December 3, 1991             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLI  No. 83


The House met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today, that Mrs. Joan Dawe has been appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Community Health in the Department of Health, and has now taken up her position. She has moved in today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Obviously, hon. members don't want to see capable women being appointed to positions, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to continue with the statement, please.

MR. DECKER: Mrs. Dawe came to the Department of Health from a senior position in the health system, that of Executive Director of the St. John's Hospital Council, the agency which has primary responsibility for the planning and organization of hospital services in St. John's.

Mrs. Dawe is a graduate of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital School of Nursing and has a Bachelor of Arts, Major in Economics and Business Administration, from Memorial University of Newfoundland. She has completed a course in Hospital Organization and Management from the Canadian Hospital Association, and is a member of the Canadian College of Health Services Executives.

She has held a number of positions in nursing practise, administration and education, following which she held a position of Associate Executive Director of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital.

Mrs. Dawe has played an active role in the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association and in the Canadian Hospital Association. Additionally, she has been very active in a number of other health care organizations both provincially and nationally.

I feel very pleased to have Mrs. Dawe join the executive staff of the Department of Health, as I know she will make a significant contribution to the department, given her extensive knowledge and experience in the health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the minister for a copy of his statement. We welcome the appointment of Mrs. Dawe to that particular position, and we wish here well in her new position. We compliment the Government on the appointment. It is good to see someone who has come up through the system at the grass roots level to such an important position as Assistant Deputy Minister of Community Health. She appears to be very well qualified for the position. She certainly appears to have the credentials to do a good job, having been Executive Director of the St. John's Hospital Council and a graduate nurse, and she has a business background, as well. We wish her well in her new role.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries concerning the Government's proposal yesterday pertaining to the Joint Fisheries Management Board. I ask the minister, if the Federal Government accepted the Newfoundland Government's proposal for joint fisheries management, can he tell the House what responsibilities for fisheries management would remain with the Provincial Government and the Provincial Department of Fisheries?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, even though a lot of the current responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries would become part of that board and be vested in that joint board, there would still be considerable responsibility left with the Department of Fisheries. For example, the routine re-issuance of processing licences, plant inspection, facilities management in the Province of Newfoundland. We own and operate, now, about 200-and-some-odd facilities around the Province, marine service centres, fish plants wharves, slipways.

Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, is taking on a new role within the Province and that is something that the department would be very much involved in. Resource and industry development: for example, a lot of emphasis is now being put on secondary processing, the processing of underutilized species and, of course, the re-administration of fisheries loans, etc. So, believe me, the Department of Fisheries will have lots to keep busy and would not be without responsibility and without things to do.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the minister. The Premier said yesterday that the joint board would be a cannibal to the provincial and federal ministers. I would like to refer the minister to section 55 of the Government's proposal here, where it states that, 'except for limited circumstances, the decisions of the board should be final except for appeals to the courts.' Now, is this the Provincial Government's ideal of accountability, and won't this board really strip the minister of all responsibility for fisheries in the Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, to some extent, maybe this is the Province's way of politicising the fisheries and certain aspects of the fishing industry. Maybe the members opposite would not agree but I think most people will agree that it is necessary. There will be a public hearing process, Mr. Speaker. The ministers will have certain prerogatives. In areas of policy, for example, policies respecting their respective jurisdictions, the two ministers would have the right to overturn certain decisions. In the case of licensing decision and user group allocations, these decisions will stand, unless in exceptional cases, an appeal to the minister is permissible, but certainly, Mr. Speaker, any of us who have served in this portfolio, will recognize the need to take politics out of the realm of the issuing of licences or quota allocations. That is probably one of the big advantages, plus the fact that the public will have ample opportunity to have an input into the major decision-making of that board.

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

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

I am wondering if the minister can confirm, under section 44 of the proposal dealing with industry development, that industry development that would go to the joint management board would consist of all activity associated with the development of the fishing industry, including the aquacultural industry, development of harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors, and the development of fisheries infrastructure? I am wondering, as well, could the minister confirm that the new board would have specific activities for new gear, development of methods, construction, operation and maintenance of fisheries infrastructure such as wharves, community stages, slipways, marine service centres, vessel fleet development including fisheries loan board activities, processing studies, and projects related to quality and productivity, and yield enhancement? Can the minister confirm that this is really what he is turning over to this joint management board, if it is accepted? And, really, what would be the reason for the Province to have a Department of Fisheries and a Minister of Fisheries when you are throwing it all away to someone else?

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

MR. CARTER: I suppose you can pick holes in any paper, or any proposition, but the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that as it is now structured, the fishing industry in Newfoundland is at a very grave disadvantage, in that more often than not the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That has been one of the problems that we have had to encounter in the fishing industry. The joint board, made up of federal and provincial, with a chairman appointed by the board, will have certain powers and the respective ministers will also have certain powers, and certain rights of overruling the board. There will be a number of things done within the board but the Department of Fisheries will still be responsible for administering, for example, the marine service centre program, and other infrastructure owned by the department. Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, will be very much a part of the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries. There will be some involvement, no doubt, on the part of the board but, by and large, the development of aquaculture will remain the sole prerogative of the Provincial Department of Fisheries.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the minister is somewhat confused. I suggest that he read very carefully the document that the Premier made public yesterday, as I did last night, and there are some very glaring things there that really make one wonder.

But I want to ask the Minister: why didn't the Province pursue with the Federal Government the right to give to Newfoundland and Labrador authority for allocations for divvying up our portion of the total allowable catch so that we could give it amongst our user groups? Why didn't they pursue licensing of vessels for Newfoundland and Labrador, to ask the Federal Government to give us that? Because if we had that, combined with our jurisdiction and authority over processing, which we have, and the Fisheries Loan Board, we would pretty well have it all. If we had that we would not need a joint management board. Newfoundland and Labrador could then have control of its own fishery. Why didn't the Minister and the Government pursue with the Federal Government giving us the allocation and licensing of vessels? Then we could run a pretty good fishery in this Province.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is more to the fishing industry than the authority to issue licences to fishing vessels. That is why we look upon this board as being a board that can make the fishing industry in Newfoundland a much more viable industry, and will make the management of it a much more viable operation.

The whole purpose of the board is to integrate the Federal and Provincial responsibilities in fisheries. For example, it is often the case now where we have responsibility for the processing sector. Whereas, like I said a moment ago, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. For example, how can we properly plan a strategy to develop the processing sector if we have no authority whatever over the allocation of the various species or the setting of the TAC or have any input whatever into the decision making process of the total allowable catch?

So what this board proposes is that both the Province and the Federal Government will share certain responsibilities. All of which is necessary to have an orderly development of the fishing industry.

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 Education. Now that the President of Treasury Board has told the Conception Bay South Integrated Board that they will receive the same amount of funding under the new regime as the Avalon Consolidated Board, I wonder if the Minister of Education would now give the same guarantee to every other school board throughout the Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I see the hon. Member looking to the gallery. You must have some special interest in the gallery. But in answer to the question, very shortly the Government will make its announcement on the whole school tax question. We will provide the details, and certainly it is this Government's intention to abolish or totally reform the system, and to provide equality for education throughout the Province. That is our commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEARN: We have a second minister who has not yet been informed by the Premier what he can say.

I ask the minister then: now that the President of Treasury Board has admitted that they are going to fund boards from the Government, how much is this going to cost the Government?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this must be a difficult time for the hon. member, very difficult. He has been defending the school tax for so long, defending it as the right way to fund education, and now he finds that this Government is going to change it. This Government is going to change the whole system, and provide greater equality of educational opportunity in this Province. We have not put a figure yet on the amount that it is going to cost, but we will level up to provide equal opportunity throughout the whole Province, and rural Newfoundland in particular will benefit.

Now it is very difficult for the hon. Member to accept that. My feeling is, Mr. Speaker, that he has been for reform for years, but his caucus or his government would not do it. Now this Government is going to do it, and we will find the money to provide greater equality of educational opportunity in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems I had in making decisions was I was getting poor advice from the people whom I hired to do studies for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a good one!

MR. HEARN: The minister knows how much it is going to cost to equalize all school boards throughout the Province, it is going to be in the vicinity of $50 million or $60 million. I wonder if the minister will tell us how Government plans to raise that extra money.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - if I might be a little modest and say that he chose the best people in the country to do the study for him, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - and he did ignore the advice, but this Government is looking very carefully at that report, an outstanding report known as the Roebothan Report, an outstanding report, and this Government is looking at that.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait until the Government makes its announcement as to where it is going to get the funds to replace it, if the school tax is abolished. We will make that announcement very shortly, Mr. Speaker. We hope to do it shortly to allay any of the concerns and the uncertainty that people have in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to get back to the Minister of Fisheries, and ask him if he would clarify something for the House. A few moments ago, in answering questions asked by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Minister said, or at least I think he said, that the Provincial Department of Fisheries would retain responsibility for programs like aquaculture. I think he specifically said that.

Can he tell me, then, what the Government's own document means, on page 20 and 21, in two places: Under Section 44, where it talks about resource and industry development, and it says, "Resource development also includes complimentary harvesting, processing, and marketing activities, as well as aquaculture development; and then up on top of the next page it says, "Industry development consists of all activities associated with the development of the fishing industry, including the aquaculture industry? These are items that will be referred to the board and for which the board will be responsible." A moment ago he said the provincial department would retail responsibility. Which is it?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, what I said a moment ago is accurate, the Department of Fisheries will retain certain responsibilities for aquaculture. There is considerable aquaculture going on at the present time in the Province. No doubt there will be areas with respect to policy matters that will become administered by the board. But the day-to-day operation of the aquaculture industry, Mr. Speaker, as it is currently structured, will be the responsibility of the Provincial Department of Fisheries.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister will be aware that the new property assessments in St. John's have resulted in an increase in property assessments of up to an average of 25 per cent. The Mayor has indicated that the mil rate may stay the same or increase depending on the cost of amalgamation. What assurance can the minister give the citizens of St. John's that their municipal taxes will not increase by 25 per cent or more as a result of his policies?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, under the present tax system, where we do not have the Province completely computerized - and St. John's, of course, does its own in any case - it is difficult to do assessments as frequently as municipalities would like. I understand that they plan to have it more frequently now that they are on computer, but it has been every five years. So, that jump of 25 per cent is a large amount, but it is five years since the last assessment was done.

As far as the mil rate is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot speak for the City of St. John's and any decision they may make as to retaining their present mil rate or increasing their mil rate. That is a question that would have to be put, I think, to the Mayor.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to examine the cost of amalgamation to the citizens of St. John's, in particular, let's say, to those in Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, who, in addition to having their mil rate increased to whatever the St. John's rate is, will be facing perhaps an increase of 25 per cent in assessment? Is the minister prepared to consider some relief to these taxpayers from these harsh tax increases caused by his policies?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot speak for the City of St. John's, what they may do with the adjoining areas, the Goulds, Wedgewood Park and parts of Metro Board that are being joined to the City, as well. In some cases, I understand, the mil rates will increase, because they are lower now. Metro Board, that is not the case, I don't believe. I think Metro Board is substantially the same. But, certainly, the Goulds and Wedgewood Park are below the City of St. John's as far as their mil rates are concerned, and those mil rates will go up, I assume. I don't think there is any doubt that the City will have a similar mil rate for similar services throughout the city.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fear that the citizens of St. John's, in particular, these new areas, have about the costs of amalgamation to them personally, as taxpayers, and to the City, is the minister prepared to review - or does he know the costs of amalgamation? Is he prepared to review the costs that will be impacted on the citizens and municipal governments involved, and consider providing some financial support to make that impact gradual, say, over a period of four or five years? Is he prepared to do that?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying consistently that in every amalgamation we have done - and we have done some fourteen groupings - in every case where it is shown there is a disparity and an unfairness as a result of amalgamation, as a Government, we are willing to look at it. If municipalities are put together and they are able to handle their expenses with the revenues that are in place, assuming a blending of the mil rates, on an equal basis, that that would be fair, we would not be expected to help in any way. But, if there is an unfairness and that can be shown, Mr. Speaker, we would be willing to look at it.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. On October 23, 1989, a commission was appointed, a task force, in which Commissioner, Bud Hulan, was set the task to study the agricultural activities in the Province and give a report. He gave that report on February 14, 1991, just about a year ago, and we haven't heard very much about it since. Could the minister inform this House and the people of the Province where that report is now and what is the next step he will take with respect to that report?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that March of 1991 to November of 1991 is hardly a year. About a year ago, he said; it is closer to half a year, I would think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: March to the end of November? Mr. Speaker, the report was received, as the hon. member suggested, in late February.

It contained a lot of recommendations on the various sectors that had financial implications. We struck a committee of senior civil servants to analyze the various recommendations and to advise Government, through me, as to the cost implications and as to what, given the financial restraints and everything else, we should do with regard to the recommendations.

I might say to the hon. member that the report of that very senior civil service committee is pretty well done. They have been briefing me over the past month or so and I will shortly be making decisions on their recommendations. Government will deal with the recommendations that I will bring to them as a result of that review, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the minister. I wonder could the minister tell the House and the people of this Province, particularly the farmers, when he expects the in-house committee report, I guess we could call it, or senior civil servants' report, to be completed, and when he will be able to act on some of the recommendations in the report of this second committee?

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

MR. FLIGHT: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the real reason the minister doesn't want to answer is because he had a report from a hard-working committee just about a year ago, from February 14 to this year, and he put it off - a typical bureaucratic hideaway - he put it off to another committee so he could bury it.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the commissioner, Mr. Bud Hulan, is desperately trying to get some publicity for his report by presenting recommendations to the Task Force on the Economy, the Advisory Council, and by holding a food conference, I believe it was last week, down at the Radisson Hotel? Is he not doing this because he understands that the minister is trying to bury this report, and nothing will be done about it? If something is not done about it this week it will be too late for next year's Budget, anyway. Isn't the minister burying this report because he doesn't want to do anything for the farmers of this Province in next year's Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, I think, has his question asked. The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bud Hulan is one of the most professional, knowledgable and credible people in agriculture in Newfoundland today, and I am certainly not going to attribute motives to a man of that stature in the agricultural industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the one point of which Dr. Bud Hulan is very supportive and very appreciative, is he knows that the agricultural community in Newfoundland had, for fifteen years, been demanding a task force to look at agriculture in this Province. That request was ignored, and, of course, when we became the Government, we commissioned a task force report. I have had it seven or eight months and we will, in due course, deal with the recommendations made by Dr. Hulan.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Six months ago, Mr. Justice Hughes presented his commission report to the minister's predecessor. Would the new Minister of Justice tell us whether he has read the report, and would he say whether he will now release to the public all of the report, or parts of the report, in particular the parts dealing with the justice system - the police, the crown attorneys, and also the critique of the Department of Social Services? Has the minister read the report, and will he consider now releasing to the public all or part of the report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member can appreciate, I have not had an opportunity to review the report in detail myself, as of yet; however, on the release of the report, the Government's position remains the same, that we will not release the report until the trials relating to this matter have been completed, and there are still trials ongoing. At the conclusion of the trials, consideration will be given to the release of the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have to come back to that later, but I have a new question now, for the Minister of Social Services. On October 1, 1990, fourteen months ago, the minister's predecessor made a significant change in social assistance policy, categorizing maintenance and child support as non-allowable instead of allowable income. That change resulted in an overnight drop in income of up to 20 per cent for hundreds of single mothers and their children. I would like to ask the minister to tell us whether his department has studied the effects of that change and, if so, I call on the minister to release the findings.

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, that particular question is still under review. It will probably be completed in the next couple of weeks, and hopefully, we will be able to release the position on it then.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I interpret the minister's response as a commitment to release to the public his department's assessment of the result of the change in social assistance policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Would the minister say, now, how much money the change has saved the Provincial Government? We know how very much it has cost hundreds of single mothers and their children. What we would like to know is how much it has saved the Provincial Government.

