The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if, with the concurrence of hon. Members, I could be permitted to read a resolution into the record as part of the National White Ribbon Campaign centering around the Montreal massacre last year? There is a national campaign calling upon Legislatures across the country and the Parliament of Canada to put a resolution into the record of the Legislatures and ask Members for unanimous consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What I am asking for permission for, Mr. Speaker - I brought this to the attention of the Government House Leader and the Member for St. John's East Tuesday night, so they have been made aware of it. I understand information was sent to the Premier's office on it so I just wanted to read this into the record and ask hon. Members if they would endorse it unanimously. If they have some difficulty with it, well they can -

MS. VERGE: Just listen to it (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, can I read it or - ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have consent of the House to read the resolution?

The hon. the Member.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS statistics about reported incidents of violence against women and research about unreported incidents of violence indicate that violence against women in their home, on the street and at work is a serious and pervasive problem in Canada; and

WHEREAS the abuse of women is related to social, economic and political inequalities women experience in relation to men in society, and to societal beliefs, attitudes and values that condone violence against women; and

WHEREAS perpetrators of abuse against women are usually men; and

WHEREAS the shocking and senseless murder of fourteen women engineering students at L'ecolé Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, symbolized and focused attention on male violence against women; and

WHEREAS many Canadian men have chosen to wear a white ribbon in support of this campaign to end the senseless violence against women;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse the White Ribbon Campaign by adopting the attached statement and by encouraging all men to wear a white ribbon to signal our support in a campaign against violence against women.

That is the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and tomorrow being the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, I would just ask hon. Members for their endorsement in putting this into the record, and really unanimous consent and support.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have unanimous consent?

MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port on a point of order.

MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Rules Committee and the rules that affect this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understood during this session of the House, that the new rules that had been brought in by the rules committee, and all members had looked at, would be used on a trial basis here. This set of rules had started prior to the last election and had been considered for a couple of years. The committee, of which I am the vice-chairman, have been working on them for three years in conjunction with the now Clerk of the House and other members, and a lot of work has gone in on them. We were told that they would be brought in in this session of the House. The committee has travelled throughout the country, just about, talking to other jurisdictions, and it would modify and modernize the rules of the House. I would like to ask: What has happened to these rules, and why is it that we are not operating under the reform rules?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not sure that it is a point of order. It is probably a matter that could be raised more appropriately in the Question Period, but the hon. member has raised it. If the hon. Government House Leader wants to address it, then we will permit that situation.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will check into the situation and get back to the hon. gentleman as quickly as I can.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board: As he is well aware, thousands of people in the Province are suffering severe economic hardship, and hundreds of families are going to have to rely on food banks for their Christmas dinner, and this Government has shown no sensitivity to them - no sensitivity whatever for their suffering. Now why is the Government, at this time of severe poverty for thousands and thousands of people, increasing the entertainment allowance for 150 or more senior public sector executives, from $100 to $200 a day?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman is wrong again in his facts, of course. He has quite a record for that now. I can understand that, because I think he was lead astray by a report last night on 'Here and Now' on CBC that was also totally, absolutely incorrect, and without any foundation whatsoever. So, Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is that what he has said has happened, and what the CBC program 'Here and Now' has said has happened, has not happened. There is not one iota of truth in that story, or in what the hon. member said.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the President of Treasury Board has cleared that up. However, it seems to me that where there is smoke there is fire in this particular case, so I am just wondering how that type of story could get out, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: The hon. member, this time, is absolutely right. That is the crux of the matter, how could such a story ever get on the air and be a number one story on the evening news? That is the question. I have been talking to some management people with CBC and we are currently in the process of investigating that very question.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. Two years after Marc Lepine killed fourteen women engineering students at L'ecolé Polytechnique what connection does the Premier see between the Montreal massacre and every day incidents of violence by men against women all around us? I would like the Premier to answer the question as the head of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of inane questions in the House, none more so than this. How can I express an opinion? What is my opinion anymore than anybody else's opinion? I had nothing to do with the man who perpetrated the Montreal massacre. I can assure the House of that. I had nothing to do with what caused it, or why he did it, whether he was an insane person or whether that reflects generally the attitude of men toward women in this country. Frankly, I do not believe it does. When the hon. member wants to ask a question that has substance and is something that the Government is answerable for I can assure the hon. member that the Government will answer, but to ask the Government the question of what connection we see between that - I did not do a psychoanalysis of the individual. I did not conduct a Royal Commission of Enquiry as to what happened or why it happened, so it is not the kind of question I can answer, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell us his understanding, or appreciation of the problem of violence against women in Newfoundland and Labrador? Secondly, will the Premier tell us his Government's strategies for reducing the incidence of violence against women, for providing services and support for the women who are victimized, and for dealing with offenders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the sensible part of the question, and the fair part of the question. The minister responsible is going to make a statement, I believe in this House tomorrow. He intends to make a statement dealing with it and explaining the Government's view and position, and where we are going from here, and what steps we are taking at this particular time. The minister responsible will answer that tomorrow.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is responsible. The Premier is the head of the Government. I would like to ask again

for the Premier to tell us his Government's strategies, the strategies of the Department of Social Services, of the Department of Education, of the Department of Health, of the Women's Policy Office, of Government as a whole for reducing the incidence of violence against women, for providing support and services to victims and for programs for offenders.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is letting her political prejudices overtake her good sense, obviously. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, half the time they are over there bleating about me being the minister of everything, not letting any other minister do anything. Now, when I announce this minister's responsibility, the member is not satisfied - the Premier must do it, must take over that minister's duties and speak in the House on this. The members opposite can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same time, that is not possible with credibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second comment I wish to make on it, is that it is an enormously complex question that is not really designed for Question Period. The minister is going to make a statement in this House tomorrow. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The minister responsible for the matter is going to make a statement in the House tomorrow, expressing the Government's position and view on all of these things. Now, I do not know why the hon. member opposite keeps insisting that the Premier take over the role of that minister too, and make a statement in the House today. I just do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the acting Minister of Justice. During the past few weeks, concern has been expressed about conditions at Her Majesty's Penitentiary pertaining to the finding of bullets, and a particular sharp object. Would the minister confirm if, when staff investigated this issue, any other items or objects were found in the penitentiary that should not be there?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question asked, as the hon. member can appreciate, what was found is the matter of a police investigation which is ongoing and I do not intend to disclose the contents of that police investigation at this time to the hon. member or anybody else. What is in the interest of the public, the inmate population and the warders at the penitentiary, is that this investigation reach a successful conclusion, and to disclose the contents of that investigation publicly would be to jeopardise the interest of everybody concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This morning, I heard the minister say on CBC Radio, as he said on Friday, two weeks ago, that he was made aware of this particular incident and I understand, the following the day, the minister left for Bristol, England. Why didn't the minister advise the staff at the penitentiary that there was some concern about their safety when he was advised Friday, the day before he left to go to Bristol, England?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Concern for the safety of the warders at the penitentiary, as I understand it, primarily relates to an allegation that there is a hit list. Mr. Puddister, I believe, representing the warders involved, has made an allegation that a list was turned up during the lock-down which occurred. To the best of my knowledge, from the information I have received from the administration at the penitentiary, no such list exists. Therefore, since there was no such list, the possibility of advising anybody they were on a list that did not exist is rather ridiculous.

As to the timing, I was advised on Friday of this potential situation. I was confident my officials had the matter in hand. I gave express instructions to my officials to contain the situation, to put in place whatever resources or measures that were needed to contain the situation, and effect the safety of the public. To my knowledge, no member of the public, no member of the inmate population, or no warder has been injured. So, to my present knowledge, these measures have been and are satisfactory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Ed Roberts gives answers better.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the unions and the workers have been informed that the mills at Grand Falls and Stephenville will be closed from December 22nd to January 2. Is the minister aware of this, and when was he informed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it. I was informed shortly after the company made the decision. I presume I may have been informed immediately before the union was, or the other people it would have been necessary to inform. Yes, I am aware, but I only became aware very early this morning.

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

MR. HODDER: I might tell the minister that I informed him yesterday when he did not know. But anyhow, Mr. Speaker, on November 26th, the Leader of the Opposition, in this House, asked the minister about reports of downtime at Abitibi-Price mill in Stephenville and Grand Falls, and the minister said there would be no downtime in 1991 and none anticipated in 1992. Now, that was a little over a week ago, Mr. Speaker. What kind of communications does the minister have with the paper mills? Could he tell me that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: With reference to the hon. member informing me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he did so, but the same hon. member also informed me a week ago that there was a coyote population explosion in Newfoundland, and there was, in fact, no such explosion.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, in answering the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago, I answered it based on the knowledge and the information I had from top management of Abitibi Price. I point out to the hon. member that the newsprint industry is so volatile that although the company officials were indicating two or three weeks ago that they were not anticipating a shutdown for inventory adjustment, because of the volatility in the industry and because of factors, Mr. Speaker, probably beyond their control, they were not aware that there would be downtime. Now, Mr. Speaker, the company has, indeed, made the decision that from December 22 the two mills, Abitibi Price, Stephenville and Abitibi Price, Grand Falls, will take an inventory adjustment shutdown for approximately twelve days. So, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

Insofar as dialogue is concerned, every day either myself or my officials are involved in dialogue with both companies. We are aware of what is happening and, to the extent that they can, they notify us immediately upon a decision being made.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in Cormack know the minister is wrong about the coyotes, and the people in Grand Falls and Stephenville are pretty upset about the way the minister deals with the paper companies.

I want to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the forest industry and the performance of the forest industry in this Province is crucial to this Province. I ask the minister: What steps does he intend to take to ensure that he has better information on decisions that are being taken that affect the Province, does he have any indication of further shutdowns in 1992, and is the Government taking any initiatives to reduce the risk of shutdowns and closures in the Province? Could the minister tell me that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will quote for a second from the prepared statement made by Abitibi Price when they announced this particular shutdown:

"The world newsprint industry market continues to be depressed. And, while we are cautiously optimistic about operating rates for the new year, we have to live with the reality that pressure to take downtime is, indeed, a reality. Abitibi Price has been fortunate that we have not been forced to take inventory adjustment before now, and we have maintained our operating rates, as well, well above the industry average."

Mr. Speaker, there is no way to have more dialogue, there is no way for a government to be better informed as to what is happening in the industry. Anyone who has been paying attention to the newsprint industry these past months will know that financial analysts, people who are not involved with the paper companies themselves, have predicted that the newsprint industry over this year will lose somewhere around $800 million, collectively. That paper mills will shut.

Based on the performance of the Opposition with regards to some of the questions that have been asked in this House the past month relative to that industry, they seem to be hell-bent on making sure that maybe some of those mills shut will be our own mills in Newfoundland.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy and concerns the proposed development of the Lower Churchill and the discussions between the Government of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. According to an article in today's issue of The Montreal Gazette the development of the Great Whale project may be delayed for several years, the reason cited being the fact that a deal is imminent on the Lower Churchill between the Governments of Newfoundland and Quebec. Could the minister inform the House about the status of negotiations with Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen the particular article referred to. Our negotiations relative to Hydro Quebec are continuing. The most recent meeting was two weeks ago today, on November 21. We have not concluded negotiations and I am not going to go putting dates on when we might, whether positively or negatively. A year ago I was hoping that by the end of this year we would have reached letter of intent stage but at this time I would say that I am cautiously optimistic, but I can never be sure. We will see what happens over the next few months.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, about a month or so ago in an interview the Minister of Development indicated that there would be no consultation with the Innu people until a deal with Quebec had been negotiated. Can the Minister of Energy confirm that this is the policy of the Government with respect to the Innu?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if we reach a letter of intent with Hydro Quebec and we have a project to proceed with we will have to address various matters. Native rights is one of these matters, environmental matters is another, engineering another, and we will deal with them. If we do not have a project we do not have anything to negotiate about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. The Premier has indicated recently his desire to speed up the land claims negotiations with the native people of the Province, in particular Labrador. How can you hope to settle land claims with the Innu while you are ignoring them in the discussions about the Lower Churchill? How can you square these two propositions if you are going ahead and negotiating with the Government of Quebec and are not negotiating with the Innu to find out that both of these things obviously would have to be negotiated at the same time? How can those two policies - one of going ahead and trying to get a deal with Quebec and ignoring the Innu; and then trying to go to them afterwards with a fait accompli? - how can those two policies be squared?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With great difficulty, if what he says were true, but what he says is not accurate. We have discussions under way with the Innu at the moment to work out a framework agreement for a comprehensive land claims settlement. We are not proposing to do it on a piece-by-piece basis, to do areas that might be affected by the Lower Churchill development, the coastal areas, wood areas, other areas, do it on a piece-by-piece basis. We are trying to put in place a framework agreement that would provide for a comprehensive agreement. There is no reason to abandon that approach at this stage except to try and put in place an approach that would speed up the process because what is in place now takes too long. It goes anywhere from ten to fifteen years. In the end things get changed in the meantime and do not get resolved and it is just too long a process.

So what we are talking about is speeding up the process to have it dealt with more quickly for two very good reasons: one, for the benefit of the aboriginal people, so that settlement of the issues will not be delayed and their interests and their rights will be addressed more quickly; and two, to develop a greater level of certainty in the final outcome and have it done rather more quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East indicated a final supplementary. But I will allow him to pursue one more.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that might be the final question, but perhaps the Premier could, since he answered the question for the minister, indicate that any negotiations or any deal with the Province of Quebec on the Lower Churchill would be subject to a satisfactory land claims negotiation with the Innu.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, nothing is subject to satisfactory negotiations with anybody. We are going to negotiate with the Innu people a fair resolution of their claims, but we cannot say all future development in Labrador is subject to satisfactory negotiations with the Innu people. That would put us in a position of subjecting ourselves to blackmail, and there is no way in the world we can do that. We have to provide for the overall development of all resources in this Province on a basis that is in the interest of all the people, the Innu and Inuit included. But we must also do so and proceed with a real sensitivity for the legitimate interests of the Innu or Inuit people in particular areas.

I have already indicated this to the Innu people and we are working now on identifying areas of land in the Lake Melville area where they have a particular and continuing interest, and they have had an extensive use of the land. We have indicated to them that once we have identified those areas of land, we are prepared not to proceed with any development without first talking to them. But we are not going to say the whole of Labrador or the whole of the Island of Newfoundland is in that position.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Public Utilities Board yesterday approved a 2.25 per cent electricity rate increase for Newfoundland Power. There is another application to the board, this time by Newfoundland Hydro, for an increase of 3.9 per cent in the rate it charges Newfoundland Power. That increase, if approved, would be passed on to consumers. Will the minister direct Newfoundland Hydro, which is a Crown Corporation, to withdraw its request for a rate increase?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: If the increase is awarded by the Public Utilities Board, will the minister ask Cabinet to order a rollback?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I will address that particular issue, Mr. Speaker, after I see the results of the hearing before the Public Utilities Board.

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

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

Hydro says the increase requested will not offset its deficit this year and they have proposed to take $9 million from the rate stabilization fund to cover the deficit. Does the Minister expect Hydro will need another rate increase in 1992 and, if so, by how much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, because the hearing that is presently requested is related primarily to the continued phaseout of the PDD subsidy, and we now have the finalization of that, as of December 31, 1991. So I do not anticipate that they will be going back to the board for another increase in 1992.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Over the past few days, the chief executive officer of Fishery Products International has indicated that there will be some downtime within the FPI plant system. I am wondering if the minister could inform the House whether he has received a briefing from Mr. Young on that issue, and what people working in those plants might expect over the next few weeks?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I read the report as well and I am equally concerned, but Mr. Young has had meetings with my Deputy Minister. I believe yesterday morning they met at length and discussed certain problems. As far as I know there has been no final decision made yet as to what might happen. We all know that FPI are having problems harvesting their allocations in the area known as 2J and, even though the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed to a transfer of the quota to the area known as 3K, it has not had the desired effect. It is still difficult to harvest their quotas in 2J and, I guess, in the next few days we will know exactly what the outcome will be.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer. I know it is a harvesting related problem of zones and so on and no fish being in the zone,

but I am just wondering if his department has received an indication from Fishery Products International of what plants specifically will be affected with downtime, and if so, how long the company expects them to be down? Can he tell us if he has been notified of what plants will be affected because of the harvesting problems?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the minister. I asked the minister a few weeks ago, and I am still picking up indications around that Fishery Products International is looking very seriously at further rationalization of their plants within their system, I have received indications that there may be one or more plants, at least one, that is going to be looked at very seriously in the next twelve to eighteen months; that we may see another plant being taken out of the system. I am wondering if the minister, in his discussions with Fishery Products International, received any indication whatsoever that we may see another plant or more being taken out of the FPI system over the next year or so?

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I have not been so advised, but I should point out that recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced an interim total allowable catch for 1992. Now that total allowable catch will be reviewed some time in the new year, I would think probably January, when certain monitoring results are in and scientific data has been assembled and so on. I do not think anybody knows, at this point in time, what will happen. It might well be, Mr. Speaker, that there would have to be a further reduction. We hope not, but if the need is there then of course there will have to be. I suppose the question that the hon. gentleman is asking cannot really be answered until that final assessment has been done, which will be another two or three months.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance: The minister introduced last year, his infamous payroll tax, called a health and education tax. Could the minister tell us if that tax has been as successful as he thought it would be? Does he not accept the fact that businesses in this Province, in this recessionary time, are finding that tax to be extremely onerous, and would he not now admit that the tax is a negative tax, and is a disincentive to business and industry in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: At least I got a straight answer, Mr. Speaker - not a very long one - but at least I got a straight answer.

Would the minister care to tell us if the projections we are hearing relating to revenues from lotteries are going to increase next year by some 37 per cent? Would the minister not confirm that that is a result of the slot machines in bars and the video machines that are now being very highly utilized because of the state of the economy, because people are so desperate to try to find a solution to their economic problems; is that not exploiting the recession, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a fact that our lottery revenues to date are higher than anticipated. The causes of that, and the motivation of people who buy lottery tickets and who play these machines in bars, I am not able to say. I will say that our revenues from Atlantic Lottery are up over last year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will find that his revenues are up quite substantially. I think they are up $26 million this year from $19 million last year - quite a windfall for the minister, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the economy. Can I ask the minister where he expects now his revenue from retail sales tax to be at the end of the year? Does he expect the RST income now to be down as we have been predicting, or does he see in fact coming out on budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are watching the retail sales tax figures quite carefully, and our latest estimates are those which I released in a Ministerial Statement about two weeks ago.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the whole Province is watching the RST, and because of the state of the economy we are seeing them going down. Will the minister now confirm that his tax harmonization program, that he is projecting, is receiving very negative feedback from the business community? Will he not now indicate to this House whether or not he does intend to broaden the RST base next year, which, Mr. Speaker, would be the death toll for many industries in this Province if he were to do so.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are running the Government. The dismal utterances on the part of the member opposite are frightening. It is a good job, Mr. Speaker, that no one pays the slightest attention to him. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Time for a short question with a correspondingly short answer.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating the scandal the present Government is involved in with their $19 million gift to one of their contracting friends, the minister said he would consider tabling the Hanscomb Report. Can we ask him when he is going to make up his mind, and when we can expect the public of Newfoundland to see what was in it?

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

MR. BAKER: We have already dealt with that question a number of times in Question Period, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving onto the routine orders of the day, on behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the galleries today, fifty Grade XI students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ross Senior.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, debate or further consideration of third reading of Bill No. 50, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region," standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that any amendments to that motion for third reading of Bill No. 50 should not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any amendments relating to the third reading of Bill No. 50, shall not be further postponed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to present a petition on behalf of some 1,000 people from across the Province but primarily from my district and some other districts in St. John's. The prayer of the petition reads: 'Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited has applied to the Public Utilities Board for an average rate increase of 3.74 per cent, to become effective November 1, 1991.

We, the undersigned, protest this application for an increase in electricity rates and request Government to do everything possible to disallow it.'

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition of these citizens of our Province, because many of our people cannot afford to pay more for their electricity rates. They cannot afford the cost of living that they are faced with today, and I hope that Government will look at anything they may be able to do to minimize the rate that I understand was awarded yesterday, which was less than the company requested, but, of course, many people suspect that the company requested more than it actually wanted, anyway.

But, in the view of these petitioners and many others of my constituents and people I speak with, no increase should be allowed, because they do not feel that the company needs an increase at this time, and they feel that the particular amount is not what is relevant, the principle is relevant. This is a time of restraint and financial hardship in our Province and there is, in the view of these petitioners and many of my constituents, no reason why this particular company should be insulated from the vagaries of our economy.

Many people with whom I have spoken, feel that we should look at decreasing power rates charged by Newfoundland Power in this Province. They say that they are amongst the highest in the country, they are $78 per 1000 kilowatt hours, compared to $55 in Montreal, $65 in Calgary and $72 in urban Ontario, and we have the highest basic charge in the country, Mr. Speaker. People cannot afford to pay these charges.

Just yesterday morning, I had a citizen in my office who said that he cannot pay any more taxes and he sees Light and Power increases as a kind of economic tax. People are seeing their disposable incomes fall and tax and other prices rise; they are just getting squeezed out and something has to be done. Many people feel that Newfoundland Light and Power is not delivering electric power in this Province as efficiently and economically as it should. They feel they are running a cadillac operation and it seems that even the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board has some sympathy for this perspective. Just recently, he said that although the company has come before the Public Utilities Board three times for an increase to boost their credit rating, they have failed to boost it, though the increases have been granted. To quote the chairman, he said, 'It seems you put yourself at great risk of losing your credit rating when the board is trying to maintain it.' It seems that this company is in a no lose situation, Mr. Speaker. In asking for an increase this time, they cited the recession. The last time, they asked for an increase, they cited inflation. They say, if sales go up, they would have to have an increase because it would increase the capital cost of supplying the power that is required. And they say, if sales go down, they need an increase because it increases their unit cost.

It seems that this company is in a 'no lose' situation, so I think Government has to look at what further we might be able to do to minimize the cost of electricity in this Province. Perhaps the board should be given different guidelines, perhaps commissioners should be appointed differently, or perhaps we should do something more. I know this Government has done what it thought was adequate to ensure that the case for consumers was properly presented to the board, but perhaps there are other things we could do, and perhaps we should look at that possibility.

We should also, Mr. Speaker, look at the relationship between Newfoundland Power and its parent company.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. NOEL: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. NOEL: Some people feel that there are various economic dynamics and relationships involved there that are giving Newfoundland Power advantages over its competitors in other fields, in the fields of real estate and telecommunications. Now that it has become a trust company, some of its competitors may be concerned with the advantages it is getting in that regard. And there are some indications that there is a certain advantage to Newfoundland Power from its ownership by Fortis. The fact of the matter remains that their main justification for their need for an increase is that they have to have it in order to sell their bonds at a reasonable price on the market. But the dividends paid on their shares which, in my view, have the equivalent security of bonds - I don't see why the difference in the price they have to pay in order to sell their shares should be so much greater than the price that is paid for bonds, because I think the security involved is just as great with the pricing system we have put in place for Newfoundland Power. It has certainly been lucrative for that company, and over the past ten years, their effective rate of return has tripled, while the rate of return on Government bonds has only increased by 50 per cent. The net assets of this company have increased from $9.3 million, I am told, in 1989, to about $33 million presently. I think we have to look again at the operations of Newfoundland Power and see what we can do to protect the interests of power consumers in our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly take great pleasure in rising to support this petition. I am amazed at hon. gentlemen opposite. These are the same hon. gentlemen who were so proud of their Government in the last two years when they slapped Newfoundland Hydro with a $10 million guarantee fee, and when they reduced the subsidy PDD by $10 million a year for three years. That is where the increase is coming from, Mr. Speaker, the $40 million that this Government is taking from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Where else is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro going to get their operating revenues, Mr. Speaker? They have to get it from the charges that are put forward. And if this Government is taking $10 million in subsidy or in guarantee fee - the first time any corporation was charged a guarantee fee by the Province - and if they are going to reduce the subsidy to PDD, which has always been accepted as the responsibility of taxpayers all over the Province, to try to equalize the cost of electricity in rural Newfoundland, in the isolated areas, it can be done one of two ways, Mr. Speaker. You can do it by direct subsidy from the public purse or by giving Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro increases. Hon. gentlemen opposite should not sit there and be so amazed, since they made the decision to take this $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro, that therefore the PUB would have approved an increase for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They have to balance their budget, and they have two choices, either to get subsidies from Government, or raise their fees.

