November

22, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 76

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before preceding with the routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today sixty-five Levels

I and II students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Corbett Newman and Mr. Claude Taylor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

question for the Minister of Fisheries. On several occasions in several months

the Minister and the Premier have spoken in sort of general terms of the need

for a Federal/Provincial joint management agreement with respect to the

fisheries. I am wondering if the Minister could inform the Legislature what

management role does Government want for the Province under such an agreement?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, the Province of course

feels strongly that there must be at least the opportunity for a far greater

input on the part of the Province into the Federal decision making as it relates

to the fishery. We have prepared a document outlining the Province's thoughts in

that regard. That document will be made public at the appropriate time. I had

occasion yesterday to discuss the matter briefly with my Federal counterpart. On

the agenda of the Ministers' meeting, which I attended yesterday, there was an

item having to do with the restructuring of his Department. While there has been

nothing firmed up yet, I can only report to the House that it is obvious that

the Minister does have some plans to maybe restructure the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans. Maybe not going as far as the Province would like to go,

but certainly I have been assured by him that the representations made by the

Newfoundland Government will be taken into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

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

did not get anywhere close to an answer about joint management, which was the

question to the Minister. Does the Minister intend to present detailed proposals

to the House for debate on this very important issue? Will Members have the

opportunity to have some input and discuss and see really what way the Province

is going? If the Minister intends to table these proposals for debate, when can

we expect to see that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the

Province is talking about joint management, not total jurisdiction. It would be

ludicrous to even discuss the prospects of the Province assuming full

jurisdiction for the fishery given the implications of that kind of an

undertaking. But certainly the Province is interested in joint management, maybe

along the lines of the Offshore Petroleum Board. That has been suggested to be

maybe a model that can be used and we have given a lot of thought to it, the

people in my department and in the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and

it seems that there is an area there where we can maybe come up with a joint

management board along the same lines. It would work very effectively. As to the

possibility of debating it in the House, I would certainly have no objection to

such a debate.

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

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

I thank the Minister for the answer. I was trying to get a

reply from the Minister as to whether or not members would have an opportunity,

between now and Christmas perhaps, to have a look and have a debate on this

very, very important issue for the Province, as we all agree.

I would like to ask the Minister a further supplementary: Has

the Minister discussed joint management of the fishery with governments of the

other Maritime Provinces; and has there been any discussions or proposals at the

ministerial level for a joint management agreement for the Atlantic region; and

is the Minister prepared to conduct a Federal/Atlantic region agreement rather

than a Federal/Newfoundland agreement? I have received some indication that it

is very possible that we may see an Atlantic/Ottawa agreement as opposed to a

Newfoundland agreement. Can the Minister give us any indication whether or not

there may be something coming down the pipe on that?

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been considerable discussions with other people.

The Premier and I met with Premier Cameron in Nova Scotia a few weeks ago. The

night before last I met with the Deputy Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia.

The Premier tells me that he met with Premier Cameron again the day before

yesterday. He and I are meeting today to discuss the outcome of that discussion.

From Newfoundland's point of view, I do not think it would be in our best

interest to become part of an Atlantic Provinces Federal board as such. There is

nothing to stop the other provinces from doing exactly what Newfoundland wants

to do. We have made that known to the other provinces, particularly to Nova

Scotia, and of course to the Federal minister as well.

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

supplementary.

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

I am having difficulty following what the Minister is saying,

because it is conceivable that you could have five Provincial/Ottawa agreements

with the four Atlantic Provinces and Quebec individually going into agreements

with the Federal Government on joint management for the fisheries.

Could the Minister explain for the Legislature why these

discussions are ongoing, or what is the purpose of discussions with Premier

Cameron and the Minister of Fisheries with Nova Scotia? I mean if Newfoundland

is sincere about a Newfoundland/Ottawa joint management agreement, where does

Nova Scotia fit in the issue? That is what I cannot understand. We are certainly

not going to enter into an agreement with them. So what is the purpose of the

discussions with Nova Scotia? Could the Minister inform the House of that?

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

MR. CARTER: I was getting a little worried there for a

moment, Mr. Speaker. I sort of got the impression that the hon. gentleman was

promoting the cause of Nova Scotia on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility as Minister of

Fisheries and the responsibility of this Government is to the people of this

Province and to the fishermen of Newfoundland. Of course therein must lie our

main concern, and that is why we are talking about a Canada/Newfoundland

management board. Now he asks why are we talking to the other provinces. Well,

certainly we do not want to appear to be going behind the backs of any other

province or of being greedy maybe. Newfoundland is quite willing, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, if they want an answer I will

give it to them, if not I will take my seat. Newfoundland is quite willing to

recognize the historic rights of other countries or other provinces, whatever

the case might be, but certainly we recognize the need for a special board for

Newfoundland. Newfoundland is depending on the fishery more than any other

province of Canada, and that is why we believe that Newfoundland has a special

case for such a management board.

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

MR. WINSOR: My question is to the same Minister. Since

the Minister just said that he is primarily responsible for the fishermen of

this Province, he is obviously aware of the hardship that fishermen experienced

this summer. Most of them were not able to make their payments through the 20 -

25 per cent catch assignment to the Fisheries Loan Board. Many of them are in

arrears. Letters and calls are coming daily from the collections people asking

for this years payments. Has the Minister recommended to Cabinet a programme

that will consist of not only deferment of payment for a year, but have the

Government do something to alleviate the interest costs that are going on the

loans, adding to an already fairly large debt that these fishermen are carrying?

Would the Minister give that some thought and consideration?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on several

occasions both inside and outside the House just what the Province is willing to

do in terms of accommodating fishermen who, through no fault of their own this

year will maybe find it difficult to meet their commitments to the Fisheries

Loan Board.

I have said publicly and I will say again, that in cases

where, a fisherperson, a fisherman or a fisherwoman, can demonstrate to the

Department of Fisheries and to the Fisheries Loan Board their inability to meet

their payments, through no fault of their own, then the Fisheries Loan Board

will be quite willing to consider a deferral of principal and interest to

accommodate that situation, and that appears, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: No.

- that appears to be satisfying most of the fishermen who

have contacted us. I have said before, we are not in the business of

repossessing fishing boats or driving fishermen into bankruptcy so we will do

all we can to accommodate them this year.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister should talk to his

officials at the Fisheries Loan Board because that is only deferring principal;

interest is being added to the existing debt that they already have. Mr.

Speaker, you are not deferring interest, you are adding the interest to debt for

the next year.

Take this a bit further: besides the Fisheries Loan Board,

there is the Bank Loan Guarantee Program for fishermen who have debt of more

than $50,000. Mr. Speaker, some of these people have debt up to $500,000 and

$600,000. This year, they were obviously unable to make payments. The program

allows for the deferment of payment for one year with the interest being added

to the principal. Mr. Speaker, some people have already have this interest

applied on one occasion and now will have it for the second time. What does the

minister intend to do for these people who are adding to their debt, just on

interest payments, in some cases, $30,000 or $40,000 a year? What is the

minister going to do for these people? Is there any plan going to Cabinet, so he

can give some measure of assistance to these people?

MR. WARREN: Yes. Burn your boats.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries loans are now

dealt with on a two-phase arrangement. One, of course, the Fisheries Loan Board

makes direct loans to fishermen under $50,000 and I have already indicated to

the House that in cases where these loans are going in arrears through no fault

of the fisherman and when that fisherman asks that there be a deferral, then we

would accommodate them.

Now, we have another program, where loans over $50,000 are

arranged through a chartered bank and, of course, the Province guarantees the

loans. We have indicated, Mr. Speaker, publicly and in other ways, that if a

fisherman in that category, who has a $50,000 or more bank loan, who, through no

fault of his own, cannot make this year's payments, then an arrangement would be

worked out. Now, I don't know what more the Fisheries Loan Board can do. We will

work with the fishermen to ensure that no hardship comes to that person and that

some arrangement will be worked out with the chartered bank to accommodate them

in this time of crisis.

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

supplementary.

