May 17, 1991                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLI  No. 52


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, whose portfolio includes the Cultural Affairs Division.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government has decided to close each of the Province's six Arts and Culture Centres for three months this summer, from the middle of June until the middle of September, as well as laying off quite a few of the staff of the Arts and Culture Centres? If the Minister confirms this, would he give an explanation for this drastic downgrading of the Arts and Culture Centres?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Director of Cultural Affairs, Elizabeth Batstone, to visit the Arts and Culture Centres across the Province - which she was planning to do, in any case, as the new Director - and, at the same time, examine the budget, faced off against the centres. We are faced with fiscal restraint and problems with balancing the Cultural Affairs portion of my budget, as well as all the other divisions, and, no question about it, we are looking at trying to get through this difficult year with the budget as it is and the dollars we have available. We will have to allocate timing and staff in a fashion to accommodate that. But she has not reported back to me, and I do not know, as yet, the timing, the numbers of staff and the numbers of months involved. The Centre will be closed, of course, for some time in the summer, because that is normal anyway, but, as to the exact time frame, I would have to check that out for the hon. Member and report back to the House.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am the Member for Humber East.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber East, I am sorry.

MS VERGE: I have said all along, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has given this Minister far too much responsibility. Obviously, he has lost sight of the Cultural Affairs Division. I can tell the Minister that the manager of the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre has been instructed to close that Centre for three full months, from June 15 to September 15, this year. All the staff at the Centre will be laid off for that period. As well, there will be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary, not a statement.

MS. VERGE: There will be permanent layoff of one of the staff. Now, Mr. Speaker, will not the Minister confirm that his Government has issued an edict to close all six of the Province's Arts and Culture Centres for more than one quarter of the year ahead, and will he not confirm that his department has laid off several of the staff of the Arts and Culture Centres? In doing so, will he state his Government's plans for the future operation of the Arts and Culture Centres? Is the Government simply beginning its plan of closing out the Arts and Culture Centres or perhaps, foisting them off on the municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have six Arts and Culture Centres in this Province, and they will not all be treated exactly alike; they have different programming and are different in the way they operate. So, I have to say to the hon. Member, once again, that I will check out the details on staffing and hours of operation and report back to the House on each one of the centres.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister tell the House, whether his Government is committed to providing funding for the continued operation of the six Arts and Centre Culture Centres in the Province, whether the Province decides to do that directly or, whether the Province decides to take the advice of the O'Flaherty Report, and turn over the operation to a board of governors or a board of directors, to whom provincial grants are given for operations?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, of course, we are implementing and have implemented many of the recommendations of Dr. O'Flaherty's Report. He did deal with the Arts and Culture Centres and made some recommendations. We have not rushed out and made any rash and quick decisions, because we have six centres in operation, in key locations in the Province, and we want to make sure, when we make decisions on these centres, that they are the right decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, we will ultimately make decisions whether to retain all the centres as provincially run centres, or whether, in fact, to consider having one or more of the municipalities - who are receptive to it, in one case, in particular - consider taking over the operation, even if on a pilot basis to see how it might work. But we are considering all the options, including Dr. O'Flaherty's recommendations, and ultimately, we will make decisions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has avoided answering the key question I asked. Is the Provincial Government committed to funding, in future, the operation of Arts and Culture Centres? Will the Province continue to fund the operation of the six Arts and Culture Centres?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, clearly we are committed to funding the Arts and Culture Centres. It is identified in our budget. We have a commitment to fund the Arts and Culture Centres. I do not know how many times I need to say it. For the future, the whole program, the whole operation, all six centres, is under review, but, presently, as I said, this Government is committed to operating the six Arts and Culture Centres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to refer the Minister to a memorandum dated February 14, 1991, addressed to all redundant pensioners, a copy of which I sent over to the Minister earlier this morning, from the Director of Pension Administration in his department. The memorandum informs pensioners of changes in the pension legislation respecting the re-employment of redundancy pensioners. In brief, it says, Mr. Speaker, `If a redundancy pensioner accepts re-employment in a pensionable position, the redundancy pension will be suspended, and that re-employed pensioner will renew contributions to the Public Service Pension Plan while re-employed in that pensionable position.' The letter, Mr. Speaker, also states, and I quote, `Please note, contractual service, temporary services or less than three months, part-time employment or casual work is not affected by this pension contribution.'

It also says, by the way, the reason for that is that these types of employment are not considered pensionable, and that is the reason why that is allowed. Can the Minister confirm the memorandum of February 14, a copy of which I have sent to him, states accurately the Government policy on the re-employment of redundancy pensioners?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this memorandum, which I have not seen before. From my casual inspection of it, it appears to me that it is in order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would suspect it is in order, obviously, was written by his own director just three months ago. The Minister of Education is not in the House and that is who my supplementary would go to, so I will have to ask the Minister of Finance. Can he confirm, is he aware that on May 1 of this year, less than three months after that memo was sent out by the Director of Pensions, that the Minister of Education wrote to all community colleges and all provincial institutes in the Province and said that a former employee, in receipt of a redundancy pension, should not be engaged to undertake any work, including contractual or part-time as long as they continue to receive redundancy pension benefits? And can the Minister explain the last paragraph of the Minister of Education's letter which says, and dealing with contractual work, the prior approval of the Minister of Education is required before the redundant employee is re-engaged, unless a condition of that re-employment is that the redundancy pension be cancelled upon re-employment. Is that not a clear contradiction of the Government's policy as just confirmed by the Minister of Finance in his own Department's memo of February 14?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I am not sure that the people he is talking about are under the same pension plan as the Public Service Pension Plan. What I would like to do with that is look at a copy of the Minister's letter and compare it with our own pension policy. I might add that teacher's pensions have quite recently come under the Department of Finance. Before that they were administered completely by the Department of Education. I will check that out for the Member and would he provide me with a copy of the Minister's letter? If not I can probably get a copy anyway, but I will check it out and answer his question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to send a copy of the Minister of Education's letter over to the Minister of Finance so that he can check it. I do not believe these instructors are under the same pension plan as the teacher's in the Newfoundland Teacher's Association. Can I ask him also, while he is checking this out, could he also perhaps check - maybe the Minister of Education will answer when he comes back, but could he also perhaps check why the Minister of Education would want, as he said in his letter, why should he personally want to approve any temporary work for a redundancy pensioner, when according to the memo of February 14 it is perfectly okay for somebody who is receiving a redundancy pension to get contractual work? Why would he want to do that, personally approve it? Is it because he is interested in setting up his own little patronage niche, or something of that nature? He could perhaps ask that, - if the President of Treasury Board would settle down now, relax - I know he got burned the other night in the House on a parliamentary point put he need not interrupt. May I ask the Minister of Finance to check further, since what is happening here in the direction of the Minister of Education, his memo, since what is happening here seems to be in clear contradiction to the Government's own policy, could he explain or answer whether or not the Department of Education is somehow exempt from the Government policy because it is a clear contradiction? Is the Department of Education exempt?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the regulations under the Public Service Pension Plan apply to all those people who are in the public service pension plan. But I will check out the points that the Member raises and give an appropriate response at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The Minister, as a Minister of this Government, is responsible for spending millions of dollars of the people's money to private sources, hopefully within this Province. I would imagine the policy if at all possible, when the Provincial Government is spending taxpayers dollars they would do their utmost to spend it in this Province other than try to create jobs outside the Province. Would the Minister confirm this is the present policy of the Government?

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, another one of the hypothetical questions from the Member for Kilbride. As the House is no doubt aware there is a local preference given to people who operate businesses within this Province.

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

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

It is not a hypothetical question, I am asking the Minister a question about policy. I do not understand why he would say it is a hypothetical question. It is probably hypothetical because he has no policy.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm that a $35,540 contract was recently awarded without going through the public tendering process to a Newfoundland company for doing printing work for the Provincial Government which will be done outside the Province, when there are at least two companies that I know of inside the Province who are starving for printing work right now, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. GILBERT: No, I think that is a question the Member should put on the Order Paper and I will get him the details and get back.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister was going to take it under notice or take notice on the question I could understand it, but it does not take a lengthy answer to say yes or no. I know he never has a (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm for the Minister that he has given a printing contract to a local company which is going to do the business outside the Province. How can the Minister justify abandoning a principle of local preference and expending taxpayers' dollars, dollars belonging to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to create jobs outside this Province when printing companies such as Dicks and Company and Robinson Blackmore, which are Newfoundland companies, at this present time are desperate for printing work? And the contract was for the printing of the Hughes Commission report.

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

MR. GILBERT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what he talking about, and I will get the answer and I will get back to him hopefully this morning on the full details of it.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister has now shifted responsibilities of Metro Board to the City of St. John's. I would like to ask the Minister will the St. John's City Council now have exclusive control over the level and costs of regional services in the Metro area?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board will cease to exist at the end of this calendar year. All of the lands under its jurisdiction will be assigned to one municipality or another in the northeast Avalon region. And that will leave us with the servicing aspect of their mandate. The decision has been made, as the Member has said, that the City of St. John's will have the responsibility to maintain and operate the regional services mostly previously under the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. They will have to determine costs, obviously in consultation and in dialogue with the other municipalities. I do not think they will do it in total isolation to the other municipalities - I doubt that very much. Many of these services in fact - particularly the water and sewer lines - run through other municipalities and service them. So in that particular case - and in the case of water, with the water supply and other services, fire department and so on - they will, yes, determine the costs involved and the appropriate share for each municipality in consultation and dialogue. And those costs other than the costs to the City of St. John's will be costed out to the municipalities sharing the services.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister said these services are to be negotiated and in consultation with the other areas. Let me ask him then: How will the negotiations take place? How will disputes, if they arise, be resolved? When will the guidelines or formulas which ensure fair compensation for services be delivered? Will there be an independent arbitration process to settle differences? Has the matter been studied before this decision was made?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable discussion on the options that might be available to us if in fact a dispute arose over a costing of services. Obviously, the Province itself and the Minister in the Department would be the ultimate arbitrator in case staff could not resolve it with the municipalities involved. That process is in place right now. We have dialogued constantly about areas of sharing of services with municipalities throughout the Province and, particularly, where they have regional services in place where they are sharing these services. That mechanism will still be in place.

We have other means as well, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that proper arbitration takes place. The Public Utilities Board is in place and that could be used. Other mechanisms such as the Board that are independent entirely of Government could be used.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister makes reference to the Boards, let me ask him: Last year he brought legislation before this House and all he talked about was the Regional Services Boards and how it would involve this amalgamation of the northeast Avalon. He clearly had the metro area in mind, Mr. Speaker, when he brought this Board before this Legislature because he used it as his main example to justify the need for regional boards. I would like to ask the Minister now, how has this all changed?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that legislation was to provide a legal entity, a legal mechanism for municipalities to share and be able to properly borrow money and enter into financial arrangements that would be very difficult to do without the legal entity in place. Many areas of the Province in fact were asking for that legislation because they intended to borrow money and were borrowing money in some cases in the name of one of the towns, whereas the others were not signing for the loan that was put in place. For that reason and many other reasons, of course, as the Member knows having debated that particular bill, we put the regional services legislation in place to enable us to establish boards where necessary. It was not just for the northeast Avalon region. We decided in this case to save the cost of another level of Government, which most of the municipalities were saying they did not want, they did not want another level of Government as they perceived it, call it a board or call it what you like, but they perceived it as being a level of Government, and we chose because of their requests not to put in place such a board if we could avoid it. We chose to go the route of having St. John's maintain and operate these services and cost them out with an administration already in place and rather than duplicate that that is the route we chose to take.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister that he should check his statements to the Sunday Express story of October 8, 1989, he would find it contradictory to what he said that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in introducing the Regional Service Boards legislation, the Minister said that all municipalities in a region would be represented on the board with elected representatives, who would have the responsibility for the delivery of services on a regional basis. How is that principle of representation and responsibility upheld in the decision to make the St. John's City Council the regional board for the metro area? Has the Minister changed his amalgamation plan to create super towns and satellite towns? Will the satellite towns be subservient to the will of the super towns?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, had we chosen the option of a regional board, yes, we would have appointed only the elected representatives of the particular municipalities, who are members of that board. We would have asked them to suggest people who would serve on the board, whether it be a mayor or a councillor or any number depending on how we had the makeup of the board and the member in municipalities.

But assuming an eight or ten member board, obviously, they would be selected based on the population I would think, of the member municipalities; now we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where, in fact, all of the municipalities, mayors and councillors and so on will have input into the sharing of services, because, St. John's will not in isolation to all the other municipalities, assess charges.

