, I know that I will have to pay more and I will be sharing more of a burden, but it is only right that I should do so.' But the majority of people will act in their personal self-interest and vote against such a resolution. As the Town Council of St. Phillips has indicated, it does not make sense based on any principles contained in the preambles to the resolution.

So, as I said, there is a great deal wrong with the resolution that I am afraid is not going to be cured. It might be stopped, it might be halted. It might be made into a total, absolute mess, worse than it is now, but it is not going to solve any problem.

Mr. Speaker, the principles that we look for in this resolution - there is nothing about equity. We talk about unequal taxation and unequal sharing of responsibility and liability within the region for the delivery and use of common services. We talk about common services. But they do not talk about the very similar and high level of services enjoyed by the people in the urban areas of the St. John's regions, such as Mount Pearl and St. John's. The same or better quality services that are enjoyed by the residents of St. John's, Wedgewood Park, Elizabeth Park out in Paradise, and the urbanized parts of Paradise that enjoy, not subdivision status, but subdivision-type services, with, in many cases, curb and gutter, paved roads, water and sewer, collection of garbage and good services for street cleaning and snow clearing. All of those services, and the standard of those services, are similar in Mount Pearl, St. John's, Wedgewood Park and some of the other nearby urban areas.

So, in fairness, in equity, as neighbours, they all should be contributing equally on the basis of their property taxes and property values. But we do not have that, through various accidents in history and various accidents of government action. And what the amendment says is that, regardless of all that, regardless of whether it was a mistake of a previous government, sobeit. If this Government passes this legislation now, and we, over here, do not like it, or this Party does not like it, we cannot change it in the future, unless the people who happen to be benefitting from this legislation agree. If Wedgewood Park should never have been - and the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern will say that nobody wanted them a few years ago, and that may well be true. The decisions that were made to keep them separate and not make them part of the municipality then, and provide them with services, may have been wrong. That may all have been wrong; but we have to deal with the situation that we have now.

We have, essentially, a subdivision of people surrounded by the rest of St. John's, and we have to decide whether fairness, equity, these principles of economic justice, ought to apply to the people of Wedgwood Park. If we were to say they only apply in Wedgwood Park if the people of Wedgwood Park say, `Yes, we will give up our special status, we will give up our special relief of taxes, because it is unfair for us to have it,' to say that can only be done if the people there consent, then I think that is a misguided interpretation of what democracy is all about. Because democracy does not include just a small group of people who happen to have, by reason of history or by reason of government policy, special privilege. Should we say to those in the higher income brackets, to those who are making over $100,000 a year, that we will not increase their taxes unless we have a vote? Should we have a vote of all the people in Newfoundland or Canada who make over $100,000 a year, and say, `Well, we plan to introduce a surtax now so that you can pay a bigger share, maybe even as big a share as the poor people, of your income?' I know that is a radical proposal, because the rich people in this country enjoy special privileges. They do not pay as much of their income in taxes as does someone making $25,000 a year, they pay much less. But, if we are going to have a principle that says we cannot change that unless the people who make over $100,000 a year agree in a plebiscite, then you can be sure that the rich or those with the big incomes will keep those incomes and never pay their fair share.

We do not see anything about fair share or equity in taxation here amongst those receiving the same level of services. We see a hodgepodge of reasons that boil down to the lowest common denominator, we have to reduce the number of municipalities. But, to say that we cannot change a municipal boundary unless the people consent - never mind all the arguments, let us assume it were fair and just for Southlands to be part of the City of St. John's -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There are those who said it is, but let us assume that it is, are we to say that we could only do that if the people of Mount Pearl agree? I don't think that is right. Where do Southlands come from? It came from the action of the Provincial Government in developing land. It came from Federal and Provincial Government policy that put together this land, that banked this land, that is going to develop this land, that is going to put the services in the ground, that is going to require those services to be paid for by the developers, that is going to deliver, when it is finished, to whatever municipality that gets it, fully serviced, spanking new building lots, tax based, people who live in those houses are going to be paying a substantial dollar each year to whatever municipality that gets it.