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

The Federal Government announced new licensing plans about a

year ago and one of the provisions calls for the elimination of all part-time

fishermen except for new entries into the fishery. Are the Provincial Government

and the minister supportive of this policy of elimination of all part-time

fishermen? Furthermore, what kind of representation, if any, did he make to the

Federal Licensing Division on the elimination of part-time fishermen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department are

constantly in discussion with their federal counterparts, talking about pretty

well all aspects of the fishing industry. Within a few weeks, we will be tabling

in this House our White Paper and, in that White Paper, Mr. Speaker, we will be

addressing the question of harvesting licenses, part-time fishermen, the

Province's position with respect to who should get a license, and maybe who

should not. I am afraid he will have to wait until that White Paper is tabled,

which shouldn't be too long now, maybe another two weeks.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a case of shutting the barn door when the animal is

out because the federal Fisheries have already decided that this is the last

year for part-time fishermen. At the end of this season it is finished. I asked

the minister, Is he is supportive of this plan for the elimination of part-time

fishermen? It is simple. Is he supportive of this plan?

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

MR. CARTER: I think it is obvious now to most

Newfoundlanders that we are going to have to take a hard look at what is

happening in the fishery in terms of part-time fishermen. We have as many

registered part-time fishermen as we have full-time fishermen, so there is going

to have to be some arrangement whereby that number will be decreased. The

Province is, as I said, having discussions with the Federal Government. We have

addressed it extensively in our White Paper and the hon. gentleman will know

soon where we stand on the issue.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. Yesterday when I asked the

Mount Moriah, the Premier indicated that Government will honour the wishes of

the majority of people of the three municipalities, Corner Brook, Massey Drive,

and Mount Moriah.

My question now is: How and when will the Premier determine

the will of the citizens of the three municipalities? Will the Government

conduct a plebiscite and, if so, how and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, you only really need to

conduct a plebiscite if you are not satisfied that the preponderance of support

is one way or the other. My perception of the position to date is that prior to

now the City Council of Corner Brook and the people of Corner Brook, the

overwhelming majority, have wanted amalgamation.

The hon. member can shake her head if she likes, that is

clearly the perception that most people I have talked to in Corner Brook have.

She is as out of touch with that as she is with how people feel about the mill

in Corner Brook. In any event, Mr. Speaker, you would only go to or use a

plebiscite if you were not satisfied one way or the other.

Now, the City Council in Corner Brook has recently been

saying that they are concerned about it placing an additional burden on Corner

Brook, and if it is going to place an additional burden on Corner Brook which

the Province is not going to compensate them for, they may want to think again

about what their preferences are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if they do, that is okay. That

doesn't bother me, if that is what they want. But I can tell them the Government

is not going to pay Corner Brook or pay the area to amalgamate Massey Drive,

Mount Moriah and Corner Brook. We will not pay the citizens to amalgamate. If

the majority want to amalgamate, we will help them facilitate the amalgamation,

but we will not purchase the amalgamation.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, what I hear the Premier saying

now is basically he is not paying any attention to the wishes of the citizens,

the individual people, in Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. He is

being guided solely by his back room discussions with the Council of Corner

Brook, and more precisely the Mayor of Corner Brook. This has been dragging on

for twenty-eight months. When is the Premier finally going to resolve the matter

and allow the councils and the individual citizens in the area to get on with

their lives, to allow the councils to plan their budgets for the next fiscal

year which starts in six weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not

dragging it on. When the councils and the people of Massey Drive, Mount Moriah

and Corner Brook want amalgamation, they can have it. When they do not want to

want it, they do not have to have it. It is really for them to decide. The

Government is not going to force it on Massey Drive, Corner Brook and Mount

Moriah. It is for them to decide, not us, and the council knows that. They have

been told that. The councils of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah have

all been told that. I don't know if the member is totally out of touch or what,

but the councils know it and it is really up to them to make the decision.

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

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

the Minister of Health. Maybe the minister can give us a little bit of

additional information here. There were discussions back some time ago with

regard to St. Clare's and the Grace. Does it remain the intent of Government to

eliminate one or both and merge the two into a single hospital service with one

administration and possibly, subsequently, one single facility?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to sort of correct the

hon. Member's assumptions. It never was the Government's intention to eliminate

any hospital. We come at the problem from this angle. We have to decide how many

adult acute care beds we need in the City of St. John's, and we need somewhere

in the vicinity of 900 to 1,000. Now, how are we going to deliver these beds? At

the moment they are being delivered by three adult acute care hospitals. One of

these hospitals, which happens to be the Grace, is in a poor state of repair,

and we are going to either have to go with a new structure or we are going to

have to make accommodations at the other two facilities.

At this moment, the St. John's Hospital Council is looking at

whether there can be any cost saving to Government; whether we can deliver the

high level of care that we want to deliver in the Province; whether we can do

that by what is referred to in the media as option 10, with beds added to the

General Hospital and to Clare's. They are also reworking option 7, which would

have had a building erected on the north side of LeMarchant Road, to accommodate

a separate Grace Hospital and a separate St. Clare's Hospital with an in-between

building for operating rooms and various equipment.

So, at this moment, the St. John's Hospital Council is

evaluating the two options to see which would be the most cost-effective for

Government and see which could deliver the top, high level of care that this

Province and this Government are so anxious to deliver to our people, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following on that,

could the minister also tell us what the plans are to merge the two schools of

nursing? Well, actually, there are three, but what are the plans to merge the

Grace and St. Clare's and maybe the General school of nursing, and by what date

does the minister see that type of plan being implemented?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when we took over government -

in the nick of time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - we found in the Province's health care

system an awful lot of duplications which were, in the long run, costing the

people of this Province extra money. So we attempted to take out the

duplications wherever we could without having a detrimental impact on the

services that were offered.

In the case of the schools of nursing - and the hon. member

is quite correct, there are three schools of nursing associated with the

hospitals, and there is also a school of nursing at the university which gives a

university degree - we are actively pursuing the concept of putting one school

of nursing in the City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker.

At the moment, Government has a committee in place which is

looking at the role of nursing in the Province in the future. That committee, in

close association with the Association of Registered Nurses and with the three

hospitals that are offering the nursing programs, is actively pursuing whether

or not we can bring these three nursing schools under the one administration,

hopefully in the one place. Mr. Speaker, the day that I can stand up in this

House and say that is a fait accompli, I am sure there will be shouting and

screaming in the streets. People will be delighted to know that one more

duplication has been taken out, and a better service will be offered, Mr.

Speaker, so that our nurses can continue to be second to none anywhere in this

great country of ours.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this

issue has been on the go for quite some time. I guess it has been studied now

almost two years. Since the issue has been on the go for quite some time, does

the minister have information from studies to tell them how much money, if any,

will be saved by merging these facilities, the hospitals he is talking about and

the three schools of nursing, to create one separate facility? Are there any

study documents that can be tabled, or made available to the House, that deals

with these issues?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the documents

yet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the whole issue of merging the hospitals

or merging the schools of nursing, looking at it as a layman, your first

reaction would be that there should be some savings by amalgamating either

hospitals or schools of nursing. That is a logical assumption that a person

would make; however, this Government is not prepared to make decisions based on

assumptions, gut feelings or public reaction. We want to have absolute facts,

Mr. Speaker, when we make a decision. We want to make a right decision, not

whether or not it is politically expedient or whether some people want it done.

We want to make the right decision. Before we can make the right decision we

have to collect our facts. In the case of the hospitals, we are collecting our

facts, and hopefully, by the end of this calendar year or early in the new year,

we should have the facts whereby we can say this is right. I would think, by

early spring, we should have the facts on whether or not there is a saving in

amalgamating all three schools, but, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, can we still

deliver the same level of care we want to deliver, and maybe a better level of

care, and a better level of education to our nursing students? That is the

important thing, but we are doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, farmers throughout the Island, particularly on

the West Coast of the Island, have been complaining about the proliferation of

coyote in the Province. They have been in the Province for a few years, and have

been sighted throughout the Province from the Northern Peninsula, even on the

Southern Shore of the Province, and on the Avalon Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, they

are known to prey on sheep, lambs, small game, and even beef calves. Indeed,

there is documented proof that they have attacked and slaughtered lambs in the

Cormack area recently. I was wondering if the minister was aware of this menace

and this problem.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes,

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that coyotes are, indeed, in the Province. If the hon.

member has documented proof that there were killings in the Cormack area by

coyotes, then I would appreciate his providing that to my officials because,

although we have heard of sightings and kills all around the Province, it has

never been conclusively determined that it was coyotes as opposed to foxes or

dogs. So there is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Port au Port

should get together with his seatmate, because the Member for Port au Port

specifically said 'sheep'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lambs.