Obviously, they have to have dialogue and that dialogue, Mr. Speaker, I am very confident will take place. The municipalities have said to me that they will co-operate, in spite of what you may read in the press and so on, they will co-operate with the City of St. John's and I think we will see a fair sharing of services and I feel quite confident that will take place.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Can the Minister advise us, what the policy of the Department is with respect to the payment of debt incurred to provide water and sewer, specifically. At what stage of completion of a system does a municipality have to start repaying the debt?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, currently, what happens after we decide and prioritize the capital works, and the capital works are commenced, whether it is water, sewer, roads or any other services in which Government is involved, a bank debt is used in the first instance until the work is substantially complete, or complete, then that money is rolled into the municipal financing corporation, and with the share, a portion to the Province and to the municipality on whatever split has been decided upon.

This year for the first time, we were able to tell how municipalities can handle the debt load that may be put in place by capital works; we can tell exactly per household, because all that work is done so, in the case of a municipality that has a very low fiscal capacity, we are able to address that and decide that the amount of dollars from the Province would have to be higher in that case. On the other extreme, communities, towns and cities with very good fiscal capacity will not get as much help from Government.

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

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That is not really what I asked the Minister; I asked the Minister, at what point of the servicing, is the debt incurred? Mr. Speaker, for the Town of Flatrock, a water system was commenced a number of years ago at a cost of $550,000; for the last three years, this Government has not seen fit to provide the funding necessary to complete the project, in fact, it is 1.2 kilometres from the first house.

The result is, that Flatrock has a half completed water system which does not serve one house, when will the Minister provide the funding necessary to complete the system?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is describing a situation that I can duplicate in answer in many, many, many communities throughout the Province. We have a terrific problem where the lack of dollars to address the magnitude of the problem are just not available and we have many, many dry lines, where we put in a phase or two and we are unable to complete the project which may take three or four or five or six phases. That is the dilemma in which we are; whether or not we continue, in the case of Flatrock, I assume it is not being prioritized and other communities are ranking ahead of it, usually for health and environment reasons, so that is a difficult circumstance and I can appreciate it.

We have it, as I said, throughout the Province and it is a matter of prioritization of whether of not a given project is completed and phases at it or whether we address a community that has high prioritization and get its project stated with the first phase in many cases, usually because of a health or environment problem.

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

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

Can the Minister explain why the council is now paying $36,000 a year to service the debt, associated with this half completed water system, which, as I said, has yet to deliver one drop of water to even one resident, while at the same time the Government refuses to provide the necessary funding to complete the project?

I mean this is a crazy situation, I mean, what is the Minister going to do about it, there they are, $36,000 and there is nothing, there is just pipe in the ground. Can the Minister tell me this morning that the project will be ongoing? I asked a question and I want an answer.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my answer. It is really the same question. If the debt has been put in place because a phase was implemented, I take it to be the first phase, perhaps the second phase, it certainly is not complete. But if it has been started and debt is put in place and the municipality is responsible for a portion of that debt they have to pay it. I mean that is not unique. We have municipalities, as I have mentioned, throughout the Province that do not have their water system or sewer system, whatever it happens to be, do not have it complete but yet they have to pay for the phases that are put in place. So, I mean the answer is yes, they have to pay for the debt that is in place.

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

MR. PARSONS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. But I want to remind the Minister that the people from his Department said they were going to make an assessment to see if that water line is going to be discontinued, just stopped completely or some other phase is going to be put in, but certainly there is doubt there now whether this is ever going to be completed. That is why I am asking the Minister: is it right for this council to be paying $36,000 a year for something that might never be completed? And I also wanted to ask the Minister when is he going to announce his capital works program? The season is here for construction, not November, the season is now, right here now in May, and I want to ask the Minister when is he going to announce that program?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Capital Works Program is substantially complete as far as review is concerned, and I would anticipate announcing the program within the next couple of weeks at the very latest.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Justice I would like to ask a question of the Premier. A few days ago a prisoner was escorted from Her Majesty's Penitentiary to St. John's Airport. From there the prisoner was placed aboard an aircraft, and when the aircraft arrived in Happy Valley - Goose Bay the prisoner was met by the security from the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I will ask the Premier if there is a new policy for this Government to have prisoners travelling on commercial aircraft without an escort?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard something on the news about that incident. Somebody raised an issue about it, and I must confess to the House that I do not have personal knowledge of the full detail of it, but I understand that there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no cause for concern because while the man was in prison it was not a violent situation, there was no reason to fear or for the public to have any concern about his being free. And I understand that there was a special leave for him to go home because of a personal matter at home or for some reason, health reason. I do not know what it was, but this is the only knowledge that I have of it at the moment. I would undertake to get the full details and advise the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Resource Estimates Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the Departments of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy, and the Department of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I was asked a question during Question Period about the cost of operation of the Premier's office and the salary votes paid, and I undertook to get the detailed information for the last year, and for the prior year. Also, I undertook to get information for prior years as well so that there would be some appropriate basis for comparison. I am now pleased to advise the House that I have obtained the information and Members will see, if you turn to the second page and the bottom line, the most expensive year was 1988-89 when it cost $1,800,000 to run the Premier's office. But to be fair there was severance pay paid out during that year, during the switch over. The next year it cost $1,400,000 but there was severance pay in that year, too. To be fair what you should look at is the last year of the former administration which was $1,327,598 compared with last year which was $1,100,000. So, Mr. Speaker, quite apart from inflation the way in which we are operating the office indicates a very substantial savings of in real terms probably about $400,000 and in actual dollars $250,000 or so.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this is largely commentary, I guess. If I may, there are a whole bunch of questions on the Order Paper put to Ministers regarding the layoffs, all by the Opposition House Leader, I believe. What has happened is I have been compiling everything myself from all Departments and a breakdown of the total layoffs separated by male/female as well, which is an additional question, I believe, that was not there, but all that information will soon be ready. We are still waiting for some of the details from the hospital sector. As soon as that is received it will be presented to the House. I should advise, Your Honour, that one part of the question which asks to list the names and addresses of all the people, that, we feel, we should not be provided to hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: We understand throughout the debate on this issue that, for example, the Minister of Education has said, and I believe, the President of Treasury has said, that a fair number in the Education category will not be known, the numbers will not be known with certainty until - do you know them now.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I understood many of them would not happen until August.

MR. BAKER: They all know about it.

MR. SIMMS: The decisions have been made. Okay, so you expect to have that next week?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) breakdown I wanted.

MR. SIMMS: Can I ask the Minister, if he does not get the Health information, can he table the rest of it by the end of next week if possible, so we will have a chance to scrutinize it, you know?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) as soon as I can. I hope to have it within days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

I wonder if the Minister of Health could advise when he will answer the question regarding the fifty hospital beds that were announced in the 1990 Budget, just as to where these beds were provided and what beds have been removed from the same hospitals? Could the Minister advise as to when the answer to that question will be tabled?

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if we are going to re-enact Question Period or not. The information is being compiled. The first part of the question is quite simple, no big problem, but the second part does involve a considerable amount of research, where we have to check with all the hospitals, because we are anticipating there will be forty-five or fifty beds closed down; at a given month there might be more, and another month there might be less than that. Now,I do not want to bring erroneous information into this House, Mr. Speaker. When I bring something here, I want to be able to stand solid on it - concrete under my feet - and that takes a considerable amount of time.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure, today, to present a petition on behalf of 307 residents of Lodge Bay, Mary's Harbour and St. Lewis, Labrador. The prayer of the petition is: To the hon. House of Assembly and Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland humbly showeth, whereas all residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain depend solely on Marine Atlantic to transport all food and supplies to their communities; and whereas coastal Labradorians presently pay the highest cost of living in Eastern Canada; and whereas high operating costs prohibit the economic viability of many fish plants; wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to condemn the Federal Government for allowing Marine Atlantic to raise its freight rates to Labrador by 60 percent, this year, and to demand an immediate freezing of the rates until public hearings are held and a full review of the issue is completed.

Mr. Speaker, this petition will, I guess, be one of many that will follow from the residents of coastal Labrador, because they are incensed by the increase that Marine Atlantic has placed upon its freight rates, this year, particularly those that impact upon basic food supplies and the transporting of fish to and from the coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have done a fair bit of work on this. I met with the Chairman of Marine Atlantic, in Moncton, some time ago. Out of that meeting came a commitment that a full review of the rates would occur. Unfortunately, I have to report that Marine Atlantic has indicated to me that they are not prepared to lower any of these rates. As a matter of fact, I understand they are looking to seek another increase in the rates in the not-too-distant future, and this is completely intolerable.

I believe it is time the Federal Government took a direct look at the Marine Atlantic operation on the coast of Labrador, for a couple of reasons. The first reason, of course, is that the Marine Atlantic Service does not come under the National Transportation Act; therefore, there is no process that it has to go through in order to substantiate particular increases. If it did, there would be no way that a 60 per cent rate increase would be allowed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the federal Minister of Transport -the kinds of rate increases that take place in Marine Atlantic are entirely at the Minister's discretion, and, certainly, he has the power to investigate what is going on here and to see that the people on the coast of Labrador are justly treated when it comes to paying freight to and from their communities.

The other important reason why I believe there should be a full review of this is because, in 1949, when we joined Confederation, Section 31 of the Terms of Union clearly pointed out that the Federal Government would assume all responsibilities for marine services to and from the Island and Labrador and it would also assume all costs associated with that service.

Now, while it has not been laid out in a rate schedule exactly what the rates would be or the level of service that would be provided, it is clear to all people who interpret that particular section that this service is meant to be provided at the least cost to the people on the coast of Labrador, and certainly, it was never meant to unduly punish the people on the coast because of where they live.

The people on the coast of Labrador are presently paying an intolerably high cost of living and, this year, the 60 per cent increase on food and fish is going to really hurt many of the coastal fish plants in Mary's Harbour, Cartwright, Black Tickle, Makkovik and Nain. If you take an average of a million to a million-and-a-half pounds of fish coming out of these communities every year, Mr. Speaker, on the average each one of them will now have to pay $15,000 more on transportation to and from that community. And I know, because I work closely with the Labrador Shrimp Company, that many of these plants are marginal at best. As a matter of fact, if it was not for the revenues that the shrimp company is getting from its offshore shrimp operation, they would not be able to operate these plants.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the plants in Mary's Harbour, Cartwright, Black Tickle, Makkovik and Nain do not operate, there is no other action in these communities. There is no community. They are the lifeblood of the communities. There is no opportunity to diversify into forestry, mining, tourism, or anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying I hope all hon. Members will be able to send a strong signal to the Federal Government to reverse this draconian decision. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. I see nobody wants to speak to this one, so I have a separate petition.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the other petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, speaking to the previous petition.

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

I have no problem in supporting the petition put forward by the people of Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis concerning the rate increases in Marine Atlantic. But, I have to say this, at the same time, I am glad that the hon. Member has finally awakened from his dream, because it was only about three weeks ago that he had a petition signed by the same people in Mary's Harbour, that he would not present in this House. Mr. Speaker, I find it so interesting that the hon. gentleman brings in a petition in which the people are asking for improvements, the same as the last petition. I support the signatures on this petition, as well as I did the previous petition that the hon. gentleman would not present.

Mr. Speaker, the increase by Marine Atlantic is going to cause much difficulty, particularly for the people from Mary's Harbour all the way up to Nain, because these are the people who probably have, on average, the lowest annual income in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The increase naturally will hurt. For example, on a case of milk going from St. John's to Nain or to Mary's Harbour, regardless of where it would be going, instead of the $1.95 or $2.00 it would have cost last year, now, it will cost $3.50 or $4.00. Although, it may not sound like much on the surface, the increase is still there.

So, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will get up now and support that petition, also. Because it was not too long ago, in this legislature, that I asked a question of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who had filed a letter that the Premier had written a year and a half ago, on the proposed increase. The Minister has not - unless he has the last two or three weeks -objected to the increase by Marine Atlantic. All he did was file a letter that the Premier sent, and he said, `I support the Premier's position.'

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he should have been up in Ottawa, knocking on the door of the Minister of Transportation, up in Halifax and Moncton, knocking on the doors of Marine Atlantic, because, unless you get the support of the Ministers in that Government, Labrador, again, could well be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the benefit of the gentleman from Torngat Mountains, the letter I tabled was, indeed, a position of this Government, which expressed the very strong feelings of this Government concerning the increased freight rates in Labrador. I also point out to the gentleman that when I go to Ottawa, I usually do not have to wait outside the Minister's door, I get in and I can talk to him face to face, so that is not a problem.

