May 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, before the House undertakes

regular business I would like to know if the Members of the House would look at

sending a note of congratulations to two Stephenville natives who have just

joined the Canadian Soccer League. They are the only two natives from the

Province to join the first really professional soccer league in Canada, the

first two from Newfoundland. Newfoundland and Labrador has a lot of soccer

talent and I am very pleased that these two natives of Stephenville, my riding,

whom I know very well - as a matter of fact, in my younger days I even kicked a

soccer ball with them - have made it to the CSL.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come you are not on the team?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I used to be a goaltender. But anyway,

they put a few by me. But I would like to see if the House could go on record

expressing a note of congratulations to them and wishing them success in their

careers in the professional Canadian Soccer League in Canada. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

like to join with the hon. member in offering congratulations to the

Stephenville native soccer players.

MR. TOBIN: The cleanest player who ever played!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, clean in soccer and clean

in politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I think it is quite an accomplishment, I

say to the hon. the Member for Stephenville, that these two players are going to

join the Canadian Soccer League.

We have had, of course, a long history of soccer tradition on

the Burin peninsula. A native of Lawn, who played goal for Burin this year, was

invited, as well, to join the Canadian Soccer League, but for work commitments,

I guess, and probably the benefits package, he decided not to go.

I want to offer my sincere congratulations to those two

people from Stephenville. Soccer has really taken off in the Stephenville area

over the last number of years. As a matter of fact, I had the pleasure, myself,

a few years ago, of coaching two players from Stephenville with the Newfoundland

Youth team and the Atlantic Youth team. I am sure the name `White' means

something to the member. One of the players whom I coached had an unfortunate

incident.

All of us on this side join with the hon. member in sincerest

congratulations to those players from Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Health. The Minister has referred several times this week,

both in the House and outside the House, to efforts undertaken by the Government

to recruit psychiatrists from outside the Province. The Minister told us just a

day or two ago of an initial recruitment effort that recruited twenty-eight

doctors to come to Newfoundland, but then he told us that, of that number, only

two were able to meet the professional qualifications required to practice in

the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is this: What

kind of recruitment program do we have? Surely, the Department of Health must

know which medical schools and which licensing boards around the world graduate

psychiatrists that meet the professional standards required to practice in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Where are we recruiting, I ask the Minister, and who

are we recruiting?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the department has retained the

services of Doctor Shapter, a well-known medical doctor in this Province. We had

him on contract for approximately a year, during which time, he was extensively

involved in research. He went to all the traditional places that recruiters go

when they look for medical doctors to work in this Province. I would suggest

that his knowledge of the medical requirements were probably as good as mine, or

certainly, as good as that of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. He

recruited twenty-eight people who were willing to come to this Province;

however, none of the twenty-eight came here. Two could have passed the Medical

Board requirements, but even those two did not turn up, so it was labour in

vain.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I could

not care less who is doing the recruiting, what we are talking about here is the

result of it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister said, I believe, in the House

yesterday, that the Government was having problems with immigration. Now, Mr.

Speaker, surely the Minister must know that the present immigration policy in

this country allows qualified professionals to come in to work anywhere in the

country. Actually, as I understand it, if they are guaranteed jobs within

Canada, they can jump to the front of the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Minister (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I did not mean it, if it came out that way.

But, my understanding of the present immigration rules is that if a foreigner is

guaranteed employment in Canada, in a professional capacity, then that person

can move to the head of the line, be processed quickly, and enter the country,

because Canada needs the expertise.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again, I have to ask the Minister: Where is

the Government recruiting, that first of all, they cannot find suitable

applicants to meet the Newfoundland Medical Association standards? Why is it

that those people, if they are found, cannot get into Canada because they lack

the necessary professional qualifications? What is happening to the recruitment

process?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member rightly

points out, if a professional could be guaranteed a job in this Province or in

this nation then it would be reasonably easy to have that person become an

immigrant, however, as I also pointed out yesterday, the Newfoundland Medical

Board, which is not doing anything illegal or wrong, is doing the same as all

the Medical Boards across the nation, they examine the credentials of those

professionals and they say they do not meet the standard which is required to

practice in this nation, therefore, we cannot guarantee the professional a job

because they cannot meet the requirements of the Newfoundland Medical Board,

therefore, immigration cannot follow out this practice of accepting people who

do not have jobs, because they do not have jobs because they do not have the

qualifications.

Now, where do we recruit? We recruit in England, we recruit

all through eastern Europe and in Europe and we recruit in Australia, New

Zealand, South Africa is one area where we have been getting a lot of

applications and we have quite a few South African physicians working in this

Province, and normally, Mr. Speaker, it takes a considerable amount of time to

get through the whole thing, but in this particular case, of the twenty-eight

applications which we received, twenty-six of them were not able to meet the

qualifications.

The Department of Health has no authority or desire to tell

the Medical Board who they may grant provisional licences to; we can only

present names to them, they go through the credentials and in these cases, Mr.

Speaker, we came up with a dry haul.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Surely, the

Department of Health must know which medical schools and which licencing boards

on the face of the globe, graduate students who have an opportunity or a chance

to meet the standards required by the Newfoundland Medical Association.

Now let me ask the Minister, is the Province recruiting in

those centres, and if so, why is it we are not able to attract any candidates

from those centres that meet the standards here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, how I wish it was that simple

and that black and white. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that a Dr. John Doe who

studied at Oxford University, and who did certain subjects, might indeed be

accepted and given a provisional licence to practice in this Province. The

reality is that Dr. Mary Doe, who studied in the same institution and who

graduated the same year, but, because she did not do the same courses, might not

be granted a licence; it has nothing to do with the school, it has to do with

the qualifications of each individual, and each individual is examined as an

individual case. It has nothing to do with the school, but people from Oxford

can be accepted, people from Oxford cannot be accepted; people from South Africa

might be accepted or might not be accepted. It is not a black and white issue,

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe. I only say

thanks be to goodness that he is the shortest reigning Premier we have had in

this Province. What a mess we would have been in if he had seen all issues as

black and as white as he sees this particular one.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this is getting worse. I mean

we are talking to professionals every day who are not telling us, you know, if

you get a degree in literature are you allowed to come to this Province and

practice as a doctor? I mean what foolishness is the Minister getting on with?

Those people have degrees and they are disciplined I would assume.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister this because

some professionals in the field are telling us that it is because of salaries

and cutbacks in the health care system that those professionals find this

Province very unattractive so they are going to other jurisdictions, they are

going to other areas. Now won't the Minister tell the House that that is a

factor, and that is why the recruitment campaign has been such a dismal failure,

Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. DECKER: It is so simplistic it is laughable. Is a

degree not a degree? Mr. Speaker, the reality is that a medical doctor in

England is not allowed to practice in this nation unless he is approved by the

medical boards of the various provinces, and in most cases they have to go

through to write exams, many exams, before they are approved. The hon. Member

might also like to know that a medical doctor who is a medical doctor licensed

to practice in Canada cannot go to Great Britain and practice. These are the

realities that exist in the world. It has nothing to do with whether you are an

MD or a master of theology or master of whatever, it has to do with the reality

of the medical boards.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not something new. The hon. Member,

had he been in tune with what was happening in the Department of Health when he

was in Government, would have realized that this has been an ongoing problem

which we have had. The problem is getting worse because of recent changes in the

requirements, because now doctors who want to practice in this Province must

have a two year intern program. Now this has happened in Canada. In many parts

of the world where we have traditionally recruited, the two year internship is

no longer required, is not required, has not been required. They only require

one year. Can you imagine the Newfoundland Medical Board now trying to grant

licenses to doctors to service work in this Province who have only had one year

internship

whereas medical doctors in Canada must have a two year internship.

That is just one example of the factors which are taken into consideration when

doctors are granted provisional licenses. Even then when they get a provisional

license they are not licensed until they write the exams.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the

Minister of Health and certainly along the same lines of getting doctors in this

Province, and in fact along the lines of keeping doctors in this Province.

Yesterday, and I would like to quote the Minister, because I am sure some days

he forgets what he said yesterday, but I would like to quote the Minister:

yesterday he said that in order for a doctor to leave this Province it would

take anywhere from six months to two years, and that in effect no doctors had

left this Province recently because of the Budget announced on March 7. Will the

Minister please check with the executive director of the Newfoundland Medical

Association who is quoted in the Evening Telegram today as saying: if every

doctor who has expressed interest in leaving this Province, in effect leaves,

that we are going to have a very, very serious situation, and that one of the

reasons those doctors are interested in leaving this Province is because of the

capping situation, and the prorated ways of getting their salary. The doctors

never know from one billing period to the next how much money they are going to

get. Sometimes they are cut by 11 per cent, sometimes by 10 per cent, and

sometimes by 5 per cent. Will the Minister please tell us if he agrees with the

executive director of the Newfoundland Medical Association?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for

reiterating what I said yesterday. It is accurate. I said that and I stand by

it. Also, yesterday, the Newfoundland Medical Association, in the same article,

was quoted as saying that indeed I am right, that if a medical doctor intends to

leave this Province it takes anywhere from six months, eighteen months, or two

years, before he or she can leave. Now, the other statement: if medical doctors,

all the ones who have inquired were to leave, we would have a disaster, or

something to this effect, I could say, 'if ifs and ands, were pots and pans,

what would you do for tinkers?' This is pure speculation, Mr. Speaker, and the

fact of the matter is that right across this nation every single province has a

fiscal problem and are trying to deal with the matter in various ways. British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, has a situation a lot worse than we have. The Nova Scotia

budget was recently frozen. It is happening right across the nation. As a matter

of fact I also said to the media yesterday that if we saw some general

practitioners leave the St. John's area and move to other parts of the Province

I would be the most delighted person in this Province, because we have too many

GPs in the St. John's area and we do not have enough in Nain, Conche, or in the

outlying areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, no wonder it is so difficult for

people in this Province to understand what is really happening. I asked the

Minister a sensible, simple, question. Does he agree that, if the director of

the Newfoundland Medical Association is correct in his prediction, that a large

number of doctors are going to leave this Province? Then the Minister gets up

and says, ifs, ands, and buts. What about planning? What is the Minister going

to do to help doctors understand the new fee schedule, which is the lowest in

Canada, what is he going to do to prevent a large number of doctors from leaving

this Province in six or eight months time? Or is he going to wait until it

happens and then blame it on the former administration?