Will the minister tell us whether, on getting the assessment of his officials, he will consider reversing this terribly regressive policy?

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

MR. HOGAN: Yes, to the last question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: That is why the review is being done, and that is why we are assessing the situation, as we did with the single parents. We will address this question as justly as we did that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Last week, in response to a question from me concerning a published report re financial assistance to Newfoundland Processing, the operator of the refinery at Come By Chance, the minister responsible said, and I quote from Hansard, "I do know that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has bought some crude from Come By Chance. They normally tender for their crude." I am assuming from that, Mr. Speaker, that the crude referred to is Bunker C. I wonder if the minister can tell us if Newfoundland Hydro, a Crown corporation, did not go through the normal tendering process?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro is subject to the public tendering process, and they go through the public tendering process for their purchases, unless there is some particular item that they have to sole source and that is indicated in the published reports that we see regularly, when they do have to sole source something.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, he still has not cleared the uncertain financial cloud surrounding this issue. I specifically asked the minister if, indeed, Newfoundland Hydro tendered for the purchase of the crude that he is referring to.

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

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of exactly how it bought its crude from Come By Chance. I am not sure exactly what it bought from Come By Chance, or if it was a petroleum product. I understand it did buy some product from Come By Chance.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister - it was last week when I originally asked these questions - would be able to tell us how much the Crown corporation paid for this crude and how much was purchased, how much they paid for each barrel.

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

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the details. I will take the question under advisement and find out.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Last month, I guess, the minister got a copy of the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review. Last week, the board announced an 8 per cent increase in compensation rates to employers in the Province. Is this one of the recommendations that came out of the report, and has the minister started to implement some of the recommendations that are in it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, in terms of, Have we started to implement recommendations in the report. As I indicated to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, upon release of the report that day, we were going to take the remainder of 1991 to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders in the system to give a direct response to the specific recommendations because they had had an opportunity to deal with the matters that were important to them in Workers' Compensation before the review committee. That process is taking place just this morning. As a matter of fact, I met with the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety, and dealt with a number of the recommendations that were of concern to them. There are meetings arranged with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, and with the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council in which they will be reacting to the specific recommendations. The board of the commission has released it's assessment rate at this point in time based on their own financial analysis of what kinds of monies will need to be collected in the next calendar year - operational year - from the employers that pay so they can project a balanced budget for next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS drinking and driving claims the lives of over forty Canadians weekly and injures another 1250; and

WHEREAS there is still a significant amount of ignorance about the problem and the consequences of drinking and driving; and

WHEREAS all citizens are repulsed by these senseless acts of violence and recognize the need for significant deterrents;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Provincial Government take steps to address the problem, specifically in terms of penalties and education, and provide meaningful access for interested groups to voice their concerns;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly make presentation to the Federal Government to address the problem in a similar manner.

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is possible - I intended to give notice today, if possible by unanimous consent of the House that this matter could be dealt with today in the appropriate place on our Order Paper. I leave that to our Leaders and to the Chair.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day in the House when the hon. member presented the petition on behalf of the 4000 residents of the Province, including a fair number from his own area, that I would be prepared to second any resolution he put forward. This is the resolution I would support and with the concurrence of the Government House Leader, if he agrees, I said at that time we would be willing to pass such a resolution without further debate because I think it is unanimous in any event. Therefore, it would be appropriate to do it right now at this time if the Member for St. John's East agrees, and the Government House Leader lets us do it now by a voice vote.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do support the resolution, although I think hon. members will know that over the last number of years there have been significant changes in the criminal code which have increased the deterrence and penalties for drinking and driving, and the penalties offered by the courts in terms of fines and suspensions, which are in fact larger in this Province than in many other provinces. Despite this, and we have seen a decrease in the number of drinking and driving offenses in this Province, there is still a serious problem. Some other countries deal with drinking and driving offenses far more seriously than us, particularly in terms of licensing and the effect of that.

The motion itself, I think, is a good one and deserves the support of the whole House. I will say that there may be a typographical error in the last word. It says, matter, and I believe the intention is that it should be manner. The last word of the resolution is there asking the Federal Government to address the problem in a similar matter. I think that word should be manner. Perhaps the mover and seconder would accept that as a typographical correction.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: To the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I read the resolution and I do offer my unanimous consent to also have the matter dealt with now.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Those against, 'nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Naskaupi.

MR. KELLAND: There are two things, Mr. Speaker, if I may. One, it is read into the record as manner, just as a small point. Is it normal to show that, that motion goes out of the House as unanimous? I ask that it be recorded as such, please.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period the hon. Member for Harbour Main asked some questions concerning the doctor situation in Goose Bay and I undertook to get the facts for him. As a matter of fact the hon. member said that there were eight vacancies in Goose Bay. Now, I have been in touch with the Melville Hospital and the complement for Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, is seven general practitioners, one general surgeon, one anaesthetist and one obstetrician. Now during the summer of 1991, there were four vacancies but for the last couple of months all positions have been filled, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DECKER: - in fact, this is the best situation the hospital has seen in many, many years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the administrator says, that there was not a turnover of eight doctors in the last two years, let alone in the last year. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Harbour Main has been set up again. Obviously, he has been misled by a malicious Liberal and I pity the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition on behalf of somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 people in the St. John's and western Avalon areas, who petition the House of Assembly as follows: That school tax is needed for education of our children and that the public be consulted through public hearings before any decision is made on tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, we have a petition here containing somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 names in this immediate area, that, if you did a rough calculation of the parents in the area will show that a large percentage of the parents have signed the petition. Why? The answer is simple. Out of concern for what is happening to funding in education. For over a year and actually over two years since the last election, the present Government has been fooling around with educational funding.

If we turn the clocks back to six months preceding the election, the Government members and in particular the Premier, were going around the Province talking about funding education. One of the big planks in the Liberal platform, was proper funding of education. The former President of the NTA says: when was that? He did not know because he was too busy going around looking for a fair share and the former Government started to put a program in place to give them a fair share and the Premier jumped upon it and said: this is tremendous, equalization, but not over five years, we will do it right away and what have they done? They have turned the clock the other way and turned the funds the other way because instead of improving the lot of school boards, the present Government has diminished the amount of funding going to the school boards in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. HEARN: It is true and the figures are there in black and white, black and white. The members, when they were campaigning, campaigned on the abolition of school tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. HEARN: There are radio stations in this Province that can provide tapes of members, in their paid ads, promising to abolish school tax.

The President of Treasury Board introduced a resolution in the House to have school tax abolished. It is there in Hansard. The point is the Government got elected because they said they were going to abolish school tax authorities and school tax. What they did when they realized they were in a jam is spend two and a half years trying to develop a mechanism to save face. Now for this past year and a half they have been saying: well - the Premier did not say it, it does not matter what anybody else said anyway, and the Premier says that to his own people. You know, it does not matter what you said, it is insignificant. He said: we will abolish or reform. So the problem is reforming school tax. He found out that it was extremely hard to reform the school tax authorities because they were doing a very good job of reforming themselves over this last few years, and they realized that we had a funding mechanism over which the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, will you ask them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat, please. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House, and particularly hon. members to my left, to refrain from interrupting during the petition. The petition is only a short time, and both sides have an opportunity to respond, and we should keep our responses for that.

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

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

We see the old defence mechanisms kicking in because a lot of people are extremely embarrassed over what is happening. As I was saying, over this past year and a half the Government has been trying to find a way to get rid of school tax authorities to save face, and yet not embarrass themselves, and it has been difficult. It has been extremely difficult. What they have done, in the meantime, is create a tremendous amount of uncertainty out there where a lot of people do not know whether school tax authorities or school tax have been abolished, and a lot of people are not paying their taxes, and consequently the boards are suffering. Then we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Oh, that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting the petition with, as I said, anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 signatures.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the petition, and I must congratulate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I passed that petition, nobody stood, and I asked if there were further petitions.

MR. SIMMS: He is entitled (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: He is entitled, everybody is entitled, but the Chair can invite people - I waited and asked if there were further petitions. There were no further petitions.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there has never been that big a fuss before about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to submit to Your Honour that it was standard practice in this legislature before this Minister of Education came that the presenter would present the petition and the minister would respond if he so desired. What has happened here is that the minister played a waiting game. It was the intention of the Member for St. John's East Extern to speak to the petition presented by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. We have reverted back time and time again to Petitions before when we jumped ahead, and I think it would only be fair, I submit to Your Honour, that the Member for St. John's East Extern be permitted to speak to the petition.

MR. SIMMS: Unless the minister wants to speak.

MR. MATTHEWS: Unless the minister wants to speak first. He can, and then he will follow, or perhaps the minister does not want to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I would like to remind the House that what the Opposition House Leader has just said is simply not correct. In terms of petitions there is no custom of back and forth across the House at all. That has not been my experience in the six and a half years that I have sat in this hon. House. As a matter of fact, a speaker introduces a petition and quite often there are no responses. Quite often two speakers from the same side respond or speak to the petition before there is a response from the Government benches. This is quite common, quite normal, and I do not want the Opposition House Leader to leave people with the impression that something out of the ordinary is going on here, Mr. Speaker, it is just that they got caught. That is all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not the Chair's job to invite members to speak. The Chair looks around and waits a sufficient time. If nobody rises then the Chair goes on to the next order. Hon. Members can appreciate if that were not the case we would get into all kinds of problems. What the Chair does is ask if there is permission to revert back, and I assume that permission is not given to revert back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Permission is not given to revert back? Yes or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Revert back and give the hon. Member a chance to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It did not come easy. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on his very fine presentation. I must ask the House's indulgence at my little lapse there for a moment. Because I will have to be truthful, I was expecting the Minister of Education to get up, and I am assuming now that he has no intentions of rising, because he would not have a chance to speak on this if I had not, so I am assuming that he is not going to speak.

But in saying that, I will have to go on record tonight in saying that I was a member of the St. John's School Board when the school tax was started, was brought about. It just did not come in an ad hoc manner. There was lots of consultation, lots of debate. I for one had problems with it, the same as all other members of the school board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister - could you ask him just to be quiet while I am making my presentation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked for order and all Members should extend that courtesy.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, why we consented to bring in the tax was very simple. We took into consideration the needs of the students first of all; the facilities where the students attended school, which was in great need of more money that was not available from other funding. The question comes across from the other side: why didn't we give it to them? Well, I do not know how that Member reads things, but the point remains there is $30 million spread over the school system from the School Tax Authority.

I have to say there that again this money has a local control aspect to it, where the boards can spend the money where they deem the necessity arises. I think that in itself speaks well of the School Tax Authority. Because there are needs there that government departments would not know about, and the need is for the local authority to address those matters. I think the School Tax Authorities do just that.

Again, we talked at length, days, nights - there was a whole group of men and women which had no axe to grind, nothing to gain, only what was to be gained by the students and the system in general. That is why we brought in the School Tax Authority. Now the School Tax Authority started I think with a secretary and a manager. Today it has grown, but naturally, it has grown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I must address the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. I am speaking to a petition. You didn't have the guts to bring in a petition only just a few months ago!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Now I am speaking to a petition. I would like to -

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) hon. Member (Inaudible) raise it after (Inaudible)!

MR. WALSH: Well, why did he raise it now?

MR. SIMMS: Raise it after!

MR. WALSH: No, I will raise it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member, please, and I ask him to make the point of order or sit down!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, not only did I present the petition, the Opposition granted me leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I would ask the hon. Member to continue with his petition.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is anyone within the School Tax Authority who would say tomorrow: sure, make changes to the School Tax Authority. Perhaps there are too many school tax authorities. I do not think there is anyone who will disagree with that. If the Government is prepared to say to the School Tax Authorities: we will guarantee you the $30 million plus an escalation clause over the next ten years, then I do not think there is anyone within that body who will disagree.

But what those people are asking for, what the 10,000 people are asking for is a guarantee from Government that we can sustain at least, at the status quo, the educational system that we now enjoy. We are always listening to people saying our educational system is not up to par with some others in this great country and perhaps that is true, but now, if this money goes into general revenue, what assurance do the people have that $30 million will come out of general revenue and go to where this money is needed? That is the problem.

School Tax Authorities, when the Premier went around the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. He does not have the leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some of the misinformation in the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, preamble to the presentation of the petition. This party, this Government, in the last election we promised to either abolish or reform the school tax. I want to make that perfectly clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: I threaten to strap some of those people who talk about abolition only, but we promised, as a party to either abolish or reform. Mr. Speaker, after we came to power we immediately did something about the school tax issue.

The former Government had introduced the tax equalization scheme and in the first year they gave $2 million, in the second year $2.5 million and in the third year, $4.5 million. Now, it would have been easier for this Government to add another million the next year, two the next year, three the next year, but in the first year that we were in Government, Mr. Speaker, we increased school tax equalization from $4.5 million to $10 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - in the first year, and we began immediately to fulfil our commitment, to either reform or abolish. It has taken a long time, it has taken longer than many of us had anticipated, but we decided to look at the whole tax system. The Minister of Finance has conducted a thorough review of the whole tax system and we are fulfilling our commitment to abolish or reform within that context, and, Mr. Speaker, shortly, we will announce what our position is. I think everybody agrees that the school tax itself is a regressive tax. It is a regressive tax irrespective of how much money you make, you pay the same tax with certain exemptions.

The tax results in grossly differing revenues in the Province and in some areas of the Province, there is twice, three times what is raised in other areas and, Mr. Speaker, the tax is relatively inefficient and this Government is either going to conduct major reforms or abolish. I understand the concerns of school boards. I pay tribute to school boards. We are operating in a system that requires more money, the system is underfunded, but having said that, we must reform the present school tax system, we must do it and we will do it and very shortly we will make our announcements on that, so that we can provide greater equality of educational opportunity for all people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6. To Move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate or further consideration of Second Reading of Bill No. 50, " An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region", standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and any amendments to that motion for Second Reading of Bill No. 50 shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any amendments relating to Second Reading of Bill No. 50 shall not be further postponed.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real message that is coming from this piece of legislation is the fact that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, just a procedural matter here. We have to pass the motion that we just read.

All those in favour of the motion, please say, 'Aye'. All those against the motion, please say 'Nay'. Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 14.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, we are back to Order 14. What it is we are debating 14 under Motion 6 which is closure.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that, that procedure be followed because it is indicative of, I think, the real message that comes from this particular piece of legislation, the failure and disregard of this Government to take into consideration the wishes of the people. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, when a Government is totally unconcerned for the wishes of the people, has no respect for the wishes of the people, and no desire to take into account very strong submissions made to this Government on a particular issue. In particular, I speak of course, of this particular amalgamation motion. The debate has gone on for some time. It is interesting that the Premier has hardly been in his seat this week during this debate, and the minister went off to Bristol, we all know that. He made a feeble attempt at defending himself over the weekend and I was absolutely amazed to hear the minister quoted. I assume he was quoted correctly, if not, no doubt he will correct the Evening Telegram.

The Evening Telegram quoted the minister as saying that it really was not important for him to be here. He opened the debate ten days ago and he will be here to close it tonight, or whenever we finally finish with this closure motion, and what was the point of him sitting in between listening. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having legislation before the House of Assembly at all if members, and particularly ministers responsible are not going to listen? What is the purpose of a Legislature if people are not going to have an opportunity to represent the people they have been elected to represent and to have people who are making the laws of this land listen to the voices of the people? Now, that is clearly what that minister said in his comment to the Evening Telegram over the weekend, that it really is not important. This Government has made up its mind. He as the minister has brought forward a motion. It will be approved, using the majority of the House of Assembly. It will be approved, as we now know, using closure to stifle debate in the House of Assembly. The minister has said: I am not going to listen to the people. And, I will deal with that in a moment. He said: I am not going to listen to the members, I want to go off to Bristol because there is no point in me being here all week, and government said: we are not going to let the members speak too long, we will use a closure motion - incredible contrast to the words of the Premier. He was also quoted in the Evening Telegram of Friday 29 in comments he made dealing with Mr. Clark. He says: I think he made an national commitment to provide for an opportunity for the people of Canada to have a say, Premier Wells said Thursday. It is clear that if the people of Quebec have a right to have a say then surely the people of the rest of the country also have a right to have a say. An interesting comment coming from a Premier who leads a Government that is forcing this piece of legislation through the House of Assembly and who has used closure more in the last two year than ever in the history of this House of Assembly. I think closure was used maybe three or four times in the history of this House of Assembly until two years ago when this Government came into power.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) nature of the Opposition to close the House when -

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South has contributed nothing to this debate. He was away all last week so please ask him to stay quiet while I am trying to make my few final comments in the twenty miserable minutes that have been allocated to me under this closure motion.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a point of foolishness, Mr. Speaker, and not a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, continually the Member for Mount Pearl makes reference to other hon. members who are not in the House. I ask him to retract that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl had made any disparaging remark about the member's absence but if the hon. member did I am sure he will withdraw it. I ask the hon. member to continue.