Now the hon. gentleman said something about inefficiencies in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Maybe there are some minor inefficiencies, Mr. Speaker. If you eliminated almost all the staff of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro you would not touch the surface of the difficulty they are facing here. That is peanuts we are talking about. And Newfoundland Power - Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Power simply passes along increases given to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland Light and Power just got an increase.

MR. TOBIN: You voted for the last Budget, so you voted for the increase.

MR. WINDSOR: So, naturally, Newfoundland Hydro is going to come along now and look for additional increases. What we are seeing is this $40 million being passed along, a decision, Mr. Speaker, that is not made by the PUB, not made by Newfoundland Hydro, but made in the Cabinet room by this Government. That is the answer here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland with respect to the Newfoundland Light and Power increases.

The prayer of the petition is a little different in a number of cases, because some petitions have arrived on my desk, and as opposed to breaking them out, the prayer of the petition is very basic. It says: 'We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Light and Power's proposed application for a rent increase. We strongly feel that it will bring extra economic hardship on the people already affected, and that we, the undersigned, protest this application for an increase in electricity rates, and request the Government to do everything possible to disallow it.'

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I present today comes from some thirty-three different communities in Newfoundland, representing some 7,310 residents.

With respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, it is something that I have been personally involved in for the last six years, in attempting to fight these increases. And I have a tremendous problem with the fact that the parent company for Newfoundland Light and Power, who will receive, this year, a profit somewhere in the neighbourhood of $24 million or $25 million, and whose shares have gone from approximately $14 to $23 over the last five or six years, that the PUB should have taken these items into consideration as well, and while doing so should not simply have - although in a diminished capacity in terms of granting a lower rate - should not have rubber stamped the demands and requests of Newfoundland Power.

Mr. Speaker, the Power Corporation, Light and Power, also has to do as other people in this Province are having to do. As it tightened its belt, has to look at lower returns for its share holders, and that is something that they have to do. So there is some 7,310 names on the petitions that I present today, and as I said, Mr. Speaker, they represent some thirty-three communities throughout Newfoundland.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to be here today and stand to speak in support of a petition signed by 7,310 residents of this Province from thirty-three different communities, and probably some from the communities that I represent in Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, when three members opposite formed a little committee or tried to get a bit of publicity - the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for St. John's South - they went out to the people of this Province and said they were going to take up petitions to keep the Hydro rates down or to protest against Newfoundland Power getting any Hydro rate increases. Mr. Speaker, what they did not tell the people who signed these petitions is that they, and they alone with their Government, are directly responsible for these increases. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not being honest with the people who signed their petitions. I would expect that the Member for Mount Scio signed this one. I guess he signed this petition and put it in. But what they should be doing, the three of those members on the backbenches and any member over there who disagrees with Hydro increases, or electrical rate increases, is to do something that they have control over, deny Newfoundland Hydro rate increases. They have direct control over that as the Government of this Province. They should be lobbying the members of their Government, their Cabinet, to deny Newfoundland Hydro these rate increases.

If Newfoundland Hydro does not get rate increases, both what they have to cover the $40 million that you caused them to have to raise and the new raises that will have to come in the next couple of years, then you will have a direct effect. Then you can present petitions in this House on behalf of 7,000 people and 1,100 people, and stand with pride and say that you had some effect. Do not hide away behind Newfoundland Power. You have no choice, you have no effect on it. The Public Utilities Board is going to give them the raise, but Newfoundland Hydro has to finally come to Cabinet before any raises are permitted.

MR. TOBIN: And you voted to give them $40 million!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members in the backbenches and all the members on that side of the House have already taken away $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro, which they have to raise somewhere else in this Province. There is only one way they can raise it, they can charge their consumers. One of their consumers is Newfoundland Power. If they increase the rates to Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland Power will increase it to the 7,310 people who signed your petition and to the 1,100 people who signed the other petition.

I believe it dishonest for those hon. gentlemen to go around proposing that people sign a petition that does not tell the full truth. If they said on this petition that they would have a better effect on Newfoundland Hydro, that their Government had the say in Newfoundland Hydro, I think more people might have signed it. They certainly would have signed it with their eyes open. When they were signing that petition, I wish I had been behind each and every one of those 8,000 people so I could say: The people who asked you to sign this have a direct say in Newfoundland Hydro's increase. Do you think that they should go to their Government and say, no more rate increases, at least until this recession is over, should be given to Newfoundland Hydro. I think I would get ten times as many of them to sign it.

MR. TOBIN: They are presenting it the day after the increase was announced.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long they have had this petition, I am not sure how long they have had it in their possession, probably not very long. But I hope they didn't have it yesterday. I hope they didn't have it the day before. Because they hid it in their offices if they did while the Newfoundland Public Utilities Board -

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

I want to remind hon. members, I have been rather lenient in allowing hon. members to engage in probably a bit too much debate. Hon. members will know that Petition time is not a time for a debate, and I refer hon. members to our own Standing Orders, page 31, Standing Order 92: "Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains." So, I ask the hon. member, please, to remember the substance of the petition.

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

I will conclude by saying that I support the people who signed this petition. I do not understand, and I think it is a disservice to these 8,000 people, why the members waited until after the rate increase was given by the Public Utilities Board to present it to this House. I think it should have been presented before. But, Mr. Speaker, I do support the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of, not only the residents of St. John's South, but also residents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry, I didn't realize. I thought the hon. member was rising to speak to another petition. But I just wanted to explain to the Member for St. John's East that I am not permitted to recognize him because the petition, in this case, is two from this side and one from that side. So I just wanted to explain that to the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: My point of order is that Your Honour did not call for further petitions, and I understand that there are three speakers permitted on a petition, the member who presents, and two others. I do not understand that it has to be one from each side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No. The hon. member, I think, is inaccurate. As far as I understand the rules, it is two from the side presenting, and one from the other side.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) could ask for leave, and I am sure that we would have no difficulty in granting him leave to speak to the petition.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: He has my leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: To speak to the hon. Government House Leader?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the member wants to speak to the petition, we have no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member from St. John's East has leave to speak to this petition?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for giving me leave to speak on this, as they will have recognized that I gave leave, while I was on my feet, for the hon. Member for Pleasantville to continue with his petition.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the petition presented by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, and indeed speak to it and its prayer, which is similar to that of the Member for Pleasantville. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel that certain special privileges have been given to Newfoundland Light and Power, and indeed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with respect to the amount of revenue that they can obtain from the people of this Province for distribution of power service. It is quite an experience to attend one of these hearings and hear the rationales given, the arguments given, and how in fact it comes to be that these companies get the rate increases that they seek; and they do come with their briefs and documents, and stacks of them sometimes one foot and two feet high. I have been there representing consumers at these hearings, and trying to mount arguments that defeat their arguments as to why certain things ought to be included in what they call the rate base, and all of the other elements that go into demanding for them a rate of return to their investors which is satisfactory to them and satisfactory to their investors.

What it boils down to, is that the only consideration that the Public Utilities Board can give to the matter is whether or not a particular reasonable rate of return on investment is being obtained, and no other considerations are allowed to enter into that equation, because the legislation that gives the power and authority to the Public Utilities Board specifies what they shall consider.

While we all agree that rate increases, particularly at a time when the public of Newfoundland and Labrador are suffering from a recession, from wage freezes imposed by this Government, from loss of employment and from lack of job opportunities, that the Newfoundland Light and Power and their investors are guaranteed a rate increase and have what is in effect a licence to print money that is supported by the legislation of this Government.

What is needed is not just a presentation to this House by hon. members saying that we all deplore this. What is needed is some action on the part of the Government to change the regulations, to change the Public Utilities Act, to put into the mix of considerations by the Public Utilities Board, certain considerations above and beyond those of the investors of the stockholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, but rather also to put into effect some consideration for the ability of Newfoundlanders to pay these rate increases.

What I would commend to the backbenchers, is to have a look at the Public Utilities Act. Find ways of making changes in it, and convince their Cabinet colleagues on that side of the House that the time has come to make changes in the Public Utilities Act; to insist that the Public Utilities Board play a greater role in examining not only the interests of the shareholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, or the financial capital base of Newfoundland Hydro, but also the interests of consumers in a very direct way, and not just as a consequence of the ability to provide money and revenue for these companies.

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a lot of finagling that goes on. I can only call it that because it looks, from the outside, like what the companies are trying to do is put everything into capital so that it becomes a big amount of money that they can then demand a certain rate of return on. That shows up in the rates as higher rates, and it is pretty easy for them to demonstrate that they need more money. They need more money to guarantee to their shareholders, that they will get a rate of return that is far better - far better - than the kind of rate of return that people get in any savings account, and it is a no risk investment as the hon. Member for St. John's South knows, and there needs to be changes in that and there need to be changes in the attitude of Government towards Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well, so that when the opportunity arises, when people are pressed and strapped as they are now, that the Government is prepared to take action to alleviate the high cost of electricity when the time comes. It is very surprising that the rate of increase -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to read the prayer of the petition.

Whereas the Member for St. John's South has publicly declared his objection to a proposed rate increase by Newfoundland Power, and whereas we the residents of St. John's South and other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly pray and call upon the Member for St. John's South, to add objections in his efforts to prevent a rate increase for Newfoundland Power and wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to instruct the appropriate minister to stop any action which would lead to a rate increase for Newfoundland Power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I personally have been involved in challenging Newfoundland Power for some time, even before I had the opportunity to come to this hon. House and represent the citizens of St. John's South. I was opposed to what I felt was an unnecessary third party. I think what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to know is that when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro come before the Public Utilities Board to look for a rate increase, that is a Crown Corporation which belongs to the people. It is a third party that I was always in objection to, when you see a company that is 90 per cent owned and controlled by –

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people signed the petition?

MR. MURPHY: I am very sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to inform the hon. member, 937.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the petition?

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Newfoundland Power has not changed its face in 1990, 1991. If you look at the information submitted, they have continued to grow and grow unnecessarily as far as this hon. member is concerned, when we all know that the recession was here and upon us, the Government was forced to take a position, a lot of small and large businesses were forced to take a second look and curtail their involvement and expenditure, curtail their capital works, curtail and diminish in some cases their current account and in some cases forced to lay off people. This was not the case with Newfoundland Power.

They have asked for an increase and received a proportionate share of that increase which I feel as a Member in this House is too high and, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that, that particular company, if only the Government of this Province, this Government and/or the other Government had the capital to buy out the shareholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, I think we would be offering power rates to the consumers in this Province at a fair and equitable level. It is just that we do have Newfoundland Power, it is beyond the capability of this Government and/or previous Governments, and I am sure they thought about it, and knowing that the people's power company, Newfoundland Hydro, needs a rate increase, needs some assistance, for Newfoundland Power to have at this particular time almost 3 per cent on the backs of the consumers of this Province, certainly is not agreeable by me and my colleagues who have previously spoken. So it is with great pleasure that I support the names, Mr. Speaker, which are contained in this petition and present said petition to this hon. House.

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

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

I would certainly like to stand and support the petition that was presented by the Member for St. John's South, but I have to say the same thing, Mr. Speaker, that has been said by previous speakers from this side of the Legislature, there are two questions that have to be answered. The petition was sent to prevent an increase by Newfoundland Power, and is being presented today after the increase has been announced. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is something like locking the barn door when the horse is gone. These members sat on that petition, Mr. Speaker, and did not present the wishes of the people of this Province, who signed the petition, to have it brought before the Legislature, if they had it in their possession before yesterday. That is exactly what happened.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, I would submit -

MR. NOEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman from Pleasantville, on a point of order.

MR. NOEL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the petition I presented was to the Government of the Province and not to the Public Utilities Board. So, it did not matter that it was not presented before the ruling was handed down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I just want to say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, as I stated earlier, that presenting of petitions is not for debate or questioning procedures or members' motives. The rules governing petitions strictly deny debate, and it is to speak to, as I have said before, whether a member is supporting the petition, to talk about the number of signatures and the material allegations within the petition. So, I would ask the hon. member, please, to adhere to these rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted you ruled that there was no point of order, and indeed there was no point of order. I am surprised the member said the petition was for the Government, because the petition should be presented to the House of Assembly, for presentation to the Government. That is quite a difference, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, the people who signed these petitions asked these members to bring the matter before the House of Assembly and to the Government, through the House of Assembly. That is what they asked, and it was done the day after the increase was awarded, Mr. Speaker, and that is not right. That is not what the people wanted.

Mr. Speaker, had the member been allowed to bring it in here, that is different. I am surprised. The reason why there is an increase in hydro power today is because this Government, Mr. Speaker, took $40 million from the last Budget, and those three members over there voted for the last Budget, Mr. Speaker. You cannot practice one thing and do another thing. I am surprised that the Member for St. John's South followed the lead and was led by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. I am surprised he was led by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Like a fool with a ring through his nose.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, led around with a ring through his nose by the member.

The fact of the matter is, that petition is in this House and there are increases to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador because every member over there voted to take $40 million from Newfoundland Hydro. That is why there is an increase, Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that you can take $40 million. The Member for Pleasantville talked about the tax increases and people can't pay any more. No, Mr. Speaker, they can't, and they couldn't pay any more in the last Budget when you took $40 million from Hydro and threw it at the people. They couldn't afford that, no more than they can afford a 25 per cent hike in the City of St. John's because of the amalgamation that you are voting for. Tomorrow or the next day there will be more petitions on that.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for St. John's South, and the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island voted to increase the taxpayers' light bills in this Province. That is what happened. Every member there, the Minister of Social Services, for example, voted to increase the light bills of the poor people of this Province. That is what is going on here, Mr Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy.

MR. TOBIN: I won't sit down. It is too serious an issue to sit down over. You've got to use up the five minutes you have to show, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy that is being perpetrated in this Legislature today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To present a petition a day after the increase, after voting -

MR. MATTHEWS: Had it a week ago.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, had it a week ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. I don't know whether the hon. member is aware of it, but the hon. member is now debating the petition, in which case he is disobeying the rules of the Chair. I would ask the hon. member, please, to speak to the petition as the rules of our House dictate.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Your Honour, if I have been doing that, I would like to apologize, but it is such an emotional issue that I get carried away once in a while, particularly when you see such a display of hypocrisy. I apologize to Your Honour and to the House for getting carried away on that issue, because like I said, it was extremely emotional.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are thousands of names on petitions -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I also think it is out of order for the Member for Pleasantville to be yapping all day.

There are thousands of names being presented on petitions in this House today, people asking -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act," carried. (Bill No. 58)

On motion, Bill No. 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Act, The Bills Of Sale Act, The Conditional Sales Act And The Registration Of Deeds Act In Relation To The Offshore Area," carried. (Bill No. 59)

On motion, Bill No. 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 6 is the calling for moving into Committee of the Whole to discuss Bill 50. It is appropriate now, of course, first of all before asking leave to go into Committee of the Whole to establish the rules by which the debate will be governed in the Committee of the Whole, which for hon. members enlightenment is the closure debate. We now ask hon members to vote on the motion.

All those in favour of the motion please say, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation commonly known now, Mr. Chairman, as the gag act. Today in this hon. House I was listening intently to some of the petitions that were presented and which certainly reinforced my line of thinking in that there are a lot of people out there hurting. There are a lot of people out there who cannot afford an increase by Newfoundland Light and Power. In all the communities that those hon. members brought forth there was certainly no doubt left in anyone's mind that the people out there cannot afford the rate increase. What we see here as it pertains to Wedgwood Park and the Goulds is ten or perhaps twenty times the increased cost to those people than Light and Power's 2.25 per cent. We look at Wedgewood Park - I have no, like I said before, and I want to repeat myself, and I want to say at the outset of my few words, that I have no problem with amalgamation. If the City of St. John's was in as great a need as we are led to believe, monetarily choked, then I would say here today that I would have to take everything into consideration and say: perhaps this is what has to be done.

But what we see here is undemocratic and I think it is against the freedoms that we stand for. People never had an opportunity to understand what this legislation is all about, they never had any understanding of what they are getting themselves into. None whatsoever. When we think about - Wedgewood Park, like I said, now pays 6.5 mils and are going to increase almost immediately - because that is what the Minister said yesterday - to 11 mils, and I suppose there is some justification for that. Because Wedgewood Park does have the services.

But here we are debating a bill and the minister, or the Cabinet, do not know or cannot tell us how this is going to be phased in with the people in the Goulds who do not have the services. Only a few days ago I was travelling through the Goulds and I saw the old water tank, stainless steel water tank, being hauled around to individual houses giving them a supply of water. Well surely to goodness those people are not going to be pressured into paying 11 mils for this type of service. When you ask the minister or other members of the Government is there going to be a phase in, is there going to be any subsidization, the Premier says: no, there is not going to be any subsidization. The minister says we will look at everything and look at it in its right, true perspective.

But what assurance have we of anything? The minister does not know, the Premier does not know. This thing was done in an ad hoc manner. Just because the Premier said that we were going to do it at any cost. Now we asked on this side for a six month hoist to give more time for the people to understand what this amalgamation is all about and how it will affect them. It is a certainty, it is reality, that there is a great number of people out there who do not understand. Even, in fact, the City of St. John's, the Council of St. John's, do not know. Do not know the ramifications of this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, yes, and if I was left alone and if this gag order was not brought into the House then I would be up here speaking until Christmas, at every opportunity, saying how wrong this bill is. Saying that the democratic freedoms that we have are being erased by this type of legislation.

It could be asked, what sense is there for me being here today, standing here, talking away, very few listening, or whatever? But it is something that you have inside and you think that if something is wrong you have to speak against it. Yesterday I was up here and the hon. Minister said something about: you were against Confederation -

MR. GRIMES: That's right, that's true.

MR. PARSONS: - and you were against the school tax -

MR. GRIMES: When it first started you were against the school tax.

MR. PARSONS: What else did he say now I was against? I believe that was all.

MR. GRIMES: No, you were against the fisheries (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And I was against the plans brought in by both Governments yesterday to rescue the fishery.

MR. GRIMES: That's right.

MR. PARSONS: But anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to make my position clear. In 1949 I was against Confederation.

MR. GRIMES: Indeed you were.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, solidly.

MR. GRIMES: Everybody in Newfoundland knows that. They named you Peter Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: I felt at that time that Newfoundlanders could look after their own destiny. I felt that Newfoundlanders had the ability to be creative enough to iron out their own difficulties, and there is no one in this hon. House who could tell me today that I was wrong because we never did get the opportunity.

Now after we went into Confederation I became a solid Confederate because let's face it, we all became Canadians and as legislation passed bringing us into Confederation, then as good Canadians we had to abide by that decision. So now I consider myself as good a Canadian as there is in the country.

Mr. Chairman, let's go back to the school tax, and let's go back to why I am here today. The school tax: I had many misgivings as it pertained to the school tax when it was being implemented.

MR. GRIMES: Now you are for it.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I was on the St. John's board at the time and proud of it. For free, a great number of men, like myself, men and women who gave their time freely at no cost to anyone to do the things that they thought were beneficial for the students and for the communities in general.

I had some misgivings, I hated the thought of extra taxes for a poor people, the people who were poor out there, but then again I had to take into consideration, me and many more, the benefits and pluses that were in this school tax for the students to give them a little bit better education, and I know the hon. minister will agree being a past president of the NTA. He will agree that the monies were needed to implement many of the programs, and even to do some capital work, which it was never meant for in the first place, because what it was meant for in the first place was to help out with the incidentals: the chalks and the extra things that were done in school that there was no monies allocated for. I want to put on record that I think the monies still have to be made available, but there might be some restructuring that will have to take place as it pertains to the authority itself, and I do not think that there is anyone saying otherwise.

But again, the point I made yesterday and the point I am making today, I know it has very little relevance to Bill 50, but the point I am making is that the schools certainly need that money, and it will be a sad day if it goes into general revenue because what scares me about that is if it goes into general revenue, where is the first priority if there is a major need in highways, health, education and whatever? But see, it all depends again on who prioritizes. Health and education, yes, are the mainstays, I think, in any province, and hopefully will remain.

But, Mr. Chairman, why I went into this is because I wanted to explain to the House why I feel that everyone should have a right to get up and speak their piece and talk about the discrepancies and wrongs of any pieces of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I feel that this piece of legislation is as wrong as wrong can be. There is no problem with amalgamation; it may be the best thing since sliced bread if it is brought in properly and people understand what they are getting themselves into. I think that if it is properly explained, then people will accept it with open arms in many instances.

Now there are places where amalgamation does not do that. I think there are places where they are doing things themselves now more cheaply, and they are receiving the benefits of being incorporated by downplaying, placing great emphasis on people on unemployment within the community, on monies being spent in a correct manner, and in smaller communities they have the advantage of being able to control that situation much better than a larger society. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that if the situation was explained, that if there was an advantage to St. John's for this amalgamation, then I feel that the people of St. John's, and the people of the surrounding area will accept Bill 50.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have to look at what is taking place. The advantages to St. John's on a monetary basis because of the acquisition, the annexation of Wedgewood Park, no mistake, is a plus. It is a plus, and I think it will cost the people of Wedgewood Park, about 1,300 of them, perhaps $250,000 or $300,000 more in 1991 or l992. Mr. Chairman, that is immaterial to what the cost is going to be to service the Goulds.

So, when we say we had to do this on the Northeast Avalon, because some of the arguments were: St. John's are paying more than their fair share while the outlying areas, in particular the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, were certainly not paying theirs, then, Mr. Chairman, that is where I have great difficulty. Because in the Goulds, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a mammoth cost for services, services that are not already there. There is going to be a great cost to the City of St. John's for snowclearing and there is going to be a great cost to the City of St. John's for deicing the highway because the highway now, Mr. Chairman, will run to Bay Bulls - Long Pond and will come under the jurisdiction and the responsibility of the City Council.

Mr. Chairman, the other situation - I have said it before and I will say it again - is that the Aquarena, the Canada Games Park, and other facilities being passed over by the Government will put a further burden on the taxpayers of St. John's. I think, Mr. Chairman, that within a very short period of time - and we are not looking at any more than two years - the City of St. John's is going to have to increase its tax base. Now, they have already increased the taxation aspect of it, by the increase in property tax of about 25 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the people in St. John's proper and down here in the center part of St. John's, a great number of whom are elderly citizens on fixed incomes. A great number of the younger people from the City of St. John's have moved to the outlying areas, into the new subdivisions or whatever. The people who are living in the core of St. John's are mostly on fixed incomes, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think they are capable of paying a higher assessment. Now, with their property values increased by 25 per cent, that is a terrific increase in itself, but I feel with the amalgamation of the Goulds, in particular, you are going to see an added drain on the City Council of St. John's, thereby causing the Council to increase their mil rate. Mr. Chairman, I feel that that is really an injustice to the older residents of St. John's, people who are paying to the hilt now. They cannot afford another increase.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many things that we could do. Say to the people: Look, this is a piece of legislation that is beneficial for everyone concerned. Put it in its right perspective. Let the Government subsidize the changeover. Let the Government give St. John's the amount of money necessary now, because this bill is going to pass. There is no doubt about it. I mean, we cannot stop this bill on this side. Closure has been invoked. So, it is only just a matter of time before they will talk us out or we will talk ourselves out. We can get up here and talk only for twenty minutes, talk about the improprieties, what this bill is going to do to the people that we represent, but at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this bill will pass.

Mr. Chairman, what we are pointing out is that parts of this bill are detrimental to this entire area. All I am saying, and I have said it before and I will repeat myself whenever I get the chance, is that amalgamation could have been the order of the day if it had been done in a righteous manner.

MR. NOEL: You had to support doing the right thing.