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is jumping

to a conclusion. He is trying to say now that the statement which Mr. Lynch made

yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Today, he is talking about.

MR. DECKER: - the prediction - Mr. Lynch did not make a

prediction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) today!

MR. DECKER: He talked to me yesterday, Mr. Speaker. A

statement by Mr. Lynch that if all the doctors who are making inquiries were to

leave then we would have a disaster. Now, the hon. Member jumps to the

conclusion that Mr. Lynch is making a prediction that all the doctors are going

to leave. Now I do not know how the hon. Member can tie these two statements

together. I certainly cannot.

However, if - if - that is the case, yes, we would have a

disaster. I do not share that opinion. I believe that over this year we will

indeed lose some doctors as we have last year and the year before and ten years

before that again. I believe also that as a result of graduating forty or fifty

doctors from the medical school, we will have new doctors take up residency in

this Province. I believe that this year like last year and ten years ago we will

lose some specialists. I also believe that like last year we will have some new

specialists move in and take up residency. Some of the ones whom we have paid to

go through other universities and specialize. They will move back. That is the

reality.

Now, we are constantly monitoring to see if the recent things

we have had to do in health will actually drive people out. I do not believe it

will because what we are doing is right in keeping with what every other

province in this nation is doing. We would not have had to do any of this if the

previous administration had not acted like a bunch of drunken sailors and

practically put this Province bankrupt. We would have been spared a lot of this

stuff.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, again we can only keep asking the

questions, but whether the Minister acknowledges it or not - there are a lot of

people concerned about the health care in this Province and the Newfoundland

Medical Association happens to be one group.

Another group that is very concerned about health care in

this Province is the Allied Health Professionals. One of the reasons yesterday

the Minister said that so many psychiatrists are leaving or want to leave this

Province is they do not have adequate support staff. Could the Minister please

tell us how many of the adequate support staff - the staff that are used for

psychiatric support in particular - have been laid off? How many positions were

eliminated in the recent wave of thousands of public servants being laid off?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the actual

number under advisement. But I would point out to the hon. Member that with

Allied Health as with other professions we have a problem with distribution.

There are some parts of this Province where we have an adequate number. But

there are other parts where we do not have enough physiotherapists, occupational

therapists and what have you. However I will say that anyone who was laid off in

one of the larger areas where there is a surplus could most likely pick up a job

in the areas where we have difficulty recruiting. So the ultimate result would

be that it is really not necessary for any occupational therapist to be without

a job in the Province. But he or she would have to be willing probably to move

from where he or she presently resides.

But I will undertake to get the exact number for the hon.

Member. I do not have it off the top of my head.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

President of Treasury Board, dealing with the latter topic raised by my

colleague, the Member for Ferryland. I want to first of all say to the Minister

that he would know that he and his people have been negotiating for the past

eighteen months, I think it is, or perhaps more, I am not quite sure, eighteen,

I believe - or not negotiating is probably the better term - with the

Association of Allied Health Professionals. Their members of course are the

professionals referred to by the Minister of Health when he talks about

inadequate numbers of health professionals in support services, for example, in

areas like psychiatric services and so on. The Minister of Health in fact says

psychiatrists are leaving the Province, some of them, because there are not

enough of these support people. I would like to ask the President of Treasury

Board: Does he agree with the Minister of Health that the recruiting and

retraining of health professionals is a serious problem? Does he not agree that

the problem may worsen as a result of the cutbacks in health care funding?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to have an

intimate knowledge of exactly what is going on in the hospitals, going through

the hospitals and finding out which areas have shortages and so on. There is no

reason why I should know that. I can certainly make the general statement that

the allied health professionals - there are many occupations included in that

and a I think there are a small number in terms of the Province about 200 -

MR. SIMMS: Three hundred.

MR. BAKER: - and something, but it is in that range.

These individuals are by and large essential individuals in the health care

system, there is no doubt about that. Some of them I suppose would be designated

essential workers, others would not. If there were to be a designation of

essential workers a small number would be essential workers in terms of keeping

the system going, some of them would not. But, they are certainly a very

important part of the health care system. We need them in the health care

system, but as to the specific number of each category that we are short, I

could not give an answer to that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not surprised we are having the trouble that we are

having in negotiations. The Minister does not even know how many members are in

the group, he says 200 then he says maybe 220, I believe there is somewhere in

the area of 320, as I am told. I heard the President, I believe, Nina Sandoval,

on radio this morning. So, I am not surprised we are in trouble.

Could the Minister tell us why these negotiations have taken

so long? It is somewhere in the area of eighteen months, as I understand it.

What are the issues in dispute that appear to be making it impossible to reach

an agreement? Is he concerned at all that his tough guy approach to these

negotiations may in fact be spreading deep resentment and low moral throughout

the allied health professionals who are critical to the provision of health care

in the Province? Is he concerned about that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no need for the hon. Member to get concerned. He

heard something on the radio and from that he judges that he is now the font of

all knowledge. Mr. Speaker, that is not the approach that I take. I do not

simply hear somebody say something and assume then that I am the source of all

knowledge as the hon. gentleman opposite.

The question he asked was: What is the issue involved in this

situation? Essentially, the issue is money and has been until a couple of days

ago -essentially the issue is money. Some time ago, at least eight months ago,

we offered the AHP the same three-year deal that we offered other people. I

guess if you compounded it, it amounted to 23 per cent over a three year

contract. They in turn wanted the 23 per cent or 24 per cent in two years and

essentially it was a difference in money. We only got as far as our standard

offer of 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 and money was the issue. At that point in time, as a

representative of Government I put the position that that was our final offer.

They took the position they wanted it in two years and that was their final

offer, and we reached an impasse. So, that essentially has been the issue for

the last eight months or a year with the AHP.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we must be living in two

different worlds. Surely, the President of the Association is not on CBC radio

this morning telling one story and the President of Treasury Board getting up in

the House and telling a different story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, she said this morning that wages are not

the issue. She said clearly this morning: wages are not the issue. In fact, the

problem is there was a specific proposal put forth to Treasury Board a few days

ago which Treasury Board has now rejected, and I understand, and I ask the

Minister to confirm it, is it true that the Allied Health Professionals have

said that they could get on with their lives, get on with their work and so on,

if the Treasury Board people would agree to a joint study to deal with certain

issues including retraining, recruiting health professionals and so on, not the

wage issue; now, is that a fact, and, if it is, is that not a fair and generous

suggestion by the health professionals, and why - for the life of me, I cannot

understand why Treasury Board would not agree to take these outstanding issues,

put them to a joint study and let people get on with their lives, why would they

not?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in my last answer, and I am sure

everybody noticed except the Opposition House Leader, who was not listening,

that I indicated up to a couple of days ago and during the eight months or the

year before that, that the main issue obviously was money. Negotiations have

occurred during the last couple of days which have involved a lot of positions,

and I do not want to go into detail on all of them right now, because I am still

having some of those positions examined.

One of the positions was, for instance, that they would

accept our offer, but after the 'freeze year', we would do a makeup. Now that is

against the legislation, we cannot do that, so there were a variety of positions

during the last two days; right now, we are considering the position that is now

before us, whatever that happens to be, and I do not want to get into public

discussion of it and, if the position is that simple as the hon. Gentleman says

it is and I honestly hope it is; if it is as simple as the hon. Gentleman says

it is, then obviously we are ready to sign a contract anytime.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the

President of Treasury Board, a quick question, a simple question. My information

is, that in fact, they have put such a proposal as I just outlined to his people

and that in fact, the response has come back, no. Now that is my understanding;

so, perhaps the President of Treasury Board - I do not know, he may not be up to

date on it over the last ten minutes or twenty-four hours or whatever.

Would he check immediately, after the House adjourns or

whenever, with his people to see, if in fact, the latest proposal was to have a

joint study to more or less deal with the outstanding issues. Would he check

that, and if that is the case, would he get on with trying to reach an agreement

with that group?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it gives the Opposition

House Leader some sense of contribution to try to indicate to me how the job

should be done, and if that is so, then, I hope it gives him some satisfaction.

I do not need to be told by the Opposition House Leader, to keep on top of the

issue, Mr. Speaker. If that is the way things operated when he was President of

Treasury Board, and that he did not in fact know from week to week, what was

going on, then I can assure him that I know from minute to minute what is going

on, and if it was within, what, twenty minutes of coming into the House that I

had my last conversation with regards to that, Mr. Speaker, I have told the

House that we are presently examining the current situation and my understanding

is that there were seven or eight specific items involved and it is not quite as

simple as the hon. Gentleman indicates.

However, I suppose there has been some progress made in the

last two days, in that,

whereas money is still the issue, my indication is it

might cease to be an issue very shortly, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that

we are on top of the situation from minute to minute, not from week to week as

he used to be.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

I am wondering if the Minister could confirm for the House,

whether or not the Marine Service Centre at Port de Grave has been leased or

sold to a private operator?

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

MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) brother.

MR. CARTER: The Marine Service Centre is not a full

fledged marine service centre as we know them; it is a fisherman's centre and I

believe it has been leased to a resident of the Port de Grave area.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if

the Minister of Social Services was serious when he said something about his

brother, but that was not the intent of the question.

I want to ask the Minister: could he inform the House please,

as to what process was followed to lease the Service Centre, was it a public

tender process or was it a public proposal call to lease this particular

facility? Could he outline what happened there?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, whatever

procedure had to be followed, was followed. A proposal was called, a certain

number of people responded, and the successful person was, I believe, a

fisherman from Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank on a

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly appreciate it if the Minister would

undertake to bring that information forward, as to the process that was

followed.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Minister

of Social Services is interfering here. I am serious about my questions to the

Minister of Fisheries about this particular situation because it has been

brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that there are officials in the Department

of Fisheries who have been quite upset about the process that has been followed

in this particular facility going to the person it has. That is one reason why

they have been upset, and the other reason they are upset is because there are

accusations that, once again, the Minister of Social Services, the MHA for Port

de Grave, has been involved in this particular process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Grand Bank to please ask his

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am trying to do that, Mr. Speaker, but

since I started the Minister of Social Services has been interjecting for some

reason. Now, I ask the Minister if he can confirm that indeed officials of his

Department have been upset about what has happened to this particular facility,

since it is claimed that the proper process was not followed and that indeed

there was political interference by the Minister of Social Services?

