The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I rise at this time to bring to the attention of the House the fact that on Friday of this week the Province of New Brunswick will honour the memory of the former Premier of that Province, the late Senator Richard Hatfield, who died on Friday past, just two and a half weeks after his 60th birthday. In fact, the private family funeral, as I understand it, will be held in his home town of Hartland in New Brunswick today.

Mr. Speaker, Senator Hatfield has had a long distinguished career in the public life of the Province of New Brunswick and, indeed, the nation of Canada. He was Premier of New Brunswick for seventeen years, as many of us know, from 1970 to 1987. I think he will be remembered for many things, his contribution to his Province, his contribution to the Country, but certainly he will be remembered for being a colourful figure in Canadian history and Canadian politics. I believe also that he will be long remembered as an anglophone who broke through the linguistic solitudes in New Brunswick. He helped build a more caring, tolerant province sensitive to the rights and aspirations of it's citizens.

I think it is also fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that Richard Hatfield believed passionately in Canada. He was proud of Canada's growing significance among the nations of the world and believed that Canada could demonstrate to the world that people of different cultures and languages could work together to build a strong unified country and an influential country among the nations of the world.

Another thing that should be noted, Mr. Speaker, is that Richard Hatfield was not a partisan when it came to patriotism. He supported former Prime Minister Trudeau in his successful efforts to repatriate the Constitution of Canada, and he supported the current Prime Minister in his efforts to gain Quebec's formal consent to the Constitution. Mr. Hatfield, during his seventeen years as Premier, made decisions which were essential to the development of Atlantic Canada during the time when Newfoundland at first had been going through the formative years as a Province of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, certainly on behalf of our caucus, I would like to ask this House to extend its sympathies to the Hatfield family, and I would say to the House on behalf of our caucus I will be attending the memorial service that will be held in Fredericton, New Brunswick for Senator Hatfield on Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, of course I would endorse the House extending its condolences to the Hatfield family. I should, however, advise the House that I have already written to the Hatfield family on behalf of the people of the Province to extend our condolences, and I have written to the Premier of New Brunswick to officially extend condolences to the Government and the people of New Brunswick. I suppose it may also add something if the House sends a specific resolution, so I have no objection to supporting that proposal.

Former Premier Hatfield was, indeed, a controversial and colourful political figure in this Country who made some significant contributions in his home Province of New Brunswick, and made a significant contribution, I believe, to constitutional issues in the nation, and like most politicians he will be remembered by those who feel grateful for the contributions he made in a warm and kindly way, by those who opposed some of the controversial things he did in perhaps a not so kindly way. But above all else whatever he achieved or did not achieve or whether he was controversial he gave seventeen years of his life to the public of his Province and the Country, and having done that I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is entirely appropriate that this House should acknowledge that.

I decided that it was not appropriate for the Government to send somebody officially to represent the Government and the people of the Province as it is not a situation where a Premier died in office. It is a situation that would apply if any former Premier in any part of the country had died, I think condolences are appropriate, but I do not think a formal representation is necessarily required. It is not a state funeral. It is a memorial service. The family funeral is today. We support the expression of condolences of the whole House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is appropriate that the message from this House be unanimous. And I would like to offer my consent to the resolution they proposed, the message of condolence. I too recognize that hon. Premier Hatfield has played a significant role in the modern constitutional history of Canada, certainly in making New Brunswick the first bilingual Province and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said of building bridges between the anglophones and francophones in New Brunswick and also on the national stage contributing to the constitutional discussions and changes throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, and indeed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I would like to join with him, but I will not comment on the controversial aspects of the policy, obviously it is a partisan matter, and I would think it not appropriate at this time to delve into those. Obviously he deserves the congratulations of this House for the efforts and contributions that he has made to the life of his province and the country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There seems to be some confusion. I called Statements by Ministers and I waited for some time. Now if the House wants to revert to Statements by Ministers -

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware whether the Minister over there was trying to make a statement or not; I saw his hand up. If he wants to make a statement, I am willing to yield to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Do hon. Members consent to revert to Ministerial Statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did not hear your announcing `Statements by Ministers' on this side, at least I did not.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I am pleased to announce the approval of the conditional allocation of funding under the 1991 Private and Municipal non-profit Housing Programmes.

Under these programmes, assistance is provided to municipal and private non-profit community agencies to develop and manage housing projects for people in their area who are in need of suitable and affordable housing. Allocations have also been made under the rural and native housing programme; under this programme the housing corporation will construct the projects and retain ownership, while community groups through management agreements with NLHC, will administer the complexes and look after day-to-day operations.

These allocations, Mr. Speaker, have been earmarked on the basis of submissions that were received from community organizations following initiative 1991, a proposal call conducted by the Housing Corporation last fall. As part of the proposal call, proponents were required to conduct research into the need for housing, to provide preliminary plans and other documentation indicating their ability to see the project through to completion and to demonstrate a long-term commitment to managing the project.

As a result of initiative 1991, NLHC received a total of fifty-seven submissions from non-profit groups representing different areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is obvious that these organizations are dedicated to providing comfortable and affordable housing for the people in their communities.

Following a careful review of the proposals submitted, based on a variety of established criteria, I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that a total of 138 units of non-profit housing for low-income families, senior citizens and native people have been approved for conditional allocation.

Capital funding for these projects will amount to approximately $11 million, and will be cost shared by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation along with its federal partner, CMHC. In addition to the capital costs associated with these projects, the federal and provincial housing agencies will cost share an annual subsidy to cover maintenance and other operating costs. This operating subsidy will ensure that rental rates remain affordable for the residents.

Mr. Speaker, the conditional allocations are broken down by region of the Province as follows:

Avalon Peninsula (outside the St. John's/Mount Pearl Area).

On the Avalon Peninsula, conditional approval has been given for planned expansions to seniors' complexes on Bell Island and in Placentia and Carbonear. The Bell Island Seniors' Complex will be expanded by six apartments, eight units will be added to the apartment building in Carbonear, and the seniors' complex in Placentia will be expanded by ten units.

In addition to these planned expansions a new eight-unit seniors' project has been allocated for St. Joseph's and a twelve unit senior's complex is planned for Whitbourne.

St. John's/Mount Pearl.

The City of St. John's has received a conditional allocation for a twenty-eight unit development to house low income families.

In Mount Pearl, a twelve unit housing project has been

conditionally allocated for single parent families.

South Coast/Burin Peninsula.

Conditional funding for two senior citizens' complexes has been designated for the South Coast; an eight unit project in Harbour Breton and a six-unit complex in Bay L'Argent.

In Central Newfoundland, a senior citizens' complex consisting of twelve apartments has been conditionally allocated for Point Leamington.

In Western Newfoundland seniors' complexes have been allocated for the communities of Stephenville Crossing and Robinsons. An eight-unit complex is planned for Stephenville Crossing, and twelve units have been allocated for Robinsons.

In Labrador, an eight-unit family housing project has been conditionally allocated for Cartwright.

In addition to the conditional allocations that I have just outlined for you, Mr. Speaker, I should note that a total of eighty-eight units have been placed in a back-up position to be allocated to other community groups should any of the approved projects not proceed to project completion or, as an alternative, to facilitate advanced planning for 1992.

On the Avalon Peninsula, community groups in Upper Island Cove, St. Brides, Old Perlican and Mount Pearl have all been placed in a back-up position for seniors' projects.

On the West Coast, groups in Parson's Pond and Stephenville have also been placed in a back-up position for seniors' complexes.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Speaker, officials of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation will be working with all the sponsoring groups to prepare final development plans so that projects can proceed at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Speaker, these conditional allocations represent the commitment of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to providing a range of housing services to the people of our Province. In addition, it illustrates the corporation's growing efforts to involve the residents of the Province, through community-based organizations, in the actual development and delivery of social housing options.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that over the coming weeks, when budget details are finalized, N.L.H.C., in conjunction with its federal partner, C.M.H.C., will be in a position to announce public housing plans for the current year. This will involve housing projects that the Corporation will develop and administer directly. As well, the 1991 Budget for the Federal/Provincial Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, known as RRAP, will be announced within the coming weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is nice to see the Minister once again in the House announcing a majority of Federal funding for projects throughout the Province. I would also like to say that it is unfortunate that this Government has once again demonstrated that fairness and balance has no meaning. When you look at the announcement today, with the exception of St. Joseph's, I believe all of the work will be carried out in Liberal districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was on the backup list.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, no. And with that it is regrettable that this Premier, this Government and this Minister of Housing would indeed revert to attacking senior citizens of this Province based upon how the district voted in the last Provincial election. And I think it is unfortunate but that is what has happened. We saw it in the roads projects, now we have seen it in senior citizens' complexes based throughout this Province. No doubt all of these projects and all of these areas are deserving. And I know the South Coast - Bay L'Argent and these places - I am delighted to see that sort of thing happening. And one can also feel very grateful for the people of Placentia and Bell Island who have basically been forgotten in the social sector of this Government. And it is good to see that the Federal Government has contributed funds enough whereby there can be some beds assigned to Placentia and Bell Island and these places that have basically been destroyed by this Government.

But what has happened here is again another example of the pork barrelling by this Provincial Government based on how people voted in the last election. They said they would not do it but I believe the shirts and the posters and the baseball caps and the pins that are going around this Province today show how much the people believe and how much faith the people have in what this Premier and this Government have said in the past little while.

The fact of the matter is that the Government promised fairness and balance in the last elections. They promised that people would not be punished on how they voted. And today we saw the senior citizens of this Province being punished because they were living in Conservative districts. As a matter of fact in my own district there was a request in for housing. That is not there. How come certain sectors of Newfoundland were lined up for backups and identified and other parts of Newfoundland were not? How come there are no backups for the South Coast through the Avalon area? How come it is only Parsons Pond and a few places in the Minister's development districts that are listed for backups?

Is it to appease him because he did not get them for his own area? Is that why it is done and the rest of them have not been done? It is now time for this Government to live up to their commitment of fairness and balance. It is now time that they stopped the attack on every man, woman and child in this Province based upon how they voted. It is a sham! Day after day, day in and day out, people of this Province are being punished because they have people sitting on this side of the House.

Well, the sooner the Premier goes and has a writ issued to call an election, and that fairness and balance can once again be brought back in this Province, the sooner that happens the better. Because what is taking place, what we have seen here in this, what we have seen demonstrated today - and as I said - there is no one going to argue that the places that got these are not deserving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. As the Minister is no doubt aware the minimum wage now applies to persons or individuals who care for children, or people who employ individuals to care for their children. Mr. Speaker, this has created a problem for the social service recipients who wish to avail of higher education, who wish to participate in or find employment and/or those who wish to gain employment experience. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is, in light of the fact that people who presently receive a subsidy of $65 a week to pay for child care from the Department of Social Services, now that these people have to pay approximately $190 per week, for instance in a forty hour week, does the Minister intend to increase the supplement to cover the full cost of child care?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the recent increase and change in regulations and people being paid the minimum wage for day care services and babysitting services and having an impact not only on the people on social assistance who want to avail of an education, but also the low income people. We are presently looking at the regulations in the Department of Social Services, and we will be dealing with that over the very short weeks to come.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with the acoustics, but I could hardly hear the Minister. I just want to ask the Minister is he concerned that the cost of child care removes any incentive for single parents to get experience or education which enables them to return to the work force, and actually this is going to affect mostly women and the working poor. I agree with the Minister that it affects more than just people on social services. But if the Minister does not increase the supplement, would he look at a proposal to take other measures which would remove the effect of the high cost of child care from these individuals?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we were not looking at the problem that has been incurred here by the individuals who require babysitting services. It is only for the people who actually bring somebody into their own homes, if they put them out in a day care centre it is not a great problem. The problem with people on social assistance or low income people furthering their education, but especially the people on social assistance, is not only the cost of babysitting or day care services, there are many other problems incurred. We certainly have been putting some information and committees together to get a look at the whole problem. And yes, we are looking at the problem. Yes, we are seeing the cost and the impact it is having on people. And I will be making a statement in the very near future in what we are able to do with that problem.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister when he looks at the problem would he consider purchasing on behalf of people, child care positions in existing child care programs, that is where these are available, that is normally in the urban areas of this Province? And would he ensure that new child care programs are provided and funded which would give single parents access to child care facilities right across this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member knows full well that when any applications come in before the Department of Social Services, from any individual or organizations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they meet the requirements and safety regulations and pass the Licencing Board, these centres can be opened up anywhere in the Province. We do not have a freeze or we have not suggested to anybody that they could not open centres anywhere within the Province. We are only too happy for individuals to open up day care centres anywhere. I only wish that more and more would open up. But as far as bringing in new Day Care Strategy Programs, we cannot do that as a Province, we must wait and hope and pray that the Federal Government in Ottawa will bring in a new Day Care Strategy Program similar to what they brought in before the last election and then cancelled it after they won the election.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that this is a problem that has not been created by the Federal Government? Is he aware that this is a problem that is being created by the increase in the minimum wages for child care workers?