MR. PARSONS: I supported doing the right thing. I supported Government in going around and getting the consensus of the people which was never done. It was never done. Those committees were a farce. I mean, there was no input from Government explaining to the people - I am sure the hon. Member for Pleasantville will agree, all who came to those hearings were town councils or interested groups submitting to the panel: Look, we do not want to become part of St. John's or we do not want to become part of Torbay because we would lose our identity.

MR. NOEL: What would you support doing?

MR. PARSONS: Look, if the people -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: - on that panel had some program from Government to explain exactly what you would gain by amalgamation, then I think the people would have a different feeling on it, and at least they would say: well, look, there are some good things in this amalgamation bill.

MR. NOEL: But it would not be a gain for everybody -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What the hon. member is saying is not correct. The people did not understand it, no one understood it. The minister who brought this Bill 50 before the House does not understand it. The minister does not understand it. The minister cannot get on his feet today and explain to us what the cost is going to be to the Goulds? What is the extra cost going to be for the people of Wedgewood Park? That is all we are asking. We are not asking any great things. All we are asking is just to get on so we can explain to our constituents: this is what is going to happen to you in 1992. These are the costs that are going to be incurred by you because of amalgamation. Just get up and tell us, explain to us. Tell us.

The other thing is the content of this bill on page 23. On the Resolution part, paragraph 10 (3) (a), (b) and (c). 'Amalgamating a town with a town or city and annexing areas to the city or town, establish an area as a town and to disestablish a town.' Those are very broad statements and could spell the (inaudible) of many communities, whether they like it or not. All I am asking for is if the Government will just reconsider. I know now that is almost impossible. But I want to make sure that my dissatisfaction on behalf of my constituents are well known to the Government and to the minister responsible, in saying that gives the Government any Thursday morning at all at a Cabinet meeting the right to disband a town or form a town, and I think that is wrong. I think that of all that is in that - there are some good things in Bill 50. But that is the fault with Bill 50 and that is on page 23, which gives the Cabinet the right to disband or to make a town with just the stroke of their pens.

My time is running out and I do not say I will get a chance to speak to this gag order again. But they will never gag me, and I do not think they will gag any members of this side of the House in getting up and speaking their piece, and saying how wrong they feel this Bill 50 is. Again, nothing wrong with amalgamation in many instances, but the approach of Government is wrong, it is undemocratic, it is a disgrace to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A slap in the face to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and a disgrace to the Government for bringing this forth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping that with a bill of such magnitude as this bill is, surely to goodness the minister is not permitting some of the backbenchers from saying a few words? They are there today, and yesterday the backbenchers, including the Minister of Social Services, were shouting and bawling. Here is a particular piece of legislation that is going to affect all the Northeast Avalon and he is afraid to get up and say one word. The minister is afraid. He is not allowed to get up and say one word on this particular bill. If the minister was in the backbenches like he was last year I am sure by now the minister would have been up to say something. But he is not allowed to say anything.

I think that we would become much better politicians, much better individuals, if we would once in a while forget about toeing the Party line and stand up for our own convictions. Because what is happening here now - and not only in this House; it is happening in other governments in other Houses across our country - is that we have a number of Members in this Legislature, ministers - and I can understand, I have been part of Cabinet and when Cabinet makes a decision, then the Cabinet stays together, but there are backbenchers on the other side who are not allowed to vote against this particular piece of legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Exactly, Mr. Chairman. As I said to my colleague -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I want to draw the hon. member's attention to Standing Order 44 (b) which says that: 'Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or the clause under consideration', so I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to the items in the bill.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my remarks to the items but meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, it is on closure. It is on closure, Mr. Chairman, and we are talking about closure on Bill 50 and I am concerned that this bill is going to go through naturally, because of the majority by the Government, and because of the minister, who was a former President of the Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe. That is right, Mr. Chairman, and in fact, I have to say in all fairness to him, I was on the council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay at the time and I have to give him credit because he was one of the better Presidents of the Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, since he decided to go into politics and since he became a Cabinet Minister, he lost his sense of respect to the individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, he has lost that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Oh no, I do not want to talk about the physical condition of the individual, but I think what we should do, and I say to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I know he is over there looking through the bill now, I would think if the minister really did what he wants to do, he would ask for this bill to be taken off the Order Paper and that would be the best thing to do because you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tomorrow.

MR. WARREN: - well tomorrow it is going to come off because by tomorrow with your majority it is going to go through anyway, it is going to go through by tomorrow evening anyway. I think tomorrow will be the ninth time in two years that closure has been brought into this Legislature. Nine times in two years that closure has been brought into this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I think if we go back in history, we will notice that as bad as other governments were, as bad as the twenty-two years of the Smallwood or the five or six or seven years of the Moores or the ten or twelve years of the Peckford or the forty-one or forty-three days of the Rideout, if we go back to all those Premiers, we have never, in Newfoundland's history, seen a Government that is dominated as much by one individual. That is the whole problem and I must say, since my hon. colleague for Placentia went into Cabinet, he has been a completely different person than he was last year, because last year he would have gotten up and fought against the bill and would have stood up on principle, but now, he will not even stand up and express his opinion on anything whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with what is not being told to the Goulds, to Wedgewood Park and to other areas in the Northeast Avalon. What is going to happen after January 1st? How much will the mil rate be? How much will you have to pay for poll tax? Will the school tax be all gone and will there be a new tax brought into place? All these are questions which need to be answered and here the Government is bringing in closure on this bill without giving the answers to the people who need them.

Mr. Chairman, as sure as this Government and the Minister of Finance prepare a Budget each year, and in any of the budgets that is planned for the rest of the next twelve months, it is the same thing with the city councils and the same thing with individuals. They need to plan their budgets well, but they cannot plan their budget because this Government will not tell them what to expect.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville got up yesterday and I must say, he made a fairly good speech. He made a fairly good speech.

MR. TOBIN: He attacked the city council.

MR. WARREN: Yes, he attacked the city council, Mr. Speaker. But I was wondering if the Member for Pleasantville, if there was a resolution brought into this House today stating that there would be a plebiscite, including Mount Pearl on the Northeast Avalon, drop this bill - we will get rid of this bill altogether and have a plebiscite for the whole area, including Mount Pearl - would the member think that would be a good idea? So I would say, why does the member not talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and suggest to him to get rid of this bill altogether and bring in a plebiscite for all the Avalon, because it is going to happen in two years time. In a couple of years time it is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Corner Brook, Mount Moriah, and Massey Drive would be treated differently than St. John's, Wedgewood Park, and the Goulds. Why couldn't the people here also have the opportunity to decide what they wanted? I really think that not enough investigation has gone into this. There have not been enough public hearings heard throughout the Northeast Avalon. I think my hon. colleague, representing Wedgewood Park, said they have something like 95 per cent of the people in that area against this bill - Bill 50.

A few days ago, I think the Mount Pearl Fire Department had their first opportunity to try out their skills in putting out a fire when a vehicle ended up in their parking lot awhile ago. I think, according to all reports, they performed their duties in a most diligent manner. I think the minister should realize what he is taking away from those people who were given proper training. Here is a service that was going to be of benefit to all the citizens of Mount Pearl and other areas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: The Mount Pearl Fire Department was not allowed to use it. They were not allowed to go. They were told not to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. WARREN: By this Government. This Government advised them not to move.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: That is the problem. The reason the truck, which was on fire, came to the fire hall was to get the fire extinguished.

I say to my hon. colleague, the Mount Pearl Fire Department was not allowed to respond to fires. It was only a few days ago there was an alarm at O'Donel High School. The fire department was right across the street from it, and they had to wait thirteen minutes for the fire truck to come in from the Brookfield Station.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WARREN: Oh yes, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, they had to wait thirteen minutes for the fire truck to come in from the Brookfield Fire Station, and here was a fire truck right across the street, equipment and men standing by, and not allowed to answer the alarm.

I think it is ridiculous that this Government would take the measures they are taking today to push this bill through and force - and I compliment the Wedgewood Park mayor and councillors; I compliment the mayor and councillors in the Goulds; I compliment the town council, mayor and councillors in Mount Pearl - they put up a gallant fight. We on this side have put up a gallant fight, but it is the sort of fight where you are behind the eight ball before you start. You are behind the eight ball before you start, because you have a Government here which has a majority, and regardless of whether it is good or bad, regardless of all the positive reasons why it should not be done, the Government will still go ahead on the advice of one individual, who says: look, it is going to go my way or no way. That is the unfortunate part about it, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Government that you may not realize the consequences in the short term, and the people in this area may not, but they will in the long term. Maybe when the Premier decides to go to the Lieutenant-Governor and ask for an election writ, then the people will respond and use their voting power to treat this Government the way it has treated the people on the Northeast Avalon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure once again to speak on this bill. Firstly, I want to make reference to a question raised in debate by the Leader of the Opposition questioning the Premier, I believe, in my absence - certainly in my absence on this particular question - about the fact that I was out of the Province. To quote the Leader of the Opposition: 'we are told a ten day absence.'

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if you want to include weekends - and normally, at least to my knowledge unless I have missed something, we are not normally here on weekends - the fact of the matter is there were four days of the so called ten days, which was really nine days if you want to include weekends, from the time the Minister of Justice and I left this Province to the completion of the trip. The actual time, Mr. Chairman, spent in business overseas was five days, five days during which we visited three cities, and worked day and night. The implication of that question, which got, of course, misconstrued in the press - what else is new - nobody ever asked me. Certainly nobody ever asked my officials or anybody else how much actual time we had spent doing business overseas. You would think that somebody would ask the person who was over there. And finally, of course, I was asked upon my return, but by then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition was successful in totally distorting the facts. So let me clear that up first, Mr. Chairman. We were overseas five days, and one of those days, as a matter of fact, was spent travelling, so in actual time four working days, Mr. Chairman. Very reasonable actually. Very pertinent, Mr. Chairman, very pertinent indeed, and I think it should be clarified for this hon. House.

Mr. Chairman, another question that was raised was whether or not we were satisfied that the various municipalities in the St. John's area were given adequate consultation. That was a question that came to the Premier from the Member for St. John's East. Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a period of consultation in this Province on any issue, I would challenge the opposition to tell me when we have had more consultation on any issue in this Province at any other time, more consultation than we have had on this issue. We have been talking about amalgamation, transfer of services, transfer of facilities in the Northeast Avalon now for over two year. Two years of consultation, and the hon. Member for St. John's East has the nerve to get up in this House when I am not here, and ask a question of the Premier whether or not there was adequate consultation. Mr. Chairman, he should have, and probably was laughed out of the House at the time - is my guess.

MR. TOBIN: He was not.

MR. GULLAGE: He was not. Well he probably should have been because we have had more consultation than there has ever been in this Province on any issue at any time in the past, bar none.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with on the Northeast Avalon is easily the largest amalgamation that we are doing in the Province. It involves some twenty-five communities if you want to include the communities that are in the Metro Board area, but certainly seventeen incorporated communities, some of which are large in context to rural Newfoundland and larger than many of our rural communities.

So, it involves a large amalgamation and a very important one. For the first time, of course - and it had to be dealt with sometime, so perhaps you could argue the timing is right, anyway - we are dealing with the issue of the Metropolitan Area Board. And, Mr. Chairman, as the capital city, the city of St. John's, grows, there is no question, I suppose, in anybody's mind, whether it be Metro Board members, members of Government, or members of the communities in the Northeast Avalon, that eventually, the Metro Board responsibilities had to be transferred over to the jurisdiction of the municipalities in the area, whether it be the City of St. John's or other municipalities. Mr. Chairman, we have matured to the point where that was evident. The Metro Board lands, a good portion of which, at one time, were outside and on the perimeter of the Northeast Avalon, are now almost completely - I would say, completely surrounded by municipalities and have their boundaries co-adjacent to other municipalities. That decision was taken, Mr. Chairman, and I think, often missed is that for the first time all of those people in the Metro Board area will have representation by elected members, fully elected members, in whichever municipality their lands will be located, whether it be St. Jonn's, Portugal Cove, St. Phillips, Paradise, St. Thomas. Any of those areas will certainly be part of an elected municipal structure for the first time. I think that is an important point to make.

We are also, of course, as the bill states, transferring over responsibility of the regional services that are in place, most of which, or a good portion of which, are being administered by Metro Board right now - transferring those services over to the City of St. John's to manage and operate in consultation with the other municipalities that access those services. So, the member municipalities on the Northeast Avalon will sit with the City of St. John's Council for purposes of discussing rates and the provision of services on any particular service they are being provided with as part of a regional service, whatever it happen to be, whether it be water supply, fire fighting, or garbage disposal. There is a long list, of course, of possible regional services in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the alternative to that, as this House has debated, would have been some form of regional services board or, in fact, regional government, both of which are now provided for. Contrary to what is being said by the Opposition, the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon did not want regional services, did not want a regional board, and spoke out loudly and clearly against it. Only after the fact did they say they would like to have regional services. Throughout the hearings process they wanted nothing to do with regional services and, in fact, perceived it and said it was, in their view, another level of government, a tier of government in between the municipalities and the Province. They did not want it, Mr. Chairman.

In any case, Government had to make a decision to proceed with setting up a regional form of Government, elected by the people, to sit in between the municipalities involved and the Provincial Government, to set up a regional services board with representation from the communities in the Northeast Avalon, appointed from those elected councils, or, in fact, to make the choice we did, which was to say: Well, we have a large city, relatively large, certainly large in Newfoundland terms, large even in Atlantic Provinces' terms, and an administrative structure already in place capable of handling these regional services on behalf of the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon.

So that decision was taken, Mr. Chairman, and I believe - contrary to the concerns and the questions that have been raised about whether or not St. John's will be fair - that working in co-operation with the other mayors, St. John's will be fair. I believe that, like Metro Board, where Metro Board today sets rates for water and is fair - we have not had any difficulty that I know of in the setting of those rates - that the same co-operation we have had to date with the Metropolitan Area Board will continue between the member communities on the Northeast Avalon.

Now, we also decided to regionalize fire fighting services. As a result of that we have the current controversy, if you like, between the Council of Mount Pearl and the Government. The record will show that the Mount Pearl Council was advised a year-and-a-half ago, approximately, that this Government intended to proceed with regional fire fighting services - that was clear - and also, throughout the interim, offered to man the Mount Pearl Fire Department on many, many occasions; occasions when the Mount Pearl Council, in particular - mainly the Mount Pearl Council, I am not saying others did not suggest it - suggested that the station should not be unoccupied. Of course, I fully agreed and offered - as a matter of fact, I remember some of my comments - 'Give me half-an-hour and I will have it manned.' They refused.

They refused to have the station manned and continued to pursue a mandate that saw us where we are now, where, right up to recently, I guess, they were going to man the station, in fact, put young fire fighters in training, defying Government resolutions throughout the day, saying to the Government, in essence, that they would challenge the Government's resolution and decision to have a regional service.

Now, at the root of all this problem, of course, is the fact that the Mount Pearl Council knew that it was partner to and part of a regional service when this debate started. It was not as if we were saying they could not have a fire department as, in fact, the petitions suggested. The petitions, if I remember the wording, said, in essence, something to the effect that they were asking the people whether Mount Pearl should have a fire department.

MR. WINDSOR: Their own fire department! Go get the records!

MR. GULLAGE: Their own fire department. But the suggestion was very clear, Mr. Chairman, from what I understand was said at the doors, that it was implying that the Government was denying them fire fighting service.

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody ever suggested (inaudible) too stunned to understand what you're talking about!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is clear, that Mount Pearl was and is part of a fire fighting service, to this day, contributing to it as just about all the other municipalities in the Northeast Avalon are.

What we saw take place over the last few months was the Mount Pearl Council suggesting that they should walk away from that agreement with the Province, walk away from that partnership with their neighbours, and set up their own fire department, as if they had no fire fighting service at the time.

That was the implication. Every time an opportunity was there, the implication came out in the press. Certainly, every comment I saw was implying that they were not receiving fire protection at the moment. And they are. They are part of a service at the moment, and they were part of it when this debate started. That point should be made clear. And, to walk away from it, and walk away from an agreement with their neighbours, Mr. Chairman, is unconscionable, really. The Government decided, of course, that a regional service would stay in place and that we would compensate the City of Mount Pearl for their building and equipment and that station would become part of a regional service.

MR. MURPHY: And so it should.

MR. GULLAGE: And so it should, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, mention has been made of plebiscites and petitions and that sort of thing, another point I think I should speak to because it has been addressed many, many times throughout the debate.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, The Municipalities Act was dealt with, I guess, some fifteen years ago, by the Whelan Commission, and the recommendation was that plebiscites be taken out of the Act. Why was that recommendation put in there, Mr. Chairman? I do not think it was put in there frivolously. I think it was done after a lot of research and a lot of thought about the importance of a plebiscite, whether it should or should not be. At the end of the day, Whelan clearly said that plebiscites were mostly emotional in nature and could not properly address the facts of the matter. Certainly, you could never possibly educate thousands and thousands of people to the point where they could make a decision individually, a rational and good decision, by way of a signature on a plebiscite, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly, I think, Whelan's recommendation to the Government of the day was a good one. Because, Mr. Chairman, we are elected to make decisions. That is why we are here. We are not elected to pass our decisions down and say, 'We cannot make a decision, would you please make one for us.' That is what a plebiscite, in most cases, amounts to. I am not suggesting that a plebiscite should never take place, Mr. Chairman. I suppose, on a national scene, if you are dealing with moral issues - I will not mention what they could be, but certainly there are issues where perhaps plebiscites are important.

In dealing with matters where we have had a feasibility study, we have had public hearings, we have had consultation with councils, we have had consultation with the people, untold meetings, Mr. Chairman, and certainly, debate in the House of Assembly, to suggest at the end of the day that we ignore all of that, the importance of that, and say to the people, the man on the street, 'Now, even though we have gone through this exhaustive process, we have taken this two-year period of consultation, dialogue, discussion, public hearings, and so on, we now want you to make a decision for us,' Mr. Chairman, that is almost unthinkable, if not crazy. Because, Mr. Chairman, we are elected at the end of the day, on an issue like this, a detailed, complex, difficult decision like this, to make a decision.

PREMIER WELLS: It would lack courage.

MR. GULLAGE: It would lack courage to pass it down to an electorate that has not been through the process that we have. That is why we are here, to go through that process, to take the time to carry out the dialogue and to carry on, as I said earlier, the longest consultation process, in my view, that has ever taken place in the history of this Province. I challenge anybody to say otherwise or to show otherwise, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: In your view.

MR. MURPHY: In a lot of views.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, I challenge you to show this House otherwise. I would say it is the longest consultation period that has ever taken place on any issue in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the other point I want to address is one on which questions have been raised lately, about the unfairness of some of the decisions we have taken. I guess, specifically, I am talking about the Aquarena, the fire department, the annexation of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park to St. John's and, indeed, the amalgamation of Paradise to St. Thomas, Portugal Cove to St. Phillips, and, of course, the Metro lands.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said in answer to that question many times, we will address any unfairness, and I stand by that. We do have to see the transition process through to its end. We have the officials of my department now in consultation with the officials of the communities that are affected, and we will be fair at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman. If we see that amalgamation and annexation, the transfer of a facility or a service, is done in a manner that appears to be unfair as a result of doing it, the Government will address that, and I think that is fair, but firstly, we cannot just do that off the top of our heads at this stage because we do not know the facts.

Firstly, we have to carry out the transition process, which incidentally is not required under the Act. I added that process, I added the transition period in there and I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, not required, but important to see what the facts are and then Government can react, and if there is an unfairness, we will address it. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time so may I just clue up by saying that I believe this is an important decision, obviously it is because we have been debating it for some time, and usually only important decisions are involved in a lengthy debate such as this has been. I think it has been well debated by both sides of the House, but at the end of the day I think we have made a good decision and I think history will record that. Thank you.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the only true words the minister spoke were his last words. At least we finally got the minister on his feet. The minister says it was debated well by both sides of the House - no, it has been debated by this side of the House. Hon. members opposite have not stood, have not been counted, with one or two exceptions. The hon. Member for Pleasantville has spoken I think at least twice on this piece of legislation. I believe the hon. Member for St. John's South, spoke yesterday in my absence, or the night before last in my absence, and one or two others. The Member for Carbonear has spoken and that is about it.

Incredible, Mr. Chairman, that no more members have come forward to put their views on the record of the House of Assembly on one of the most important pieces of legislation -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's North.

MR. WINDSOR: - as I said sometime ago, earlier in this debate, it is incredible that so many members opposite who were former mayors, former councillors, former executive members of the Federation of Municipalities, have not stood in their places to be counted. Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the things that the minister just said. I used some unparliamentary words just a few moments ago when, Your Honour, I think was tempted to bring me to order and would have been quite correct and I withdraw any unparliamentary words that I used, because they come out from time to time in the heat of debate.

The fact remains that what the minister said a few moments ago was absolutely untrue. Let me address the first question: that the Mount Pearl council was told a year and a half ago, that there would be a regional fire service. We were told a year and a half ago, that Government was leaning in that direction. Negotiations have been carried on since that time between the council and the minister and the Premier, so if the minister's statement was accurate, what were these negotiations about?

The fact, Mr. Chairman, is this, that on October 12th, 1989, the minister and the Premier in a meeting with the Mount Pearl council, made a certain commitment and they made it clear that it was Government's view, at that point in time, that a Regional Fire Department would be the most suitable for this area. That they did say, but they also said, Mr. Chairman, that they would reduce the inefficiencies in the St. John's Fire Department, bring the cost down to an acceptable level, and that if a regional service was put in place, a regional board with appropriate representation would be put in place as well. Those were the two commitments made, Mr. Chairman, and furthermore, that if that did not take place, the City of Mount Pearl would be permitted to proceed and own and operated its own fire department. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is the truth of the matter.

Now the minister has not denied that. I made that statement two nights ago in this House. I have made it before and neither the minister nor the Premier had denied that fact. Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, they have betrayed the faith of the Mount Pearl City Council. It was on the strength of that commitment from the Premier and the minister - it is absolutely true -

MR. GRIMES: Mount Pearl changed its mind. They did not want it.

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl did not change its mind.

MR. GRIMES: It did so.

MR. WINDSOR: It was on the strength of that commitment that the Mount Pearl council said: we will not open our fire department until we complete this process.

MR. TOBIN: Why did the minister not tell the truth?

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, Mount Pearl opened the fire department when the minister and the Premier broke their word to the City Council of Mount Pearl.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true. That is nonsense.

MR. WINDSOR: If it is not true, I say to the Minister of Labour, then somebody - Mr. Chairman, with no aspersions on anybody - somebody is lying to me. Somebody is lying to me. It is either the Premier and the minister, or it is the mayor and council of the City of Mount Pearl, one of the two. One of the two are lying. Now we would like to find out. Bring the mayor and council before the Bar of the House, and ask them what their side of the story is. Bring them in here because if they are lying to me I would like to know that too. Bring them in here, and let's see who made the commitment and who did not, and what is the truth of the matter. I am quite prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to do that.

The minister said, Mr. Chairman, that Mount Pearl has been a partner. We have never been a partner in a fire department. We have had a service provided to which we have not wanted to subscribe for many years, but have not been given any alternatives, and all of that fault does not lay with hon. gentlemen opposite. We had the same difficulty when this party was in power, and I am the first to admit that. I had many of these same arguments with my own colleagues when we were in power. We were slowly moving toward a resolution, and it would have been resolved by now. In fact, it was our government that authorized the City of Mount Pearl to proceed with the building and equipping of the fire department, but we were not a partner, I say to the minister, as I said before when he tried to make that statement, there is not a signature on a piece of paper - not a signature. We have been sent a bill, we have been threatened that if we do not pay that bill it will be deducted from our municipal grants. Now if that is the minister's idea of a willing partner, then he has a strange notion of partnership. The city has for years been saying: allow us to own and operate our own independent fire department.

Consultation, the minister said, Mr. Chairman. The minister says there has been more consultation on this matter than ever before. Mr. Chairman, there has been absolutely no consultation on this proposal. There has been no consultation. There was a proposal put forward by the minister which had many weaknesses, but at least it was a proposal put forward. The minister appointed a commission in accordance with the Municipalities Act, and the City of Mount Pearl Act, and the City of St. John's Act, and that commission, Mr. Chairman, conducted some public hearings, not a plebiscite, but a public hearing in accordance with the act, and received eighty-four written submissions dealing with the proposal that the minister had on the table, dealing with that proposal, Mr. Chairman.