There have been many representations made over the total policy of the Federal Government. And, as I support the petition so ably presented by my colleague from Eagle River, it is the total federal position that I have some concern about. As my friend alluded to, Term 39 and the provision under the Terms of Union to provide a marine service to coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, is the one that I feel has been somewhat usurped by the Federal Government and its policy of user-pay.

It is unconscionable when you see what Marine Atlantic did arbitrarily, this year, without asking for any input from the people that use it, not only along the Labrador coast, but along the south coast of Newfoundland, to increase the freight rates without any hearing. And the point my colleague makes, the fact that it is not covered under the National Transportation Act, is the crime. We have a Federal Government saying to their Crown corporations, We want you to behave like businesses, we want you to show the figures on the bottom line. Consequently, when a Crown corporation such as Marine Atlantic has to show the bottom line, the people who pay, and whose backs it is going to be inflicted on, are the people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is what my colleague for Eagle River is trying to point out here. It is one of the things that I have mentioned to my federal counterparts any time that I have had occasion to talk to them. I will be talking to the new Minister, very shortly, and it will be very high-priority in the discussions I will be having with him.

Just to give you an example of what happened, Marine Atlantic were very quick to impose the 5 per cent fuel surcharge, immediately, on rumours of the Persian Gulf War, and the war, last fall.

Despite the fact that I have written several letters, it has taken quite some time, and just last week, they finally made the last adjustment to get it down. So, there is no doubt about it, Marine Atlantic are operating now with a good business ethic, `Let's make a profit', but they are making a profit on the backs of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whom they are supposed to serve under Term 31, and I can assure this hon. House that it will be one of the things I will very definitely be discussing with the federal Minister.

I think it is an abomination that the Federal Government are trying to inflict user-pay on a transportation system in Canada. As a matter of fact, they are gutting the whole country, by this policy, and I think it is time that it changed.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad the Premier is not here for this. I am sure he is within hearing range, as I present this petition. I want to read the prayer of this petition. It does not refer directly to the Premier, but it is a petition that requests an action from all Members of this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we the residents of the Town of the Goulds, petition the Members of the House of Assembly to vote against the proposed amalgamation resolution as presented in the House of Assembly on May 14, 1991, by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the wording of this petition by the Town of the Goulds was not accidental. The wording was very, very well thought out and it could fit any of the communities affected by this amalgamation. Anyone in this region who is affected by the amalgamation proposal announced by the Minister a couple of days ago, should sign this petition. Those who should sign it most are the residents of the City of St. John's.

The residents of the Town of the Goulds, on very short notice, held a meeting last night. Between 200 and 300 of them came out to the youth centre -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister of Social Services might want to make fun of the republican guard tactics that he has employed since he got in here, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a bit too important to the people of the Town of the Goulds for me to be wasting time with that person.

Mr. Speaker, those people came out. We were hoping for 75 to 100 so we could take up our petitions, that is what we wanted to take. I did not expect to get, on a Thursday night, close to 300 people to come to that meeting, but we did, and within an-hour-and-a-half, in a community that is spread out quite a bit, with a couple of very long roads. Houses are not neatly packed together like they would be in Wedgewood Park, Mount Pearl or most of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, those people took petitions and went out and asked people to sign. There are 2,100 signatures on this petition. There are 2,980 voters, I believe, in the Town of the Goulds. Mr. Speaker, over 80 per cent of the people of the Goulds who can vote have signed this petition. There are 5,000 people in the Goulds, Mr. Speaker, over 2,000, plus school children.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible). More than 900 voters.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: That is not the only part of the district, boy. Don't be so stunned!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I should ignore him.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the Goulds have signed this petition. If I had the `Clyde Lied' buttons with me last night, and sold them for $1.00 each, I could have raised enough money to finance my next campaign, because the people in the Goulds are completely fed up with what this Government is trying to force down their throats. Most of the 2100 people who signed this said they feel completely and utterly betrayed by the republican guard tactics that are happening in a lot of things in this Province, Mr. Speaker, especially having amalgamation shoved down their throats by the Premier. They do not blame the Minister too much because they do not think the Minister had much say in this. They blame the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, for shoving this down their throats, the same as he tore up contracts for public servants, the same as he made commitments during an election and did not live up to them.

Mr. Speaker, all I had last night were some bumper stickers. The Member for St. John's South might watch his pick-up when he is passing through the Goulds from now on, because if he stops too often there will not be one bumper sticker on it, it will be plastered with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be vandalism.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did I admit to vandalism, then? If I put a bumper sticker on that member's car, I would say I did. The only reason I did not do it was because I did not think of it. It would not be one, Mr. Speaker, I would plaster it with them, too. When he stops at Bidgood's the next time he might find out where the rest of them are going to come from.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Goulds ask very simply for this Government to follow the Municipalities Act. Do not ram it through the House of Assembly by resolution. Have a feasibility study and show us why we should go in with the City of St. John's. That is not an unreasonable request. That is a very reasonable request, Mr. Speaker, made by the residents who attended that meeting, and by the people who signed this petition. They ask the members in this Legislature to vote against this resolution so that we can get back to democracy, hold the proper feasibility study for this proposal that was presented, and then let us see what will happen in the Town of the Goulds. Maybe then, Mr. Speaker, when they know what the consequences are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

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

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

It is with great pleasure that I stand to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. The amount of time taken to take up a petition, as he said, in a place like the Goulds! Anybody who is familiar with the Goulds, and it is quite questionable whether anybody opposite is very familiar with the Goulds or how it has developed, or how it is presently operating, in view of what they did this past few days to that town, must realize in a short time last night what a number of people would sign a petition objecting to what this Government has done, or is trying to do. I will not say, has done, yet, because we do not know whether or not the Government has the power to do what they say they are going to do by means of resolutions. Consequently, it shows, as I said, the way people feel about it when you get that number of people signing a petition.

Mr. Speaker, the concern of people is not that towns and communities are being amalgamated, not that services are being formally shared. Very few people who are involved with Municipal Government will argue the fact that as areas develop - and in recent years in Newfoundland many rural and urban areas have come a long way in relation to the provision of services to taxpayers, not forgetting the fact, of course, that as they have come a long way taxpayers are paying the bills for the development of these services. Areas have come a long way, and as road areas occur, as is happening in rural areas, populations are becoming depleted, then the need to re-access how services are provided is important and Government has to play a part. There are times when things have to be shared, there are times when things can be more properly managed, but who knows better as to what can work in an area, whether it be the actual provision of that service or the method of co-operation that takes place in relation to the towns or villages involved, and people who live in those areas, themselves. It is extremely unfortunate that the people who are presently directly involved in all this process had very little say in the actual result. Some months ago, when the new Minister - on his own, I think, a very well-intentioned gentleman - rode in waving the amalgamation flag, he was referred to as Eric The Red, you know, the great Viking who came to the west and conquered everything that lay in his path.

Unfortunately, now - and once again, I say, I do not blame the Minister, because I think he has had his sword taken away - he is being referred to as Eric The Yellow, because he backed away from the process number one, but mainly because of the egg on his face, due to the humiliation he must be going through because of what was done to him by his own party.

I understand that the Minister, or Minister-to-be, I suppose, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, was the big stick, in caucus, in relation to what really happened. The Member, if one is to believe what is being told, is the one who went to the Premier and gave him an ultimatum in relation to his own area, and if you look at the fact, that in the whole process, the only area that is satisfied with the amalgamating suggestions, is the area of Paradise. And what is being said by the Member, I understand, if it is correct, is that he is the one who told the Premier what had to be done in relation to his area.

Now, it is unfortunate that the Member for Pleasantville and others did not have the same clout in Cabinet, because they got scuttled and, of course, Members like the Member for St. John's Centre and St. John's North did not know what was going on, anyway, and the Member for St. John's South, I understand, was completely ignored. So, therefore, the Premier - and I referred to him earlier as `Cod Liver Clyde', because his philosophy is: Take it, it is good for you; I say it is good for you, so put up with it - has absolutely no knowledge of the effect of this resolution that is coming before us.

He has no knowledge, at all, of the fact of what this is going to do to a place like the Goulds. The Minister of Social Services, who says he knows so much about rural Newfoundland, should know something about the physical makeup of the Goulds. Last night, I talked to an elderly gentleman from the area, who owns a fair amount of land. A lot of people in the Goulds, because it is a rural area, own a lot of land -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- but the concern was they will not be able to pay their taxes, they will have to sell off and go to senior citizens' homes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, no leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: It is terrible, and that is what is happening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in response to the petition taken up last evening by the people of the Goulds. Of course, petitions are a vital part of this process and people have every right to express their views.

In a case like this and in a situation and a decision like this which involves great change, substantive change, long, long overdue in the Northeast Avalon, I might add - no previous Government, including the Members Opposite, were willing to take any decisions, leave it alone, because I suppose -

AN HON. MEMBER: We believe in democracy.

MR. GULLAGE: - politically, tough decisions, in many cases, in many Governments, are best avoided. So, the previous Government decided to avoid the tough decisions that had to be taken and left it alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shove it down people's throats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, we carried out the feasibility process necessary. I do not think anybody could argue. In the beginning, they were telling me I was going too fast -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: - trying to do it in a couple of months, so I slowed it down considerably, Mr. Speaker, where I think we have gone beyond the year-and-a-half in the process. So, for anybody to suggest that we have not taken the time and have not had dialogue and discussion, on top of the previous nine Royal Commissions - some of them Royal Commissions, no less, by previous Governments. On top of all that information we had available - I have said it in the past - we have been studied to death. Mr. Speaker, it is true! You can come over to my Department and I can show you the studies stacked up! The previous Government said, Okay, just leave them there, it fills up all the bookshelves. But, `do nothing' was their attitude, Mr. Speaker. Now, politically, sometimes doing nothing wins you a lot of points, I guess. But we decided that we could no longer sit around and do nothing about a very serious situation in the Northeast Avalon.

Now, the Goulds is one of seventeen communities affected by the decision, and in-between, of course, we have a lot of Metropolitan area land. And, those people in-between municipalities, were we going to leave them alone for another ten or fifteen years, not really represented in any substantive way by elected - granted, there were some elected people appointed to the Metropolitan Area Board, but half the Board was appointed and unelected. Did we want to let that continue? No, we did not. So we had take decisions for the best long-term interests of the Northeast Avalon, 160,000 people. I do not know what that works out to but it is about - what? Thirty per cent? - something like about 30 per cent of the population of the Province.

So, we made a decision, and I think we made it in the best interests of the seventeen communities and the others in the Metropolitan area lands, and in the best interests of the Goulds. Even though the Goulds has presented a petition through their Member, I think they will see, in the future - maybe not in the short-term, it will take time. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the long-term best interests of the people of the Goulds - as with the other communities, will be best served by the decision the Government has taken.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, today, we are calling Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the actual debate, I am a bit shaken by the Minister's last comments there on this whole issue. It seems to me that when a government decides that it knows more than the people, that is a pretty heavy responsibility to take on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I am a bit shaken by what the Minister of Municipal Affairs just said.

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

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour will recall - I am not sure, according to Hansard, who was in the Chair, if it was Your Honour or -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: It was Your Honour. Your Honour will recall that on May 14, I raised the point of order about divvying up the resolution - just to summarize without going into great detail - as put forth by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. And my reason was, I thought, self-explanatory, because there may be sections of that resolution, there may be amendments proposed to the resolution, some sections of which may be acceptable to Members, and which some Members may find more acceptable than others. And that would give Members an opportunity to support those that they agree with, and vote against those with which they do not agree.

The very essence and principle, I suppose, of the process of debate in a Parliament, is outlined in Beauchesne, starting on page 171, which Your Honour, I know, is quite familiar with. But I just want to make one additional submission, because, when I made the point of order, I did not give Your Honour a Parliamentary reference to consider. Perhaps he has considered it, anyway, but I do want to make sure that Your Honour did consider it. It is the reference on page 172, that my friend opposite is quite familiar with, paragraph 557.

Now, in order to come to that paragraph 557 you have to read paragraph 552, which talks about the whole process of debate and the purpose for making resolutions or motions acceptable. I mean, the whole intent is to try to make them more acceptable. And I am arguing that one way of doing that would be to divide these resolutions.