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware, as well, that every single parent regardless of whether he or she receives social assistance will now have to pay somewhere around $760 per month for child care services if they wish to work outside the home? Mr. Speaker, there are not that many high paying jobs in Newfoundland, and there will be more on social assistance, and is he aware that this is the second time this year that this Government has brought in a policy that hurts single parents, and I refer to the maintenance payment deductions which the Minister brought in recently? And, Mr. Speaker, is he aware that if something is not done about this policy that children in this Province who have parents who have to work will be home alone?

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me remind the hon. Member that the daycare problem in Newfoundland and across Canada is not the responsibility alone of any provincial government, it is the responsibility of the federal government. No provincial government, even the rich Province of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec can provide enough money to provide the daycare service needed in their provinces, so a province like Newfoundland and Labrador certainly do not fit in that category. So we do need the services and the financial money from the federal government.

I am clearly aware of the impact that it is having on the people depending the Department of Social Services. The hon. Member also knows that every individual who comes to the Department of Social Services must go through a financial assessment. We are not responsible and we cannot be responsible on the Canada Assistance Plan for the people in the work force because they are earning a certain amount of money. So only people who meet the criteria of the Department of Social Services, the financial assessment, can be responsible for it. It is a problem. The 50 cents an hour has caused a problem to individuals who pay out the hourly rate, but not to the individuals who put their kids in daycare centres. So I have already told the hon. Member that we know there is a problem there. We are looking into it to see the effect in a number of families across the Province, and we will be making a statement in the near future.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier on the same subject. When the Government decided to eliminate the two tier minimum wage and raise the rate for domestics to the same rate as others setting it at $4.75 an hour, did the Premier and the Government consider the fact that many employers of domestics, most of whom are young mothers and young fathers themselves earn only the minimum wage or slightly more than the minimum wage? Did the Government do a study of the overall impact on the work force and on the economy of raising the minimum wage for domestics?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the primary concerns that the Government had. As a matter of fact, the implementation of the equalization of the minimum wage without differentiation was held up while we sent the proposal back for consideration based on that particular issue because we did not want to prevent people from having a job by reason of making the minimum wage too high. So we knew there was a down side to it and that it could have some adverse impact to some degree, but when the thing was considered on balanced on the overall, we felt that the right and proper thing to do was to provide for a minimum wage so that there would be no differentiation.

We are also concerned about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and had some concern about the propriety of differentiating on the basis of the kind of job, particularly jobs that were largely performed by women, and we did not want to particularly create a situation that would result in a challenge. I believe there is a challenge under way at the moment in some Provinces. There is one under way at the moment, and all that was a consideration at the time, yes.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has admitted now what many women suspected, that the Government made this decision in anticipation of a court decision striking down the provinces laws. I suggest the same thing is going to happen on Bill 16.

Now, will the Premier tell us what adverse effects of the raising of the minimum wage for domestics the Government has determined, and will he tell the working mothers and fathers what the Government proposes they do when they cannot afford to pay the new minimum wage for domestics? What alternatives does the Premier see for those working mothers and fathers - quitting their jobs or finding some more cost efficient way of looking after their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are none so blind as those who have political prejudice, that is for sure, that cannot see the fairness or the priority of anything, no matter what it was. I suppose if the hon. Minister grew angel wings he would be criticized for doing it by the hon. Member opposite, and I kind of feel sorry for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member's comments demonstrate clearly that her interest is political mischievousness and not the interest of the people affected. To suggest that increasing the minimum wage for domestics by fifty-cents to equate it with the minimum wage, and I believe that was the differential, I have forgotten.

MR. BAKER: It was more than that.

PREMIER WELLS: It was more than that.

MR. BAKER: Two (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. But to increase the minimum wage prevents domestics from working is unrealistic. None of the assessment we did indicated that it would prevent domestics from working by reason of the cost of day care or anything of that nature. What we were concerned about is that it would increase the cost of employing domestics and cause people who do employ domestics to lay them off, or to not employ domestics, so there would be loss of employment. That was the concern we had, that there would be loss of employment. Then we had the balance in interest. We recognized that this may well happen to some degree. Now, which is the greater concern? Which is likely to cause more harm overall to the people of the Province, risking the possibility that some may not be able to find work because the cost was higher, or ensuring that a fair minimum wage was paid to everybody who works in this Province? And on balance, Mr. Speaker, we opted to ensure that there would be a fair minimum wage for everybody in this Province and there would be no discrimination particularly against women, unlike the choice made by the former Government. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, voted for a real change and we gave them one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that he has addressed only one part of the equation. Will he table in the House the Government's assessment of the negative consequences for working mothers and working fathers of the Government's raising of the minimum wage for domestics? In my initial question I asked him what assessment the Government had done of the impact of this move on the workforce of the Province and the economy of the Province, and I would like to have the Premier share that with the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the discussion that I saw was in the form of a Cabinet paper and I have no intention of tabling Cabinet papers. Whether or not there was any other detailed assessment I will take a look, and if there was some structured assessment I do not think there is any objection to tabling that.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest something to the hon. Member. If she wants to reverse the decision, put her resolution on the Order Paper and we will debate it in this House, that it was wrong to do that because it may cause some people employed in domestic service to lose their jobs. If she wants to change that and revert to what they had in place when they formed the Government I am prepared to see her place her resolution on the Order Paper and I think we should debate it. If, Mr. Speaker, after such debate, the House concludes we made a mistake we will certainly go back and review it.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. Member on a final supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, speaking of mischievousness we just saw an example from the Premier. My questions do not suggest there is anything wrong with equalizing the minimum wage and raising the level for domestics, rather that there is something very wrong in the failure of the Government to take complimentary measures to provide alternatives for child care for working mothers and fathers, for working parents who themselves are earning only the minimum wage or slightly more than the minimum wage. Will the Premier address that part of the equation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Party that the hon. Member supported and voted for in the last election put in place a proposal, I believe, for a $4 billion day care programme. A national day care programme for the whole country. Now, the great Government of Canada decided that it could not afford to do it. By what standard of judgement does the hon. Member suggest that this Government can afford to do it? By what does she judge that? I mean, it is irrational. It is no wonder the people of the Province turfed them out in the last election, if that is the basis of their governing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. I wonder if the Minister will tell the House why his Department eliminated the office manager's position at the St. Mary's office and if he has done an assessment of the effect of the elimination of that position?

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

MR. EFFORD: In the recent budgetary decisions that we made, Mr. Speaker, we had to make some decisions as far as laying off the employees within the Department of Social Services. And we had to do it in a manner in which it had the least effect or least impact upon any area in which they were employed. We looked at the office in question, and a number of other offices around, and I think it was six managers in total that we originally laid off. And the office that the hon. Member asked about, we decided that it could be properly and efficiently managed by the manager from the Placentia area. It is being monitored on a weekly basis. If the need arises that we are finding that there are any problems caused in any area by the elimination of the manager, and it cannot be managed from that office in Placentia, we will certainly take another look at it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister did not mention whether or not he had done an assessment. Perhaps in referring to that would he explain, if the reason was strictly to save money: how much is he saving in light of the severance package paid to the person who left the job and in recognition of the fact that extra help has to be brought in from both Placentia and Bay Roberts in order to offset the workload that is at the office presently?

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

MR. EFFORD: Surely you would not suggest that I am bringing my friends in from Bay Roberts again? I tell you one thing: before the four years is up there will be nobody in Port de Grave district not working, that is one good thing about it, according to the hon. Members. I only wish it was true.

But let me tell the hon. Member. There is no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that is possible.

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

MR. EFFORD: There is absolutely no accuracy to what the hon. Member just said. There is nobody being brought in from either Placentia or the great district of Port de Grave from Bay Roberts to work in the office in St. Mary's, where the office manager was eliminated.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister knows absolutely nothing about which he speaks, let me tell him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Should I ask him: who is responsible presently for giving the day-to-day directions to the office staff in St. Mary's?

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

MR. EFFORD: There is a supervisor position in the St. Mary's office and there is also the manager in the Placentia office. Also, in Harbour Grace - which is not in the great district of Port de Grave - there is a regional office out there, where it is set up by a regional manager and the assistant regional manager and the consultants. And that office is being properly administered by the staff in there, by the regional people, and the manager in Placentia.

MR. SIMMS: Where is he from? Bay Roberts.

MR. EFFORD: Bay Roberts.

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

MR. HEARN: I would suggest to the Minister that he be very careful about giving answers to questions when he does not know what the answers are, because the Minister has really not given actual information here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: So I ask the Minister: if he finds out that the information he has given is not correct, and if he finds out - as the Minister of Health did - that the reports coming from the area are accurate and that extra help needs to be provided, will the Minister look at reinstating the position which was removed from the St. Mary's office?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we could stand up here all day and I can accuse the Member of not giving accurate information and he can accuse me, but let me assure the hon. Member Opposite, that I know as much about the Department of Social Services, operating on a day to day basis, than all of the former Ministers of Social Services on the other side put together, I can assure you of that. If you doubt my knowledge about the Department of Social Services, come to the Estimate Committee at seven o'clock this evening, ask some questions and see if you would get some answers. Secondly, I am not going to change -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - I am not going to change the decision made by the Department of Social Services just on the whim of the Member Opposite who is trying to make some political points. We are quite satisfied with what is happening in that office; it is being monitored by the Regional Office in Harbour Grace, by the Placentia Offices and by the Department of Social Services here at Confederation Building. If the need ever arises, or some serious situations take place in the future, sure, it is not impossible that we would not change our minds but today, absolutely not.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Extern (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No. I recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East I said, followed by the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for East Extern was up first.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. It has been several weeks now since the Minister has discovered that she is responsible for occupational health and safety on the waters of Bull Arm as well as on the land, and I wonder, could she tell us now whether the investigation into the death of the man on Good Friday, conducted by her Department has been completed and, has she discovered yet whether or not there has been a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have wondered for some time why the hon. Member for St. John's East is dealing with what was a human tragedy in such crass political terms, and I can only reach the conclusion, as did the Minister of Development yesterday, that since he was not successful and his party in destroying Hibernia, that they are now trying to sabotage (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such an affront to the dignity of working people in this Province as I have heard from the hon. Minister, who is supposed to be responsible for that. The hon. Minister has not answered the question: which is essentially whether or not her Department has carried out its responsibilities under Section 52 and 53 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and I want the Minister to tell this House, whether in fact an investigation has been conducted and whether or not, in fact, she has discovered, as a result of this investigation, that Section 52 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which requires an employer to notify the Director of a death or an injury on the job, was complied with and did this employer do that or, is there a special exception for Nodeco and Hibernia projects?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer on several occasions in this House, even though the Department in the beginning was not sure whether or not it was within our jurisdiction, we did proceed with an investigation at the site, so there was nothing wrong there. We established since, that we did the correct thing and I was pleased to see that; I do not think that that creates a problem whatsoever.

We are still not sure if indeed an accident took place, but again, I hesitate to speak about this because of the pain that it could cause to some people in the Province, but we are not yet fully aware of whether or not it was an accident. There was an error, and I am sure that in the report which comes out afterwards, that mention would be made of it and the reason why Nodeco did not report the gentleman missing at an earlier date and certainly that should have been done.

I want to say however though, Mr. Speaker, that Nodeco has and is continuing to develop one of the best occupational health and safety programmes in the Province. In fact, what we hope and I would certainly be glad to, but I cannot do it now in Question Period, we are basing our approach to that on a Norwegian model which has worked extremely well in which workers take responsibility for themselves and their co-workers and we think that it is going to change the whole face of occupational health and safety in the Province, so I must pat Nodeco on the back for what they are doing and my own Department is working with them in co-operation to bring about this very positive result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appears, and maybe the Minister can confirm, when an employer such as Nodeco fails to notify the director of an accident in accordance with Section 52, she calls it an error, and perhaps when others do it is an offence under the act. Why is there an exception in this particular case? And can the Minister tell the House whether there is in place now a proper occupational health and safety program for that project on water as well as on land, or is she saying she is going to wait until the more dangerous aspects of the project are underway, as she suggested, or to quote as saying in the paper today, for the Estimates Committee, is there two standards of occupational health and safety, one for now and one for later, or does she have plans in place that are adequate for this project?