And a report came from the commissioners, and we have the report. Here is the report that was given to the minister. Take into account the minister's proposal, the strengths and weaknesses of it, all the submissions made, the eighty-four written submissions, and the hundreds of oral submissions, studying previous reports, consulting experts, hiring a team of financial people to do a thorough financial analysis, an independent firm of chartered accountants. That is the concept, Mr. Speaker, that is in the Municipalities Act, and all other legislation, and it was followed to produce this document. But in this document, Bill 50, Mr. Chairman, there is no resemblance to either the minister's proposal or the report of the commission. Bill 50, Mr. Chairman, came out of nowhere, was never put before the people of this area, or the municipalities, or the commissioners for comment, or study, or feasibility analysis, or anything else. So I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, there has been absolutely no consultation on the matters contained in Bill 50. No consultation whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned plebiscites. I would agree that one could not be bound to having a plebiscite every time you wanted to make some change in the Province. Neither should this Chamber be bound by having plebiscites for every decision that were to be made. If that were the case we could all go home and we could be replaced by a computer that would add up the numbers. But that is not what this Chamber is for. We are here to make intelligent decisions. We are here to use our own judgement to a very large measure, we are here to govern the Province in the best interests of the people.

No, we do not have plebiscites any more, but the legislation was changed, I say to the Minister, because I changed it in 1979 when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs. I agree we should not be bound to have plebiscites. But we should be bound to have feasibility studies and to allow those municipalities or individuals concerned to have some input. It naturally follows that this House should listen to those submissions. Otherwise why do we go through all those exercises? Why do we go through all the time, trouble and expense of debating an issue in this hon. House if Government is not prepared to listen? That is really what is being shown here, that the minister and the Government are not prepared to listen.

No, we do not need a plebiscite. But the minister could listen to the submissions that were made. If petitions with 18,000 names and 22,000 names do not mean anything; if the commissioners' report, properly conducted - there were some weaknesses in that whole structure which we have criticized, but generally speaking it was conducted in accordance with the spirit and the intent of the legislation - if that does not mean anything; if the public opinion poll done by professionals recently which said 83 per cent of the people of this region support Mount Pearl's right to have a fire department, surely that must mean something.

Even the people from the minister's own district have spoken against him on this issue. It gets back to a much more serious issue -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) speak against you on the issue too!

MR. WINDSOR: The majority of the people in Mount Pearl have not spoken.

MR. NOEL: I never said the majority. People you said and I said –

MR. WINDSOR: I just said the majority of people in the minister's district have spoken against it. Eighty-three per cent of the people polled spoke against him. The majority of the people in that poll were from St. John's, not from Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: Nonsense! That poll is not legitimate (Inaudible)!

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

MR. WINDSOR: This professional poll, independent poll, not commissioned by us!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: Six thousand names, Mr. Chairman, on a petition that I tabled here, came from the district of Waterford - Kenmount, the St. John's component of Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And of the 18,000 names that I tabled from the City of Mount Pearl, 6,000 of those came from Waterford - Kenmount! So 12,000 people have signed a petition from the minister's own district disagreeing with what he is proposing!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: Twelve thousand people from the Minister's own district!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Pleasantville to restrain himself.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Your Honour for your protection but I am really not concerned with the Member for Pleasantville at the moment.

Twelve thousand people from the minister's district have spoken, told him that he is making a mistake. If he will not listen to people from other constituencies I find it incredible that he will not listen to the people from his own district. He will listen to them next election, you may rest assured, because those 12,000 people will not forget. How many people have I met in the past couple of days saying: you please tell the member that we will not forget? We will not forget him.

Now it brings us to a very important philosophical question here. Do we, as MHA's, as elected representatives of the people, have the divine right to decide what is best and what is not best for the people?

MR. NOEL: You thought you did, when (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is where you get to a question of public hearings and plebiscites, Mr. Chairman.

We can come here, and in 99 per cent of the pieces of legislation brought before this House, I think members can stand in their place and vote in accordance with their consciences with a fairly reasonable assurance that they are representing the majority of the people who elected them. Generally speaking we can do that, but from time to time there comes an issue which is so public, and which has received so much public comment, that it is very clear that the House may be moving against the wishes of the people. That is clear in this case, Mr. Chairman. It is clear in this case that the majority of the people do not agree with Government's position. The Federation of Municipalities, which is representative of all municipalities in this Province passed five resolutions at their meeting in Gander in October, I think it was -five resolutions condemning Government's action on this matter - five resolutions.

MR. GRIMES: That is not what they did. That was not the wording of the resolution. What were the words of the resolution? They did not say that. That is not what they said at all.

MR. WINDSOR: If the Member for Exploits has anything to say at all, let him stand in his place for once, and have something to say. Let him get up and represent the people who elected him; not stand there belly sniping! Get up and be counted for once! Have some intestinal fortitude!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: They are over there like a bunch of trained seals; they vote when they are told to vote; sit down when they are told to sit down, and shut up when they are told to shut up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I heard the other day, Mr. Chairman, the new Member for Baie Verte: the Premier took the microphone out of his hand at the convention out in Gander - took it right out of his hand! Sit down, you are making a fool of yourself. If that was me, Mr. Chairman, the Premier would be spitting out microphone for a week!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. WINDSOR: Not true. Took the microphone right out of his hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had better hope he does not go to Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Speaking to a convention, he was - a newly elected member - not a week or two weeks before the convention. The Premier jumped up and took the microphone - enough of that. No wonder he is hidden over in the back corner and has hardly said 'boo' since he came into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He likes hearing himself talk.

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not like to hear myself talk. I do not like to have to speak on an issue, I think this is the fifth or sixth time that I have had to address this matter, and I do not relish that, saying over and over and over again to those who will not listen, but I have to do what I have to do.

I think we all have to examine what our role is in this House. Do we have a divine right to decide how we vote, even though we know that our constituents disagree with us? I think there are times when a plebiscite is in order, and I think I know that the majority of the people of this region disagree with the minister. I do not subscribe to the fact any more than the Premier did in the Meech Lake debate, that the majority of the people should decide for a minority on something that affects them only. I agree with a majority decision when all of us are equally affected, then the majority should govern; that is our democratic system. But when we are talking about an issue that affects a small number of people - I do not believe that the people of St. John's have a right to tell the people of Dunville that they should be a part of Placentia. I do not think that the people of St. John's have a right to tell the people of Massey Drive they should be part of Corner Brook!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Or Newtown be part of Mount Pearl!

MR. WINDSOR: I do not believe that the people of St. John's have a right to tell the people of Mount Pearl that we must join them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: But I am prepared to put it aside, Mr. Chairman. I challenge the minister to have a plebiscite! One simple question on the plebiscite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. members to my left to restrain themselves. There is altogether too much interruption, too much noise. The decorum of the House is certainly not acceptable at this point in time. I ask hon. members for their co-operation. If the noise continues, we will have to recess the Committee and report disorder in the House.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have a moment left and I want to use that. I have lost a moment now with these interruptions. I want to use it to make this one point to the minister.

If he is so sure of what he is saying, if he is so sure that this is in the best interests of this region, if he is so sure that the majority of the people in this region agree with him, let him have a plebiscite. Let him ask the question: Do you favour the resolution in Bill 50, or do you favour the proposal as brought forward by the commissioners who reported in accordance with the municipal legislation? One simple question! If he hasn't got the nerve to do that, then he should resign in disgrace!

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words in today's debate in response to the comments of the minister. I thought, and I said so, that the minister had given a very good answer to my question in the House the other day about the issue of the consequences to the City of St. John's, and the taxpayers of St. John's, of the combination of the higher assessments, of about 25 per cent, and the great increase in cost services due to the amalgamation, as well as the consequences to taxpayers in the Towns of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, as a result of the amalgamation and them having to adopt the higher mil rate that St. John's has.

The minister said in the House - and I thought he was sincere, he sounded sincere - that if there were any unfairness, he was prepared to address it. He said it again in the House today, sincerely. I think he was sincere.

But the problem is that what the minister's definition of unfairness is and what most people - the vast majority, 99 per cent of the people of this Province - would think is unfair, are two different things. I suppose that is how the Premier gets away with fairness and balance, tooting all the time about fairness and balance. Because his idea of fairness is totally different from the ideas about fairness that 99 per cent of the people of this Province have. Fairness, according to the Premier, is a different kind of fairness from the fairness that you or I, Mr. Chairman, would expect.

I see the hon. minister does not want to hear any more about this, because he has chosen to run away from this very serious point that I am about to make. Because the minister has also said - we discovered what he meant by fairness when he said he did not think it was unfair for the people of Wedgewood Park to have their taxes doubled in one year! - or the people of the Goulds to end up having to pay twice as much in taxes in one year without any transition, without any gradual implementation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: One hundred and five per cent.

MR. HARRIS: One hundred and five per cent increase, the Member for Kilbride says, and I am sure he knows. That, in one year, is going to be considered fair by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He says he has gone further than he had to, and had a transition team put in place. What transition, Mr. Chairman? Where is the transition, from one year to the next, to have 105 per cent increase for the people of Kilbride and perhaps 100 per cent increase for the Town of Wedgewood Park taxpayers? And what the minister said was, well, these people have been getting away with it for years. So, therefore, it is fair to pounce on them in one year and have an automatic increase in the middle of a recession with unemployment higher than it has been in many years, to slap 100 per cent tax increase on them by the actions of this Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions on this bill and I have said there has to be fairness in the level of taxation throughout the region. That is why I criticize this Government for not following through on this principle. The Member for Pleasantville, from time to time, when he speaks at least, agrees, when he votes, well, we will see.

MR. NOEL: I do not agree my constituents should subsidize these new people. Do you want yours to?

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody has asked you to.

MR. NOEL: Well, who is going to subsidize them?

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody.

MR. NOEL: Those people (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will address the member's points. He does not agree that his constituents should subsidize them. Well, that is why I ask the minister whether he was prepared on behalf of the Province to provided financial support to ease the transition. He has a transition team. I don't know what they do. He said he instituted a transition team but there is no transition, it is automatic. On January 1, 1992 when they get their new tax bills they will pay the new tax regardless of their ability to pay. The Member for Pleasantville got up earlier today presenting a petition in which he was complaining on behalf of the petitioners about a 3 per cent increase in hydro rates. Well, I agree with him. If a 3.7 per cent increase in hydro rates is unfair - and the member said it was, as did the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island and the Member for St. John's South - well, why is it that 105 per cent increase in taxes for the town of the Gould's taxpayers in one year is not unfair to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs? That is what is wrong with this Government, Mr. Chairman, they do not even know the meaning of the word 'fair'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: They think that 'fair' is whatever the Premier says. If the Premier says it is fair, well, then, it is fair. He is the man who decides what is fair and what is not, and all the rest of them over there just follow along and mouth the words fairness and balance and talk about it as if it were some principle they invented, but they do not know the meaning of the word. They demonstrated that, Mr. Chairman, in this very simple proposition, that a 3.7 per cent rate hike they consider unfair for hydro payers, people buying electricity from Newfoundland Power, but 105 per cent tax increase for the people of the town of the Goulds is not considered unfair.

I suppose, if we ask again - the Member for Pleasantville is the one who took great pains to point out to the House that the business taxpayers of Mount Pearl in Donovans Industrial Park, it is not unfair to have them pay half the tax rate of the business taxpayers in the City of St. John's.

If the members want to talk about fairness, if the Government want to talk about fairness, then they should have done the fair thing, and if the minister is prepared to say, I will respond to fairness, I will respond to allegations of unfairness, and then, when they are pointed out to him he says, oh, no, no, that is not unfair, it is not unfair to have a tax increase of 105 per cent in one year. Why is that? Is that because the residents of the Goulds have been enjoying some advantage over the years? No, Mr. Chairman. It is not fair to do this through the amalgamation process without their being told in advance what it is going to cost them, without their being aware that their costs are going to increase, and without some method of easing that burden, so that at least when we are going to a fairer system - and I have to agree that the result of this bill will be somewhat fairer than it is now, somewhat fairer, to a small degree. But to implement that in one year, without any support for the City of St. John's and the taxpayers of St. John's, his constituents and mine, to have to pay the additional burden all in one year because of Government fiat, I do not think is right, Mr. Chairman, and for that reason, I will not be supporting this legislation.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) your constituents are subsidizing.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. the Member for Pleasantville wishes to suggest that I am not representing my constituents here in the House, but let me tell what I have said, and I will tell the Chair, because I guess the Member for Pleasantville is not listening. What I suggested to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is that his Government provide financial support to ease the transition, to not have the burden be placed on the taxpayers of St. John's to finance the transition, that the transition ought to be financed by the Department of Municipal Affairs, and that has to come from all the taxpayers of this Province, who would have to provide for the transition. They are paying now for the Aquarena. They are paying now for the St. John's Fire Department. The money is already there. They are passing that burden on to the taxpayers of St. John's, all in one year, and the Member for Pleasantville is supporting that. That is what I think is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and that is why I will not be supporting the bill.

Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks at this stage of the bill, and I will yield the floor to the Member for Pleasantville if he wishes to make a speech.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words just to finish up, because I am sure this is going to, eventually, sometime today, with the majority on the other side of the House, be bulldozed through this House.

Mr. Chairman, we have talked a lot in this debate on what should and should not have been done in this process that has taken place in the amalgamation or the annexation of the Goulds, Wedgewood Park and other Metro areas. Mr. Chairman, what we kept saying was that there should be a feasibility study, which the Municipalities Act says should have been carried out, and was never carried out.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members asked us what we would do - and I just want to tell hon. members, particularly the Member for Pleasantville, what we did on this issue and what we were working on. In October, 1987, three Commissioners, R. A. Fagan, J. Henley Andrews, and M. F. Harrington, did a feasibility study on the regional approach of the services in this area. Now, Mr. Chairman, this was something that a government could act on. We started to implement it, but they have a copy of it, too. The fifty-nine different recommendations, that you might or might not agree with, were made by an independent commission, and some of them are completely opposite to what the Government is trying to do. The recommendations on regional services and phasing of taxes are completely opposite to what the Government is doing, fire services, not totally opposite, Mr. Chairman, they are close. But there are recommendations in the report of what should have been done with the fire service, before what the minister is doing was brought in. Mr. Chairman, all this information is available to the minister, his department, and all hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I am not saying right or wrong. There is a feasibility study here, done by independent people, that you can view, to see if what you are doing is what should be done for the region. All you are doing here now, by bulldozing this legislation, is putting what the Premier thinks is right and what the minister changed the Premier's mind on - the Premier wanted Mount Pearl and all in the City; I think we will all agree on that, and to try to save the minister's political neck, Mr. Chairman. The minister said: 'let's leave Mount Pearl out. Maybe that will save my hide in Mount Pearl,' but it did not. It certainly did not. It backfired.

Mr. Chairman, that is what we are going on, no feasibility study, no recommendations by anyone, actually. The studies that were done by the deputy ministers, I mean, that has to be the biggest joke that ever was. If I tell my employee, 'I want amalgamation, and you go out now and see what the other people want, and come back with a recommendation to me,' what are they going to do? If they are working for me, I tell you what they will do, they will recommend what I want, because I was ruling the department, and that was all the choice they had. They came back with recommendations that were ridiculous for this area, but the Government did not even go by their own committee's recommendations, and I wonder why.

Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen in the Goulds is that the mil rate will go from 6 mils to 11 mils, an 83 per cent increase in one sweep. In one day, from December 31 to January 1, that will happen immediately - an 83 per cent increase. What will happen over the next year when the assessments are upgraded is another 25 per cent increase. Now, any member on that side of the House who personally had to face that increase, I doubt could do it. Any member on that side of the House whose constituents had to face that because of an action by that Government should kick up about it.

MR. TOBIN: 'Murphy' said he has to pay it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That will give a 108 per cent increase over the next twelve months to the residents of the Goulds. That is one increase that the people of the Goulds cannot afford. If they went by recommendations of a feasibility study, the commissioners could have assessed that, and they would know if the people of the Goulds or any other area could afford it, and they might have recommended a phase-in.

The main people who are going to pay for all of this bungling, the people who are going to pay the biggest dollar for all of this bungling, besides the increases in the Goulds, are going to be the regular taxpayers in St. John's. The taxpayers who are represented by six or so members on that side will pay the burden of this bungled amalgamation. I wonder why they don't care, over there, what the increases on the city taxpayers will be. I tried to think about that for quite awhile, why they would not stand up for their own taxpayers getting such an increase to pay for all of this. First, there is the Member for St. John's Centre: Well, he is not running the next time, so he is not worried. He doesn't care a big lot about it. He is going to give up. Then, I went to the Member for St. John's North. He is getting a pension from somewhere else, and is being paid for being in here anyway, so he doesn't care a big lot about it. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount probably did care when this started. He did get the Premier to change his mind on one part of it, which was probably a bigger mistake than the bungling mistakes he made all around. But he might care - I don't know. The Member for Pleasantville - I am sure he cares what an increase in taxes this is going to be for his taxpayers, because I know he plans to run again. The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island represents some taxpayers in the City of St. John's. He doesn't care what the taxpayers in the City of St. John's pay, because he lives in Mount Pearl. It doesn't matter to him, he is not going to have to pay this increase. The Member for St. John's South does not care what the increases are that are coming to the city taxpayers because he lives in Tors Cove and does not pay any municipal taxes -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - that is why, members on that side do not care what happens with this amalgamation, that is why they are willing to vote on this bill to increase the taxes of the people of the City of St. John's, whom they represent, because it will not affect them -

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

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: - they live in other parts of this Province that are not being amalgamated.

MR. MURPHY: On a point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Kilbride is misleading this House. I know he is not doing it intentionally. This hon. member has a residence in Pleasantville, 804 Pleasantville, and for him to get up and say that I live in Tors Cove is entirely wrong, he is misleading the House, he is misleading the public and he should not be allowed to do so - I stand to correct him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. It is just a difference between hon. members. The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order because the member rents an apartment somewhere in St. John's that is up to him. I do not care, that is completely up to him. He will not get a property tax assessment next year for an increase in taxes to pay for that apartment. His landlord might, I do not know, maybe his rent will go up but that gentleman' residence is in Tors Cove, where there are no municipal taxes, and that is why he does not care what the increases to the St. John's tax payers will be with this bill. If he did care he would vote against this bill rather than the sham where he tried to present a petition here today - Newfoundland Light and Power get a 3 per cent increase. He and two other members tried to make a political issue out of it and it backfired on them.

They could not get in on the Member for Port de Grave's fishery issue, they tried to get in on that but he told them to get out of here so they tried to do something on this electrical issue, but they lost there too, because Linda Hyde took that away from them. Now they are going to vote to increase the taxes of the residents of their districts, which they should not do. All they had to do with this whole mess in this area, was to have a feasibility study, and let the people of the region know what was going to happen to them. They are extremely sensible people in this region and if the feasibility study showed that this was the right thing to do, a Government could go out and sell the right thing to do, so that the people would not be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a city that they do not necessarily want to be part of. It could probably be as happened in Kilbride, where the proper information was given out, maybe the people would like to have this amalgamation. Maybe they would, but right now they have no idea what is going to happen to them.

The Member for Pleasantville keeps asking: should everyone else subsidize them, should the Goulds have their taxes phased in? Mr. Chairman, they are going to get their services phased in. They will not have a bus service brought in to the Goulds on January 1. The Department of Transportation will still be clearing some of the roads in there, not the city. They will not have a paid fire department on January 1. That is why they should have their taxes phased in. They should have their taxes phased in because their services are being phased in. Members across there do not understand that because that is too much logic for them, it is too fair, and it shows that there might be a bit of fairness and balance over a five or six year period if things were phased in. Things might be balanced up eventually.

AN HON. MEMBER: A $350,000 study.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Maybe it was a $300,000 study. It could very well have, and worth every penny of it, Mr. Chairman, and you put it on the shelf and did not look at it.

MR. MURPHY: I paid for it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You did not pay for it in Tors Cove I tell you that. If they went and got a study, similar, they did not have to use this one. If they did not trust these people, R.A. Fagan, a person who was at one time president of the Federation of Municipalities, I think. J. Henley Andrews, a lawyer downtown, a very respected person in this community, and M.F. Harrington, Mr. Chairman, all three very good commissioners, and none of them that I know of are politically associated with any party. I have not met them at any political functions I have been involved in. I do not think they are political appointments.

MR. TOBIN: Ron Fagan ran for the Liberal nomination one time.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, there we go. I do not know the chairman very well but he ran for the Liberal nomination at one time so that certainly was not a political appointment on our behalf to get a report that we wanted, because the chairman of this, I understand - I do not know but I have been told by the Member for Burin - Placentia West - that he at one time sought the Liberal nomination, so they certainly were not political patronage appointments.

Mr. Chairman, the Government is missing the boat on this whole amalgamation issue. They have bungled it from day one. They have proceeded illegally and have to keep coming back to this House of Assembly to try to make it legal. They though they would do it with the Regional Services Bill but that was not good enough. When Mount Pearl took them to court on the issues on the fire hall they had to bring back this Bill 50 to try to make it legal, and I expect there will be something else back here before the dust all settles. I say to the hon. members, Mr. Chairman, we know why they do not care about the tax increases, because there are members over there representing the City of St. John's who will not have to pay the increases, and there are some of them who will not be running the next time anyway, so they do not care. They will retire in some summer home out around Conception Bay eventually, Mr. Chairman, and they do not care very much about what the City of St. John's has to pay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, members opposite are singing out questions. There is no doubt, there are a lot of questions that have not been answered on this piece of legislation - a lot of questions that have not been answered by the Government, and they are not willing to provide the answers because what we are seeing again today by my good friend Leonid Breshnev, the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman, is more of the hobnailed boots action legislation: kicking it, and ramming it. That is what they are at. What is this, nine times in two years? Nine times in two years, Mr. Chairman, my good friend Leonid has brought in the closure motion. If you could only dress him up, Mr. Chairman, and take him to red square with the fur cap and the dark coat, he would sit in just wonderful with the boys over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know he looks a lot like - my colleague for Kilbride, there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, certainly struck a nerve with certain members opposite when he went through the list of the St. John's members and why they are not concerned about the great increase in taxes that this bill is going to inflict upon them. I say to the Member for Pleasantville, when he talked today, about the people of St. John's not being able to afford an increase in hydro because they were overtaxed, well I say he has not seen anything yet from what his constituents are going to get as a result of his Government's action. On his Government's action, Mr. Chairman, -

AN HON. MEMBER: And he is part of it! A big part of it!

MR. MATTHEWS: - on this particular bill, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It is, Mr. Chairman, if not the most unfair piece of legislation, the most unbalanced piece of legislation that has ever come before this Legislature, it is close to being.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I can understand why the Member for Carbonear would be getting that way, Mr. Chairman. I can understand why he would be, because the truth hurts. The truth hurts, and this piece of legislation is going to have a lot of ill effects on a lot of people on the Northeast Avalon; all of them, as a matter of fact. A lot of them are going to see increased taxes, are having their democracy taken away -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, democracy taken away. The people are not listened to, the will of the people ignored by a very arrogant government who became arrogant in a very short period of time. That is what we are seeing here.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that I think he is doing something here that is against his will. I really believe that. I do not think he has any choice in the matter. The little bit of softening and watering down that we see here is because of him. It is because of him. If all members opposite had made the case that the minister made, particularly those St. John's members, we may have seen some further watering down and softening of the piece of legislation. It may have been a little more conciliatory, a little more acceptable to more people being affected by this piece of legislation, but they sat there, kept their mouths shut - sat there and kept their mouths shut - and I say to all of them that we are going to see some very, very negative effects from this piece of legislation from all people residing in the Northeast Avalon, including the taxpayers of the City of St. John's.