Paragraph 557.(1) in Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 172, says: "A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions" - and, clearly, we have two or more distinct propositions in this resolution - "may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker," of course, "has a discretionary power to decide whether a motion should be divided." So it is really a follow-up to the point of order that I put on May 14, when Your Honour said - I believe, he said he would get back - he said, `I will look into it and have an answer later for the House'.

But I just want to reiterate that it was not a facetious point of order, it was quite a serious point of order.

If I might just conclude by saying, for example, I will put it as clearly as I can, under the next to last resolved part of the resolution: `and the House of Assembly further resolves that the timing of the consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and administrative details be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;' Well, that may be one of the clauses, for example, that may not be too hard to vote for, if you understand what I am saying. That is a fairly simple one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But, still, it is part of your resolution, so I am saying you could vote for that.

Well, let us go on to the next one: Government shall introduce legislation where necessary to effect the changes set out in the resolution, once passed. Maybe we would be hard pressed to vote against that, it is pretty straightforward, but where it says that the boundaries of Mount Pearl be divided, in that clause, or maybe some other clause, might clearly be opposed to that and would like to indicate to the House that the Chair would like to have the sense of the House would be much easier. Maybe the St. Thomas' - Paradise clause, we would support, because, as we understand it, at this stage, at least, there is no major objection to it, so maybe we would support that.

So I think my point is obvious and I do not want to beat it to death, but I guess what I am saying to Your Honour is in following the rules of debate, the process of debate, as outlined by Beauchesne, clearly when you put a resolution or a motion forward, the intent is to try to get the resolution proceeded with in such a way as to make it more acceptable to the majority of members in the legislature. That is the whole purpose of it. And the other major thing, of course, is for the Chair to be able to get a clear sense of the House, and I think it would be much easier for Your Honour to get a clear sense if we simply agreed, at the appropriate time, to take separate votes on each of the individual clauses.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of order. The Member is absolutely right that he did make the submission and I made a counter submission at that time. I would like to remind Your Honour, as the Opposition House Leader did, the purpose of this particular section is to expedite matters in the House, to make sure that things proceed according - and make it easier for the matter to be dealt with. There are certain cases where, by splitting a motion, it would certainly make it easier to deal with that motion. There are other cases where it would not. I would like to remind Your Honour that paragraph 557 says, "A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided," it does not say `must be divided.' It does not say that where there are two separate ideas in a resolution, it has to be divided. There is nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that it may be divided, and certainly it may be divided, if it expedites and makes it easier to carry out the legislative process in the House and to get the sense of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this particular instance, however, as I have pointed out to Your Honour, before, there are not two distinct propositions there. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, you change one piece and you have to change all the others, the next piece, the next piece and the next piece, and the thing is a package and a unit. A change in one necessitates changes in others. So, Mr. Speaker, in that sense, it is a package.

In the sense of expediting matters in the House, then obviously, the intent, if this were to be divided to myriad sections, and when you make a change in one section, then you have to go back for another month or so to figure out how you are going to then effect changes in the others in light of the first change and so on, obviously, the intent of the splitting is an obstructionist intent, in this case. I would suggest to Your Honour that he, in his deliberations, consider whether it would be proper to use this clause with the intent to obstruct rather than with the intent to expedite and to clearly get the sense of the House in terms of the amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon.

So, Your Honour, it is not a simple matter. I would ask Your Honour to take into consideration, as I know you will, the nature of this resolution, the fact that it is a package and a change in one necessarily affects the other. They are not distinct, you see, two or more distinct propositions. If in fact, Your Honour, they were distinct propositions in here, then I would be suggesting, as I have in the past, that they be split. But, they are not distinct, they are inextricably tied, tied together. This is a package, it is like a jigsaw puzzle, and where a decision on one boundary would, of necessity, affect other boundaries, and so on, along the chain.

Your Honour, I once again suggest to you that this is a package resolution. It is not the type of resolution that contains distinct possibilities, distinct propositions, and, therefore, should be handled in one vote as a package, as Government intended in the first place.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a further submission for Your Honour's consideration.

While the Minister quoted, as I did, paragraph 557, and tried to make the point that the resolutions `may be divided', it goes on quite clearly to say that it is the Speaker who has the discretionary power to make that decision, essentially. That is why I am making the argument to the Speaker, not to the Minister and President of Treasury Board. Now, I find his arguments somewhat hollow, quite frankly.

Every time I get up to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and offer something constructive in the hope that it will improve the legislative process, the Minister seems to suffer from a severe case of paranoia. The other night was a great example, when we sat here for an hour and thirty-five minutes for Your Honour to rule on whether or not the Estimates Committees should continue. Totally a waste of time, it was not necessary. But it was brought on by paranoia suffered by the President of Treasury Board, and once again we have it. He is suggesting now, in a subtle little way, as he often does, that all we are doing here is attempting to be obstructionist.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, categorically, all we are simply asking is that the eight or nine clauses, when the time comes for the vote, be voted on separately. Now, what is obstructionist about that? A voice vote takes about one minute, and if it is a division vote, ten minutes, at the maximum. It is no big deal. I mean, that is not obstructionist, and there is no intent to be obstructionist. That is a silly argument and I plead with Your Honour not to consider that as part of the submission.

Let me deal with the more substantive question that he raised, which is, he is arguing that this resolution cannot be dealt with separately in voting because a change in one section would, of necessity, mean a change in the whole resolution. Those are his words from Hansard, and that is basically what he said here a few moments ago. Now, I would argue that quite clearly, Mr. Speaker. I will give you one example in the resolution, itself. If Your Honour looks at the resolution, for example, this is the third resolve, "AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the St. John's Fire Department, including the Mount Pearl Fire Station, and the Canada Games Park including The Aquarena be transferred to the City of St. John's, and all those facilities associated with the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board be transferred to the City of St. John's;" Now, if we were to vote, and wished to vote against that and the House wanted to vote against it and it was defeated, that will have no bearing on the boundaries in the rest of the resolution, absolutely no bearing on the boundaries outlined in the rest of the resolution.

"AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the timing of the consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and administrative details be set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council;" I mean, if that were voted against, it does not matter, because, as the Minister has already said himself a few moments ago, they already have the authority to do that, anyway. I mean, the argument against this is ludicrous. I do not know why the Government House Leader is becoming so determined to not allow democracy to work a little better because that is all we are arguing. Finally, I will say this, because I know he is going to respond again to put down my arguments, perhaps he can then tell me if that same argument will apply, if, for example, an amendment is proposed, as has been talked about and rumoured now for the last couple of days, that some strong lobbying is underway by the City of St. John's, using one of the Members on the Government side, specifically the Member for Pleasantville, in an attempt to try and bring in an amendment to the resolution that will incorporate Mount Pearl into this whole resolution. Would not that then as well, using his own argument, not be permitted, and if that is the case why should we not permit such matters to be put forward in the way of amendments? Perhaps we have some amendments to be considered, but surely they would have to be dealt with separately. That is the major argument I would make Your Honour. In any event ultimately Your Honour will decide. We are simply asking that you give consideration to separating the resolution so that at the voting time it can be voted on individually.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very unusual. Normally, a point of order is made, a submission is made to Your Honour, and then from the other side there is a further submission, and there are submissions made. The problem with the Opposition House Leader is he thinks he is still Speaker and he has to get up and make rulings. That is what he assumes. He believes he is still Speaker and he gets up and makes his ruling. I would like to point out to Your Honour that further to what had been said the Opposition House Leader had already pointed out in his submission that the things other than the boundaries were things they could easily agree with, and it was the boundaries they wanted to spilt out and have separate votes on. This is what he indicated. He indicated a complete lack of understanding of the resolution when he said that if he read out a section we could vote against that and it still would not affect the rest of the resolution. Your Honour this is one of the things about the necessity of making provisions in this resolution for not having a regional services board as an essential part of it. It is tied in with exactly what happens to all the boundaries, and is an essential part of the jigsaw puzzle. Obviously, in the Member's submission he shows a complete lack of understanding of what this resolution is about. To make his point he also says: does this mean now that Government is not going to accept amendments? Well, amendments are not the same. An amendment is not the same as splitting an resolution. Your Honour has not been in the Chair any more than a couple of years and Your Honour understands that, I am sure. There is no wonder the Member opposite was such a bad Speaker when he was in the Chair, with that type of argument.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Members are correct, the point of order was raised some time ago. The matter is now under consideration. The Chair allowed some additional comments to be made and will bring back a decision on the matter shortly.

The hon. the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise to start the debate on the resolution, a resolution I introduced to the House a couple of days ago. The resolution, of course, proposes that we substantially change the present structure of Municipal Government in the northeast Avalon area. We have, as hon. Members know, some seventeen municipalities comprising a population of about 160,000 people, by far the largest region of the Province, with its core, of course, the capital City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we have had for some time now in place the seventeen municipalities I mentioned and a St. John's Metropolitan area board. This board carries out the function of providing management and services to people who live in between and on lands that are in between the seventeen municipalities. Many of these communities, such as Evergreen Village and Elizabeth Park as two examples, Windsor Heights is another one, grew up and were formed as municipalities really and part of the Metropolitan Area Board, without representation really in the same context as the other seventeen municipalities which all have elected councils. Metropolitan Area Board is half appointed from elected officials from the seventeen councils or some of the seventeen councils. The major players, the larger cities and towns, have most of the representation because of population. But the Metropolitan Area Board also has half of its membership appointed by the Province.

So it was felt that the Metropolitan Area Board because of the need to rationalize and restructure the northeast Avalon had fulfilled its role, and I believe we made that comment - I am sure we did - at the front end when we started and introduced the feasibility procedure for the northeast Avalon. The intent was - and it was even before then, actually, because we are not the first government to talk about a changing role for the Metropolitan Area Board. It was thought that the lands would be annexed to the nearest municipality in most cases. Would be part of the rationale for the feasibility process because certainly the Board was outlined. Metropolitan Area Board was included in the feasibility process as a municipality because it is incorporated as such. It operates under the jurisdiction, under the criteria established under the Municipalities Act as other municipalities do as well. And that at the end of the day, or throughout the feasibility process and the commissioners were asked to examine assigning those lands and those responsibilities to another jurisdiction.

So that has been accomplished with the resolution. Portions of the resolution speak to the assignment of the assets of St. John's Metropolitan Area Board to the City of St. John's for administration, maintenance and operation. And that the lands would be annexed to the nearest municipality in most cases.

To make substantial changes like that in my view took a lot of courage on the part of Government. We could have sat back when we took Government and decided to leave everything alone. To let seventeen communities continue to operate in competition and isolation to one another. Isolation as far as planning is concerned, management, administration of services, competition for industry and business and residential growth. And all seventeen - and I suppose you could include the Metro Board as well in that context - really not coordinating any of those activities one with the other. We could have sat back and let that continue to happen. But Government decided to take the initiative and to proceed with the feasibility process which has led us to the resolution that we have today.

We recognize that reform was needed in municipal government - not just in the northeast Avalon but obviously throughout the Province. We had to make reforms. Now to suggest that we were the only ones saying that would be ludicrous, I suppose, is the word. Because for years and years - and as a member of the Federation of Municipalities I can attest to it - member municipalities were saying that they wanted more independence from government. Making a case in Newfoundland and throughout Canada that they should be recognized as clearly a third level of government.

They are still making that case, the Federation nationally and I suppose individually in the Province, they are still making that case that they want independence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with independence comes responsibility. You do not just simply say that you are going to be an independent level of Government, self-governing with no input from the Province or the Federal Government unless you can support that statement, unless you can support that independence. But, Mr. Speaker, municipalities, especially in Newfoundland where we have over 500 of them with any size, have very great difficulty in operating. Difficulty in providing management to their people, difficulty in providing services, particularly water and sewer, which is the biggest single problem we have with municipal government in Newfoundland, providing the essential basic rights, if you like, which everybody feels that they have of clean water and good services as far as sewer lines are concerned, and providing a healthy environment for people to live in with proper municipal services which address the health and environment needs that everybody has.

Mr. Speaker, municipal governments throughout this Province, particularly in the smaller areas and smaller communities, are incapable of delivering those services for their people without help from the Province. It just cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. Bringing a lot of them together that have adjacent boundaries helps us in that cause, helps us in so many ways. First of all, it helps them in rationalizing the cost of administration by putting two or more municipalities together, whether it be in rural Newfoundland or in the urban parts of the Province, it certainly brings about economies of scale. Every single commissioners report that I have read attests to the fact that is true, they make the point that their evaluation of the seventeen points in the feasibility process has caused them to recommend that communities come together because it is very cost effective. There is no question in all cases that when you combine smaller entities with small populations, in many cases throughout the Province with very small populations, we have communities involved in the amalgamation process with as little as a couple of hundred people. Mr. Speaker, bringing those smaller communities together into a larger community in rural Newfoundland with 1200 people or 1500 people or 2000 people whatever the case might be, mostly that would be the case. There are one or two exceptions but most groupings put together would be at least 1200 people. We have established that was the size necessary for a community that would sustain itself, from our research, would require some 1200 people or more.