Why should we not wait? Should we not wait five or ten years and see how many people are living there and then let them vote. If you are going to bring in this principle of voting, you should wait and see who moves there and then let them vote. Did the people of Newtown, vote to go into Mount Pearl - Newtown when it was developed? Did they vote to join Mount Pearl? I don't think so.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, they did.

MR. HARRIS: I don't think there was a plebiscite in Mount Pearl-Newtown to decide whether they would go there. My understand is they wanted to go with the City of St. John's or they wanted to be on their own. And they were put in with the Town of Mount Pearl, they didn't vote. They were not asked where they wanted to go, they were told by the Government, because the Government of that day thought it was in the best interests of whoever to put them in with Mount Pearl. Now, we have a Government deciding that it should go in with St. John's. Well, we can argue about that one way or the other, whether it should or whether it should not, but if we are going to say it can only go there if Mount Pearl agrees, then I think that is going a bit too far, because, if that were the case, governments would not be able to govern, they would not be able to do anything against the wishes of the individuals who are affected thereby. We can take it too far. The Member for Pleasantville used a few examples. I suppose we could ask the criminals whether or not we should increased the sentences for crime. We can go really far and sound silly, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about basic principles of fairness. Municipal governments, after all, are all a creature of the Province. They do not have any real constitutional status of their own, they only exist by statute. Members over here talked about the Municipalities Act. Well, the Municipalities Act was passed by this legislature, and it can be changed.

MR. TOBIN: The point is, `Clyde' said he would not do it in the secrecy of Cabinet, but he knew he could not do it, anyway, in the secrecy of Cabinet.

MR. HARRIS: I am not speaking up for the Premier. The Premier speaks for himself, and you are right, the Premier could not do what he is doing here behind closed doors. It is all very well to say he would not do it in Cabinet, but the answer is, he would not have the legal right to do it in Cabinet, in the first place, so he had to bring it to the House. And this is the proper place for it. There should be no points for the Premier for bringing this to the House of Assembly. This is the people's forum, where it should have been brought, and where it had to be brought, by law. Whatever support he thinks he has out there amongst the public - and we cannot wait to hear the next poll results - he does not yet have the support to ignore the House of Assembly, the existing laws, and act in contravention to them, and I do not think he is ever going to get it. I do believe, in terms of this resolution, the amendment does not do anything to improve it, in fact, I think it is based on a wrong principle. I think what we have to see is some principle in this resolution. We have to see something here that goes to the heart of the actual problem, and the actual problem is that there are unfairnesses in the level of services people have and the price they are paying for them.

We have very different towns in the Northeast Avalon, very different municipalities. In the north of the Northeast Avalon we have communities such as Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Torbay, and Bauline. These communities are very different from communities such as Paradise, Elizabeth Park, and even Mount Pearl. Ninety per cent or more of the new housing in Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Torbay, Bauline and Logy Bay, is being built by people who are from those communities, who lived in those communities all their lives and whose parents and families lived there, or their spouses are from those communities. Those are communities that are living and growing on their own. They are not the result of people moving out from St. John's to avoid taxes and get the same services. They are communities that have a character of their own, a rural character. They are urbanizing slightly. You are getting subdivisions in Torbay with built-in services, so it is slowly urbanizing, but you do not have the massive influx of people moving to an already urbanized area, such as you have in Mount Pearl, such as you will have in Southlands. If you look at the growth pattern of Mount Pearl for the last twenty-five years, if you look at the growth pattern of Paradise, and St. Thomas', to some extent, Elizabeth Park is an obvious example, these are communities that were built as urban areas to attract people, from a developer's point of view, away from St. John's to have a place to live which had less taxes and, to some extent, less services. Those services now are being provided and we have a situation where there is a developing and growing sense of unfairness about the way the system works.