Some people think they are going to streamline, to make more efficient the Northeast Avalon. I say that by making it bigger and putting it into one big lump you are going to make it worse. You are going to make it worse.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is going to cost millions.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars which the taxpayers of the Northeast Avalon will have to get out of their pockets - already overtaxed people are going to get more. That is what we are seeing here. That is what we are seeing here. Why is such an important piece of legislation - the Government House Leader today introduces closure for tomorrow - third reading. We have had it on second reading; we have had it in committee today; we are going to have it in third reading tomorrow, and I do not know - perhaps he will introduce something else tomorrow. If there is any way of having further closure beyond third reading, I am sure the Government House Leader has thought about it and referenced it. I am sure he has. Perhaps he will set a precedent.

MR. TOBIN: Close the House and operate from the eighth floor.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) on reporting the bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is going to be something, closure on reporting the bill.

I want to say that we feel like we have been kicked to death with this closure legislation. The people of the Northeast Avalon have been given the steel nosed boots again.

MR. TOBIN: By the minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) put closure on the Lieutenant-Governor for signing it, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they will probably put closure on His Honour for coming in and proclaiming the bill. They will probably put a closure motion to that. What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure on Royal Assent.

MR. MATTHEWS: On Royal Assent. I would not be surprised. That is the only thing we have not had it on now in two years.

We have put up a good fight on this issue. We feel hurt on this issue. We feel the Government is being very, very dictatorial on the issue. They are being unwise - very unwise.

MR. TOBIN: Would the minister responsible for pigs be quiet?

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a very, very serious act which has been undertaken in this Legislature over this last two weeks, affecting a lot of people, and I am not sure that members opposite realize what they are doing. We have the hobnailed boots, the gag order issued on us once again, Mr. Chairman, and, as a matter of fact we are frustrated with the Government, we do not know what else to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you agree to stop the clock?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

On motion, clause 1 through 4, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 5 carry?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, there is a typographical error in clause 5 that I would like to point out and would like to amend clause 5 of the bill by deleting in the proposed sub-section 353.19, sub-section 14, and that is on page 17, if members want to have a look at the bill, the figure 11 deleted and substitute the figure 13. It is just an incorrect reference to a clause.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you go over that again for us?

MR. BAKER: Clause 5, this is on page seventeen of the bill. Page seventeen, under fourteen about one-third the way down. It should read: The costs payable under subsection 13, not 11. It is a typographical error.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder would the House Leader entertain a question?

MR. BAKER: Sure.

MR. TOBIN: Don't you have any confidence in the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to do this? Is this why you are putting the bill through?

MR. BAKER: Well, this is the normal way to do it.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. BAKER: This is the normal way to do it.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: On a procedural order, Mr. Chairman, is it permissible, once closure is called to have amendments in Committee? I understood that all amendments were negated by closure and is it therefore appropriate for the minister to bring forward an amendment at this point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. The House Leader.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely appropriate, as a matter of fact, quite often there are a number of amendments - the only problem with closure is that at a certain point in time it says all amendments must be called, so it is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I conferred with the experts at the table and they assured me that amendments are in order.

Shall clause 5 carry as amended?

On motion, clause 5 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 6 to 12 carried.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. WINDSOR: I would like to make an amendment to Clause 12, that Clause 12 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefore: Section 12 (1) This act comes into force on April 1, 1992 but before that date the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall conduct a referendum in those areas of the Northeast Avalon region directly affected to determine whether the residents of that region are in favour of the amalgamation of certain municipal authorities and municipal services in relation to the region as provided for in this act. Clause 2; in the referendum held under Subsection (1) the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall also determine whether or not the residents of the region approve of the recommendations made by the commission appointed under the municipalities feasibility reports regulations 1989 which were included in the report released in July 1990 and entitled 'Planning for the Future.' Clause 3; where a majority of persons casting a ballot in the referendum held under Subsection (1) vote against the amalgamation of certain municipal authorities and municipal services in relation to the Northeast Avalon region as provided for in this act, this act shall have no effect. Clause 4; where a majority of persons casting a ballot in accordance with Subsection (2) vote in favour of the amalgamation of certain municipal authorities and municipal services in relation to the Northeast Avalon region as provided for in the recommendations of the commission an act shall be introduced forthwith to give effect to same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

All those in favour of the amendment, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

Mr. Matthews; Mr. Tobin; Mr. R. Aylward; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Hearn; Mr. N. Windsor; Ms. Verge; Mr. S. Winsor; Mr. A. Snow; Mr. Harris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against, please stand.

The hon. the President of the Council; the hon. the Minister of Health; the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture; the hon. the Minister of Social Services; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries; the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations; Mr. L. Snow; Mr. K. Aylward; the hon. the Minister of Justice; the hon. the Minister of Finance; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Reid; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Crane; Mr. Penney; Mr. Noel; Mr. Efford; Mr. Murphy; Mr. Dumaresque; Mr. Walsh; Mr. Short; Mr. Langdon; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Small.

CLERK (Mr. John Noel): Mr. Chairperson, 10 for the amendment and 26 against.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, Clause 12, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 50 with amendment and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendment to Bill No. 50, read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 of the clock.

All those in favour, 'aye', contrary, 'nay'.

The House does not adjourn. I ask hon. members to report back here at 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." (Bill No. 38).

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief on this important piece of legislation. There are many stories I could tell about how this evolved, who had a part in it, and who is responsible for it, but perhaps I should not embarrass certain members on the other side of the House, so I will try to be brief.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Province throughout the ages have been very passionate about the sea, and we have in this Province a Marine Institute committed to offering ocean and fisheries-related programs designed to meet the needs of not just our fishermen and other people who work in the industry, fisherpersons, but meet the needs of many Newfoundlanders. We have a university, Mr. Speaker, with programs containing many ocean-related areas, many research initiatives related to the sea. Even the motto of the university: "Launch forth into the deep" - I do not know what the latin -

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Go jump in the lake'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: "Provehito in Altum". My friend here says, 'Go jump in the lake', but it does not mean that. It means launch out into the deep. I think that motto reflects the ocean heritage that we have and the focus on marine programs.

We, some months ago, issued a White Paper on post-secondary education. I think it was February 1990 that we released the White Paper, and we called for submissions. In fact, this whole process was initiated - I must tell the truth - was initiated perhaps before I arrived on the scene as minister. I want to give some credit to my friends across the floor. But we decided to approach this in a very systematic, planned way and issued the White Paper in February of 1990, and we asked for submissions. We received 115 submissions, and the government released its response to the White Paper on, I think it was, October 5, 1990.

Now, one of the recommendations dealt with the affiliation of the Marine Institute with Memorial University, and many of the submissions praised that concept. In fact, the Member for Stephenville pointed out to me the other day that the legislation setting up Memorial University referred to fisheries as being a mission of Memorial University.

Years ago when we were designing programs and developing initiatives at Memorial, perhaps fisheries and fisheries-related matters should have preceded many of the other programs that were developed, as important as they were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: It seems to me that fisheries was an area which the university should have adopted as part of its mandate years ago. They did not. We have a Marine Institute, and I could go on talking about the features of the Marine. It is an outstanding institution, but we have at Memorial a number of fisheries-related programs, and the government thought that the time had come to co-ordinate the two, to rationalize the two, to affiliate the Marine Institute with Memorial University, and that was the proposal in the White Paper, widely accepted.

There were two or three concerns. I want to be fair to those who wrote briefs. There were a number of concerns. We feel, however, that in this legislation, in this bill, we have addressed these concerns. One of the concerns expressed in the briefs was that the Marine Institute maintains a close linkage with the industry, and there were some concerns that with affiliation, that linkage would in some way be decreased, perhaps eliminated. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is committed to increasing the linkage of the Marine Institute within Memorial University to the industry. And, in the bill, we proposed an Advisory Committee made up primarily of persons in the industry to advise the President and the Board of Regents of Memorial University on marine and fisheries-related matters.

Another concern, Mr. Speaker, was that the programs that are oriented towards the practical aspects of fishing would, in some way, be decreased with this affiliation. Mr. Speaker, we have been assured and we assure the public of this Province that the Marine Institute of Memorial University will continue to offer the diploma programs, the short-term fisheries-related programs that are now being offered by the Marine Institute. In fact, perhaps, the Marine Institute should renew its focus on programs that serve fishermen and others, fisherpersons, throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: This morning, Mr. Speaker, I heard a news item that in Labrador, the Marine Institute, through the Western Community College, was going to offer programs to the fishermen on the coast of Labrador.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Labrador Community College.

DR. WARREN: Yes, Labrador Community College.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Marine.

DR. WARREN: And Marine. That is right, we are going to offer, through the Labrador Community College, these kinds of diploma and short-term programs. And we want to assure the public and the persons in the fishing industry and marine-related areas that these short-term programs, programs that are designed to meet the real needs of people in the industry, and the marine industries in this Province, will continue.

A third concern in the briefs submitted in response to the White Paper had to do with the funding of the Marine Institute within the University context, because the Marine Institute will be called the Marine Institute of Memorial University. Mr. Speaker, the government has decided that in these initial years the funding for the Marine Institute would be decided on separate from the funding for the whole university. As we provide funding to the medical school, within the university context, it is our intention to provide a global budget for the Marine Institute so that its identity, its industry specific nature, its programs, will be maintained.

Now, the real advantage of combining the two, of course, is that we want to increase in this Province the focus on the fisheries. I attended -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Yes, I attended, some weeks ago, the Convocation, and Dr. May, in his speech, said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: 'The recent announcement that the Provincial Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology, the Marine Institute will be incorporated with the university will give impetus and emphasis to making Memorial University known in Canada and throughout the world as the world's pre-eminent marine university.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: The President of the University who has a distinguished career in the fishing industry has committed to making Memorial University well-known throughout the world. In fact, he says - and perhaps a little ambitious, I sometimes get carried away. He may have in his Convocation address. He did say that his goal was, by 1999, to make Memorial University the world's pre-eminent Marine University and he sees our move to affiliate the two as the first step.

Mr. Speaker, we have confidence that this is the right decision. We want to rationalize post-secondary education. We cannot afford duplication of programs, and we did have in the Marine Institute a large number of excellent programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, with duplication.

DR. WARREN: We do have within Memorial a number of fisheries and marine-related programs, and there was some duplication. We are going to build on the current programs now, and we hope, Mr. Speaker, the new Marine Institute within Memorial University will not only maintain the programs they now have but that the university will enhance and expand them, and eventually offer degrees.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was duplicated?

DR. WARREN: We have a number of facilities. The marine - aquaculture is a good example. The university is involved in exciting developments and studies in the area of aquaculture, and so is the Marine Institute, doing exciting work.

Here is an area for us to increase our focus, to rationalize our programs, and to use the joint facilities, not only to offer current programs, but to enhance and to increase the programs. I hope, Mr. Speaker, before I finish as Minister of Education, that Memorial University will offer degrees in fisheries. In addition to all the programs that are now offered, I am hoping that within the next ten or fifteen years, perhaps before I finish as Minister of Education, maybe in five or six years, that Memorial University will design degree programs in fisheries management and aquaculture, in many areas, to further enhance the services we provide to the people involved in fisheries and marine work in this Province.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the right decision at the right time, with a President of Memorial University who is internationally know in the area. He has tremendous knowledge, and we feel he is going to lead the university into the 21st Century to better serve the needs of our people. Perhaps one additional comment I might make, Mr. Speaker: I have received two documents today which are very relevant to this. I received some information on what is happening in Australia. I found out that Australia has a marine institute, one of the best in the world, and I am going to go and visit. The Minister of Finance wants me to go and report. He has been there. I found out in the last few days that the Australian Marine Institute is going to affiliate with the University of Tasmania, and I found out today also, Mr. Speaker, that the Nova Scotia Agriculture College is going to affiliate with one of the universities in Nova Scotia, so we are moving with the times. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we hope that with this bill we will be leading and will develop Memorial as the marine university of the world.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take great pleasure in rising this evening to participate in debate in second reading of Bill 38, "An Act To Amend The University Act", an act to kill the Marine Institute. Mr. Speaker, what fancy gobbledygook Dr. May gave over at the Convocation! It impressed those at the Convocation but it is not going to impress too many people out and about rural Newfoundland, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is shocking.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is shocking, I say to the minister, what you are doing to the Marine Institute. If I closed my eyes, if I didn't know the difference, if his voice were the same as mine, it sounded like the notes they had written up for me to give on the Marine Institute but I would not surrender to the officials, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: They were the very same officials who wrote the notes for the minister, the surrender notes on the Marine Institute, but I said there was no way I would do it, Mr. Speaker. I am telling the truth. It is interesting to hear the minister talk about the institute in Australia. Yes, there is one down there, one, they told me, that has some similarities to the Marine Institute and that we should go and look at it, the deputy minister, the then President of the Marine Institute and, of course, they wanted the minister to go. They wanted the minister to go along with them and they almost had me convinced, Mr. Speaker, but I said find out how much it will cost. When they came back with the cost, I told the deputy minister, 'You are not going, and the President of the Marine Institute is not going, and the minister is not going,' because I could not justify it, to say the least.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: 'No way!' I said, 'I am not spending that money to go down to Australia.'

MR. R. AYLWARD: I asked him to send me instead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that may be right, but I could not justify it them, and I am sincere about that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would have gone.

MR. MATTHEWS: The deputy minister came in to see me and said, 'Minister, the president and I have been talking, and there is this place in Australia to which I think we should go.'

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) fired.

MR. MATTHEWS: They would have been fired if they had tried to push this on me I say to the Member for Pleasantville. Well, one of them is gone, of course, by his own volition, gone out west. And I was so worried about this happening, Mr. Speaker, that I even convinced Dr. Frank Marsh to look for the job of assistant deputy minister with the minister, and he could not stop him from doing what he is doing in this bill. Dr. Frank Marsh, a very bright-minded, sensible Burin Peninsula man, who knows full well the community college system in this Province, knows it well.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good Tory!

MR. MATTHEWS: No good Tories! I would say he was the best community college president in the system, and he would make a good assistant deputy minister. Whether he was a Tory, a Liberal or NDP, if he could do the job -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) NDP or Opposition.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I would not know what the man's politics are, Mr. Speaker, and I have no interest in finding out. I have no interest in trying to find out.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the best presidents.

MR. MATTHEWS: There you go, one of the best. One of the top two, I say to the minister. I know what the minister thinks of that. The minister and I have discussed it a number of times, right? - the whole system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Digging a hole (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Digging my hole deeper. But I am concerned about what is happening here, I say, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill 38. I think we all are concerned about it. I notice by the expressions on the faces of some members opposite that they are not really sure what we are doing to the Marine Institute here, the old Fisheries College, as we knew it, is the right thing. I am a little bit concerned that it is going to be swallowed up by the university, that it will not be as accessible to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as it has been, particularly those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are not as well educated as those who seek admission to the university. I am concerned about that. And there has been a place at the Marine Institute for those people to go in and do their various training programs, upgrading, fisheries-related courses. I am a little bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, that what we will see with the Marine Institute now being affiliated with Memorial University is that those opportunities for those people may be eliminated, I say to the minister. I am a little bit concerned about the elitist attitude of the university. I say that with all due respect. I am not being unnecessarily harsh, but I am worried about that, and I hope that this legislation, if and when it comes into effect, will retain that particular aspect or feature of the Marine Institute, because I know the Member for Port de Grave, Eagle River, and all of those, and we over here, want people from -

MR. EFFORD: Especially the one from Port de Grave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, you know, especially the one from Port de Grave. Who knows? I mean, perhaps he will want to get admission to the Marine Institute. Perhaps he might. Perhaps I might. Perhaps he might want to be president. Who knows?

That is a feature that I think people have admired about the fisheries college, people have admired about the Marine Institute. I say to the minister in all sincerity, I hope that feature is protected, that the university does not swallow it up, use its facilities to offer elitist university courses, naval architecture and all this kind of thing. I am sure, as the minister is aware, there is some duplication between the university and the Marine Institute. Maybe there is some room there for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Transferring.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, whatever. And I started off on a few light notes, as I am sure the minister appreciates. But when I was Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies, I had a concern about the old St. John's area, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, the post-secondary sector of St. John's, with the Cabot Institute, the Marine Institute, and the university. I recognized, as a minister, that there was some need for tidying up in the St. John's region and I discussed it with a number of people in my department and outside the department. There were discussions ongoing between officials and the Marine, the Cabot, and the University to the effect that if you could avoid and cut out duplication without denying anyone access, and not affect the quality, no one could argue against that. I say to the minister, I have real concerns about what is going to happen to the Marine Institute. I hope the wrong things I am fearful of will not happen, that there will be protection built into the new arrangement. The minister talks about the set up of an advisory committee, I believe. It is going to have the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and a full-time student, which is, of course, in line with what we have done with our community college system. We have a student on the board there, which is very wise, and some other people. It says, eight persons from the fishing and marine industry-related organizations, which should be good. And I hope that these people will be so fishery and marine-oriented that they will not allow to happen what I am fearful might happen. I think, if this kind of protection could be afforded the Marine Institute -the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is sort of interested, I think, in this debate, and I look forward to members opposite expressing their opinions. I am sure they all know, particularly the member, who has been very involved in the fishing industry, the great role that the Fisheries College and the Marine Institute have played in the fishing industry for people coming from rural Newfoundland, in training programs and fishery-related courses.

Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my concerns to the minister and I hope he duly notes them, because I do have a concern for what might happen, and I hope, again, that we are not going into this foolhardy. I know it has been considered for a number of years, at least two or three, perhaps three or four, and if this kind of thing can be done without any negative effects to those who want to access the institutes, the university, and so on, then I think no one can really argue negatively about it.

I want to go on record here this evening just to make those points I am concerned about. I guess I will probably have another opportunity to have a few words when we get to Committee stage of the bill.

I guess that is about it for me, and I am sure there will be others. I hope there will be some from the other side, as well, who will take part in this, because I am sure it must mean something to the people in their districts. They must be concerned enough about the identity of the Marine Institute, what it has done for people in their areas, and what it will do for future generations of Newfoundlanders. We do have a great opportunity here, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the Marine Institute has come anywhere close, by the way, of reaching its potential. I don't think we have come anywhere close. We have done pretty well, but I don't think that place up there has been utilized anywhere close to what it should have been utilized. That is what, when I was minister, I was trying to look at, and was moving in a direction that I hoped would improve the utilization of the Marine Institute for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I hope what the minister is proposing to do now, is what, in the final analysis, will be done for the institute and for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have a few words to say on this particular bill tonight, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, said a moment ago, this is a bill to wipe out the Marine Institute. As he said, this is a bill we have a great deal of concern about. I know for a fact, as well, having spoken to some of the members on the other side of the House, they have some very, very legitimate concerns. Not only am I very concerned about this particular bill but I am also disappointed. I am disappointed in the Minister of Education because he failed to keep his promise to the members of the student union, the members of the student body. He met, I believe, with members of the student body, and he made a commitment, if I am not mistaken, to the students that there would be consultation on this particular bill, and the minister has failed in that regard, as well.

The student body also met with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, we are given to understand, and the Premier made a similar statement to the student body, that there would be consultation that they should not worry all that much about this bill, because it only meant that there would be affiliation with Memorial University. Again, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here tonight in this bill is an act to wipe out the Marine Institute. So the promises and all the rest of it that the Premier made to the student body was all in vain, because the minister, the Premier and the government had their minds already firmly made up that the Marine Institute would not be affiliated with Memorial University, but that it would actually be wiped out, Mr. Speaker. And when it becomes law, as it will become law in the not-too-distant future, because the government has the numbers to make it law, the Marine Institute, as my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank said, will be swallowed up by Memorial University. And, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Premier made the comment to the student body that if it is affiliated with the University, the Marine Institute will finally become a world class facility, and it will be no such thing, Mr. Speaker. It will not become a world class facility. It might serve to make the university a little better known, but it certainly will not serve to make the Marine Institute better known, because it is going to eliminate the Marine Institute.

MR. HOGAN: Nonsense!

MR. DOYLE: So the Marine Institute is gone. The Member for Placentia says it is nonsense. Well, I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say about this bill. No matter how you cut it, Mr. Speaker, when this bill is passed the Marine Institute will be wiped out. Because, Mr. Speaker, what does the bill say? It actually absorbs the Marine Institute. It is hoodwinking of the first order of the student body and they don't like it, Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of that. We talked to the student body, we had a meeting with them. They met with the caucus, and they are very, very concerned. I am sure they will realize tonight that this is a hoodwinking of the first order, because the Marine Institute, prior to this infamous bill, is a world class facility, it is known worldwide.

The Marine Institute today is known worldwide, the student body informed us. When they go anywhere in North America and say that they are graduates of the Marine Institute, then they are respected. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is going to be the case after it is affiliated with Memorial University. Mr. Speaker, everyone is very well aware of how the Marine Institute has been respected for its association with the fishery, the marine sciences, and what have you. Everyone. And the students told us, as I said, that they are respected the world over when they say they are graduates of the Marine Institute. But, of course, I don't believe the government are too concerned about that because they are giving away the fishery, anyway. So any involvement the Marine Institute might have with the fishery is really not of any great concern, I am sure, to the President of Treasury Board.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Marine Institute now becomes a division, a part of Memorial University in the very same way as the Faculty of Education is a division of Memorial University and in the very same way as the Faculty of Business or the Arts is a part of Memorial University. It is no different. I ask the minister, is the Marine Institute now going to have its own budget? I am hoping, on the few points on which I am questioning the minister, that when he clues up debate, or whenever this bill is passed and he speaks on it again, he will answer a few of the questions. Will the Marine Institute have its own budget, Mr. Speaker? I would submit to the minister that the Marine Institute will not have its own budget. It will have its own budget in the same way as the Faculty of Education has its own budget at the university or that Business Administration has its own budget, but we are given to understand that the Marine Institute will not have its own budget. It will have no special status, no special identification, and certainly no special autonomy within the university. Its budget will be assigned in the very same way as the budgets for the various faculties within the university are assigned right now.

The minister, I believe, at one point, was quoted as saying that it is going to have its own board to manage its own affairs. The Marine Institute will have its own board, its own administrative committee. Well, every faculty over at the university has that. The Faculty of Business has its own management board and its own administrative committee. Every single faculty within the university has it, and that is how the Marine Institute will be geared, as well. It will have no special powers to set its own agenda. It will all be set by the university from this day forward. The Marine Institute is not going to even have the power or the right, from this day forward, to decide what courses it is going to offer. I wonder if the minister, when he clues up his remarks, will address that point: Will the Marine Institute have the power, as it did in the past, to set its own courses? Because we are given to understand they will not have that power, that the courses will be set by the senate of the university. Is that true or false? Mr. Speaker, that is something else we would like to know.

So, the Marine Institute, when you get right down to it, is going to have to function like every other faculty of the university, and even the name is gone. It is not even going to be called the Marine Institute anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, unless I don't know how to read, but I am sure I read it in the Act somewhere this evening, upon the commencement of this section, Section 2 in the Act, the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology shall become the Fisheries and Marine Institute of the Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, if that is not a name change I don't know what is, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it affiliated with the university but it is absorbed by the university. Upon the commencement of this section of the Act, the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology shall become the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I might not be the brightest in the world but I think I know how to read and that indicates to me that there is a name change. It is not called the Marine Institute anymore, it is the Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that wipes out the Marine Institute as we know it today. They have completely lost any autonomy that they have and, as I said a moment ago, they will not even have the right to set their courses anymore. That will be done by a senate of the university, just as they set the courses for the Faculty of Business Administration or the Education Faculty. It will function like every other faculty at the university. Even the building and property, Mr. Speaker - now, if that is affiliation, I really don't know what to make of it. Even the building and the property will now become part of the university holdings according to the Act, and will become the obligation, from this day forward, of the university. It's identification as a separate institute is gone. So it does not affiliate the Marine Institute with the university, as the hon. minister said, it wipes out the present institute, and it creates a brand new facility within the university, owned and operated by the university, itself.

Mr. Speaker, when we sat down and talked to the student body back a few weeks ago, we found the most disappointing thing was, they trusted the Minister of Education and the Premier, when they met with them, to do the right thing and to tell them the truth. They were given the impression that they would have their own board of directors, Mr. Speaker, that they would still be on their own, they would have their own student council, they would be able to call their own shots, they would have their own budget and they would have their own properties. Mr. Speaker, that is the impression the student body was given by the Minister of Education and by the Premier.