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

MS. COWAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that pouring concrete, dredging and building roads is not unfamiliar to the Newfoundland construction industry. We have been doing this for some time in our Province and those individuals are familiar with those very basic construction techniques and the work safety practices that accompany them. At the same time, and I do not know how many times I will have to say again that there is none so deaf as those who do not want to hear, that for the more sophisticated advanced and massive parts of the project very good plans are being put in place to ensure that workplace safety for workers, which will involved both the employer and the employee, with our Department serving as a monitoring body in that particular circumstance, we hope it will change the face of occupational health and safety in this Province, as I just said.

I am not going to put in jeopardy any type of investigation by commenting on whether or not or why a company did not report the accident to us. If indeed the investigation finds out there was something terribly remiss in that, and I am certainly concerned about it, it will be dealt with in the appropriate fashion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Minister is being repetitive, so I will ask the Minister please to clue up her answer very quickly.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very hard not to be repetitive when I keep getting asked the same question week after week. However, I am complete now, and with your leave I will sit down.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was not easy to get the Minister to be seated. My question, Mr. Speaker, was to the Minister of Environment and Lands, but in the Minister's absence, I would like for the Premier to answer the question. Will the Premier inform the House whether his Government has received an application for permission to establish a waste disposal site in Trepassey?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I believe two or three weeks ago, I received a letter from some firm, I do not even remember the name, and they talked about that, they suggested that, and that they were interested in this and asked what the Government's position was. My recollection is that I wrote back and said that the Government was anxious to see economic development take place, but all economic development had to meet our environmental standards so that such proposals should be considered by both the Department of Development and the Department of the Environment, and if I recall correctly, my reply to them was that they deal directly with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Development.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. And I would like to say to the Premier that I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not mean it that way.

MR. PARSONS: I do not mean it that way, no. Hopefully not. I am wasting my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if there is any relationship between this proposal and the recent sale of Sanicare to a company -it is called BFI, Browning Ferus Industries, an American based company, and I wonder if there is any relationship between this proposal and this particular company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing I know about Sanicare is it seems to me I have seen trucks driving around the city with Sanicare on them. It is a Newfoundland Company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It is sold to BFI. I have no knowledge of the sale of Sanicare to BFI so therefore I cannot possibly have any knowledge about whether or not there is any connection. I have just been told by the Minister of Development that he has not received an application but that some company has been in touch with the Minister of the Environment in relation to a proposal for Trepassey. I will have to wait until I speak to the Minister of the Environment to see what stage of progress that is in, whether it is in an application form or not, I cannot say at this moment, or whether it is in any manner connected with Sanicare and BFI, whatever BFI is. BFI may indeed be the company that wrote me, I just simply do not remember at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to other business I want to make a couple of comments on Question Period. A couple of things have been happening in the past couple of days and I want to make sure that it does not become habitual or routine. In some instances answers have been getting a little drawn out, and in some instances questions have been a little drawn out. Of course, the answer is drawn out in some instances because a question was drawn out. I want to bring to hon. Members attention particularly in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members know that when the person in the Chair is speaking there ought to be silence.

I just want to point out for the future operation of Question Period that hon. Members please be cognisant of the rules, particularly related to supplementaries. Many times a Member will get up and comment on what the Minister said, and as hon. Members know, that creates debate. Supplementaries are not supposed to contain a preamble and get right into the substance, and that makes it easier for the Chair to be able to decide when a Minister is being too long, because when a Member puts in a preamble then, of course, the Minister takes the opportunity to try to comment on that preamble. This all makes it more difficult for the Chair, but the rules are clear, hon. Members know what they are, and, of course, they have an obligation to abide by these rules.

I also wanted to point out to hon. Members, sometimes from both sides of the House, that during Question Period some Member on this side will point out question, question, some hon. Member on this side something about the answer. I want hon. Members to know, again, that the Chair's decision in these matters are final and not debatable. The Chair does its best to try and decide whether or not the rules are being enforced equally on both sides and these utterances from both sides of the House do not do anything to create the atmosphere of orderliness in the House. So again, I ask hon. Members to abide by these remarks.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Falls asked the Minister of Education to table this travel schedule for April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991.

I do want to make a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I have made a total of twenty-four visits outside the City. Most of these were to visit schools and colleges and to speak to large numbers of groups. Two were outside the Province, Mr. Speaker, to address a conference on the mainland and to attend a council of Ministers meeting. No personal staff accompanied me on any of these visits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: No, and on eight of the twenty-four visits either an official from the Department of Education and/ or my executive assistant went on eight of the twenty-four. And I might say that I am continuing that kind of visitation to the schools, the colleges and talking with people weekly. In fact, this morning I had a very exciting meeting in Mount Pearl with students and on Friday I am in Forteau, so next years report is going to be just as long, perhaps longer than this year, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to the next item of business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the galleries a joint representation from the councils of Centreville, Trinity, Indian Bay and Wareham in the historic district of Bonavista North. And the members are: Councillor Alex Jones from Indian Bay; Robert Parsons from Centreville; His Worship Alex Brown from Trinity; His Worship Stan Hunt from Wareham; His Worship Bob Pickett from Centreville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we call upon the hon. Member for Harbour Main to proceed with his resolution.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to read the motion into the record of the House and I am sure all Members will want to listen very closely, and especially the councils which are present today.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the Provincial Government policy of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting costly responsibilities to municipalities, thereby squeezing municipalities at both ends and forcing them to increase municipal taxes and reduce public services.

Now as I said a moment ago, I am very pleased indeed that we have councils in the galleries today. I am sure they, better than anyone else, realize the difficulty that they are having today making ends meet, and municipalities are finding it very, very difficult today indeed to make ends meet. And that is not, incidentally, what the Premier and his Party promised municipalities back approximately two years ago.

We have the Liberal policy manual here and I just want to refresh the memory of the Premier and hon. gentleman opposite as to what they said with respect to a new day dawning for municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Liberal commitment to develop all regions in Newfoundland and Labrador can not be effective without a parallel commitment to enhance municipal government in the Province. There are more than 300 municipal administrations providing essential services and facilities and programmes to communities, and the smaller - that is interesting, that the Government should mention smaller ones because it is the smaller municipalities in the Province that are really getting a beating and really getting the sledgehammer from this Government. They said: and the smaller ones in particular need more scope to operate and more support from the Province and the nation.

Now, how much clearer could it be? A new policy by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for municipalities around the Province. And they are still waiting, incidentally, for the Government to come across with the much needed funding to make 300 or 308 municipalities in this Province a little bit more viable than what they are right now, and this is the promise that they got from the Liberal Party. The policy manual went on to say: that the Province can not abandon the small communities which do not have the ability to construct and maintain their own facilities. We must all share the burden. A Liberal Government will undertake an immediate assessment of our ability to establish a Provincial water and sewer corporation that would take over and continue - would actually take over and continue - to operate all existing water and sewer facilities over a period of years and build and expand new ones to areas not now serviced.

The water and sewer corporation could, like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, borrow money to build the systems - and this was what the Government was going to do for the smaller areas in Newfoundland and Labrador - and would repay those monies from the overall cash flow.

Mr. Speaker, this is a little bit of a scam, a little bit of deceit actually that was perpetrated by the Government, which was helped incidentally by probably a lot of councils across the Province to come to power, because they fully expected that things would be different under a new Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, municipalities were given that impression. But there has been virtually no change for the better for municipalities in the Province. Instead of funding increases the Government over the last two years have gotten involved in funding decreases. I remember again, Mr. Speaker, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs for about a three and a half year period, I remember going to a convention out in Corner Brook and speaking, I believe it was on, I do not know but the Member for Carbonear was probably the president of the Federation at the time, or it could have been Mr. Walsh maybe down in Marystown. In any event I remember speaking to that convention and the Premier spoke to the same convention, he spoke first and I spoke second, I remember.

MR. SIMMS: You got the standing ovation, I remember that.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I got the standing ovation, and the Premier, well he got a polite response, let us put it that way. But I remember when I was Minister of that Department speaking to a group of about 700 or 800 people in an auditorium out in Corner Brook, and the Premier spoke directly after me at that time, and again promised municipalities that if his party should come to power that there would be a much greater level of funding provided for town councils all across Newfoundland. And he concentrated, I believe, on the smaller municipalities. That was the big thing, the smaller municipalities. But municipalities today are absolutely amazed at the speed with which Government has shifted gears, and are now, as we said in the resolution, shifting responsibility from the Government onto the shoulders of the smaller towns all across Newfoundland and Labrador to bear the burden that the Government should be bearing for them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government - and I am amazed as well how Members opposite could tolerate that kind of a shift in policy, given the promises of the Premier, given the promises of the party that things were going to be much better for municipalities, and that they were going to receive a greater level of funding. And I think specifically about the Member for Fortune - Hermitage who was also on the Federation of Municipalities, and I remember meeting with him on a number of occasions, and you could not shut up that Member, every time I would go to a meeting -

MR. SIMMS: Who was that?

MR. DOYLE: The Member for Fortune -Hermitage who was on the Federation of Municipalities, and I remember meeting with him -

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he has not opened his mouth (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: - on a number of occasions and you could not shut up that Member from one end of the meeting to the other, waxing eloquently about how the Federation needed to represent their municipalities better and how a greater level of funding was needed for municipalities. And now today that Member is sitting here in this Legislature, a former President of the Federation of Municipalities, and does not open his mouth to try and defend municipalities. Then, of course, the Member for Carbonear is not much different in that regard, another former president.

MR. SIMMS: He will be up now.

MR. DOYLE: And every time when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, practically every morning I turned on the radio and there was that Member from Carbonear, the President of the Federation, I mean waxing eloquently, lambasting Government, me in particular as Minister, that there was not a greater level of funding provided to municipalities and especially and in particular his own down in Carbonear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, here it is today we have the former President of the Federation, he just sits there and he does not say a word to back up municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Somebody told me that the Member for Eagle River was also a former councillor. I do not know. But the Member for Pleasantville, I do not know if he was a councillor, but he ran on a number of occasions for council.

MR. SIMMS: No, no!

MR. DOYLE: You do not hear him say a word about it. The Member for Placentia -

MR. HOGAN: Past president.

MR. DOYLE: -the past President of the Federation, a former Mayor of the town of Placentia.

I do not hear a word from the Member for Dunville. I do not hear a word from the Member backing up councils. The Member for Naskaupi was a former Mayor of that community and he never says a word to try to help out municipalities in the Province. And the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, himself not a mayor, but I think he was on the Federation at one point. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was the Executive Vice-President to the Member for Placentia when he was on the Federation, and a city councillor for so long.

MR. TOBIN: Did you know that I nominated the Member for Naskaupi to be the Chairman?

MR. DOYLE: You nominated the Member for Naskaupi to be Chairman of the Federation. In any event, Mr. Speaker, with that collection of former municipal leaders occupying the benches on the Government side one would think that the interests of municipalities right across Newfoundland and Labrador would be well protected. When you have ten, twelve, or fifteen people sitting on the Government benches who were involved in municipal government, either at the federation level, mayors of communities, or members of council, one would think that the interest of the town councils across the Province would be well protected. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to make those radical changes, that Government is making, to the way in which municipalities are funded, then I believe you need a mandate to do that, given the fact that your policy, which is clearly enunciated in this document, your policy says you are going to make more funding available to municipalities and not reduce the funding, which is essentially what you are doing. That is what the new municipal grant structure does. It essentially reduces funding to municipalities in a variety of different ways. The social assistance component, now, Mr. Speaker, how basic can you get, the social assistance component in the municipal grant structure has been totally eliminated by this Government and that is a little bit unbelievable when you get right down to it. Councils who have social assistance recipients within their own community who cannot afford to pay municipal taxes hithertofore were getting those taxes paid by Government and now the Government has cut that out completely, and as a result the smaller communities, in particular, suffer a great deal because of that one. Now, it may not mean a great deal to large communities like Corner Brook, St. John's, Grand Falls - Windsor, Gander, or Labrador City but it means a great deal to the smaller municipalities in the Province who are operating on a shoestring, on a day to day basis, and do not know if they can make it from one day to the next. How many calls did I get when I was myself in Government from municipalities saying they were having problems paying our electrical bill? And, then you would make a special grant available to try and get a small council over the hump so that they could collect a few more taxes and meet next month's electrical bill. How often did I run into that? Quite often. Municipalities around the Province are not getting that same consideration today from this Government. They are getting a cold, callus, response from this Government, where you would actually go to the point where you would cut out a social assistance component in the Municipal Grants Act. That is very, very shameful. Municipalities around the Province are going to have to pay a whole lot more in debt servicing.

