November

28, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 80

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with the routine business, I would like, on

behalf of hon. members, to welcome to the galleries today twenty boy scouts from

Vanier Elementary School here in St. John's, accompanied by their leaders, David

Fogwell, Keith Bowden, Shawn Gosse, Gary Boland, and Mark Brown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of

Fisheries called on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take a stand against the

Federal Government's proposal for an Atlantic fisheries management agency, and

in support of Canada/Newfoundland joint management agreement.

I want to say first of all to the Premier, as a

preamble, and

I want to make it clear, that we on this side of the House vehemently oppose

that proposal, as well, and I have today notified the Minister of Fisheries of

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind the House,

of course, that this has been our position and policy for eleven years, and I

will provide -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we are all eager to support a

Canada/Newfoundland Agreement because, as I said, we have advocated one for a

long, long time, as well. The question I want to ask the Premier is this: What

is it the Newfoundland Government wants this House to support? No one has seen

it other than the Prime Minister, I guess, and Mr. Crosbie, as we were told the

other day. Where is the Government's proposal for joint management, and how can

anyone be expected to support it if we have not even seen it? Will we see it

soon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crosbie knows what it is.

We have talked to Mr. Crosbie about it. We have been pleading with Mr. Crosbie

for months to sit down and talk to us about it. My last meetings with Mr.

Crosbie were, 'Don't proceed with what you are doing now until you sit down and

talk to us about joint management.' I met with the Prime Minister the latter

part of September and said, 'Please, sit down and talk to us about joint

management. I know Mr. Crosbie is proposing a change. Before any change is

proposed in a public way, would you please meet with the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to discuss joint management.' Now, there is not much

more I can do other than get on my knees, and I do not propose to do that for

anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we would have preferred to

have had a discussion with the Prime Minister and Mr. Crosbie before presenting

it in a public way because we did not want them to be offended or affronted by

our trying to sell it on a public basis before we even discussed it with them.

It was as a courtesy to them that we have not presented it in a public way. Now,

in the meantime, we even went so far as to meet on two occasions with the

Premier of Nova Scotia - three, I am sorry -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Cashin (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Cashin. I know what Mr. Cashin is

doing. Mr. Cashin is protecting his own personal interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He has placed himself in a position where

he can't criticize his masters in Ottawa, so he has to focus criticism on the

Government that doesn't have the control here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It's about time!

PREMIER WELLS: It's about time somebody said that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to meeting the Prime Minister

and Mr. Crosbie, I have met three times in the last few months with the Premier

of Nova Scotia, recognizing that it is important to try to persuade him to this

point of view, too. We met last summer; he came here to visit me. And I met with

the Premier of Nova Scotia to help persuade him to this point of view because it

would be easier to get Ottawa to accept the proposal. I went to Nova Scotia, and

I met with the Premier of Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Not regional at all; and I insisted that

it be provincial, not regional, and he knows that. I met with the Premier of

Nova Scotia again just last week in Halifax, and he was proposing regional, Mr.

Crosbie's proposal, and I said no, we can never agree to that because it would

be devastating for Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is obvious to me that Mr. Crosbie is

co-operating with the Premier of Nova Scotia to put this in place, and that is

not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't care what the Premier has

said to the Prime Minister, or what the Premier has said to the Minister of

Fisheries in Ottawa. That wasn't my question. My question is: When is he going

to say something to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? When is he going to

say something to the elected representatives of the people, who sit in this

Legislature? That was my question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier to relax; take it easy;

just relax. I am just reminding him that he didn't answer the question. I asked

him when he was going to give the people of the Legislature a chance to have a

look at his proposal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him this. All we have heard

the Premier say, and the Minister of Fisheries allude to, in some vague way, is

some kind of board, similar to an offshore petroleum board, I think, is what

somebody said over there on that side of the House. I ask the Premier, will he

give a commitment to this Legislature that we will have an opportunity to see

this so-called White Paper? Will we have an opportunity to debate this

particular White Paper and the policies contained in it, in this Legislature,

before the House adjourns this fall? May I ask him to answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the full report and the full

proposal has been made available to Mr. Crosbie, so he knows exactly -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will answer the question in my own way.

The Leader of the Opposition can determine the questions but he can't determine

the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The full details have been made available

to Mr. Crosbie. Now that Mr. Crosbie and the Prime Minister have spurned our

courtesy to them by our not making it public before we had an opportunity to

discuss it with them, the minister tells me he is going to make it available to

the House on Monday. So it will be made available here on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we debate?

PREMIER WELLS: You can debate what you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Richard Cashin.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. TOBIN: All the Premier did was attack Richard Cashin.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he attacked Richard Cashin, that's all he

did. Big deal!

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't know why some of them are so touchy

today. I think Mr. Cashin may have struck a nerve, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Right on, that is exactly what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: For the past five or six months, Mr.

Speaker, the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been talking very

openly about reform within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Indeed, on

October 3, in a speech to the Fisheries Council of Canada, the federal minister

described the process of licensing and allocations as too complex, too political

and simply archaic, and he said at that time that a new agency should be set up

to make individual decisions regarding licensing and allocations.

I ask the minister, since that was announced on October 3,

did he make any representations to the federal minister pertaining to this new

agency and did he make any specific recommendations as to the course the federal

minister should follow?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has answered that

question, I think, and answered it very well, in that we have been talking now

to Mr. Crosbie and to his predecessor, Mr. Valcourt, and I believe, going back

to the days of Mr. Siddon, about the need for some kind of a joint management

regime. Now, Mr. Crosbie was well aware of what the Province was thinking. It

has been said to him on many occasions both by the Premier and myself. The

Premier, in fact, has already, I understand, briefed the Prime Minister on the

type of a joint management regime that we want put in place. So Mr. Crosbie was

well aware of the position that the Province had taken. We presented him with a

copy of our discussion paper last week, notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen do not

want to support the Province, would prefer to support Mr. Crosbie and the

maritime provinces' fishermen, then that is fine. But if they are going to

support Newfoundland's position, which is the right one, then they cannot have

it both ways. Right now they are trying to find a way to run with the hare and

hunt with the hounds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: They're desperate, they've become desperate!

They know they cannot support Mr. Crosbie and yet they are afraid to support the

Province. Mr. Speaker, if they have any regard whatever for this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CARTER: - and for the fishermen of this Province then

they will do the right thing and support the Province's position.

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

I am asking hon. members please to refrain from interference

on both sides. It does not assist in the flow of Question Period.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

say to the Minister that I strongly oppose what Mr. Crosbie has proposed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: - I strongly oppose it. But I cannot

support something when I don't know what it's about! I say to the Minister, I

cannot support something when I do not know what you are proposing. How can I

support that, any more than the people of the Province can?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister was so concerned about this on Tuesday that I asked him the question

and he gave me an answer about part time fishermen. So he should not get up

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Ah! He can give it but he cannot take it,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now let me ask Dr. Doolittle, Mr. Speaker,

this question. Now that he has had time to study the proposals -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Decker.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that is Dr. Death. Dr. Doolittle. Now

that he has had time to study the Federal document, the proposal document, I'm -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't answer it, the Premier said, look.

MR. MATTHEWS: I would hope that the Minister is allowed

to stand up and answer a question, Mr. Speaker, and not to be dictated to by the

dictator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to -

MR. MATTHEWS: Now that he has had time to look at the

document, the proposal document, I want to ask the Minister. I have my own

impressions of the negative implications that it will have for the fishing

industry in this Province. I am wondering what concerns does the Minister have

about it?

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

MR. CARTER: When the hon. gentleman has the courtesy to

address me properly I will consider answering his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members on both sides of the House

that there is a protocol on order and decorum and members do have to be

addressed in the proper fashion. I ask the hon. Opposition House Leader to

continue his question.

MR. MATTHEWS: I respect that, Mr. Speaker, but it is also

a well know fact in this Legislature that if you can give it you should also be

able to take it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Because this matter is so important to the

fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador I want to ask the minister if he

would immediately seek, and if he has to, demand a meeting with Mr. Crosbie, and

again demand that he scrap his plans for this Atlantic Regional Agency as it

will only further compromise those involved in the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador? If he has not already done so will he do that? Will

he scrap his proposals for an Atlantic Regional Agency to deal with licensing

and allocations? Will he immediately seek a meeting with the minister, get in

touch with him, and demand that he scrap his proposal for this regional agency?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is way

behind. In fact the Premier has already written the Prime Minister of our

country and has asked the Prime Minister to instruct his Minister, Mr. Crosbie,

to meet with the provincial minister to discuss the joint management proposal.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

MR. CARTER: Certainly we will be meeting with Mr. Crosbie

to discuss the matter. I should point out that it is rather interesting that

members opposite complain that we were late in getting our report into the hands

of Mr. Crosbie, but what they are not saying is that Mr. Crosbie had our report

about five days before he extended the courtesy-

MS. VERGE: Five days? (inaudible) two and one half years.

MR. CARTER: No, one second. Mr. Speaker if they can

contain themselves! We gave Mr. Crosbie our report many days before he extended

the courtesy to us of giving us a copy of his report. In fact we received his

report, I believe it was Wednesday evening, I believe it was sometime yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Crosbie's five or six page report on

restructuring.

AN HON. MEMBER: On Tuesday.

MR. CARTER: Or on Tuesday. He had our report before we

gave him -

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

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

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Mines and

Energy. I am sure he is familiar with the Bloomberg Financial Markets

Commodities News, a U.S. publication specializing in reporting on the petroleum

industry. Reports in a recent newsletter suggested that the Newfoundland

Government gave Newfoundland Processing Limited $20 million in cash to keep the

Come By Chance Refinery open. Is there any basis to this story? Has the

Government made a $20 million cash payment to the refinery?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity, actually, to clarify

this mess. We have not given the Come By Chance Refinery one cent, not one

penny. So, I do not know where this story comes from, it is totally incorrect.

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Don't laugh too loud, fellows.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Member for Menihek has the floor to

ask a question.

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

The Bloomburg Commodities News claims it was told of the cash

contribution by a Newfoundland Government official. That is what they claim. Has

the Government provided any financial assistance to the Come By Chance Refinery

through loan guarantees, purchase of crude, transfer of assets, temporary

assistance with cash flow, or any other form of financial assistance?

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

DR. GIBBONS: The answer again, Mr. Speaker, to the best

of my knowledge, is no, but I do know that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has

bought some crude from Come By Chance. They normally tender for their crude.