Now, it doesn't turn out that way, Mr. Speaker. It is false. All of the properties of the university are now vested within the university, itself. The university will absorb all of the assets and liabilities, under clause 4. The university is charged with and assumes all of the obligations. Now, that is really affiliation with the university, when you get right down to it, when you read clause 4: "The university is charged with and assumes all of the obligations and liabilities of the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology." That is affiliation all right, Mr. Speaker. It takes it over completely. The university absorbs all of the assets -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No? The minister says no. The university will now, as a result of this bill, under clause 4, absorb all of the assets of the Marine Institute. It will absorb all of the liabilities as well, but they absorb all of the assets of the Marine Institute. Then how can the minister say - that is the question I want the minister to answer - how can he say that the Marine Institute is going to continue to be a separate entity and have its own autonomy when, under clause 4, the university is charged with and assumes all of the obligations and liabilities of the Newfoundland Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology? How can you completely absorb the facility, take over all its assets and liabilities, and still call it a separate entity, Mr. Speaker? How can you do that?

Well, it is anything but affiliation, and this is why the student body is so very disappointed in the minister, for the way he led this particular group astray. And he did lead them astray, Mr. Speaker. He can laugh, but he did hoodwink the student body, and the minister and the government will never be trusted again as a result of that, Mr. Speaker.

Where does the fishery figure in all of this affiliation with the university? What indication, what guarantee do we have in this bill that the university will have the same commitment to the fishery as had the Marine Institute? I mean, the Marine Institute up there on the hill was - Mr. Speaker, its life was the fishery and the marine sciences. Now, it is going to be taken over completely by the university, so what commitment can the minister give to the people of the Province and give to the students that they are going to have the same commitment to the fishery and to marine technology as the Marine Technology Institute had? Because actually, once you sit down, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the year, to prepare a budget for the Marine Institute, they will be competing with every other faculty within that university for funding. They will be competing with every other faculty within the university for funding. It will not be as it was before with their own separate budget, their own autonomy, their own commitment to the fishery and the marine sciences. They will have to sit down from now on and compete with the university for funding for their courses, Mr. Speaker. And I do not believe that the Minister of Education give anyone any commitment that the same level of funding will be available to the Marine Institute in the future as it was before. He might say he can, but I don't believe he can give the commitment that they will have the same level of funding.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the government not only takes away, it wipes out the Marine Institute. On the board, I believe, if I read the Act correctly, the Marine Institute student body will have one member on the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is only an advisory board.

MR. DOYLE: It is only an advisory board. The board really will not have any great power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Committee.

MR. DOYLE: An advisory committee. I think the Deputy Minister of Fisheries will be on the advisory committee, as well, and one member to suit - well, I would say to the minister, big deal. I do not know what that does to ensure the autonomy of the Marine Institute.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is what we are being asked to consider and pass, the student body completely hoodwinked by the Government, and by the minister. This is what we are being asked, by the Minister of Education, to approve.

AN HON. MEMBER: Excuse! Excuse! It has nothing to do with that.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the student body was led to believe in something different. And I am surprised that the Minister of Education, when he stood tonight to talk about this bill, did not address the real concerns that the student body had, he never even indicated that he met with the student body. But, from what we have been told by the student body, Mr. Speaker, he did assure the students over there that they would continue to have their own identity, that affiliation with the university was really only an administrative procedure, only something on paper, a paper transfer type thing. He gave them the assurance that they would have their own identity, their own autonomy, their own board, their own budget, their own funding, they would call the shots, it would be no different from the way they had operated before. Then, Mr. Speaker, we see the minister bringing a bill into the House not just affiliating the Marine Institute with Memorial University, but wiping out the Marine Institute forever and a day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: I know the new Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is an individual who is honestly and sincerely concerned about the fishery in this Province, Mr. Speaker. He is very, very concerned. And after tonight's debate, I am sure he will be getting the minister behind the curtain for a few minutes, or behind the Speaker's Chair, and he will say, Surely, what they are saying over there has to be wrong, surely, Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition are saying about this bill is absolutely 100 per cent wrong. Well, I would ask the Member for Baie Verte-White Bay, who is very, very concerned about the fishery, if this bill does not go through tonight to sit down with the Minister of Education and ask him if what we are saying is true, because from now on, the Marine Institute will have to compete in every way, shape and form as every other faculty within the Department of Education for funding. When the University sits down to allocate its funding, from now on, the Marine Institute will be treated no differently from the Business Faculty, the Arts or the Faculty of Education. They will have to compete in the same way for their funding as those divisions and departments within the university have to do right now. And that is really not good enough for a world class facility, a facility that had offered to its people the highest level of - well a great institution that had great courses for these people. Mr. Speaker, the minister should really do a little bit of soul-searching on this bill before it is passed, and he should confess, Mr. Speaker, to the student body that he made a mistake. Mr. Speaker, he should come clean with the students at the Marine Institute, that they are not going to have the same level of autonomy, that they are now absorbed into the university and effectively wiped out forever and a day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair cannot predict who will speak.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I looked over, there were two people, the hon. the Member for Bellevue and the Minister of Education, both standing. The (inaudible) I caught that you exchanged back and forth the House was the reason I did not stand.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on this bill, an Act to eliminate the Marine Institute as a separate identity. That is what this piece of legislation is going to do. It is going to take an institution that has acquired a worldwide reputation of excellence and combine it with Memorial University, and while the university, itself, is certainly highly acclaimed in some areas, there is question as to whether the Marine Institute will still carry the same credibility throughout the world as it does now.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is it going to (inaudible)?

MR. WINSOR: How? It is going to lose its credibility for a number of reasons. The Minister of Social Services should be well aware of what is going on, that now at the Marine Institute the focus can suddenly shift.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously government members are not aware of the importance that the students and the people of this country have attached to the Marine Institute. This whole process, since it was announced in a paper some time ago that there was the intent to combine Memorial University and the Marine Institute, has met with skepticism throughout the Province. Not one student who has even attended that institution - and the minister is well aware, because I am sure he has received several letters from them telling the minister to keep the Marine Institute as it was, because that is what allowed them to excel and become the people that they are today.

Mr. Speaker, the Marine Institute has, for a number of years, been perhaps the most successful post-secondary institution in this Province. It has an entity all its own. There are some serious concerns out there that if they combine with Memorial University they will lose that credibility and I happen to think the same way. Now, the Minister of Social Services might want to think differently, and when I am finished he can get up and tell us how the Marine Institute, when it is combined, is going to retain the credibility it has as a worldwide institution today. I just happen to disagree with the minister. When the student council from the Marine Institute came in, they did acknowledge that the minister met them. The minister said he met them twenty times; the bus driver meets the people who ride his bus, too, Mr. Speaker, but is meeting them consulting and listening? Because the students said the minister didn't listen. He said he would take advice and get back to them but he didn't do that. He chose to meet with them, to extend the courtesy interview type of thing to them, but that is the extent of what he did. He did basically the same thing with the instructors there. There are so many questions left hanging about what is to go on at that institute, now that it has become part of Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I am the first to admit that there might need to be a sharing of services, that if the Marine Institute and Memorial University are offering similar courses, then perhaps there are some areas and some ideas that we can combine. I happen to think the same thing should happen with the school system and education throughout the Province. When you have the opportunity to share resources then you should do it, but that does not mean you have to combine them all.

MR. GRIMES: That's enough, now.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, all the Member for Exploits, the Minister of Labour has said in the past week-and-a-half is, that's enough and that's not true. All he has contributed to the debate has been, 'That's not true,' and 'That's enough.'

I have several constituents who are students at that institute. I take them back and forth with me quite often on weekends. They are concerned about tuition and what is going to happen to their tuition fees. Are they going to rise to the same level as Memorial? The minister has not been able to give them any answers.

MR. GRIMES: The question was never asked.

MR. WINSOR: The minister said the question was never asked. He was too busy saying, 'That's not true' to listen - another one of those ministers who meets but never hears anything because it is a one-way exchange. There was a meeting, the minister told them what was going to happen, and that was the end of the conversation. He did not listen to anything. It is almost like the debate we had here on amalgamation. We spent two weeks on it, Mr. Speaker. Government's mind was made up the minute the legislation was conceived. Nothing was going to be changed except for a spelling error, or a typographical error.

The minister did not formulate this policy, his bureaucrats did. What we have here is a case where the bureaucrats lead the executive, the Chief Executive of Education, the minister. They are leading him around, telling him what to do. Mr. Speaker, quite often these people are so far away from the way things should be done. We don't have to look any further than where the minister came from. Before he became minister he left the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. Just ask educators throughout this Province - the Member for Bellevue smiles when I say it - ask educators to rate that faculty at Memorial University, and the minister knows an independent report was done outside the Province ranking it as an institution.

The minister knows what the report said. And these are the same people who are now going to take the Marine Institute, and do more with it? Mr. Speaker, are these the people? I saw an article in a paper a couple of weeks ago ranking institutions in the country. I think Memorial scored pretty low. Whether the scale they used to rate it was an objective or realistic one, I don't think is all that important, it is what the world now thinks of Memorial University. Now, does the Marine Institute drop to that level, or can the Marine Institute bring Memorial to a higher level? Since one swallowed the other, I happen to think it is going to go the other way. I think this is going to have a serious impact on the quality of programs that will be delivered by the Marine Institute.

Mr. Speaker, it is time the minister started to realize that there are people around, students, faculty, people who are most involved in education, who know a lot about what goes on in the program. They have advised that minister on numerous occasions not to proceed with the course he chose to undertake.

MR. MATTHEWS: He has no willpower, no backbone.

MR. WINSOR: He couldn't say no to his bureaucrats. He couldn't stand up to them. They have worked for months on this, and he has been that way on a number of occasions, I might tell my friend from Grand Bank. The minister, on numerous occasions, articulated a position and then withdrew it, as he did with an envelope in the Premier's office some time ago, I hear. He extended an envelope. The Premier said, 'I don't want it,' and he put it back in his pocket. Now, we are not sure of the contents of that envelope, Mr. Speaker, but we happen to know it was passed. We don't know if it was because of the Marine Institute that he was offering this letter, because he did not want this merger of the Marine Institute and Memorial University to take place -

MR. MATTHEWS: Or school tax.

MR. WINSOR: - or if it was over school tax. I have to say to the minister, I am glad he is not teaching at the university now. Mr. Speaker, if he were teaching at the university now, the first thing he would have to do in his course - school and the economy, I think - would be to revise his entire set of notes, because everything in that set of notes was about the need for school tax and dedicated funding. He would have to write a whole new set of notes, a new course, Mr. Speaker. He would have to prepare for teaching because now, of course, he has done an about-face. Mr. Speaker, it would not surprise me if, next week, next month, next year, you would see the minister take a completely different stand, saying the Marine Institute has to be re-established because we have lost our excellence as a centre for marine research. And if ever there was a time when we needed a focus on marine research, marine technology as something to stimulate the economy, it is now. The courses, recognized worldwide, might be the catalyst that can lead this Province on to something.

MR. GRIMES: That's enough now, boy!

MR. WINSOR: I don't know if the Member for Exploits is intending to be a Santa Claus this year, but he is just like Santa Claus, he has been waving his hands all day, the only contribution he makes to this House. I tell him, I will send to his district his contribution to the debate: 'That's enough', 'Not true'. Mr. Speaker, it would not take much ink or paper to send out to the minister's district what he has had to say in this debate or any debate in the last while, except the little ministerial statement he makes on Friday, his attempt to get a bit of press for the week, what I call 'Good News Friday', or 'Good News Week', when he rejuggles some money from one program into another. I guess, this Friday, he will have another statement telling us how many jobs he created out of the last $750,000 he reshuffled from one department to another. It is starting to look like a jigsaw puzzle. I tried to figure it out yesterday and it was a massive attempt to subtract and add and multiply to find how many jobs he created.

Mr. Speaker, the question still remains, What is the future for the Marine Institute? For the students who attend, what is going to happen to their tuition fees next year? Can the minister tell us or can he tell the students? I think he should - I think it is incumbent upon him now - and not use the excuse that the minister does not get involved in these decisions, they are made by the university. I think we heard that defence here once before when the Government, one year, announced a tuition hike and the next year, Memorial University announced it. 'Oh, we can't have anything to do with that, because that is the university, that is an arm's length institution,' the minister said.

I suspect, when tuition fees go up come September, the minister's excuse will be: I cannot do anything with it because that is under the auspices of Memorial University.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health keeps saying 'in conclusion', I will have to go the allotted time. I was about to sit down but I just cannot do it now, unless the minister is ready to get up and give us a sermon on the virtues of combining the two. Perhaps, if he is, I will relinquish my time.

But, in all sincerity, I want the minister to move very carefully. I mean, the purpose of debate - the minister never even listens. I want him to move very carefully, though, in eliminating the Marine Institute as a separate identity. Mr. Speaker, there are some serious repercussions in this and the minister is aware of them. He has been told on numerous occasions by many different people that he has made a move, that is regressive for education in this Province and I think he should take a second look at it. There is no rush, the Marine Institute can survive on its own, Memorial University can, for another year. Let us make sure that the step we are taking is in the best interest of education in this Province. I fear it might not be.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand in this House tonight to speak in support of this particular bill. The College of Fisheries, as it is traditionally known throughout Newfoundland - some years back there was a name change, and with the name change, it lost part of its mandate for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. When the College of Fisheries left Parade Street it left behind a lot of its programming and traditions. I remember, at the time, I worked in the Department of Education, the Department of Career Development and Advanced Studies. They wanted to leave the programs behind that were too low on - the lower socio-economic. Fishermen and fisheries programs were dirty. It became an institution of the elite, in my opinion, which is important.

I think, when we moved from Parade Street, the government of the day, and the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, if he had had any clout in Cabinet at that time, would have done a greater service if, instead of moving that institution up here to the hill to become an empire, they had moved it to Grand Bank. It would have served the fishing industry of the Province a lot better if it had moved to Grand Bank!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) what's wrong with you, boy?

MR. BARRETT: No, you were in Cabinet at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes. If it had moved to the great historic, fishing community of Grand Bank it probably would not have lost its mandate. Just imagine what it could have done for the economy of the Burin Peninsula and of the community of Grand Bank if that institution had moved there.

Three or four years ago, the previous government re-organized post-secondary education in this Province. When we took over the Government in May, 1989 we had chaos. We had four institutions operating in St. John's. Memorial University, Avalon Community College, The Cabot Institute of Applied Arts and Technology, and the Marine Institute.

When I worked with the Avalon Community College, each section had a contract training division, and I remember bidding on a private contract. I was in a meeting, and when I came out there were people lined up from the Cabot Institute and the Marine Institute, and I was there representing Avalon Community College, three public institutions, all bidding for the same contract. It was a dog-eat-dog situation. You had to work in it to realize the chaos that existed within the institutions here in St. John's.

What we have now is a re-organization, and it makes sense. We had a system developing that was too expensive. I remember attending a graduation of the Marine Institute. As a matter of fact, I remember it quite vividly, because that was one of the first times since back in the 1960s that I met the present Premier. I remember talking to him at the graduation, indicating to him that I was going to run in politics the next time around. I met with him that afternoon.

I remember walking into the graduation and looking at the program, and I saw all the courses listed, the first, second and third year programs - not one mention of the courses for fishermen in Ming's Bight, Bellevue, Grand Bank and Fortune that went on that year. Not one of the extension courses were listed in the program of the graduation. There were, I think, 185 graduates. It was sort of incidental that there was more staff than there were graduates, but that is beside the point. That is something else that developed over there. There was more staff than there were graduates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that?

MR. BARRETT: At the Marine Institute.

But the problem was, it was distorted, in that the courses that went on in rural Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: Memorial will change that.

MR. BARRETT: I was silent when the hon. member was speaking. I request the same thing. The courses that were offered in rural Newfoundland were not listed in the program in the graduation. One thing that this bill ensures - the problem that we had before was that we had the Marine Institute out there competing with the community colleges.

MR. MATTHEWS: Complementing them.

MR. BARRETT: Complementing? It was turf warfare.

MR. MATTHEWS: No it wasn't.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes! I was at meetings in the vocational school in Burin -

MR. MATTHEWS: How long ago was that?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, it wasn't that long ago. They would rather go out in the community and rent space than go into the vocational schools and offer their courses, because they didn't want to be associated with any other post-secondary institutions in the Province. They were an elitist organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes! I know what I am talking about, I tell the hon. the Member for Grand Bank. I was in on a lot of those discussions and a lot of those meetings, and it lost its mandate. This bill now ensures that there will be a partnership, even if there were nothing else in the bill other than clause 70(5).

To get back to what they were talking about, that the mandate of the Marine Institute was going to be gone. Just read this - for those people who can't read: 70 (5) (a): "provide degree" - that is in addition to the Marine Institute that was not there before. It will provide degree programs - that was not there before - Degrees in fisheries and marine-related, diploma programs. This is the law now. We are going to pass this bill in the next two or three months, or we may pass it tonight, but in law, now, they are going to offer a "degree, diploma, certificate and other programs". What else did the other Marine Institute offer?

MR. MATTHEWS: Did they differ?

MR. BARRETT: Pardon?

MR. MATTHEWS: Did the degrees differ at the Institute?

MR. BARRETT: The Marine Institute didn't offer degrees. So we have added to the mandate. Everything else is included plus we have added degrees.

MR. MATTHEWS: Maybe!

MR. BARRETT: No 'maybe' at all, this is the law!

MR. MATTHEWS: We'll see!

MR. BARRETT: This is the law. All of us here are lawmakers and we are making a law. This bill will become law, signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, and from here henceforth evermore, the Marine Institute on the hill will offer degree programs, diploma programs, certificate and other programs.

In the areas of fisheries and marine science and technology, an expanded mandate for the Marine Institute. 70 (5) (b): "provide for the upgrading and enhancement of the fisheries and marine labour force, in cooperation with the colleges established or continued under the Colleges Act, 1991;" in law, now. Before, there was sort of an agreement. The first agreement.

The other one, (c), and this is the law: "provide for the sharing of facilities between the Fisheries and Marine Institute, the university and the various colleges established or continued under the Colleges Act, 1991;" and (d): "provide for applied research and technology transfer." What a mandate for an institution in this Province!

One of the problems - I will sit down in a few minutes, but I have to leave this with hon. members. For some reason we have this fixation that the quality of programs is based on buildings, that we can't have educational programs in this Province unless we have bricks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some Trinity brick.

MR. BARRETT: Some Trinity brick.

Some of the better programs that have been offered over the years that were under the sponsorship of the College of Fisheries never happened on Parade Street, never happened up on the hill, but happened in rural Newfoundland and it might be up in a gear shed, in various communities in Newfoundland.

For some reason we have this notion that we have to have a big elaborate building in order to have quality educational programs. We have enough facilities and buildings in this Province to offer any kind of program we want, but all of a sudden, I sit here tonight and I hear talk about transferring buildings.

MR. MATTHEWS: What? Who said that? Buildings?

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Harbour Main got up and made a big issue about transferring the Marine Institute buildings to Memorial. I couldn't care less if they transferred them to the Health Sciences Complex! It doesn't really matter who administers the building, what is important in this legislation is the programs. Forget about buildings, what is important is the programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: We have seen money being wasted in this Province on buildings. I will point to one example, the School of Fine Arts in Corner Brook, a six million dollar building, and what do they have, fifteen to twenty students there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty, most of the time.

MR. BARRETT: Thirty?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: One hundred, have we? Well boy, the enrolment has really gone up since I got out of education. We would have been better off putting them on a golden chariot and sending them to Banff for their training.

MR. MATTHEWS: Make no wonder (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No. But we have this notion that we have to put up big buildings and many times we forget about programs for people. I can tell you one thing, the Marine Institute, in this legislation, will have an expanded mandate and will offer more programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador than it ever has before. I am proud to stand and support this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for speaking in this debate because I think it is important that he did speak in it. He is a former educator or was involved in education, and it is good to hear his views. It is frightening to hear him say that our School of Applied Arts should be closed and everyone sent to Alberta to be educated. I find that a bit frightening, but it shows an attitude and I am glad he spoke because I am sure the students at the School for Applied Arts will be delighted to hear what he said and their parents, too, will certainly be delighted that this administration would rather see the students being sent away to some other province to be educated.

I never thought that while I was there. What we always strived to do was to keep as many Newfoundlanders as possible home for as long as we could keep them home, and I thought that would probably be the right thing to do. I certainly do not agree with the hon. member's proposal to send our young people away to be educated. I think we should be trying to provide the very best opportunities we can for them in this Province. I think it is very important that we provide the best educational opportunities we can in this Province.

MR. MURPHY: You missed the point. You missed the point.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I probably am missing the point - and I hope I am, because it is too frightening to think about - and I give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt that probably he does not want to close the School for the Arts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope so. But I know there is no doubt about the way I feel. I was very proud to be part of the administration that built the School for the Arts in Corner Brook, extremely proud, and I am very proud that we have somewhere around 100 students there now.

MS. VERGE: From 100 to 160.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, 100 to 160 at times. I am very proud of that, actually, and if we had not built that school, I don't know what they would do. They would do some arts courses here in St. John's, probably, and go away for advanced training. I am proud that we built that school and I hope the hon. the Member for Bellevue is just as proud to have those 160 students in our Province being taught in the arts. We have quite a tradition in this Province of being good craftspeople and good artists, producing some of the best talent in Eastern Canada and in Canada as a whole. We take a back seat to no one with the arts people we put out.

I congratulate the hon. member for speaking. At least he is one over there who spoke and that, in itself, is a plus, Mr. Speaker. I hope to hear from others, particularly those who represent fishing districts. I think all fifty-two of us represent fishing districts, but some of the districts are very heavily involved in the fishery. My district could not survive without the fishery, Mr. Speaker, It is not well-known as a fishing district but a lot of the people who live in Kilbride and the Goulds work on trawlers and in fish plants. They fish out of Petty Harbour and out of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I take in Maddox Cove. Petty Harbour is in Ferryland district.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to hear from hon. members opposite, in particular, who -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Danny Martin?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Danny lives in Maddox Cove.

I hope to hear from the new Member for Baie Verte-White Bay, Mr. Speaker. I know he was quite involved with some of the fisheries college programs being active with the sealers and in the fishing industry. I am sure he will be able to give us some good advice on what we are doing with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, some of us, maybe everyone in this House of Assembly, I don't know - the one I hear over there howling like a coyote probably never went to university. But I would say a goodly number of people in this House are graduates from - Waterford Hospital it sounds like, but probably, Memorial University. I happen to be one of those people who was not academically inclined. I went to university for a very short time and they gave me the royal boot as fast as they could. The real reason why I got the boot was because I had a mandatory speech class - that is ironic, considering where I am now - with a Professor Inek, some name like that, but I wouldn't go. I went to the swimming pool until Christmas, when they found out where I was. I was not an academically-inclined person. When I went to university and somebody put me in the English class and gave me a book of poetry to read it wasn't up my alley, I just couldn't relate to talking around in circles like a poet. If I am going to tell somebody something I would just as soon tell him flat out. You don't need to make riddles about it and let somebody figure it out. I am not that way inclined. That's good for whoever likes that kind of stuff. I was a more practical person, and while I was in university, Professor Stan Carew, who taught the survey course at the time, twigged my interest in surveying. But I couldn't figure how I could go to university - when I went in there I wanted to be a wildlife biologist but I didn't know what that was, so I ended up in the forestry class. Apparently, at the time, you had to go to forestry for awhile before you went to biology. But I did get a taste of a survey class by Professor Carew. Now, we spent two months, from September until Christmas exams, when he was explaining to me what those two-by-two hubs were.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) biologist.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, had I continued, Mr. Speaker, I might have been the provincial biologist in charge of coyotes now. I didn't pursue that line of education, but I did get a taste for - I always enjoyed the outdoors. I would prefer to be outdoors rather than stuck inside somewhere in an office. So I did get a taste for surveying. University life, I realized, was not for me, so I checked to see what other institutes were around. We happened to have a College of Trades and Technology here at the time, and I went there. I got thrown out of that place, too, but that was different reasons, and I did eventually graduate from the College of Trades and Technology.