Before it was a blanket type of thing, in which a community, if they had a water and sewer debt, paid 20 per cent to the fixed revenues, and even that was high. I have to say when I was in Government myself, how often did I go to Cabinet and say to the Cabinet, 'look, we have communities around this Province who cannot meet that 20 per cent without really cutting back and without really suffering.' And now we find that under the new Municipal Grants Act there are councils in the Province, not all mind you, but some councils will have to pay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 1984.

MR. DOYLE: Some councils will have to pay as high as 40 per cent debt service. In 1984? I think it was 20 per cent at that time as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Okay, it was 15 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Yes, right. It was 15 per cent back in 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, and you made a big stink about it.

MR. DOYLE: Then it went to 20 per cent in 1984. So I can remember the hue and cry on that. As a matter of fact, I believe I was Minister of the department at that time when it went to 20 per cent, and I felt that was high.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Hazel was it? In any event, Mr. Speaker, there are municipalities in the Province today that are going to have to pay up to 40 per cent. Now some town councils can afford to do that, some of the very large ones, but even the large ones will have to cut back in some areas. I mean, if you are going to pay 40 per cent of your fixed revenues in debt servicing, then even the larger ones will have to cut back in some areas in order to meet that obligation, or they will have to reduce service or increase taxes. Those are the only two areas that are available to them. So what the Government is essentially doing is grabbing a greater share of taxes in the Province, and they did it through the payroll tax and the gasoline tax, and the diesel fuel tax and what have you, they grab a greater share of the tax revenue but give back less.

Now one would not mind all that much if the Government and the Minister of Finance was to come in with a Budget and say, 'we are going to grab a greater share of the taxes, but in turn we are going to give it out on this hand to municipalities and try to make it a little bit easier for them to exist.' But they grab it on the one hand and they grab it on the other hand as well -

MR. SIMMS: Robin Hood.

MR. DOYLE: Grabbing it from the smaller communities who can least afford to pay it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know but we are going to see a - I certainly hope we do not. We are waiting for the municipal capital program to come down. I believe that program is due to come down at the end of April, I believe we were told, or the first of May. Today is the first of May and we still do not have the municipal capital program. I am just wondering if municipalities across the Province are going to get a scare this year and are going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: $100 million.

MR. DOYLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: $100 million.

MR. DOYLE: $100 million, well I hope so, I certainly hope so, but municipalities are not confident. I am not speaking for the federation, but I have spoken to certain members in the federation and they are not confident that there is going to be a very large municipal program this year. I am just wondering if the municipal capital program may not very well be eliminated for this year. I certainly hope not. I hope there is $100 million there, but the Government has cut back in that area as well and we see the Government coming in with a Regional Service Board Bill which is going to, again, under that Act place a greater burden and responsibilities on municipalities because of policing. What the Government seems to be trying to do with the Regional Service Board Bill as well passes along greater responsibilities to town councils in the Province, and we heard that -

MR. SIMMS: The federation wants them to revisit that, and they (inaudible) refused.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, the federation has every right to ask Government to revisit that one.

It is shocking what the Government is doing in trying to pass responsibility on to councils. Policing is probably another area that the Government is going to try to pass total control onto. You see special events now, a radical change again, coming about, special events that municipalities are going to have to if they have policing at regattas, and if they have policing at stadiums, or rock concerts, or anything of that nature, then municipalities are being asked again to bear the cost of that. Now, where is it all going to stop?

MR. SIMMS: Walter does not like that. Even Walter is opposed to it.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I have to say that the Member for Pleasantville is a good, honest, straightforward, upright, clear-thinking, Member. Whenever he has something to say, and I have seen it in Committee the same way, if he has something to say about the Government he will say it. Now, I do not always agree with some of the things he says, but he is not afraid to speak up and say something about his own Government if it needs to be said.

MR. SIMMS: A real socialist.

MR. DOYLE: A real socialist, I believe. But, again, Mr. Speaker, the Government is engaged now in trying to pass policing along to municipalities, and that can be seen with their latest policy, that the city is going to have to pay for policing when special events happen within the city, like the Regatta, and what have you. They are forcing communities, at the same time, to increase their mil rate. Now, we all know there are communities within the Province who have a very low mil rate, one would say a ridiculously low mil rate, and I can see that happening, but there are other communities within the Province who have a high mil rate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Do not tell me, twenty minutes?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition must be searching for motions to put on the floor when they put one on like this, which is totally inaccurate: Be it resolved that the House of Assembly oppose the Provincial Government's policy of reducing funding for municipalities, and shifting costly responsibilities to municipalities, and so on. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth. We have worked over a period of fourteen months to bring about the best grant's program in the country, bar none. If the hon. Member feels that shifting dollars, shifting dollars from the urban areas of the Province to the rural areas is wrong, I fail to see his line of thinking, because we said in the election - I think he quoted the Premier earlier, if I heard him correctly, as saying that funding would be promised by the Premier to smaller municipalities, and we would focus on the needs of rural Newfoundland. I think that is a fair statement. I think that throughout the election campaign a lot of our Members, certainly the Members running in the rural areas, and most certainly the Premier, made comments like that, saying there were tremendous needs, particularly in the area of servicing of all kinds, water and sewer, roads, and I suppose you could carry it on to hospitals, education, and almost every area of Government, rural Newfoundland needed a lot of attention. There is no question about it, we campaigned and the Premier made comments similar to that quoted by the hon. Member, funding promised to smaller municipalities.

So, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we found out, and I guess the most important thing we found out in our study, which was carried out with a consulting firm and our own staff over fourteen months as I mentioned, the most important thing we found out, and it was really no great secret at all, but we found out in some detail by a thorough analysis of all municipalities in the Province, starting with consultation with some selective communities of varying sizes in Newfoundland and Labrador, a consultation that took place between the consultants, our staff, and these municipalities, particularly the staff of these municipalities, we found out there was a great disparity in fiscal capacity, to use that word. I suppose it is the only word you can properly use because I think it best describes the ability of a community to handle its needs financially.

We found that there is a great disparity between the urban areas and the rural areas of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, in case Members of the House are not aware - some Members are not aware - we only have in Newfoundland twelve communities with populations greater than 5,000 people. And that is all. We have another thirty-six that have populations between 2,000 and 5,000. So thirty-six and twelve. We have forty eight communities and that is all in the entire Province with populations greater than 2,000. Alright?

Now what does that tell us? That tells us that we have forty-eight communities with populations greater than 2,000, and forty-eight only, because population pretty well dictates fiscal capacity, because they grew to be 2,000 or more because of an industrial business base of some sort. In some cases it might be a fish plant, in other cases a paper mill, or in the case of St. John's a major service area servicing pretty well - well, a good portion of the island for sure.

So we have these urban communities, growth centres if you like, where they have good fiscal capacity because they have an industrial, business and residential tax base - forty-eight communities. Counting the local service districts which are some two hundred in number and 309 incorporated municipalities, let's call it 500 communities in the Province. We have only forty-eight communities - that is all - that have what I describe as a relatively good fiscal capacity in industry, business, residential.

The other 450 communities have a deficiency. And that was clearly shown in the study. And we analyzed every single community with no exception. So at the end of the day the consultants and our own people and myself, because I was part of the process, we had to decide what we would do with the pot of money that is available through the municipal grants structure that was previously available in the old programme. We knew we were not going to continue with the old programme. We knew we were going to recommend changes. The decision was made that we would make a shift in allocating those dollars pretty well across the board, urban and rural, a shift so that communities without an adequate tax base - pretty well with a residential tax base only - would receive an equalization, an amount of money to help equalize them. That was the first component. Equalize them up at least to a relatively equal playing field. That was not the whole portion of the programme, of course, that was just one factor. And if we could get them relatively equalized so that there would be a shift in dollars away from those forty-eight communities I mentioned with good tax bases, then we could proceed from there with an incentive component.

And the next component really says that if communities are doing more for themselves, if they are being fiscally responsible, if they have reasonable rates of taxation - not exorbitant rates but reasonable rates, that is all - we will reward them with dollars from the incentive component. Now, what I find amazing is that the Opposition would criticize a programme where everybody, I am sure on both sides of the House would agree, the greatest needs for water and sewer and roads are in the rural sectors of the Province. Where the capacity to deliver and assist - as far as financial assistance to the Province, assisting the Province in delivering the needs - is just not there. And to criticize a programme where we have caused that shift to take place - and we clearly have -

AN HON. MEMBER: They criticize everything.

MR. GULLAGE: Criticize everything, that is right, is just amazing to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Now, mention was made of the water and sewer corporation - I cannot let that one pass by - because every now and then that comes up in the House. We said in our campaign we would do an immediate assessment of the ability to deliver by way of establishing a corporation similar to a utility to deliver water and sewer needs throughout the Province. Which would involve, of course, take over of existing infrastructure and then looking at the needs throughout the Province, which is by the way, some two and a half billion dollars; two and a half billion not counting what is in the ground right now, not counting replacement. We would have an assessment of that.

We have delivered on our promise, Mr. Speaker. That is what we promised we would do, we would do an assessment, we have done the assessment and now, we are not saying that we will not find a way to do it because maybe we will; so far though, we have not. We have researched, we have used two international organizations who worked with municipalities throughout North America, one is in Canada and one is in the United States.

We have worked with both of those and we have asked them, based on their research, is there any way that such a Corporation could be established and so far, and we have checked with other provinces and checked with some of the States, particularly those parts of the United States which have had great difficulty in this area; so far, we have not been able to find a way for such a Corporation to be operational, that does not mean we will not find a way, perhaps we will, but it is not as if we have not addressed it because we certainly have.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the grants programme for a moment. We have really two parts in the grants programme; well, actually the grants programme is one thing and the debt subsidy is another portion of the programme. In the beginning of course they were separate, but I think they have been twinned and put together by the municipalities, so I might as well say we have two components, one being the grants of which I spoke, incentives, dollars that are spent by the Province to assist municipalities and we have the debt assistance that we have asked municipalities to assist in delivering capital works by way of helping with the repayment of debt.

Mr. Speaker, when we shifted the dollars to the rural municipalities, that meant that almost without exception, most rural municipalities in the Province benefited by that shift in dollars; they are now receiving more money from the grants than they received previously. However, when those same communities were asked to assist with repayment of existing debt for water and sewer and roads in the Municipal Financing Corporation, when that factor was added in, that caused a lot of the rural communities that were in a positive position to go to a negative position, and that has caused some of the problems; because if you are in a small community in Newfoundland, I hesitate to name names, but I could name almost any rural municipality, and the grants portion of the programme, you are impacted in a positive way there, but then you are asked to repay something on the existing debt in the Corporation, and that causes you to go into a negative position, well naturally of course there would be concern about that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the actual impact on municipalities as far as the debt in the financing Corporation is only $2 million for the entire Province, $2 million dollars for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, faced off against a grants programme, which is in the neighbourhood of $40 million, so, clearly, the advantage is still there, clearly there to the advantage of the rural municipalities and the urban municipalities I might add, because the grants programme is fair across the board, but, Mr. Speaker, what we asked basically is that 60 per cent, or I should say 40 per cent if I talk from the municipality's stand point, 40 per cent of the water and sewer debt per household, 40 per cent of the existing debt in the Corporation per household, would be the most that we would expect a municipality to pay up to a maximum of $300 a household.

Many communities of course had a great capacity and great room if you like to pay a little more towards the water and sewer debt that was in the Corporation and the roads debt and were not impacted. Others of course had a lot of infrastructure already put into the ground and were already close to that $300 level and therefore had some difficulty in the sense that we had to cap it at $300 anyway but their plea to me is, what happens in the future, what happens in the future with water and sewer debt with communities that have reached their capacity to pay?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have capped it at $300 a household as far as existing debt is concerned; $300 per household we are expecting communities to pay up to $300, in many cases it is well below that, on the existing debt that is on the books. Well, I think I have said many times whenever I have been asked about the upcoming water and sewer allocations, the capital works for this year, that we have worked long and hard to come up with a component in the criteria that will fairly address and recognize the fiscal capacity of municipalities.