They have bought some. I am not aware of any other crude that has been bought

from Come By Chance. And the answer is, no, to the other parts of the question.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: The minister is undoubtedly aware that there

were reports last summer and last fall about Newfoundland Processing being in

financial trouble. Did the company request any financial assistance from the

Government or from any other agency of Government, and can he confirm that the

refinery is in arrears with electrical charges to Newfoundland Hydro to the tune

of about $7 or $8 million?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the refinery has never come to

me looking for any money, and we have never offered any to it. No, the refinery

is not in arrears to the tune of $7 to $8 million to Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to spread

rumours, I am attempting, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the rumours and to place facts

on the table rather than to accept the rumours that are out and about in the

communities in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Menihek, and I know

that there are many questions coming in addition to his, but members should take

advantage of Question Period to ask those questions, and allow the Member for

Menihek to carry on without any interference from members to the left as well.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: A supplementary question to the minister,

Mr. Speaker. I will ask him if they are in arrears to Newfoundland Hydro, and

how much?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not going to

get into the details of what Newfoundland Processing may owe Hydro. Everybody

who buys electricity from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro receives a bill, and

has time in which to pay that bill, and Newfoundland Processing does the same as

anybody else.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the minister responsible for Mines and

Energy. Mr. Speaker, back on April the 27th, 1990, the minister announced in a

Ministerial Statement that Newfoundland Hydro was taking a new direction in

policy concerning the development of mini hydro sites in the Province. That

would mean that on any appropriate hydro project of ten megawatts, or 10,000

kilowatts, that Hydro would relinquish its water franchise to private

developers, and purchase the resulting energy. Could the minister tell the House

now if Hydro is still following this policy?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Hydro is still following

this policy to date. I do not have a recent count in the last few days, but I

know that we have gone past, I think it is twenty-five sites that have been

nominated by the private sector, and some indication we may be getting close to

thirty sites that have been nominated. They are in the category that he is

talking about. Of these, about a half dozen have been registered with the

Department of Environment, and are either through or going through the

environmental review process.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware then that Newfoundland Hydro has

indicated to those same people you just mentioned that they will only accept

fifty megawatts of power - the application for fifty megawatts or more - because

of the fact that they are building a new 150 megawatt generating plant in

Holyrood, and they will not accept any independent power until after the new

generator is commissioned.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some

confusion about the matter. Because of the fact that we have a policy of

encouraging mini hydro, and encouraging co-generation, and other types of

electrical generation to provide some power in the medium to short term, Hydro

has deferred a decision on whether or not it will be building another unit at

Holyrood for at least one more year. The indication was that there would be a

decision made this fall, and made before now this fall, to go into the capital

planning for next year on whether Hydro would be doing Holyrood number four or

some other development starting next year with Holyrood number four getting very

serious consideration, but recently they decided to defer that decision by

twelve months giving other opportunities and options.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware then

that Newfoundland Hydro now has told those same private companies, that have

received viable small hydro sites from Hydro that they are now calling for

request for proposals? After doing all the work on those projects they are now

calling for requests for proposals. Could the minister confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I have not been informed that that is

happening, Mr. Speaker. If it is, I will have to check it out for him.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder could the minister explain then why Newfoundland

Hydro, who has just gone for a 3.9 per cent increase to the PUB, would even

consider building a 150 megawatt generator in Holyrood when, like he said, we

have about twenty or twenty-five proposals now before the board through the

private sector, willing to put their own money into it, not costing one cent of

Government money, and I have documentation saying that those private individuals

have been told otherwise.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they have been

told otherwise, and I will check that out. They certainly should not have been

told otherwise. They should not have been told otherwise, and the reason for the

deferral of a decision on Holyrood number four, or any future development by

Hydro, is to give these options a chance to be developed. I will be checking

into that further.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Finance, but in his absence I will ask the Premier. Is he aware of the

Federal Government's, particularly the Minister of Finance's, announced

intention of having a wide ranging series of pre-budget meetings leading up to

the preparation of the federal budget as part of a new federal policy? Is he

further aware that although originally plans had been made to have consultations

in the Atlantic Provinces, either in St. John's or in Halifax, these have now

been cancelled, and the closest that the minister will be coming, in terms of

having pre-budget consultations on this matter, is the City of Montreal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the

hon. member is getting at. It may be that the closest the federal organized

consultations will be may be the City of Montreal; I do not know the detail of

that. The Minister of Finance would know it. But I can assure the member that

the Ministers of Finance of the four Atlantic Provinces are in the process of

meeting now. This is why the minister is not here. He is on his way to

participate in a meeting of Atlantic Provinces Finance Ministers, so Montreal is

not the closest that we will come to dealing with pre-budget matters. I am not

quite sure the extent to which those discussions may involve any aspect of

federal budgeting. They certainly will involve aspects of provincial budgeting,

and federal transfers to provinces.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The pre-budget consultations to which I referred are public

consultations which are planned for groups outside of Government, involving

economic councils, citizens groups, people who have a say in the economy and are

interested in the effect of the federal budget on the economy, that have been

planned for all over the country, one and two day sessions that have been

cancelled. Perhaps the Premier is not aware. Will he advise the House of whether

his Government is prepared to make representations to the federal minister to

ensure that full consultation and participation is made possible by the Federal

Government because of the serious effects of the federal budget on the people of

this Province, and indeed the Government of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I do not know

the detail about these proposals. I suspect that they are, in the main,

opportunities for private, and in a sense public - by that I mean of private

individuals in a public way - but that governmental process will continue in the

ordinary course. I do not know if there are going to be additional federal

hearings in the Atlantic region, or meetings or gatherings in the Atlantic

region, in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia, to provide for this, but as soon as I

speak with the Minister of Finance again I will ask him what discussions he has

had. I will ask him to report to the House. I do not know whether he will be

back for tomorrow morning or not. I doubt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

PREMIER WELLS: He will not be, so it will probably be

Monday before we will be able to answer the question.

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.

Two days ago, I believe, he met with some representatives

from the Canadian Paperworkers Union representing the loggers with the Kruger

operation in the Province. They made a request of the minister to make

representations to Kruger, on their behalf, to delay the implementation of some

new technology which Kruger plans to bring into the forest operations in our

Province. Could the minister tell this House if he plans to make representations

to Kruger to delay the new technology that is to be brought into this Province?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, since the subject is so

important to so many people, I should really put in perspective exactly what has

happened.

As the hon. member said, last Tuesday I met with the Minister

of Employment and Labour, and with the union representatives of CPU. They

outlined to us what they understood Kruger to be doing in their forest and

woodlands operations. I listened. We had a very productive meeting. I listened

for an hour and a half to their concerns and they suggested various

alternatives, options that Kruger might look at as opposed to what indeed Kruger

was saying, and I committed myself to the CPU to now sit with management in

Corner Brook or St. John's and listen officially to what Kruger did indeed

intend to do with regard to their woodlands operation. We also made a commitment

to the CPU to ask Kruger whether or not there were problems, or what the

problems might be with any alternatives being suggested by the CPU, and I might

tell the hon. member in answer to his direct question that I have already been

in contact with the management in Corner Brook and right now a meeting is being

organized for as early as possible next week to discuss the whole issue.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that

the minister made the commitment that he would ask Kruger to delay

implementation of these three harvesters. Maybe the Canadian Paper Workers Union

misunderstood what the minister said too. But, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Paper

Workers Union also asked the minister if he would consider the possibility of

this new technology coming into the forest operations on the West Coast, as

requiring an environmental impact study. I am not sure that it requires an

environmental impact study, however, has the minister ordered, because he is

Minister of Environment and Lands as well as Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, an environmental review of this project because of the new

technology to be brought into the forests of this Province?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, long before, certainly a week

maybe more, before I met with the representatives of CPU, as Acting Minister of

Environment and Lands, I had received a letter, which I discussed with the CPU,

pointing out that the union feels that these new harvesters are not

environmentally - there are problems as far as they were concerned with those

machines, and what I have done of course, having received the letter and having

received the concerns, I have asked the Department of Environment and Lands to

deal with the letters and to advise me as to whether or not there is any basis

for the concerns as expressed by the CPU, and, Mr. Speaker, when my officials

have had a chance to analyze that letter and to look at whether or not there is

any basis for the concerns expressed by the CPU, then we will deal with that

issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table

in the House the report of the Public Tender Act exceptions for October of this

year.

PREMIER WELLS: Are you going to mention that there are

some (Inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) exceptions this time, Mr. Speaker.

Members will notice when they get their copies that there are some instances

where there were lease extensions that were not done during -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh. You want me to start again?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tabling of reports.

MR. BAKER: I was tabling the report, the Public Tender

exceptions, October, and I was pointing out to Members that Members will notice

if they look, in three pages that have to do with lease extensions, that there

are several items that are not for October but were from previous dates and

inadvertently were overlooked, and that we are currently -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Inadvertently, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) maybe.

MR. BAKER: Maybe. We are currently looking into the

reasons why they were overlooked. One of them dates back quite some time, Mr.

Speaker. I just wanted to point that out so hon. Members can have a close look

at it.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Electrical Power Control Act."

Petitions

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) police commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand

Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not on Petitions, Mr. Speaker. You are -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: If I might revert. The hon. Member for

Humber East asked about the police commission. I can (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we revert?

PREMIER WELLS: Could we revert to Answers to Questions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. SPEAKER: Revert to Answer to Questions?

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Deputy

Minister of Justice and asked her where it was. She told me that the matter was

in progress, the Bill has been drafted, it was going through for final approvals

of people with different interests in it. It should be ready to proceed to

Cabinet fairly shortly, within days I would think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixth draft.

PREMIER WELLS: This is the sixth draft? It has gone

through its sixth draft now and it will come for final approval to Cabinet

shortly.

MS. VERGE: Will it come before the House before

Christmas?

PREMIER WELLS: It may be but I cannot say. It depends. If

the House is closing on Monday, no, if it closes Friday, probably not, if it

stays open 'til next week, maybe.

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

point of order, I believe.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker. I rise today on a

provision of Standing Order 23, to ask leave to move the adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing -

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would permit, I do not

think we had gone past Petitions. If you would let me get past Petitions we

would come back to... let me come back to Petitions and we -

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we were, and we went back into Orders

MR. SPEAKER: Well, okay, we will just make for

(Inaudible).