Now, I do not have to use a lot of examples, but, to me, it is very clear that if you took a brand new subdivision built in the last ten or fifteen years and you have a municipal problem that has to be fixed because the sewer is blocked up or is broken or whatever, the cost of doing that - the frequency, for one, is going to be very rare - is fairly well known. On the other hand, you might have Mrs. Jones up on Gear Street, or Boncloddy Street or Cookstown Road, or Flower Hill, whatever your favourite street is, who has a problem with her sewer being blocked up. The City Council comes up, and the first thing they have to do is find out where the sewer is, because it might have been built 50 or 100 years ago, or they don't know where it is, they do not necessarily know how deep it is. They might have to dig two or three holes to find it.

And that is not a reflection on the municipal workers of St. John's, it is a reflection on the fact that we are dealing with a system that is built over the years, that is aged, that is deteriorating, that, at some point, is going to have to be refurbished. And all of these costs are built into the system. I was mentioning to some of the Members earlier today, you know, if you go to downtown St. John's in the middle of the winter, you will see municipal workers shovelling snow off the Courthouse steps, off the streets or the steps between Bond Street and Gower Street and down on Holloway Street - shovelling the steps by hand.

MR. MURPHY: And only the St. John's residents are allowed to walk down the steps.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South says only the St. John's residents are allowed to walk down the steps.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true, you didn't have to quote me.

MR. HARRIS: Well, that might be true in St. John's South, but I know, in St. John's East, we welcome the people from Mount Pearl walking down our steps, and the people from Marystown, when they come to town, and the people from Corner Brook. We are not greedy. We don't mind people walking on the steps in downtown St. John's that are shovelled by hand by municipal workers of the City of St. John's. We do not mind, we do not have any objections.

But, I think, if we are talking about this urban area that we all live in as neighbours - and I am talking about St. John's and environs now - we have to recognize that there are some of these services that are more expensive, inherently, because they happen to be a part of the ancient history and system of St. John's that people participate in. Some people say, if people want to live in St. John's they should pay for all of that. Well, I mean, that is all very well to say, but not everybody can afford to buy a new house in Mount Pearl or Paradise or somewhere else. Not everybody can afford that. There are lots of people in St. John's East who can just barely afford to live where they are living, and they have to pay taxes to support the level of services that exist. We can't not do these things, we cannot have the city of St. John's not doing this.

So, there has to be some rationalization, some economic sense, social fairness, social justice, about what kinds of taxes people are paying and what kinds of services they are getting. We don't see that, at all, in this resolution. We see political opportunism, we see a lack of consistency, principle, integrity, a gutless resolution, I am afraid, that fails to take into account the basic principles that it should. I am looking forward to seeing what the other members for St. John's are going to do on this resolution. Are they going to support a resolution that does not address the fundamental problems of St. John's?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. HARRIS: I hope not, because, what we see here is a downloading - I mean, this is supposedly amalgamation, but what do we see? We see a toss-in, part of the downloading of Provincial Government expenses. What does the Aquarena and the Canada Games Park have to do with amalgamation? - nothing, except that it is going to lay additional cost on the taxpayers of St. John's. It is going to lay additional cost, as part of the downsizing, the downloading, of Provincial Government expenses, to the property taxpayers of St. John's. That is all it is going to do. It has nothing to do with amalgamation.

What about the St. John's Fire Department? Once again, you know, a regional fire department. When there is a fire in Bay Bulls the St. John's Fire Department goes to Bay Bulls, it goes to Holyrood, it goes to Bay Roberts if there is a big enough fire.

MR. TOBIN: It went to Trepassey years ago when the plant burned.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Burin - Placentia West says it went to Trepassey. He was from Trepassey earlier in his life. He knows. He remembers the St. John's Fire Department going to Trepassey! So, this is a part of the downloading of Provincial Government expenses onto the City of St. John's, and onto municipalities, in general. We are seeing that as part of the trend of this Government, but we do not see, Mr. Speaker, any high principle here. What we see is a hodgepodge of political decisions that is really going to please no one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: The other point I want to mention now, Mr. Speaker, is we have a free vote in the House. Now, why do we have a free vote in the House? Is this a great moral issue? Is this like capital punishment? Are we talking about a matter of individual conscience here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Is the Member for Fortune - Hermitage's conscience at risk in this resolution, that he has to have a free vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) precedent setting.