But the difference I found between the two, and the reason I am afraid of this bill, is that the university was meant for certain types of people, academically-inclined people who wanted to study more than I did. But I was a practical type of person and I wanted to get a practical education. The College of Trades and Technology and, I believe, the Fisheries College, gave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't think they are nearly as practical as someone who comes out of the Trades School or Fisheries College, not at all. I will not hide away from that. When I went to the College of Trades and Technology, Mr. Speaker, I spent three years getting a survey diploma, and I studied only - it was a very narrow type of course, no doubt. I studied only what was very practical to become a surveyor at the time.

MR. WINSOR: Why?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I studied courses that were very practical, to allow me to become a member of the Newfoundland Land Surveyors' Association. Now what I am afraid - had that College of Trades and Technology been associated with the University at the time, and there were other mandatory courses which are good courses. The English programs at the University are great. For the people who want to study plays and study Shakespeare and study poems and all that, that is great stuff, but it is not for me.

MR. WINSOR: Some of the educational courses at Memorial were not the same, though.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is not for me, Mr. Speaker. Had the College of Trades and Technology been associated with the university at the time, and had it been suggested I had to take some of these courses - by the way, it would have been great for me, it might very well have enlarged my education - I probably would have quit, the same as I did the university, because I could not relate to that kind of stuff.

Mr. Speaker, what I afraid of in this amalgamation - and this is another amalgamation, not a blending or whatever you call it. This is another one of Clyde's amalgamation deals.

MR. WINSOR: No. Annexation, this is. Annexing.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Annexation, that's right, the same as is happening to the Goulds and Wedgewood Park. But, Mr. Speaker, what I am afraid of is when Memorial University takes over the college, the Marine college, or whatever it is called - Fisheries College, I always called it, and I always will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I don't. It is the Fisheries College in my mind and it always will be the Fisheries College. But, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that people who go into the courses in there will also - it will lose that practical route the Fisheries College, as I understand it, takes. Now, I have never been in the Fisheries College.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh yes, there is a lot of theory at the College of Trades and Technology, don't get me wrong. It's not a matter of there being no theory. I did mathematics over there in my fourth semester that was fifth year mathematics at the university. So it is not just that it is easier. I did it in a shorter time. It was condensed very quickly. Not in hours. We did ten month years over there and you do five month years at the university. So I am not saying it is easier or a way you can skip through it. But it is focused so that it fits the course you want to go in for. If you want to be a naval architect and you go to the Fisheries College, you will get courses specifically dealing with naval architecture, and it is for that, that most people go in there. Now, if you want to be a naval architect and go to Memorial University, I don't know what you would get. Would you have to get an engineer's degree first and specialize? And what would you do when you finished Memorial University? When I am finished at the College of Trades and Technology I have a certificate, or a diploma, I think it is, in marine architecture, but if I took the same courses at Memorial University what do I have after three years?

AN HON. MEMBER: You will have a degree.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You will not get a degree in three years. I wouldn't, I don't know about you. There are not too many degrees offered in three years for the average student.

So Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that I can see might happen with this. It might never, I don't know if it ever will, but I would be afraid it might happen. There was a time during our administration when the Colleges of Trades and Technology and Marine Technology were going to be amalgamated, I believe. That was proposed at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Polytech.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, it was the Polytech. And then the little empires between themselves got fighting with each other and that never came around. I don't know what the bottom line was. But maybe a polytechnical institute would be a better solution to the problem than this. There was more duplication between the College of Marine Technology, the Fisheries College and the Trades School, much more duplication between the two of them than there is between either of them and Memorial. The electronic courses were exactly the same, but the Marine Technology was bent a bit towards marine work. This is where the duplication was, or I always thought it was, and there is still probably quite a bit. That is why I always thought that maybe the polytechnical school might be a better solution, to amalgamate both Fisheries and the College of Trades and Technology than the other way, and it would keep that practical focus again. If you wanted to study marine electronics you can focus completely on it without having to get an engineer's degree before you get at it.

Mr. Speaker, that would be my main concern with this bill, but unfortunately, we will not know until it is too late. We will not know if my concern is valid until it is too late. If the College of Fisheries cannot relate to the needs of the fish plant workers, the fishermen and the trawlermen, and the navigation courses that are required to become first mates and captains aboard our trawlers and our offshore boats, if our Marine Technology loses that focus and it cannot relate to them, then it is gone, it is over. It is another part of Memorial and whatever Memorial does with it might be necessary, it might be needed in the future, but there is also a need for this practical side of education, as I see it.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to express my strong opposition to this bill, which has the effect of eliminating the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology and having Memorial University of Newfoundland absorb the former Marine Institute. I regard this bill as sadly detracting from the efforts to properly serve our fishing industry and other marine industries with our public education and training institutions. I think, in considering the effect of this bill, one has to pause and reflect upon the purposes of training and education for the fishery and other marine industries. We have to think about the interests of students, the needs of industry and the requirements of our economy. Our fishery, while being our most important industry, has never been developed to its potential. Many people in the Province have greatly underestimated the complexity of the industry and the requirement for skills, knowledge and education.

Over the years, efforts were made through the establishment of the Fisheries College and the provision of modern facilities for that institution with a Federal/Provincial cost-sharing agreement to serve the needs of the marine industries. However, I do not believe that a good enough job has ever been done and I see this move, the move to eliminate the Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology and make it a branch of Memorial University, as being detrimental to the cause of training and education and detracting from the requirements of the economy and the industries.

There is no doubt that this bill legally has the effect of eliminating the Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. One has simply to read the first clause. The clause says the university, meaning Memorial University of Newfoundland, is the successor in law to the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. There will be no more a Provincial Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. It goes on to say that what used to be the Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology will now become a branch of the university called the Fisheries and Marine Institute of the Memorial University of Newfoundland. It goes on to deal with the legal ramifications of that change.

Under this law, the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University will have the same status as the Department of English, the Faculty of Education, the Small Business School, The Marine Sciences Lab at Logy Bay. The Fisheries and Marine Institute will be a department of the university. Its autonomy will be gone, its President will be gone, its Board of Governors will be no more. The Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University will be subject to the vagaries of the Memorial University Administration and Board of Regents, the same as Memorial University Extension Service. It will have no more or less standing than Extension Service, and we saw what happened to Extension Service just a few short months ago.

The Minister of Education washed his hands of responsibility, saying that the university is at arm's length from the government, that the university has complete autonomy when it comes to making budget decisions. He said the government's role is simply one of providing block funding to the university and he and the Premier and his colleagues in Cabinet, had no say whatsoever in the decision to axe Memorial University Extension Service. They are now subjecting our Provincial Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology to exactly the same risk, they are about to cast it as a branch of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there might be some merit in doing that if the purposes of the Marine Institute and Memorial University were compatible, and if, in this instance, bigger is better, if economies of scale would result. But the functions of the Marine Institute and Memorial University of Newfoundland are very different. I have to go back to my opening point about the Marine Institute needing to serve the interests of students, industry and the economy.

Now, the minister, through his gestures and his remarks across the floor of the House, is dismissing the presentation of my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, who tried to distinguish between the functions of academic education programs and skills training programs. The minister tried to cast that distinction as somehow an offensive class distinction.

Well, the Member for Kilbride was simply pointing out an obvious, practical distinction. There are very different needs to be served from academic education programs and job-oriented skills training courses. Now, in the case of our fishing industry and other marine industries, there is a need for both. In the case of the fishing industry there is a need for very specific types of skills training. To meet the demands of the international fishing industry, to keep up with international competition, our fish processors are going to have to become more automated. Their workers are going to have to be trained to meet the new automation, and there is a very important place for specific skills training to enable our fish processors to keep up with world competition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, putting all of these functions under the aegis of a university, to me, is ridiculous. It seems ludicrous to expect Memorial University of Newfoundland, or any university, to give short skill specific courses to fish processors. Yes, there is a need for the University to provide engineering degrees to serve our fishing industry; yes, there is a need for Memorial University to provide business administration degrees to serve the needs of our fishing industry. But there is also a need for a separate institution of technology and trades to give skill specific courses.

Now, in some cases, the same individuals may benefit, may take both types of courses. An individual who has a degree in business administration from a university may also, to train and equip himself or herself properly to work in the fishing industry, may need to take a short skill specific course at an institution such as our present Provincial institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. They are separate functions, both being required by the industry. It is the industry and the economy that we should centre our education policy around, when it comes to non-university post-secondary education. Sub clause 5, which the Member for Bellevue quoted says: The university shall, through the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, established under this section and in accordance with the direction of the board and the senate: (a) provide degree, diploma, certificate and other programs in the areas of fisheries and marine science and technology; (b) provide for the upgrading and enhancement of the fisheries and marine labour force; (c) provide for the sharing of facilities.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the empowering of the university to offer degrees, and actually I think that is already in place under the existing Memorial University Act, but I have no quarrel with clarifying the university's power so that, obviously, it may give degrees in disciplines related to the fishery. Apart from that degree-granting function, it seems to me, all these other functions do not belong in a university.

In our Province we have just one university and I think it is time to question that arrangement, it is time to look at whether we would not be better served by having more than one university. Specifically, it is time to examine establishing Grenfell College in Corner Brook as an autonomous university. But we have one university mostly located in St. John's, and over the years of its history, under successive provincial governments, the university has grown and mushroomed. Instead of concentrating in a few areas and trying to develop quality programming in those areas, Memorial University has tried to be all things to all people, and I am afraid the university has not served our Province as well as a university or universities should be serving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The university is strapped already to carry out the number and array of functions and programs which it is operating. To expect the university to extend itself even further and get into the areas of providing diplomas, certificates and other programs in the areas of fisheries and marine science, and to provide for the upgrading and enhancement of the fisheries and marine labour force is expecting too much of any university let alone the one and only university in our Province, which is already stretched beyond its limit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much conversation to my left here. I ask hon. members, if they find it necessary to have a meeting, to probably do so outside, or at a much lower tone in here.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, why the government has chosen this course really mystifies me. The government made much ado about publishing a White Paper on non-university post-secondary education, or actually I think it was all post-secondary education early in their term back in the winter of 1990. In that document there was a proposal to maintain the autonomy of the Marine Institute, but to provide for some transferability of credits between the Marine Institute and Memorial University, and to promote linkages. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was a concept that I supported. Similarly, I endorse the idea laid out in that paper of providing for transferability of credits among other institutions.

In the debate that ensued, I remember making that point, that the proposed linkage between the Marine Institute and Memorial University was sensible, and I advocated that approach for the Fisher Institute and Grenfell College in Corner Brook. In the case of Corner Brook, that was the preferred approach by Corner Brook organizations.

Over the months, the government heard quite a bit of reaction to the White Paper. To my knowledge, none of it advocated this alternative, the alternative of having Memorial University take over the Marine Institute and having the Marine Institute eliminated as an autonomous entity.

Last fall, the government announced that it was adopting the proposals in the White Paper. So much for consultation. Now, a year later, we have the government taking a different course of action with respect to the Marine Institute. Why the inconsistency between the White Paper, the decision announced a year ago in October of 1990 with respect to the White Paper, and this bill? That inconsistency has never been explained. It is analogous to what we are seeing in the case of Northeast Avalon amalgamation. The initial proposal of the government, which was put out to a rigged commission for a feasibility study for public discussion and reaction, was abandoned, and the course that the government has taken and is now trying to force through legislation is an entirely different arrangement. That inconsistency is puzzling. Perhaps the Minister of Education will explain it.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, I strongly disagree with this bill, and I think it is very regrettable. We have, over the years, never really met the requirements of our fishing and other marine industries through our public training and education institutions and programs, but it is inevitable, as a result of this bill, with the university being assigned the role of serving the personnel requirements of the fishery and other marine industries, that there will be a deterioration. I believe that the economy will lose, and I believe Memorial University will lose. This is a lose, lose proposition.

Now, if there were any deficiencies with the Marine Institute in terms of gaps in programming, in terms of a lack of linkage with industries, in terms of a duplication with other education or training institutions, those problems could have been addressed in different ways. Programs could have been adapted; courses could have been added; stronger linkages could have been developed with industries; there could have been formal sharing arrangements with other training and education institutions - Memorial University, the Cabot Institute, and community colleges elsewhere in the Province.

In terms of Memorial University, as should be the case, the primary focus is on academic programs, on degree programs. That is the function of a university. Last spring, when the university was short-changed by the government and was not provided with a large enough operating grant to maintain all its programs and activities, the University Board of Regents and Administration had to make tough choices. Now, many of us fault the decisions they took, but they made it quite clear that their priority is the provision of degree programs and academic programs. President Art May talked about the primary function of the university being the provision of academic programs. So he said, when he was left with insufficient funding to maintain all programs, he had to set priorities. The lowest priority turned out to be the non-academic programs given through Extension Service. He said there was consideration given to trimming, to taking a little bit away from one division to cutting another faculty, and tightening the belt at Extension Service. But the conclusion of the University Board of Regents and administration was that it would be better all around to concentrate on the academic programs and get out of Extension altogether. Consequently, Memorial University Extension Service was axed.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that by assigning to that very same university the responsibility for the fishing industry and other marine industry personnel training and education we are subjecting those needs, which are so vital to our economy, to the same risk. The university is an inappropriate type of institution for skill specific diploma and certificate programs, and for having the mandate of upgrading and enhancing the fisheries and marine labour force. That is not the role of a university, that is not the priority that Memorial University has set for itself, and this bill is a big mistake.

The minister will shortly rise to close the debate on second reading, and I would hope in doing so that he will give some rationale for this radical change on the part of the government. I trust he will explain to us why the government abandoned what was laid out in the White Paper, why the government adopted a course of action which is different from what the minister announced last October, flowing from the White Paper consultation process. But more important than that, I hope the minister will explain how he can conceivably see how the labour force needs of the fishery and other marine industries can be protected and served by assigning this responsibility to Memorial University.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to join in this debate with a certain degree of sadness because I see the government taking a very unfortunate move. I remember the creation of the Fisheries College. In fact, it was called the College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics. I remember the name well because I lived across the street from what was the old Memorial University campus. They had to use half the side of the building to fit the name of the new college on the site of the old Memorial University College campus, as the Minister of Social Services said.

I remember the college being introduced by the then-premier, Mr. Smallwood, as a very, in part, innovative enterprise but, in part, a college that was to create a sense of importance and worth for the fishing industry and the participants in the fishing industry in this Province. They would have their own academic and technical institution that would ensure that the fisheries of this Province would be upgraded, would have respect, and honour, and a respectful and honourable place in the fabric of Newfoundland society. They would have a training ground for fishermen and people involved in the fishing industry, to develop technology, to ensure excellence, and to develop, and, I suppose, give a degree of importance to training and seamanship that it had not had before. Throughout our long history of involvement with the sea, most learning having to do with the ocean industries was learned on the job by the apprenticeship method, and it was recognized that that was no longer sufficient for the modern world.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier of the day introduced that fisheries college, he attempted to instill a degree of pride in the institution by giving it a distinct role in Newfoundland society. And I see the move made by the present government as being a move that displays a certain lack of vision about what is happening to Newfoundland society. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that a province like Nova Scotia can have twelve or thirteen universities, all of them with their own niche in the academic world of this country, with their own specialties: Mount Allison specializing in music, and St. Mary's specializing in football, I think, but they have an academic reputation, as well; St. Xavier with a very important reputation in certain fields such as community development work; Dalhousie with its various schools - law school, dental school, and medical school; Nova Scotia Technical College, the College of Art, those separate institutions all having their own board of governors, all having their own corporate cultures, if you want to call it that, where the people who go there have a pride about the place, many of them wanting their children and their children's children to go there to share in the experience of that institution.

I have seen, Mr. Speaker, over the last twenty or thirty years of existence of the Fisheries College, later changed to the Marine Institute, the development of a reputation, not only in this Province, but internationally for excellence in its programs. It has a reputation for the development of new technologies, for its ability to engage in training programs in the fishery that attracted students from many countries of the world to participate in these programs. I see that being lost, Mr. Speaker, by throwing it into a mix in one institution, which itself has its own reputation. And I, as a graduate of Memorial University, an alma mater, Mr. Speaker, of which I am very proud and have every right to be, a place whose reputation is recognized throughout Canada and the world as being an institution deserving of respect.

But why, Mr. Speaker, do we have to have only one university? Why can we not have the diversity of more than one institution?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: Why can we not have a vibrant Marine Institute? Why can we not have a Memorial University in St. John's with its excellence? Why can we not have a Grenfell University on the West Coast? Why can we not have a university in Central Newfoundland like the Premier promised to deliver? Why can we not have a diversity of instructional places, academic institutions? Why do we have to put everything together and say, well, we are going to have a multi-university. Anything that can we can throw into that pot we will throw in. There is no reason, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason to do that at all. Especially is there no reason to do it - in fact, there is another point I wanted to make about the College of Fisheries, which later became the Marine Institute.

At the time the former government was deciding to build a new campus, or to invest a considerable amount of public money into the Marine Institute, I remember a proposal which made a lot of sense to me. It had something to do, I suppose, with city planning and town planning, and also with what you would do with the old buildings and the old campus in central St. John's, in my neighbourhood. I see Mr. Speaker nodding his head. I think he knows what I am about to talk about. That whole block between Parade Street, Bonaventure Avenue, Merrymeeting Road and Harvey Road that contained a few old buildings - one of them, the former Minister of Social Services is having a lot of trouble with mites; one built during the war, a building that is probably not fit to continue as a building; a lot of old buildings, the USO building on Merrymeeting Road, again built during the war, sort of slapped together. I would not say it was really terribly poor construction, but it wasn't meant to be a permanent structure. I remember for many years there were a number of temporary structures they called them, that lasted only about twenty years.

There was an opportunity to take that whole block - that was before the police building was built there - and integrate in the block a downtown campus in the institutional part of St. John's, a place where students from all over this Province, most of them from seaports, could come to St. John's and be able to live as part of a seaport in the downtown part of St. John's. They could walk to the harbour. They could walk to places of residence in the area. People who lived in and had homes in that area would have places for students to board and it would have been a very, very comprehensive and a very forward-looking project to have that Fisheries Institute, the Marine Institute, in the heart of the city. It would provide an opportunity for students to not only participate in the life of that campus and the life of the Marine Institute and Fisheries Institute, but also to participate as an institute in the heart of the city of St. John's. However, the government decided otherwise, and they put the campus up in the back of town. Students had to take long bus rides to get there. I suppose it was a little less of a campus that was in the heart of the city and was part of the spreading out of St. John's. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that was an opportunity missed, because it would have helped to create an institution that had a little more spirit than it has, and I know it has a lot.

The students were quite concerned with the government making these decisions without consulting with them, without, apparently, making adequate plans for the effect on them, particularly in terms of their support for their programs, creating a great deal of concern on behalf of students as to what was going to happen to their programs and to the buildings they support themselves.

So, instead of preserving this Marine Institute, and allowing it to grow and flourish, and having as part of our academic institutional heritage in this Province, a diverse group of institutions, they have thrown it in with Memorial University by amending the Memorial University Act. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have joined together two institutions which are incompatible, and they are incompatible because their role is very different, and this piece of legislation recognizes that the role is quite different. It asks the university to manage the Fisheries and Marine Institute, and to provide degree, diploma, certificate, and other programs in the areas of fisheries and marine science and technology. Mr. Speaker, the university could say, I suppose, Well, we are already doing that. Biology is in the area of marine science. Engineering is in the area of marine technology. They can say that they are already doing that, and so that aspect of the Marine Institute would be lost to the Marine Institute because the university might decide in their wisdom - and I know the Minister of Education would say: 'Once they do decide, well, that is their decision. I have nothing to do with that,' as he did about Extension. The university might decide that they do not really need to have certain programs at the Marine Institute because, well, engineering looks after that, or biology looks after that, or, in other areas, they might not be satisfied to provide certain kinds of diploma or technology programs. They might say, Well, if the students really want to do that kind of program they can go somewhere else, to the Cabot Institute, or maybe to some other institute in another province.

Mr. Speaker, 5 (b) in clause 1 of the Act is totally incompatible with the function of an academic university to "provide for the upgrading and enhancement of the fisheries and marine labour force in cooperation with the colleges established or continued under the Colleges Act". That is not a proper role for a university, and it is not my decision as to what the role of the university is. It is the definition of a university that the President of the university has talked about in terms of the priorities of a university to create an academic institution of higher learning. Labour force upgrading is not what is traditionally regarded as a role for a university, but I can see it being a very, very important part of a dedicated institution - dedicated to the enhancement of the fishery, and the skills of the fishing industry and the marine industry in this Province. I can see that as a very important function, working hand in hand not only with the other colleges in the university, but with the industry itself in a very direct way.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I think they have done by this bill is they have given the university a job for which it is not really prepared, a function beyond its specialty, I think, a function that will be less highly regarded by the university senate who are asked to have a say in all of this. The Minister of Education would probably have to agree that the function of the Marine Institute for upgrading and enhancing the fisheries and marine labour force would not be the top priority of the university senate which, let's face it, is very academically oriented, and that is not to elevate them above the role of the Fisheries Institute, nor to suggest to them that they have a snobbish attitude towards other forms of education. But it is to suggest that their focus is entirely different, and rightly so. They have a different attitude towards education, towards educational programs. I am firmly convinced that the programs and diploma programs and other activities that are currently carried out by the Marine Institute will not be given the same kind of priority as they are at a dedicated institution.

The university has many problems. You don't have to talk to very many people at the university at the level of administration, at the level of the president's office, at the level of the university executive or anybody on the board, who will not tell you what a difficult job they have to balance all the demands on their time. There are the expenses of running the university, the complexities of dealing with the medical school on the one hand with its demands and the engineering school on the other with its demands, the problems of keeping the academic programs going, satisfying professors, negotiating collective agreements - enormous problems. They do not need an added responsibility when they say they have difficulty handling the responsibilities that they have.

I am afraid, if this Government lasts long enough, that we might be in here another year or maybe two years from now - depending on how long they think they can hold off having an election - and at that time we will have, perhaps, decisions by the university to make some substantial changes. They won't say they are closing it down but they may make substantial changes in the program of the Marine Institute. They may or may not consult with the Government. They might have a meeting with the Minister of Education and say: Well, this is what we are going to do. And the Minister of Education will say: Well, we have given you this mandate and we have given you this Act, and we do not really like it very much and maybe we would like you to change it, but we understand that the university has to be at arm's length and you have to do your job. We are very sorry about this, and we will come to the House and tell the Opposition that when they ask about it. But we understand that you have a job to do and you have to make your own priorities.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am afraid is going to happen. That is why I say that I speak in this debate with a great degree of sadness about what this government is doing, because it is not preserving, protecting and enhancing the institution that was created by a previous Liberal government back in - I am not exactly sure what year - I suppose, it was in the early 1960's. Mr. Speaker, it is not doing that. It is destroying the institution's independence, its vitality and, I fear, its ability to maintain the reputation that it has developed over the years for its special focus in this Province. It is destroying, I should say, as well, the encouragement of participitants in the fishing industry and marine industry in going to an institution they can claim as their own, to enhance their pride of place, and pride in their work in this community. I think that is going to be lost, and the students recognize that now. And the students who will not have this kind of education in the future, not having a place of their own to go to, will suffer a loss, as well.