So, we used that criteria and identified the groupings of towns that had co-adjacent boundaries and could logically come together, then the commissioners confirmed that we were right in the majority of cases, not all cases. We have eight or ten situations of groupings of communities that the commissioners are saying that for many reasons but mostly because they are too far apart that they should be left separately and treated as separate entities and the Government should deal with their problems as they are separate municipalities.

The vast majority though some thirty-four groupings of municipalities the commissioners are clearly saying, based on the criteria laid down in the feasibility process, the communities should be joined together.

Mr. Speaker, they addressed factors which included the administrative capability of the towns or cities, the cost efficiency in these towns as they presently existed versus put together. Community identity, one of the points raised, I supposed, most frequently at hearings was, are we going to lose our identity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not invent amalgamation. A lot of amalgamations were done in the past and community identity was not lost. I can give you examples close to home in CBS (Conception Bay South) where we have Kelligrews, Manuels and Topsail and the names are still there and people still identify with those communities; so community identity has not been lost.

Quidi Vidi village right here in the city is still Quidi Vidi village, anybody going down there say, to visit the plant or visit the restaurant he is going to Quidi Vidi village and it is identified that way, so we have not lost identity as far as towns are concerned throughout the Province. Well that certainly is not a good reason to back off and say: oh no, we will not proceed to examine the feasibility because of a loss of identity, that certainly would not be a good reason for Government not to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioners looked at representation for the population that was in place, we look at the northeast Avalon, we have 122 elected officials, surely that is a duplication of Government on top of the MHAs we have the Federal Members and if you look at the representation we have in this Province, if you look at the whole Province, some 500 odd municipalities and you can stretch that to 800, if you want to take every little community, but say 500, look at the municipal representation in this Province per capita, you know we have an elected person if you add on the MHAs and the MPs, we have, I believe something like an elected person for every seven adults, something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: For every seven adults?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, it is totally out of whack. I am including now the civil servants of course, you took the civil servants and they work for the people as well, you see, so if you took it all, we are working closely to the point where an adult person in Newfoundland will have an individual working for him solely, one individual, if you take the civil servants into it. So, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody who would argue the point that we are badly over-governed to say the least, over-governed, far, far too many people providing leadership in terms of municipal, provincial and federal politics.

They also examined the municipal services and functions throughout the area in question, feasibility in terms of revenues and expenditures, equity in terms of the taxpayers ability to pay and the benefits received. Looked at the tax yields compared to the economic activity in the area, where we have communities that have very low fiscal capacity because they have probably just a residential tax base and nothing else; others with great affluence really, I may as well say it, great affluence where they have industry and business and maybe they are like St. John's is, a large service centre for a large portion of the Province, certainly all the eastern portion.

A lot of the goods and services that are provided to the eastern half of the Province comes through St. John's, so we have cities like St. John's and Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, they are relatively prosperous, but the other extreme, we have many, many communities that have very low fiscal capacity because all they have is a very low and inadequate tax base from their residences, so, Mr. Speaker, addressing the fiscal capacity was important as well and we did that, not just in the commissioner's addressing the fiscal capacity of towns and looking at towns and cities being put together versus left separately as far as the financial area is concerned.

We also addressed it at the same time we were carrying out these feasibility studies, addressed it in a revised grants programme for the Province which I do not think anybody would argue is a good programme; there is no question it is a good programme, Mr. Speaker, where, we have caused a shift in dollars; now granted, a lot of our urban areas have complained because we caused a shift in dollars away from the urban areas to the rural areas and that is because of the inequities between municipalities and I have just addressed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: I have just explained why those inequities are there, Mr. Speaker, because of the vast differences in fiscal capacity one town to another -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: - some with very rich resources, very high, broad tax base-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Municipalities that have a very inadequate tax base. So when we worked on the grants programme, when the consultants and my staff worked on that programme, they very quickly identified those disparities and designed the programme to address them.

Now we are not finished with that grants programme of course. Even now we have the Federation of Municipalities and we work closely with them, unlike the previous government. We work very closely with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: According to Sam's press conference.

MR. GULLAGE: I think Mr. Connors would agree we do. We work very closely with them and they are now presenting reaction to some of the components of the grants programme. Particularly as the grants programme addresses the urban municipalities. And if there is an inequity in there we are going to consider it. We will consider any presentation that comes forward from the Federation of Municipalities.

I have had members of that Federation come to me with concerns about the grants programme. Now the vast majority of it suggests some 90 per cent of the communities are more than satisfied and I have not heard from them. But some of them are dissatisfied because they see inequities. And we did not pretend we were going to devise the perfect programme the first time out. That just would not be possible. And we are going to address those inequities. If we have to bring in a different component, if we have to reword some of the components in future years, we will take a look at that because we want to be fair.

Obviously that grants programme is put in place because of the need for money throughout the Province. Now in order to have total independence as far as municipalities are concerned - and they would love to have it and we would love to give it to them. We would love to be able to say to all five hundred municipalities: effective January 1 you are on your own. Carry out your own affairs. That would be ideal, it would be wonderful, and we would love to see them in that position. But we are light-years away from it. I mean, there is just no possible way the Government could cut off the municipalities and say: from now on you carry out your municipal management, carry out your capital works, provide services to your people without Provincial help. It just cannot be done.

And you know I talk in this House every time I get the opportunity about the $2 billion problem. Two billion dollars. We are not talking about a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Two billion dollars is the need out there now for water and sewer and roads. It is a dramatic problem. By far the biggest problem in Canada per capita. Nobody even comes close to us in the problems we have in addressing services of water and sewer and roads for our people.

So we have to rationalize our municipal government. There is no question. Anybody who would argue against consolidation of municipalities - unification of municipalities, which is a better word -

AN HON. MEMBER: Try annexation!

MR. GULLAGE: Anybody who would argue against - or annexation, any word you wish, anybody who would argue against it, in Newfoundland of all places. Now I could see arguing against some provinces perhaps. But In Newfoundland with our scarce resources, with the Government fiscally restrained as it is - in spite of that though the last few years able to deliver large capital works programmes, the largest in our history. Some $63 million last year, and prior to that I think it was close to $50 million. We were able to deliver those programmes. But we have a long ways to go. And we have a Province that, as every other province in Canada, is having great difficulties financially. We still have to help the next level of government with their servicing. Particularly capital service. Capital costs of water and sewer and roads.

By coming together, by amalgamating, by being unified, whatever you want to say, helps us in delivery of those services. There is no question. If you put two, three, four municipalities together and you are able to plan a larger coordinated unit with more people, you are able to plan infrastructure better. You are able to plan the town plan better, it is better put together. Because you can see into the future with three or four communities coming as one rather than four in isolation doing their own thing, each one of them planning industrial business growth, residential growth, subdivisions going all over the countryside in many cases. There is only one way to address that question. That is have communities join together as one.

Now they are working as one in some locations right now. Almost all of the services in some locations in the Province are done on a co-operative basis. Where they share a water supply, they share garbage collection, they have a volunteer fire department that they share. They are together in everything but name. They just have not joined legally together. So, Mr. Speaker, that co-operation will continue. We have communities like that who will continue indefinitely like that because they are some distance apart in the majority of cases. But, Mr. Speaker, wherever they have adjacent boundaries where you can throw a stone and hit the next house in the next community. They are so close that you cannot tell the difference. It makes great sense to examine amalgamation or unification or consolidation or whatever you want to say, so we did that in 42 groupings throughout the Province. The largest program of this type that has ever been attempted by any Government, the only Government to have the courage to do it. No previous Government had the courage to do it. They sat around and looked at the problem and said, 'we cannot tackle that.'

AN HON. MEMBER: They knew it needed to be done.

MR. GULLAGE: They knew it needed to be done, that is right. They obviously knew it needed to be done. It is rather obvious. But they said: no, it is too politically tough. That could cost us politically so we will sit back and we will avoid any decision. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the easiest thing you can do in Government. It may not get you re-elected, that is for sure because I do not think there are too many people out there nowadays. Our population is becoming more and more educated in spite of the fact that we have a high illiteracy rate. We do have more and more of our population becoming education.

Mr. Speaker, they know what is going on. They know that Governments are expected to perform. They are not elected to take office, have the Ministers sit at their clean desks and do nothing. I mean I could have done that, Mr. Speaker, two years ago. I could have gone in and sat at my desk and done nothing, but that is not what we were elected to do. None of the Ministers in this Government are elected to do nothing, and I do not think anybody would suggest that any of us have been sitting around. We have made great changes, Mr. Speaker. I think we have probably done more in the last two years than the previous Government did in its entire term of 17 years.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINDSOR: Do not be so foolish (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in two years we have done more -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl to restrain himself.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in two years we have done more as a Government than the previous administration did in 17 years. I do not think there are too many people who would argue with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: And, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever any debate about that my next statement in saying that in the Department of Municipal Affairs we have certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: We have done more in Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, than the previous Government certainly did in this entire administration. There is no question about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: That is not me talking, that is people saying it to me, and it is true. Did you address the grants program? Did you address the inequities between municipalities? Did you look at amalgamation?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again, I will ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl if he will restrain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to stop (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member introduced the grants program, and when we took Government we had to revise and change it because it was not working.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the northeast Avalon now, to be more specific of course, we have the commissioners reports, we have had them some time ago, and we have had the opportunity to examine those reports with the commissioners, with planning staff, with the executive in my department, as I have said before, with any advice that I sought to come up with a recommendation for Government. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long process, a year and a half in spite of the Members on the opposite side complaining first of all that I was going too slow, and now I am going too fast. I do not know what they want, Mr. Speaker. This thing has been studied to death. Maybe we should go on for ten more years or something, or maybe we should leave it alone like they did and do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, we have thoroughly studied the northeast Avalon, and we are recommending that 17 communities come down to 11. So we will see a rationalization of municipal government. We will see the Metropolitan Area Board disappear. We will see all of their lands annexed to other communities. We will see those people, by the way, very happy. Because they wanted representation by elected people, mayors and councillors who are elected into the adjoining municipalities. They were outside of Metropolitan Area lands. Represented by half the Board that was not elected. And they saw that as being unfair.

So we are going to rationalize the number of municipalities. We are going to bring down the numbers. We are going to provide for more effective government. We are going to assign all the services, rather than to a regional services board - which we could have done, we could have set up a regional services board, another bureaucracy. But the communities were saying to us they did not want the board. Clearly they were saying that. There were a couple of exceptions. But most of the municipalities were saying: we do not want another level of government. They saw that as a level of government in between themselves and the Province. And it is more costly. They would have had to pay for it, they would have had to pay their per capita share. So we responded to their requests and their concerns about the board and we decided not to bring one in.

We have asked the capital city - after all, it has 100,000 people, it has a large administrative structure in place - to take on the responsibility of management of the water supply, sewage and solid waste disposal, firefighting, urban transportation, which they are already providing to some other municipalities, and other services that may be regional in nature and could easily be costed out by one municipal body.

Now we do not know quite frankly how that is going to work. We have no idea how that is going to work. But I can tell you, we presently have services costed out right now by the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. I hardly ever hear a complaint.

MR. WINDSOR: No, because there is equal representation on it!

MR. GULLAGE: Mount Pearl and St. John's -

MR. WINDSOR: They are not subservient to the City of St. John's!

MR. GULLAGE: - are paying the same amount for their water, exactly the same.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) no problem with the Metro Board, the problem is with the City of St. John's -

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

MR. WINDSOR: -because there is no representation!

MR. MURPHY: That is a stupid analogy.

MR. WINDSOR: It is not stupid! You are too stupid to understand (Inaudible)!