MR. HARRIS: Are we going to have a free vote on every measure that this Government brings in from here on, every matter there might be some dissension or disagreement on? Is this a matter of great moral conscience?

AN HON. MEMBER: Afraid of democracy, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Ah, now! We have the Government House Leader - I want to make sure Hansard records that it was the Government House Leader who said that it is called democracy. A free vote is democracy, and I think we can bring that up to the Government House Leader any time there is a resolution in the House. Those in the backbenches and even those in the Cabinet can get some comfort from knowing that the Government House Leader - I do not know about the Premier, the Premier is not here, obviously. I do not know if he would say that if the Premier were here. But the Government House Leader, at least, is on record now as saying that free votes in the House of Assembly on any matters at all - this is not of any great significance to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, its has nothing to do with him. He is not going to lose sleep whether this passes or fails. I don't think he has to go to his confessor and ask whether he should or should not support this. This is not a matter of conscience, it is a matter of government measures having to do with municipal boundaries. These are creatures of the Provincial Government.

MR. TOBIN: Ask him if the ministers have a free vote?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Burin - Placentia West wants to know whether the ministers have a free vote. Maybe the ministers could answer that for themselves. Maybe they can tell us not what the President of Treasury Board says, but whether they feel they have a free vote, whether they feel they are entitled to do what they think best, regardless of what the Member for Waterford - Kenmount says, regardless of the fact that the Member for Waterford - Kenmount does not want to include Mount Pearl because he is afraid of his own political skin, whether they have to support him in that compromise, or whether they feel free to vote whatever way they like. Is this going to be such a free vote that we are going to see anybody in the Cabinet vote against this resolution? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I think we have a government policy here and we are going to see the Cabinet support it and we are going to see the vast majority, 99 per cent, of the backbenchers support it even though it is allegedly a free vote. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is they say they are trying to be democratic, they say this is window dressing for government policy and it is being treated as such, and the back benches - I see a smile there from the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island; he is going to vote with them. He is going to vote in favour of the people of Portugal Cove and against the people of St. Phillips. He is going to split his vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lance Cove.

MR. HARRIS: Lance Cove has nothing to do with this. Bell Island has nothing to do with this. Bell Island is not even affected by this. He is telling us what he is going to do. He is going to be voting along with this Government, because this is a government measure, and regardless of what the Government House Leader says, that is the way they are going to vote because they feel they are obliged to do so for other reasons.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that my time on this amendment has passed so I will sit down and I will speak again when the main motion is before the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After hearing some of the St. John's members speak, I guess I am supposed to get up and perhaps genuflect and thank them for allowing me to spend my money here in St. John's. It never ceases to amaze me that someone can get up and talk so long and say nothing, telling us we don't contribute anything, but they are out there begging us to come in and spend our money. As a matter of fact, out in Fogo district, we get fliers from the stores in St. John's, telling us to come in here and spend our money; we, being out in Fogo district, 250 miles away, they are begging us to come in here and spend our money. Now, they are after us; if we listen to the Member for Pleasantville, they want us to pay some taxation in here, too.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Pleasantville to withdraw that remark, please.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry. I withdraw.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, he is given to outbursts and after hearing him speak earlier tonight, I make no wonder he would make such comments. I wonder if the Member for Pleasantville believes that we live in a democracy? I question seriously if he thinks we should have a democracy. He was around the Premier too long on Meech Lake, I think, and he learned some of the dictatorial attitudes of the Premier during the Meech Lake debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville said that we do not have equitable taxation in this Province. That is how he started first, and he eventually drew it around to the Avalon area, the Northeast Avalon, specifically. But he did say we do not have equitable taxation in this Province, nor do we have equitable service, and we are a long way from it. And by including the Goulds with St. John's, charging them the same taxes, then, obviously, if the member is correct in what he says, we have to provide the same level of service, perhaps immediately. If they are to pay the same level of taxes then, they should receive the same level of services.