I am sorry, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to see this bill before this House. I am afraid I cannot support it because it is not a bill that improves the function of the provision of educational opportunities and technology advances in the area of fisheries and marine technology, but one I am afraid will dilute it, and will divert attention from that very important, in fact, crucial element of this Province's future. Because, despite the fact that we have a disaster in the fishery, despite the fact that we have the whole Province, as a result, going downhill, I think, Mr. Speaker, there may well come a government which will recognize that it is only through the fishery that this Province is going to prosper, and that by taking this institute, this crucial element away from that fishery that they will have diverted the attention of Newfoundlanders away from the future of the Province and allow us to deal with management problems. It is like the proposal that the Premier brought in the other day. This is not a problem of vision or of the future, this is a problem of management. So we would have to set up a management board and that will solve the problem. We will give the Marine Institute to a different set of managers, the Board of Regents of Memorial University; they will do a better job, they will manage it better. What will they do? Well, we don't know what they will do. That is their job, it is their mandate, and if they do it wrong, well, they are independent and have been given a job. If they mess it up, well, that's too bad. And that is the problem with this Government, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to manage. They don't have a vision. They don't want to govern, Mr. Speaker, and when they go back to the people of this Province they won't have anything to show for it because they won't be able to make any more promises. They won't be able to make any promises because they won't have any policies left, all of them will have been given away. Everybody else would be making the policies. Enterprise Newfoundland would be making policies on development, the ACE would be making policies on the economy, Memorial University making policies on education. The Minister of Education will not even have a job. They would probably create another council on education before they go back to the people and look for a new mandate, but there will be nothing left to give, Mr. Speaker, because they will have given it all away.

I intend to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker. I can't support it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: I have so many notes, Mr. Speaker, and it has been suggested I not go on longer than an hour, so I will try to cut it down. But quite a number of interesting observations have been made, and I would like to respond to some of them, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Kilbride made an interesting suggestion. He suggested that perhaps we should have created a polytechnic institution for the Province, and we did consider that in restructuring the post-secondary system. But, Mr. Speaker, we felt and concluded very strongly that if we did that, the distinctive identity of the Marine would be lost in that polytechnic institution. We looked at polytechnic institutions elsewhere in the country and most of the programs would not be fisheries-related. So we looked at that and rejected putting Marine and Cabot together into one polytechnic.

Now, we are going to have a centre for engineering technology adjacent to the Marine Institute, anyhow, which is going to do a great deal in technology. We looked at the status quo, and we know how much the former government liked the status quo. But this government rejects the status quo. We want to change where change is needed. We have made changes in many aspects of education already. Student aid - I can go on and name them. We are going to make some changes in school taxes. It will not be long now - some famous or infamous person said - and we will announce some major reform or abolition of school taxes. And we have a Royal Commission looking at elementary and secondary education. This government, in one term, is going to do more to improve and change education than former governments did in term after term!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have just begun, and this is just one of the examples of what we are going to do to create greater equality in education, greater excellence and greater efficiency, the triple E educational agenda this government has. We've just begun! We are not going to accept the status quo that the Opposition want. We reject that! We reject the status quo, as we reject the polytechnic institution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we looked at another option and that was affiliation with the university. Some call it a marriage. Now, when a marriage takes place I don't see either individual of the two partners losing their identity. They retain their identity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Maybe in the past some of them did lose their identity, one person may in a marriage in the past have lost their identity. But that doesn't happen today in a real marriage. I am sure a lot of my friends would say that in a real marriage the two retain their identity, their individuality. In this case, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those institutions will retain their individuality and their specific identity. We could have, I suppose, done other things, but we are going to make sure that these two institutions retain their individual identity.

I heard the Member for St. John's East. What a disappointment tonight to hear him talk about the university as an elitist institution! The people who wrote this piece of legislation in 1948 were more advanced - they are light-years ahead - about a university than the Member for St. John's East! He is in the Middle Ages!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: He is in the Middle Ages in his thinking about a university. He is in the Middle Ages. Mr. Speaker, here is what they had. They talked in this legislation about a university offering diplomas, degrees, certificates. Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker! You would be very interested in this. This is (b). This is the legislation setting up Memorial University. The university shall offer such instruction, whether theoretical, technical, artistic or otherwise, as may be of a special service to persons engaged in or about to be engaged in the fisheries, manufacturers, mining, engineering, agriculture or industrial pursuits in the Province.

But they were light-years ahead of the thinking of this hon. member who believes that the university is an elitist institution for the few. The university should serve all of our people. As Minister of Education, I reject this class of institutions, where you have a university up there, an institute here and a community college down there. I reject that! Liberals reject it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: The university is there to serve all of our people. It doesn't matter if they want theoretical or practical education. The university should offer through extension departments, all kinds of programs. As the hon. the Speaker said, if I might pay tribute to him, this legislation provides for the university to offer through the community colleges, all kinds of programs to serve the needs of fisherpersons in all parts of this Province. That is new.

We rejected the status quo, we rejected the polytechnic and we went for this. But I must be honest and speak to the Opposition House Leader directly about this, because he made two or three very good points. I enjoy him. He knows where I am coming from on this. He should talk to some of his colleagues. He made two or three very good points.

Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, are concerned about the identity of the institute, and that is why we put in the legislation what we did. We are concerned. We want to maintain and enhance the identity of the Marine Institute, so we put in this legislation, in Section 5, what the university shall do. The university shall provide degree, diploma, certificate and other programs; shall provide for the upgrading and enhancement of the fisheries and marine labour force, in co-operation with the colleges; shall provide for the sharing of facilities; shall provide for applied research and technology transfer. That is in the legislation.

We put in the legislation the advisory board from the fishing industry to make sure that this institution, this Marine Institute of Memorial University, would not lose its individual identity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: And fifty minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main asked me a question. I want to tell him that the Marine Institute budget will be a separate budget decided by the government, in these early years, until we work out all the details of the institution. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as the medical school gets its own budget in the early years, we will ensure that the government decides on the budget of the Marine Institute to protect that individual identity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: What is going to happen (inaudible)?

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we are going to do that, and we are going to ensure the individual identity.

One other thing I might mention, the Marine Institute is going to retain its own administration as a college, as an institute within the university, in the same way that the Faculty of Medicine operates very autonomously within the university. Grenfell College - now Mr. Speaker, I might at some time address the comments of the Member for Humber West. She made some very excellent points about extending Grenfell -

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East.

DR. WARREN: Humber East.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: No, I was thinking about the development of the Grenfell College. I would like to address that because I feel - this government is committed to extending Grenfell College, and I think we should look at some of her suggestions about the future, but we want to ensure the individual identity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all the time. You are still (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the minister's meeting with students. I mean, this minister has been more open to meetings with students and groups in this Province than all of the other ministers for the last seventeen years. We met with the students, we consulted them, and you know what? We are going to continue to consult them, because the details of the affiliation have to be worked out over the next two or three years. We will involve them increasingly. We believe that the students, of course, should play a major role in the development of this institution. It is a first-class institution.

We know that the future of this Province is in fisheries and marine-related industries. We believe that this government is committed to developing the fishing industry and, in proposing this bill, we are enhancing not only the training for that industry but the future development of the industry, itself. We are going to ensure that we do the right thing. This is the right thing at this point in time in our history.

In conclusion, the Marine Institute could never have achieved its current status, I feel, as part of another institution. But I think now, in order to achieve its future goals, to offer degree programs, to continue to enhance its programs and distinguish itself internationally, it can do it best in affiliation with Memorial University.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill No. 38).

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Colleges of Applied Arts, Technology And Continuing Education." (Bill No. 37)

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is appropriate that this bill follow in the footsteps of the other, because it is part of the total restructuring of the post-secondary system that this government proposed in the White Paper, and will continue in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the post-secondary system has to meet new challenges as we move into the 21st century. Whether, today, you listen to Mr. Wilson at the national level, or Mr. Valcourt, or listen to people - Mr. Lundrigan, here, in dealing with the future economic growth of the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: - education -

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

I hate to interrupt the hon. minister, but the conversation level to my left is extremely high and I am having difficulty hearing the minister on this important bill.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, whether you listen to Mr. Wilson at the national level, Mr. Valcourt, you listen to all of those who talk about the future economic development of this Province, education is considered a key element in the economic development of the Province and the country. This bill attempts to streamline, rationalize, the post-secondary system by combining institutions. In St. John's, as someone mentioned earlier, we had four independent institutions when this government came to power. We had the university, the marine institute, Cabot Institute, and the Avalon Community College. After considering all of the options, we concluded that we should rationalize by combining components of the Avalon Community College with the Cabot Institute to form a broadly based institution.

We proposed in the White Paper that the Province be divided into five regional colleges. These college are to be called Colleges of Applied Arts, Technology and Continuing Education. I want to say that the term runs well - Applied Arts, Technology and Continuing Education. But I don't want the Continuing Education to be considered just an add-on to the other very important functions of these five regional colleges. Continuing Education is a very important part of the mandate of these five colleges which the government has proposed.

The Labrador College will remain as is, basically, with the same boundaries, Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The western college, which combines, as most hon. members know, Western Community College and the Fisher Institute, will have its headquarters in Stephenville; Central in Grand Falls - Windsor will remain basically as is; Eastern Avalon - and names will be developed for these colleges in the near future - the headquarters will be in Clarenville. Of course, for the St. John's college, which includes the campuses of Avalon that were on Bell Island, in St. John's and Seal Cove, and combines that with Cabot, the headquarters will be in St. John's. The mandate of these colleges will be to offer these broad ranges of applied arts, technology and continuing education programs.

The new bill has a number of other components. I will just mention them briefly. I think they are important. The new bill provides for ministerial approval of new programs that are developed to serve the Province as a whole.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ministerial approval?

DR. WARREN: Ministerial approval. I think, Mr. Speaker, there is some concern that with five colleges we are going to have five competing institutions that may be duplicating certain very expensive programs. This bill provides for ministerial approval of new programs so that the system can be a provincial system. You will not then have inefficiencies developed and the kinds of competition for expensive programs that existed in the past. That is a very important provision, I think, of the new bill. The minister will review all courses and programs offered by the college and may require modifications of individual programs.

We are going to streamline the administration of these colleges a bit. I have heard quite a lot in the past two years about the bureaucracies in the school systems and in the colleges. My hon. friend, the Opposition House Leader, is nodding because he knows there is some concern about the central office staff and the size of central office in some of these institutions. We have been examining that and this piece of legislation, for example, eliminates the position of vice-president. That is one example of an attempt to streamline the central office staff.

There are a number of other provisions there, and changes proposed. I perhaps should listen to comments from my hon. friends on this bill, and then, when I address their comments later, I can deal with the specifics that are raised.

I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I know that my friends opposite support this rationalization. We are decreasing the number of institutions in this Province as a result of this White Paper, from nine to six, and we think that not only will it provide for greater efficiency, but greater effectiveness in meeting the educational needs of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will not spend too much time on the bill now. On a bill like this, as we go through it a little later, clause-by-clause, we can spend a little more time on specifics.

I say to the minister that there are certain components about this bill that make some sense, however, there are some other things being done by the bill which certainly do not make any sense. I listened to the minister speak a little earlier. A phrase he used was a little startling. He said: 'We are not satisfied with the status quo.' And how true his words are, because since he became minister he has done everything possible to make sure that they went well below what was the status quo. Already, tonight we have seen the elimination of one major institute, an historic institute in the Province, unfortunately.

The minister talks about all the schools he has visited, and the students with whom he has spoken. I say to him that he might have visited a lot of schools, but he has not learned very much in any of them. The minister goes out and looks around without seeing anything, and he listens without hearing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Simon and Garfunkel!

MS. VERGE: He smiles a lot, though.

MR. HEARN: He smiles a lot. And then he comes back, and acts without consulting. This has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Simon and Garfunkel song: "The Sounds of Silence".

MR. HEARN: "The Sounds of Silence".

AN HON. MEMBER: People speaking without listening.

MR. HEARN: That is right. Exactly. One of these days, just to keep the minister quiet, I am going to table for him, as he says, the number of schools I visited while I was Minister of Education, and it will make the hair stand on the minister's head when he sees it, absolutely no doubt about it because practically every school in the Province was visited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Oh, not inside the overpass. I am not an overpass lover. In fact, if there is a school or an area where I did not perhaps visit the majority of the schools it would be in St. John's. I was down in St. Anthony visiting the schools, most of the schools all along the coast, all the south coast, every school on the Burin Peninsula, practically every school in Labrador, every school in the District of Carbonear; I know I was in every school there. I remember talking to the member about it, and we can go on and on. It is going to be fun one of these days when we compare lists.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor - Buchans.

MR. HEARN: Yes, I went to the schools in Buchans and in Windsor - I certainly did - Grand Falls, all of them, Placentia, several times, all the schools down there, even down in places the minister does not visit very often, Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour. I was even down in Ship Harbour when they had a school. So there are very few places I have not visited, I tell the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't talk about it.

MR. HEARN: But I didn't go around talking about it. I did not have time. We were trying to improve -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Exactly. We were trying to improve the education level in Newfoundland, but as I said the other day, I made one awful mistake, I took advice from the wrong people. But we still managed to do several good things which the minister is now trying to undo. Unfortunately, at the time, I was not the minister responsible for the post-secondary side, so I cannot say too much about that, but I am sure our House Leader, when he stands to speak, will express his concerns about some of the things the minister is doing in the area. The member to my right, the Member for Humber East, was the minister responsible for both so, undoubtedly, she will express some concerns about the things she is seeing happening, the many positive changes that were made over the year that now seem to be wiped out by the present administration.

As I said, regarding this present piece of legislation, I am strained somewhat. There are a few things that make a lot of sense. What, perhaps, does not make sense is the downgrading of the Fisher Institute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Yes, we are practically wiping out the Fisher Institute as we know it today. That is a major concern, not only in the West Coast, but it is a blow to education in the Province.

One of the other areas of concern is how the different headquarters were selected. We saw headquarters established over the last few years, and we have seen a number of changes. We wonder about the benefits and the costs and the disruptions involved, and whether the new benefits outweigh the costs and the disruptions caused. We wonder, when we see the five regional centres and hear the word 'rationalization' being used. I shudder every time this government mentions the word 'rationalization'. I think of another word, 'centralization', because when we are dealing with the amalgamation effort we see the pressure being applied to people who live in the smaller remote areas to feed into the larger centres. We see it happening in health care. We see it happening in relation to the establishment of any industries that this Province talks about. Centralize or perish. The pressures on the small communities now to try to operate on their own, more than they can bear financially so, consequently, they will be pressured into going into the larger centres.

Here we see it again, five centres. We know what the Premier's philosophy is - if we only had a few large centres around this Province, think about all the money we would save, and he is right. Think of all the money we would save if you could automatically just pick the people up and drop them in five centres. Imagine trying to service five major growth centres. Think of the costs in relation to water and sewer and roads compared to the horrendous costs of servicing rural Newfoundland today. But how many people want to leave their roots, want to leave what they have known to be Newfoundland and Labrador, and head for a centralized area? The answer is, practically nobody who has any choice in the matter.

Over the years, we saw what centralization did to the pride of a lot of Newfoundlanders, and I tell the story occasionally about the house I visited in Freshwater, in the District of Placentia, some years ago when I was working with the Department of Fisheries. I was doing a study, and I was interviewing some people who had moved in from the islands. I was talking to a gentleman who was in his fifties I would say, at the time, who had moved from a small island. He had fished all his life, and had done very, very well. He had moved into Freshwater and had been given a house up on the hillside. He had his boat in the back yard, his nets piled up over in a corner of the yard in a little shed, and he was about a mile away, or close to a mile away from the water. He didn't know the fishing grounds, he didn't have a place to put out his boat, he didn't have a wharf of his own anymore, he didn't have a stage to store his gear, he didn't have a flake to spread fish on if he caught any, so what did he do? He gave it up.

The song "Outport People" - every time I hear the song I think of that fellow. I know him by name. I have never seen him since but his name sticks in my mind, because of his story about leaving his home on a small island where he was doing well, and coming into this area to accept welfare since there was no way he could live the way he did before. His way of life was taken from him. In that song we hear about his boat full of weeds and tears in his eyes. I am not sure whether there were weeds in the guy's boat, the boat was there in the back yard, but I guarantee you there were certainly tears in his eyes as he told the story.

That made a greater impression on me than maybe anything else I ever came across in my life. Because I was fortunate enough to be born and go to school and grow up and still live, actually, in a very small community, where people live much the same as they always did, where people know everybody and they help each other; if times are good they celebrate together and if they are bad they try to come out of it together. It is the way of life that most Newfoundlanders know and appreciate, and they are happy and content. But to force them into larger - you know, rationalization, forcing them into larger centres, growth centres, simply to be able to obtain the crumbs that government gives out, that is completely and utterly unfair, and we are seeing another example of it.

I had another experience earlier this past year when I met a fellow who had grown up in a small Newfoundland outport and had to move away to go to work. Actually, he joined the RCMP. He retired a few years ago and came back and went to work as a cook on one of the ocean-going boats, just to be at sea again, actually, a National Sea boat. He just wanted to be at sea. But all the years he was away from home he wrote a lot. He published stories and songs and whatever about growing up in the small Newfoundland outport. He talked about the things that only those who grew up in rural Newfoundland can experience or can appreciate. The growing up in an area where you had very little, but nobody else around you had anything either. So what you did have you shared, whether it be food, whether it be wood. If there was a widow in the area whose husband had died everyone cut wood for her in the wintertime. They made sure that she got her share of fish and everything else.

People were there to help each other. If you were going to repair your house everybody came over to help out. But there was one line in one of the stories he had written that really stuck, once again, in my memory. He said, talking about this growing up in a small area, 'We didn't know we were poor until somebody told us.' And that was so true, because people who lived in areas like that, and who still do, think they are the richest in the world, and they are in many respects. Because the wealth and the happiness they have cannot be measured in dollars and cents, in Cadillacs or in mansions.

So, Mr. Speaker, the concern when we see a bill like this is once again, are we saying to all our young people now: Forget the small colleges around? That is the big question. What is going to happen to Baie Verte? What is going to happen to St. Anthony?

AN HON. MEMBER: I will answer that for you.

MR. HEARN: What is going to happen to Clarenville? I know the minister is going to answer it. And the minister always says: 'Don't worry.' Remember the song last year, or the year before? 'Don't worry, be happy.' That is the minister. I don't know whether he wrote it. He certainly didn't record it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sing a bit of it!

MR. HEARN: I don't know it.

The minister's philosophy is: 'Don't worry, be happy.' But the point is, the minister's words and the minister's actions are two entirely different things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Were you talking to him? The Irish Ambassador had a very interesting day, not here in St. John's, but travelling rural Newfoundland. It could have been anywhere. It could have been out in the Port de Grave area, it could have been down in Trinity Bay, but as it happened, he wanted to see the Irish Loop and, of course, you don't take him down in Trinity Bay or Port de Grave to see the Irish Loop, you take him up to St. Mary's Bay and the Southern Shore. We could have taken him into Placentia Bay if we had time, but we didn't. He really enjoyed it, and what impressed him most was that people could stay in the same places they came to years ago when they left Ireland, that they do much the same thing as they did years ago when they left. But it is changing, because the young people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: He knew where I was, don't worry. It is not the first time I met him.

The thing that worries people throughout rural Newfoundland is what is going to happen in a few years time? Our own little councils that we had are now being told, 'You are going to have to amalgamate. You are going to have to become bigger.' Our schools are being wiped out. The community schools are no more - centralize - they have to because of numbers, unfortunately. We had a chance to have our children go to colleges somewhere close to home for a year or two until they got the feel of it, but now, these apparently are on the way out, and we are rationalizing once again. So it is on to the big centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'No More Fish on the Table'.

MR. HEARN: That's right, no more fish on the table.

It looks as if the face of Newfoundland is being changed by this government simply because they believe the 'bigger is better concept. What surprises me most is the lack of concern shown by some of the members. Now I know that the Cabinet, the decision-makers, are top heavy from the large areas, absolutely no doubt about that, and they will look after their own, undoubtedly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) top-heavy.

MR. HEARN: We do not have too many ministers from the core of Newfoundland. The minister who is just coming in now is from an area of Placentia Bay, and if there is a place -

AN HON. MEMBER: Top-heavy.

MR. HEARN: Well, now, you certainly cannot say that the Minister of Education is top-heavy.

If there is a place in Newfoundland that appreciates small outport life, it is Placentia Bay. There has been more said and written about Placentia Bay and about the history of Placentia Bay, and about living in outports, and where else do you see the number of people who want to get back to their roots? There are more reunions in Placentia Bay than anywhere else in the Province. Why? Why do people come from miles and miles and miles away to go out and spend weeks on a little island? Because it is home to them, and they know what they lost. The funny thing about it is when you talk to most of them and ask them, 'Do you think you would be better off if you had stayed where you were?' the older people will say, 'Yes, we would be much better off if we had stayed where we were.' The only thing they might say is, 'But maybe we are giving our younger people a better chance.'

The only thing is, when they see the state of unemployment in the Province, and when they see what is happening to the young people now, they begin to wonder, because there are advantages to living, as I say, in smaller places, provided we are given half a chance, and we are not being given half a chance now.

Is that long enough?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Five more minutes.

MR. HEARN: Keep her going - alright. Give me some ideas then.

So, Mr. Speaker, some of the concerns we have here is first of all, we would like the minister, when he stands to close debate sometime next week or the week after, to talk about the Fisher Institute. What part does he see the Fisher Institute playing in the future of education in the Province, or has it played its last part? What about the smaller campuses that are scattered around? What about the Burin Peninsula? What about the Bonavista Peninsula? What about St. Anthony? What about Carbonear? Good question. The Member for Carbonear got shafted also. There is a reason, I suppose, why the headquarters was taken from Burin and put to Clarenville, because there was a newly-elected Liberal member in Clarenville, and the Burin Peninsula was represented by two Tories. But the big question is: why was the headquarters taken from Carbonear?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HEARN: Just because there was a strong rumour that the member was going across the floor was no reason to take the headquarters away from Carbonear.

The minister also might explain the process of rationalizing or streamlining. How is he going to go about it? What are the differences going to be? Look at what we had last year and the year before. Look at the new set-up that he advocates. What are the advantages going to be, and especially to whom? Who is really going to benefit when we look at courses that will be offered, when we look at distances travelled by students who might take such courses? What about the jobs that are involved? Are there going to be jobs affected by this rationalizing? Does it mean that people are going to have to pack up and move again? Are people in Burin going to be told: 'Well, you can have a job, but you must move to Clarenville'? Are the people who taught at Fisher going to be told: 'Well, because of the downgrading of Fisher Institute you must move to Stephenville'? What about the people in St. Anthony? Are the courses going to be cut to the point where they have to move up the coast to Stephenville again? What about Carbonear? What about those who worked at the college in Carbonear? Where are they going to be relocated?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HEARN: Perhaps the minister could look at some of these things.

Earlier tonight, when we went through the other bill, we saw that jobs could be at stake. When we looked at the amalgamation bills that are brought in, we saw jobs could be at stake. There is no guarantee: 'Yes, you will be fitted in, but it depends on where the new bureaucracy wants to place you.' I am sure the same thing will happen here. What is going to happen with all the changes? How many people will be displaced? How many course offerings are going to be dropped? What new course offerings can be brought in that will benefit the young people?

We had a major re-organization in the post-secondary system just a few years ago, before it got a chance, really, to take effect, and what we did see was fairly positive. All of a sudden, you know, it is a change for the sake of changing, or is it change for the sake of appeasement? Is it just change to appease some of the personalities involved?

MS. VERGE: Or the politician.

MR. HEARN: Or the politician. Well, when I said 'personalities', I was talking about personalities meaning the politicians who are involved. If we are only changing to suit our own, then it does not make very much sense. We should change only if we are going to benefit the young people. How much consultation took place before this process?

Now the minister talks about a White Paper. When it came out we said, 'Look, it is not a White Paper, it is not a Green Paper, it is the bill, it is the act, basically, because it is a whitewash.' Exactly, it is a whitewash because we knew that minds had already been made up as to what was to happen.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a tremendous number of questions that the minister is going to have to answer before we are going to be satisfied to let this bill go through, and certainly, we have members over here who are directly affected by the decisions of the minister to fool around with the post-secondary section. Like I said, there are positive elements, and we will comment on them later on. We do not mind giving credit where credit is due, but we do certainly have some real concerns about some of the moves and the underlying rationale for making such moves.

Mr. Speaker, it is 10:00 p.m., so I adjourn the debate.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform hon. members that tomorrow morning we will be introducing the third reading of Bill 50, and I hope to finish that sometime tomorrow.

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