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

MR. CARTER: I can assure the hon. Member, and the House,

that I am not aware of there being anybody in my Department upset because we

sold it. About the only person in Newfoundland, that I know of, who is upset is

my colleague for Port de Grave, because he had some reservations at the time as

to whether or not we should dispose of the facility. I can assure the hon.

Member that the Member for Port de Grave had absolutely nothing whatever to do

with arriving at that decision and tomorrow I will table the documents that we

have to that effect.

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

There is time for a short question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

First of all I would like to congratulate him for his swift action in dealing

with the problem at Nodeco instead of making excuses for Nodeco's behaviour like

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I want to ask the Minister

whether he is prepared to take the same swift action in dealing with the problem

of airborne emissions from the Come by Chance oil refinery that are not only

bothering residents of Sunnyside but also, I am informed today, residents of

Arnold's Cove? Can the Minister say whether he has the report on these emissions

and whether or not the emissions violate any of the standards that are involved

in emissions from factories, particularly with respect to hydrogen sulfide?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there really is not adequate

time to give a full response. I would have to take under advisement your

specific request with respect to whether or not there is a report in hand, or an

up to date report in hand. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that our Government

has not, and never will, support the concept of development at any cost. Part of

my mandate, as part of that Government, is to ensure that the environment is

treated properly, hence the action with respect to Nodeco. I just want to say

that we apply that all across the spectrum of the environment, but to get some

specific information with respect to current emission readings I will have to

take that under advisement and provide the hon. Member with the information as

soon as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour moves on

to the normal House business of the day, I would just like to ask leave of the

House to pass on a bit of information that I just got from the newly-established

Newfoundland Manufacturers' Association. Just this week, they had their founding

meeting. They are a group of people involved in manufacturing business in the

Province and have brought themselves together as an association. I just spoke to

them at their luncheon meeting. They are having a display, opening tomorrow

morning at 11:15, I believe, in the Curling Club, of some ninety manufacturers

from all over Newfoundland. I think the press will get the first crack at it,

and all Members of the House of Assembly are invited. They asked me if I would

sneak this one by Your Honour, to give it some special attention and suggest to

Members of the House that after the House closes tomorrow, they could do worse

things than drop by for a few minutes and see what is taking place in

manufacturing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to

have the leave of the House to do that.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not object to the Premier having

leave of the House to make that kind of statement. I think all Members of the

House, certainly, I believe, everybody over here, have received invitations to

this most significant event. I know, a number of my colleagues are planning to

visit the exhibition tomorrow. We will be officially represented, I believe, by

the Member for Kilbride, tomorrow morning at the official opening. I encourage

all Members of the House and anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador who might be

in the city, to take the opportunity to visit the exhibition to get a grasp of

the kind of manufacturing that is being carried on, creating jobs in our

Province. We are delighted to concur with the Premier's assessment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, have no

objection to leave being granted to the Premier to make these remarks. It is an

event to which I, also, have been invited, and I have made plans to attend the

official opening at 11:15 tomorrow morning. I have already met with some of the

people involved in this association. I think it is a great opportunity for all

members, indeed, anyone who is in the city, to have a look at the kind of work

these groups are doing.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 3, the hon. the Member for Green Bay asked me

questions concerning the elimination of EPF cash transfers. He placed it on the

Order Paper on April 8, as question number 35, and, since that time, the hon.

the Member for Ferryland has been asking some questions about it. I sort of

answered these questions in a preliminary way pending the preparation of a more

comprehensive answer and it is now my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to table that

answer for the consideration of hon. members. Should they have additional

questions, I will try to answer them in the appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further answers to questions for

which notice has been given?

Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we revert to petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: We will revert to petitions.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of the residents of

St. Phillips, and Hogans Pond, and residents from metro lands surrounding these

communities. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:

Whereas

the Town of St. Phillips is debt-free; and

whereas the town has not been a

financial burden to the Government in the past, nor will it be in the

foreseeable future; and

whereas the Town of Portugal Cove has incurred debts of

several million dollars; and

whereas the Town of Portugal Cove must, of

necessity, incur over the next several years escalating debts on water and sewer

installations; and

whereas we, the residents of St. Phillips, could not expect,

nor would we receive, an equitable share of the tax dollars in our area, or any

new town under existing circumstances; and

whereas the Town of St. Phillips will

not need costly capital expenditures in the foreseeable future; and

whereas many

towns of similar size, or even smaller, are being left out on their own, we

therefore petition the Government that the proposed amalgamation of Portugal

Cove, St. Phillips, Hogan's Pond, read St. Phillips, Hogan's Pond, Oliver's Pond

and that portion of the St. John's Metropolitan area that was traditionally St.

Phillips. There are approximately 1,000-plus, pushing 1,100 signatures, Mr.

Speaker, on that petition.

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I present here today evolved

from a public meeting held in St. Phillips late last week. The community held a

public meeting, and they subsequently went out and managed to have that many

people add their signatures to the petition. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult,

as I said to the people at the public meeting, when they asked me what my

position would be in the House of Assembly with regard to amalgamation in the

Mount Scio portion of my district; I was very up front with them and very plain

in my language, in saying that, in this House, I will do what I believe is

absolutely the best for the overall region as it reflects in the legislation

that has been put forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

I sympathize with the position they have taken but, at the

same time, I think, when I review quickly the needs of Portugal Cove and also

what has evolved in Portugal Cove over the last period of time, which is in the

prayer of the petition, the people of Portugal Cove, without a doubt, have

incurred approximately $4 million in debt, for which they have a mil rate at

this point in time of approximately 7 mils, compared to the 4.5 mils that exists

in St. Phillips.

I have to believe, also, Mr. Speaker, and I have to explain

on behalf of the people of Portugal Cove, as well, that they also pay a water

tax above and beyond and separate from the mil rate that they incur. There is no

doubt, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, that the residents, through their mayor,

have expressed themselves well at the public meeting. But I also have to reflect

on the comments the mayor made to me and to the Minister on the day the

legislation was brought down. The mayor said, on that date, that should the

legislation, as proposed, go through, he felt that both he, the mayor, and

residents of Portugal Cove could work through whatever they had to live with. I

also have to say that after the public meeting the other night, we had an

opportunity to meet in his Chamber, along with some other councillors, where he

again reiterated that particular stand.

So Mr. Speaker, I present the petition on behalf of the

residents of St. Phillips who are constituents of mine. As I said to them at the

public meeting the other evening, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there

be in theirs, that I will stand in the legislature when the legislation comes

forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WALSH: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to

say, I made it very clear to the residents that I would present this on their

behalf if that was what they wished - by leave, I will just wrap up in ten

seconds - and that I would stand in the Legislature and do what I felt was right

in terms of the overall need of the region and, in particular, my own district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Did the hon. Member sign the petition, I think is the

question, which he is supposed to do under the rules? That is all we ask.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, in order to present the petition,

if that is the case, I have presented a petition that, at this point in time, I

have not signed. If I need to sign the petition and, at the same time, that

would allow my comments to stay in order, I have no problem with signing it.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am surprised that the Chairman of the Rules

Committee, struck by this House a year ago, would not be aware that in order to

present a petition in this House, he must sign the petition. I mean, it is right

in the Standing Orders. Your Honour knows all this, but Standing Order 90 says:

"...every member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his own

hand." It is clearly in the rules. So, he need not try to skate around it. I

simply asked him if he signed it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Two people cannot be standing at the same time.

The hon. member was addressing the point of order. Has the

hon. the Opposition House Leader finished his point of order?

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the member spoke to me a few

minutes ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I would like to address the point of

order, Mr. Speaker.

The Member spoke to me a few minutes ago and said, I have

been asked to present a petition. I cannot sign the petition. I do not agree

with the proposition in the petition. He said to me, "Can I present it?" I said,

"Well, of course, you can present it." I presented a petition in this House, I

remember, on behalf of citizens of Deer Lake, when I was a Member, and I spoke

against it, I could not agree with the petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: In 1966, 1967.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Because he asked me if he had to sign it.

And I said to him, "If you do not agree with it, you cannot sign it." And he

said, `Well, can I -?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. Members will wait, instead of

speaking of what they think the case is, they would hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the hon. Member that he ask leave

of the House to present the petition without signing it. If leave were refused,

the hon. Member should say, simply, `I tried to present it but the House would

not agree.'

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon all

members of this House to ensure that the rules of the House are followed. I do

not know what might have been the case in 1966 or whenever the Premier was here

last, but our Standing Orders were last amended on June 23, 1979, and Standing

Order No. 90 specifically states that a Member rising to present a petition must

sign the petition. There has been ruling after ruling by numerous Speakers in

this House, including the present Speaker, I think, that a Member can only speak

to a petition if he supports the petition.

Now, I do not object to the advice that the Premier gave the

hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: It has happened.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that has happened. I do not want to say

anything about the advice that the Premier may have given his colleague, the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island but, if the Premier gave him the advice that

he says he gave him, the member did not ask this House for leave; he just

proceeded, Mr. Speaker, to try to present this petition, giving the impression

to his constituents that he was behind the petition. Now, that is what has

happened. And the rules do not allow that. That is why a member must sign the

petition.

I remember, first when I came in here, years ago, there used

to be racket after racket about petition. Do you support it, are you signing it,

or what? Well, the problem was solved in 1979, because it was written directly

into the Standing Orders of the House.

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

more submission.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to make the

point that I do not know what the big fuss is about. It is a very simple case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: It is a very simple proposition that we have

dealt with many times in this House. There are a number of Standing Orders

relating to petitions that we have dealt with including 92: "Every member

offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the

parties from it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material

allegations," and we have dealt with many of these points of order during

Petitions that Members opposite have disregarded almost continuously in this

House.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple matter. Quite often, as

Your Honour knows, petitions have been presented that were not exactly right,

but we have given leave on this side for members opposite to present these

petitions. If leave had not been given then the petition could not be presented.