Orders of the Day

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Before Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that

you had called Petitions and then we reverted back for the Premier to make his

statement, so I apologize for that.

But I rise today on a provision of Standing Order 23, to ask

leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a

matter of urgent public importance. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that what we, on

this side - and I see the Premier is taking it very lightly, but we do not -

that what we have seen come down over the last couple of days pertaining to the

federal minister's proposal to establish a regional agency to deal with

licensing and allocations in the Atlantic fishery, more particularly in the

Newfoundland fishery, we consider that to be of extreme importance to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, those fishermen and fish plant

workers who are out and about struggling, as it is, to make a living in this

Province.

We think it is of vital importance, important enough, Mr.

Speaker, for this Legislature to have a debate on the issue. We feel that a

strong message has to be sent to the federal minister and to the Federal

Government on the issue. We think, Mr. Speaker, this matter is urgent and

important enough to the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

particularly, in our most traditional, historic industry, the fishery, that as a

united force, this Legislature should debate the issue and then jointly resolve

to go forward in representation, and we ask for Your Honour's consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! A good point.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been through a number of occasions in this House in

the last seven years when motions have been made to adjourn the House for debate

on a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind

Your Honour that nothing is happening right now that requires an action within

the next few hours, number one. Number two, Mr. Speaker, the matter was already

raised during Question Period today. It has been indicated to members opposite

that the Government's position paper will be available to the House on Monday,

at which point in time, we would be quite willing to have discussion for a day

or two on that particular document which covers the issue at hand.

This clause is generally reserved for items which there is no

other opportunity to debate, and I would suggest there are many opportunities to

debate this issue on the Order Paper. Members, for instance, last Wednesday had

an opportunity to bring forth a private member's motion on this topic. There are

many money bills still left on the Order Paper, and I have indicated that after

the documentation has been prepared and ready for release to the House involving

Government's position on this issue, I would be quite willing to have a

one-or-two-day debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not a matter

to which this particular clause would apply.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the motion by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

In debating what is known as an emergency resolution, I guess the word 'urgency'

is the one that has be interpreted by the Chair. It is not necessarily the fact

that there may be other opportunities to bring the matter up. The Question

Period is not a time for debate. Question Period is to ask questions of the

Government. Private members' resolutions are not an appropriate way of dealing

with matters of such great import, and particularly, ones that are requiring an

urgency of response, and I think that is the key, Mr. Speaker. Given the

seriousness of the proposal and the consequences for this Province, the urgency

of a response, a detailed response, an opportunity have public discussion about

it in this House, is an important enough reason to require an emergency debate

in this House. The other opportunities that may arise do not give the same

impact to it. I recall, several years ago, a decision by the Government of

Canada to intervene in a constitutional case before the Supreme Court of Canada

was sufficient cause for the Government of the day to have an emergency

reaction, in fact, I believe, called a special day, a moratorium of some kind to

think there is precedent, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing these types of events as

matters of an urgent nature.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the

point raised by my colleague the Opposition House Leader. I think this is,

indeed, a very important urgency situation, probably one of the most urgent

economic situations we have had facing us in this Province for a number of

years.

Yesterday in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, we heard the

Premier say how important this was and how Newfoundlanders should get behind him

and rally behind the Minister of Fisheries and the Government to protest this

decision. Today, when we raise it, Mr. Speaker, as a point of great importance

to the people of Newfoundland and ask for an urgent discussion on it, the

Premier and the Minister of Fisheries get up and walk out of the Legislature.

Now, they cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. If it was urgent yesterday, it

is urgent today, and it is shameful that neither of them has stayed to see what

Your Honour is going to rule on this. This is an urgent situation, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are now being affected by it.

We have heard Mr. Cashin, Mr. Speaker, from the Fishermens'

Union, in the past twenty-four and forty-eight hours speak of the urgency of

this, and the callous attitude of this administration towards it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that, at this point, he is

not to enter into debate. The hon. the member is only to express the case for

urgency and make it very quickly. I have already heard a number of cases, and I

am just extending a courtesy to the member. It is not normal to allow members to

carry on debate when we are asking that the matter be debated. So, I would ask

the hon. member to clue up pretty quickly.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I submit, as my colleague did and

as the Member for St. John's East did, that we, on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the people involved in the fisheries,

see this matter as extremely urgent. We ask you, Your Honour, to rule in favour

of the resolution and let us debate this, and let the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador see if their elected representatives support the urgency of the mess

the fisheries is in.

MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members know, when the Chair is

deciding upon this matter, the urgency of debate, we are not at all discussing

the urgency of the matter. We all know that the matter is very urgent. Anything

to do with the fisheries is a very urgent matter. As a matter of fact, one

Speaker in Saskatchewan, when dealing with this, because the Chair is put in a

discretionary position, always ruled that whenever anything was raised on

farming for emergency debate, he let it go, because farming was always so

important to Saskatchewan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In deciding whether or not the Chair allows

the debate to continue on this particular matter, as I have said before, what

the Chair has to decide is whether or not there is an urgency of debate and

whether or not the debate today will do anything towards a resolution of the

matter. Particularly today, when we do not know what the position of the

Government is, the Chair would rather, I think, like to see what the position of

the Government is, to wait until they present their position and, if the matter

arose at that particular time, I think maybe the Chair would be more inclined to

allow an emergency debate. I think it would be much more advantageous to wait

for the presentation of the Government, and then we could debate something

intelligently.

So, right now, the Chair would rule that there is no urgency

of debate, and thus not allow the debate to go ahead.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14, a continuation of the Second

Reading of Bill 50.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

motion made by my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, to give this

bill, Bill 50, the six-month hoist. In other words, to delay debate of the bill

until time is allowed for a proper study and analysis of the financial

implications of the bill, as well as the meaning of this legislation for our

established democratic processes for governing the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an extraordinary measure that caps

an extraordinarily confused process of reforming municipal government in the

Province. After this 'real change' Wells Administration took office, without

allowing time for proper examination of municipal government, in a rash fashion,

the minister announced that the Government was going to amalgamate a long list

of municipalities. He made that announcement without any prior consultation with

the municipalities affected, or the people of the Province, just two months

after taking office in July 1989.

In making the decree, he indicated that all these

amalgamations would take effect by that fall, in time for the November municipal

elections, and furthermore, any municipalities which protested would be forced

into mergers, nonetheless. There was an instant uproar and after a few days the

Premier calmed people's fears by saying that the Government would not force any

amalgamation against the wishes of an affected municipality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was perhaps the most blatant example

of the Premier's penchant for using language in a very particular, detailed and

misleading way. The Premier, similar to a magician, has a fashion of allowing

himself many doors from which to exit. Any reasonable person hearing the Premier

speak in the summer of 1989, saying the Government would not force amalgamation

against the wishes of a municipality, took him at his word. Later the Premier

chose to interpret his words as meaning that the Cabinet would not force

amalgamations, saying in difficult cases - a nice euphemism - the House of

Assembly would decide. Of course, the Premier and his party control the House of

Assembly. Basically, anything the Premier wants, goes. The members opposite

blindly follow their leader.

After the summer of 1989, the Government has successively

retreated from the initial decree. There has been one delay after another.

Reluctantly and incompletely, the Government followed the provisions of The

Municipalities Act requiring feasibility studies. They did not honour the spirit

of that legislation by appointing independent people to conduct the studies. In

each case, the Government named a member of the executive of the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs - an official beholden to the Premier for his

job - as well as naming a second commissioner nominated by the municipalities

affected.

The commissioners appointed carried out feasibility studies

by holding public hearings and writing reports. But, Mr. Speaker, in a number of

instances, the Government has ignored the reports, has disregarded the advice,

and, in the case of the Northeast Avalon, not only has the Government ignored

the advice, the Government has proceeded to draw up a completely different

scenario bearing no resemblance to the original proposition decreed by the

minister back in July of 1989.

Apparently, the whole initiative was driven by the Premier's

notion of what should happen in Grand Falls - Windsor, where amalgamation had

been discussed for many years and where there was some local support for it,

coupled with the desire of the minister, being a former councillor of the City

of St. John's, to create a supercity in the Northeast Avalon. Those two

individuals extrapolated their view of what should happen in two cases across

the whole Province.

Now, as I have said on many other occasions, I and the PC

Party support the concept of amalgamation. Amalgamation, in appropriate cases,

approached in a co-operative, democratic fashion, can be useful, can lead to

improvements.

In the district that I represent, in the mid 1980s, two

municipalities, Southbrook and Pasadena, amalgamated. The amalgamation was

preceded by proper consultation, by a feasibility study conducted by an

independent commissioner, a lawyer in private practice completely outside the

Provincial Government. After the hearings, and after considerable discussion at

the local level when it was clear that there was a considerable body of opinion

in favour of the merger, it was also clear that several people, especially

residents of the smaller municipality, Southbrook, had reservations.

The community of Southbrook then conducted a plebescite. The

result of that vote was a majority indicating approval for amalgamation.

Thereafter, the individuals opposing amalgamation or having reservations at

least had the satisfaction of knowing that it was the majority wish of

Southbrook and of the local area that the merger take place.

Mr. Speaker, that amalgamation became effective in 1985 in

time for the ensuing municipal election. There were transitional arrangements

for an enlarged council for one term, there was a commitment from the Provincial

Government for extra capital works funding to upgrade Southbrook, and while that

funding took longer than expected to materialize, nevertheless, the services of

Southbrook are being upgraded, and people in that area, generally, are satisfied

with the results of amalgamation.

Also, in the district I represent, the City of Corner Brook

was formed as a product of the amalgamation of four communities in 1956. I

wasn't old enough at the time to know what went on in the way of prior

consultation, discussion or feasibility study, but Corner Brook was incorporated

as the City of Corner Brook, being the product of the amalgamation of four towns

in 1956.

As part of the present minister's grand amalgamation design

released in the summer of 1989, Corner Brook was called upon to be enlarged with

the annexation of the municipalities of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. Now, Mr.

Speaker, while holding a positive attitude towards amalgamation in the abstract,

I have steadfastly opposed the merger of Corner Brook, Massey Drive, and Mount

Moriah, as proposed by the Liberal 'real change' administration. I believe it

would have the result of adding to the overall total cost of delivering

municipal services in that area because, instead of there being resulting

economies of scale there would be diseconomies of scale. Amalgamation is

desirable when it has the result of lowering the overall unit cost of delivering

municipal services, when it has the effect of creating economies of scale, where

it has the effect of eliminating duplication of effort.