MR. FLIGHT: Lambs. So, Mr. Speaker, there have been lamb

kills in the Province, but it has not been conclusively proven whether it is

roaming dogs, fox, or other predators. So, Mr. Speaker, we do not have

conclusive evidence that coyotes have actually made kills in the Province, and

there have been very few documented cases of coyotes having been spotted or

identified in the Province.

MR. HODDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: The minister should contact the farmers in

Cormack and on the Cormack pasture. Mr. Speaker, whether there is conclusive

evidence of kills or not, the minister has admitted that there are coyotes in

the Province. They were found in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, about fifteen years

ago. Is the minister aware that Shane Mahoney, a noted wildlife biologist in his

department I think, has said that the coyotes could impact on the caribou in

this Province, particularly on the calving grounds in spring, and that he

believes they can bring down a full-grown caribou? Is he aware of the threat to

the Province's caribou?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a lot of

observations that Mr. Mahoney has made about various aspects of wildlife. As a

matter of fact, it is a wildlife issue at this time to try to determine the

extent of the coyote population in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will do

whatever can be done to control and to eradicate the population if and when we

are aware of the population levels that (inaudible). At this point in time,

unless the hon. member can stand up now and suggest to me, as Acting Minister of

Wildlife, what I should do, and how I should attack the problem - all we have at

this point is sightings, we do not have evidence of coyotes being taken in the

Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the lack of

information of the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture, has he spoken to his counterparts in PEI, Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick, where this same problem happened fifteen years ago? They have only

been in the Province for two or three years, but the same problems arise here.

They are in the Province. The minister has admitted it. Since the animal is a

prolific breeder, and in view of the fact that the population in Nova Scotia

exploded over a fifteen year period - in Nova Scotia now, if the member knew

what was going on, you can't keep a cat or dog outside in some areas of the

Province. They have been taken away by coyotes.

What I am asking -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member, please, to pose the question.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take steps now

to curb this population explosion while it is in a stage where it can be

controlled - before it explodes? Will the minister take steps, and will he do it

now, before it is too late?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will check with my officials

after this Question Period. If I heard the member right, he suggested that you

could not put a cat or a dog outside your house now without it being attacked by

coyotes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is watching too much 'Bugs bunny'.

MR. FLIGHT: Again, one is tempted, Mr. Speaker - I spent

the best part of twelve years in this hon. House as a member of the Opposition.

Up until the end of that twelve years, the government then was blaming

everything on the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, we have been here for

two years. I would like to throw it around and ask if the population levels of

the coyote he talks about have happened the past two years? I do not ever recall

a question being asked in this House, or the problem of coyotes in Newfoundland

being addressed, so I suppose it must be a phenomenon that happened this past

year or so. I will ask my officials whether or not it is true, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to resolve this coyote situation. There seems to

be a lot of noise around so I ask the Minister to please clue it up very

quickly.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my officials to

determine whether there is such a population explosion as the Member refers to

and whether indeed it is dangerous and risky to put your pets outside your door

in St. John's, Corner Brook, Stephenville, or on the Port au Port Peninsula. I

will definitely, Mr. Speaker, instruct my officials to increase their efforts,

as they are now putting a lot of effort into determining the level of the coyote

population in Newfoundland and looking at ways to eradicate the coyotes before

they do get started.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Before carrying on again with our routine business, on behalf

of hon. members, I would like to extend a warm and cordial welcome to several

groups of students who have come in since the Question Period began. First, we

would like to welcome to the House, ten students from the School for the Deaf,

accompanied by Mr. John Reade, the National Director of the Association of

Canadian Education for the Hearing Impaired, and their teacher, Des McCarthy,

Commanding Officer, Cadet Corp. for the students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, thirty Grade IX students from St.

Peter's Elementary School, Mount Pearl, accompanied by their teacher, Mary

Sullivan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14, the continuation of the adjourned

debate on Bill (50).

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate

yesterday, I was talking about the regional services that would be provided in

the Northeast Avalon region, and as the bill outlines and identifies most of the

major regional services that could be delivered on a regional basis, a water

supply, sewage disposal systems, storm drainage, solid waste disposal, public

transportation, recreation facilities, fire protection and other facilities or

services of a regional nature that are designated by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council.

Mr. Speaker, we have this legislation in place for the

Northeast Avalon or we are debating this legislation, but we also have regional

services and regional government legislation for that matter in the

municipalities and cities acts to be used in areas where it is deemed necessary

and advisable. Questions have been asked of me in this House on prior occasions

as to why we have not enacted and used regional services legislation. I would

like to remind some Members of the House that in fact, we have used the

legislation.

Presently we have six areas of the Province where agreements

are underway or are being drawn up right now to facilitate the management and

administration of regional recreation facilities, so the same legislation that

we put in place for regional government or regional authorities to deliver all

the services I have identified in this act, that same legislation of course is

there for recreation as well, and those six areas of the Province where arenas

or swimming pools are going to be constructed or rehabilitated will have

agreements in place between the municipalities in the area, between each other,

and of course the regional recreation administration committee or a corporation

or whatever is set up to run the particular facility.

The responsibility of course, ultimately will fall on the

municipalities to be responsible for the operations of these facilities, because

it will be unlikely that any of them will operate without some deficit, because,

to date of course, our experience with recreation facilities throughout the

Province is very difficult with our scattered and remote population in most

areas, except for the larger urban areas, it is very difficult to have these

facilities break even.

So, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is being used and will be

used more in the future, and I have given examples of how we can use it for

water supplies. The Grand Falls area is an example, Grand Falls - Windsor -

Bishop's Falls, where hopefully very soon the Federal Government will finally

say that they have approved the project, although they told us before they did,

and for some reason or other there was a snag there, some problem there. But

assuming it passes through Treasury Board okay, we will have the facility in

Grand Falls - Windsor - Bishop's Falls, we have the Corner Brook rehabilitation

area to do there, and we will have the Placentia area. Mr. Speaker, the two

areas, Grand Falls - Windsor and Placentia, will require agreements, and we will

use our legislation on regional authorities for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, questions have been asked in this House over the

last few days concerning Corner Brook, and I might just throw in Stephenville

and Deer Lake, if I may, because those are three major areas that we have to

make decisions on very soon. Mr. Speaker, I have committed that by the end of

this calender year we will have a decision on the remaining areas proposed for

amalgamation. We have some fourteen areas left comprising approximately thirty

communities that we have to make decisions on. Mr. Speaker, we understand the

urgency of a decision, but I might remind this House that two years ago or so I

was accused of going too quickly with amalgamation. This Government and myself,

as Minister, slowed it down considerably, and for good reason: To give dialogue;

to give opportunity for discussion; to have public hearings; to meet with the

people; to meet with the councils; and to make sure at the end of the day we

made the right decision, Mr. Speaker, in each one of these groupings. I think

that was a good exercise. I think the fact that we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wants to carry on with the point it has been making

in the last couple of days. Maybe some members were absent when the Chair was

making it. The Chair wants to make the point that the Chair has been

discouraging people from turning their back to the Chair. I am sure a lot of

hon. members were not present, so I just want to make that point clear, that the

Chair has been pushing that point in the last couple of days, that members not

turn their backs to the Chair, either literally or otherwise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I think having

slowed down the process considerably has helped tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, not only have we taken the time to carry out

proper dialogue with the communities, but when a decision has been taken, we

have put in place transition teams where representatives of the communities

being amalgamated have the opportunity to nominate two members of their council

or a council member and their town clerk, or some member from their

administration, to sit with and to work with my officials so that the transition

period from two or three communities to one larger community is facilitated

properly.