In this particular case, our Standing Order No. 90 says: "...every member

offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his own hand." And, if there

is no leave given by members opposite to allow the Member to present the case

for his constituents, if Members opposite do not give leave for the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island to present the petition with this irregularity, to

present the case on behalf of his constituents, if they do not give leave, then

the petition cannot be presented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has heard enough submissions. The Chair did not

hear the hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island ask for leave. The Member

got up and presented the petition. He did not ask for leave. The petition was

not signed by his own hand. The only thing the Chair can say is that the

petition was out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now if he would like to send it over to

our critic, he might present it for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Since the petition was out of order, I

cannot permit the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to speak to it

either.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of

the House and ask the Member to give me the petition so that I can present it

and sign my name to it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe

that I would be right in asking for permission, asking leave of the House -

first apologize to the House - but ask leave of the House to present this

petition on behalf of my own constituents. Should the House decide that they do

not wish to grant me that leave I will be more than pleased to present the

petition directly to the Minister myself.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of

order. Now the hon. Member was instructed by his leader, his Premier, either to

deceive this House and go and present it and then ask leave, either that or he

intentionally broke the rules of this House. Now I for one person will not give

him leave to present it to this House because he broke those rules. If he would

like to pass it over here I will gladly present it and support it on behalf of

the residents of St. Phillips. But not only that I will ask every Member on this

side of the House to sign it and support it too, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps Your Honour

can have a closer look at the Standing Order involved because it says that the

Member presenting a petition shall sign it. I do not know if it says he shall

sign it before he presents it. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to sign it now

and make it in order. That could solve his problem for him. If he signs it now

he could then have the petition presented.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, methinks the lawyer in my friend

for St. John's East is getting the better part of him as an MHA. He is clouding

the issue. The Order says: "every member offering a petition to the House shall

sign it with his own hand." "Offering" is when he is offering it, not after he

has offered it and presented it. So that is a silly (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has made a ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It should be the opposite way, order when I

stand up, not when I sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Anyway, my ruling is substantially the same,

the Member's petition is out of order.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased again

to have the opportunity to rise and speak to the amendment that the hon. Member

for Mount Pearl has presented to amend the resolution presented by the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Of course as I said when I previously spoke

on this amendment, basically the three points of consideration that this House

must consider in the amendment are: the feasibility studies being done; public

hearings; and a plebiscite.

Now why would this House not permit the people who are going

to fall under the jurisdiction of this new municipal government that will be

imposed upon them, this new method of imposition of new properties such as the

Aquarena facilities. When I say the imposition, because the cost of that is

going to be now transposed over to a municipal government, and it will have to

be then passed finally again of course on to the municipal taxpayers,

whereas

previously that piece of property had been administered, paid for, by the

Province, being a Provincial facility.

Why wouldn't this House consider the act of a feasibility

study being important enough to - in order to make this decision - vote for the

amendment? Why not allow economists, engineers and accountants to do a

feasibility study on what it will cost, what the benefits would be, to

amalgamate certain areas, or indeed to impose new impositions or new costings to

the municipalities affected, or indeed to impose new impositions or new costings

to the municipalities affected. Why would not this House support that amendment?

Would it be because, as some people suggest, there may indeed be a hidden agenda

behind all this amalgamation process? The real agenda behind this amalgamation

process is not to improve the delivery of municipal services but to transfer

provincial responsibilities, what have been previous responsibilities, onto

municipalities, as we are seeing occurring in the case of the provincial

facility commonly referred to as the Aquarena.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Bellevue was wondering

what Holiday Hill came under. I do not know whether there is any Holiday Hill in

St. John's, and I do not know if that would be included in the new supercity or

not, but I certainly hope not.

There is a concern, and I suppose he is probably wondering

why I would have a concern about this issue, me, being a Member for Labrador,

and because this is mainly pertaining to the St. John's area. The hon. Member

for Pleasantville would say, of course he has a concern because he works here in

St. John's. Anybody who works in here has a concern about it because they are

using the facilities here in St. John's, and his reasoning has been that if I

use the facilities I should be taxed. I guess maybe the real question then is,

is Wabush going to be part of the new supercity.

Mr. Speaker, another reason why I have a concern is because

undoubtedly, after this process occurs here on the northeast Avalon, there is a

suggestion by the Minister that the amalgamation process will be ongoing in

other parts of this Province. Of course one of the first on the list to be

amalgamated, out of the 117 communities that were proposed to be amalgamated,

was Wabush and Labrador City, so I do have a direct concern because maybe indeed

the schlemozzle that was created, if you want to call it that, the mix up that

was created here on the northeast Avalon by this resolution, may indeed occur in

Labrador City and Wabush, so that is why I do have a concern for the residents

of Labrador City and Wabush. There is no doubt that there is a tremendous

confusion over the resolution, or what this is going to do to the municipal

governments on the northeast Avalon. I am concerned that the same type of

process may occur in my district and include the towns of Labrador City and

Wabush. There should be feasibility studies. There should be professionals hired

to study this so that citizens can have a better understanding of how the

delivery of municipal services are going to be improved. That is what it is all

about. We are suppose to be talking about creating a process of how we are going

to improve the delivery of municipal services.

Mr. Speaker, being associated with municipal government for

seventeen or eighteen years and having had the opportunity of being the Mayor of

undoubtedly the best run municipality in this whole Province, the Town of

Labrador City, and having enjoyed the relationship of sharing services with our

neighbouring community of Wabush in the operation of an incinerator, and also in

the sharing of some of our equipment and some of our manpower in the Town of

Wabush-Labrador City . Wabush, being small in size, did not have certain pieces

of equipment that we had so we shared. The disposal of our garbage was also done

in a municipal incinerator, owned and operated by the town of Wabush, but paid

for largely by the town of Labrador City on a per capita basis under a jointly

negotiated agreement. Mr. Speaker, that was one example of how two communities,

living side by side, improved the quality, or the delivery of municipal services

to its citizens by sharing. Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if there were proper

feasibility studies done and public hearings held, public discussions on the

amalgamation of communities, whether it is on the northeast Avalon or whether it

is in western Labrador people would be more acceptable to possibly amalgamating,

to joining together to improve the delivery of the municipal services because

really, Mr. Speaker, that is what, as suggested by the Minister, is what this is

supposed to be doing. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this House would see fit

to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl because I

believe that is really what we have been saying all along, is that we want to

have more knowledge, more understanding and want the people to have more

knowledge and more understanding of the improvement of the delivery of municipal

services to the citizens that reside in the affected areas whether that be in

Mount Pearl, Paradise, Wedgewood Park, the City of St. John's or indeed in my

particular case, when it does occur, and I think it may occur, in the Towns of

Labrador City and Wabush. Mr. Speaker, when this amendment is to be voted on, I

would expect that this House would support it. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

dealing with the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please say

'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please say

'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously have some problems with the

resolution that is being proposed for this House to pass for a fair number of

reasons. I have to congratulate the Minister and the Government for making an

effort to do something about the amalgamation problem in the St. John's region

and in the Province as a whole. We have a very serious problem. Past Governments

have failed to deal with it, as a matter of fact they have exacerbated it as a

result of their actions, and this Province has endeavoured to deal with it now

for two years giving people a long time to determine what their reactions to it

will be. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the

Province and in our region in particular. I think we have to start by looking at

what we hope to accomplish through amalgamation. What I think we need to

accomplish is to improve planning for municipalities, improve efficiency in the

delivery of services and improve equity in municipal taxation.

Now the resolution before us I have problems with because I

do not believe it will improve planning sufficiently or as much as we could. It

amounts to a rearrangement of municipalities within the region, but it still

leaves major competing in municipalities. Mount Pearl continues as a significant

city in the region. The city is not pleased that its area of growth has been

limited somewhat, but it is still a favourite city in this region, and it can

continue forever as it is.

My colleague from Mount Scio has succeeded in advocating the

views of his constituents and we see an expanded town being encouraged to

develop in Paradise, which I think is bad for the region. I think that town will

eventually develop into another Mount Pearl. I do not think Mount Pearl should

be a separate city in this region, but if we accept the principle of having two

cities within the region, then I think Mount Pearl should be required to take on

more regional responsibilities rather than less. If I was going to retain the

City of Mount Pearl I would enlarge it so that it takes on more of the

responsibilities for the area. So that is a serious problem I have with the

resolution.

I think that one of the things that we have to do in trying

to reform municipal affairs in our Province is to enable natural development. I

do not think we have that with the kind of tax structure we have in this region,

whereby we see Mount Pearl having a business tax rate of half the St. John's

rate, and having a residential tax rate 25 per cent below the St. John's rate.

Now why would we propose to allow that to remain in place? I do not know. I

think it creates an artificial situation. It encourages businesses to locate in

Mount Pearl for unnatural reasons. The new Pearlgate shopping centre that is

being proposed for instance will save about a half a million dollars a year in

business tax if it locates in Mount Pearl rather than St. John's. Now I do not

see any reason for that. I think that is a half a million dollars a year that

should be paid toward the cost of providing municipal services in this region.

My primary concern is to serve the interests of my

constituents. They are paying an unfair share of taxes in this region at

present. I think that is the most crucial point that I would make in this

debate. According to the latest census statistics and the most recent municipal

budgets available when this table was put together, St. John's residents - as a

per cent of household income - pay in residential tax, and that is just

residential tax, 2.33 per cent of their income. Mount Pearl pays 1.39 per cent.

Wedgewood Park, for instance, pays 1.18 per cent. The Town of Flat Rock I do not

believe even has a municipal tax, I believe they have a poll tax there. They are

listed in this as zero.