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

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

I remind the hon. Members again that it is certainly unparliamentary to interject, to interrupt, a Member in the debate. And I ask hon. Members on both sides to restrain themselves please and afford to the hon. Member silence while he is presenting his points of view.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying. We have assigned that responsibility to the City of St. John's. We do not know quite frankly how it is going to work out. We would hope that there would be cooperation. I have been told by the mayors - you do not hear it in the press, of course - but the mayors are telling me that they are going to cooperate. That is what they are saying. We will cooperate to make this work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mayor of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: And I am not just speaking of the Mayor of St. John's either. Other mayors have said exactly the same thing. Now, if they are saying they are going to try to make it work, if they are saying they are going to cooperate, I can only trust that their word is the law. Right? And I trust that it is. These are hon. good people. We have good administration. We have good mayors and councillors in place and they have the best interests of their people at heart. I think they will want to be fair in deciding the cost sharing arrangements that are necessary. They want to agree at the end of the day on what is fair.

If that does not happen the Province is the final arbitrator. It is right now. And we can use all sorts of mechanisms to make decisions and to arbitrate any dispute that might take place. I do not think we are going to see too many disputes.

MR. WINDSOR: Who will arbitrate?

MR. GULLAGE: In the first instance my staff and myself will talk to the municipalities and try to resolve the matter. If we cannot do it through that mechanism we can use the Public Utilities Board, as an example.

MR. WINDSOR: Do that!

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, we can do that.

MR. WINDSOR: That would be acceptable, I think.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, okay. And we can do it.

MR. WINDSOR: That would be acceptable. As long as the Mayor of St. John's is not the arbitrator.

MR. GULLAGE: And we will do it. And we can do it. But, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is we are not going to automatically refer something to the Public Utilities Board and have a case drag on for weeks and months if it can be resolved right in the Minister's office. Obviously we are not going to automatically refer every minor dispute. We are going to try to resolve it in the Department first. But, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot resolve it, we can use the Public Utilities Board. There is a mechanism of arbitration that can be put in place. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, if we can avoid another level of Government, I think we should do so. Municipalities are saying that, let's avoid that second level. Mr. Speaker, we are reacting to their concerns and we are avoiding a second level of Government.

Mr. Speaker, we have done substantial amalgamations throughout the northeast Avalon. In the case of Mount Pearl, the city that I share with the Member for Mount Pearl, we have left Mount Pearl substantially alone. We thought that with 22,000 people, I think actually it is closer to 23,000 people, we felt that Mount Pearl which is a self sufficient city -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. GULLAGE: - which is a self sufficient -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. Members again that the Member who is recognized by the Chair is the only Member who should be speaking when we are debating here in this Chamber. Members are not permitted to interrupt, conversation across the Chamber is not permitted. All hon. Members will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. So again I ask hon. Members for their co-operation so that there can be a smooth flow of debate and we can maintain a high level of decorum in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Mount Pearl has been left substantially alone. Government took that decision for a lot of reasons, 23,000 people. A city that was previously a town has been incorporated for a long time. It is not like Wedgewood Park, for example, that is essentially a sub-division really to be honest. I think even the people there would admit that. One of the residents of Wedgewood Park last night on the news I noticed admitted essentially that it was a sub-division, and that is true, it is a sub-division, 1,300 people. But you look at 23,000 people with a good business industrial tax base and good residential tax base, obviously self sufficient it is a different concern entirely. And, Mr. Speaker, to say that we agonized over the decision on Mount Pearl would be an understatement. I would suggest it was the most difficult decision that we had to make in the northeast Avalon context because of the reasons I just gave.

Now, Mr. Speaker, from a planning standpoint a decision was taken that the Southlands area - Southlands, of course, is undeveloped right now. There is nothing in the Southlands area. It is on the other side of the Harbour Arterial Road and is slated for development by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation as the prime developer. Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken that the Harbour Arterial Road would be an identifiable boundary for the City of Mount Pearl and that Mount Pearl would grow within -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the agricultural zone.

MR. GULLAGE: The agricultural zone to the south is still identified as the boundary for Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: And, Mr. Speaker, it was decided that would be the boundary for Mount Pearl with the Southlands development and all of the development up through the corridor, if you like, up through the Goulds and Bay Bulls Big Pond Line behind the Goulds and all that area becoming part of St. John's. And to the west of the Southlands development, of course, we have largely a water reservoir, Mr. Speaker. Mostly lands that are substantially undevelopable except for some small areas, but we felt that should be under the control of municipal jurisdiction for future water needs, so it should be controlled for future needs into the future for the northeast Avalon because presently, of course, our two main water supplies are Windsor Lake and Bay Bulls, but it was felt wise that we should at least reserve and put under the control of municipal jurisdiction the lands to the west, so that has been done, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, that leaves Mount Pearl with some 300 acres, so I am told, of land that can be developed within the new boundaries. Mr. Speaker, that will provide growth for, again I am told, for some twenty years, and you know, none of us can foresee the future, but certainly that provides a good long time for growth, mostly I would think it would be commercial growth, but residential growth as well, into the future. Mr. Speaker, so we took that hard decision, and as I have said it was not an easy decision. Obviously, the points of view ranged from a supercity which a lot of people were talking about certainly the press were talking about, they were accusing me of saying that we wanted a supercity. Eric Gullage wanted a supercity. The press all had different versions of it, one newspaper would say the supercity with seventeen communities, all the northeast Avalon from Holyrood, Witless Bay inwards, the whole works. Another municipality would say the supercity is St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, St. Thomas and Conception Bay South. And, another municipality would say, oh, no, the supercity is only St. John's and Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, our agenda was never to say that we wanted one supercity or another whichever one you may want to pick. Our agenda, Mr. Speaker, was to start a feasibility process that would have examined all seventeen municipalities and the metropolitan area lands and come forward with a decision for Government, and we put in place three separate commissions to do that. It is not as if we just put one person out there to do it. We put three separate commissions, four people deliberated and made a recommendation to me as the Minister. Ultimately, I have made one to Government obviously. So, the time was taken and we examined the northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, just to go a little further around the northeast Avalon, the other groupings, we really only have two other consolidations and that is we have added Paradise and St. Thomas with Evergreen Village and Elizabeth Park, Topsail Pond, Three Island Pond as a new municipality. And, Mr. Speaker, we have also joined together St. Phillips, Portugal Cove, Windsor Heights, and Hogan's Pond into another municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, they have had a public meeting. They have all had public meetings, that is all part of the process, Mr. Speaker. Any time a decision is taken by Government in Newfoundland in particular, at least in my experience in observing Government in action previous governments and this one, almost always when a decision is taken of great magnitude and great change there is a public meeting called. That is the normal process in Newfoundland. It is automatic. I do not have any fault with that Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that as the Minister you should not have public meetings, do not do that. That is undemocratic or whatever. It is all ridiculous.

It is like petitions, we have petitions presented in this House all the time, very democratic, Mr. Speaker, people are speaking they are having their say. Sometimes they get listened to and sometimes they do not because Governments have an obligation to govern and make decisions, tough decisions. So, Mr. Speaker, they have had public meetings. They had a public meeting last night, I believe, in St. Phillips was it not? They have every right to do so, Mr. Speaker, but that does not mean they have not accepted the amalgamation of those towns. I am hearing from the councillors and the mayors they are going to make it work. But they have to present the fact that they are coming together to their people and hear their concerns. They have to hear that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that they have heard their concerns it does not mean they are not going to work together to make that town, that new entity successful. It does not suggest that, Mr. Speaker. They will work very hard to make that new town successful. Mr. Speaker, we have good strong municipal leaders, and those leaders will continue to do a good job for their people as they are doing right now.

Mr. Speaker, just to continue on we have not made too many other substantive changes that I can think of. We have left the rural areas substantially alone because most of the other areas, as the Member for St. John's East Extern knows, in his District are rural in nature, largely unserviced as he spoke about earlier, whether it be Flatrock, Torbay, Pouch Cove, or Bauline, largely unserviced. So, Mr. Speaker, we have left them alone. We have not made any changes, we could have I suppose, we could have joined them all together.

Mr. Speaker, as the feasibility process has told us, as the commissioners have told us, the great need for change, the great need for rationalization of services and the bringing down of the numbers of communities is in the areas where we have done so, Mr. Speaker, we feel, after a long period of study, after nine previous Royal Commissions. I know I said this earlier but it bears repeating, nine previous Commissions sat on the shelves. There are still over there now to be seen. Mr. Speaker, we think we have taken the time, have examined the commissioner's reports, have consulted with the municipalities, and at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, have come up with a decision which is in the best long-term interest of the people of the northeast Avalon. I am sure we will see better planning put in place because we are going to ensure that as a Province. We are going to ensure that the St. John's urban region plan will be strengthened, Mr. Speaker. We have strengthened it now. We have made changes now where we have substantially controlled development. We are saying to municipalities now you cannot have subdivisions running all over the countryside, unserviced. It has to be serviced building lots. It has to be an acre. You have to have an acre of land if you want an unserviced building lot. That is the right thing to do. Health and Environment were telling us that so we made that change. They said a half acre is too small, a half acre is not working. It works for a brief period of time but it does not work in the long-term. Those planning changes have been made and we are going to strengthen the planning regulations for the northeast Avalon. There is no questions about it, and we are going to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated as best we can. We know it is not going to be easy. We have now made substantive change, a change that is not going to please everybody. We do not pretend it is going to please everybody, but when you are doing something in Government, when you are making great change, when you are making good change, you are never going to please everybody. That is not possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think the future will show that this Government had the courage to make the difficult decision that had to be made in the northeast Avalon. We have made that decision and I think future Municipal Governments, and future Governments, and the people of the northeast Avalon will praise us in the future for having made this tough, difficult but wise decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about posters being flashed through the House by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As I was coming up here I noticed he was flashing some kind of a banner or poster and I am not sure if that is proper in the House of Assembly, my understanding is that those kinds, and that kind of paraphernalia, should not be. I am wondering if the Member would be willing to show it to us again to find out whether or not it is proper or not? I was referring to the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not noticed any posters or banners and if the posters or banners are inappropriate the Chair will bring it to the attention of the hon. Member.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

Once again the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island decided to make a fool of himself, which he is usually doing. His mouth works, Mr. Speaker, before he thinks. He is not used to being in the Legislature and does not know how to handle himself. That is the biggest problem he has.

MR. EFFORD: Where did you get the tie?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if that is the greatest worry of the Minister of Social Services, where I got my tie, then there is not much wrong. I have a lot of ties like that, Mr. Speaker. I want to get into the serious issue today, and that is the issue of forced amalgamation in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what is taking place here today is something that we should all be concerned about. It should be something that every member in this legislature could be concerned about because I would submit that what is taking place here today is something that is illegal, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing in that scenario missing and that is there is not one made up for the fellow who delivered the Budget. The person who delivered the Budget should have cartoons and buttons made up about his truthfulness and honesty in this. In any case, what we are dealing with here today is something that contravenes The Municipalities Act, make no mistake about it. I want to get into it because what The Municipalities Act clearly states, Mr. Speaker, is that a very detailed procedure - Mr. Speaker, I served as a councillor and deputy mayor and I learned from The Municipalities Act how to administer towns and how to make sure they were fiscally and financially responsible and other things that relate to the operations of municipalities, I will tell the Member for Carbonear.

In any case, The Municipalities Act may cite a very detailed procedure which must be followed before Cabinet can decide to amalgamate towns and municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, The Municipalities Act clearly states that Government must make a specific amalgamation proposal and then publish the proposal in the affected communities. Has that been done, Mr. Speaker? Appoint a commissioner or commissioners to study the feasibility of the Government's proposal, report to the Minister who in turn makes a recommendation to Cabinet.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs if he will tell us, when he gets the chance, if these proposals and groupings that he brought before the House the other day for amalgamation if, indeed, they constitute what is termed the specific amalgamation proposal that was made, and if in turn they were posted in the affected communities, with the specifics that were made? That is the question I want to ask, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case. I would say that it did not happen, and for that reason alone, what the Minister has brought before this House is illegal. The clear meaning of the Act is that the Minister cannot recommend, nor can Cabinet approve a proposal which has to work through the process established in the Act. The amalgamation proposals in the resolution were not published in the communities affected as I have outlined, were not subject to a feasibility study, were not recommended by any commission appointed to conduct a feasibility study, and were not proposed by any municipality. Now, Mr. Speaker, that clearly states that what is in this Legislature today is illegal and expect it to be tested as such. I have further comments on that, but the Minister made reference to loss of identities. There are certain places that have lost their identities in this Province through amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, probably Newtown did.

But there are other places that I am familiar with. Mr. Speaker, I was born in the place that has lost its identity through amalgamation. I was born and raised in a place called Daniel's Point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is right. I am sure the Member for St. John's South knows where it is, but it is now part of Trepassey, Mr. Speaker. The last time I heard Daniel's Point was when my brother graduated in here and they had their convocation in the Arts and Culture Centre, when he walked out on the stage and he was introduced as being from Daniel's Point, and at that stage in the game I had forgotten about it myself. But that is the last time I have heard it. So, there is such as thing as losing your identity, do not every kid yourself on that.