Mr. Speaker, that has been working very, very well. We have

had co-operation from the communities involved. It has been a lot of work

because we have had to make staff available from my Department, sometimes on a

moment's notice, to meet with these committees and to discuss whatever happens

to be the problem at the time. In one case it might be a need for advice on

planning, and in another case it might be a need for advice on merging the

staffs of the various towns. Another situation may require advice on capital

works and planning for capital works for the new town. We have made that staff

available, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the amalgamation proceeds properly and

smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, that is not required in the Act. The

Municipalities Act is totally silent on whether or not that sort of procedure

should take place. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the Act, if you were to

follow it strictly, would see amalgamations take place very, very quickly as

happened in the past. No government has ever taken the time that this Government

has with amalgamation, with the groupings. I think that is fair to say. I do not

think that can be argued, Mr. Speaker. I do not think a previous government has

ever taken the time we have in discussion, even in the feasibility process. We

have even lengthened that process. No government has ever taken the time in the

feasibility process and after, before arriving at a decision, before making a

final decision to ensure that the decision is the right one. As I mentioned, we

have some fourteen groupings left.

Involved in those groupings of course is the one mentioned

today, Corner Brook. Corner Brook is a situation where we have, much like St.

John's, a larger area, a city, comprised of some 23,000 or 24,000 people,

surrounded by communities - Mount Moriah, Massey Drive, being two of them, but

there are many others of course in the area but these are the two in close

proximity. To a large extent we are seeing people going to these communities

rather than live in Corner Brook. Corner Brook of course has a higher tax rate,

has to provide for all of the services in the area, the main services are

provided by the core area, as happens in the St. John's area, and they have to

bear the brunt of the cost.

There is a fear of course on the part of the council of

Corner Brook that their costs will go up, that their taxes will go up, if they

are amalgamated with Mount Moriah and Massey Drive. We have had considerable

discussions, ongoing discussions. I have been meeting with the council of Corner

Brook consistently, talking about their upcoming budget, about 1992, and that is

not unusual. Because I would be doing that anyway, as I do it with other

municipalities throughout the Province. Making sure that they can prepare their

budgets properly and address their need for taxation, their need for revenue to

meet their expenditures.

So it is not unusual to see that Corner Brook would have a

concern that if they are amalgamated with their neighbours, Mount Moriah and

Massey Drive, that they are able to handle that situation, that they are able to

absorb those two areas, and see them merge together properly. So we have been

taking the time to have those discussions with the three communities, not just

with Corner Brook.

But Corner Brook is the main player. They do have the greater

population, they have a very difficult, unique problem in this Province. Corner

Brook is a city that has very difficult topography, very difficult and expensive

to provide services, in comparison to most other urban areas of the Province.

St. John's has a difficulty too, of course, because of its terrain and

topography, but Corner Brook has a very difficult circumstance that they have -

particularly in latter years - been trying to deal with. A very high mil rate,

the highest mil rate in the Province, I would suggest, given their tax base. In

comparison I would think to most of the urban areas, and the opportunities for

revenue, Corner Brook has a very difficult situation in delivering services and

keeping their taxation levels reasonable for their people.

So we are taking the time to make sure that when a decision

is finally made on Corner Brook that it is the right decision. I think that time

and discussion are worthwhile. I do agree that we have to make a decision, and

we will have one if at all possible by the end of this calendar year. That would

be true as well of Stephenville and Deer Lake, the other two larger areas, if

you like, left for decision making. That would leave only nine more groupings in

the Province and I would think that with - I think I can say that most likely we

would have all groupings with decisions made by the end of this calendar year.

Getting back to the Northeast Avalon again, I want to mention

as far as the St. John's Fire Department is concerned, that this fire department

has always been a regional fire department. Now granted it is called the St.

John's Fire Department. That is unfortunate. Because it probably should always

have been called the St. John's Regional Fire Department, which is really what

it is. It covers the entire region and has jurisdiction over the entire region.

That jurisdiction for the region was recognized two and a half years ago when we

took Government, and that is the important and salient point when we discuss

fire fighting in the Northeast Avalon. The point has been made recently that the

Government is not allowing Mount Pearl to have a fire fighting service, the

implication has been made, as if a fire fighting service did not exist. Mr.

Speaker, that is misleading and wrong because the St. John's Fire Department,

which is truly a regional fire department, has always covered off Mount Pearl.

Mount Pearl has been part of that fire department for a long time and the people

of Mount Pearl have been provided with fire protection by the St. John's Fire

Department, so the implication that we are taking away a fire service, or

denying a fire station, is totally wrong. We are saying, and properly so, that

the regionalization of fire fighting is important and should continue in the

Northeast Avalon region, and continuing in that fire fighting in the region,

continuing as a partner, Mount Pearl should be there. They are paying their

share now of the fire fighting services as all other partners are and are a

partner to the agreement to do that presently with the Province and should be

part of an agreement to do that, Mr. Speaker, when the St. John's regional

service is operative shortly.

Mr. Speaker, we have said from the beginning, and I want to

quote my own comments. I am going back to September 14, 1990 when I wrote to the

council of Mount Pearl, 'I would like to feel confident that whatever approach

is taken, either individually by communities or corporately, that the approach

will be the one making the most economic sense and delivering the very best

service to the area. Accordingly, I would appreciate the co-operation of the

city of Mount Pearl in not proceeding any further in relation to this

development, including the postponement of the hiring of staff until we have had

a chance to determine what is the best policy for the region and how the

individual units within it are going to tie into that policy.' Mr. Speaker, you

could not be any clearer than that in my letter to the city of Mount Pearl and

to the council of Mount Pearl asking them not to proceed to man the fire

station, to await the deliberations of the feasibility process, to await a

decision. We said from the beginning, as I have already said, that the

regionalization of fire-fighting and other services in the Northeast Avalon was

important and should continue. It is not as if we were starting something that

was not in place. It was in place anyway. We were delivering a fire fighting

service, water supply, waste disposal, transportation, the bus system. These are

all regional in nature now, and we are not regionalizing these services for the

first time. We are simply confirming that regionalization, the approach of

sharing costs, and sharing services is an important one and should continue. If

we were to fragment that and have everybody in the Northeast Avalon region

providing their own service, whatever it happened to be, we would be doing so

not in the best interest of the people and at enormous cost, Mr. Speaker. We

would be turning back the clock and going back to the 20s or 30s when we had

divided units, when services were very haphazard and we would not be acting in

the best interest of the people overall in the Northeast Avalon. Regionalization

of these services and providing them on a basis where cost efficiency and

rationalization and economies of scale are achieved is very, very important, and

this Government has recognized that. There is no question that administratively

we will see savings, we will see all of these services delivered by the largest

community in the Province, by the city of St. John's which has the

administrative capability to do it. They will be adding staff, of course, from

some of the amalgamated units. Some of the staff of the St. John's Metro Board,

particularly the engineering staff, and other staff as well, will be joining the

city of St. John's and will be part of the delivery of these regional services

that they were providing before to some extent as members of Metro Board,

because Metro Board had a large responsibility, particularly for the water

supply in the Northeast Avalon; so, Mr. Speaker, regionalization of services is

something that has been ongoing in this region; we are simply confirming now

that it should continue and continue under the management of the city of St.

John's, with of course, the mayors of the adjoining communities being part of

the decision making process, sitting with the city council of St. John's when

these regional services are being discussed and when rates are being fixed, so

they will be part of the process.

The alternative would be to set up another level of

bureaucracy; a regional services board or a regional government in fact, which

is provided for in the Act, but we did not have any support for that in the

hearings and the feasibility process. We had some expressions of interest after

we made our decisions, where, some of the communities were not happy,

particularly Mount Pearl. The city of Mount Pearl's council said we would like

to have a regional board, but prior to that, back in the hearings process, they

wanted no part of a board; nobody wanted regional services on a basis of a

regional services authority or regional government and we adhered to that wish,

Mr. Speaker and we of course concluded, on the recommendations of the

commissions and our own deliberations that the right way to go would be not to

create that extra level of bureaucracy, not that it is not going to be necessary

in some areas of the Province, and for other reasons, and I gave examples

earlier of recreation, where certainly we would need to have an authority set up

in these areas, but, Mr. Speaker, in this area, in the St. John's, in the

Northeast Avalon area, that level of bureaucracy is not necessary, particularly

when we have an administrative structure already in place in the city of St.