So St. John's is paying a much higher percentage of their

income in municipal taxes, up to and exceeding twice as much as other

communities. Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, and I see the mayor of that

district in the gallery today and welcome him to the debate, when this table was

put together was paying as a percentage of its household income in municipal tax

0.97 per cent. Now that is much less than half the rate of people in my district

of Pleasantville. Many people living in Logy Bay - Middle Cove use this city as

much as residents of St. John's. Now, they do not have as high a level of

services so they should not pay the same amount of tax. But they should pay more

than they are saving. Especially in view of the fact that the average family

income there when this table was put together was $43,164 a year, and in St.

John's it was $36,296 a year.

Since St. John's is not where the wealthy people in this

region reside, of the eighteen communities listed in this table, all of the

communities in the northeast Avalon, six have higher average incomes than St.

John's - higher average family incomes than the City of St. John's. The leader

of course is Wedgewood Park with $57,000 and paying just 1.18 per cent of

household income in residential tax. And Mount Pearl's average income was

$36,645, $300 or $400 more than the average income in St. John's. So we see

people in Mount Pearl better able to pay taxes than residents of St. John's but

only paying about half as much as a per cent of their total family income. Now

St. John's may not be the most efficiently run municipality in the world and

that is something that we will have to deal with as time passes too. I think

there are things we can do to improve efficiency and decrease costs in the way

this city operates. That might have been one of the advantages of having a much

more expanded city, we would have a larger council and perhaps a better council,

and a council better able to get a handle on the bureaucracy of City Hall, so we

may all be better served in that regard. But the fact of the matter also is that

it costs more to deliver services in St. John's, and I think that has to be

recognized. We have smaller streets that are more difficult to serve, we have

graded streets, lots of hills. When you salt them the salt runs down and into

the harbour. That is not a problem that they have out in Mount Pearl. We have

streets that are used far more than streets in other communities. Mount Pearl

makes a case for its efficiency in one way, on the basis of lower cost of street

markings per year, but how often do they have to mark their streets and how many

markings do they have per area, per unit. You take a marking on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I know, but this is an example of the theory

that is involved in criticizing this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: No, but you do not have as many cars going over

the cross walks on park avenue as you do over water street in the run of a day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: It depends, but that is the point I am making.

It depends on a lot of complicated factors, but I believe even the Member for

Mount Pearl will concede that it costs more to deliver comparable services in

many categories of services in St. John's than in Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: So the whole difference is inefficiency in the

way St. John's is operated, is that the Member's view? I mean if that is the

case out of a budget of about $15 million in Mount Pearl this year, if they were

taxed at the same rate as St. John's they would be paying another $2 million,

the St. John's budget is up to $85 million, I guess, this year. So if you are

looking at things from that kind of perspective, if St. John's was run as

efficiently as Mount Pearl then we could probably save about $10 million a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: There are other factors, yes. But there is a

combination of things. One of the points you are making is that St. John's is

being run very inefficiently, and if that is the case then we have a situation

of grand larceny on New Gower Street, you know, because we are talking about

tremendous cost differentials here.

Another fact is the Province does not contribute adequately

to the cost of servicing its property in the St. John's area. The Federal

Government contributes about $3 million a year in grants in lieu of taxes to the

City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. NOEL: Three million dollars. And the provincial

Government contributes $360,000 this year, and the provincial Government, I

would suggest, has far more property in the city than the Federal Government

does.

The city provides services to all of the hospitals and

schools and university and all of the other facilities that are used as much by

people in the surrounding communities as they are by the people in the City of

St. John's. The people in the surrounding communities in my view should

contribute a fair amount to the servicing of these facilities.

One of the arguments that Mount Pearl makes as a

justification for remaining independent is that competition is good for the

whole region. Now that depends on what kind of competition we have. I guess

Mount Pearl feels that it is very competitive in providing a low business tax,

but whose interest is that serving? It is serving the interest of the business

property owner, but as I

indicated in the example of Pearlgate Plaza, the Pearlgate

shopping centre that I gave, the region is losing $500,000 a year as a result in

what would be proper taxes for the whole region, and not only for the whole

region but maybe in the longer run for the whole Province, because the more

money that can be raised in this region the less money the region will have to

have from the Provincial Government, and, of course, that gets into the other

problem that we have. As a percent of their budgets Mount Pearl and St. John's

only get about 20 per cent from the Provincial Government

whereas all the other

communities in this area get over half their budgets every year from the

Provincial Government, even though they have amongst the highest average incomes

in the Province. There are not many rural districts in this Province that have

average incomes of $40,000 or $50,000, as I just cited - those figures are a

couple of years old. But the people in those communities, with those incomes,

are paying less taxes, often, or at least not more taxes, than people with much

less income in other parts of the Province, so if those people in this area were

paying a fairer share of their municipal taxes then more provincial funds would

be left over to help communities in other parts of the Province that are less

able to pay.

My friend for Fogo the other day indicated that he felt St.

John's residents were being greedy in our efforts to reform the municipal tax

structure in this area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. NOEL: You probably said it as well. Anything that the

Conservatives can find to say negative about St. John's these days they are

saying. I am really surprised by the extent to which the Progressive

Conservative Party has abandoned St. John's residents over the past couple of

years. The abandonment appears to be mutual.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I hope we can get this concluded here this

afternoon so that I can get to my meeting tonight. I seek your co-operation in

that regard.

But in the course of this whole debate we have not heard a

good word for the interests of St. John's from the other side of the House,

except for the hon. Member for St. John's East. We hear the case for Wedgewood

Park advocated. We hear the case for St. John's East Extern advocated. We hear

the case for Mount Pearl and the Goulds advocated, but what case do we hear from

the other side for St. John's residents who are the most highly taxed people in

this region? They should be ashamed of themselves.

MR. SIMMS: We will see now how your colleagues feel about

(inaudible)

MR. NOEL: Yes, you will see how my colleagues feel. I

think that representatives of the rural areas of this Province have to realize

that they have a real stake in settling this municipal government question in

the St. John's region in the best way possible, and as my colleague says, once

and for all, and their constituents have a real stake in seeing it settled in

that manner. You are not going to see it settled if you will not say what you

would support. All you do is criticize whatever is proposed, whatever anybody

has proposed you criticize, but you will not say what you support.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will show you now.

MR. NOEL: When are you going to show us? You showed us

with the amendment that was just defeated, a ludicrous amendment calling for a

plebiscite in each community. We have people here in communities where they are

earning higher incomes than in St. John's paying much lower taxes than in St.

John's and you expect people like that to vote to change that. That is

handcuffing the whole process, and as the Member for St. John's East suggested

the other day, it is comparable to asking murderers to vote on what criminal

offenses we should adopt- I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What their sentence is.

MR. NOEL: What there sentence is, yes. What rural Members

should also realize is that we are talking about a lot of money here, there is a

re-assessment being done in St. John's I believe this year, and if Mount Pearl

were taxed on that basis next year, they would probably be paying about another

$3 million taxes in Mount Pearl next year.

If we were able to get the residents in the surrounding

communities to pay a fair share of regional taxes, we would probably be talking,

as a guess on my part, about another $1 million, so that is about another $4

million that would go into the municipal tax pie of this Province, and that

could do a lot of good in the Province and would not be unfair to the people who

would be paying because they would only be paying a fair share; they would still

be paying much less than residents of St. John's are paying.

We are not talking about inconsiderable sums of money here,

because I estimate that we will collect about $200 million in municipal taxes in

this Province this year; that is almost half as much as we are going to collect

in personal taxes and it is about 12 per cent of the whole tax take of this

Province, so $200 million is a big factor in our budget.

Over half of it is collected in the northeast Avalon region,

where just one-third, less than one-third of the population lives, so I think

the region as a whole, and St. John's in particular, is making a substantial

contribution through municipal taxes to the revenues of this Province, so, one

of the things I think increasing tax equity will help accomplish, is to make

this region more self-supporting, less of a drain on the rural areas of the

Province and that would be to to everybody's advantage and it would be fairer.

Now the next question is, how do we come up with what is the

best formula for Municipal Government in this Province, and as everybody says,

there have been commissions, nine commissions or something over the past fifteen

or twenty years and nobody can be sure of having the one answer, the ideal

answer, but one of the things practically all of those commissions say, is that

there should be more significant consolidation of the number of communities;

there should be increased tax equity and increased capacity for planning.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition House Leader keeps pointing

to his watch over there. I do not know if he needs to be told the time, if he

cannot read, but I wonder if the Table would indicate how much time I have left?

He does not seem to understand what the speaking time in this debate is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Now, I never supported the proposal for a

supercity, for one big city for this whole area because I think that there is a

lot of value in the small communities we have around here; if people want to run

their own affairs, want to put time voluntarily into their own municipality,

then that is fine, as long as they are looking after themselves financially and

making a fair contribution to the overall regional costs, which is what I have a

problem with, but I think there is a way to deal with that.

The way that I suggest we should consider dealing with it, if

we are not going to make one large city and if we are not going to set up a

regional services board or some sort of regional-municipal structure, I think we

should allow the City of St. John's to assess these surrounding communities a

small mil rate each year as a contribution to the regional cost that St. John's

undertakes on behalf of everybody.

We could work out a formula on the basis of how far the

community is from the core, what number of residents in the community work in

St. John's, and a lot of them do; for those of us who believe St. John's

residents are paying too much, that is another point we always want to make.

As a percentage of their people who are working, and working

in St. John's, it is 64 per cent for the Goulds, 73 per cent for Hogan's Pond,

77 per cent of the people in Mount Pearl who are employed, work in St. John's.

They do not contribute to the cost of servicing their employer, as somebody

living in St. John's does. We pay for the services we get but we also contribute

our share to the costs of servicing our employers. People who live in Mount

Pearl and work in St. John's do not do that.

Seventy-two per cent of the people in Paradise work in St.

John's, 78 per cent of St. Thomas, 80 per cent of Torbay, and so on. So, a lot

of these people work in the region. So I think we could come up with a formula -

based on percentage working in the St. John's core, how far a community is

located, what the mil rate in that community is, what levels of service they

have - work out a formula that would create an equitable system for everybody in

the whole region. Now, I think that might be the best way to go. But I do not

see how we can hope to come up with a formula like that in the context of

debating this resolution. That is why I will have to propose something else as a

way of dealing with the problem.