I mean if they are now paying a large amount of debt per household at the $300 level or close to it, then we have to consider that factor in allocation of capital works because we certainly cannot ignore communities that have a large need, whether it be environment or health or a combination of both, if they have great needs we have to address those needs in the light of the fiscal capacity that they have. We just cannot say because you have reached this amount of debt, you know, currently on the books that we are not going to give you water and sewer and roads allocation. So that component has been very difficult to arrive at. I think we have a component that is established now and I would hope that the capital works when they are announced will be received as being very positive. It will address the needs of communities across the Province identifying, as it did in the past, the need as established in the growth of the community, the need for the services, the environment factors and health factors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. GULLAGE: Fairness and balance. That is right. But also being very fair by looking at that community and saying: what is the fiscal capacity of this town or city, given the amount of debt that they are paying right now per household. Mr. Speaker, we see that as being very fair. I do not know if it was ever done in the past the way we are doing it now, but doing things right, you know, is the way we feel we should operate as a Government. And this is very right and very fair, the fact that we are helping rural communities with our Grants Program, considering rural communities with our Debt Retirement Program, both existing debt and future debt, Mr. Speaker, is obviously very fair.

We have, if anybody is interested on the Opposition, fifty communities in this Province which have no services at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GULLAGE: We have in those communities some 8,500 houses, so we have a ways to go. As I mentioned earlier we have $2.5 billion of water and sewer and roads needs within our municipalities, now that is not counting, of course, the need for roads, if you like, as far as my colleague's Department is concerned in Works, Services and Transportation. But within communities themselves we have this $2.5 billion need. I can go on talking about the need for replacement. If you want to take replacement needs you are going to be pushing another $2 billion. And replacement is not something we can ignore, because we have communities throughout the Province that have had infrastructure in the ground for a long time and the need for replacement is going to be there in some cases in the short term, but certainly replacement is going to be a very real factor as far as the future is concerned.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing a tremendous job in addressing the needs of municipalities. For anybody to say that we have not addressed the problems of municipalities in the last two years is ludicrous because we have looked at almost every program in existence. We have made positive changes throughout the Department, Mr. Speaker, and these changes have been well received throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think the future will tell, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that our Grants Program will show great benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and time will tell. But this motion, Mr. Speaker, is clearly out of order. It makes absolutely no sense, and certainly does not speak to reality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I want to make a few comments, and listening to what the Minister just said, the sad part about it is he believes everything he said and that is what is frightening. Because I happen to have, somehow it got into my possession, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the grant structures for this Province, and how each municipality is going to be affected, and the amount of money they were receiving under the old system, and how much they are going to receive under the new system. I got it somehow, Mr. Speaker, I fell into that. Someone delivered it. Probably the Minister sent it to me, Mr. Speaker. But in any case, what the Minister said today and what the Premier and the Minister and fifty-two candidates for the Liberal Party said in the last election -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no resemblance.

MR. TOBIN: There is no resemblance, Mr. Speaker. There is no resemblance, because I got two copies, I have one for my friend for St. John's East if he does not have one yet, of the Liberal campaign policy manual. I got a copy of what the Minister said, and, Mr. Speaker, what was put in brochures by Liberal candidates and what was said on the stage in Parkers Cove at a public meeting was that this Government was going to put in place a water and sewer corporation. What did the (inaudible) say, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that? It was never said. Is the Minister saying that was not said by Members who were seeking the Liberal candidacy in the last election? Is that what the Minister is saying? Well then I can show the Minister evidence that it was said and that it was circulated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what was said in the last election -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say? Tell us.

MR. TOBIN: A Liberal Government will undertake immediately to establish a provincial water and sewer corporation that would take over and continue to operate all existing water and sewer facilities and over a period of years build and expand new ones to areas not now served in much the same manner that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro expanded electricity service to all parts of the Province under the rural electrification program. The water and sewer corporation could, like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, borrow money to build a system to service the presently unserviced area of the Province and repay those monies from its overall cash flow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence that the Premier has followed through? Where is the evidence? Mr. Speaker, I know where the evidence is, on the T-shirts and the hats of the public servants of this Province. That is where the evidence is. If you turn on the T.V. in the evening all you can see is hats and T-shirts and banners that 'Clyde lied.' That is the evidence. That is the evidence of the water and sewer corporation that was promised throughout this Province.

There are a lot of other issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Carbonear should speak. When you look across the House and you see the Member for Carbonear, the Member for Placentia and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Member for Naskaupi, all of who played major roles in no small way, Mr. Speaker, played some significant roles in the municipal movement throughout the Province. I had the opportunity to be associated with them from time to time when I served on council as well. But why, with the experience, knowledge and commitment they have and have had, no doubt about that, why do they continue to let rural Newfoundland in particular fall by the wayside. When I go to my district, which I did this past weekend, last summer I went to Port au Bras, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of what I am talking about and every deputy Minister who has ever been in the department for the past ten years is aware of what I am talking about, the people in Port au Bras do not have a water supply. Last year there was money put in place for a study and the study showed beyond any doubt that it is a health hazard and everything else, it could be bad. Well I am hoping this year - and I hope the Minister will listen to what I am saying because I am hoping this year that the Minister will provide funding for Port au Bras.

Mortier, Mr. Speaker, is another example of people not being able to get - and it is a difficult situation, and the Minister and I had discussed Mortier on several occasions, Mortier - Fox Cove Town Council, and it is not easy. It is not easy for the Minister to solve the problems either, but something has to be done to put in place a mechanism to deal with it.

You have the whole amalgamation issue that this Government has bungled day in and day out. Now, you hear the city council in St. John's calling upon the Member for St. John's South, for example, to state his position. They are wondering why, all of a sudden, the Member for St. John's South who has more lip, Mr. Speaker, than a rubber boot, and on this issue the Member for St. John's South has been silent. Why has the Member for St. John's South in particular become silent? I noticed the city council praised the Member for Pleasantville for having the courage to take a stand. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance from St. John's Centre, and the Minister of Education from St. John's North, as a matter of fact the Minister of Education is after running in so many districts nobody knows which district he represents, they are in Cabinet and I can somewhat understand why they are not taking a position, but why the Member for St. John's South cannot join the Member for Pleasantville -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the matter with the Member for St. John's East?

MR. HARRIS: I spoke and I stated my position.

MR. TOBIN: He stated his position, Mr. Speaker, and stated it clearly. The Member for Pleasantville stated his position. I do not care what the Member's position is, it is not important, but I can tell you one thing if there is a council in my district that wants my position on a matter I will not clam up like the Member for St. John's South. The way the Member for St. John's South has been trying to get into Cabinet and take the job from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that is the reason why he has not opened his mouth, because he is trying so hard to take the Minister's job. She should be aware of what is happening, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Exploits should be aware of what is happening, too, because under normal circumstances he would be the next person in. Now, I do not know if this is true or not and probably I should not say it, but I have been told, and I will not say who told me, but if I look straight across the Member will know who I am talking about, I have been told that the Member for St. John's South gets one of his buddies at the Evening Telegram to print that he is going to be next in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, whether that is true or not I do not know but I suggest that the Member for St. John's South ask a couple of his colleagues whether or not it is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you, his colleague?

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying who told me, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West has been totally misinforming this House. He has made some statements here this afternoon that I cannot stay in my place and listen to any longer. Number one, he has let this House believe that I am not supportive of City Hall's position on the urban core concept, which I am, and I have already said that publicly. He has not told the truth there and he is making accusations that are totally incorrect. If he wants to get on with his silly ramblings then, Mr. Speaker, let him get on but I feel that I have to rise and clarify my position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Member did not state his position, I said I read it in the paper where City Council said the only one stated their position was the Member for Pleasantville. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. Why is the Member for St. John's South trying to get up here and justify what City Council said. Let him go down to the City Council chambers and tell council and not tell me. What your position is, I do not care. I do not care, Mr. Speaker, what your position is, and whether you have your name put in the paper or not I do not care, either. I do not care who he phones to have his name put in the paper that he is going in Cabinet. I could not care less, Mr. Speaker. If he did not phone anyone, Mr. Speaker, sobeit.

Write a letter to the editor explaining you did not phone somebody like you do every other second day. Now, we have a Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: We have a Government that has lost all concept of what rural Newfoundland is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, there is the great defender of rural Newfoundland who just spoke, the Minister of Finance. When you closed eight hospitals in your Budget. What we have here is a Government that could not care less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Why do you not go to South East Bight or St. Joseph's or Paradise or some place like that and understand what rural Newfoundland is all about? Mr. Speaker, he was never outside the overpass, the University would not let him out there.

The water and sewer corporation: now where is the water and sewer corporation? When my friend from Carbonear gets up to speak I would like for him to tell us what his position is on the water and sewer corporation. I happen to have some brochures here from the last elections, particularly my colleague from Placentia and I hope he does not leave, as it relates to the water and sewer corporation. Those are the questions that I would like to have answered. Was this Government misleading the people of the Province about the water and sewer corporation? Did the Members for St. John's South, Placentia and Harbour Grace and other places go out and talk about this in good faith?

I would suspect he did. I do not know if the Member for Harbour Grace did, because he knew the difference. But I can tell you the Liberal candidate in Burin - Placentia West talked about it and promised it to every municipality in this Province. Now when you talk about changing the local grants system, for example, and you look at this sheet here, and you go to various places, and all the (inaudible) indicate the amount of money they are going to lose. And you have one place that is going to lose $118,176.

By the way, how much is Carbonear going to lose on this? Let me see what Carbonear is going to lose under this proposal. Yes, $100,000 roughly, $100,000, same as Marystown. Now how can any Member over there representing a constituency or a district that is going to lose thousands and thousands of dollars support this Government in a new municipality structure?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member will have lots of opportunity to explain that. Because I can tell the Member for St. John's South that I showed that to members of the union in Marystown what he said one day, him and the Minister of Development. What they said about me advising them on the shrimp trawler. And I forget what Hansard stated. And they were highly offended that the Minister of Development would even suggest that they could not make their own decisions. I can tell the Minister of Development and the Member for St. John's South that you will have, very soon, the opportunity to address the Marystown Shipyard issue. Within days you will have that opportunity and stand in front of the union members then and say what you said in the House of Assembly. I bet the Member for St. John's South will lack the courage. Because they were highly offended that someone would suggest that they could not make up their own minds and make their own decisions.

The fact of the matter is, is that the Member for St. John's South is always lipping off and never knows what he is saying, and he gets himself in trouble. Like they said down in City Hall, he is the only fellow who wants the gold and the bronze and the silver. That is what was said at City Hall. Give credit to no one else. The Member knows what I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The fact of the matter remains -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) his cousin said it, Gerry Colbert, that is who said it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is my cousin. He is a good councillor too. And it will not be long before he will be in here.

MS. VERGE: He might be the next Member for St. John's South!

MR. TOBIN: No he will not. But I can tell you who will not be the next Member for St. John's South, that is the present one. I can tell you that too.

But anyway, I am getting distracted, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that. I should not let the Member for St. John's South - the Member for St. John's should -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You should show a lot of respect to Ms. Hyde. Because come the next elections, Mr. Speaker....

But what is going to happen to the councils in rural Newfoundland? What do I tell the councils from Port au Bras, Mortier, Fox Cove and Parkers Cove? Some of the smaller communities that were assured of getting money. I guess I can tell them that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has no plan, no sense of direction, no commitment, like the Minister of Finance, to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, does not understand where rural Newfoundland is. But what do you tell them when they have not got water to drink? And I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs cannot solve every problem overnight, I realize that. But what the Minister can do is be fair in the allocation of funding. Not do it on - we have never seen in the history of this Province - even the Smallwood era would make this Government look bad in the terms of political patronage.

MS. VERGE: Make them look good.

MR. TOBIN: Make them look good, I mean, in terms of political patronage. Now why has the municipal grants system not been brought before the House? Why have we not seen how much money is going to be allocated this year for the Province? The Minister promised early tendering. We have not seen it. I suspect that you will not see it while the House is open. Nor will you see the amalgamation issue for the northeast Avalon brought in while this House is open.

MS. VERGE: Any more than the new grant system was announced.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. You will see none of that brought in while this House is open.

MS. VERGE: They announced the grants system just before Christmas.

MR. TOBIN: That is right, and so they did. And I can tell you something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia - is that this House is not going to close until the grant system is brought in. For those Members who think the House is going to close it will not, until we see the capital works from Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They can say what they like but the grant system will be brought into this House before the Premier gets his holidays. And the Minister of Development has not told us yet when he is going over to Asia to open up the Newfoundland office.

MS. VERGE: He is going to Ireland on his way to Hong Kong.