In the case of the proposal to combine Massey Drive and Mount

Moriah with Corner Brook, the unit cost would actually increase, and the reason

is that the City of Corner Brook, with a population of 23,000, is so much larger

than the other two municipalities. Corner Brook has a relatively large well paid

unionized bureaucracy. It has a fully paid and unionized fire department. Massey

Drive with a population of not quite 500 people, Mount Moriah with a population

of about 800 people have many of the characteristics of rural communities. Those

communities operate with a tremendous amount of volunteer service. For a start

the councils are entirely voluntary, there is no cost to the tax payers for the

operation of the town councils. Furthermore, in both cases the fire departments

are entirely voluntary and in the case of Massey Drive which, as I say has a

population of fewer than 500 people, twenty-five men make up the fire

department. These men donate several hours each week to training and

participating in fire department activities.

They are extremely well qualified. The Massey Drive fire

chief was one of the first twelve fire fighters in the Province to receive

certification from the University of Oaklahoma, a formal program sponsored by

the provincial fire commissioner's office. Among the other eleven similarly

certificated, were fully paid fire fighters serving with fire departments of

Corner Brook or St. John's. The point is, the volunteers serving on fire

departments such as that of Massey Drive are every bit as well trained and

qualified as members of fully paid departments such as those of Corner Brook and

St. John's.

In Massey Drive, the tax rate is lower than in Corner Brook.

Of course the tax rate in every municipality in the Province is lower than

Corner Brook. Corner Brook has the highest tax rate and has had for several

years. Corner Brook is an extremely expensive municipality to service because,

being made up of four communities which were merged in 1956, it spans a very

large territory. I have not checked recently but a few years ago Corner Brook

had the distinction of having the most miles, now kilometres of local roads, per

capita of any municipality in all of Canada.

On top of that, Corner Brook is built on hills. We have a

long winter with a tremendous amount of snow so the cost of running and

servicing the municipality of Corner Brook is extremely high per capita and that

accounts for the high taxes, so Corner Brook taxes are higher than those in

Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, but, in the case of Massey Drive, with which I am

very familiar, if you combine the taxes being paid by residents with the value

of the volunteer effort, with the money's worth of the free effort that goes

into staffing and operating the fire department, operating a recreation program

and then add to that the money raised through volunteer fund raising activities

such as suppers, dances and bingos to help run the fire department and the

recreation program, you will see that per capita, people in Massey Drive are

contributing every bit as much as tax payers in Corner Brook.

One of the differences however, Mr. Speaker, is that the

people in Massey Drive, in contributing to the operation of their community are

pulling together, are interacting socially. People in Massey Drive who serve on

the fire department, who help with the fire department auxiliary, who make up

the recreation committee, who are in the seniors club, who are on the town

council are contributing, not because they have to but because they want to.

They have a better quality of life because of the characteristics of their

municipality. They keep their taxes lower than in Corner Brook because they are

contributing so much to volunteer service and are raising so much money through

their volunteer fund raising activities.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MS. VERGE: How much, the Minister of Social Services

asks? Their mil rate is 7.5 - how do you put a price tag on a twenty-five member

fire department which for the ten years of its operation has had a flawless

record? How do you put a price tag on that?

We can contrast the cost of the City of Corner Brook Fire

Department which has fifty odd members with an average salary and benefit

package which is quite substantial. We can make that comparison, but that does

not tell the whole story. The Massey Drive Fire Department, as well qualified

and as effective as it is, adds to the quality of life in Massey Drive. It

contributes to the tremendous, positive feeling that the residents have.

At this time of economic crisis, at this time when it is so

necessary to restrain public spending to try to keep taxes to the minimum, why

would a provincial government want to displace volunteer fire departments that

are working well?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wants to?

MS. VERGE: Who wants to? The Premier wants to. All of you

opposite supporting the Premier want to.

In the case of Bill 50, the measure presently being debated,

there are provisions to create a City of St. John's Fire Department covering a

much larger area than the boundaries of the City of St. John's, including

Paradise, including the Goulds, possibly including Conception Bay South or parts

of it, possibly including Flatrock, Outer Cove, Middle Cove, Portugal Cove and

St. Phillips. This bill creates a City of St. John's Fire Department operating

in areas now well serviced by volunteer fire departments. In these areas, such

as Paradise and the Goulds, the taxes are going to have to go up, because those

additional areas will be billed-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members again the appropriate way for

asking questions to a member who is addressing the House. The appropriate way is

to rise and ask the member if the member would permit a question. If the member

does not permit a question, then the hon. member must sit back and relax. This

singing out and shouting out while the member is speaking does nothing to add to

the decorum of the House.

The hon. the member may continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was making is that the Government, at a time when

more than ever we need to be restraining pubic spending, and at a time more than

ever when we should be cherishing the work of volunteer fire departments, the

Government is riding roughshod over volunteer fire departments and displacing

them. That would result from the Government's proposal to annex Massey Drive and

Mount Moriah with Corner Brook. That has yet to be decided upon. It has been

outstanding for twenty-eight months. We do not know how much longer people are

going to be kept waiting.

We have before us, an actual bill dealing with amalgamation

and regional services in the area of the Northeast Avalon. One of the features

of the bill is the creation of a City of St. John's Fire Department with a

mandate to service areas presently quite adequately covered by volunteer fire

departments. That is going to have the effect of driving up the cost of

delivering municipal services in the area by eliminating the reason for being of

the volunteer fire departments, and driving up the taxes of people living in

those areas. I think this is extremely unwise financially. It seems as though

the Government failed to consider the additional costs being created through

this measure, and one reason I support the motion for the six months delay is to

allow sufficient time for the Government to get its act together and for people

in the area affected to grasp the cost implications for them. Perhaps when

judging accurately the additional costs resulting from this bill, the Government

will reconsider, and revise the bill, and bring in a measure which is more in

keeping with the wishes of the people, the needs of the people, and with the

fiscal capacity of the Provincial Government.

Mr. Speaker, there are other provisions of this bill which

set an extremely dangerous precedent. As my colleague for Mount Pearl has

pointed out the word 'notwithstanding' appears in this bill about five times.

Essentially what the bill says: is not withstanding democracy, notwithstanding

the existing law, notwithstanding the interest of municipalities and individuals

affected, the Cabinet should have the power to decide in secret, without

reference to the people, without reference to the House of Assembly, without an

open debate, without a feasibility study, to decree basic changes in the

existence of municipalities, changes in the lines of municipal boundaries,

various combinations and permutations of municipalities.

These measures apply to the Northeast Avalon, which I would

object to in and of themselves, but they also create a precedent. If the

Government can, with their majority in the House of Assembly, remove checks and

balances and democratic protections for the Northeast Avalon then presumably

they can do exactly the same for the rest of the Province. The Premier has

corrupted the phrase 'fairness and balance'. I can easily imagine the Premier

saying that if these measures are imposed on the Northeast Avalon then it is

only fair and balanced to do the same thing for other areas of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, through this mess of municipal amalgamation we have seen many examples

of the ineptness of the Wells administration in governing, managing, and

decision making. We have seen many examples of their hypocrisy. On the one hand

early in the going the Premier indicated a democratic approach leading people to

believe that the wishes of people in affected municipalities would be honoured.

Later on he, in certain heated meetings, flirted with the idea of a plebescite,

again a ploy designed to calm angry citizens, but what is he actually doing

after procrastinating for twenty-eight months, after delaying for twenty-eight

months? In the case of the Northeast Avalon he is changing the law to try to

sanction an anti-democratic process. He is trying to impose changes which have

never been the subject of a feasibility study. He is trying to force alterations

without any real understanding, certainly on the part of the municipalities and

the citizens affected of the cost implications, and he is refusing absolutely to

have a plebescite.

Now, when questioned about a plebescite in the past he has

occasionally said that he would not have a plebescite in individual

municipalities, it would have to be in a total area targeted for combination but

he is not even willing to do that now for the Northeast Avalon region. He is

saying in the case of Corner Brook, Massey Drive, and Mount Moriah that maybe he

will allow a plebiscite in the total area, although one of his most telling and

revealing comments he made last Friday in answer to a question I raised in

Question Period. I referred to his statement of the previous day that he would

honour the wishes of the people in Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah.

I was not able to get a straight answer from him about how he was going to

divine the wishes of people in that area, so on Friday morning I asked him point

blank how and when, and in particular, are you going to have a plebiscite. Mr.

Speaker, astoundingly this is what the Premier answered. It will just take me a

minute to find it here in Hansard. This is last Friday, November 22. He said,

"Mr. Speaker, you only really need to conduct a plebiscite if you are not

satisfied that the preponderance of support is one way or the other. My

perception of the position to date is that prior to now the City Council of

Corner Brook and the people of Corner Brook, the overwhelming majority, have

wanted amalgamation." The Premier somehow divined the preponderance of opinion

in Corner Brook.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the winter of 1990 there was a public

hearing at the Legion Hall in Corner Brook about the Government's proposal to

merge Massey Drive and Mount Moriah with Corner Brook. There was a large

turnout. The City of Corner Brook made a presentation. There was not one

presenter who favoured amalgamation. In the case of the Northeast Avalon there

are some people who want the combination. The City of St. John's has been

pushing for a supercity. As an aside I would question if they really studied the

proposition before so enthusiastically seeking territorial expansion.

But in the case of Corner Brook, nobody was looking for it.

The City of Corner Brook privately has done a study of the cost implications of

Massey Drive and Mount Moriah being annexed to Corner Brook. The conclusion is

that the overall cost would go up by $600,000 a year. Now the Premier in his

answers in the House last week grudgingly admitted that there would be extra

cost to Corner Brook. He said quite defiantly that the Government is not willing

to compensate Corner Brook for the extra costs associated with amalgamation.

Well, if there is extra cost, which is so apparent, why is the Government even

talking about it? Why will the Government not leave well enough alone and allow

the municipality of Massey Drive to carry on functioning successfully with a

high degree of volunteer service?