I got a letter today, from Mr. Harvey Hodder, the Mayor of

Mount Pearl, who reiterates some of the points that have been made about this

whole debate. One thing he says is, `Our approach in these matters is consistent

with the recommendations of the Henley Commission in 1976.' Well, one of the

things Mr. Henley said in 1976 was that the entire area selected for extensive

urban development should be brought under one municipal jurisdiction, that a

city comprising the urban centre of the region be created, the boundaries of

which would encompass the present city of St. John's, Kilbride, the Town of

Mount Pearl, Newtown, Donovans Industrial Park, part of the Town of Paradise,

Penetanguishene, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown, what of that? What happened to

Newtown?

MR. NOEL: Newtown is the part of the Province that the

people opposite saw fit to amalgamate against the wishes of the constituents.

The people of Newtown had a plebiscite and voted not to join Mount Pearl but,

today, we find them in Mount Pearl. And the Member for Mount Pearl, even just

before it was done, I believe, in speaking to one of the committees here, was

asked what they would do if people were not in favour of it. He said, `Here is

what needs to be done, and some municipalities agree and others do not. And we

get that kind of an argument going. We may have to make some distasteful

decisions.' So, obviously, he was prepared at that time to do things that people

did not want, and that is what they did with Newtown and with Donovans

Industrial Park.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I wish the Member for Grand Falls could make it

a point of being in the House every day, because he might not be so frustrated

that he would have to interrupt other speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is out of order to say that.

MR. NOEL: No, it is not out of order to say that the

Member should be here every day. I said, I wished he were here every day, but

the House is not open every day, so the Member should not feel that I am saying

something nasty about him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the

resolution being considered, seconded by the Member for St. John's South. We had

quite a rush of people wishing to second this amendment, but the Member for St.

John's South, who has been my colleague and linemate over the past two years -

AN HON. MEMBER: He will continue to be, I hope.

MR. NOEL: He will continue to be, I am sure.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker: I move, seconded by the Member

for St. John's South, that the resolution be amended by deducting from the first

motion, the words "the portion of" and "south of the Harbour Arterial Road" so

that the motion reads: "NOW, THEREFORE, THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY RESOLVES THAT the

City of St. John's, the Town of Wedgewood Park and the Town of the Goulds and a

small

section of the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove and the City of

Mount Pearl be combined into one City, to be known as the City of St. John's."

I further move that the third last motion, reading: "AND THE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the boundaries of the City of Mount

Pearl be re-defined generally, using the Harbour Arterial route and the St.

John's Agricultural Development Area as the southern boundary," be deleted

entirely.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. I wonder if Your Honour might

want some time to take a look at this resolution because, clearly, this is a

fairly significant amendment that makes a number of changes dealing with

boundaries and everything else, words like that.

And I want to refer Your Honour to the Hansard of May 14,

page 1779. And I want to quote the Government House Leader, who made an argument

earlier on a point of order that I had raised about another issue dealing with

this resolution. The words used by the Government House Leader are as follows,

and I quote from Hansard: "... this is a resolution, obviously, that

whereas

there are parts to it, changing one part, of necessity, involves changing all

parts. And, as I said, it is a single resolution to deal with the situation on

the Northeast Avalon. We view it, Mr. Speaker, as a single resolution."

He goes on to say: "... a change in one

section would, of

necessity, mean a change in the whole resolution. So, Mr. Speaker, we view this

as a very simple one resolution, not a lot of resolutions." That was dealing

with another issue, but the point is still the same. That was the Government

House Leader, page 1779, May 14.

I also wish to offer for Your Honour's consideration,

Hansard, page 1896 of May 17, where the Government House Leader, once again -

and I quote from the Government House Leader's argument to the Chair of that

day: "... however, as I have pointed out to Your Honour before" - referring to

the resolution - "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."

The next paragraph he goes on to say, and it is very

important: "... 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...." And on the next page,

up on the top, he says: "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 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."

"I suggest to you this is a package, and therefore, should be

handled in one vote as a package as Government intended in the first place."

These are quotes of the Government House Leader.

But, now, I want to quote Your Honour, in his ruling. This is

the final part of my submission - and I believe, in fact, it was Your Honour, I

am not absolutely certain, but, in any event, it is the Speaker's ruling:

Hansard, page 1918, of the same day, May 17, where the Speaker says: "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... it is clearly to

present to the House a package in which the parts are clearly integrated, and

interdependent, on each other."

But here is the kicker, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Speaker's

ruling of that particular date, page 1918. "Therefore, the resolution has to be

presented as it is on the Order Paper, as a single resolution." So, Your Honour

has already ruled, I think, quite clearly, that this amendment would be out of

order.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to spend a few moments on this particular point

of order. First of all, let me congratulate the Opposition House Leader for

having the good sense to quote two obvious experts in parliamentary procedure. I

suppose, it is no good getting older, if you do not get smarter, and the

Opposition House Leader is getting smarter all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened yesterday?

MR. BAKER: He was younger yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the question that was being

considered at the time when these statements were made, was whether there should

be a series of votes or a single vote on the resolution. However, here we have a

different situation, where there is an amendment made to a resolution, which is

an entirely different quintal of fish, Mr. Speaker. It is an entirely different

proposition, whether an amendment can be made.

Your Honour knows that amendments can be made by adding words

or deleting words, and so on. There is a standard procedure that you follow in

terms of determining whether an amendment is in order, or not. Mr. Speaker, I

believe the amendment is in order. Now, I would suggest to Your Honour that you

apply the normal rules to determine this, but it seems to me that it would fit

the normal definition of an amendment to a motion. That would not interfere with

the integrity of Your Honour's ruling of some days ago, concerning one vote or

many votes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some familiarity with this resolution, and the wording

thereof. In fact, I have a version of it that says, `Seconded by the Member for

St. John's East.' Having drafted and discussed this wording with the Member for

Pleasantville for a number of days now, I have given some thought to this

question, as to whether this is out of order, or not. So I was quite surprised

when the resolution was seconded by another member, after receiving assurances

earlier today that that would not be the case. But, never mind! The done deal

was undone. You cannot depend on them over on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The resolution, Mr. Speaker, proposes to

change the package, by taking the ruling made by Your Honour on last Friday -

what Your Honour said was that, by voting separately on each individual part of

the resolution, the effect could be that one part would be voted in the

affirmative and another part would be voted in the negative, thereby destroying

the resolution. That was what he said, `Thereby destroying the resolution.' For

example, if this particular amendment that is now before the House did not

contain the part about deleting the third last motion on redefining the City of

Mount Pearl boundaries, then it would be out of order, because you would have

the exact effect of what the Speaker has said, where it would amend one part

without amending another, and thereby destroy the package.

What this does, is create a new package, and by creating a

new package that amendment is then in order, because it amends the package. It

does not destroy it by making it inconsistent with its other. In fact, it is a

consistent amendment, consistent with the other resolutions, consistent with the

other motions, except it changes them, and that is what the purpose of an

amendment is, to change a motion.

So, despite the fact that the amendment has been seconded by

a person who could not make up his mind on what he was going to do, until today,

I think the amendment is in order.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the two gentleman who spoke in support

of the acceptability of the amendment. I would just like to say, that I think

they have made the case very well. Of course, this amendment is not much

different from the amendment from the Member for Mount Pearl, that was

acceptable to the Chair a while ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: It was still an amendment to the resolution.

But as you ruled, Mr. Speaker, some days ago, when you said

that the original resolution cannot be split, because splitting it into parts

would clearly destroy the intent of the resolution, should one or several of its

parts not carry. Well, obviously, that is not the case with this amendment. We

are still dealing with a complete package. There will be nothing left dangling,

nothing left out. It would still be a complete package and your concern when you

ruled that you would not allow it to be split would be that there would be an

incomplete package. So, I think, the fact that it still produces a complete

package makes it an acceptable amendment.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few brief words to the

point of order on the amendment proposed by the hon. the Member for

Pleasantville. I think his first mistake was consulting a lawyer and asking a

lawyer to help him draft the amendment. That was the first mistake; he should

have talked to a politician. It is politicians who have the experience in

drafting amendments that get accepted here in the House.

Secondly, I want to speak about the intent -

AN HON. MEMBER: I told him to table it.

MR. RIDEOUT: That makes it even worse. The Law Clerks -

MR. SIMMS: Present company excepted. We do not want to

offend them.

MR. RIDEOUT: My friends at the table.

Mr. Speaker, just to be serious for a moment or so, one of

the purposes of an amendment as defined in Beauchesne is to make a resolution

more acceptable to a larger number of members in the Parliament, in this case,

in the House of Assembly. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to suggest to Your Honour

that with a number of us already having said we are against the original motion

that is before the House, I would have to respectfully suggest to Your Honour

that this amendment, if carried, would make the original motion more

unacceptable to more of us in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that this Government is putting

the trap around Mount Pearl, but now, having lost the political will to do it at

the Cabinet table, and bringing it to the House, do not come in here with an

amendment that is going to have the effect of making the particular motion, once

it is amended, least acceptable to more Members in the House. That is the intent

of what will happen here, that is what will be the effect of the change. Those

of us who are uneasy now, not satisfied now, will be a lot less satisfied if

this amendment carries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess briefly to consider

the amendment put by the hon. Member.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has deemed the resolution presented by the hon.

Member to meet all the requirements as required for an amendment and is

therefore in order.

With regards to the point raised by the hon. Opposition House

Leader, as to the ruling made on splitting the vote; certainly, should this

amendment carry, it will become part of the package that the hon. Members will

be voting on and they would be voting on the resolution as amended, as a

package, and still not as an individual part; so the amendment is in order and

would form part of a package that would be voted on singly.

The hon. Member is now speaking to the amendment, so he has

thirty minutes.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: My point is, Mr. Speaker, his time expired at

about 3:29 or something, 3:39?

AN HON. MEMBER: 3:38.

MR. SIMMS: 3:38 and he still had the floor while the

points of order were raised to debate the amendment, so normally that comes out

of the time of the speaker, does it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I just want to know how much time - oh no,

I do not think his time is up but at least he might be down to ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is finished anyway, even if he does

not speak for five minutes.