It is interesting to note, too, that the member mentioned Flat Rock. Friends from St. John's East should take notice that perhaps the outspoken Member for Pleasantville might be taking aim at Flat Rock in the next round of amalgamation. You should be on your guard for that. He already knows the average per capita income, and so on, so you should take heed that he might be zeroing in on Flat Rock, as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker - $40,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you ever down there?

MR. WINSOR: Yes, many times.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you go to the Grotto?

MR. WINSOR: No, I did not go to the Grotto. I think my wife might have gone there. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville said one-third of the population pays about half of the taxes. Now what he should have gone on to tell us, too, is what proportion of Government money is spent in the same area in salaries. Because I think that would have been important too. Because I do not think there are many communities in rural Newfoundland that would mind having some of the Government services there. I can remember the fuss the City of St. John's kicked up when Motor Registration was moved to Mount Pearl. I also remember the commotion when the Department of Forestry moved its headquarters from St. John's to Corner Brook; they did not want it out there. We also note that when they talked of building a university out in Central Newfoundland, somewhere, it was the St. John's people who were vehemently opposed to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has that been built yet?

MR. WINSOR: Yes, it has been built; that institution has opened up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the amendment put by my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, asking the Government to conduct feasibility studies. The Government did not do feasibility studies as it said it would. Government did not follow any of the groupings. As a matter of fact, what is really ironic in all of this, to make sure that the commission reports were in tune with what the Government wanted, they got the deputy ministers and assistant deputy minister to do it. They did the reports and Government found it did not want any of the proposals put forth. Then, last week, in a typical knee-jerk reaction, this administration brought in a proposal of its own which was not subject to any of the feasibility studies, did not fall into any of the terms of legislation, the Municipalities Act. It was something this administration did on its own.

Now, one thing I will say for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has the real Midas touch, but I don't think anything turns to gold. The Midas touch - do you remember King Midas, everything he touched turned to gold? Well, the way he has botched things, as the minister, I can tell you that the things this minister does don't turn to gold, not even to coal, because it is worse than that. The regional services board - do you remember how the minister proclaimed this great bill? And now we see that he does not want to use it, because obviously, it is not very good. Besides that, every municipality in the Province is opposed to it.

Do you remember the changes in the grant structure that this minister put in place? He heralded it as the great new revolution that was going to change the face of municipalities in this Province. Some changes!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Now the Member for - in fact, he should be gone to Bell Island tonight. There is a public meeting over there that might do something for tourism for Bell Island and he should be attending it, instead of here yakking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, that is the protest because you could not get a ferry service for them.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the minister has made a complete schemozzle of everything he has touched. He has botched everything. There is not one thing this minister has touched that has worked out. Last year, he championed the calls of early public tending for the water and sewer and provincial paving in the Province, and, in fact, he did get it relatively early, but this year, we are almost into June and we still have heard no mention of it. So much for early public tendering.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at in this resolution the Government has put forth is that it wants to fundamentally change the face of communities in this Province, without the communities having any say. Many of the members on the opposite side were for a long time on municipal councils and they know how difficult it is to get communities to agree on anything. I think this administration had a splendid chance to do it. At the time the minister started to talk about amalgamation, I think there was a willingness in certain communities to amalgamate, to come together as one, and I think it could have worked if we had used the example of Windsor and Grand Falls, of consultation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Consultation.

MR. WINSOR: Exactly.

- and let the people, themselves work through the process. I think there was a feeling for it. Unfortunately, in my district, there was no proposed amalgamation, or annexation, but in the district next to me in Bonavista North there was a grouping of three communities, three councils, that they proposed as one, and before the minister started this scheme, the communities were almost together. They were close to doing it themselves, but after the minister sent his people in, he drove the communities further apart than ever before and any thoughts of bringing the people together in Bonavista North now has been put to rest by Eric the Amalgamator because of the approach he took to municipal government in this Province.

MR. PARSONS: `Sam', was there ever any thought given to amalgamation on Fogo Island?