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

I made no disparaging remarks. In fact if the hon. minister took (inaudible) he did the House a favour in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this important issue. We are talking about listening to the people here. Last spring I brought forward a petition to this House with 18000 names on it, many of whom were from the minister's own district. A couple of weeks ago I presented a second petition, or three further petitions in this House, one with 16,000 names on it from within the boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, one with 1000 names on it from the Elizabeth Drive subdivision area, and one with almost 6000 names on it from the minister's own district of Waterford - Kenmount, within the City of St. John's, and Cowan Heights Subdivision, Mr. Speaker. That minister had the gall to stand in this House and say: we know what is best for the people, and we think we are doing what the people want us to do. How much proof does the minister want?

Is the minister aware of a poll that was done last week in relation to the fire department? The minister tried to tell us that the majority of the people of the region are in favour of this kind of a regional service. I say to the minister, as I have said in the House three or four times during the past week, that the majority of the people of this region do indeed support the concept, the notion of regional services, but this is not regional services we are talking about here. We are talking about services that are being imposed on municipalities against their will - without any input - it is taxation without representation. We are not talking amalgamation here, Mr. Speaker - we are talking annexation. The people of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds are not being given a choice. This is not amalgamation. Nobody is willingly joining together. They are being forcibly annexed to the great City of St. John's, as is the Southlands, and I dealt with that on Friday, and the planning logic of putting the Southlands in, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The people of Southlands make a lot more sense than the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, and there is not a soul in the Southlands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised - now we have had two motions; one put forward by my colleague, the traditional six month hoist which was talked out and defeated; and there was the amendment which I brought in on Friday which, of course, was not allowed to be debated because the President of Treasury Board, the House Leader, brought in this closure motion, so my amendment dies with the main motion. It is in fact being debated now. We will vote on both motions at some point in time, forcibly tonight. That amendment basically, of course, eliminated this whole bill. It just destroyed the whole concept of the bill, and it voted against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised to have a look at some of the facts. He said, in some of his speeches to the House over the last couple of weeks, that there are economies of scale. It is more efficient. It may well be more efficient for the Province. The Province may well save some money here by downloading onto the municipalities, but there is no great saving in the long run.

Just to take an example, if the minister were to look at fire protection in this region - the fact that this legislation may well be forced through this House this week will not reduce the cost of the present operation of the St. John's Fire Department - not by five cents; nor will transferring it from the minister's office to the City of St. John's save it. At the moment the minister has an assistant deputy and perhaps other persons in his department who are responsible for the operation of the fire department from an administrative point of view. The City of St. John's will have to find people to do that. I doubt if the assistant deputy minister or any of the administrative people in the department will be eliminated because of the fire department being transferred, but you can be sure that there will be additional administrative staff required in the City of St. John's to administer the fire department and all of the other regional services. The minister is fooling himself if he thinks that on January 1 the people of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park are now going to pay the same tax rate as the people of St. John's and be satisfied with volunteer fire services.

Now in spite of the dedication of fire departments, volunteer fire people around this Province - I was amazed at the Member for Carbonear who attacked volunteer firemen around this Province. I will not get into that now. I will take that on another day. But in spite of those types of comments, volunteer firemen in this Province have saved this Government hundreds of millions of dollars over the years in providing fire protection. This Government could not afford to pay all those volunteer firemen and fire fighters -I imagine there are probably some women fighting outside as well, outside of just Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, when those municipalities are forced to participate in a St. John's Fire Department, they are going to want a full service.

These numbers are subject to correction, but just a quick thumbnail look at what happens - if you had the Goulds fire department, a population of 4,700 people, Mr. Speaker, it is now costing them about $100,000 to operate that volunteer fire department. That is the amount of money that they raise and perhaps some comes from the municipality. If they were to operate that fire department with the minimal number of full-time paid personnel that would be required to make it comparable to the service provided in the rest of the region by the City of St. John's, it would cost about $2.5 million. That is what it will cost and the numbers can be verified. Similarly Torbay, which has a population of 3,730 people, there is approximately $150,000 a year now being spent on fire protection. They would be about $2.5 million a year. That is an additional almost $5 million a year - so far. Paradise and Elizabeth Park, they have about 8,000 to 9,000 people between them. You can look at over $600,000 a year additional, just based on the service that would be provided.

Mount Pearl, of course, to operate that station - there has never been a question that the station in Mount Pearl will be opened and operated. It has been a question of whom will do so. So that does not save any money in St. John's. The Fire Commissioner's report, if the minister would ever release it, will tell you that once Mount Pearl opens that does not mean that one person in St. John's will not be required. The Brookfield station already services an area far too large for a station of that size. His report clearly states that Mount Pearl is needed anyway. So there is not one dollar to be saved in St. John's because Mount Pearl opens, but you will still have to operate Mount Pearl. So you are going to need another thirty or maybe forty fire fighters in Mount Pearl to operate an equivalent level of service there.

So you are looking at $2.5 million at least for Mount Pearl, under St. John's rates. Maybe more, with the union agreement. Now if the minister ever releases the arbitration report on the labour negotiations with the St. John's Fire Fighters Association, then we will see another 13 per cent or 14 per cent increase coming from that report, to add on to all of that. St. John's with that increase on will go from $6.4 million to $7.4 million. There is another million dollars because of that arbitration report that will go in there this year. So now we are up to - pushing on to $20 million. For fire protection in this region. Now if the minister can show me where there is cost-effectiveness in that, I fail to see it. I fail to see any benefit.

The minister has not listened to any of the petitions; neither has he listened to the Fire Commissioner, who is an officer of government, with his own act as passed by this Legislature not so long ago, that gives him the right, mandate and responsibility to advise government on matters relating to fire protection, fire prevention and fire fighting. The minister refuses to listen to his own Fire Commissioner's report. In spite of the fact that that Commissioner has a responsibility to advise the minister. Who does this Government listen to? Where are they taking their advice?

Certainly they are not taking advice from their planners, when they take the Southlands away from Mount Pearl. Because there is not one planner on this old rock who recommended that. Nor will the minister find one. So who are they listening to and why are they not prepared to listen to all these collective voices that are so clearly telling this Government they are making a sad mistake here? We have supported amalgamation. As I said, this is not amalgamation by any stretch of the imagination. We as a Party have supported amalgamation, we have supported regional services. We see neither one here.

Had this minister come forward with a clear, logical proposal that provided for input into a regional services council, provided some control and say into the operation, the costing and the financing of providing regional services; had the minister come forward with a regional fire department; had he accepted the offer that was made by the City of Mount Pearl last summer; had he in fact kept his word to the City of Mount Pearl; the minister and the Premier have broken their word to the City Council of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, because they made a commitment to the city council last summer or the 12th of October, 1989 that if there was, indeed, to be a regional fire service there would be a regional board that controlled and operated with full input from all municipalities involved, and that the cost of regional fire fighting would be reduced because this Government would deal with the inefficiencies in the existing system, and if they could not do that then they would permit the City of Mount Pearl to own and operate its own fire department. They have broken their word, Mr. Speaker, to the City of Mount Pearl. This minister has broken his word to the people who elected him to this chamber. There will be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it will be the last time that they will elect him to this chamber.

I mentioned the poll that was done, Mr. Speaker. If the minister thinks that I am speaking only for a handful of people in Mount Pearl, if he thinks it is only the voice of the council in Mount Pearl, let me quote him a poll that was done in his absence. I do not know if anybody has brought this to his attention since he came back from Bristol. Eighty-three per cent of the decided persons who were polled support Mount Pearl's position of having their own separate fire department. A right, Mr. Speaker, that they have now in the City of Mount Pearl Act, that every municipality in North America has. And this legislation takes that right away only from the municipalities on the Northeast Avalon.

They are not changing the legislation, Mr. Speaker, under the Municipalities Act because they know that legislation is good legislation. It is fair and just; it provides some safeguards against tyranny such as we are seeing here. But they are saying: we will take from the House of Assembly - using our majority, using closure to stifle debate, we will take it upon ourselves to break the law. We will ask the House to give us permission to break the law in this case. That is what is being done here, Mr. Speaker. This Government is using this House of Assembly to allow them to break the law, to do what they cannot do in accordance with the Municipalities Act, or the City of St. John's Act, or the City of Mount Pearl Act, or the City of Corner Brook Act, or any other municipal legislation in North America, Mr. Speaker. This House is being asked to aid and abet them to break the law, and they will manipulate this House, Mr. Speaker, sadly I must say, using their majority to force this legislation through.

I find it incredible, Mr. Speaker, that this minister who represents Mount Pearl - I wish I had more time - I could speak for hours and hours on this debate if this Government would permit the debate to continue, but I can only speak now in the few minutes that are available, and I only have about a moment left. I can speak only for Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker. Mount Pearl will not stop this fight here. This fight will be carried on in the courts, and it will be carried on in the next election. If that minister or anybody else thinks that we are throwing in the towel, they are sadly mistaken. The people of Mount Pearl will not rest against an injustice such as this.

If the minister had any concern at all perhaps he would just think about those thirty young people who have been hired as fire fighters, and he can point his self righteous finger at the city council and say: you mislead them. They did no such thing. They knew, those young people when they applied for positions, what they were faced with. They knew what this Government had said they would do. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of them believe that we could have a Government in this Province leading this House of Assembly that would follow through with such a proposal. If the minister had been in the fire hall in Mount Pearl last Thursday when those young people received their certificates and seen the emotion there, the comradery and the unity that was there, if he had seen the pride on their faces, Mr. Speaker, when we find out that they had an average 96 per cent mark, the highest average, I think, ever received by any class going through fire fighting training school. If he had seen them, Mr. Speaker, Saturday afternoon, on their own time, scaling the walls of Mount Pearl High School, lowering each other down by ropes from the roof of the high school, continuing their training, in spite of the threat that is hanging over their heads from this Government, maybe he would think a little bit more about it.

Mr. Speaker, he will not think about it, I have no doubt. He has made up his mind that he alone is right. I say to this House that his officials are telling him he is making a serious mistake, the people in Mount Pearl have told him he is making a serious mistake, the fire commissioner has told him he is making a serious mistake, petitions with over 40,000 names have told him he is making a mistake, and an independent poll, taken throughout the whole region by professional pollsters, is telling him he is making a mistake. Name me one person, Mr. Speaker, who is telling him he is not making a mistake, other than the Premier. That is the bottom line, the Premier, Mr. Speaker, for years has said that Mount Pearl must disappear. He is hell bend on that course and he will not stop until he destroys Mount Pearl and the people who are in it. Mr. Speaker, that will destroy that minister and it will destroy this Government before I am finished with it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: It is rather difficult to stand in such a debate for the third time, I believe, since the bill was put on the Order Paper and brought into the House, to find that so many hon. members opposite refuse to stand up and at least put on record their own feeling in relation to the amalgamation issue, specifically the amalgamation of their own areas, at least to speak in support of it. I can appreciate members not standing up, as we are trying to do, to defend the rights of the people, but you would think they would at least stand up and try to defend the minister and the Premier, who are trying to ram such a bill down the throats of the people of the Province.

We see, Mr. Speaker, the old 'closure' crowd are at it again. This present Government has brought in the closure motion more often than, I was going to say any other government, but I would say more often than has ever been done since Confederation. In all my years in the House, I think I only remember once when closure was introduced, and since this present Government took place almost every bill that comes before the House, just as some good, logical points are being made by the Opposition, the Government brings in closure. Because they know what will happen, that as people hear the debate and as the press, as weak as it is in this Province, carries the stories from the House, people realize the House is open, which many of them do not know and fewer of them care, perhaps, and that there are things being said in the House, things that affect them, because this is the House that makes the laws of the land. Every provincial law under which we operate has been made in the past in this very House. If we are to better our lot, any new legislation that is going to be brought forth or any legislation that is going to be changed will be done in this very House. If more people realize that, perhaps, we would have more people in the Galleries and we would have more people paying attention to what happens here.

People do not realize sometimes that it all takes place here in this very House. But eventually word seeps out as to what is going on here, and when we get bills that are being made into laws that are having a drastic effect on the people of the Province, then people get upset. What happens here, with this present Government, is, before a bill can even be debated to any extent, so people know what is going on, so that they can have some say, so that they can contact their own members who represent them and ask them to stand up and be counted in the House and express the views of their constituents, which they are supposed to do, before that happens at all - closure! Debate is cut off. The bill is rammed through and the Province is stuck with poor legislation. We saw it with the Lands Bill, we have seen it with the Amalgamation Bill - a bill that is affecting a tremendous amount of people.

It was interesting earlier this evening in Question Period to hear the Member for St. John's East ask some specific questions about the escalating taxes in the City. It is only now that the people of St. John's are starting to realize that their taxes are going to gradually creep up because -

MS. VERGE: Not so gradually.

MR. HEARN: Not so gradually, as the member says. Perhaps not so gradually at all. That their taxes are going to jump up rather than creep up, and that they are going to be stuck with extremely high tax bills. Because of the land and the territory grab by the City Council that is forced upon them now by Bill 50, when perhaps even they themselves did not realize the burden which they were taking onto themselves. Perhaps they did not have a chance to really look at the costs of some of the major facilities that have been put on their shoulders. Now that they start to get time to analyze and realize the extra financial burdens, they themselves are having second thoughts, and certainly as people hear what is going on and delve into it they realize that they are going to pay the price.

But as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is not the St. John's area that is going to pay the high price. They are certainly going to pay a price. It is the people in the outlying areas. The people in the Goulds in particular - more so than any other area involved in this amalgamation bill - are going to pay heavily for the - I will not say services they are going to get, because it will take quite some time to provide them with adequate services. They are going to pay dearly because amalgamation was forced upon them.

It is not a surprise, I suppose, to see Government again bringing in closure and ramming a bill down our throat. The thing is that these decisions are being made quickly without any consultation. It might be said: oh, we had all kinds of studies and we had commissioners out there and we have reports. Yes, they did. But what was said to the commissioners and what was presented to Government in no way is similar to what Government brings in on its own. This is what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs wanted, this is what the Premier dictated.

The Member for Mount Pearl was asking: who does Government listen to? I could see members over there raising their eyes heavenwards. But it was not Heaven to which they were looking, it was the eighth floor. Because it is the Premier who makes the decisions for this Government.

MS. VERGE: Did you notice now there is a big red cross outside over the Premier's office?

MR. HEARN: I did not realize that. The Member for Humber East says there is a big red cross outside the Premier's office on the eighth floor. Surely to God we are not going to have the Second Coming. Even though he thinks that he is the -

AN HON. MEMBER: The first.

MR. HEARN: The first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: It is not shocking, it is what you are saying behind his back and everybody else is saying. Because the Premier is dictating to his Cabinet the same way as he dictates to the Province. His own whims. 'I know what's best, you take it, you put up with it.'

Here is a typical example. I was speaking about no consultation. I talked about the hearings and so on that were held where nobody listened to what the people said. Information was taken, brought back to Government - it was as if it never happened at all. Decisions were made without paying any attention to what the people were saying.