MR. SIMMS: I do not know if the clerks have had a chance

to check up on it, but the hon. -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair will check with the Table.

MR. SIMMS: I just want to know where we are in terms of

speaking time and order.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of us probably

should start thinking about turning in part of our salaries in this House, if

the Opposition House Leader is going to continue trying to do all of our jobs,

perhaps we do not need as many people around this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - oh, I do not mind ignoring him because I am

quite happy to stay here all day if that is what Members want to do.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for St.

John's East had indicated that he was prepared to second my amendment; I

appreciate his willingness to do so and I am sure he understands that my extra

intimacy with the Member for St. John's South, made it most appropriate for me

to accept his offer, but I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in response to the

advice of the Leader of the Opposition, that I consult politicians rather than

lawyers when I am proposing things of this nature.

I think that I consulted a very wise politician, who will

probably have a good future in politics, because he was smart enough to choose

the NDP rather then the Progressive Conservatives to become involved, so I think

that might indicate his political capacity.

It is not getting too carried away to simply say that the NDP

are more legitimate competitors than the Progressive Conservatives.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your opinion.

MR. NOEL: We cannot be captured entirely by our past, Mr.

Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much else that I want to say

on this. I do want to say that I think the resolution does not speak at all to

the question of how the City of St. John's may be able to recover costs. All the

rest of the resolution does is deal with boundaries and give the City of St.

John's increased liabilities and increased responsibilities. And while I suspect

that it is the intention of the Government and the Minister that the city be

enabled to recover costs of services provided to the other communities, I think

that is going to result in a lot of wrangling in the months and years ahead, and

a lot of expense to all municipalities and a lot of involvement of the

Provincial Government. And as for the idea that we have the PUB settle disputes,

and right now we have a dispute between Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's

over the delivery of garbage to Robin Hood Bay, and the City of Mount Pearl

contents the bill should be $400,000 odd, I believe, and the City of St. John's

says it will be $800,000 odd. Now that is a pretty serious dispute, and

regardless of members of council saying that they are prepared to co-operate,

you know that you are going to have disputes. If you are going to use the Public

Utilities Board to settle disputes of this nature I think we are going to have

some very protracted arguments before that or very expensive arguments. That

board is not qualified to deal at present with the many different types of

disputes that may be brought to it. So I would have liked to have seen the

resolution deal more specifically with how St. John's could recover costs, and

also I am concerned that as the result of what is being proposed, St. John's may

well only be able to recover costs of services delivered to those other

communities. But I think, as I have been saying, that those other communities

should also be prepared to contribute to the regional costs of operating this

entire area that are now being borne exclusively by St. John's, so you are not

going to accomplish that through simply being paid for the delivery of water and

sewer services and garbage services to these other communities. So that is a

serious concern I have with the resolution that we are considering today. As I

just said, I think that we have a real problem with the liabilities and the

responsibilities which are being passed over to the City of St. John's. For

instance, in the newspaper today Mayor Duff is talking about the possibility of

having to close the Aquarena if financing is not provided by the provincial

Government. The Aquarena, presently, I think, has an operating deficit of

$500,000 or something in that -

AN HON. MEMBER: $800,000.

MR. NOEL: - $800,000, but I think that may be reduced for

some reasons. And that is a debt, that is an operating expense that this city

cannot afford. This city which is presently considering cutting back services in

the city this summer, talking about keeping swimming pools closed, and here we

are saying that it might be expected to take on another $500,000 in just

operating the Aquarena. It is going to have to maintain roads over the expanded

areas that have been given to it, right out through the Goulds and Bay Bulls Big

Pond and those are services that are presently being provided by the Provincial

Government. So that is going to be a large new cost for the city. So I have very

serious concerns that the residents of my district and the City of St. John's

are going to be facing tax increases as a result of this resolution and as a

result of the fact that the city is now in the process of reassessment which is

probably going to result in increased residential taxes next year anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bad for everybody.

MR. NOEL: I do not know that it is bad for everyone. It

is an improvement. I think it could be an improvement, and it might well prove

to be an admirable improvement if the City of St. John's is enabled to have some

of its costs shared by people in the surrounding regions. But I think we should

try to do that in another way, and perhaps that way will evolve over the next

few months, as the people, on behalf of the Province, consult with the

municipalities on how the package is going to be finally put together. Maybe

something satisfactory will evolve, but we do not know if that is the case, and

that is not included in this resolution.

I think that if, at this point, we were prepared to bring the

City of Mount Pearl into the City of St. John's - we are talking about a city

with a population of a quarter of the population of the City of St. John's, and

a budget of about a sixth of the budget of St. John's. That is a substantial

amount of money, and those are the people who are benefiting primarily from use

of the entire region, who are not paying their share, and who are particularly

inequitable in the taxes they have on business property in their area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage hon. members to give very

serious consideration, as I know many of them plan to, to passing this

amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I rise to speak in favour of this

amendment. As the House has been advised, I had offered to second the amendment.

In fact, I understand that the member who did second it refused to do so

yesterday. I have this on very good authority, which authority shall remain

nameless.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. MURPHY: Time after time after time, Mr. Speaker, the

Member for St. John's East gets up on an assumption, he has it from good

authority, and he has this and he has that. The hon. Member for St. John's East

really has nothing. Now, if he is going to support the amendment, let him

support the amendment, and stop his foolishness, in trying to take credit where

there is no credit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: A good authority, of course, would be another

member of his own caucus. Perhaps when the Member speaks to this amendment, he

will tell us when and why he changed his mind. Perhaps it was the result of

hearing Andy Wells and Mayor Duff castigate the Members for St. John's and

praise the Member for Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. MURPHY: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is

imputing motives in this direction, and that is totally wrong, and he should not

be allowed to continue to do so. I ask him, if he is going to support the

amendment, then get on with his speech, and stop trying to make small, tiny,

little partisan political points every time he rises. He got absolutely no press

yesterday, about his stopping the House proceedings, and I guess he is a little

sooky today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously the Member for St. John's South watched the replay

of the meeting of Monday Night on Channel 9, and he saw what kind of press was

being generated by Andy Wells, the Deputy Mayor, taking a few shots at the

Members for St. John's and praising the Member for Pleasantville, and he wanted

to be a part of it. I do not blame him. He did not take any shots at the member

personally, but he has now jumped on the bandwagon.

As to the question of whether I support the resolution or

not, sure the Member for Pleasantville and I wrote the resolution. So, of course

I support the resolution, and I want to say why, because that is what is

important. I want to say why I support this resolution, because I think what it

does - I do not agree with everything that the Member for Pleasantville says or

said in his debate, particularly about trying to get some assessment on areas

that are not part of St. John's. I do not think that is reasonable. But I see

where he is coming from.

I think this amendment does provide, what I call, some, at

least, principle and some motive and some consistency to the resolution that has

been put forth by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Because it does say

something about what it is ought to be accomplished by an amalgamation

resolution. It says, and the affect of this resolution and amendment, is to

include in the urban area those who benefit from being part of an urban area of

St. John's, and who share the same level and quality of services.

Now there is no excuse for not including Mount Pearl if you

include Wedgewood Park. And I want to say that the people from Wedgewood Park -

including some of the leaders from Wedgewood Park whose opinions I am aware of -

they recognize the inevitability perhaps of the inclusion of Wedgewood Park as a

part of the City of St. John's. But they say, and I agree with them: why are you

doing this to Wedgewood Park without their consent when you are leaving Mount

Pearl alone? And leaders and residents of the Goulds are saying the same thing,

I am informed by the Member for Kilbride who knows these matters more intimately

than I do - that residents of the Goulds are saying: okay, if you are going to

include us do the job right and put Mount Pearl as part of it as well.

And I agree with that sentiment and that is why I support the

resolution. Because it recognizes that there is a principle involved and it also

does something for those people who are represented by eight or nine Members of

this House, the residents of the current boundaries of the City of St. John's.

And what it does is recognize that they are paying a far greater share of the

burden of taxation and the cost of services than they ought to.

What residents of the City of St. John's are facing as a

result of the resolution without this amendment, is an additional tax burden, an

additional increase in taxes, over and above what has been going on in the last

number of years. The costs of services go up. They are not going down. The level

of services is not increasing. There is not going to be any more people able to

swim in the Aquarena as a result of this resolution being passed. There is not

going to be any more people able to benefit from the other assets that have been

passed over. There is not going to be any more people protected by the St.

John's Fire Department than are protected now. There is not going to be any more

additional changes other than an increase in taxes to the residents of St.

John's.

What this resolution does is make that fair. And I think that

the Members representing St. John's districts - including the Member for St.

John's South who has seen the light - there are others on that side of the House

who should support this resolution. This is an opportunity for the Member for

St. John's North who is busy reading, no doubt, the Porter - Dillon [?] study

that favours the involvement of more than just St. John's, it favours the

inclusion of Mount Pearl and explains the reasons why. The Member for

Pleasantville has made some very good points, very good Social Democratic points

about the nature of government and the share that people ought to pay and he

makes those points and he makes them well.

And I want to say that I agree with his points about the

contribution that ought to be made to the taxation of this Province by the

residents who avail of the services, in particular the municipal area that those

services and that share of those services that are received by the people in the

St. John's urban region ought to be paid for by them, not unfairly.