John's which is quite capable of handling it and I am sure we will have the

co-operation of all the communities involved in decision making as far as

services that should be delivered regionally, and communities I would think

would want to access some of these services regionally from time to time and

will come forward and say they want to be part of a regional service if it is to

benefit their community and they are not part of that service particularly now.

So I think we will see co-operation, Mr. Speaker. I think

that the communities involved in the Northeast Avalon amalgamation - some of

them are not being amalgamated of course; a lot of them, particularly the rural

ones, are being left substantially as they are. The communities from Middle

Cove, Outer Cove, Logy Bay, right around the coast, right to St. Phillips,

Portugal Cove, all those communities are being left as they are; CBS is not

being amalgamated with its neighbours; Petty Harbour, Maddox Cove are being left

as they are, so we are not doing a total amalgamation in Northeast Avalon, Mr.

Speaker, we are doing amalgamation as far as St. Phillips/Portugal Cove is

concerned and we are bringing together Paradise, St. Thomas' and the metro area

of Topsail Pond and Three Island Pond, along with of course, the amalgamation in

the St. John's area where the Goulds and Wedgewood Park are being joined to St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, we have also accomplished a great deal. We seem

to focus entirely in our deliberations on the amalgamation of communities, but

there is a lot more than that being achieved in the Northeast Avalon. If we are

to look at the fact that we will no longer have a Metropolitan Area Board, where

half of the Board was appointed representatives from member councils and the

other half appointed by the Province, well that Board and its administrative

structure now will disappear.

We will, in place of it, having joined the lands of Metro

Board and having joined the communities that are part of Metro Board to one of

the amalgamated groupings, we will see, these people for the first time having

directly elected representation on the councils that they are going to be

represented by and in the communities that they are going to be part of for the

first time; so, Mr. Speaker, that is a major accomplishment because that Board

has sat there for a long time, has provided a valuable service in management of

lands that are in between municipalities mainly, and the management of services

of course for example the water supply, the major service for which they were

responsible.

So merging the metropolitan area lands and the administration

and the service delivery; the Bay Bulls water supply, merging all of that, Mr.

Speaker, with the various communities is a major accomplishment because we have

eliminated that duplication, and we have provided for direct representation by

elected people for these areas and for these people. So, Mr. Speaker, we have

not just been doing amalgamation or consolidation of communities, we have also

facilitated and made changes in a lot of other areas as well, the Metropolitan

Area Board being one of them. We transferred the Aquarena facility, the Canada

Games Park, the Aquarena and its lands to the St. John's Council where it

properly should be, Mr. Speaker. We discovered by looking at the users of that

facility that some 90-odd per cent of the users are from St. John's. That being

the case, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for the tax payers - and the city of St.

John's does not disagree - of the Province collectively to pay for a facility

like the Aquarena which is being used predominantly, almost entirely by the city

of St. John's. So we are transferring that facility over to St. John's to

administer and to operate.

Mr. Speaker, of course, as I have mentioned as well, we are

transferring the St. John's Fire Department, which will be changed in name to

the St. John's Regional Fire Department as it more appropriately should have

been named all along, because that is what it is, a St. John's Regional Fire

Department. So we are transferring that over to the city of St. John's, Mr.

Speaker, to administer for the Northeast Avalon Region and for all of the

partners who are involved in that fire service.

Mr. Speaker, they will have to rearrange the uses of the

various stations. They will have to make sure that the six stations that are in

place properly serve the Northeast Avalon. They have an expanded mandate because

Paradise is being expanded to take in Topsail Pond and Three Island Pond. We

have to make sure that the fire fighting service in the six stations can

properly service now these expanded areas where all the metro lands, some 5,000

or 6,000 people are being added to the various groupings, whether it be

Paradise, St. Thomas's, or whether it be St. Philip's, Portugal, or whether it

be St. John's, Wedgewood Park and the Goulds. Either one of those three

groupings, Mr. Speaker, they are all involved in some way or another to a larger

or lesser extent in the St. John's Fire Department.

So the St. John's Fire Department, under the management of

the St. John's Council and the mayors of the communities that are involved in

this particular service will have to ensure - I know they will -that the six

stations in place are properly given the responsibility in an appropriate way to

cover the proximity to the stations to be sure that adequate back-up is

provided, to make sure that the equipment is properly placed so that certainly

the equipment necessary to provide a first response is in each station, and then

proper back-up if a second response is necessary in the event of a more serious

fire, proper back-up is provided from other stations. So the rearrangement of

equipment and staff, and the responsibility for fire fighting will have to be

looked at and I know is being looked at right now because the process is not

going to start tomorrow, it is already started. They are looking at that right

now, Mr. Speaker, and the importance of fire fighting, one of the most important

responsibilities that a municipality can have is providing fire prevention and

fire protection in its jurisdiction. So that is being looked at right now, and

the allocation - as I mentioned - of resources and staff will be properly dealt

with.

Mr. Speaker, the Aquarena and the fire department are the two

major transfers that the Government is facilitating. Both of them, of course,

are properly municipal responsibilities. The fire department in St. John's is

the only fire department in the Province that we have any responsibility for,

and in fact, of course we charge back. The municipalities themselves on the

Northeast Avalon pay their share of the cost of the St. John's Fire Department

now. The difference now, of course, is that they have a responsibility to pay

their share without it having to come through Government hands. Government will

continue to pay its fair share for the protection of government buildings. We

have considerable government buildings in the Northeast Avalon area and we also

have some in Corner Brook. In both those locations, as it is right now, we will

pay, it is currently 15 per cent of the overall costs, and we will continue to

pay either 15 per cent or whatever is appropriate and fair. It might be 14 per

cent, it might be 12 per cent, or it might be 16 or 17 per cent, but whatever is

appropriate and fair. Through discussions with the responsible communities

involved, the Government will continue to contribute because of the presence of

government buildings in those two locations, the St. John's/Northeast Avalon

area, and Corner Brook. That will continue to be the case. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, the total responsibility will be transferred over to municipal

jurisdiction where it should properly be.

Mr. Speaker, the bill, of course, deals with all of these

matters that I have mentioned. Indeed, we are bringing about the amalgamation,

the consolidation, of some seventeen communities down to seven, and we are

leaving, without any amalgamation taking place, some six or seven communities

which are going to be left as they are.

Mr. Speaker, this is a major consolidation of administration.

It is going to see a great savings, a great rationalization of services, a

better delivery of the taxpayers' money, a better spending of the taxpayers'

money, an ability on behalf of the councils to promote and develop their towns

and their cities on behalf of their people, being able to attract development,

attract business and enterprise with a larger entity, and avoid a duplication of

competition. Presently, as I said yesterday, we have an intense competition

where almost every community on the Northeast Avalon wants to have an industrial

park, would like to have expanded residential development, would like to have a

shopping center, would like to have more commercial, and the list goes on, Mr.

Speaker. That duplication, in this day and age, Mr. Speaker - I do not need to

remind this House of these difficult times where, whether you are an individual

or a corporation or government or a municipality, revenue is hard to come by,

expenses are high, and it is very, very difficult, I know, from day-to-day

contact with our 700 or 800 municipalities throughout this Province, being a

mayor or councillor in these difficult times. It is not easy being a town

manager, trying to manage a municipality in the most difficult times, I suppose,

we have seen for a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, we just cannot afford, whether it be in the

Northeast Avalon, as this bill deals with, or anywhere else in the Province

where we are dealing with amalgamation, to have the duplication of services that

we have at present. Mr. Speaker, we have to create units that are larger. We

have to have municipalities that are a minimum of 1,000 or 1,200 people. We know

that that is the minimum level to provide even a reasonable service to your

people. Below those numbers, and even with the amalgamation, if we carry them

all out, Mr. Speaker, all the ones that are remaining and all the ones that have

been done, we still will have in this Province some 600 entities of various

kinds, community councils, local service districts, towns and cities, that will

be less than 1,000 people in population, that we have to deal with, Mr. Speaker,

that still have to manage their communities in difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, in most cases they are so remote from one

another, so distant from one another, that amalgamation cannot reasonably be

considered. That is, of course, the case in Newfoundland as we know. We are the

most difficult province to govern, whether it be the Island of Newfoundland or

in Labrador. We have the most scattered, isolated population in Canada by far.