A typical example: earlier tonight we had the opportunity to present a petition from a number of people concerned about educational funding. Changes are being made. The minister gets up and spouts off about how they are going to revolutionize educational funding. People are getting sick and tired of listening to the minister talking about educational funding when he is talking about one thing and doing exactly the opposite. The minister does not know what is going to happen. No more than the Minister of Fisheries knows what is going to happen with the new board, or the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows what is going to happen with amalgamation in the long-term.

Nobody knows, because most of the time you have not even been told what is going ahead. Not decisions being made by Government. There are decisions being made on the Eight Floor by the Premier and when he gets around to it, does he even call you in to consult you? No, he runs down to the Board of Trade and tells them what he is going to do. Unfortunately, they should be out listening. If the Minister of Education wants to find a better way to fund education in the Province, he should go out and listen to what the people in the field have to say. Let us see some consultation. There has not been any. The minister has not consulted the field about a better way to fund education. He did not consult the municipalities and the people affected, and did not tell them the price they would pay if they are completely and utterly amalgamated, as will happen shortly, because we can no longer delay this part of the bill going through second reading. But let us assure members that we still have to go through third reading in the committee stage and there are several points there that certainly will have to be made.

The different clauses in the bill, besides the general bill, itself, all of them leave concerns. I mentioned the other night, the first clause is talking about the displaced workers. Has anybody given them any consolation as to where they will end up? All we know is that they will be taken over by the St. John's Municipal Council and they can more or less do with them as they wish. We had the question asked a little earlier about the fire fighters in Mount Pearl, a well-trained young force that would make any city or town proud. It is unfortunate they cannot work in their own city. If they were living anywhere else in Canada other than Mount Pearl, they would be able to go to work in their own fire hall and service their own town. But they cannot do it here because this Government wants to wipe out the City of Mount Pearl.

Then it goes on for pages and pages, about the fire hall and regulations in relation to the fire department. We can understand, really, what the whole piece of legislation is about. It is about Mount Pearl and its fire hall, and that is a petty way to try to get even with the City of Mount Pearl.

On the final page - page 23 of the bill, 10(3), is the clause that has to be the greatest insult to municipalities throughout this Province, where the Government is saying, 'From now on we are not going to leave it up to the people in an area as to what they want to do with their future, whether they want to amalgamate, whether they want to expand, whether they want to change their boundaries, whether they want to establish an area as a municipality, whether they want to disestablish a town, we are going to do for them whatever we feel like doing. We are going to give ourselves the power.' What makes it sound so bad, and what makes it so bad is when government says, 'We are going to give ourselves the power', and the majority party in the House of Assembly forming the Government would have the numbers to do just that. And that is unfortunate, because it is taking upon itself a power that no government should have. 'We are going to give ourselves the power to do that from now on, in this area, and then that sets a precedent for anywhere else in the Province to amalgamate a town with a town or city, and to annex areas to a city or town, so if Government feel they have this power now let us move away. The precedent is set, let us move outside the Northeast Avalon and let us use it. If anybody outside does not agree with what we intend to do, we will go out and use our newly obtained powers, which we gave ourselves, to put them in their place. We will move up the shore and take Cape Broyle and Calvert and say, You are going to be amalgamated. We are not going to let you vote on it. We are not going to let you discuss it. We have given ourselves the power to amalgamate a town with a town or city and annex areas to a city or town. So we will set your boundaries. We will tell you what land you are going to have, and what land we are going to take away.' Look at what they did with Mount Pearl in relation to Southlands, a move that makes absolutely no geographical, social or moral sense. It just makes no sense. What it does is it just drives another nail in the coffin of Mount Pearl, where the Premier can look at Mount Pearl, as he has done in the past, and say, 'Eventually, you will be swallowed up and you will be no more.' What else does clause 3 do? It gives Cabinet the power to establish an area as a town. If Cabinet wants to form a municipality where people have objections, it doesn't make any difference what the people say, Cabinet has the power to establish an area as a town. Then finally, the insult of insults, it gives Cabinet the power to disestablish a town. So they can go out to any area and say, 'You no longer exist, you are now a part of some other area.'

Mr. Speaker, the main concern here is the complete lack of consultation by Government in this whole amalgamation process. People in the House of Assembly, fifty-two members, elected to represent their constituents, just about all of them, if not all, will represent municipalities. We have throughout the Province large unincorporated areas, I know, but I would venture to bet in every district there are at least some municipalities, all of them having concerns about what is happening; all of them undoubtedly talking to their members; all of them expecting their members to stand up and defend them; and all of them expecting to have some say in their own future, in their own destiny. All of them who were established sometimes after local battles when people, not understanding what establishing a municipality really meant, fought it out in the local towns: whether we want a council or whether we don't; whether we are going to be charged high taxes or whether we won't; and whether we are going to have services or whether we won't.

Finally, most people see that establishing a local government gives the area a chance to have some say in its own destiny, local councils elected by local people to do the things that the locals want done. If they don't like what is being done in the area, every few years they have a chance to change the local councils.

Now, we see, with this present bill that is being rammed through, that the present Government has no respect at all for the feelings or the views of anybody. They do not care what people say, or whether they establish municipalities or not, because they are going to take it upon themselves to take that power to establish or disestablish as they so wish. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a concern out there, that this Government is not listening.

Amalgamation makes sense in a lot of areas, the coming together of areas to share, to save money, to cut down on bureaucracy, and to provide better services. In many areas it is being done. We have in extremely remote, extreme rural areas of this Province, good examples, in fact, excellent examples, of what amalgamation is all about: of how fire brigades share facilities and equipment; of how communities and towns share facilities such as stadiums, recreation centres, meeting halls, quite often, and equipment in some areas for snow clearing and so on.

We see good examples already of areas where sharing makes sense, but where they also have enough sense to hold onto their own local governing unit, so that they can make decisions within their own community, and whereby they know they are going to be represented on the larger body, whether it be a joint council or whether it be an informal gathering which would run a board, perhaps, that would run the fire fighting facilities in the area or the recreation centres. They know that they have saved, but yet they protect their own area.

Here we see a complete wiping out of local governments in a number of areas, and all the power being vested in the City of St. John's, who will now dictate to all the surrounding areas their future, including the taxes they will pay, which will be the same, undoubtedly, as the people in the city are now paying, people who have great services. They are expecting people who have few services to support the same tax regime, the same tax structure.

Mr. Speaker, if these things had been properly discussed beforehand, if people had had a chance to have input, if they knew what was going on, what lay in the future for them, then undoubtedly, we would have a lot more people concerned about this bill that is being rammed through this House tonight.

Hopefully, down the road, lessons will be learned by the members who have sat and not represented their constituents, who have not raised the concerns that are being expressed to all of them, and the minister, in particular, who has not even listened to his own constituents. Hopefully, the lessons learned by these will be a lesson for other legislature leaders who will sit in this hon. House. Because we have a tremendous amount of power in this House, and we should use it to do good for the people who are out there, to make laws and rules that improve the lot of people, not, without proper consultation, to ram down their throats, things that will have an extremely heavy fallout; that will have a devastating effect on a lot of them financially; that will take away their local pride in other areas because they realize they have no more say in what is going on around them, and they will just be pawns to a dictatorial government.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, before the night is through, some of the hon. members who did not even bother to come listen will listen, and will realize that the best thing to do with this is to take it back to the drawing board, and maybe somewhere along the line we can have a piece of legislation which will protect the amalgamating process. There is nothing wrong with amalgamation, as we said, properly done, but we will do it the way the people want it done, for the benefit of the people, so that, in the end, everyone will be pleased. This is certainly not the case with the present Bill 50.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now we will hear it!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, would Chip and Dale keep quiet over there while I get on with this?

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on this gag order that has been brought in by the Government once again. It seems to be synonymous with the crowd opposite that once they get involved in a debate or discussion - a debate in particular - with the Opposition, when they know that the Opposition is right and what they are doing is wrong and is against the wishes of the people they represent, the first thing the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader - or whatever you may wish to call him - does, is bring in the gag order, put the hobnailed boots to the democracy that our forefathers fought for.

Today, we have this Government again implementing the gag order, to cut off debate on an issue as vital as this issue is to everyone in this Province. As I said before in the debate, it is not an issue defined between Mount Pearl and St. John's, or the Northeast Avalon. This here sets a precedent that could, at the whim of this Premier, wipe out every community in rural Newfoundland. The basis of democracy is what this is all about, and that is why the gag order has been brought in. Because, if they believed in democracy, they would not bring in this bill, so we should not be surprised that they brought in the gag order to prevent further debate on this piece of legislation. None of them know anything about democracy. Certainly, they do not believe very strongly in it.

The Member for Pleasantville who represents the City of St. John's, and the Member for St. John's South, the two of them, in particular, together with the Cabinet Ministers, realize what the Mayor of St. John's said this morning - and I heard her, Mr. Speaker - that the Government passed the Aquarena over to them, saying it was going to cost $600,000 to operate. Now, they are finding it may, indeed, cost a lot more than $600,000. That is downloading, not on the City of St. John's or City Hall, Mr. Speaker, it is downloading on the people they represent, and they should have the courage of their convictions and stand and vote against this Government imposing such harsh tax measures on the people of St. John's.

How can the Minister of Education, with all his smiles and nice gestures, look straight at the people he represents and say to them: I voted to increase your tax, because we want to do what the Premier wants to do, and that is take over the whole Northeast Avalon, because the Premier believes bigger is better.

How will the Minister of Finance go back to the people in St. John's Centre and tell them that when the city council brings down their budget next year, and if there are tax increases - and there is a good chance there may be - it will be caused by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and a group of them. You cannot look back at the Member for St. John's South, he is not sitting around the Cabinet table making the decisions, and I hope the people realize that, that it is particularly the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Mines and Energy who are passing this tax grab on the shoulders of the people of St. John's.

MS. VERGE: The backbenchers are going along with it, just the same.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I am going to get to that.

DR. KITCHEN: Half a million dollars interest (inaudible) cost.

MR. TOBIN: Half a million dollars. Who is going to pay the half million dollars?

MS. VERGE: The constituents.

DR. KITCHEN: The Province is paying the interest on the debt that was incurred when that was built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, you built it.

MR. TOBIN: Did the people of St. John's build it or was it built for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was built for the Summer Games.

MR. TOBIN: It was built for the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games, Mr. Speaker, not the St. John's Summer Games, and this Government is now downloading it - there is no other word, only 'downloading' it - on the taxpayers of the City of St. John's. It is being downloaded on the people of St. John's, and the Minister of Finance can laugh all he likes, but he is one of the people responsible.

What about when you bring in the Goulds? What about their fire protection? Will a volunteer fire department in the Goulds be continued?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, or the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Finance.

MR. TOBIN: There is not much difference, they are one and the same.

MR. SIMMS: Old foot-in-mouth Kitchen, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not talking about appearance, I am talking about your contribution to downloading on the City of St. John's, it is one and the same, Mr. Speaker, and if the Minister of Education doesn't like being associated with the Minister of Finance, he should tell the Premier, not me.

Now, is this just the beginning - that is the question I want answered - just the beginning of passing over the Aquarena to the taxpayers of St. John's? What about the swimming pools now attached to the arts and culture centres, I believe, in Gander and Corner Brook? Are they next? That is the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are too small.

MR. TOBIN: So what I am saying is that Bill 50 does not apply strictly to the Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker.

DR. KITCHEN: Good idea.

MR. SIMMS: Now you have it on the record.

MR. TOBIN: Now we have it on the record, the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government says it is a good idea to pass the swimming pools attached to the arts and culture centres in Gander and Corner Brook on to the city councils. And, Mr. Speaker, it will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Another fellow, the Deputy Speaker says it should.

MR. SIMMS: Another fellow now, he doesn't know the war is over but he is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you what the Government should be doing. They should be building an arts and culture centre on the Burin Peninsula with a swimming pool, the same as in other places in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was in the plan. I can tell you where it was going. It was going in Salt Pond, Burin, if he wants to know where it was going. It was in the plan, and if we had been re-elected, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You could have built ten.

MR. TOBIN: What was that.

MR. SIMMS: Joey (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, we will accept that for a minute.

So if we could build ten, Mr. Speaker, out of the Sprung operation, maybe Tom Hickman will build ten out of the $19 million that you just gave him. Maybe he will build ten, Mr. Speaker; Marco might build ten.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) twenty or forty Sprungs a year on the Upper Churchill loss.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Marco might build ten, on the $19 million gift for the nursing homes in this Province.

MR. SIMMS: How many?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Forty a year.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Forty Sprungs a year, the Upper Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) some other contractor.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He should build them at the lowest tender.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying they should not build nursing homes! I am saying they should build more nursing homes, and they should build more than they are building, but they should not build them at $19 million above the lowest bid! That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am saying, and that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been saying for some time. That is what is being said in this Province. Nineteen million dollars above the lowest tender, and you talk about Sprung. Yes, you should talk about Sprung when you turn around and give Marco a contract for $19 million above the lowest tender.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of room -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is $19 million, Mr. Speaker, $19 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over the life of the agreement.

MR. TOBIN: Over the life of the agreement it will cost $19 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. That is what is taking place in this Province, and then when you go to debate something happening on the Northeast Avalon, the first thing you do is get the gag order, you do not want it debated. They do not want it repeated, but it will be continued to be repeated, and they will never be allowed to forget the fact that they made a $19 million contribution in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Never, Mr. Speaker, will they be allowed to forget that they made a $19 million contribution to a company that they know very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with Bill 50, and why are we, as an Opposition, opposing it? Because, as I said, it is a dangerous piece of legislation. Extremely dangerous when this Government says: notwithstanding, notwithstanding the City of Mount Pearl Act, notwithstanding the City of St. John's Act, the St. John's Metro Board Act, and the Municipalities Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how much have we heard about the notwithstanding clause in the Province of Quebec, and how much did everyone condemn it? How much did everyone condemn it, Mr. Speaker? Well I can tell you that this is a bigger charade, this is the biggest charade ever with a notwithstanding clause when you override the rights of every council in this Province. Every council, Mr. Speaker, the precedence is set to override this Legislature.

MS. VERGE: To override the House of Assembly.

MR. TOBIN: To override the House of Assembly is right. Precedence has been set for one man, Mr. Speaker, one dictator, to override the whole councils, every elected body in this Province, with a notwithstanding clause.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the dictator?

MR. TOBIN: Who is the dictator? Mr. Speaker, you do not know who the dictator is?

MS. VERGE: Under the red cross.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He has been away for a while.

MR. TOBIN: He has been away for a while. My colleague says he was away for a while.

Mr. Speaker, the dictator in this Province happens to occupy that seat right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you will never occupy that seat after the next election let alone that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: You have no worries about occupying seats in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Anyone who displays the arrogance that you display as a first time member has no worries about being returned to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who displays that type of contempt and arrogance -

MR. MATTHEWS: Going around with a batman suit on.

MR. TOBIN: Not just for the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - but for your own colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have no worries about occupying seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Your brother was a good poll captain. So is the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, a good poll captain.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only poll he lost.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you say it out loud? Never mind whispering.

The fact of the matter is that the dictator has issued the gag order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And I will tell you something right now, it is not something that we take very lightly. Now the Member for St. John's South for good reason has missed the majority of this debate. As a matter of fact, I was with him I believe for most of it. I was with him for some of it, we were attending a parliamentary conference. But for good reason he has missed part of the debate.

He should have read up on the newspapers and everything else in this Province. Because the City of St. John's, his constituents, are complaining about the downloading this Government is putting on them. They hear the Mayor of St. John's on talking about the millions of dollars more it is going to cost the City. The Council is concerned about it. Everybody is finally concerned about it. When this bill was brought to their attention there was concern all of a sudden. They should be concerned. Because this Government does nothing for municipalities.

It was only last week that they notified councils throughout the Province that they have cut the roads component by $660 a kilometre. They have slashed the road components and asked all of the taxpayers throughout the Province to pick it up. Is that something to be proud of? The new Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, is he going to go back to his constituents and tell them: yes, I agree with cutting the road component to every community here?