We do have a problem in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and the

Minister of Finance is well aware of it because included in his Budget document,

attached to it is an appendix, appendix C of the Budget document includes a

table showing the nature of taxes and tax efforts in this Province as compared

to the average all over Canada. This is on Page C (2) of the Budget document,

for those who wish to examine it. What this study reveals, and what this table

reveals, is that Newfoundlanders pay, as a percentage of the Canadian average in

terms of the tax effort that this Province engages in in the area of consumption

taxes - taxes that every individual pays no matter how much money they have -

but as they spend their money the Newfoundland Government collects 151 per cent

higher, as a percentage of the tax room available, 151 per cent of the Canadian

average. But in the area of property taxes and resource taxes the Newfoundland

Government collects 73 per cent of the Canadian average of what is available to

collect, and in the area of property taxes only 44 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker,

those numbers show that what is happening in Newfoundland as a whole is that

property taxes are very, very low compared to what they are in other provinces,

and I would say that is the fact for most of Newfoundland. In fact for most of

Newfoundland I would say that it is less than 44 per cent of the tax effort that

is available. But for St. John's, Mr Speaker, I would venture to say that the

St. John's taxpayers, a number of whom I represent in St. John's East, they pay

more than their share and more than the share of other Newfoundlanders. Those

taxes on based on the level of services they have and the value of their

properties, but I am talking as a percentage of the possible available tax

effort that could be undertaken, and St. John's taxpayers pay proportionately

much higher than anybody else in this Province. I am not suggesting that is

wrong, but what I am suggesting is because that is the case, and they do get the

services, that that cost and expense ought to be born by those who share in

that. That is why the people of Mount Pearl ought to pay a tax rate that is

equivalent to the tax rate in St. John's because they share in the same level of

services in the same area, they work in the same area, they play in the same

area, and they shop in the same area, they enjoy the same level of services and

benefits, and they ought to share in the cost of those services, and they ought

to share equivalently in the cost of those services. That is why this

resolution, Mr. Speaker, coming from the Member for Pleasantville is a very

desirable resolution to what is not a very principled resolution to start with.

The resolution to start with, as I have said in my other speeches, is a

hodgepodge of a number of things, but this does make some improvement in it

which I would have to support. We have heard a lot of reasons why the City of

Mount Pearl ought to be on their own. The Member for Mount Pearl has talked

and he is still not happy with it, obviously. He was talking about war being

declared on Mount Pearl and all the things that are going to happen, all of the

problems they have already with the bus routes, with the garbage, the water, the

rates that are going to be charged, and the need to have a referee between the

two of them, the Public Utilities Board has been suggested, all of these things

suggesting that St. John's is out to rape and pillage the taxpayers of Mount

Pearl and take their money from them, all of this has been raised. We had a

petition with 14,000 signatures on it which was raised in a matter of a couple

of hours, all of these are being put forth as reasons why the City of Mount

Pearl ought not to be amalgamated, but that is not the real reason, Mr. Speaker.

I know the real reason why the people of Mount Pearl do not

want to be part of the City of St. John's; it is not the reason that has been

suggested by the Member for Mount Pearl and all the other problems that we have

heard about; the real reason why the people of Mount Pearl do not want to be

part of St. John's, is that they are afraid that the fog that comes into the

Narrows is going to reach all the way past Bowring Park, that they are going to

have the same weather that St. John's has; there are even rumours, Mr. Speaker,

that the snow that fell today in St. John's did not fall in Mount Pearl; the

weather is better, the temperature is higher, their grass grows better and all

the other good things that happen in Mount Pearl, but they are afraid if they

become a part of St. John's, that their weather is going to change, that they

are going to get the fog, that they are going to get the drizzle. They probably

read this report, the study of all the cities across Canada and they found out

that of all these cities, St. John's is one of the least desirable cities to

live in and they do not want to be a part of it. I think that is the real

reason, but I want to assure the people of Mount Pearl, that if we move the

municipal boundary from where it is right now, to encompass Mount Pearl, their

weather is not going to change, it will still be just as pleasant in there, more

pleasant than in St. John's East most of the time, because the fog that comes in

through the Narrows catches my house long before it does the Member for Mount

Pearl, and the weather is still going to be the same, the sun will still shine

more often, the grass will still grow, the people can still enjoy the culture

and the recreation and the spirit which they have in Mount Pearl, and not

bicker, not be going to the Public Utilities Board to fight over whether one bus

route is over-lapping another and whether they are paying for more passengers

than they should.

We do not want to have another ten years of this kind of

bickering and yapping and fighting, what we want to have is an urban area which

shares together in the cost of the services that they all enjoy. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that, to not support this resolution, particularly the Member for St.

John's North and the Member for St. John's West and even the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount, who moved the resolution, to see now his opportunity to

support an amendment which would have the effect of giving some support to the

taxpayers who are overburdened with municipal taxes and to see that, that burden

is shared equitably in the St. John's urban area.

There is a chance now, Mr. Speaker, for the Member for St.

John's North and the Member for St. John's Centre, whose residents will all

benefit from the inclusion of Mount Pearl into the amalgamated area, and that,

Mr. Speaker, is why I would hope that they also will support this resolution and

those on the back benches, other than the Member for St. John's South, who, now

we know is going to support it; the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island should

be supporting this, because if there are less provincial dollars to go to

support Mount Pearl and St. John's, there are more dollars to go to help out

Bell Island which so desperately needs it, and so, if the Member for Mount Scio

- Bell Island really wants to help out the people of Bell Island, he will

support this resolution because it will demonstrate that there will be less

money having to come, that the St. John's urban region will be more

self-supporting and the services and the responsibilities that this Government

have passed over to the City of St. John's, like the Aquarena, those services

will not cause a greater burden of taxation and require more provincial dollars

and there will be more left for places like Bell Island who need more Provincial

Government help.

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's will be able to be more

self-sufficient and more self-supportive and require less money from this

Province, if we have an element of fairness in this amalgamated area by

including Mount Pearl. So, Mr. Speaker, those are all my comments on this

resolution. I think it is an amendment that ought to be passed.

I see that the Member for Mount Pearl wants to get up and

speak. He may have changed his mind about it, but I doubt it. He may have some

kind words for the Member for St. John's South for changing his mind in joining

with the Member for Pleasantville, and he may not. Mr. Speaker, I am looking

forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for Mount Pearl. I want to

hear him tell us how we can avoid all the bickering, all the fighting and all

the kinds of acrimony that are going to be generated by leaving this situation

the way it is. How can that be done? Why do we not decide now, and not put off

this fight, because this fight is going to happen in another five or six years

again, when Mount Pearl realizes that this Government has clipped their wings,

and that this Government has taken away the possibility of expansion in Mount

Pearl. Leaders in Mount Pearl -

MR. REID: I agree with giving St. John's to Mount Pearl.

MR. HARRIS: Well, lets give St. John's to Mount Pearl. I

do not care, call it what you like. The Member for Carbonear has a

sub-amendment. I am sure the Member for Pleasantville, who is so able to accept

changes and agreements and disagreements, would go along with it. He would

probably even second it for you.

So I think what we are looking at here, is one urban

municipality -I am not going to fight over what we call it, but I do not want to

see St. John's and Mount Pearl fighting for the next eight or ten years and then

ultimately realizing: Boys, I guess we have to throw up our hands. We might as

well be part of St. John's, because we have spent the last ten years fighting

with them, our wings have been clipped by the Liberal Government, and we cannot

survive on our own, unless we continue to grow. That is what is going to happen,

Mr. Speaker, and I think we can avoid that, by facing reality right now, and

including Mount Pearl in the St. John's urban core.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Most members on this side, who are from the

South, always applaud the other members from the South.

First of all, I have no animosity. I just want to recognize

the fact that the Member for St. John's East was very supportive of the

amendment from the Member for Pleasantville, and was prepared to second it. I am

not trying to steal his thunder at all. I am not as immature or as sensitive, or

whatever word you want to apply to the hon. Member, for standing up and putting

on that kind of half-cry, half-sooky face. I am only too happy to say that I

know, in conversation with the Member, that he was going to second it.

Even when I spoke to the amendment from the Member for Mount

Pearl the other day, I talked about the fact that I had some reservations,

though I will support the main resolution, but I would much rather see this. I

think what needs to be said - and I am not going to rehash all the good comments

made by the hon. Member for Pleasantville and/or the Member for St. John's East

- I just want to say that I think the Member for Kilbride made some points the

other day that need to be expanded on for the residents of, not only St. John's

but for the residents of Mount Pearl, inasmuch as the cities - and I say the

cities - will expand. If we share that expansion cost together, Mount Pearl, in

my mind, will never lose its identity even though it may fall under the umbrella

of the City of St. John's. I said that the other day, and I think that to be

true. I do not see anything falling apart in Mount Pearl, from their recreation

facilities to their community spirit or anything else, because we have an

administrative change.

If the member's point, that the City of St. John's, does not,

in effect, run its city efficiently, dollar conscious, as the City of Mount

Pearl, then he can be assured that I will be one of the first to make sure that

the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor of St. John's, and other councillors down there are

chastised and watched as I watched them and the foolish way they have played

some of their silly games over the last month. I am not at all pleased, and I do

not mind telling this hon. House, the way that councillors in the city have

continued to throw barbs and whatever, and the unkind things that they have said

about the Government Members on this side. It is totally untrue and I want to

say that, Mr. Speaker. Not once did I hear one councillor in the City of St.

John's criticizing the Member for Mount Pearl. Now, it would seem to me, knowing

some of the councillors at City Hall who have been down there for as long as

they have been there, and again more accolades were thrown at the Member for

Mount Pearl by the previous Mayor who once said I would sooner have one Neil

than all the rest of them put together.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order Mr. Speaker.

Could I just ask if there is suppose to be a Late Show on

Thursday at 4:30?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member in his Chair now?

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order.

There was some discussion among all three parties earlier.

The Government House Leader approached me. He can speak for himself but I

understand he approached the Member for St. John's East as well, to see if we

would forego the Late Show because the individual who was going to respond to

this amendment, the Member for Mount Pearl, had to leave, and in order to

accommodate him and be able to let him respond adequately to this amendment the

agreement was we would forego the Late Show, basically, and when the Member for

St. John's East spoke, the Member for Mount Pearl was then going to respond and

speak and perhaps clue up the debate, but that does not seem to have quite

occurred.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you rule on that point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I am still listening.

On the point of order, the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition House Leader is correct. The

Government House Leader did - well, he spoke for himself, but he also under the

new regime approached me and asked me if I would be prepared to consent to the

foregoing of the ordinary rules this afternoon, and I did give my consent, so I

guess we are operating under unanimous consent unless some of the other Members

on the Government side wish to have the Late Show. I do not know about the

Member for Carbonear, whether he consents or not?

MR. SIMMS: I think he was just wondering.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. I was told at roughly

4:05 that there was not going to be a Late Show. I was not aware