There are other statements. I listened to the Minister this morning and I heard what he had to say there today and I was wondering what is going to take place in this debate. I am wondering as to what -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, but I can tell the Member for Carbonear that he worked hard to see that Carbonear lost (inaudible) during his tenure as Mayor of the Town.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how Members opposite are going to support this. I am going to wonder if the Member for Carbonear has the courage today or next week when the vote is taken that he had a few days ago when he stood in this House and said that he did not support the amalgamation issue. I am wondering if that changed, Mr. Speaker, when he was called to the eighth floor to explain his actions and came back with his tail between his legs. I am wondering if he will have the same courage today. I challenge him to deny that he was called to the eight floor regarding it, Mr. Speaker. If the Member for Carbonear wants to get involved in trying to harass me in my speech, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering where he stands. I see the Member for Fortune - Hermitage and I wonder where he is going to stand on this issue because I can tell the Member that on July 21, 1989 he had his picture in the paper as part of the committee of the Progressive Conservative Caucus opposing amalgamation. Does he still oppose amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, because there he is with myself and our leader, the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting I will be interested to see where he stands on the issue that is facing us before this legislature. We have heard the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the resolution, and I have other things on the resolution that I would like to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is not going to listen that he go back to his previous occupation of plucking chickens and let us get on with the operation of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have other things that we have to discuss in this legislature on statements that were made by the Minister this morning as it affects amalgamation. I cannot help but read an article in the paper on August 5, 1989, 'Amalgamation: who benefits?' and it is signed by Francis Patey, Liberal campaign worker in St. Anthony as it relates to the issue of amalgamation and it goes on to say that Mr. Gullage keeps telling the people that this is the way it is going to be and that this way will be better. Bigger is the way which he wants. Better for the Government or better for the people - which? What happens to the little communities these people grew up in? Will they disappear as they did under the resettlement program? Maybe not physically, Mr. Speaker, but it goes on to say they will in name. That is why we have the concerns that are being expressed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have some other very strong issues in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I got a letter there that was written by my colleague in Placentia. He wants me to refer to it, and I will in a minute, but there are other issues. Mr. Gullage said that under the new mil rate system - this is interesting now, very interesting, a commitment made by this Minister as he talks about the amalgamation issue. Mr. Gullage said that under a new mil rate system larger municipalities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl will not be required to provide full services to the newly acquired additions. That is what the Minister said. We will say it to the larger urban areas, leave the rates in small poorly serviced areas at 50 to 60 per cent of the larger ones with that understanding, Mr. Speaker. Now is that going to take place? Is that going to take place? Is the rate for the Goulds, as the Minister pledged, is the rate for the Goulds going to remain 50 or 60 per cent smaller than St. John's? Is the rate in Wedgewood Park going to be 50 to 60 per cent smaller than what it is as promised, Mr. Speaker, in the Telegram of September 10, 1989? The Minister has made the commitment. Is he going to stand by that commitment? That is the question that has to be asked. Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said, that is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, and I will read it again for the Member for St. John's South. Mr. Gullage said that under a new mil rate system, larger municipalities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl will not be required to provide full services to newly acquired additions; we will say to the large urban areas, lead the rate (in small poorly serviced areas) at 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the larger ones. Now I am not saying it, that is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs committing on behalf of Government to keep the rates in the smaller amalgamated areas, 50 per cent to 60 per cent less than they are in the city of St. John's, that is what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, but now the Member for St. John's South is clarifying it, until they get the same services; well that is not what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Services said, Mr. Speaker, and he said a lot more than that as did the Premier. I say to this Government, that the people should decide what happens to the amalgamated areas, the people, like the Member for Placentia said when he wrote a letter condemning what Mr. Boswell had said; what did the Member for Placentia say, Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it, amalgamation will not come to Placentia in either town area, unless it is acceptable to the undersigned, the council and to the people, and the same thing should happen in Wedgewood Park, the same thing should happen in the Goulds and should be acceptable to the Member, the council and the people, it should not be done only for Liberal districts, which is basically what the Member for Placentia is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should it not be.

MR. TOBIN: It should be done fair, fair, that is what we are saying here. What did the Premier say about the amalgamation of these areas? Mr. Wells stressed on the amalgamation coming before the House of Assembly that he knows of no such circumstances and he does not foresee it coming nor is he contemplating having to take such action as bringing it before the Assembly, that is what the Premier is saying. No wonder, there are badges, and buttons and hats and shirts going from one end of the Province to the other.

What did the people of St. Phillips say about the amalgamation process in the last few days, what did the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the Member for Burin - Placentia saying?

MR. MURPHY: What are you saying?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the Member for Placentia and St. John's South to - I ask for your protection, Your Honour, not to be distracted by the two goons? I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that; I should not say that, but I have difficulty with the goon tactics being used by the Members opposite.

But in any case, let me say did the Minister get a letter today from the Mayor of St. Phillips? If he has not, then I have it and what does the Mayor of St. Phillips say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), he said about the resolution that is before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: -that is what he said, Mr. Speaker, about the resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), no sleep last night.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do I have to tolerate that? Your Honour, the least you can do is -

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

The hon. Member has asked for the protection of the Chair and the Chair has to enforce the rules of the House, so, I ask the hon. Member for Placentia to restrain himself.

MR. TOBIN: He will have to restrain himself, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I think that is an affront to Your Honour's ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is what the Mayor of St. Phillip's said to me: Take the rationale put forward in the Whereas leading to the some of the (inaudible), I cannot make it out, your writing is so small -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - he says the simple fact, the unsubstantial statement, some misleading and others bordering on outright lies -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Some bordering on outright lies - he is talking about the resolution that was introduced by this Minister, some of it bordering on outright lies, that is what the Mayor of St. Phillips said; that is what is being said around this Province and we cannot, Mr. Speaker, tolerate that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask hon. Members to my left to restrain themselves.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are other issues that I want to raise now that the Minister is here. He left earlier when I stressed that the document was illegal. The resolution introduced in this House is not an exercise in representative democracy but an abuse of the Assembly to circumvent the requirements of the Municipalities Act and to deny municipal councils and the residents of municipalities access to the consultative and decision making process required by the Act. That is exactly what the Minister has brought before this House today.

The House is being used to provide cover for what is an illegal act. We are not passing a law, we are not rescinding existing legislation, we are not amending existing legislation, we are simply asked to pass a resolution directing Cabinet to do something it simply cannot do under the existing law.

Does that make it legal? Does that make this Act legal? The Municipalities Act remains in effect. Does that make it legal? It has not been changed. The Municipalities Act after all this is said and done remains in effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Minister that I do know what I am talking about. And I will not continue to say one thing on one day and something else on another day like the Minister is doing in this Province. And I suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that honesty is the best policy, and it is time that he started practising honesty and truthfulness to the people of this Province, which he has not been doing for the past twelve to eighteen months. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

This Legislature can rescind laws, it can make new laws, but the Legislature approving the breaking of laws can not and should not happen. If this Government wants to do this deed then let it bring it to the Legislature to rescind the existing provisions of the Municipalities Act and to substitute new legislation which will enable it to proceed in a proper manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to read anything for me. I can tell the Member for Placentia that right now. And I view this to be very serious, what is taking place in this Legislature. And the Member for Placentia instead of being here yapping every time someone gets up on this side of the House to speak on issues important as legislation should be ensuring that the mayors of Dunville, Placentia and Southern Harbour and every other place do not have to be constantly writing letters to The Evening Telegram and other papers condemning the actions of his Ministers for what they are doing! That is what he should be doing. He should not be in here practising. That is what he should be doing. Instead of turning his back on the people of his district, refusing to present petitions which I had to present for him and others. He should not be yapping, he should be looking after his constituents, and let me get on to deal with what is important in this Legislature and that is the forced amalgamation of certain centres in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not hold up any silly poster. Because the silliest poster in this House I cannot lift, and that is the Member for St. John's South. Now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I should not, I should not. But this is what we are saying in this Legislature. Is that there is an attempt by this Government to try to interrupt. That is what is happening here today. There is an attempt by this Government to try to distract speakers on this side. By interjections, by shouting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is true, that is exactly what is happening. And what about when the Premier writes a letter and says: I assure you that if the majority of residents of Lewin's Cove - or your community as far as that goes - are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality then there are no plans to force the issue.

Now, is that not a commitment from the Premier? Telling the people of this Province he will not force amalgamation? And are we not going with forced amalgamation. Last night, the people of the Goulds circulated a petition that was presented in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred.

MR. SIMMS: No, two thousand.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he does not listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the petition was to get a group of people to go around the town to deliver the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he does not know the difference. He does not understand the issue. The issue is that yesterday there was a petition presented in this House by the people of Wedgewood Park.

MR. SIMMS: Did you use any of his quotes yet?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I did use his quotes.

What has taken place is that this Government has decided to force amalgamation. This Minister has brought forced amalgamation in this area. He has done it against the wishes of the people who count. He has done it against the wishes of the people of the Goulds, and he had done it against the wishes of the people of Wedgewood Park. Those are two petitions that have been presented in this Legislature to date that oppose amalgamation. What does the Minister say? What is he saying to the people of the Goulds and the people of Wedgewood Park? He is saying, you are not important. That is what he is saying. Your concerns, to the majority of people in the Goulds, your concerns, to the majority of the people in Wedgewood Park, are not important. What did he say when he got up today? He is doing what he thinks the people want. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a big responsibility for any member in this Legislature to carry on their shoulders, to do what they think the people want, when the people sign a petition, almost to person, to oppose it. That is a big thing to carry, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that his shoulder is not big enough to carry that load, nor is anyone else's, Mr. Speaker. People come first. We were sent here by people. The people of Wedgewood Park, the people of the Goulds, the people of Placentia and Burin - Placentia West, the people of Trinity - Bay de Verde, and everywhere, Mr. Speaker, were sent here by people. Some people have chosen to ignore it. Some people may have broad shoulders, in a sense, but when their constituents send them a petition to present in this House, they turn their back on them. That is what is taking place in this House. I believe we have to deal with the real issue that is facing this Legislature today, and that is the forced amalgamation issue that this Minister has brought in.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister was not here when I spoke first, but I say to him that he has done what is contrary to The Municipalities Act. The groupings that you have brought forth were not proposed in the amalgamation issue. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, they were not published in the communities affected. They were not published in the communities affected, which contravenes The Municipalities Act, I say to the Minister. They were not subject to a feasibility study, which is clearly stated and written in The Municipalities Act. They were not recommended by the commissioners which he stated when he brought it in, and, Mr. Speaker, on top of that, they were not proposed by any municipality. That is what we have here today, a Minister who has totally ignored what has been taking place. Not only that, The Municipalities Act requires expert study before any decision can be taken to amalgamate municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: That is right. That does not make good common sense, but it is absolutely essential, because it is stated there. No group of towns should have to be amalgamated unless there is an independent expert study which clearly shows the new municipality is vital as an economy and a municipal service unit.

What is the tax base? What services are required and how costly are they to provide? Does the municipal unit include properties that can be developed as residential and industrial areas which can produce revenue to cover the cost of services of the expansion of that service?

Is it appropriate to include agricultural lands within the boundaries of a new urban municipality? That is the question I would like for the Minister to answer when he comes in. Is it appropriate to include agricultural lands within the boundaries of a new urban municipality? That is the question he should answer. Should urban municipalities be bared from revenues producing for urban developments or agricultural land within its boundaries? Should municipalities be solely responsible for recreational and cultural facilities? That is another question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister of Finance agrees with that question, should they be responsible?

MR. EFFORD: Who wrote that speech?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member, whoever wrote it did not get $30,000 for writing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They did not get $30,000 under the table for writing it, I can assure the Minister of that. I will say other things.