MR. SMALL: You know I am!

MR. TOBIN: You are? Now, Mr. Speaker, that is another thing we have on the record. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay - and we household people with what has been said. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay who just came into the Legislature said: you know I am. Proud to tell the people of his district that this Government has slashed the roads component grant by $660. Well, we just might circulate that to the voters of Baie Verte - White Bay and see if they are so excited about supporting it.

MR. SMALL: You know why?

MR. TOBIN: Why?

MR. SMALL: There's another $600,000 for our hospital (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: To take away hospital beds? To take away hospital beds?

MR. TOBIN: Oh! Now, Mr. Speaker, that is extremely interesting. You get a Member for the Government saying he agrees with slashing the roads component so they can keep -

AN HON. MEMBER: Give $600,000 (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - $600,000 to his hospital. I would like - that is very interesting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Because what might happen - no (Inaudible). I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are other places that you can get $600,000 without cutting the roads component in his district to keep his hospital open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Marystown (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And I have difficulty - no, they are after doing enough to Marystown. This crowd has done enough to Marystown, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) put it back on the map!

MR. TOBIN: Yesterday they opened a new crude protein plant in Marystown. Sixteen million dollars. Not a nickel of Government funding from Federal or Provincial Governments. Do you know something, Mr.Speaker? There are twenty people, twenty jobs. Yesterday morning there were twenty people who went to work in that protein plant. Do you know something else? That was more people than walked in through the Marystown Shipyard yesterday morning to go to work, thanks to this Government. That is what is happening. Talk to some of the people who have been laid off for the first time in twenty-five years and you will find out what they think about this Government. Twenty-five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the one hundred and fifty going to Norway?

MR. MATTHEWS: One hundred and fifty going to Norway?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the Member that there are already after being 150 in Norway. Under a technology agreement years ago, Mr. Speaker, when you were trying to become president of the college, Mr. Speaker, there were people over in Norway training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was parliamentary but I will not say too much about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: A small object, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the deputy chairman of committees and the deputy House who acts as a Speaker in this Legislature should know the rules. Now, here he is in somebody else's chair shouting across the House all night. Instead of that he should be up in his own chair, get recognized to speak, and not shout across the House. One has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he applies the rules the way he knows them, or does he apply them the way he acts them out in this Legislature? That is what we have to ask ourselves because a Deputy Chairman of Committees, Mr. Speaker, should not be showing such contempt for the Chair in this House as he has been doing in the past half hour or so. I do not want any more interjections from him because I am interested in debating this issue, and the issue is the gag order. The issue is closure and as to why Government does not want to debate Bill 50. Not one member opposite, Mr. Speaker, not one, has stood in his place and defended this piece of legislation. The minister introduced it, then hopped on a plane and got as far away as he could get for a week so as he would not be here. The Minister of Municipal Affairs hopped on a plane and flew as far away as he could. He is not here again tonight, Mr. Speaker. No one else has stood to defend or speak against this piece of legislation and I wonder why, Mr. Speaker? The Member for St. John's South asks, who is the dictator? Well, let me ask the Member for St. John's South why does he not get up and speak in this debate and tell us whether or not he supports the downloading of services on taxpayers, his taxpayers, his constituents? Let him stand up and tell us why he has not been involved in this debate? Why not the other members, Mr. Speaker? The Member for Port de Grave said everybody will hear more from John Efford when the House opens. Well, the House has been open for two months now and he has not opened his mouth. He has not spoken. That is what has happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I suppose sometimes the problem with having a very sincere interest in trying to develop jobs in your district, having the opportunity to go to another part of the world and have a look at tremendous amounts of activity, I suppose the most impressive thing I saw last week, and I apologize to the House that I could not be here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. MURPHY: Actually, I was in Aberdeen, Scotland looking at the offshore supply facilities that hopefully will be constructed in the great district of St. John's South. I want to inform the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West that he can be assured I was on my constituents business. He knows that full well.

I love following the Member for Burin - Placentia West. It is a little difficult because we do not have the acoustics in this House and for at least ten minutes the echoes keep bounding back and forth so I will try to overcome those. What the hon. member is talking about, downloading on the citizens of St. John's, really what he is saying is that this Government has finally shown the people of Newfoundland that it is a Government of courage, a Government of conviction, and a Government that wants to spread the load equally. Now, that is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. The people in St. John's for years have paid a mil tax rate greater than any other community, well outside of a few small communities, very small areas, who have had to pay a little more for services. I know the Member for Humber East is ready to jump. Relax, you will have your turn. When you look at an area where nearly 40 per cent of the population of this Province lives -

MS. VERGE: What is the population of St. John's?

MR. MURPHY: The new St. John's is about 175,000 people.

MS. VERGE: The new St. John's?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, the new St. John's, alright? As the hon. Member for Harbour Grace says, it should be 200,000. Now what happened here, Mr. Speaker, was that the previous administration, without any direction, in a sense of hodgepodge, let the City of St. John's fall into a situation whereby communities developed.

I have nothing but sympathy for the people of Mount Pearl. I understand the plight of the people of Mount Pearl, because of the tremendous community spirit and strength that exists in there. I have some - some - respect for the people in Wedgewood Park. I certainly have a lot of respect for people in the Goulds. But I have more respect for fairness, for courage, and I have more respect for people paying their equal share of services that are rendered.

So it is time for the hon. members to get up, and they can orate, pound, bawl out and call this dangerous, and there is a sense of misdirection here, and they can say what they like. But the real thing is - and I do not want to remind them what one of their previous leaders said not long ago. He said: you know, in all honesty, it looks very much like this Province is headed towards 1934 again. This is what he said. He told the media: 1934 is upon us. He said: I do not have the ruthlessness to run again.

That is what he told the people of this Province. What he told the people of this Province was: I do not have the political courage to run again, that is what he said. That is exactly what he said. Now, all of a sudden there is some courage in this hon. House, there is some strength, there is some form of government that is taking the plight of this Province, distributing the good and distributing the pain - pain for gain.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mostly pain!

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is the hon. Member for Grand Bank's opinion, mostly pain.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) did not say that.

MR. MURPHY: No, no, no. The other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a piece of legislation here and certainly it hurts people. It does hurt people. Maybe the citizens of St. John's will feel some affect on this to equalize the people in the Goulds, to get the people in the Goulds up to a standard. To get the people in Wedgewood Park - well, not Wedgewood Park up to a standard. Because they have a standard now, a subsidized standard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: You know, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: This piece of legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shrimp boat?

MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burin - Placentia West keeps talking about a gag order. Well, if we resurrected the Norma and Gladys, you could not gag him with the Norma and Gladys full of water! So this is not a gag order at all. This is a piece of legislation that is fair and necessary. The citizens of St. John's have long supported the municipal tax burden throughout this Province.

Now the hon. Member talks about the Aquarena. Are the 'aquaettes' from Humber coming into the Aquarena? Is it fair to ask people in Spanish Room or Marystown to pay for the maintenance of the Aquarena? Is that fair? Would you ask the people in the Goulds -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. MURPHY: - to pay for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. MURPHY: - the maintenance of the Marystown rink?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Would you? Oh yes, oh, now let the record show, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that the Member from the Goulds, the Member for Kilbride, wants his constituents to pay for the maintenance of the rink in Marystown. Now that is the logic that we had for seventeen years. No wonder this Province owes nearly $4.5 billion. No wonder the taxpayers of this Province have to pay nearly $550 million to service the debt! Absolutely no wonder. That is the kind of logic and thinking that has this Province, and the taxpayers of this Province, where it and they are.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, again we have reached a crossroads, an epoch, in the municipal responsibility of this Province. This Government and this Minister have sat down and we have had a long, drawn-out two years on amalgamation. Nobody likes it, there are members on both sides of the House who disagree with it. There are all kinds of people out there who are upset about it, but, but, but -

MS. VERGE: Are you all voting for it?

MR. MURPHY: If it is for the good of the people of the Province - I mean, if the people in Nain or the people in Labrador West or the people in Grand Falls or the people in Corner Brook, alright, tonight are asked to pay for some kind of municipal service in the City of St. John's, there would be a horrendous outcry, and the people in the City of St. John's have been supporting its neighbours for a long, long time. A long, long time, and now, in the short-term, it may cause some pain, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a stupid argument.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the stupid argument is when Conception Bay South became a town, Mr. Speaker, Foxtrap did not lose its identity, Chamberlains did not lose its identity, Topsail did not lose its identity -

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown in Mount Pearl.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, what happened to Newtown? These hon. members stand up with their purification and holier than thou attitude, with the halos all ready to come down and crush them. There was a little town called Newtown and the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, came charging to his Cabinet colleagues and said: We cannot have this! We cannot have this, and what happened, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hobnailed boots.

MR. MURPHY: - you talk about hobnailed boots? Hobnailed boots hello. Compressors and jack hammers and that was the end of Newtown. Newtown gone, disappeared off the map because it was convenient for the Government of the day. Now, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, who was totally against regional services board, now there is a sense of regional service board acceptance. Oh yes, let us share all these services, let us do all these good things, that is fine but let us not lose our identity.

Now, I have said it before in this House and I will say it again. I respect and admire the people of Mount Pearl and, if you look at what is going on at City Hall, you would wonder if the hon. Member for Mount Pearl is not correct when he says that the administration costs in that city are a lot less and there is more done for the buck in Mount Pearl than is done in St. John's, and that very well may be, so it is time for us to have a look at the councillors in St. John's. It is a good time for us to have a look at them and what they are doing to run the business affairs of this City, and maybe we will have a lot more for our mil rate, Mr. Speaker, than we are getting. I am fed up, every Monday night you turn on the television and what do we have? Character assassination, no accomplishment, turn on the cameras and watch those who have other ambitions down the road, eating one another alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looney Tunes.

MR. MURPHY: Looney tunes, that is right. I will tell you what-

MR. TOBIN: You should not be allowed to (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It has a better rating than Stacey's Jamboree and we all remember that. The only thing is they do not have to wash the smell of gas off their hands, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop defending your brother-in-law.

MR. MURPHY: You know, Mr. Speaker, they are over there now and they are saying they are gagged and they are this and they are that but all the problems they have - I want to remind the hon. members when they talk about gag orders, the Liberals, who were then the Opposition, and who will be in Opposition again in 2035, will - you could not gag the opposition, how can you gag the opposition when the House is not open, when you cannot get through the doors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I mean my hon. colleague from Port de Grave, kept these hon. gentlemen and some of the hon. ladies Opposite, awake night after night after night, afraid to open the House because they knew that my colleague had the goods on them. He bought more flashlight batteries than any ten men alive in Newfoundland because he was out doing his homework, so do not talk about gag orders. We are not here to listen to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - and if the disbursement or responsibility and tax dollars are what the hon. gentlemen Opposite are against, let them stand. If they do not want to have everybody paying their fair share, if they do not want to have equalization in tax structures, if that is what they are against -

MR. SIMMS: Equalization?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, equalization. Now, the hon. Opposition Leader - I nearly called him the Opposition House Leader, but the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: Leader of the Opposition.

MR. MURPHY: - Leader of the Opposition, who now stands on a platform of, 'I am going out and listening and hearing and meeting with the people.' That is great, and I compliment him. I think it is a sound, logical idea. I think it is great, to go out and listen to the people.

MR. DECKER: It is too bad it took him seventeen years to do it.

MR. MURPHY: Now, the Minister of Health cut me off, because he is as intelligent as I am, and I knew -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - he was going to come forward with the obvious. How come it took the Leader of the Opposition seventeen years to go out and meet the people?

AN HON. MEMBER: Remind him how Jack is ahead of them in the polls.

MR. MURPHY: Now, somebody mentioned polls over there tonight. Mr. Speaker, why would I talk about polls?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) don't go talking about them, no.

MR. MURPHY: No, in all fairness, I have to give them credit, each hon. member opposite at 9 per cent, eighteen of them, that gives them one-half per cent each.

Now, the thing that bothers me is, there is one member here who has about 16 or 17 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has 18 per cent, all by himself.

MR. MURPHY: He has 18 per cent, does he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen.

MR. MURPHY: He has 16 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have 16 per cent, and Jack has 18 per cent.

MR. MURPHY: Oh! Jack has 18 per cent. Well now, that tells you something about meeting the people, Mr. Speaker. That tells you about it.

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

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

The hon. the Member for Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill 50 here tonight, a very serious matter. We are not involved in the polls, Mr. Speaker. If we wanted to get on to that, there are thirty-two of them, Mr. Speaker, and they are at 31 per cent in the polls, so they have not even got a half point each. So, if we wanted to get into that, Mr. Speaker, we could debate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I think the member should be called to order, Mr. Speaker, and told to deal with the bill that is before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has been listening to the debate for some time, and there has been a lot of interjection in the last little while. I have had to call order on a couple of occasions. All hon. members know that it is unparliamentary to interject, to shout from your seat, and to interrupt another member when he is speaking.

The other point I want to raise is that we are debating Bill 50 and the amendment to Bill 50, as I understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The closure motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The closure motion. All hon. members know that the debate has to be relevant. I have been listening to the last two speakers and, to be quite honest with you, I have had difficulty in following some of the relevance that the hon. members have been debating here, as it relates to the bill.

So I ask hon. members to stick to relevance on this particular item.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly respect your ruling, and under that ruling I will start all over again.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Go ahead, you might make some sense now.

MR. MURPHY: See, Mr. Speaker, how can you sit down and talk about fairness associated with a bill when you have the 'King of the Strawberry Land' over there bawling and shouting back and forth at you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Now, you just made a ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am on my feet five seconds and the Member for Kilbride is shooting foolishness across the floor. But that is not unusual for the member.

Again we have seen a situation where we have run smack into peoples' feelings, Mr. Speaker, and that is sad. We have found ourselves having to do things that identify with communities and community life that has been established over the years. It is not easy, and I have nothing but sympathy for those who are caught up in what I think is obviously necessary. We have had a municipal structure in this Province, Mr. Speaker, like no other municipal structure in the country. If we look at the number of towns throughout the Province supporting only - not 600,000 people - and the number of communities, and a horrendous responsibility that Government must accept in trying to provide all the services throughout the Province - services to those who live in small remote areas, the rural areas in Newfoundland - it is just impossible to find a tax structure that is good enough to provide water and sewerage, good enough to provide adequate roads, good enough to provide garbage collection and infill. I mean it is just impossible. Hon. members understand and know that, and this piece of legislation is trying to set an example. I am sure the minister, when he closes debate, will only reaffirm what I am saying, that this Government and the people of this Province can no longer afford to waste a dime, a nickel or even a penny. We just do not have it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member for Humber East will have her opportunity to speak in the debate, I am sure, and I will listen with bated breath to what she will be saying. But, Mr. Speaker, let's be honest, I think the people of this Province understand it, even the people of each area understand it, and I am sure that people in Mount Pearl could make a case for St. John's, and people in St. John's could make a case for Mount Pearl, people in the Goulds could make a case for the people in St. John's, and in time, as happened in Conception Bay South, as happened in the Opposition Leader's own home riding where Grand Falls and Windsor came together, and a tremendous thrust from the people in Bishop Falls where the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations lives, to become part of that city so they can share services. Is the Aquarena not available to the people in Kelligrews? Is it not available to the people in the Goulds or Kilbride?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: What a shame. I was just getting going.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. members opposite.

So what I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, of course, is that we have reached a time in our history where we have to bring the community structure - the municipal structure - together and get the best for our buck. If we keep on the way we are going leaving communities isolated, duplicating fire systems, duplicating recreational facilities, duplicating all kinds of systems, we just do not have the tax base to afford them, and we do need money for the other things. The hon. members jump to their feet and talk about the down sizing of hospitals, and the down sizing of our educational system. Money does not grow on trees. There is no printing machine in the basement of this building. The hon. members opposite know that, and anywhere that Newfoundlanders can save a dollar and distribute a dollar more equitably and equally, then obviously we have to do it. And again, I do have sympathy for some of the communities that are being affected and impacted by this legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes I have no alternative but to support it because I think it is a piece of legislation that is totally, totally necessary. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: If I could start my speech, Mr. Speaker, by starting where the member left off, on the Aquarena. I think that in this whole debate there are an awful lot of misconceptions about towns about the city and about the surrounding communities.