MR. TOBIN: Well, if he probably is going to Ireland then the Province could benefit from his visit. I hope it does. And I hope the visit to Hong Kong will be successful. But what I want to know when the Minister of Development is going to be going on that jaunt. Will he be going on that jaunt before we get the capital works approved? That is what I want to know. Because there are communities in this Province today - and I am sure every Member in this House, at least most Members in this House, particularly those of us representing rural Newfoundland - have communities that do not have water and sewer.

The Minister said today there was (Inaudible). Now I want to ask the Minister then and he is not here but I hope - will the Minister commit - he got up in the House today and he said: there is something like fifty communities that do not have water and sewer -to put the communities that do not have water and sewer on the priority list? Will Port de Bras and Mortier that have no water and sewer receive funding this year? Will they be put on the system? That is the question I would like to ask the Minister. Whether or not they will be put -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I circulate what is appropriate to circulate.

Because the people of Port au Bras and the people of Mortier, Fox Cove deserve water and sewer and this Government should give them water and sewer. They are hard-working, tax paying Newfoundlanders and it is now time; I can tell the Member for Placentia that when this Government was defeated there was an approved Budget with money in it and committed for the people of Port au Bras.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, indeed there was and this Government went up like they did with the money for the shrimp trawler, like they did with the $5 million that they left to their portion of the money that was negotiated for the construction of vessels at Marystown, they stole it on Marystown Shipyard. The Government robbed the money and they did the same thing with the money that was approved for Port au Bras, that is what is going on in this Province and the Minister of Development was the person more responsible for taking the money than anyone on the subsidy programme for vessels, and what could have happened, there would be more people working in Marystown Shipyard today, creating more money, paying more taxes, buying more things, giving Government more money to spend on water and sewer this coming year.

But that is not happening; I am sure we have all heard by now that there is such a thing as spending your way out of the recession, we have heard that in the past couple of days, creating taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe in that?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only ones who did not agree with it were the ultra-Conservatives of this nation, the Premier of the Province and the Premier of Saskatchewan and the -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By leave?

MR. TOBIN: I want -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: I would certainly give leave to my hon. colleague if he wanted to finish up in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in reading this resolution a lot of old thoughts I guess and comments which were made to me, as my hon. colleague mentioned a few minutes ago, I was President of the Federation for a year and I served as Mayor of Carbonear for seven years and while I was going down through this resolution the other night, it sounded sort of ironic because I believed back in 1984, a similar resolution was proposed by a Member from the Opposition, a similar resolution of the day, a Liberal Opposition Member in fact, and the response to it at the time and if I am not correct - basically, it was almost as if the roles have reversed totally, almost to the point where dollars and cents are even dead on.

I just want to make a couple of quotes to you. Just to start with, Mr. Speaker, Government Service Estimates, April 3, 1984 and the hon. Hazel Newhook, and a fine lady she was too, a good friend of mine, made a comment, and she made the comment after a question from the Opposition in Estimates and this is just part of what she said: some of the monies required, really should come, she was talking of municipalities and she was talking about cuts to the grant system, the grant programme and to funding capital works and she said, some of the money required really should come from the taxes they collect from their taxpayers. What a queer thing or a funny thing for a Member of the Government at that particular time to say.

The policy, just to get in very briefly to the resolution, BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the Provincial Government policy of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting costly responsibilities to municipalities - Now, I have listened here to two previous speakers talking about what we are doing as a Government and the cuts that we are making. Well, I am going to tell you all about the cuts that we are making as a Government to municipalities.

First of all, let me begin by saying that in 1986 and I could go back to 1984, it began in 1984 and it went to 1987, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, with a Progressive Conservative Government announced early in 1984 that a freeze would be put on capital works expenditure in the Province to amount to $25 million and that is where it would stay for three years. Well, it did not stay there for three years and went to four, in fact, it did not come off until late 1988. In 1989, just let me read down, in 1986 the previous Government put $25 million in capital works, in 1987 they put $25 million in; in 1988 they upped it a little bit, they put in $2 million extra which made it $27 million. Look what happens in 1989. In 1989 when we were elected on April 20, it took some time, if you remember, we went through that hassle in the House of not being able to get our contracts out in time because the House had not opened and all this, and for some reason or another the hon. Minister managed to convince this Government in 1989, the same year as the opposite colleagues were defeated, rose that $27 million to $40 million. Last year that $40 million became $53 million. Now I am not talking about the money we put in Labrador either, on either one of those cases, I believe last year it was $53 million in the Province, and it was something like $11 million went into Labrador. So it is unbelievable the difference. In fact, there is 100 per cent, if not more increase in capital works funding to municipalities in this Province over the last two and a half years than it was in the ten year period that Tories were in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Two for one or more.

MR. REID: Some Budget highlights, and, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deviate from the question somewhat because my hon. colleagues who spoke on the other side mentioned everything under the sun from amalgamation to cuts in health care, to cuts in education and everything else. I just want to read very briefly some Budget highlights for the year 1984, and that year Hazel Newhook was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Just a couple, one in particular, no salary scale increases will be provided to employees of Government and agencies for a period of two years. No pension increases will be provided for 1984-85. Does that sound familiar? A total of 550 public service positions will not be filled in 1984-85, and the salary cost of a further 150 positions will be saved through not filling these additional positions as they come vacant.

Effective January 1, 1985, the minimum fixed revenue contributions by municipalities towards utility debt charges will increase from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Remember that my friend from Cormack, from 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Do you remember the racket we had in this Province over that particular one? And the per capita component of the General Municipal Assistance Program will be reduced. And that is where they went from fifty cents back to forty-five. Do you remember that one? Anyone remember the meeting we had in Gander? Any of you fellows who were in municipal politics at the time must remember the meeting we had in Gander. If any of the other Members want to see some of these notes they are welcome to have them.

I just want to take a minute or so to read the headlines of the day, and this was The Evening Telegram, May 14, 1984. Right across the top it says: Municipalities Suffering. Federation Demands Grants Be Restored. This was a meeting that we had in Gander that was called at the demand of over 200 municipalities in the Province, and there were over 200 municipalities represented out there. Now listen to some of the problems that the mayors and councillors in Newfoundland had with the Provincial Government of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Budget measures included in the 1984 Estimates, 10 per cent reduction in the per capita grant; increased payments demanded by the Province on the capital debt retirement for water and sewer projects; a new scheme resulting in increased cost for property assessment and an increase in the industrial water rates -my friend for Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. REID: That was in 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, ha!

MR. REID: That was in 1984. And the comment by the President of the Federation of Municipalities at the time said these changes are going to cost municipalities a lot of money at a time when they can least afford it. I think most people would agree. I think at that particular point in time they would agree. I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about the amount of money that was taken out of health care, education and all those things in 1984, and the funny thing about it is that the comments that were made at that particular time by Members of Cabinet were basically - now I am not being critical because we are basically saying the same thing now - basically that the Province could not afford to continue putting as much money into certain services that they could - and remember at that time we were into a recession and rightfully so, so I am not being critical. All I am saying is that there have been times in Newfoundland's history when we could look across this wonderful country we are living in now and in just about every nook and cranny from one end of the country to the other everyone is in the same situation, everyone is in the same bind, there is no money.

I am going to go on now from 1984, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure if I should call you Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Vice-vice-Chairman, but you are a fine looking Chairman and we will call you Chairman. Now don't take that the wrong way my hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a fine old fellow.

MR. REID: Let us go on just barely three years in 1987 and listen to the Budget Highlights of 1987. Government will be providing through guaranteed loans $25 million. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Municipal loan approvals for paving, water and sewerage. Just listen to this one, this is in the Budget Highlights of 1987: a three year freeze on construction of nursing homes, new hospitals, and major renovations to hospitals, new public buildings, Memorial University buildings and the freezing at current budget levels of funding for water and sewerage facilities (inaudible) projects non cost-shared road construction. That was in 1987!

So, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know. This is our third year, we are going into our third year as a Government and we have had one problem, I suppose, this year, and God forbid that we do not have the same problem next year because I do not want to see us suffering anymore. I know that we had a hard time this year in doing a Budget, and I know that there are people out there who are saying that our cuts were too severe, but I do not think we had a choice. With all that said, the Opposition will get up and stand and criticize the Minister of Municipal Affairs who has put more into Municipal Affairs in the last two years than the previous Government put in the last four years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make those comments because - and I am not being critical, I don't think, when I make those types of comments to anyone. All I am saying is that this resolution basically, I suppose, comes out of history, and over the years we have been in a situation where one government has found it necessary to do certain things as it relates to the economy and the overall economy of the Province, and this Government is basically at this present time in the same situation. But with all of that said, I really do not think that at this particular point in time that this particular Minister has done anything up until now other than change the grant system somewhat.

Now, we will know that possibly in a week's time when he comes out and makes the announcement. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that when he comes out this year and makes the announcement for water, sewerage and roads, instead of $56 million he is going to announce $100 million. I hope he does. If he does, I, as the Member for Carbonear district will probably have a better chance to pick away at a little bit of that to be able to get some more services in my community, or in my area of the Province.

By the way the saving that the Provincial Government saved on the repayment schedule, by making it from 15 per cent to 20 per cent repayment, worked out to be a saving to the Province of $2.1 million. And that is sort of ironic because my colleague who spoke ahead of me was talking about the Minister, and I think the Minister replied a few minutes ago that it would mean a saving to the Province, this particular grant system would mean a saving to the Province of approximately $2 million, so they both sort of work out together. So, all the whole question and the whole answer period, and it relates to this particular resolution, seems like it has already been done, it has already been debated, it was debated back in 1984. Now, to get off that for just a few moments, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with the smaller communities in this Province being able to avail of a little bit better service than what they have been getting over the years in this Province. There is nothing wrong with little communities like Salmon Cove getting increased funding under this new grant system. There is nothing wrong with Small Point and Adams Cove getting an extra $3000 or $4000 in grant money this year because this hon. Minister decided to make changes to the program. The only thing, I suppose, that is wrong with it is the fact that it may be that some of our larger communities who have, by the way, in a lot of cases, been putting things in the ground. I remember, Mr. Speaker, a one-time Speaker of the House saying in my district a long time ago, saying to the town council and the mayor of the day, look, get the money, get it in the ground because they are not going to come and dig it up, and I believe that was the philosophy for a number of years not only in Carbonear and in St. John's but all over the Province. If they could get their hands on it get it into the ground, either it be pavement or water and sewerage, because there is nobody going to come and take it up. Worry about paying for it after. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point, I think, in Newfoundland where everyone is going to have to start paying a little bit of their share of the cost of water and sewerage. I believe, and I have spoke in this House, I think last year basically on the same resolution or close to it, I believe that every man, woman, and child in this Province, regardless of whether they are living in an incorporated area or an unincorporated area, and I have a whole slew of communities down in the lower part of my district that are unincorporated, they are not even communities, there is nobody there who acts as the Chairman or the Mayor, and I believe those people have just as much right to water and sewerage as we do who are living in Carbonear or you do that are living in St. John's. And, in order for us to provide a service like that, in order for this Government to be able to provide a service, therefore the pot has to be spread thinner throughout the Province and cities like St. John's, and cities like Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, and maybe even Carbonear, must be expected to pay a little more than what they have been used to paying over the years. I am amazed sometimes at some of the systems I know of that have been put in, not only in my district but in others, cadillac systems, water and sewerage systems, that are serving eight, ten, or fifteen houses, and for the sake of the cost of an artesian well which would probably be a tenth of the cost, and it could have probably provided the same service.

Maybe one of these days Municipal Affairs will look at the possibility of rather than putting in Cadillac systems in communities for small numbers of households, maybe an artesian well or some other system would be a better one to use.

Somebody on the other side mentioned about the water and sewage corporation, and the promise that this Government made during the election about a Water and Sewage Program. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be honest, and I will say here quite openly that I never thought very much about a water and sewage corporation, and I never used it, in fact, you will not find any of my literature that was used in the last election that claimed that I was in support of a water and sewage corporation. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, like a lot of other Governments in the past and a lot of other Governments in Canada sometimes it is necessary to take a second look at some things like those promises that people make, and quite often Government will find themselves in the situation where they cannot fulfil or they do not believe that is the right thing to do at a given time.

I am going to finish off, Mr. Speaker, by making some of my colleagues on the other side, as well as some of my colleagues on this side a little upset with me, because I have been listening and I have been challenged on a number of occasions inside the House and outside of the House to make my feelings known on the amalgamation issue between or the city core, that is what it is referred to, the city core concept.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it going until twenty after.

MR. REID: Twenty after?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. REID: Great.