A couple of weeks ago I attended the 10th anniversary dinner

and dance of the Massey Drive Fire Department. That is a vibrant group which

just had the distinction of having its chief certificated as one of the first

dozen in the Province as a professional fire fighter. He has that professional

qualification yet he is donating his time and service to his community. But the

fire fighters there that night were asking: do you suppose we are going to be

allowed to continue? Will we be here next year? How can we reach out and recruit

new members when we have no certainty about our mandate? Now, in this time of

economic hardship, how can it be that a government is discouraging volunteer

service? How can it be that a government is even giving a second thought to the

notion of displacing a volunteer fire department with a fully paid department?

In conclusion, let me state my very strong support for the

motion for the six month hoist, for a six month delay for the Government to

finally get its act in order on amalgamation. To discover that some of their

proposals for municipal mergers make no sense whatsoever, are going to drive up

the overall cost of running municipalities, and should be scrapped. When I have

a chance to speak to the bill, to the main motion, I will elaborate on the

reasons for my objections to the specific contents of this bill, and generally

to the Government's whole approach to municipal government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being the critic I

spoke for an hour on the resolution the other day when the minister introduced

it, but I am speaking now, for hon. members' information, on the six month

hoist. So I will make a few more comments. I do not expect to take the half hour

but I will make a few comments pertaining to this particular bill.

Now it has been said by many speakers in the House in the

last few days pertaining to this debate, that the minister and his colleagues on

the other side, have taken some very severe actions, very drastic steps, to,

what I call, crucify municipalities in this Province and, more specifically, the

municipalities on the Northeast Avalon that are encompassed under Bill 50. We

will have opportunity when this bill goes through Committee stage to speak

clause by clause on the bill. That will come after we put it through second

reading.

Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned in some of my opening

statements about the Federation of Municipalities, what kind of a role those

people are supposed to be playing and will play in the future of municipalities

in this Province. At that time, the Federation of Municipalities in the Province

didn't even have a copy of Bill 50, didn't know but it was fit to eat, didn't

know what it contained. How can a body that is representing all municipalities

in this Province, Mr. Speaker, be left out? That alone says something for this

whole process. If the governing body or the body that is representing

municipalities in the Province, has not even had a copy of the bill, what does

that say for the municipalities that are involved in Bill 50? They, Mr. Speaker,

were not consulted.

The people of St. Phillips, who contacted me and tried to get

me to introduce, on their behalf, petitions in the House, petitions that were

picked up, signed and taken by their member here to the House to be presented,

those people had two meetings pertaining to the amalgamation process. They were

promised a third to try to finalize some of the principles that they were

talking about and, to this day, Mr. Speaker, they have not gotten that meeting.

They are not the only ones, they are not the only municipalities right here in

the Northeast Avalon area that had that problem.

One of the clauses that I referred to, and some of my

colleagues referred to when debating this particular bill, is

Part VII, Clause

(3). I will not go through Clause (3) of it, but I will go through (a), (

b) and

(c). '(

a) amalgamate a town with a town or city and annex areas to a city or

town,' that means that this particular administration can do anything, not only

in the so-called Northeast Avalon area itself, but extending to CBS and other

parts of this particular area involved. They can annex, they can establish, or

they can disestablish a town.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody watches the news, reads the

newspapers or are up on current and world affairs even a wee bit, they can see

any day of the week that we have countries in this world today that have just

gotten their freedom, just gotten the chance, Mr. Speaker, to have democracy,

just gotten the chance to have elections and just gotten the chance to have a

say in their own affairs. We, on the other hand, have had that chance for some

time. Our fathers and our forefathers paid a heavy price for that over the

years, and to this day we are supposed to be practising it. But when I see a

premier and a minister going around this Province or going around this country

preaching what should be right for our Province: For our Province, we should not

be dictated to by the Federal Government, we should have a senate going to give

us equal representation in all the provinces and all regions of this country.

When I stay at home and when I pick up a bill such as this

and see what is happening right on our own doorstep, Mr. Speaker, I wonder. No

consultation, no communication and, if there was, whatever little bit there was,

they took what everyone said anyway and did exactly what they wanted to do. This

bill is evident.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I questioned the Premier in the

House on the new operating grants for 1991. I saw the Minister of Finance lean

over his desk and whisper something in the Premier's ear and after Question

Period was over he stood and said to me, giving me an answer to the questions I

asked: It was identical and exactly the same as what was announced last year.

Mr. Speaker, I have what was announced last year. Every

municipality in this Province has a copy of what was announced last year. Some

of the questions that were not answered then, are not answered today by

municipalities in the Province, so where did they come up with the figures that

they have? I questioned four municipalities in this Province in the last

twenty-four hours, mayors and councillors, who are very credible and have been

involved for some time in councils in this Province and they cannot answer it

either. It is funny.

Is it not funny, Mr. Speaker, and does it not beg the

question that, people who have been involved in municipal life for years, all of

a sudden do not know what they are talking about? Is it not funny, Mr. Speaker,

that councillors and mayors in this Province, who know the Municipalities Act

from the front to the back and can quote sections of it, without hesitation, all

of a sudden do not know what they are talking about? And is it not funny that

when you talk to officials in the department, if you happen to talk to three or

four, the third and the fourth fellow have something different to say from what

the first fellow told you.

Now, if you mind to stay on the phone you can get five or six

different scenarios altogether, but I have yet to find any consistency in the

municipal operating grant that was changed last year coming from the minister,

the Premier and coming from officials in the department. I have yet to see

consistency. They can try and bamboozle and try to talk to municipalities around

this Province, all volunteers, who in their own right are doing an excellent

job, working all day long and all night long, serving their municipalities well,

giving their free time on weekends to try to look after the municipalities in

question and try to give their time without any costs and they are supposed to

be given information to sit down at a desk and try to make up a budget. How can

they do it, Mr. Speaker?

Anybody who has been involved in business around this

Province, anybody who has been involved in business personally knows that before

the end of the week is up - you do not wait until the end of the year - a good

businessperson just does not wait until the end of the year to do up his books.

If he is really afraid and really I suppose worried about his business and

really wanted to make a success of his business, he can do it almost daily. He

has to keep on top of it daily, and municipalities in this Province today are no

different. It is harder really because you are dealing with the public. You do

not have shares issued, you do not have anything on the stock market, but you

are dealing with the public and you are answerable to the public whether you are

a volunteer or not.

We have members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that

since yesterday, I would venture to bet that a good many of them are getting

calls from their municipalities worried, not only worried but very worried,

about what they are going to do about their budgets this year. Where are they

going to go, how are they going to raise their funding and to whom do they go? I

talked to one municipality today before I came into the House and their answer

to it all is this: We are going to do up our budget and we are going to submit

our budget regardless of the bottom line. We are not going to raise taxes. We

cannot raise taxes anymore, our people have been burdened enough. And this

particular council said: enough is enough.

I cannot stand and I cannot sit in this Legislature and have

some hon. member tell me that so and so, out in Jackson's Arm and Hampton have

the opportunity to raise the same funding that someone in St. John's, Gander or

Grand Falls, or anywhere else where there is a good, viable industry, one or two

industry towns that have the highest average income in this Province, and not

only that, compared with other parts of Canada, I might say. Well up there with

other parts of Canada, let alone with other communities in this Province.

How can we sit down and treat other - every municipality in

this Province - we are unique! No question. Quebec looking for a distinct

society. They are no more distinct than anybody else in this country. We are

distinct. We are going to be extinct if we keep up what we are doing. No

question. Municipalities in the Province are going to be gone, nothing surer

than that.

I can understand Members who have been involved in councils

over there knowing exactly what is involved in this new municipal grants

structure. I mean, you call municipalities in the Province today and ask them

about the equalization grants. Now how can a department justify - okay, I will

pick my own community.

The community of Cormack. A community that has a very high

concentration of agriculture. Totally exempt - or anything that has anything to

do with agriculture in your land base, there is a high percentage of that exempt

from property tax. Your home and a half an acre or an acre of land is not

exempt. You pay property tax on it. The buildings are exempt. How can a

municipality sit down and do up a budget just on the equalization grant alone?

Now let me tell hon. Members that that is only one component.

We have the equalization component, we have the local incentive component, we

have the household component -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: - and we have the roads component. Now -

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

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

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) about the Northeast Avalon

amalgamation. We are debating the general principle of that amalgamation. I am

wondering if the hon. member could explain the relevance of the debate at this

point in time. We are supposed to be debating that particular principle and I

wonder if he could explain how the Cormack Town Council fits into that

particular scenario of amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon?

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

West on the point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, it is not

very much trouble for anyone to understand what my colleague for Humber Valley

is saying as it relates to the debate for the Northeast Avalon. He is talking

about taxation, how taxation is being down-loaded, that is what my colleague is

talking about. The taxpayers throughout the Northeast Avalon, as well as the

taxpayers of Newfoundland. The problem is that the Government House Leader and

the Minister of Development are over there reading the paper, talking and

laughing all day, sneering and sniggering at what the Member is saying, showing

contempt as they have always done for the people of the Northeast Avalon. That

is the problem. What my colleague is doing is very relevant to the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Bill itself allows for some

wide-ranging debate as it relates to amalgamation in the Province, and there is

no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that I have hit a nerve. But for the sake of relevance I will get

off the Cormack one and I will include the Goulds! One of the communities that

is involved in the Northeast Avalon amalgamation.

Now the City of St. John's has been told that no way - the

Premier told me just last week - will it cost them anything. The Minister got up

and told me - I questioned him on the elections - that the first election in any

amalgamation process that the Government pays for it. No problem. I can go on in

others but I want to get - I only have a short time left - in to the real ones

that will bring me back to the relevance of the bill.

It is the same thing, I suppose, as in the community of

Cormack, but I will just use the Goulds so I will not have to be interrupted by

another point of order. Mr. Speaker, St. John's is just about to take in the

Goulds. Now under the equalization component - just the first one - any tax

exempt property in a municipality is tax exempt at the discretion of the

minister. The minister gives that permission, but under the equalization

component what happens for a municipality to get any money under it? What

happens? Can any member opposite tell me? I venture not. I challenge any member

to get up and tell me exactly how they arrive at the equalization component. I

will sit down and let them tell me.

What they do, Mr. Speaker, is they take the total value of

property in that particular municipality, then they take the number of

households in that municipality and they divide it. That is okay, but how do

they arrive at that total property value? They take everything. They take the

residences, they take all the properties, in this case all the agricultural

properties in the Goulds, and they divide it by the house - well they include

that in the number - and because of the fact it has a high property value, that

inflates the total of property in that area.