Mr. Speaker, I have always lived on the West Coast, but my daughter, who is on a swim team, always used the Aquarena, and the Aquarena has always been a provincial facility. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Provincial Government should certainly make a contribution to the Aquarena because I have been hearing in this debate all sorts of reasons for this, that and the other thing, but very often - when the Member for Pleasantville got up to speak the other day, and talked about how people come into St. John's and use their malls and things like that - everything has to be put in perspective, because St. John's itself is the capital city and this building in which I stand at the moment, and in which you sit, is here in this community. The university, which is, I think, the largest east of Montreal, is in St. John's. Now, Mr. Speaker, St. John's has been able to govern itself, and do it very well in comparison with other cities of its size across Canada. I still believe that a city such as Mount Pearl, or a town such as Torbay, or Outer Cove, or any other area, if a person wants to live in a community such as that, and to live that type of life in a rural setting, then they should be allowed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: And that the bureaucratic ways in which a city is run should not be. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell a short story, because I am not here for a long time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell a short story of something that has happened in the last - Mr. Speaker, in the first week of September when school opened, in my district there are two little communities of about 100 families in one community, and perhaps forty in another. One community is known as Fox Island River and Point au Mal is the other, and they had no organization whatsoever - none. They used to look after their own problems, but they realized that their community was growing, and they decided they wanted a local service district. They decided together, so that is the best form of amalgamation. The meeting that was held -and I should say they have some pressing problems which have to do with the environment. They have a salmon river which comes down through the community. They have a very beautiful area, but they have a very serious waste disposal problem. While this debate is going on, and bills are coming in that disenfranchise, establish, change, and all that sort of thing - while this was going on, these two communities are trying to get local government for the first time. Do you know, I thought that would be a very small thing. The petitions were signed by about 98 per cent of the community. It was sent in within a week or ten days afterwards to the regional office. To this date I have not been able to get the minister to enfranchise that particular community, and the community is to such a point now where they are almost saying: we do not want to do it any more.

When you look at this Province, there is a community with nothing, and they pay very little. They are just now deciding that they are going to pay whatever it costs for garbage. Here is a community that has everything, and things are going to be different, and I may want to live in that sort of community rather than this sort of community.

I think it is important that we - bigger is not better. In my own district, the community of Kippens is a senior community in some ways. The member for Stephenville may disagree with me. It is not a senior community now, but in the days before the American Air Force Base came to Bay St. George, Kippens and Stephenville were - well the old people of Kippens anyhow always look and say, we were the farming community; we were the bread basket; we were this or that. Now whether that is right or not I do not know, but certainly I know the feelings of the people in Kippens. I know something else, Mr. Speaker. Even after this Government did a feasibility study which was done with one deputy minister and one other person, and which in no way shows that it is economically feasible where you have a community where you have double blocks of land, where you have artesian wells, where you have no sewer in many parts, but there is no health problem in a community - a lot of people live there - it is a bedroom, a dormitory community for Stephenville. There are more people, I suppose, who live in - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, there is not as much serviced land in Kippens as there is in Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, the people who moved there moved there because they would rather live in that type of rural setting. Now there are some people there who may have run away from area thirteen, or Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and decided they would rather be on a point of land rather than in a street light setting in a Newfoundland and Labrador Housing unit, but Mr. Speaker, the Government will not save one single cent. Stephenville is a very unionized town, it has the history of the longest strikes in this Province. Kippens is done by a small contractor and yet has better snow clearing then Stephenville. It has a community spirit much like Mount Pearl's. It has a small community centre which was built through Canada Works with one clerk. Everybody is happy with that one clerk, that is all the people they have there.

Now we are going to bring this community, even though close, into the bureaucratic type of situation that there is in Stephenville. The people of Stephenville do not know it yet but the people of St. John's are just starting to realize it. It is going to cost them money. I would not mind fighting a referendum if the Premier will do it. I would not mind fighting a referendum between Stephenville and Kippens. I would not mind - and I do not care if Stephenville and Kippens - because I think the people of Stephenville, when they see what the problems are, when they look at the situation, will realize that this is not - I certainly hope the Minister does not do it.

Because it will be a backward step. Besides, the feasibility study, which was not even done here, does not call for the amalgamation of Stephenville and Kippens. It calls for the annexation - and the word annexation is used - of Kippens by Stephenville. This once proud community, with some of the finest citizens that you can find who are - a family, I was in their house not very long ago, Mr. - I will not say their name. Perhaps they would not want their name brought up in the House of Assembly.

But these people who are in their - I think they have been married for seventy-five years, they had a seventy-fifth anniversary, something like that. These people would be heartbroken if their community - and we owe something to these pioneers. If they wanted to come together, if there was a financial reason for them to come together, then I can see a reason for it. But when there is no reason, why is the Government persisting in this?

You cannot compare St. John's to the rural areas. You cannot say that these rural areas are not paying their share. They are not paying their share because they are not getting their share. But there are rural communities that - the farther away you get from St. John's sometimes the more rural they are - with very little services. No street lights. No water system, some of them. It depends on what people want, where they live in this Province. So I do not think that bigger is better.

I will tell you about a little council in my district, it is called Port au Port East. It is one of the oldest incorporated councils in the district. It was looked at as a - at first they wanted to amalgamate Port au Port East and Port au Port West. Yet Port au Port East is a community that has always had a sound council. That has about 98 per cent of the people who pay in that particular community. It has a well run council, it has a history of looking to their mayors and councillors for leadership.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with Bill 50.

MR. HODDER: But, Mr. Speaker, that has to do with Bill 50. Because the same situation exists here in this Avalon region. Do the hon. Members opposite think that when they bring Mount Pearl into St. John's that they take the fire department away from Mount Pearl?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mount Pearl into St. John's (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Or when they bring other areas into St. John's where the big plan to encircle the Avalon Peninsula and have a big -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Somebody said over there tonight, a big supercity. Well, Mr. Speaker, do the hon. Members think that is best? Is that the experience that they are having in the United States? Why doesn't the Premier look at what is happening in the United States?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You're against Mount Pearl, that's your biggest problem, you're against Mount Pearl!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, yes this bill is being brought in through vengeance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier decided that he did not like what was going on so they brought in this legislation. I can say that if that side were to win the next election I would say that twenty-four hours later Mount Pearl would cease to be a city. It offends me that after being in this House for sixteen or seventeen years that on an issue such as this the Government would even stoop to closure. That they would not stay here and argue the bill. That every Member on that side would not get up and debate every Member on this side. It offends me.

I sat in the House of Assembly just like the Member for Windsor - Buchans did for sixteen or seventeen years and I saw closure come in once or twice from 1975 until this Government took over, but this Government believes in closure. This Government believes in ramming it through. Why is it that we should have closure on a bill such as this? Mr. Speaker, I do not know if all members on that side of the House will suffer but I guarantee you that the members that sit on that side of the House from the City of St. John's will suffer for what they are doing here tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard some comments tonight, and I quote one particular member, about this being a Government of conviction and a Government of courage. Not only that, but having said that, we had other members opposite sort of chuckle and say: this is a great thing. One in particular, the Member for Eagle River, said: treat St. John's fair. The gall for a member from a rural area of Newfoundland and Labrador to come in and say: treat St. John's fair. Stand up and say why. That is what hon. members are not saying, why? Where is the compassion? Where is the conviction, and where is the common sense? Where are the simple precepts of justice and decency? Now, let me give a couple of touching examples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, members opposite should not laugh. Members Opposite are representing districts outside the Avalon Peninsula and they know full well what happens when we are talking about services in this Province. They know and if they were men of principle they would stand up for it. I will give examples that not one member opposite can challenge me on, not one, front or back bench. I challenged them the other day to stand and tell me about the municipal operating grant and not one stood up. The minister came back and gave me answers yesterday but he did not know the answers yesterday, and when I asked tonight about the municipal operating grant they cannot tell me how they arrived at it. What I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: I have people in my district and in other districts in this Province who pay dearly for not living in St. John's, who pay dearly for not paying the same taxes as the people of St. John's, and who pay dearly in some cases, Mr. Speaker, and I may sound like an alarmist, but in some cases with their lives. Do you know why? We do not have the same hospital services on the West Cost of the Province as they have here in St. John's. We do not have the universities on the West Coast of the Province, on the Northern Peninsula of the Province that they have here in St. John's. We do not have the same services when it comes to water and sewer as they have right here in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, let me tell some hon. members opposite, in case they do not know, when I have a constituent who goes down to the hospital in Corner Brook and they are diagnosed at 2:00 o'clock in the evening, when they do a biopsy and it is questionable, and they find out the next morning it is cancer, where do they have to go? Nobody pays for their flight to St. John's which is $500.62 out of Deer Lake return. Nobody pays for them to take their family with them, to come out and sit by them in their time of agony and despair, nobody. They pay, and if they haven't got the money, they stay. Mr. Speaker, you talk about fairness and balance, and use it! Yes, there are lots of analogies to use, there are lots of excuses to use and there is lots of good common sense to use for amalgamation, but do not get up in this House and tell me people outside should pay the same as the people here. If you do, give me some very good reasons. I have not heard them yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had a daughter who started university in September. She went to Corner Brook. She was lucky, she only had a few miles to go this year. There are other members opposite, all kinds, Mr. Speaker - I had seventy-two phone calls three days before university opened in Corner Brook about student loans. They were notified when they were on their way down to register of what was going to happen. They were notified at that time that the parental/student contributions were all going to be charged to the first semester. They were notified then that they had to apply again for their second semester. Having said that, I will leave that alone.

What happens when they leave Corner Brook? We were lucky, they can go for two years there. When they leave the Cormacks and the St. Anthonys and the Roddicktons and the LaPoiles, where do they go? They come here, Mr. Speaker. Who pays for it, Mr. Speaker? Their parents, if they are lucky. Mr. Speaker, if they cannot, and this year they cannot because they are not working, they do not go anywhere.

MR. DUMARESQUE: For eight years they had the Canada Student Loan Program by the Federal Government (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get his turn to speak.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not one (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Are you trying to say that what I am saying is wrong?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Are you saying what I am saying is wrong?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am saying that the Federal Government Program (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I will take the Federal Government anytime. If you want to yap, you can get up and yap.

Mr. Speaker, they come out here and we pay. Mr. Speaker, who pays? The students around the St. John's area can go home at night. They haven't got to pay $1700 for residence fees. Seventeen hundred dollars for residence fees, and you talk about fairness and balance.

MR. DUMARESQUE: For eight years (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I know, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about services it is all right to get up in a diatribe and talk about politics. This is not politics, these are facts. If you want to talk about facts, you get up and talk about facts. You have your opportunity the same as everybody else. Do not go off in a diatribe and not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, members of communities around the Northeast Avalon said they were consulted. Ministers say they were consulted, and members opposite say they were consulted. How, Mr. Speaker? For how long? Where were the meetings held? I have the names here of seven communities. The total meetings in most of the communities were two. There was a third promised in one, by the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, that never materialized. The member met -

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

MR. WOODFORD: I am not talking about that, I am talking about the hearings, and the people from Municipal Affairs did not meet with St. Phillips when they were told -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two.

MR. WOODFORD: They had two. They were promised a third and it never materialized.

MR. WARREN: And the member did not help them.

MR. WOODFORD: The member went -

MR. WARREN: And the member did not help them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go back to sleep, boy.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is where it all breaks out. I said before, and I say it again, that I am not against amalgamation. I am not. I am against the approach that was taken, and I am sure that if members opposite had a second chance - they have gone too far with it now - that regional government would have been instituted instead of amalgamation, annexing the whole Northeast Avalon. They would have used the regional government approach, rather than annexation and amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, those same municipalities that say they were not consulted, they have reasons. They sat down with those people and gave them the reasons why they did not want to be amalgamated, and they gave very sound reasons from the Town of St. Phillips, Hogans Pond area, very sound reasons for not wanting it, and for probably going another route. My question, Mr. Speaker, is why weren't they followed? Why weren't those people listened to? Why weren't the hearings - on the third meeting they were told to come back, and they gave them a choice. They said: Tell us what you want. Tell us what you want to see, and we will come back a third time - and they never showed. The next thing they saw and heard when picking up the paper and watching television was: Bill 50 is instituted, so I guess we have no other choice. Where do we go from here?

Now they had some very, very sound reasons. The member knows. The Member for Mount Scio knows quite well what I am talking about. He knows exactly what I am talking about. He sat in on the meetings, and he knows exactly where these municipalities were coming from. But, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite - and I have to give the member for Pleasantville full marks - at least he gets up and he speaks his mind. He speaks his mind, I have to give him full marks. But on the principle of this particular piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not only wrong, it is morally wrong. It is a social injustice, and if it is carried through in other municipalities around this Province - and what I was talking about earlier, the analogy that you could use it in other municipalities - you can use it in the Stephenville's of the world, you could use it in the Corner Brooks of the world, the Grand Falls - Windsor areas of the world. You know exactly what I am talking about. It can be used. Members opposite, I said before, who sat on councils, and sat on federation of municipalities and so on, they know exactly what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Changes, yes. There are changes wherever - there is always a certain amount of fall out, and there is always a certain amount of, I suppose, the peoples' hesitancy of what is going to happen when they amalgamate one town with another. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, it will work. It worked in Grand Falls - Windsor, and it is going to work in a lot of other areas. There is no question, it is, but as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, they should be given an option. It seems like the minister and his officials - and I say to this day that if the minister had his choice, yes, granted in certain areas here especially pertaining to the fire brigade in Mount Pearl and so on, he is dead opposed to it, but as far as I am concerned with a lot of the rest of it, he is not. He is going after this with the zeal of a missionary. The zeal of a missionary, Mr. Speaker. No holes barred, just going right for the jugular, and I just don't understand why. I mean, municipalities have offered to sit down and rationalize and make some recommendations. The City of St. John's, as members said earlier today, is going to be hit, there is no question. There was announced this evening by the Mayor, a 25 per cent increase in the total assessments this year over last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Nothing to do with Bill 50.

MR. WOODFORD: The Town of the Goulds, all of a sudden, if they amalgamate tomorrow, if this goes through tomorrow or Friday, automatically their taxes go the same as St. John's, identical to St. John's and, Mr. Speaker, when the assessments are done, it is not only the 25 per cent increase in the assessments - now, it depends on the mil rate, I know assessments can be what they like; it is what the City of St. John's do with their mil rate that will make the difference. There might be a little bit of misconception there, but I just cannot see St. John's not putting up the mil rate. Because the question that has to be answered is how much it is going to cost them when they amalgamate those other communities, and, without question, it has to cost them more money.

The roads, for one thing: the minister with his new municipal operating grant, by cutting down on the road component automatically - well, maybe the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is still going to do it, I do not know, that question is not answered, but I doubt it. But if they don't, automatically, when that rolls into the pool of funding, they are going to lose on the road component, they have to. So, in order to pick up the road component on the municipalities grant, they have to put up the local incentive; they have to collect out of the local incentive, which is the second part of the components when it comes to municipal operating grant. There is no other place for a municipality to pick it up. They pick it up on their equalization funding or under local revenue grant. The only way to pick that up, Mr. Speaker, is to increase your property tax, and when you increase your property tax, automatically, the formula goes from fifteen to twenty-five to forty. Forty is the maximum, beyond that you pay the full shot. That is how it works, so it is only common sense - you don't have to be a mathematician, you don't have to be an accountant - it is pure logic and common sense, just by looking at it, that they will have to pay more, how much more, I don't know.