I have sat and I have studied and I have listened and I have heard what the City of St. John's is proposing. I have also heard the argument from Mount Pearl. I have just recently listened to the Mayor of Wedgewood Park, he is a friend of mine, from out my way. I think he is from my hon. friend's District of Harbour Grace originally.

MR. CRANE: That is right, Sir.

MR. REID: And it my personal opinion, and I am going to be quite frank with you, and I am hoping that it will come into the House, it will come to the House eventually, I think it will, at least the question will. And if it comes to the House, I have already discussed this with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I can honestly say that I do not think that after this Government or previous Governments allowing a community like Mount Pearl to build, to blossom, to mature to the extent that only two years ago I believe or three years ago it was made into a city, I do not think that it is right for this Government or any other Government to turn around and assimilate such a place with the City of St. John's. So I have basically made my comment.

MR. WINDSOR: The Town of Mount Pearl (inaudible).

MR. REID: I do not think that it is fair to the people of Mount Pearl, I do not think it would be honest for me, and what the Government does I suppose is basically up to themselves, but me as an individual, the Premier knows where I stand on this and the Minister. I do not think it would be right tomorrow to take a town like Carbonear, for example, and try to force amalgamation from some other area, be it Harbour Grace, or Victoria or somewhere else because this particular town has made a name for itself, it has a history, it has a backbone, it has a sort of a different type atmosphere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. DOYLE: Give him a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: I know I am going to have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: When I think about the active role that Mount Pearl has played over the years not only in municipal affairs, but in sports and recreation, in all kinds of things, in education, Mount Pearl has always been recognized as maybe a little bit better than most of the other Bay communities because I would like to refer to Mount Pearl as a Bay community. A little bit better, but you cannot penalize a town for being successful, for getting the things that they have in Mount Pearl, and I say congratulations to them. That is how I feel.

MR. CRANE: A good Member.

MR. REID: If you had more communities around this Province that had the community spirit that Mount Pearl has I think there would be a lot of towns around like Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I really do.

Mr. Speaker, my final comment will be that I cannot support this particular resolution because it is well ludicrous for one thing, because the final comment is reduce public services. I really do not think that this Government has plans to reduce public services. In fact, I know they do not. And I will certainly vote against this when the resolution is put. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes there I thought for sure we were going to have one Member on the Government side. I thought he was going to vote in favour of the resolution, and I was even about to yield to give the Member for Placentia four or five minutes to debate the Member for Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on the resolution presented by the Member for Harbour Main. I spoke earlier in this session pertaining to the new municipal grants to the municipalities, and I would like to have a few more words on it now. For someone to stand and say that the municipalities in this Province have not been hurt by the new municipal grants structure tells me that a good number of Members on the other side just do not understand the municipalities. I find that hard to believe when you look around and see each and every Member in this House representing, primarily, a large percentage of the rural areas of the Province. In this case it is not only the rural that have been hurt but the major urban centres have been hurt as well but they can take the shock a little easier. Now, one of the components under the new municipal grant, the equalization component. Under the Municipalities Act the other three components were the per capita component, the social assistance component, and the roads component. The per capita component is gone, the social assistance component is gone and the roads component is being reduced to approximately $1941 per kilometre and that will be on a degrading scale and a decreasing scale over the next number of years. So, Mr. Speaker, first of all the per capita component will be replaced by the equalization grant, and secondly, the social assistance component, I do not know if it will be replaced or not, but there is a household component in there also that will probably take up some of the slack with regards to some of the other components that were dropped. The social assistance component, Mr. Speaker, cannot be taken up. It is worse now than ever before. The social assistance recipients in this Province had it bad enough as it was but now it is worse, and not only that, to add insult to injury there is more of it. Municipalities in this Province have always had a hard time trying to collect their municipal fees whether it be poll tax, property tax, or any other tax, and now, Mr. Speaker, it is worse. There are more people on social services. The councils could not collect their fees before. They even had lawyers representing municipalities, small municipalities in this Province that could not afford lawyers, but had no choice to try to get some of the back taxes that were instituted under the poll tax and the property tax scheme. At least before with the social assistance component it came right from social services to the council chambers every three months and they were sure of those funds. Now, how is any municipality going to collect those funds from people on social services let alone anybody who is on low income. They just cannot do it.

Mr. Speaker, I would say the jury is still out on the three components announced by the Minister, the equalization grant component, the local revenue incentive grant, and the household component, but where it is really going to hit is on the servicing of the water and sewer debt. One of the things done with regards to this institution in this new municipal grant, was the introduction of this new scheme just before Christmas. As every Member knows and under Municipalities Act, every municipality has to have a municipal budget submitted on or before December 31.

How could a municipality in this Province have their budgets in, adopted, done, approved by December 31, when just before Christmas, in comes a completely new municipal structure, a new municipal grant structure and a new structure for the repayment of capital debt, it just could not be done. Even if it could be done, Mr. Speaker, even if it could be done and understood by the municipalities, it could not be in by December 31.

To give you an example, I contacted a person fairly high up in Municipal Affairs, just after the new system was announced. That gentleman could not tell me the exact contents and how the new grant system was going to work; how could a municipality do it, a bunch of volunteers, who are out there with no expertise, acting on their own and no funds to acquire any help to do so?

When you look around and see the people in the Regional Offices of Municipal Affairs and in the mother Department here, in the bowels of Confederation Building who did not understand the grant. And to give you another example of the understanding of this grant system; right up until April 3, I had a council in my district that had their budget submitted, based on the new system, submitted and sent back to them five times; five times, Mr. Speaker. The last time it came back was on April 3.

Under the Municipalities Act, no council in this Province can change their fee structure after March 31; it is bad enough to do it once, I do not have to tell Members in this Chamber what it is like to bring in a poll tax or increase a property tax by one or two mils or even a half mil, especially in those hard times, but to have it done four times, to re-adjust your Budget four times, to have to increase taxes four times and then come back after the fact, after the deadline is up of March 31, and try to increase it, well they could not by law, they just could not do it and it was the fault of the Department, they came in on April 3, with an adjustment to this particular community and if they could not raise their taxes but yet they had to pay their bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is alright for Members Opposite to say that municipalities are not going to be hurt, but I will tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister brings down his Capital Budget for municipalities in this Province, I can assure you, the Member for Carbonear just mentioned the figure that he might bring in $50 million, $70 million or $100 million Budget; he can bring in, Mr. Speaker, a $200 million Budget this year if he wishes for municipalities in this Province and I can guarantee you today that I doubt very much if $30 million would be used, I doubt; if he brings in $200 million tomorrow, $30 million of that will not be used and I will tell you why. Because under the restructuring of Capital debt under the new municipal grant system, the municipalities now are strapped, they cannot pay. Everything that came in under the new system was based on all capital debt owing up until December 31, 1990, and that had to be repaid and the adjustments made over a period of three years.

Municipalities cannot do it this year, what are they going to do next and what are they going to do in the third year, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time absorb more debt. They cannot do it because any new funding allocated after December 31, 1990 will have to be allocated on the basis of the repayment schedule which came in under the new municipal grant system, and if municipalities find it hard today, to adjust for the previous debt up until December 31, 1990, well then, how can they afford to pay anything on any new capital debt? They just cannot do it.

What you are seeing of municipalities in the Province who are submitting budgets, working very, very hard on behalf of their taxpayers, volunteers in their own right and sending in budgets on municipalities to the Department of Municipal Affairs and they know, the Department officials know now, what municipalities in this Province can get funding this year.

I know up front without ever making an announcement because they got the records of each and every municipality on their desk. Mr. Speaker, how can any municipality in this Province meet the requirements of those rating sheets that are based on capital debt by Municipal Affairs? How can they meet it when it requires health and environment - 50 points? What was the reason for acquiring water and sewer in the first place? It is to do just that, eliminate health and environmental needs. First of all they got to get the funds to do it so automatically they are gone, 50 points for health and environmental reasons. Second, servicing factors - 20 points. How do they meet it when they have not got it? Now this is not only for rural areas, this is for the Stephenville's of the world, this is for the Corner Brooks of the world, for the Deer Lakes of the world and the Grand Falls - Windsor's of the world. This is not just for rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. In order for any of those municipalities to meet the 70 points pertaining to a rating sheet, how can they do it? I got one municipality in my district that you would think for sure would meet the 70 points, and that is Deer Lake, and they should. They always pay on their capital debt-

AN HON. MEMBER: That rating system is only something to give them a reason to pork barrel.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, just to get on, just to meet a requirement and just to be eligible to get on the priority list you have to meet at least 70 points - 70 points. And to get on that list after you do reach the 70 points if you used that factor, there is no way in the world that I see where the Department of Municipal Affairs in the up coming year to spend any more that $30 million. They cannot do it. It is not logical, there is just no way unless - yes there is, there is a way and that is if the department tells the municipalities involved that have their request in, 'look, we will let you do what you did before and pay your 20 per cent on capital debt or else relax the requirements on the repayment on capital debt up until December 31st, 1990 because of the fact that it is spread out over three years using just the water and sewer subsidies alone, there is no way for them to do it.' It cannot meet the requirements. It is physically, financially and fiscally irresponsible. You just cannot do it.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the municipalities, I know, I am involved in the Humber Joint Council out home, out in Humber Valley on the West Coast. I know talking to mayors and well aware of who they are and what they are and who they represent over the years and still know a lot of them. They just do not know how they are going to do it. They have budgets sent in now, I know of one in the Premier's district that has a budget sent in, unless they change it at the last minute, that showed a deficit. I think it is one of the amalgamated areas, I think it is Irishtown, Summerside, if I am not mistaken. Now what is going to happen? What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, when the checks start bouncing in municipalities? Good question. Is this administration going to go out like they do in the local service districts today and say, 'You take over and you take over,' because that is as sure as I am standing here this evening. If it is not going to happen this year, it will happen next because municipalities just cannot take anymore.

Now, the debt retirement, that is right. On the debt retirement. On the components, on the equalization component, and the incentive component, the household component, I can see, except for a decrease in the road component, I can see where most municipalities can do fairly well. But under debt retirement, they just cannot handle it. Now if it had to go into the municipalities and say, 'Look, we are in year three or four going to institute this type of program, the same program, and give you two or three years to adjust, then I think that there is a possibility that it could work. But they did the same thing under amalgamation issue, they did the same thing under the new municipal grants issue, and they did the same thing with the health care issue, and the same thing with education. Everybody knew the changes had to come, everybody knew, but you cannot come in and wipe everything clean over night and expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to adjust over night. You just cannot do it.

There is a three year phase in on capital debt owed up until December 31, 1990, so anything new this year goes on top of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Hold on now. I can remember 1984 when the components were reduced from 50 cents to 45 cents and when it was raised from 15 per cent to 20 per cent on your local revenue, but we never put anything in place, nothing in place to say that you had to meet a certain requirement before you got any funding, nothing. And they did not have to put their rates up like the Minister said on the West Coast at the Humber Joint Council meeting that the average mil rate in rural Newfoundland is 9 mils. You can put the mil rate up to 50 mils if you want to. It is no good coming into a municipality that cannot collect a 3 mil rate or a 5 mil rate or a 6 and tell them that they should put it up to nine if they cannot even collect that. When you have a municipality in this Province that has 95 per cent unemployment, and I can name one: Jackson's Arm, 95 per cent unemployment. Now if they were on UI, most of those people, there is even a chance of probably collecting 60 or 70 per cent of the taxes, but most of those people never even got their stamps, so to speak last year, and they are on social services, and under the old program they could collect the funds through the social assistance component, but under the new one, they cannot do it.

The amalgamation issue, I just want to touch on that, Mr. Speaker, because when it was announced, the approach that the Minister and his department took was wrong and it is coming back to haunt him today. In the Deer Lake area today where the council, the Minister himself this evening, mentioned the fact that there is soon going to be a lot of replacement of municipal structure in the Province. And I have a prime example of that in the Deer Lake area. The Deer Lake system is old and soon will have to be replaced and you have municipalities around the area - namely Nicholsville, Spillway, St. Judes and so on - that are in the area as a local service district.

Now. The Minister has still not - right to this day - told the municipality of Deer Lake or the outlying areas what is going to happen. It is still up in the air about whether they are going to be amalgamated or not. The municipality of Deer Lake cannot absorb all those smaller municipalities without the Government putting some money up front. If the Department came in and said: here is a plan, laid out a plan over ten years, and said to the people of the area: look, we are going to amalgamate Deer Lake, Nicholsville, Spillway, St Judes and so on, but over five, six, seven, eight, nine years. Year 2 you are going to get water and sewer, Year 3 you will get lights or what have you, or whatever is needed, then I think that the people in the area would probably be more susceptible to it.