Now, when you come down further they take a provincial

average. The department arrives at an average for the whole province. That

average is roughly around $48,000, something around that figure, it might be a

few dollars one way or the other. What they do then is take the average that you

came from in the municipality itself, that is what they call a deficiency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: What do they do then? They take the total

value of the property tax collected in that municipality and multiply it by the

percentage of the deficiency. If it is 16 per cent, they will multiply it by the

provincial average, then they determine what that municipality will get. But

because - the point I am getting at - but because this property is not taxable -

the community cannot tax it, the minister exempted it - yet it is included in

the grant. Now how can you justify that. How can any government or any

department - and I am sure that the Minister responsible for Treasury Board knew

this, he has been involved in municipal politics long enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WOODFORD: The Member for Gander. He has been involved

long enough to know the difference, I will guarantee you that, and he knows what

I am talking about. The reason why I am using this analogy is St. John's figure

that - now in the bill, it says in the bill, I forget what

section it is, that

it exempts the Goulds, like St. John's cannot go in the Goulds tomorrow and

charge property tax the same as they can in St. John's. So that means the same

thing will be applicable to St. John's once they take over the Goulds tomorrow

as is applicable, we will say, out in Cormack. I just used those communities.

Out in the hon. Member for St. George's district you have it

again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I got an example today from the member's

district, the Member for Stephenville Crossing. What they have done in his

district is worse still. I am half afraid of that. I will tell the hon. member

what they have done in his community of Stephenville Crossing, they got the new

senior citizens home in Stephenville Crossing included in the total residences.

That senior citizens home alone is worth $2 million, and that inflates, that

drives up the value in Stephenville Crossing. That is not fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Will you adjust it? I mean when I talked to

officials - you see the trick with this -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I would say the member probably understands

what is going on, the Member for (inaudible) like I said, but officials in the

Department of Municipal Affairs, getting through to them is like getting through

to the Kremlin a few years ago, and if you did get through to the Kremlin, get

someone in the Kremlin to tell you where so and so is.

MR. TOBIN: Where is the minister? That is the question.

Where is the minister?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I do not have to tell him either. He was

involved along with other members on the Federation for years and knows how hard

it was to try to get there. When we were in Government I said the same thing.

They have their little kingdoms. They have there little kingdoms all over this -

they had them when we were there, and they have them now. As an example of that

today, the Member for St. Barbe knows exactly what I am talking about today, a

prime example of it, of their little kingdoms here in this Province, of Crown

corporations setting up their own little kingdoms and doing absolutely what they

like without direction from Government. I brought up a prime example of that

here today. Now, I am only talking about one component. I do not have time to

get into the two middle components. But the last one, the road component, I may

have time to touch on. I think it is unfair to cut them $58 and some odd cents

last year on the road components and then this year to come in - now granted

they said on a proportionate basis, but how do you know what the proportionate

basis is when you have a pool of funds there. The community does not know what

it is, I suppose Government knows what it is, they must, but you have a pool of

funds there to draw from, and how does a municipality know when they sit down -

how to do up their budget? What do they mean by proportionate?

Now, one would think that after doing up last year's budgets

that it would be along the same lines as last year. I think it was $1900 and

some odd dollars that was paid last year, $1941.65 on the road component. They

lost approximately $58.00 and this year, right out of the blue as of yesterday

and the day before, municipalities are suppose to have their budgets done up. I

am after having all kinds of calls today. The reason why I am talking about that

particular one is because of the senior citizens and how it just comes back to

the inequity of the system. How can they go from $1941? They are going to lose

$10,000. Your community is going to lose $10,000 next year on the road component

alone. For your information they are going to lose $17,000 some odd under the

equalization component. Stephenville Crossing is going to lose $17,260 under the

equalization component.

That is what was sent out from the department. They only have

3 per cent to chose from. They gained on the local revenue incentive component

by $12,000 but when you look at the total figure in Stephenville Crossing they

are going to lose $31,000 this year, $31,000 again next year. The other problem

with this, Mr. Speaker, is that last year, granted the communities appreciated

it, they took their monies, like Stephenville Crossing, Deer Lake, and Gander,

they took their monies like you would once the thing was announced not knowing

this. If they had known it, but they did not have the figures. I have documented

evidence that as of November 6 this year from municipalities in this Province -

that the department did not know. I have documented evidence of that. I do not

want to give the bureaucrats named involved. That is not right, but they did not

know. I was told by a community today that they would not have accepted the

capital funding, and it is the same thing with St. John's, St. Phillips and

those other communities. We had a call the other day from Paradise about the

total cost of their fire protection, it has gone up. I had a call from another

area in the Province that took money last year because on the rating sheet they

came out good last year, they got $500,000. This year, because of the

environmental and health part of the rating sheets and the debt they incurred

last year they cannot now take it, they are off the list, wiped right off the

list. How can a municipality present and prepare a budget for the end of

December not knowing what their grant is going to be? There is another example

again, Stephenville Crossing. How can they do it? They are out there now with

their heads spinning. For Stephenville Crossing, based on the figures I got, I

worked it out just before I came into the House, they would want to increase

their mil rate by 2.5 mils just to meet the bill that they got in the mail

yesterday. That is not counting anything for inflation. That is not counting any

repayment on capital debt last year, and not counting any repayment on capital

debt from this year on. That is not a cent. Now I can understand where the

administration is coming from. I can understand where the minister is coming

from, and I can surely understand where the Premier is coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: What mil rate (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Seven. Seven mils - 7.5 - that is on

property.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Oh yes, I know. That is what I am getting

to. That is what I am getting to now. The Premier said at a meeting in Deer

Lake, where I was present, not too long ago, and the minister said it, that the

average mil rate in Newfoundland is 9 mils. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage

knows exactly what I am talking about. He has been around for a long time on

councils and on the federation, and I would say that his communities are going

to be hit as well. He said that the average mil rate in rural Newfoundland is 9

mils. How can any member opposite justify 9 mils in a community - I am not

saying that they should not pay their way - but in a community that is paying

its way, and has not got a debt?

If I am living on $1,000 a month, and this gentleman is

living on $1,000 a month, and he cannot make it, but I am doing okay, why should

I be penalized? Tell me why I should be penalized because he is blowing his and

I am doing alright with it? I have all kinds of examples of that, and members

opposite are soon going to have to wake up and look at their municipalities and

tell, in no uncertain terms, the crucifixion that they are getting. If a

municipality has debt, yes, I would say pay for your debt, but give them time.

You do not come in at the eleventh hour and tell them, boys, I am sorry; next

year, or next week you put it in your budget that you have to go up 3 mils. You

cannot do it. Your constituents cannot stand it. Not only the smaller areas, but

the Stephenvilles of the world, the Corner Brooks of the world, they cannot

stand it. They are taxed to death. Not only you people.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) St. John's.

MR. WOODFORD: Never mind St. John's.

MR. NOEL: You never mind it. (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You never mind St. John's. You come out in

the rest of the areas of this Province, and you give them some of the

Confederation Buildings and some of the other complexes you have here, and they

will darn well be able to pay their taxes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: I am sick and tired of listening to that

kind of analogy. You cannot tell the member for St. Barbe to go down and tell

his councils that he wants to charge 10 mils. He cannot do it. He has a mine

that just closed down. He has forestry being closed down. Where are they going

to get-

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: If the hon. member wants to speak, when I

sit down he can certainly get up and speak, Mr. Speaker.

You come out and rationalize with municipalities out there

today, and drop something on them overnight when they are not even working.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. He knows what he is talking

about. (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: They cannot work. I know the municipalities

in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: I can speak for the municipalities on the

West Coast of the Province. I know what I am talking about, and if anybody wants

to get up and debate any component in this particular thing, I will debate it

with them, figure by figure, clause by clause, and community by community.

MR. TOBIN: Now, put up or shut up!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: Now get up and debate, or else be quiet.

I got four calls; one community $200,000 two years, another

community $100,000 in two years; a small community of 768 people, $75,000 in

three years; and another one today was just told, after running a deficit, as of

the end of August -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: If I could have a minute. As of the end of

August this past year - the fiscal year is not up until the end of December -

they were running a deficit of $38,000. They get a bill yesterday for an

overpayment of $16,000; a cut in the roads component of $6,000; a cut in the

local incentive grant of $2,700; where are they going to get it? Would hon.

members opposite please tell me where they are going to get it. The

municipalities do not know. I say, and I ask hon. members opposite, and there

are a lot of responsible people over there - despite what is said sometimes,

there are a lot of responsible people on the other side - to sit down with their

colleagues, and for the sake of communities in this Province and their own

constituents, to go over this particular system and see and look where the

inequities are. They are there, we need not hide our heads in the sand, it is

not politics, I am not up here today talking about politics, I am up here

talking about facts.

Not once did I mention politics today, I am talking about

facts and the fact that you and I were elected to represent our people. We were

elected to do the best job we can for our people and we have to answer to the

same people that those mayors and councillors have to answer to, we should help

them. They have no one else to turn to. They are not getting paid, we are

getting paid. What do they tell the people who walk into the council's office? I

was there, Mr. Speaker, for ten years. I was there telling them when they walked

through the door: I cannot help it. I am here now as an MHA, today: I cannot

help it.

If I were on that side of the House I might not be able to

fix everything, but surely, God, from my experience in municipal life and my

experience with my constituents, I would certainly take a second look and all I

ask members opposite is to do just that. Take a second look. Go through the

components little by little, bit by bit and try to put some fairness into some

of those - wherever the minister is getting it, it is going to help those

municipalities.

Tell me where, tell me the numbers when you have a

municipality gone from 97 per cent on the equalization's component down to 3 per

cent, 3 per cent overnight, the same community I am talking about, the hon.

Member for Stephenville Crossing, 97 per cent last year down to 3 per cent now

under the equalization, that is not fair. That is not fair, 97 per cent down to

3 per cent, that is genocide!

You talk about fairness and balance - no way, Mr. Speaker. I

ask hon. members opposite to please talk to the minister and talk to the Premier

and see, just see for one last time if they can put a little bit of sanity back

into the new municipal operating grant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am amazed that somebody on the other side did not take the time to get up and

talk about some of the points raised by the Member for Humber Valley. He made

some extremely valuable points, ones which members, especially those

representing rural areas should heed and undoubtedly discuss with their

colleagues. I am just wondering, in light of the facts and figures that have

been raised in this debate, if the Government House Leader is not perhaps

considering taking the bill off the Order Paper. We certainly could use time to

go back over the bill to make sure that it is a little more in tune with the

needs of the Province today.