We certainly have more municipalities by far. There is nobody even close to us.

Per capita we are three or four times our nearest province. That makes it very

difficult, Mr. Speaker, but where we can bring communities together, we have

done so. Where we can finish the remainders on the list, we will do so. The

remainder on the list, of course, as I mentioned, there are some fourteen

groupings left to deal with. I hope to have decisions, and recommendations,

firstly, of course, for Government, on all those fourteen groupings by the end

of this calendar year.

It has been a major undertaking, whether it be the Northeast

Avalon or elsewhere, but it is an undertaking that I personally am very proud

of. I think it was long overdue. It took this Government to take a decision to

do it. It has been controversial and difficult, and at the end of the day we

will not please everyone. But, with those groupings that have come together,

Grand Falls - Windsor being the first, right through to the remainder that have

been done, some fourteen groupings to date, some fourteen more left to do, and

some we will not be doing, I can tell you from my experience to date that

amalgamation is working extremely well.

I will never regret the day when we started this process. I

am sure, at the end of the day it will be said that amalgamation was a good

thing for this Province and that the communities involved benefited greatly by

it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the minister

opened his address yesterday concerning Bill 50, "An Act To Facilitate The

Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation

To The Northeast Avalon Region," one of the first statements he made was that he

took great pleasure in standing to introduce this particular bill to amalgamate

communities in the Northeast Avalon region of the Province.

Now, I do not believe that. I believe, I suppose, the

statement that the minister feels great about amalgamating certain communities

in this Province. There are a lot of people on both sides of the House who

probably would not disagree with that. But to take pleasure in forcing

municipalities in this Province to amalgamate, I can't see it, not from that

particular minister.

Now, let me go back some twenty-seven or twenty-eight months

ago, when the administration opposite said that they were going to bring in

amalgamation in the Province for - I believe, it is one hundred and forty-odd

municipalities that would be amalgamated. At that time, I believe the minister

came to - what was it? - Mount Moriah, or a small community in the Bay of

Islands; it was at a Humber joint council meeting, anyway, in the Corner Brook

area, when he announced and served notice that the Government was about to

undertake to amalgamate those particular communities. At that time, there was an

outcry. There was no trouble to see - as things progressed you could see it a

lot better and things became a lot clearer - that there was no plan, no

direction. Everything was just ad hoc, certainly was not thought out. Finally,

it came, in the process over the last two-and-a-half years, to forced

amalgamation.

First, everything seemed to be alright. The first step was to

amalgamate those communities. When people and municipalities in this Province

got up in arms, all of a sudden things changed, and then we saw the minister

bring in the Regional Services Board Act. This was a next step. Amalgamation was

not going to work with the first plan. The second one was the Regional Services

Board Act which would then circumvent everything else and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder would the hon. member would just permit a brief

interruption. I am going to leave the Chair momentarily. I will stop him on his

second point and he can take right over again. I would just like, on behalf of

hon. members, to welcome to the galleries today the Mayor of Grand Falls -

Windsor, Mayor Blackmore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the first

step was to amalgamate those communities, and they more or less figured that

there wasn't going to be any problem.

The second step was the institution of the Regional Services

Board Act. In that act there were a lot of dictatorial clauses that would sort

of circumvent anything in the Municipalities Act, anything in the City of Mount

Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act, and bring in regional government to a lot

of communities in this Province.

There were only a few things wrong with the Regional Services

Board Act. At a meeting in Jackson's Arm the minister was told, on that

particular Saturday morning, that there were only a few clauses in it that would

be wrong, and that if he took them out and made amendments, then possibly 95 per

cent of municipalities, especially in rural areas of the Province, would be

satisfied with it. That was not done.

The third step was the forced amalgamation, itself - the fact

of bringing it to the legislature. Now, the Premier has stated time and time

again, 'We are not going to force municipalities to amalgamate. We will bring it

to the floor of the House of Assembly and have it debated.' Mr. Speaker, when

any bill is brought to the floor of the House today and the administration, who

has a majority, wants it, there is no such things as a free vote. It is not

here. As far as I am concerned, personally, it should be; but it is not. When we

hear the leader of the administration saying, categorically, we want certain

areas of this Province amalgamated, and that particular bill comes before the

House of Assembly, then you know what is going to happen. It is going to pass.

So, if someone can, tell me where freedom of speech and democracy prevail in

that. Free vote on the resolution, Mr. Speaker - there was no such thing as a

free vote on the resolution. We knew before it ever came to the floor, back on

May 24, 1990, what was going to happen with that particular resolution. There

were municipalities, especially in the Northeast Avalon area of the Province -

now the minister has stated, and the Premier has stated, that other

municipalities in the Province would not be forced to amalgamate. On the

Northeast Avalon, we have communities such as St. Phillips, Hogan's Pond, parts

of the Metro Board, sections of Mount Pearl, and then they come in and say that

the City of St. John's is in favour of amalgamating with them!

I hear consistently from members opposite, through this whole

process, the headline I saw a couple of years ago about 'supercity'. It is

coming out in just about every word. Even the minister, yesterday, referred to

it - the great City of St. John's will have a population of 108,000. This

morning he referred to it again, another 5,000 or 6,000 added to certain areas.

Does great mean better?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. Exactly.

MR. WOODFORD: Does great big, mean best?

MR. HODDER: No. He is nodding his head. He says, yes -

bigger is better.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's never

agreed. I have not seen anything on record, I have not seen anything in the

press saying that the City of St. John's agreed with it. They were told, in no

uncertain terms, this is the way it is going to be. Paradise was told, St.

Phillips and Portugal Cove were told. Not one community that I know of was

asked, and said categorically, Yes, we want it, give us this. They never went

clamouring for it. I cannot understand it. The point I am getting to, Mr.

Speaker, is this: where was the freedom? I was never against amalgamation. The

concept is a good one. It is the approach taken in this particular process that

I was against, and am still against. That approach is wrong.

The minister said again today, that he had the power under

the old Municipalities Act to bring in regional government. Regional government

was introduced in this Province years ago and has worked well in other

municipalities. And the only voice the citizens of those municipalities have

had, Mr. Speaker, the only way their voice can be heard, especially when

something comes to the floor of this legislature, is through their member. We

have people in the House today who do not speak on behalf of their constituents,

and that to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.

Municipalities in this Province find it very hard to operate

as it is, and from now on they are going to find it a lot harder, because you

can't bite the hand that feeds you. Municipalities in this Province know where

their funding is coming from. Municipalities in this Province know quite well

that their own tax base is not great enough to sustain the services they need,

but why should one third of the Province get a particular slice of that budget

and the rest of the municipalities in the Province suffer? What is going to

guarantee the town of St. Philips, the town of Portugal Cove, the town of

Paradise, and those other municipalities that they are going to be any better

off? Where is the guarantee going to come from? Are they going to get any extra

funding? The Premier said this morning he is not going to buy amalgamation. He

is not going to compensate any municipality for amalgamating. Where is the

difference going to come from and what is going to be different in those

municipalities tomorrow? Some of those municipalities have a very large debt,

Mr. Speaker. I know of one to the tune of $5 million and the other three

municipalities that are going with it are debt-free, yet they are told to

amalgamate. Now, if someone can show me the logic behind a municipality - give

them a choice. Go to the municipalities and give them a choice. Say, This is it,

you had a chance, you did not do it, and now you are on your own. At least, give

them a choice. Give them an option. There is no such thing as an opting out

clause in any part of this bill, nothing that says they can stay out, or

whatever. Their representation is going to be very minimal from here on in,

especially when they are tied in with a very large municipality, or city, like

the City of St. John's.

The City of St. John's has some great concerns with this

particular bill. It seems that everything is rosy with the City of St. John's

and they have no problems with taking over those other municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Maybe so, but what are they going to do - I

will give you a few examples, Mr. Speaker, about the City of St. John's. In

answer to a question from me earlier this week, the Premier said amalgamation

was not going to cost any more for the taxpayers of St. John's. The Leader of

the Opposition questioned him yesterday and he was not sure and it could quite

possibly mean more taxes. Some of the concerns the City of St. John's and the

citizens of St. John's have, are tax-related. It all comes down to money. One of

the first things they have to do is hold elections. Who is going to pay for it?