But under the system they have now they just cannot and will not do it. But municipalities are just hanging there in the balance, do not know what to do, doing up budgets, sent in to the Department, sent back. And the Minister in an earlier speech this year said to me that it must be only happening in the Member's district. I can tell you that it is happening in other areas and other districts of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: - and it is time -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: I will just clue up in thirty seconds. There is a lot you can say with regards to the Members opposite always saying: well, why do you not come up with some ideas? The last time I spoke on this I came up with some ideas, and there is a lot more that I have that I could share with Members opposite, the way that municipalities in this Province could be treated a little better. I am not only saying that just because Members opposite are there today. Even when we were there I could see all kinds of areas where there could be adjustments made. But never to the extent of giving them such a short time and nailing them with regards to the repayment of capital debt. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very, very pleased today to introduce this resolution to the House of Assembly even though I never got too much attention paid by Members opposite today. I tried as hard as I could to make some notes on what Members opposite had to say with regard to this resolution. Now, Members opposite really did not have a lot to say. I know Members on this side of the House made some very good speeches today, but as usual, a good sensible hard- hitting resolution that was brought into the House today was just completely and totally condemned by the Government and used in a partisan way, to just make narrow-minded speeches without any substance and without any thought to the needs of the municipalities out there. Of course, like my colleague the Member for Humber East just said, they cannot defend the indefensible. Now, municipalities, as I said in introducing this resolution today, are finding it very, very difficult to operate in the type of environment that this Government has established for them. They are finding it very difficult indeed. Why are they finding it difficult? They are finding it difficult, Mr. Speaker, because this Government has not kept its election commitments made back in 1989. That is why they are finding it very difficult to operate. The Premier, when he spoke at a convention out in Corner Brook when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, promised 800 to 1000 people at that convention, municipalities represented all across Newfoundland and Labrador, that they would receive a bigger portion of the Government's Budget, that they would get an easier ride out of a new Government, and, Mr. Speaker, this Government has not kept that commitment to municipalities across this Province. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs today, Mr. Speaker, has the gall and the nerve to stand in his place and announce to this House that, well, they found it a little bit different after they got in office because they found they only had a certain pot of money to deal with. They only had a small pot of money. Well, let me tell the Minister and let me tell the Government that we always had a very small pot of money to deal with expenditures in this Province, but it is up to the Government to establish its priorities for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was this Government who promised municipalities, back in 1989, publicly and in this policy manual that the Government put out, they promised an easier time for municipalities right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. DOYLE: I can table it. The Liberal commitment to develop all regions in Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be effective without a parallel commitment to enhance municipal government in the Province. There are more than 300 municipal administrations providing essential services and facilities, and the smaller ones in particular need more money, need more scope to operate, and more support from the Province and from the nation. That is the Liberal policy manual, and those are the promises that were made by this Government, Mr. Speaker, promises that have yet to be kept. And, the Minister again today had the gall to stand in his place and say, we have delivered on our promises in the new municipal grants structure. How have they delivered on their promise when we see a Municipal Grants Act that came in eliminating the social service component, the most basic component that you have in the Municipal Grants Act. They eliminated the social service component and they are forcing municipalities, some of them, in the Province -

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

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

MR. GULLAGE: I want to correct the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. The social services component and that sum of money was paid through the Department of Social Services and was a duplication. It was not eliminated at all, it is still being paid by the Department of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister got up and said what the Member said was not true. Let me say to the Minister what he said was not true.

Long-term assistance has been paid, short-term assistance has been paid -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Order! The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, just for the attempt to throw up smoke and mirrors, to try and deceive municipalities in the Province. Some municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland are going to have to start paying 40 per cent to service their debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DOYLE: Forty per cent to service their debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: How can they afford it?

MR. DOYLE: And we got criticized because it was 20 per cent that municipalities were paying on servicing the debt.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Some municipalities in this Province are going to have to start paying up to 40 per cent to service their debt.

MS. VERGE: That is not what the hon. the Member for Carbonear was saying.

MR. TOBIN: All of them.

MR. DOYLE: But also in the municipal grants structure the roads component, I believe, has been cut back as well. And, Mr. Speaker, this Government should be ashamed. It should hang its head in shame, Mr. Speaker, that they would come into the House and say that they have kept their promise. And I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say today that something to the tune of I believe $2 million or $3 million in cutbacks as a result of the new Municipal Grants Act. There is funding cutbacks virtually within every sector of the Department of Municipal Affairs and the new Municipal Grants Act, let me say to the Minister and to the President of Treasury Board is going to reduce, not only reduce dramatically funding to municipalities in the Province, but it will reduce it to the tune of $20 million over a three year period.

MR. SIMMS: That is right. That is true.

MR. DOYLE: Twenty million dollars in a three year period. And then this Minister got the nerve to come in here and say that it is $2 million or $3 million. Now let the ask the Minister and the Government is that the fairness and balance that they promised to the people of Newfoundland?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) open your eyes.

MR. DOYLE: And a greater portion of the operating budgets that councils have, a greater portion of the operating budgets are currently being used by municipalities to maintain and to service their debt. And on top of that they are finding it extremely difficult to borrow money for essential capital services simply because the greater portion is going to service the debt, and that is a step backwards in this Province.

MR. SIMMS: He is gouging.

MR. DOYLE: And how dare the Minister , and how dare the Government to say that they have kept their promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they have made it easier and given councils in this Province an easier time of it. They have given councils a rough ride. That is what they have given them. And they are giving them a rougher ride day by day, by day. That is what this Government is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: That is why people are wearing buttons and baseball caps.

MR. DOYLE: That is why people are wearing buttons and baseball caps saying Clyde lied.

MR. SIMMS: That is exactly the reason.

MR. DOYLE: They have every reason to say Clyde lied. Because he has lied to the councils, he has lied to municipalities, he publicly lied to the people in Corner Brook when he spoke at the Municipal Convention. He continues to lie to the people of this Province, and the people are starting to see it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: I suggest that the Member be reminded of that and asked to retract. And the Member knows this, he must be doing it deliberately I suppose.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Government House Leader was not listening or did not want to listen. What my colleague for Harbour Main said very clearly: this is why people are saying "Clyde Lied," this is why municipalities are saying "Clyde Lied," this is why teachers are saying "Clyde Lied." The hon. Member is repeating what people by the thousands in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying. He is not saying it. He is not making the allegation, he is not accusing the Premier, but he says that other people are. And I therefore submit there is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is doing now is absolutely disgusting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: What the Leader of the Opposition is doing is absolutely disgusting. He is now taking the opportunity to stand up and say something that is not correct in an attempt to simply impress the same word over and over and over again in this House, a word that is obviously unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgusting abuse of the privileges of this House. Now, when the Member started his discourse, his diatribe, his smear, he did start off in that way, but then he went on - if Your Honour would care to check Hansard - to make the statement himself. And, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously unparliamentary. This kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to further say to the point of order, and to point out once again to the President of Treasury Board, what everybody in this Province knows and what the President of Treasury Board will know tomorrow if I can get a cap (?) before the night is over, is that it is other people who are saying "Clyde Lied." Like the headline today in the Express extra: angry Wells -talking about the Premier himself - strikes out at "Clyde Lied" campaign. The Premier said it himself. The Member for Harbour Main, my colleague, is just simply repeating - not making the allegation - that other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying "Clyde Lied."

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

To the point of order. The Chair recalls, I believe - but I will check Hansard - that the hon. Member for Harbour Main said that the Premier continues to lie. I believe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: And if the hon. Member - order, please! Order, please!

If that is what the hon. Member said then I ask him to withdraw that comment.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, it does not bother me at all to withdraw it if it is unparliamentary. Let me just say that whatever is appearing on the caps and the buttons of the Province these days, in my opinion, is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: The Member for Harbour Main continues to defy Your Honour. Your Honour asked for a withdrawal and the Member did not withdraw and simply went on to say that he believes it is true. This is in open defiance of Your Honour and something has to be done about it. The Member cannot take this House on his back. He cannot continue to be unparliamentary and to breach the rules of this House without something being done about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. The Government House Leader is attempting now, of course, to use the hon. Member's time. He only has five or six moments left. That is all that is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I, Mr. Speaker, as I have the right to do, am responding to a point of order raised by his colleague the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there any way of containing the crowd on the other side?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying he is simply trying to take the time of the Member from speaking, but more importantly the hon. Member for Harbour Main is probably the most honourable person in this House, if there is any such description.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. Members to restrain themselves and let the hon. Opposition House Leader get to the point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your protection. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the hon. Member for Harbour Main, and I am sure Your Honour heard distinctly, said that he would save Your Honour the time of having to do research and all the rest of it, and that he was quite prepared to withdraw any remarks that he made that were unparliamentary. He did say that, and then he went on to continue his speech. I say to the Government House Leader he needs another one of these earphones or something, because he did say it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the hon. Member for Harbour Main to withdraw the comment unqualified.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have already withdrawn the statement and now if I could get on to my speech.

MR. SIMMS: Sensitive.

MR. DOYLE: They are very sensitive. The polls must be showing that honesty and integrity are being questioned within the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde lied.

MR. DOYLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, councils are not blind.

MR. SIMMS: They cannot take the heat.

MR. DOYLE: They know what is going on in this Province, and they can easily see what is happening and the Minister gets up today and tries to disassociate himself with any responsibility for it.

Now I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if this is an example of fairness and balance that the Premier was talking about to bring in a Municipal Grants Act that he had absolutely no mandate to bring in, especially when he had already announced publicly his policy to the councils of the Province. And councils are suffering, and they are suffering very, very badly because of the Government. The new Grants Act in the beginning was hailed by the Government to be a very, very positive step, but when we analyzed it, Mr. Speaker, we found out that approximately 180 communities, not 10, 20, or 30, 180 communities out of 308 had been negatively affected to the tune of $28 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Shame! Shame!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, you heard that.

MR. DOYLE: Twenty-eight million dollars, 180 communities. And the rest of these have been positively affected to the tune of about $9 million.

MR. SIMMS: Right on!

MR. DOYLE: So that was a net saving to the Government of $19 million.

MR. SIMMS: Right on!

MR. DOYLE: That is what they have done to municipalities.

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

MR. SIMMS: Sit down, boy! Sit down! You already spoke once did you not? You did not say anything in that speech (inaudible).

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

MR. GULLAGE: The hon. Member should not be quoting figures that are totally and completely nonfactual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Twenty-eight million dollars - 180 communities impacted $28 million is totally and completely wrong, Mr. Speaker. He should not be allowed to quote these figures in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. It is a difference of opinion between two hon. Members.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the figures that we are quoting is from the Minister's own Department, $19 million - municipalities in this Province have been negatively affected to the tune of $19 million, what did I say? 180 municipalities losing in this Province and the rest of them gaining to the tune of $9 million, a net saving to the Government of $19 million.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly. That is what he is saying. And that is correct.

MR. DOYLE: That is fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the Premier and this Government promised the municipalities back in 1989.

That is their responsibility to municipalities.

MS. VERGE: Passing over the dirty work!

MR. DOYLE: Municipalities in this Province raise $150 million on their own, let me say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. And now they are going to have to raise more. A whole lot more. About $10 million a year more because of the policies of this Government and this Minister. And that is going to be done in one of two ways. Tax increases or cutting back on services. It can only be done in one of two ways. There is no possible other way the councils in this Province can possibly cope because this Government has come up with nothing but a patchwork approach.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to support this resolution.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the Provincial Government policy of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting costly responsibilities to municipalities, thereby squeezing municipalities at both ends and forcing them to increase municipal taxes and reduce public services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion the 'nays' have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the Members.

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

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Simms, Ms Verge, Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. Power, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

The hon. the President of the Council, The hon. The Minister of Development, The hon. the Minster Health, The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, The hon. the Minister Employment and Labour Relations, The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Grimes, The hon. the Minister of Finance, The hon. the Minister of Education, The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Crane, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Gover, Mr. Noel, Mr. Penney, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Short, Mr. Oldford.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK (Miss Duff): Mr. Speaker, Ayes, thirteen.

Nays, twenty-five.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is a rather busy legislative day. There is a Legislative Review Committee meeting in the morning in the House and Development Estimates are going to be done in the Colonial Building in the morning, in the evening tomorrow is Education in the House, also, if we finish the tobacco tax legislation tomorrow, we will get on to the Estimates of the Executive Council in the House, so it is a very full legislative day, Mr. Speaker.

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