One of the problems we are facing, Mr. Speaker, is the fact

that the efforts by the Government, who amalgamate or centralize, have placed a

very heavy financial burden on the residents of many communities throughout the

Province. While I was waiting here, I was looking at some information that I had

on my desk for some time, that was a

summary of the Economic Review for the

first half of 1991 in comparison to the first half of 1990, which as we know was

no great shakes either.

But the first half of this year alone, CPI in the St. John's

area 7.4 per cent compared to a national rate of 6.3. Wages and salaries - now

this is provincially - declined 5 per cent the first half of this year; UI

benefits increased, up by 3.4 per cent. More and more people are living on fixed

income: Retail trade, down by 2.5 per cent. Transportation, passenger traffic,

fewer people coming into the Province: CN Roadcruisers down by just about 10 per

cent; Commercial vehicles on Marine Atlantic, down by 11.5 per cent; Container

traffic down by 15.5 per cent. Freight - Do you know why freight is down?

Because people don't have the money to purchase. Purchasing power has been

eroded considerably.

The average monthly employment increased 13 per cent, due

mainly in the construction area, but - and this was mainly in the

non-residential sector, due to Hibernia, undoubtedly - but housing starts, down

by 18.8 per cent, 19 per cent. Value of shipments in manufacturing, manufactured

goods being shipped out, down by 6.3 per cent, and we can go on, Fish landings,

down by 37.8 per cent -something that affects most of Newfoundland, and it does

affect St. John's, despite what the Member for Pleasantville might think. Fish

landings have a tremendous effect on St. John's - the value of fish landed, down

by 40 per cent over the first half of last year.

There are more and more figures like this. What does it point

out? Forget about who is in power and all of that. It points out that people,

generally speaking, whether they are in St. John's or St. Mary's, in Port aux

Basques or Port au Port or St. Anthony, or wherever, have fewer dollars this

year than they had last year. We, as people who are supposed to be

decision-makers, should be trying to make rules and regulations which would

accommodate the people who send us here. But, instead, we see a bill like this

one, Bill 50, that is really making sure, along with the other rules and

regulations being made in the Department concerned, that the people continue to

pay more and more.

For what? You might say, for better services. Question mark,

question mark, question mark. Are we paying more for better services? I have

heard so much this past year about all the money that is being put around so

that we would have a better way of life that it almost sickens me. Federally and

provincially, all we can hear is: 'Oh, yes, we are putting all these new

programs in place, so that the people will be better off.' We see programs like

Community Futures and ACOA being set up, and we hear about the millions of

dollars that are being spent. Who is getting the dollars? Certainly not the

people who should be getting them, the people down at the community level, for

whom the money is destined, or is supposed to be destined. It is being ripped

off somewhere through the system.

Then we talk about amalgamation. We gave you a better way, a

better standard, of life. It has not improved our standard of life. What it has

done is it has taken away the few dollars we had so that it makes our life at

the local level worse than ever before.

Some of the things that the Department of Municipal Affairs

is trying to do are certainly not the types of things that the consumer, the

voter, out there wants.

Let's look at sharing. Let me say right from the very

beginning that I am not against amalgamation, I am not against sharing. We

always promoted sharing and coming together as long as it made sense and as long

as it improved the life or the lot of the people involved. Sharing has taken

place. We hear and see examples of communities which have for years gotten

together and shared. We hear the minister, when he stands up to speak, knowing

very little about the infrastructure in the Province, talking about all these

communities out there - we have too many - and about the duplication and

triplication of costs.

Let me ask the minister: if he is going to talk about

bringing communities together, does he think that is going to eliminate all the

cost of servicing the community? If you have three or four communities, four or

five or even two or three miles apart, and instead of having four councils you

are going to have one, where is the real saving coming in? Are you going to be

able to say now, 'We are only going to put in one sewer system in one community

and they can all go to that community to use the facilities?' It doesn't make

much sense.

The Minister of Social Services represents an area that, I

suppose, if you are looking at an area that can be amalgamated, is probably a

prime example of what can be done. It is basically all the one town, from

Dunville through to Freshwater, Jerseyside, Placentia, Point Verde, all in the

one lump, all practically connected to each other, an ideal area. But if they

amalgamate and they have one council, you still have to worry about putting

water and sewer through all the communities, you still have street paving, you

still have streetlighting, and you still have garbage collections.

Many of these communities now - I am not talking about the

ones in the Placentia area necessarily - that are in such close proximity end up

getting together to call for one tender in garbage collection. Many of them have

one fire fighting facility. In my own area, St. Mary's, the heart of St. Mary's

Bay, there is one major fire fighting facility in Riverhead and it covers St.

Mary's, Gaskiers, and Mall Bay on the other end, a regional fire training center

in the middle that covers the whole bay. But there are certain services you

cannot get rid of. You still have to put the infrastructure in place. So, where

is all the great saving?

Then, when we get too big what do we lose? Perhaps at the

local level you lose some local control. Where you have four or five communities

amalgamating with one council, quite often you end up getting a fair amount of

bickering in the event that a small amount of money is approved. Where does it

go? Well, we are only talking about one community, so it goes into the

community. But still you have the individual loyalties.

We see it even in Conception Bay South to this very day, a

big racket we had this spring when they tried to play games with the money

Government gave them. Government tried to play games, I guess, with the money

that was allocated to the town, is a better way of saying it.

Amalgamation does not always solve our problems. Sharing,

yes, certainly does. Cutting out duplication where duplication can be avoided,

certainly saves money and leads to a much more efficient service. Fire halls,

dumps - most areas out around will show you where we have one waste disposal

facility for several communities. You do not see dumps in every community, you

have area waste disposal facilities.

We have recreation centers. Most areas, when it comes to

stadiums - for instance, the Southern Shore, the whole area is served by one

stadium, St. Mary's Bay is served by one stadium, Placentia area is served by

one stadium, and you can go on and on and on. That is sensible. You cannot

afford such facilities in every little community. So they come together and they

form the regional boards and they share. Absolutely nothing wrong with it! But,

on top of that, they have their own little community groups taking care of

things within the community, and it works well. And these people are all

volunteers, so there is no extra cost.

Then we come to the larger areas, and we can use St. John's

and Mount Pearl as an example, two cities rubbing shoulders together. Is there a

difference between Mount Pearl and St. John's? I would say, yes, there is a

major difference. Sometimes you can get -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to

announce the question for the Late Show and early motion for adjournment. We

have one question this afternoon, and the question is: 'I am not satisfied with

the answer by the Minister of Fisheries to my question regarding the federal

Minister of Fisheries proposals for licensing and allocation systems within the

Altantic Fisheries.' That is from the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Sometimes it depends on the writing of the

educator.

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

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

We were comparing St. John's and Mount Pearl. Sometimes we

can get too big, sometimes we lose sight even of what is within our own domain.

Sometimes when we get that way we lose that friendly family touch, we lose the

feeling of belonging, being part of.

I have had the opportunity over the last x number of years to

be involved in a fair amount of activities, both in St. John's and Mount Pearl.

There is a difference. The difference is that in Mount Pearl, because it is a

new community that has grown together over the last twenty to twenty-five years,

you find that people feel that this is our community, our facilities are our

facilities. We built them, we run them, we share them, and there is the feeling

of belonging and caring and efficiency. I am not sure whether the Summer Games

Park, whether the play fields and so on, will be able to be handled the same if

they are being handled from City Hall as they are being handled by the local

City Hall in Mount Pearl, if the cities ever amalgamate. I think we lose a

tremendous amount when we become too big. It is disgusting to see that it is the

intention of this Government to snuff out a centre like Mount Pearl.

We have other examples of communities spread throughout the

Province where amalgamation is being encouraged from within, a reverse of what

we see here in the Northeast Avalon. There are communities that feel, yes we can

get together, we should get together, it makes sense to come together. There is

nothing wrong with that. If communities can come together, can amalgamate,

generally under one governing body, well, then - Grand Falls and Windsor,

typical examples of where it makes sense, where it did make sense, and where it

has been productive for both those towns to come together. Because they wanted

it, it was not forced upon them. Here, this is a bill which forces amalgamation

on parts of the Northeast Avalon where they certainly do not want to be

amalgamated.

What it also does is burden several of these people with a

lot of extra taxes. The area perhaps that is going to be affected most

financially is the area of the Goulds. Maybe the Member for Pleasantville should

drive into the Goulds every now and then and talk to some of the people in

there. Anybody who is familiar with the Goulds, back just a few years ago, ten,

fifteen years ago, the Goulds was basically a spread out farming community.

Before the housing projects started in around the back line, those areas, I

personally knew nearly everybody in the Goulds, even though I did not live in

the area. I spent a lot of time there.

You had your houses spread out over large tracts of land and

most people had their own farms. A lot of these people today - despite the fact

that farming is not as important I guess, generally speaking, as it was to most

of them, and despite the fact that a lot of the land now has been covered with

houses and new developments - a lot of the older people still have fairly large

tracts of land. A lot of these people are now on fixed income, pensioners, they

are not rich people. They scraped a living from the land. They are now retired,

living in their comfortable old farmhouse, or old house. But they always had a

fair amount of land.

Now, their big concern is, How much are we going to have to

pay in taxes? The land is valuable if they sell it, but who wants to sell land?

People who are used to living in rural Newfoundland - and the Goulds was rural

Newfoundland up until a short while ago - are used to having a fair amount of

room. And don't they deserve it? But now they must pay through the teeth for it.

Is the Goulds going to be serviced the same way as downtown St. John's?

AN HON. MEMBER: In twenty years time, probably.

MR. HEARN: Twenty years time, but yet they are going to

be expected pay today for the services that they don't have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: The Member for Pleasantville, again, when he

was speaking, talked about how everyone should pay the same. Everyone should pay

the same provided, number one, they get the same services, and provided they are

in the same financial position where they can afford to pay the same. That is

not to say that there are not poor people in St. John's. Yes, there are a lot of

them. There are a lot of people in St. John's who can't afford to pay the taxes

they have to pay, but the services are there whether they can afford them or

not.