MR. WINSOR: My friend from St. John's East Extern asked me if there was any thought given to amalgamation on Fogo Island. The minister, on one occasion, mentioned it, and, on another occasion, put it back about twenty-five years with one stroke of his pen. There was a section right in the middle of Fogo Island, almost the centre of the island, and the minister, without consultation with the people, had his planners go in and assign that section of the island for planning purposes to one municipality, and he has every community on the island now, on his back. There is not one community that can support another, because of the action of the minister. Those are the kinds of things this minister has done with amalgamation, and he is continuing to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously, there was tremendous pressure put on the minister by the City of St. John's to expand its tax base by including Mount Pearl. If they had the same rate of taxation in Mount Pearl as in the city, it would give the city a couple of years, perhaps, when it would not have to increase its taxes by any great amount; that was the intent of it. At the same time, the intent, of course, was to shift some burden of services from the Province to the municipality, for example, the Aquarena, last year, $805,000 in grants and subsidies, a total of $923,700.

MR. MATTHEWS: Poor management.

MR. WINSOR: I don't know if it was poor management, or not.

MR. MATTHEWS: Reported poor management.

MR. WINSOR: Did the Member for Placentia suggest they should give it to Mount Pearl, which would manage it more effectively? Is that what he said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Anyway, it is $923,000. Next year - and the minister indicated in this House a few days ago that the Arts and Culture Centre could very well go with it on an experimental basis, I think he said first - they might pass some of these over to the municipalities. I know it has already been considered for Gander, as well, and they have been made aware of it, that they might have to take some burden of the responsibility. I think the recreation centre in Wabush might be included as part of an ongoing process -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Arts and Culture Centre in Labrador City.

MR. WINSOR: The Arts and Culture Centre in Labrador City - to shift the burden from the Province to the municipality, because that is the only way to save money in any of this we have talked about. How is giving the Goulds to St. John's going to save this Province money? The Province will have to spend the same amount of money to get water and sewer there as if the Town of the Goulds had it themselves. There will be no difference there. The only way they can do it is by passing off some of the provincial responsibilities now, to a larger municipality. That is the only hope they have of doing anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can the Goulds (inaudible) water and sewer services on their own?

MR. WINSOR: I do not know the situation in the Goulds. I do not know if they could or not. I suspect they could do as well as most other municipalities in this Province. Perhaps, they would not have any more difficulty than Portugal Cove and St. Phillips which have just combined. I go to Portugal Cove often, because I go to Bell Island quite frequently, so I see how difficult it is to put water and sewer into Portugal Cove. I don't think the Goulds could be much more difficult than Portugal Cove, yet that is allowed to remain a separate entity.

We see this resolution is not the proposal the Government intended at all, it was a knee-jerk reaction resulting from the protest last week. Last week, when this Administration realized there was a massive outcry against the proposed amalgamation, it was forced to do something, and it came up with this harebrained scheme and presented it in the form of this resolution.

The Government and the minister know this resolution changed by the day, from one day to the next, and the President of Treasury Board - actually, you told me, one day -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a reliable source.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, that is a reliable source, and, after seeing `The Gander Beacon' this week, I think the Minister should try to go to Gander and do some fence-mending. You might have to do some here in St. John's and Mount Pearl, but after the stories in the paper last week, the minister might have to go to Gander and do some fence-mending out there in the hospitals and the unions where he took them on and gave them a liberal bashing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason, as we said, behind this, was for the Province to have the municipalities take some of the tax burden. There has never been any mention of this. This is a new thing that did not come about in this - do you remember the campaign manifesto of 1989? Here is all it said, `Because of the number and location of communities, such services can only be provided if groups of adjacent communities are prepared to co-operate on the provision of such services on a shared basis.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, this says they are supposed to be prepared to co-operate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that from?

MR. WINSOR: That is from that infamous document of 1989 where they said communities have to be prepared to co-operate. I say, that is some co-operation, when you come into the legislature and they say you are going to have a free vote! We saw, in Meech Lake, how free the votes were. We know there is going to be no free vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. WINSOR: Why not? - because the Premier said there won't be, that every member on the Government side will vote for the resolution as put by the minister. Every member will, because it is not a free vote, and democracy does not prevail in the caucus or Cabinet.