The department has made no commitment. It is going cost anywhere between $60,000

and $90,000 to hold an election. The so-called transition team committees that

the minister had talking to these municipalities have not mentioned anything

about an election. They have not mentioned anything about what it is going to

cost the City of St. John's. At least that is what has been told me by

councillors on the council down there.

Other services: roads. Who is going to clear the roads? Is

Transportation going to take up that particular problem or is it going to become

a problem for the city of St. John's. Automatically it is in the regulations of

the city of St. John's Act that once the amalgamation takes place that, for

instance, the Goulds will have to pay the same rate as the city of St. John's.

That has to be done. That rate in this particular case this year will be based

on the assessment up to this year because the city of St. John's is now ready

for a new assessment. So if this particular bill goes through, for instance, in

this particular case the people of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park will be paying

the same mil rate as the people of St. John's today, but right away in the new

year a new assessment has to be done, thereby the taxes will be raised for all

municipalities again so there will be a double tax within a few months. The

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not going to get the blame for it,

the city of St. John's will get the blame for raising taxes, but they have no

choice. It is not a matter of raising taxes, it just comes automatically with

the assessment, and there is a good possibility that that assessment will be

high this year. I doubt if it will be down. But automatically the Goulds and

Wedgewood Park, in my understanding from the regulations under the city of St.

John's Act, automatically overnight they will have to pay the same mil rate as

the citizens of St. John's.

Now I do not want to get off the Regional Services Board Act

because the Minister stated this morning already that he thought that would be

okay. It would have been okay even if the city of Mount Pearl more or less was

going to go along - in fact they did go along with it after. There were only a

couple of clauses in it, and that was the fact that the Minister had the power

to pick a chairman, and once the councillors were designated he had the power

then to put them in place, and so on. But this is a particular Act that I think

would have worked, and he is right in saying that regional government is working

in the Province. It is nothing new though. I have to disagree with him there,

there is nothing new with regards to the recreational part of it because that

has been there for years under the previous administration under the eighty -

twenty deal. Now much of that might not be put in place, but that was a good

programme and the one he has today is a good programme, and it is the way that a

lot of municipalities in this Province have gone and I would say, Mr. Speaker,

will go if they were given the opportunity. And I will be the first to say

because of this amalgamation process you are going to see a lot of

municipalities in the Province go the regional route. But, Mr. Speaker, once you

are told that you have to amalgamate then it is a different thing.

Newfoundlanders do not like to be just told what to do, hammered into the

ground, they want to have a choice. In this case in my particular area of the

Province, we do not have regional government as such. Under the old

Municipalities Act it was there and is still there. It is still there pertaining

to other areas of the Province and other sections of the Province, but it is

working well with regards to incinerators, it is working well with regards to

fire brigades, and it is working well with regards to water services. Recreation

facilities under the old eighty - twenty agreement with the Department of

Municipal Affairs where municipalities in the area - I think it is three or more

municipalities, I do not know if that has changed or not - but three or more

municipalities had to sign an agreement saying that they would pick up the 20

per cent over a five year period, and the Government would fund it for the other

80 per cent. That was an excellent programme and I think, if I am not mistaken,

is still there today even including the engineering process for any

infrastructure in any community in the Province. That is there, it is working,

so why the rush? Why the haste? The Minister states that there are three other

areas: Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, Deer Lake, Spillway, and

Nicholsville, and the other is Kippens and Stephenville, and they are going to

be done before Christmas.

Municipalities in this Province have a deadline to meet with

regards to budgets, and that deadline, Mr. Speaker, is the end of December. Last

year, just after Boxing Day, the Minister came out with a new grant system and

here municipalities in the Province had their budgets done up, most of them sent

in - I would say probably all of them were sent in - and then he comes out

between Christmas and the New Year with a new grant system. What were

municipalities supposed to do?

Three years of restructuring, a system that took three years

to get their house in order with regards to a new grant system; no notice at

all, Mr. Speaker! Again it shows a lack of planning, a lack of direction and

this leaves municipalities just not knowing what to do. They are volunteers, 95

per cent of the municipalities of this Province today are operating with

volunteers; people, who after work in the evening and on weekends, go to their

council chambers and go to other municipalities on behalf of theirs, to try to

gain information and to try to speak for the people whom they represent, all on

a volunteer basis. They are not getting paid and the majority of municipalities

in the Province today operate on that system.

The bigger municipalities, yes, they are getting paid, so

they are expected to do certain things like us here in the Chamber; you are

expected to be there and you are expected to speak, you are expected to do what

is necessary for your constituents. But they are out there operating and what do

they get? We have members in this Chamber who sat on councils; the Member for

Carbonear, not only did he sit on a council as a mayor, but he was a member of

the Federation of Municipalities in this Province. We have the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage, who was a councillor and a former member of the Federation

of Municipalities; we have the Member for Menihek, a former Mayor of Goose Bay -

AN HON. MEMBER: Naskaupi.

MR. WOODFORD: - Naskaupi - no, Mayor of Goose Bay and

Member for Naskaupi; a former mayor and a former President?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WOODFORD: He is a former member of the Federation of

Municipalities. We have the Member for Placentia, a former mayor and a former

President of the Federation of Municipalities. I could go on. We have the

Minister himself, a former member of the council of the city of St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: He still is a member of St. John's

(inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: - and still is; and Walter Carter. I mean

we have all kinds of people opposite who served on municipalities in this

Province. It is not something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: - on this side of the House, but on that

side of the House, it is not like they did not know, that the Minister did not

have anybody to ask or consult with; he had good people, those particular people

whom I mentioned served their communities and served the Federation of

Municipalities well, because I served with some of them, I served with the

Member for Carbonear and I would be the first to say he did an excellent job -

MR. HODDER: What has happened to him lately?

MR. WOODFORD: Those people should have been consulted,

but were they? No, they were not consulted -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Clyde Wells got to him. Do not open your

mouth (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: - they were not consulted because if they

did, they could have told the Minister about rural Newfoundland, they could have

told him what was going to happen; they could have told him some of the problems

he was going to incur along the road to amalgamation. They could have told him,

Mr. Speaker, that it was going to be a very, very bumpy road and that he was

going to have to take a lot of detours, I can assure you, but they did not, and

that process in the last two and a half years has taken its toll on the

municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not know where to go; they

are here now.

I just mentioned three particular groupings that the Minister

said he would have a decision made on before the end of the year. I will not

name them again, but those particular municipalities, how can they do up a

budget and send it in, knowing possibly next week it is all going to be changed?

They cannot do it. Some of those municipalities this year, because of the grant

system which was instituted last December, are in financial trouble, despite

what the Minister said yesterday, they are in financial difficulty, running very

high deficits and do not know how they are going to meet it. What is going to

happen, to those who are volunteers, in the two-thirds of the fiscal year

running very high deficits? What is going to happen when the cheques start

bouncing? When the cheques start bouncing from municipalities? - when the

councillors - no doubt will walk out. Who is going to look after it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: If they're Liberals they'll get money, if

they're not they won't.

MR. WOODFORD: Or is this what it is all about? Is this an

inadvertent way or a roundabout way or whatever way you want to put it, Mr.

Speaker, of taking complete control? Because the Municipalities Act is no more

good to them. How much have we heard over the last number of years, especially

since the Province of Quebec instituted and used the notwithstanding clause with

regards to their bill on languages and sign language in Quebec? How much have we

heard from other provinces about this particular clause and how it should never

have been put in the Constitution? Every province in this country has the right

to use the notwithstanding clause. Quebec used it.

Throughout this particular Bill, it is funny,

'notwithstanding' this and 'notwithstanding' that, and 'notwithstanding' in the

last part The City of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The

Municipalities Act, notwithstanding. This particular Administration has used the

notwithstanding clause to their own liking.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To bulldoze their bill.

MR. WOODFORD: To bulldoze their bill, that is a good way

of putting it. Predators. We talked about coyotes this morning, (Inaudible) the

predator. The biggest predator on municipalities in the Province today is this

Administration. They are predators on the educational system. They have become

predators on the municipalities. Predators on the hospitals in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Increased by $100 million. Mr. Speaker.