The Town of Paradise, it is another question, how much they will have to pay; that is not answered yet. But the people in those outlying areas know that the minimum they will be paying is the exact mil rate that is in place today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Paradise may not be as bad because (inaudible) tax based on (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, Paradise may gain under the local incentive grant but, on the other hand, then, when it comes to providing fire services, that is where they will probably lose under the road component, I do not know. They might be one of the lucky ones. Some of the communities may come out of it with a few more dollars but most of the communities will not, they will have to increase their property tax and their mil rate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. WOODFORD: My time is up?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) twenty minutes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave, one minute.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will just clue up. I didn't think I spoke for twenty minutes, just the same.

Mr. Speaker, I have said enough on this. I have spoken for about two-and-a-half hours on this subject since this bill came in and we could beat it around forever and a day. As I said before, the bill is before the Legislature. Regardless of what is in the Northeast Avalon bill, closure has been invoked and automatically, it will go through. All the questions that I asked, and that municipalities asked will be answered, not next week or next month, it is going to take three, four, five, six months, and probably a year for some of them to be answered.

I can assure you that municipalities, especially St. John's and outlying municipalities around this area are going to suffer. And, if times, even, were right - if the unemployment rate were low and so on, everything going pretty good, then there would be a tendency to accept it a little better. But these are very, very hard times, Mr. Speaker, and people cannot pay. What I find, and what a lot of mayors and councillors around this Province find, is that the biggest job, the hardest job that a municipality has, is collecting the taxes. Members opposite know. The Member for Gander knows exactly what I am talking about. The Provincial Government and the Federal Government can get their taxes; it is all collected. Before ever we get our pay cheque the taxes are taken out. But in municipalities, when they get their cheque, the last thing they pay is their taxes. Then the municipalities have to go through the courts, and I do not have to tell you the kind of archaic system we have there, for municipalities to try to collect taxes. The collection rate is a dismal failure. I talked with a municipality the other day that went to court, and it is a hopeless case trying to collect taxes. And, especially in these hard times, with the mil rate that is in place now, municipalities have a very hard job to collect, and this is going to make it twice as hard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious what is occurring here tonight since we started the debate after the closure motion was passed, carried by the majority of the Government side, limiting, then, the debate remaining on second reading on Bill 50. It is obvious what is going to occur and what has been occurring. Members opposite are not going to participate in the debate. They are simply going to let the clock run out. The Government House Leader nods. That is their strategy, and that is fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Government House Leader just nodded and said 'yes', so I am assuming he speaks for the Government caucus. Perhaps he doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I have to make, I would like to be able to make without fear of interruption from members opposite because we only have twenty minutes. That is the time limitation, and I want to make a few points.

Members on this side of the House were quite prepared and have been quite prepared to debate this resolution, or this motion now, that we are debating, but we would have preferred to have been able to continue the debate in a free and open way. That was our intention, and that is what we anticipated would come from the Government side. That is not the case. The Government has the majority. At the end of the day, we know what will occur. They will get their way. They will force their will on the Legislature and on the people, and there is not much we can do about it. But we do have reason to participate at this stage and try to bring to a conclusion - I am not sure if the Member for St. John's East may speak, but this will be all the speakers we will be putting forward on this particular debate tonight.

Because it is really senseless for our members here to be getting up and speaking for fifteen or twenty minutes each - out of conviction; because I can assure you it is a firm feeling on the part of all the members on this side, the position that we have put forward throughout this entire amalgamation debate. Throughout the entire debate there is one issue that we have been trying to concentrate on. While throughout the debate we have talked about other issues and other matters, there is one underlying issue, and that is the problem with this entire amalgamation approach by the Government, the approach, the way it is being done. Nobody is arguing the benefits of amalgamation per se. That is not the issue. We have seen where it has occurred positively in some parts throughout this Province. References have been made several times to my own community of Grand Falls when it amalgamated with Grand Falls - Windsor. It is true, but I will remind members, they should not forget that that process took nearly two decades. It started in the early 1970s, as my friend from Windsor - Buchans would know. It was talked about for twenty years, worked on for twenty years, argued and debated for twenty years, argued and discussed for twenty years, pros and cons argued, denied, supported, not talked about. I mean, all kinds of things occurred.

It took a long time to get the amalgamation of Grand Falls - Windsor off the ground. Nobody is denying that or arguing with it. Again, that is not the point. The point that we make, Mr. Speaker - and we make it on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those who are involved in amalgamation questions these days, not only on the Northeast Avalon but throughout the entire Province - is the issue of forcing amalgamation upon people who do not want to have it.

That is the underlying issue throughout this whole debate. That is our problem as an Opposition and as a party. We do not agree with forcing amalgamation and ramming it down people's throats without giving them the information that they require so that they could make a decision themselves on the issue.

When I spoke in the debate a few days ago, I pointed out some of the questions that are still outstanding in our minds, at least, in this debate, which we have not yet received answers to, and I don't expect we will. Even if the minister speaks tonight, he is limited now to twenty minutes, and he could never answer all the questions that have been posed. But some of the issues that have been touched on include the issue of democracy, itself, and how the process is working because of the fact that one level of government is being oppressed by a higher level of government. That is what we see in the case of forced amalgamation. Without public hearings, without following the proper process, and without being able to provide to the municipalities involved all the answers to all the questions they have on their minds, it is very difficult for the people who are going to be most affected by these decisions to be able to have even a rational opinion. Now, you can theorize, and you can articulate a position based on theory, as we hear from time to time, and admittedly, even our argument is based on theory, because the problem is, we do not have the answers. We do not have the answers, Mr. Speaker, to the questions.

The question of legality has arisen throughout this debate, because of the fact that sections 3 and 9 of the Municipalities Act require any proposed amalgamation to be submitted for feasibility studies. This particular amalgamation proposal, Bill 50, was never submitted for public hearings, and never had feasibility studies done - this particular proposal. So there is a legal question about whether this is even legal, whether it contravenes the Municipalities Act.

Then, you have the questions of compensation. Who is going to compensate the larger and more developed areas and communities and cities? Who is going to compensate those areas? Who is going to assist the transition that the Member for St. John's South talked about? Who is going to pay for that transition period? Are the people in the Goulds going to have to pay double their municipal taxes as of January 1? And they clearly are. Are the people of Wedgewood Park going to have to pay double their mil rate as of January 1? Presumably, they are. The minister could not answer the question. We asked it two or three times. Who is going to pay for the $1.2 million that the Government paid this year for fire fighting services? Who is going to pay that $1.2 million? I will tell you who - the taxpayers of the City of St. John's.

Who is going to pay for the Aquarena? We heard the minister, one day, in the Legislature, say: 'The City of St. John's won't have to pay for that,' yet the Premier said they will, and somebody else over there said it was not going to cost them all that much anyway. And the very day they said it, the City manager was in the media saying it was going to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they had anticipated. Who is going to pay for those particular costs? Will the people of the Goulds? And should they expect to get the same service in fire fighting, for example, as the people of St. John's get? Should they get the same services? Well, if they are going to pay the same tax rate, they sure as hell should. They should get the same services, so there should be a paid fire department for the community of the Goulds. Who is going to pay for that? - the taxpayers of the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, there are other questions that have been raised throughout the debate, the question of downloading from the Provincial Government onto the Municipal Governments, the cost of services and so on. It is done, clearly, not for the sake of better efficiency, because we have heard a couple of speakers in this debate talk about saving money, and that is the real reason. It is not done for efficiency, because we don't know if it is more efficient. Who knows? You can only argue in theory whether it will be more efficient. Perhaps they will need more staff to run the services, or to provide the services to the larger amalgamated communities. Who knows? And that is the whole purpose of our questioning this whole debate, Mr. Speaker.

Then, there is the question of the regional services board. The question of the regional services board, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to point out to members opposite and see if I cannot get it through their heads. This is the same Government that has forced, by use of this very same procedure, by use of closure, the regional services board legislation through this House. They used closure, the Government did, back in December 1990, a year ago. Now, why did they force closure? Why did they use closure to force through regional services board legislation, when they have not used it since? We have asked that question. The minister did not answer. He cannot answer. So why did they use closure? They cannot answer the question because it is not answerable. They cannot answer it. Nobody has the answer. They can make up some excuse for it. I remember them using the same argument that no doubt the Government House Leader or somebody will use now when they get up to speak in this debate to finish it off. I remind them, by the way, that we do have some other speakers over here that could go on. I want to remind them of that. I am sure they will get up here tonight and use the same arguments that they did a year ago, using closure to force through the regional services legislation. Mark my words. I am willing to bet they will do that.

Mr. Speaker, there were questions raised by other members in this Legislature dealing with what could happen in the future in the Kilbride area with respect to the agricultural land? What about the fire department in the City of Mount Pearl? Under their legislation, under existing legislation they have the right to operate their own fire department as does every other municipality in this Province, and outside the Province. They have the right. What Bill 50 does is take away that right from them, there is no question about that. It cannot even be argued. But Mount Pearl has made a tremendous argument as to why they should be able to keep it.

But that is gone by the wayside, Mr. Speaker. The City of Mount Pearl knows it, the people of Mount Pearl know it by now, and unfortunately by the end of this week I guess - Friday - because I am sure the Government House Leader will bring in closure for Committee stage of this bill on Thursday and for third reading on Friday. I presume he will. It would not make much sense just to do it for second reading. He nods, and he will.

So by Friday of this week it will be all done, it will be all over. Mount Pearl will lose its fire department. The Goulds and the people of Wedgewood Park will pay double the mil rate as of January 1, and the taxpayers of the existing City of St. John's will pay higher taxes beginning in the new year. Mount Pearl will lose Southlands. The increase will be 103 per cent in the Town of the Goulds.

Now the one thing that we have not heard much about in this debate from Members opposite is the whole question of fairness and balance. You know how the Premier likes to tout fairness and balance as the centrepiece of his approach to governing, and Members opposite often mouth it from time to time, pay lip service to it. But we have not heard much of fairness and balance used in this debate. The reason for that is, I suspect, because there is nothing fair and balanced with the approach that has been taken. Ramming amalgamation down the throats of the people of those communities that do not wish to have it rammed down their throats.

If the Government feels it is so beneficial to the people of these areas and would be so beneficial, then why not take the time to convince them of your argument? Why not take the time? What is the rush? Why couldn't amalgamation be done two, three or four years down the road? What is the rush? Why couldn't you do it by talking to people, by consulting with people, by providing them with the answers to the fiscal questions that have been raised? Why couldn't that be done?

I will tell you why. Because one man in this Province said this is going to be done and the rest of them fell in behind. Everybody knows who that one individual is. It is the Premier. This, make no mistake about it, is not a policy of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not even the policy of the Liberal Party. It is not the policy of the Cabinet. It is the policy of the Premier. It is not certainly the policy of the Minister responsible for amalgamation, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Because he has no idea what is going on. He went to Bristol for a full week in the middle of this debate. I cannot believe it. I could not believe it. I had to make a comment about it to the press.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am not surprised he is tired of listening. I am not surprised at that. He is certainly tired of hearing. Because everybody listens but many people do not hear, that is the problem with Members opposite.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is not much else that can be said at this moment. Democracy has taken another blow, without question. It is not melodramatic. It is the feeling experienced by a lot of people around this Province today, around Newfoundland and Labrador, for many, many reasons. But there is no question about it this particular issue is one issue which people can point to and say, there is another blow against democracy, and we hear it, Mr. Speaker. We hear it frequently, as opposition members would. I will tell you something else. Members over there hear it as well. Members over there hear it as well.

MS. VERGE: Some of them say it.

MR. SIMMS: Some of them say it. None of them say it publicly. Some of them say it behind the scenes to certain reporters in the news media, certain television reporters - Lynn Burry. I just said, Lynn Burry - certain television reporters. Some members on that side of the House are not afraid to tell - privately - people in the media what they think about the Premier and what they think about the Government. But naturally I understand members opposite keeping their traps shut publicly because they might get a chance to get into the Cabinet. Their best chance now, by the way-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will get to the Member for Port de Grave, but most of the backbenchers over there, I say to them - it is difficult, isn't it - the best chance they have now is to get out of politics. The best chance they have now is to be outside the House, because the Premier has no confidence in any of them over there, and he has proven that pretty clearly. The Member for Port de Grave is one member who does speak out. Now I have to say this though, to the Member for Port de Grave, he spoke out very publicly several months back about his feelings toward the Premier. He publicly said on some interviews -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I know deep down what his feeling is, and many of us do. It may not be very deep, but I know how he feels, and I do not blame him for taking the approach that he is taking at the moment. It is the right approach.

Anyway, all of that is irrelevant to this issue, and I am not going to repeat myself. I have said my piece, what I have to say at this stage. We will have a chance to say it again on Thursday, and we will have a chance to say it again on Friday, but I am afraid that on Friday it will be a fait accompli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!


 

December 3, 1991              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLI  No. 83A


[Continuation of Sitting, December 3, 1991]

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to have a few words about the discussion here tonight and to respond to some of the members opposite who have accused some of us on this side of not defending the interests of our constituents. I think we have done it well on this side. Some of us have done it in different ways than others, but this whole side has tried to do something to improve the administration of municipal government in the Northeast Avalon.

This Government has been in office for two-and-a-half years now, and we have had lots of time to talk about the issue. Everybody has had lots of time to make their points and to make their case. All of the municipalities in the areas have made their cases, they have hired consultants. We have had public hearings. There have been all kinds of opportunities for people to say what they believe and for people to make suggestions about how they believe we should proceed. And what have we heard from the other side? Nothing, as long as I have been a member of this House.

They say we are in favour of amalgamation, we are in favour of the reform of municipal government in this Province, but when it comes down to details, what are they in favour of? How has their position changed over the past couple of years? What reason is there to believe it would change if we delayed action for another six months or for another two years even?

So this Government has tried to do something, and this Government might have done something that I think would have accomplished more of what we need to accomplish in the Northeast Avalon if we had had more support from the other side, if the other side had refrained from trying to raise opposition to progress.

MR. SIMMS: Weak.

MR. NOEL: There is the hon. Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: You haven't got the courage of your convictions.

MR. NOEL: - who was so childish a few minutes ago that he would not keep speaking because there was a little noise in the House, but who can never control himself when somebody else wants to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It is time that gentleman looked in a mirror and followed his own prescriptions.

MR. SIMMS: It was okay for you to interrupt, was it?

MR. NOEL: He still will not resist, Mr. Speaker. This is the man who was going to increase the level of civility in this House when he became Leader of that party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Decorum.

MR. NOEL: So that side is in no position to criticize this side for not acting in the best interests of the Province and in the Northeast Avalon and of our constituents.

I want to speak now for a few minutes about the St. John's Municipal Council, my friends down at City Hall, who I don't think have done their best to further St. John's interest in this whole debate.

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. MATTHEWS: What do you want them to do, pay more taxes up there?

MR. NOEL: We are hearing a bit more now about their concerns, about the implications for St. John's. But it is a bit late in the game now, a bit late in the game. They have been outmanoeuvred by Mount Pearl, I think, in this whole issue. I think if the St. John's Municipal Council had made a better case for the city we may have had a form of amalgamation that would be more in the benefit of municipal administration in this whole area.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They were co-operation with your Minister and he-

MR. NOEL: They weren't co-operating with our minister. They have said what their position is. They have said that we should have had a greater amalgamation in this area, but they haven't followed through. They haven't gone out and sold their position like the municipality of Mount Pearl has done. They were successful in accomplishing what they wanted. As much as they might complain today, they are very lucky to-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to your own seat if you want to say something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Mount Pearl has been very lucky to maintain what it has. It's a privileged-

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame on you!

MR. NOEL: It's a privileged conclave in this whole northeast Avalon, not paying its share of taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: To whom?

MR. NOEL: And the residents of St. John's, the taxpayers of St.John's, cannot pay anymore municipal taxes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Business taxes in this city were increased 25 per cent this past year. Now we see that assessments are going up

another 25 per cent for the year to come and I'll be surprised if the-

MR. TOBIN: It's because of this bill, Bill 50. That's why they are going up.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has nothing to do with Bill 50. That has nothing to do with it.