A lot of people in rural Newfoundland can't even afford to

pay the taxes they have to pay, despite the fact that they are much less, but

they have very few services for which to pay - very, very, few services - and,

consequently, as services improve, undoubtedly they will have to pay a bit more.

But the thing we are losing sight of is that in many small communities, and in

many large communities, people can have the services that they require, and have

them at a lot less rate than is presently being paid in other areas because of

efficiency, because of the way they went about getting the services, because of

the way they handled the services, because of their employment in the area,

perhaps, their collections and everything else, and the lesser amount they pay

on bureaucracy.

Some smaller communities throughout the Province are hit with

high water rates. Along with their poll tax or the property tax they now pay,

some of them are hit with substantial water rates. Other communities have water

supplies and don't pay a cent because over the years they used federal funding,

different programs, and they put in their complete water system without having

to borrow one cent from the Government. It didn't cost the people in the

community one copper to have their complete water system installed. In many

areas it did not cost them a cent to have their fire hall put in place - the

building, itself. In many areas it didn't cost them a cent to put their play

facilities in place, because, through good organization locally, and by proper

use of the grant funding that was available from both governments through

recreation provincially, for example, and the different make-work programs

federally, many small communities put their complete infrastructure in place

without having to borrow a copper. And you ask them why is it they are only

paying $100 a year for taxes. Because the only services they probably have are

the street lighting and the garbage collection. Everything else that was put in

place was put there through some kind of program whereby it was no cost at all

to the municipality, there is no debt on the municipality books, and they can

collect enough each year to pay their ongoing bills, their current account

costs, and that is all that matters. We think there is something wrong with

that. People should be made pay, you know, people across the Province should pay

for their services. They are paying for the services, but some of them are a lot

smarter than others, and they put their services in place without any great cost

to them. So should they be punished because somebody else is inefficient, or

they do not know how to take proper advantage of what is offered them by

Government, or because they are top-heavy with bureaucracies that, in

themselves, are costly? Should smaller communities be forced to pay because of

that? I say no. You pay for the services you can get, and if your managers are

good managers, your elected people are efficient, then your cost will be cut

down. So why should we say let's bring us all into the one fold now, and we will

all pay the same because we should? Why should somebody else pay because

somebody on the other hand is not. Now I know people can say the reverse is

true, that the people of St. John's are paying through the years because of the

inefficiencies in rural Newfoundland - 'Government is paying for everything out

there, and we have to pay for everything in here.' Not so. Not so at all. People

in St. John's undoubtedly pay for the services they get, and they get a fair

amount of help from Government, too, in their road paving, and in their

municipal infrastructure in relation to recreation, and what have you, and the

major facilities that they have. What about the Aquarena? What about the Canada

Games Park? Who put them there and who paid for them? It wasn't the residents of

St. John's. And that might be right, because they are supposed to serve the

whole area. Unfortunately, now, they are going to be an albatross around the

necks of the people of St. John's and the area.

But what we have to remember here in the capital city is that

a lot of the dollars that come in here, come from outside the city. If people

outside get some extra Government assistance, then, on the other hand, a lot of

the tax dollars that are spent, are spent here in the city by people from all

around the area, as they are spent in other growth centres in the Province, by

people in the outlying areas who come in here to spend their money. That

generates business. Not only do we have the malls and the major restaurants and

everything else in St. John's, we have all the government buildings around. All

of these generate revenues for the City Council. Not many of these dollars are

going to the Ship Harbours or the Ship Coves of this Province, they are coming

to St. John's.

So don't look upon the people in the outports as if they are

getting the better part of this deal. They are paying for what they are getting,

and they are contributing. They are also contributing to the economy of the

major centres in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about amalgamation

there are many angles we have to look at, and certainly, it appears that the

Government has not listened at all to the people.

I was very interested today, in the Premier's remarks, when

he was addressing the problems with the fishery. He complained about the Feds

releasing their decision, and he said, 'We wanted to talk to them before they

made any decision, they should have listened to us.' I ask, to whom did the

Premier or Government listen before they made decisions, including the decision

on amalgamation? The answer is, they didn't listen to anybody. They didn't even

listen to their own experts who went out and did the studies and brought in

reports. They said, Forget it, we will do whatever we want to do ourselves. That

is not the way it is supposed to work, and it is not the way to have a

successful resolution to our problems.

So we are faced with a major problem. We are faced with a

bill that will have a disastrous effect on the fire fighting facility in Mount

Pearl. The question we might ask is, Why shouldn't Mount Pearl have its own fire

fighting facility? Wouldn't it be just as efficient as the way it is going to be

now? Undoubtedly, the answer would be yes, perhaps more efficient. But it is not

supposed to be that way. It doesn't matter what way it is supposed to be, which

is the best way? - or, I guess, in the case of where we are talking about two,

in case somebody wants to check my grammar - which is the better way? I don't

know whether anybody over there can answer that truthfully, unless they look at

it a lot more closely than they have looked at it all.

The main reason we have concern with this bill, and we ask

Government at least to look at not doing anything with it for a minimum of six

months, to get a chance to really look at it in an in-depth manner, is because

of one of the last clauses, 10 (3), where the present Government is going to

look at taking away from all municipalities every bit of power they ever had.

People might say, Don't be so foolish! It is like talking about the University

Act taking away the Marine Institute, which it does.

Clause 10 (3) says: "In addition to establishing and altering

the boundaries of the cities and towns under subsection (2), the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council" - in other words, Cabinet - "may, in the order

referred to in that subsection" - the Government now, if this bill is passed,

may, in 10 (3) (a), "amalgamate a town with a town or city and annex areas to a

city or town."

In other words, the Southlands grab can be done over and

over. They can do whatever they want to do. If they want to amalgamate St.

Bride's and Branch, they can go ahead and do it, and boy, I wish you luck. In

fact, I challenge you to try. If they want to amalgamate Ferryland, Calvert, and

Cape Broyle, they can do it. They can do whatever they want to do. They can

amalgamate a town with a town or city, and annex areas to a city or town. They

can establish an area as a town. They can go out and say, 'You are going to be a

town.' And they can disestablish a town. They can go to Wedgewood Park and say,

'So long' - no more Wedgewood Park. They can go to Mount Pearl and they can say,

'So long' - no more Mount Pearl. They can go to Gander, I guess, and say 'So

long' - no more Gander. They have the power to do whatever they want to do. That

is a tremendous amount of power to place in the hands of fifteen or sixteen

people, many of whom have no idea at all about the internal workings of the

communities or towns involved. That is an extremely dangerous position in which

to put anybody, where they can just go out on a whim and wipe out or create

towns or cities or communities. No government should have that power in its own

hands. No government should have that power.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that this bill should pass, and

looking at the faces of some of the hon. members over there who are from areas

that will be eventually affected by this, and all members will be affected, if

not in a municipal sense, certainly in a political sense, the sensible thing to

do would be to take the bill off the Order Paper altogether. The reasonable

thing to do now, in the interim, would be to go along with the six-month hoist,

just forget about pushing through the bill, and let us see if we can come up

with a bill that will take care of the amalgamation process, that will encourage

amalgamation, that will even promote amalgamation where it should be encouraged

and promoted, and where the people involved in the different areas are

interested in amalgamating.

Unfortunately, we have a one-track mind in a one-track

Premier who runs a one-track Government, because they are afraid - as we saw the

Minister of Fisheries today: the Premier said, Don't answer it. The minister got

up, turned red, and refused to answer a question. If you are going to let

yourselves be dragged around by the nose, we will never do what is right for the

people, and that is why we were sent here.

Did you say my time is up, Mr. Speaker? It seems as if my

time is up. But hopefully, some of the remarks made today, and in the past, will

encourage members to think twice, and when we vote on the amendment, we will

vote to put this aside for six months so that we can bring in some sane and

proper legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HEARN: Try it next month.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know it

is confusing.

MR. SPEAKER: I apologize. I didn't know if the hon.

member was (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I understand why there was some confusion,

with a little bit of negotiation and discussion going on, Mr. Speaker, between

myself and the Government House Leader, trying to sort out where we are, where

we are going, and when.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cutting a deal, I suppose.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, we don't cut any deals; we just talk,

no deals. You have to be careful with the deals, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise today to speak in

this very important debate, and to speak particularly to the amendment put

forward by my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, calling for a six-month

hoist on this very controversial Bill 50, dealing with the amalgamation process

or procedure in the Northeast Avalon.

I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying that if ever there

has been something that has been very poorly managed, and very poorly handled

from day one, it has been this whole issue of amalgamation throughout the

Province. Now, it has really come to the boiling point in the Northeast Avalon,

but there were a number of other potential boiling points back when the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs first talked about amalgamation and first

indicated which other community groups throughout the Province might be

amalgamated, and we saw different things happen throughout the Province.

We saw communities come together as they have never come

before to oppose the amalgamation plans put forward by the minister. Of course,

here in the Northeast Avalon region, it has been a very contentious, very

controversial issue that still continues today, and for very good reason I say,

Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that this bill has created much controversy

amongst the people of the Northeast Avalon and, indeed, it doesn't stop there,

because when I go to functions in my own district of Grand Bank - The weekend

before last I attended a fireman's ball in Fortune, and a number of people there

approached me on this amalgamation issue, this Bill 50.

They were wondering and were concerned about what was

happening to the Goulds, Wedgewood Park, Mount Pearl and other towns. And the

reason, I guess, in Fortune it was topical is because Fortune, as well,

initially, was targeted to be amalgamated with the Town of Grand Bank, so, I

suppose, in their minds it is still relevant, it is still a concern. Because the

Town of Fortune, itself, they were trying to convince them of all the great

benefits there would be, if they were amalgamated with the Town of Grand Bank,

which, of course, none of them bought, none of them believed, and which they

very adamantly opposed.

There are other groupings around the Province where we have

seen similar situations, as well.

But I guess, Mr. Speaker, my greatest concern with Bill 50,

is what it is really doing to democracy and to the right of people to choose,

and that has been said, I suppose, a hundred times already on this issue in the

Legislature, but I think it is worth repeating. I mean, people no longer have

the right to choose. They no longer have the right to choose in the Goulds,

Wedgewood Park particularly, which was 90-odd per cent against amalgamation with

the City of St. John's, Mount Pearl, very strongly opposed, and Paradise, I

understand, has some very real concerns.

But when it really struck home to me - I mean, we have been

following this thing for months - but when it really struck home to me was when

I read last Saturday's "Evening Telegra