MR. NOEL: We will see what kind of (inaudible) you have on your side.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, we will see. For the most part we have made it quite clear that, as a party, we favour amalgamation provided it is done in the proper way. This is not the proper way. The legislation of this Province provided a method that could do it and you chose to ignore it. The Government chose to do what it wanted to, to make it fit for the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The proper way is outlined in the Municipalities Act, that the Government was supposed to indicate what communities were going to be amalgamated or joined together - `amalgamate', I think, was the term, and then there was going to be a feasibility study and they would report back. None of these things occurred. There were some feasibility studies done for certain areas. They reported back, but the Government chose to ignore it, so what was the purpose in doing studies if the Government had a plan of its own? And it will be interesting to see what is going to happen to the other ones. I ask the Member for Placentia, what is going to happen to amalgamation in your district, or over on the West Coast, or in Bonavista North, or in Green Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you getting (inaudible)?

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) the Member for Placentia. If the Member for Placentia and his constituents are happy with it, then I am happy with it. If your constituents think this is not democracy, then I am opposed to it, because I think we have to believe in democracy. These are important principles here. This is not a matter of Government raising taxes by quarter of a cent or half a cent to pay for services we all share, it is fundamentally changing the structure of our communities, and Government should not force it down the throats of the people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment put forth by my colleague from Mount Pearl, and I hope Government Members will do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment proposed by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to speak to the amendment, are you?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I certainly will speak to the amendment, as everybody else has done, on this side of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know, basically, the amendment is saying that before this Government proceed with this hodgepodge thing called amalgamation, in the Northeast Avalon, feasibility studies be done, along with public hearings and a plebiscite.

Now, just think about it. Can you imagine, now, having to do a feasibility study, to do an economic analysis of what is being proposed? Now, would that not be a terrible thing to do? Can you imagine approaching something with some sense?

DR. KITCHEN: How about (inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. the Minister of Finance said, how about what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pray what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: What did he say? Did he say to have a parade, or to pray?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: A parade. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a parade, after the next election, in St. John's Centre, I guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, somebody has to have a concern. The hon. Minister of Finance suggests that I should worry about Labrador West or the district of Menihek. Somebody should, because there is no doubt, it is far from his mind, and his colleagues' in Cabinet. Somebody should have a concern about it, somebody should have an idea of what is going out there and report it to the people of this Province, and not have the indifferent attitude that he gets on with all the time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am being sidetracked just a little here now. But can you imagine - make no wonder they do not want to support the amendment - imagine approaching something like amalgamation of the Northeast Avalon with some economic analysis being done? I mean, can you imagine having someone do an analysis of it first? Can you imagine? Make no wonder you are afraid of it! My God, sure! Imagine if the people could be informed about it! Can you imagine the damage it would do out in the public if they could sit and have public hearings, discuss it, and understand what is occurring?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been the last twenty-five years?

MR. A. SNOW: I have lived in Western Labrador for the last twenty-five years. The people of this Province would like to know where the - you've been!

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

I remind hon. members to be more concerned about their language when they are debating in this House, to avoid problems that might develop with regard to unparliamentary language.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I apologize to the House, Mr. Speaker. If the word is unparliamentary, I apologize. In the heat of debate, we say things and get carried away, sometimes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the hot place.

MR. A. SNOW: - in reference to that hot place, that place of extreme heat.

Anyway, I can understand why the Minister of Finance would be getting so excited over there, having to listen to people on this side of the House suggest that the public should have input into decisions. Can you imagine? Imagine how much damage that could do out there, that the public would be knowledgeable about what is going on and what is occurring, and would understand the implications of what this regime is attempting to do.