MR. NOEL: I'd even yield to the hon. member if he'd care to explain that relationship. The mil rate -

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to explain it to you.

MR. NOEL: Do you want a minute?

MR. TOBIN: You asked me to speak. I'll speak on Bill 50.

MR. NOEL: I never asked you to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: You never had enough distance to go between the other seat and your own to think up an explanation for the point that you made is your problem.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sooky, sooky!

MR. NOEL: I think in the years to come we are going to see more tremendous demands on St. John's taxpayers, that they cannot afford to pay. A few years ago we were paying the highest rate of municipal taxes as a percentage of income. St. John's residents were paying the highest rate in the whole province, 2.33 percent.

MR. MATTHEWS: I suppose it was only townies bought shoes from you, was it?

MR. NOEL: Compared to 1.39 percent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: The hon. member for Grand Bank should understand I'm not trying to get any money out of Grand Bank to subsidize St. John's, but I'm trying to get more money out of the people who should properly pay more.

MR. WINDSOR: Don't be such a crybaby.

MR. NOEL: And that's the people in this - the Member for Mount Pearl accuses somebody else of being a crybaby, after his great orations about how this is an issue of self-determination, an issue of democracy, comparing it with the great movements in South Africa, people who are really trying to find self-determination and democracy. To compare that with Mount Pearl trying to save a few dollars on their municipal tax bill is ridiculous. The hon. member should have more sense. You hear the same thing from other people talking about this being an issue of democracy. What nonsense!

MR. WINDSOR: You'll find out in the next election what democracy is all about.

MR. NOEL: It's an issue of dollars and cents. It's an issue of putting our finances in proper order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll never get a better issue.

MR. NOEL: As I was saying, St. John's taxpayers have been paying a high percentage of their income in municipal taxes, and that was before the 25 per cent increase in business taxes this year, and before the probable 20 or 25 per cent in the year to come.

MR. WINDSOR: Why is that?

MR. NOEL: Now, how can any reasonable people expect one small group of people to continue enduring tax increases of that magnitude? But that's what's going to happen in St. John's if we don't do something about it, and that's where I fault the St.John's municipal council. They have not made the case for St. John's.

I wrote to the Mayor of St. John's last January or February asking for a response to the case that the city of Mount Pearl had made for the efficiency of their operation in comparison with the St. John's operation, and I never got an adequate response from the St. John's municipal council. We all know the City of Mount Pearl has compared costs of delivering services in Mount Pearl with St. John's and, in many cases, the costs were less in Mount Pearl. I believe the citizens of St. John's have a right to know why that is the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: If taxes go up in St. John's, they are going to blame it on you.

MR. NOEL: Why is that the case? Why is the operational budget per capita $409 in Mount Pearl and $573 in St. John's? Why do we have these cost differentials? What's going on down at city hall in St. John's? No wonder the outlying communities in this area don't want to become part of the city of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: If they can't justify their operation, if they are not running an efficient enough and an economic enough operation to inspire the confidence of the rest of the people in this area - and we have seen more evidence of it in recent days when they cut down old trees along Water Street and nobody knows who was responsible for making the decision to allow it. They put city workers on standby before they need to be put on standby at this time of year and nobody in city hall knows who was responsible for making that decision. How can we expect to make the case for St. John's as long as we see that kind of administration?

So I think the City of St. John's has let the citizens of St. John's down, in not making a better case for our people and in not running a better administration to inspire more confidence of the Province and of the Provincial Government and of the people they would seek to amalgamate.

Now, I don't think that what is being done by this bill is going to be a permanent solution to the needs for municipal government in the Northeast Avalon. I think we are going to find that St. John's is going to have to finance a lot more costs than they anticipate or than have been anticipated by anybody. The city, I believe, was on the radio this morning saying they expect to have a net cost increase of $340,000 in order to service the Goulds.

MS. VERGE: That is just the beginning.

MR. NOEL: Now we are hearing that the cost of running the Aquarena is probably going to be $1.2 million this year for the residents of the City of St. John's. They are going to be taking over responsibility for extending the municipal transportation system, I suppose, all the way out to the Goulds and to other parts of the area.

MR. PARSONS: Long Pond.

MS. VERGE: Fire department displacement.

MR. NOEL: They are going to assume responsibility for the fire department, you know, for the wages, and I understand there is a big wage increase coming in. Maybe the city residents alone will not pay it, but they will pay their share. We are talking about an expensive pension plan for firemen that the residents of St. John's are going to have to take over. We are talking about the administrative capacity of running a fire department. Does the city have that, the city that does not know who said it is all right to tear down old trees, does not know why somebody put workers on standby before they had to? They are going to run the fire department for this region. But are they going to do it well? That is the question that we are all going to have to answer.

I am very concerned about what is going to happen in this region, and I am concerned about what is happening in Mount Pearl, the case that I have made for a long time, whenever I have spoken on this in this Legislature. This year Mount Pearl is paying $2 million less than it should in municipal taxes towards the cost of running government in this region.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not be such a fool. Sit down!

MR. NOEL: If the Pearlgate Shopping Mall goes ahead, it will contribute $500,000 more to the revenues of Mount Pearl, but it is made possible only because it will service the whole region. So why should this little privileged enclave of Mount Pearl get all of the benefit of that? At the same time, they will pay half the amount of municipal taxes. If they are residents of Mount Pearl they will pay half of the amount of municipal taxes that they would pay if they are taxed at the same rate as St. John's businesses are taxed. So that means that this whole region will lose $500.000 in municipal revenues because Mount Pearl is being left alone.

Now, that is not fair to the residents of this whole region. I want to see everybody in this region pay a fair share of taxes. I sympathize with the Member for Humber Valley who talks about the problems of people who live away from the capital city of the Province, but we cannot have a capital city everywhere. We cannot have a major hospital everywhere. We are not seeking to amalgamate Deer Lake with St. John's.

MS. VERGE: Oh, no!

MR. NOEL: We are just seeking to amalgamate and provide for reasonable government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go for it. Go for it.

MR. NOEL: -amongst the communities in this area. The case we make has nothing to do with the level of taxation out in your district. But you have to understand that the people of St. John's, just because they live in this area and just because there are more jobs in this area, are not necessarily better off than the people out in your district, are not necessarily capable of paying higher taxes. If you have a home worth $100,000 in St. John's you are paying $1,100 a year in taxes. You are not paying near that out in Deer Lake.

MR. WOODFORD: No, but we are paying (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Yes, I know you are paying it, but the person who has the comparable job in St. John's has no more capacity to make that payment than the person who has a similar job in Deer Lake. So you have to keep in mind that there is a limit to what people can pay. There are many poor people in St. John's. There are many people who do not have adequate incomes today who have to pay municipal taxes that they cannot afford to pay. Unless we do something to ensure that all of the people who are able to pay a fair share in this region do so, they are going to find themselves in a worse position. This whole area is going to find itself in a worse position, and the Province is going to have to do something. When the Province has to do something for an area of this size, an area that is a third of the Province, an area that is responsible for half of the municipal taxes that are collected in this whole Province, once the Province has to do something for this area, it is going to hurt all of the districts that you people represent throughout this Province. In order to minimize the damage to your own districts you should support efforts to ensure that people who live in this area and enjoy comparably high levels of services, pay a fair share of the cost of maintaining these services, and you have not done so throughout this whole debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in this debate because I think it is just possible that there are some members on the other side listening. If I hear what the Member for Pleasantville has to say - we have had a series of very good arguments as to why we should vote against this bill. It is not fair, he said, it is not fair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Those were his words. He said he was concerned about the capability of city council to run the city and so this bill is going to give them more responsibility; it is going to give them the fire department, it is going to give them the aquarena, it is going to give them parts of Mount Pearl, it is going to give them the Goulds and Wedgewood Park. If that side of the House was concerned about the capability of the City of St. John's to manage their affairs, they should not have this bill at all, so the Member for Pleasantville feels safe and secure coming in here attacking the city council of the City of St. John's, but he is not prepared to follow through on that and vote against the bill. He is not prepared to vote against the bill because in the end he is just getting up and saying a few words to keep himself occupied there in the back benches now that he has a much more diminished role in constitutional affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about what is going to happen to the taxpayers of St. John's, and particularly the taxpayers of that part of St. John's where people live who do not have the incomes to go with the values of the homes in which they live. I think the Member for Pleasantville is very aware of this. There are many homes and many home owners in St. John's, particularly in downtown St. John's in my district, in the Member for St. John's South's district and the Member for St. John's Centre's district who live in homes and because of their incomes, the payment of municipal taxes is a burden, is a serious burden.

We are going to have in the Town of the Goulds, when it is part of St. John's, again many, many people, who have homes they have either built themselves or inherited or have been passed on to their families that they are going to have to pay substantial taxes on as they never have had before and I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to see the fear that people had about municipal government in this Province, which prevented the growth of municipal government for many, many years coming to fruition, that there are going to be people in the new greater St. John's that this bill will create, who will be potentially losing their homes because of the tax burden and the evidence we have of it has come out today in the results of the City of St. John's renewed assessment.

Now it is all very well to say, Mr. Speaker, if your assessment is gone up by 25 per cent you are supposedly 25 per cent richer, that you have a more expensive home, but, Mr. Speaker, that does not put any money in your pocket to be able to pay municipal taxes and I am glad to hear and I have to praise the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I am glad he is here, if not I would have been talking to an empty seat but I am glad he is here because I think perhaps he is listening.

I think he is listening because he did say today, and I commend him for it, that he is prepared to listen to an argument about fairness and if he sees, he said today, if he sees that amalgamation and the results of amalgamation are making it unfair to individual taxpayers, he is prepared to do something about it, so I invite him to meet before this bill goes into effect, with the town council while there is still a Town Council of Wedgewood Park, and to meet with the town council of the Goulds. To ask them what the affect of a new tax regime is going to be on their residents, and particularly those residents who although they may own a home and have to pay taxes, are not in a position to pay the massive tax increases that are going to result almost immediately from the imposition of this bill and the creation of the larger St. John's on January 1, 1992.

He has to do that because the Government has failed to do what it could have done to ensure that the people of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds would have been represented in the council, through their own wards, immediately upon the introduction and the coming into force of this legislation in January of 1992. Because there is provision in The Municipalities Act for the Minister to allow through the Cabinet order an election to take place prior to an amalgamation. But he did not do that.

I find it disconcerting that while the outspoken ones on the backbenches, such as the Member for Pleasantville, are prepared to recognize the unfairness of this bill and the additional expenses that are going to be burdensome to the taxpayers of St. John's - including the Fire Department, the Aquarena, the additional tax, transportation costs that are going to be imposed - in what is after all a very expensive transportation system. One of the few in this Province but a very expensive system. I am surprised that while the Member for Pleasantville is able to point these things out publicly here in this House we do not see the Minister of Municipal Affairs able to answer the questions - legitimate questions - asked in this House by Members on this side of the House, including myself, as to what exactly is the cost and the impact of this Bill on the municipalities involved.

Not just St. John's, but I am speaking here as the Member for St. John's East. What is the cost, what is the burden, how is it going to be implemented, and how can the Government bring something to the process that will help to lessen the impact or at least spread it out over a period of a few years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South knows that there are many of his constituents - and they are going to be calling him when they get their tax bills - they might be calling Shannie Duff and Andy Wells and a few others down there, the ones that - the incompetents, according to the Member for Pleasantville. The ones who do not know how to run the City, according to the Member for Pleasantville. But they will be calling the Member for St. John's South, and they will want to know how they are going to pay their tax bill. Are they going to lose their house?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying they're incompetent too?

MR. HARRIS: I'm not saying they are incompetent, it is the Member for Pleasantville who says they are incompetent. I do not think they are incompetent. The Member for Pleasantville thinks they are incompetent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you think?

MR. HARRIS: I think that the Member for St. John's South is going to have a lot to answer for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South is going to have a lot to answer for when his constituents get their tax bills -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) don't speak for (Inaudible) do it on your own.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South is going to have to answer to those constituents for this Bill and the cost that it imposes upon them. He is going to have to explain why the Minister of Municipal Affairs did not do something to lessen the impact on the taxpayers of St. John's.

Now I agree with some of the things that the Member for Pleasantville said. He knows I agree because I supported an amendment to the resolution when it was first introduced last spring. Because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to have an amalgamation bill that does a proper job of sharing fairly the tax burden in the Northeast Avalon region then it has to be a piece of legislation that includes, not only the City of St. John's and Wedgewood Park, but also a proper amalgamation that would include Mount Pearl and the Goulds and not leave in place a truncated city without any room to expand, without any ability to grow, a new Wedgewood Park, Mr. Speaker, an enclave that has a separate administration and not only a separate administration but a competition for the business tax dollar, an unfair competition, I might add, to the City of St. John's. I think that has to be recognized, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Pleasantville recognizes it and I suppose in their heart of hearts some of the others over there recognize it as well, but do not have the courage to speak out about it in public, and do not have the courage to speak out about it in this House. The questions have not been answered by the minister, Mr. Speaker. He has not answered the questions the people of St. Phillips have as to why they will have to share the increase and large debt load that the other municipalities with which they are joined have. Nothing was done to sweeten the pot, as it were, to make this a more palatable project. The groupings involving the town of Paradise add additional burdens to the residents but do not necessarily provide solutions to the problems that are going to exist. The minister again, Mr. Speaker, has not been able to answer the question as to how these costs are going to be shared and how decisions are going to be made. In the legislation provision is made for the City of St. John's to bill the municipalities for services it provides in terms of regional fire fighting, the provision of water, and other services. If the municipalities do not agree they have the right to go to the Public Utilities Board. What is the Public Utilities Board going to do? They have no guidelines. The Public Utilities Board shall decide. On what basis? There are no guidelines, no principles, no guidance to be given to the Public Utilities Board. Whoever happens to be sitting on the Public Utilities Board have to decide whether the bill sent to the people of Paradise ought to be paid, or whether it ought to be changed. There are no guidelines, no principles, no nothing for the people of St. Phillips or for the people of the new town of Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown?

MR. HARRIS: The new town of Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I thought you said Newtown.

MR. HARRIS: There used to be a Newtown but it was amalgamated.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the Speaker's district.

MR. HARRIS: The Speaker's district was in Newtown, one of the Speakers but Newtown was amalgamated.

Mr. Speaker, I take some heart in the fact that the minister answered the question tonight by saying he is prepared to listen to the problems that result from his amalgamation. I am sure he must have found it very difficult to listen when he was in the city of Bristol to the complaints that were being made here in this House, and publicly while he was gone, so now that he is back, I hope before this bill is pushed through this House and before the amalgamation is pushed through on January 1, that he will go and talk to the town council in the Goulds. Have a meeting. Now that we have done what we are going to do I want to hear from you about what needs to be done to make sure this is implemented fairly. Before he does it. Because if he does not do that he will not be acting out his responsibilities properly as a minister of this Government.

But there will be other opportunities to speak on this bill as we go through the Committee stage and third reading. I just wanted to take the opportunity tonight to respond to some of the issues raised by the Member for Pleasantville and also to some of the concerns that have been expressed to me about the impact that this legislation will have on the taxpayers in particular of the City of St. John's, of my district, and of the newly included regions of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We are voting on the amendment.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now back to the main motion. Second reading of Bill 50.

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'? Contrary minded, 'nay'? Carried.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

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

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Matthews; Mr. Tobin; Mr. R. Aylward; Mr. Woodford; Ms. Verge; Mr. N. Windsor; Mr. Hearn; Mr. Parsons; Mr. S. Winsor; Mr. A. Snow; Mr. Warren; Mr. Harris.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOHN NOEL (CLERK): Mr. Speaker, twenty-three for, thirteen against.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 50)

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise hon. members that tomorrow is Private Member's Day of course, but on Thursday I will be calling the Committee stage of Bill 50.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.