Should municipalities be solely responsible for recreation and cultural facilities? Will the Minister answer that question when he gets up. I hope he will. What will be the effect of provincial policies and programs in the area of culture and recreation if they depend upon facilities control and to be financed exclusively by the municipalities? These are the questions that have to be answered. These are the questions that have to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, it is all right for Members opposite, or for members on either side of the House to take some sort of a half-hearted approach to what is taking place here because they are not affected. But if this Government is allowed to get away with what they are proposing in this legislation, what chance have areas such as Lewin's Cove and Port au Bras, Fox Cove, Mortier, and Burin? What chances have Mount Moriah and Massey Drive? What chances have other areas of the Province of getting away from this some sort of vicious attack that the Minister and his Cabinet have issued on the people of this Province? I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. I do not agree with one iota of forced amalgamation. I do not agree with people not being listened to. The Minister got up and condemned that it should have been done years ago. Years ago, there was a Government in this Province, Mr. Speaker, for seventeen years who listened to people. That is what happened and beyond that period there was another Liberal Government that forced resettlement in this Province, forced people to leave their homes, did not even give them the land they moved to. That is what they did. There are people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, who were forced from Port Elizabeth to Red Harbour in Placentia Bay and the Government forced them to move and did not even give them the title to the land they moved on. That is what is taking place in this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and still cannot get it.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I do not make any apologies for any of it because I tried when we were in Government to get it done and could not get it done either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I have every confidence that this Minister whom I have spoken to about it will probably do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is that word parliamentary?

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the word.

MR. TOBIN: We know the word he said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in any case, that is what is taking place in this Province, people have been forced, before, to amalgamate beyond that, that is what the Liberals have bought to this Province. They have disrupted people from one end of this Province to the other. When they got back in Government and when the Premier, who could not get his own way with Mr. Smallwood and could not do what he liked there and left the Cabinet, came back as leader of the Party he continued to destroy rural Newfoundland and all parts of it. All the Premier wants, and it is evident from what he has brought here and what he believes in, by the way. What the Premier believes in is a supercity, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise, than that the Premier believes strongly in a supercity concept and wanted it brought before the House. It was very evident to everyone the other day, when my colleague from St. John's East made his comments. The Premier nodded agreement with every word he had to say on the supercity concept. He is still over there, Mr. Speaker, and I would suspect that they are discussing the supercity concept right now. I would suggest that the present socialist Member of the House of Assembly, with the former socialist hopeful to be in the House of Assembly, are discussing the issue, today, of a resolution that is about to be brought before the House, and that is to have Mount Pearl introduced into this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, do not be surprised if there is not a game being played in that proposal. Do not be surprised if the Member is not acting on the instructions of the Premier in bringing the resolution before the House of Assembly.

MS. VERGE: You have touched a raw nerve over there.

MR. TOBIN: Do not be surprised if the Premier is not behind his resolution to bring Mount Pearl into this, because I suspect he is. And I suspect, when the vote comes, Mr. Speaker, that some of the Members for St. John's who do not have the courage to fight it in Cabinet and who do not have the courage to fight it in the back benches when the resolution that the Premier has set up to be brought before this Assembly will be just for one reason and one reason only, it will be a total farce with no meaning but to let some of the St. John's Members off the hook, and remember that has been said. That is exactly what is coming from the Member for Pleasantville, as a resolution orchestrated by the Premier - orchestrated by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, to let some of the St. John's Members off the hook. That is what is coming before the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I just touched the nerve of the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Off the hook? - you are off your head. You are off the wall.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you a question? I do not know if Your Honour wants to rule on it or not, but is it only the Liberals who are allowed to say that kind of stuff and get away with it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What stuff?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Like those disparaging comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I would suggest that the Speaker of this House has the responsibility to be fair at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is what I said. Let me say something else: The Premier has orchestrated an amendment to be brought in by the Member for Pleasantville. Now that is what has him upset.

MR. SIMMS: What!

Did you say the Premier had it orchestrated?

MR. TOBIN: Yes. (Inaudible) manipulated.

MR. SIMMS: No, the Premier is not like that.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier has orchestrated, manipulated or set up a system whereby his colleagues in St. John's would not be embarrassed.

MR. SIMMS: How are they going to do that.

MR. TOBIN: Because he is going to bring in a resolution. He is going to give them a free vote, and he is going to let enough of his Members for St. John's vote in the free vote, to go out and say to the Mayor of St. John's and others, Well, we supported you, but we lost the battle.

MR. SIMMS: The Government House Leader said you cannot do that. It will fool up the whole resolution, so they do not want to bring in that kind of an amendment.

MR. TOBIN: I suggest that they will manipulate another situation. They will manipulate somebody else. It will not be the Member for Pleasantville, this time, they will manipulate somebody else so that the resolution will be in order. That is what will happen.

MR. SIMMS: We know (inaudible). We know what was presented to your caucus last week and what is shown on the Order Paper today (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Ask the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no need to ask him.

MR. TOBIN: Well, probably you were one of the ones who were called to the eighth floor, too, last week. Were you one of the ones called to the eighth floor last week?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. Mr. Speaker, let me say that there was a steady flow of Members who opposed the amalgamation issue in the debate called to the eighth floor and went to the eighth floor. That is what has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us more about that stuff.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you an awful lot about that kind of stuff. And I can tell you what happened in your caucus two weeks ago, some of what happened in your caucus two weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Do you think what is in this resolution now is the same that was presented to the Liberal caucus last week when the Premier had the big caucus meeting, do you think? (Inaudible). Or do you think it was changed?

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Grand Falls knows the difference as I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see how he votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you want me to vote?

MR. TOBIN: I want you to vote against forced amalgamation, that is how I want you to vote! I want you to stand here and say the people of this Province have rights. And no government has any right to invade their privileges that have been given to them. No government has the right to move someone from a community that they built. They built from the sweat of their brow, and nobody has put anybody over here to deny them the right to live in that community. That is what has taken place.

As a matter of fact I see the leader of the NDP here, and I have a quote here from him where he blasts the amalgamation issue, is the headline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not force amalgamation anywhere. And tell you something else -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is not true!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is!

MR. TOBIN: And I know who told it to your caucus. I know (Inaudible) told to you caucus. (Inaudible) the President of Treasury Board who told it to you. Because the same person who told it to them, Mr. Speaker, told it to me. And if Your Honour would like to know who it was I shall tell him. Probably I will wait until Your Honour leaves the Chair.

But in any case I can say to the Member for Placentia that if there is anyone who knows anything about us not forcing amalgamation when certain people wanted it, that is him. That is you in the Placentia area. No, Mr. Speaker, probably I will table some letters one of these days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, northeast Avalon towns joint councils: To Members of the House of Assembly for Newfoundland and Labrador. Resolution on amalgamation presently before the House of Assembly from a group of towns within the northeast Avalon town joint councils. On May 16 1991 a group of municipalities from the northeast Avalon came together to discuss the resolution on amalgamation presently before the House of Assembly. While the amalgamation may or may not be beneficial to various municipalities it was felt that the proper information has not been given to the people in affected municipalities. The proper information has not been given!

Now, that is what we have been saying. And what did the Premier say the other day? He said: we have given you enough. Well, enough in the Premier's estimation, is not good enough for the people as outlined here. In fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is not lies. And if he wants - and if that is going to be allowed (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. Member for Placentia to withdraw that comment please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I do not know what the Chair is referring to, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Placentia from his seat indicated that the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West (Inaudible) lies, and I would ask - it is unparliamentary - the hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. HOGAN: I was not indicating, Mr. Speaker, that the Member's comments were lies. I said that was lies, as I was reading this.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I did not indicate that the Member was lying, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the letter that I was reading. I was talking to the Member there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have occurring at the moment is an abuse for the authority of the Chair. It does not matter if the hon. Member said or did not say or anything else. The Chair has ordered the hon. Member to withdraw the comments which the Chair deems unparliamentary. So out of respect for the authority of the Chair, the Member should simply get up and say: yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. That is all he has to do. Otherwise, if he does not respect the authority of the Chair then the Chair has no choice but to name the hon. Member for not following his instructions. And that means the hon. Member then would be ejected from the House and I am sure he would not want to see that occur. It is not necessary over this minor item.

MR. HOGAN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HOGAN: I understood the Chair, when the Chair addressed me the second time, to say, that I was to withdraw the remark, saying that the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia had said 'lies'. I think that is what you said. It was not anything else.

MR. SIMMS: It does not matter. Did you withdraw? The Speaker asked you to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Probably the Chair can clarify this. The Chair clearly understood that when the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia was speaking, I overheard the hon. Member for Placentia saying `lies'. From my point of view, and from my interpretation of the rules, I do not think we should have that kind of behaviour in the House, and I would ask the hon. Member for Placentia to withdraw his comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOGAN: Could I have the protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, while I am making my reply.

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

MR. HOGAN: If the Chair understood me to say the word `lies', and that I directed it at my hon. friend from Burin-Placentia, I will withdraw any misunderstanding that the Chair might have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOGAN: Could I have silence, Mr. Speaker? I withdraw. I do not want the Chair to be misled. I withdraw any misunderstanding that I have led the Chair to. If the Chair understood that I said, `lies', to the hon. Member for Burin, I withdraw that.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for St. John's South -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member for Grand Falls -

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor.

MR. MURPHY: No, Grand Falls. I would not dare include Windsor in his riding. Every time he assumes and he shouts and he batters across, if somebody else says one single, solitary word, he is asking the Chair to make rulings. He did not know the document I had in my hand, and then he associated the document that I had to a letter received from the Town of Logy Bay, Middle Cove and Outer Cove. Now, that is totally incorrect, and the hon. Member for Grand Falls has absolutely no business saying that anything that I am holding in my hand is lies, and associating it with any other document. He is entirely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a disagreement amongst hon. members.

The hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague from Placentia, that I certainly accept his apology.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. TOBIN: I certainly accept the apology from my colleague for Placentia. He is a very proud person, Mr. Speaker, but at times he does not mind humbling himself to apologize, and I accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he is a proud person, but he just humbled himself.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HOGAN: I would not want the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West to go home misunderstood or having misunderstood me. I apologized to the Chair and withdrew the remarks.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know time is getting short, but I am sure everybody in the House accepts his apology, as he apologized to everybody, not just to me. So that really shows how humble a person he can be, at times. But, in any case, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. John's South that the letter put out by the people is not lies, Sir. He should be ashamed of himself, to stand in this Legislature and tear up the letter from the Mayors of the northeast Avalon joint councils, to throw it on the floor and say it is a bunch of lies, Mr. Speaker. He should not be allowed to do it, and that is what he just did.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members on both sides of the House to restrain themselves so that we can get on with an orderly debate in this Chamber.

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I just opened a piece of correspondence while Your Honour was -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the document to the Page.

MR. MURPHY: I will be glad to give the document to the Page.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for St. John's South is on a point of order. Could he please get to his point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to me, as saying that a letter I had just opened from the northeast Avalon joint town councils, was lies. Now, that is totally incorrect, and I would ask the Chair to ask the member to withdraw the statement, because what he just said is totally incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule on that point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I just want to make a brief comment, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour was not in the Chair a moment ago when the Member for St. John's South raised the exact same point of order, and your predecessor in the Chair ruled there was no point of order. I just want to bring that to Your Honour's attention.

It is pretty obvious we are getting close to twelve o'clock too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, but just a disagreement between hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. the President of Treasury Board would allow me to make a ruling on the point raised this morning, and earlier on in the week, by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, as it relates to the splitting of the vote on the resolution now before the House.

Could we have agreement on stopping the clock?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, in considering the matter raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, as it relates to the splitting of this resolution, of course, considered the arguments put forth by both sides. In doing this, it considered, I guess, two questions. One: What is the purpose for splitting a resolution? In the case of splitting a resolution, of course, it would be clearly to remove any ambiguities, obstacles, etc. which might otherwise exist, that would cloud or complicate the process, like voting in circumstances where there are clearly two or more distinct propositions.

In this situation, however, we have a single resolution with a single purpose, mainly a plan to amalgamate towns on the northeast Avalon. So then we have to ask, what is the intent of the resolution. If you look at the intent of that resolution, it is clearly to present to the House a package in which the parts are clearly integrated, and interdependent, on each other. Therefore, splitting it into parts for voting, would clearly destroy the intent of the resolution should one or several of its parts not carry.

So, the Chair, in reaching the decision, had to ask what affect splitting the vote would have on the overall resolution, and the conclusion reached was that the rejection certainly would nullify the overall aim of the resolution. Therefore, the resolution has to be presented as it is on the Order Paper, as a single resolution.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, just to inform the House, I intend to continue on with this resolution on Tuesday. The House will be closed on Monday. We will probably have an extended sitting on Tuesday. I just want to advise hon. members, so they can plan their schedule accordingly. Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this resolution on Tuesday, a holiday Monday, and there will be an extended sitting on Tuesday. The plan is for an extended sitting on Tuesday. I just wanted to inform hon. members, so they could make their plans.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House at is rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, and that this House do now adjourn.

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