Because, really, what this is all about is not improvement of municipal government. What it is all about, is foisting more responsibility over onto municipalities without giving them the rights. That is really what this resolution is all about. We heard a few speakers ago, from the hon. the Member for Pleasantville. He talked about the share of the tax dollar that municipal governments participate in, in this Province, and the delivery of services of same. He talked about his rationale of having the amalgamation process occur in the Northeast Avalon. He wanted to have the whole thing included because he felt it was not fair that the Provincial taxpayers would have to pay a greater burden because of the amount of input that the Province pays the regions, the financial input to the City of St. John's through its fire department and operating the recreational facilities. I imagine that is what he was talking about. Is that correct? He nods his head in an affirmative manner and says, `Yes, that is what I was saying earlier.'

Now, if, indeed, that is what this is supposed to do, that this is supposed to somehow allow the City of St. John's to increase and broaden its tax base, and more equitably transfer the payments of the facilities here in the city over to the outlying regions, what we are really doing, then, is talking about changing the municipal structures and financing in the whole Province. And, having been involved in municipal government for the last seventeen or eighteen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in a municipal government for several years and have been a member of the Town Council in Labrador City. I believe that the municipality in this Province, for years, probably did not accept all its responsibilities with regard to taxation. Back in 1980, that was recognized by the previous Administration - I am not sure if it was 1980 or 1981 - when they passed the Municipal Grants Act.

We, in the Town of Labrador City, prior to the passing of that act, used to get a grant from the Province of about $300,000 a year; after the act was passed, we went to $1.3 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we went up $1 million a year was because, for years, we had property taxes in the Town of Labrador City and, as we all know, the matching grant formula, and one of the reasonings behind the imposition of it, was to encourage more of a responsibility acceptance by local municipalities; and it was starting to work.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear has extensive experience with the Municipalities Act and the Grants Act. He can tell you, too, and I am sure he will later when he speaks, of how that did help municipalities in this Province stand on their own two feet and encouraged them to impose taxes, property taxes, within their boundaries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, along with that right of taxation came more responsibilities, and those responsibilities were accepted by the towns, mostly, in this Province; because, prior that, it was such a hodgepodge method of giving grants to municipalities, that very few municipalities could afford any planning, since there was no method, no formula of how a grant would accrue from the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think, this Administration, if they were to properly assess, do a feasibility study, they could come in with a formula, not this strange formula that they have now, which has no rhyme or reason to it, that when you talk the mayors of other municipalities throughout this Province now, nobody can -

Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform the House that it is our Private Members' Day tomorrow. We have no Private Members' resolution to put before the House and I would like to continue the debate on amalgamation, tomorrow. My plans are also to go on with amalgamation on Thursday, and to continue with it until we have the vote sometime. I just want to apprise hon. members of that situation.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, since it is the turn of members on the other side to put forward a private Member's resolution tomorrow, I have no objection to their not doing that, and calling Government business, none at all. I do want to say, in case there might be a need for it to be said at some point tomorrow, that it must be done by leave; because any private member of the House can propose a resolution for debate tomorrow. It is by concurrence and agreement that we alternate back and forth. Of course, our rules do not say you have to do that.

So, lest the Government House Leader be Machiavellian in some way, tomorrow will proceed without a private Member's resolution only by leave and only by concurrence, and it will not be any other way with our concurrence. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have agreement to stop the clock?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

It is now 10:00 p.m. Do we have agreement?

MR. RIDEOUT: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, that the hon. the Opposition Leader is correct. If the Government does not have a motion for tomorrow, leave is required, of course, to change the order of business. I happen to have a motion that I would be quite happy to have debated tomorrow, since the Government does not have one. My consent was not sought to change the order of business tomorrow, so I would be quite prepared to move this motion and have it debated tomorrow if the Government does not have one. Perhaps we could think about it overnight and we can see what resolutions might be available, but I do have one prepared and I would be quite prepared to debate it tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I can read notice of motion: I give notice that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave ! No leave!

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

The hon. member cannot give notice of motion at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: They are saying no leave?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: So, I guess it is Government motion day tomorrow unless there is leave for this resolution that I am ready to present.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it tomorrow.

MR. HARRIS: I can do it tomorrow? Okay, thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Very good. That was my point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.