Increased by $100 million and it is getting worse every day. If the hon. Member

had his salary - if his salary of a few years ago was the same as it is today he

would be in dire trouble, I can assure you. You talk about - I do not want to

leave this notwithstanding clause. Because as far as I am concerned this

Administration deviously right throughout this Act has used it, and has used it

in other acts as well in this House. The Constitution: we cannot go around this

country and this Province preaching about fairness and balance, how the Federal

Government should not do this and they should not do that. Give us a chance,

talk to us, meet with us, don't do anything behind closed doors. Put it in the

Constitution. Give us a Triple E Senate so we can have fairness and balance,

regional balance and a say in a regional government. Give us this, give us that.

And right here on our own doorstep we strip the municipalities in this Province

of the only constitution that they have, and that is the Municipalities Act.

Every clause, comma, period, section, and part that is in The

City Of St. John's Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, The

City Of Corner Brook Act - it is their constitution. They live, work, rule and

tax by it. That is their constitution. And yet we can come to the Chamber of the

House with absolutely no say, no input, and take it away. That is to me the

biggest case of hypocrisy that I have ever seen in this House. Stripping them,

giving them absolutely no say. Doing that, as far as I am concerned, still using

the so-called notwithstanding clause right here in this Chamber and in

particular pertaining to this particular Bill. I am sure it will be used

further.

The Federation of Municipalities in this Province, they

represent pretty well every municipality in this Province. To my understanding I

do not think, as of this morning, that the president of the Federation of

Municipalities of this Province has even got a copy of this Act. I contacted two

or three municipalities last night and they never saw a copy. They have not seen

a copy of this Act. As far as I am concerned the Federation of Municipalities in

this Province, over the past two and a half years, have been treated with

contempt. They are only tools for the Minister and this Administration. It is

not acceptable and I will say, and I stand by it, that the Federation of

Municipalities and the municipalities it represents are going to become nothing

more than a collection agency for this particular Administration. That is what

will happen. We are talking about the Federal Government. The Federal Government

did this, the Federal Government did that. They are taking away this and they

are taking away that. What is this particular Government doing to the

municipalities in this Province? We have three levels of Government in this

country. We have the Federal Government, we have the Provincial Government, and

we have the Municipal Government. Every level of Government deserves respect,

every level of Government deserves some notice, and every level of Government

always, and this particular route in particular, are always talking about the

Federal Government doing this and the Federal Government doing that. How about

shifting the game close to home and saying, what about the third level of

Government in this Province and that is the municipalities?

Everywhere we look they are down-loading on the

municipalities in this Province and expecting volunteers in this Province to do

the job of paid politicians and paid bureaucrats in this Province, and that is

what is going to happen. I do not have to tell the Member for Carbonear how hard

it was to try to run a community. It was not easy at the best of times and it is

getting worse. It is getting worse, and worse, and worse. They should be

recognized and they should be at least given the decency of a so-called hearing.

They should be told and treated with respect when it comes to anything that this

particular Administration is going to do especially when it comes to forcing

amalgamation.

You can laugh about it, you can joke about it, and you can do

whatever else you like about it, but the fundamental problem is communication.

There is absolutely no co-operation or communication between this Provincial

Administration and the municipalities in this Province. Ask the municipalities.

Ask the President of the Federation of Municipalities. Ask the Members of the

Federation of Municipalities what kind of co-operation they are getting. I

talked to them just a little while ago. I keep in contact. There was a piece in

the paper the other day about how they were going to meet with the Premier and

from what I have been told some people were upset as to the route they had to go

in order to get a meeting with the Minister. Now, that to me is wrong, it is not

right, and it is treating the municipalities in this Province, especially the

Federation of Municipalities who are representing those communities, with

contempt. That, Mr. Speaker, to me is sending a message. If we are going to get

dictatorial when it comes to cuts in hospital beds, in education, and everything

else in this Province, we are going to be dictatorial when it comes to telling

you what to do. You do it. We are going to give you the money and we will tell

you how to spend it. Rating sheets out in Jackson's Arm, rating sheets up in

Hampden. How are they going to accept any capital funding? I do not know if any

Members opposite even saw a rating sheet. I have my doubts if they saw any of

the rating sheets. How municipalities in this Province are going to keep to any

of this and expect to get funding. How are they going to do it? They have to

meet need and safety, fifty-five points for cost shared paving and road

reconstruction projects. Servicing factors, twenty-five points. This

Administration is famous for the point system. Point system for drivers, point

system for municipalities. The only place they do not have a point system for is

their own.

Financial, twenty points. Now, this is just the headings when

it comes to cost share paving in every municipality. If we look at what is under

it - poor, fair, good - retaining walls, bridges, road classification. Mr.

Speaker, we have, I would say, 80 per cent of the municipalities in this

Province, as I said before, looked after and governed by people who are

committed and dedicated. People who work all day long out on construction, in

the fields, in the fishing boats, and at Government jobs around this Province,

trying to come home in the evening and sit down and try to draw up a budget for

a municipality probably with 60 per cent or 70 per cent unemployment.

Now they should be heroes, they should be given a medal.

Because if you had some of them in around here we would have a lot better

Province in which to live, I can assure you. Because anybody who can draw up a

budget in some of those municipalities today and keep the municipality going,

and make it survive, I guarantee you, they need a pat on the back, I can assure

you. They need one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Herb Kitchen should hire (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, maybe the Minister of Finance should

go out and get some of them, I will tell you that. But the sad thing about all

this is that when they do up the budget - they are not allowed by the way, under

the Municipalities Act, to send in a deficit budget. That has to be balanced.

Don't send a budget in to me that is not balanced because we will not accept it.

We will give you permission to borrow, based on the amount of local revenue, but

do not ask for anything more. You have a deficit, that is it, do it up on that.

Period.

One municipality in my particular area, Jackson's Arm, has 92

per cent unemployment. Fish plant gone in Jackson's Arm, fish plant gone in

Sop's Arm. How in the name of God can they do up - no infrastructure. I heard

Members talk this morning about the great - you know, we are going to have

infrastructure, every municipality looking for an industrial park. Looking for

this, looking for that.

I say to the Minister, what is going to change tomorrow

morning when this particular Bill goes through that is going to make that any

different? Not a bit! You think the Town of St. Phillips' is not going to be

looking for the same things it looked for yesterday? You think the Town of

Paradise is not going to be looking for the same things it is looking for today?

Do they think the Town of Goulds is going to give up anything?

AN HON. MEMBER: They want more and they want it faster.

MR. WOODFORD: They want more and they want it faster is

right. Those problems are still going to be there. The only thing that is going

to be missing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister is going to have seven or eight

municipalities that are not going to be looking for meetings. That he will not

have to send correspondence to. That he will not have to bring in on an

individual basis and say: boy, we will give you $30,000 for this or $30,000 for

that. They will give it through Paradise, they will give it through the city of

St. John's, and they will give it through the Towns of Portugal Cove and St.

Phillip's. That is the only difference. The rest of it remains the same. Not a

thing different at all, not a thing. Those municipalities are not going to be

taken and put on a tractor trailer and moved away. They are not going to be

towed somewhere else, although I would say, if they had the chance they would.

But they are not moving. The people are not all moving into

St. John's or Paradise. The people of the Goulds are not moving out into St.

John's. Everything stays the same. The only difference is, you have less to deal

with, they are all paying taxes to the one particular council, and that

particular council then is expected to provide the services for those

municipalities, the same as they do, for instance, in St. John's. Right away the

city of St. John's has to bring the rural areas up to urban standards. They have

to! Now, when the citizens of St. John's see all the improvements in the Goulds

or in Wedgewood Park, or I guess a better one to use would be in Portugal Cove,

St. Philip's, Hogan's Pond area, and so on. When they see all this they are

going to say what are we paying taxes for? We need this and we need that.

Because of the fact that the Government is not putting any money up front - they

are putting absolutely nothing up front. If there was some kind of a transition

grant in place, and I can remember, if I am not mistaken on this, that when Shea

Heights and Airport Heights were put with the city of St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kilbride.

MR. WOODFORD: Kilbride, that there was a transition

grant, a plan put in place that over a period of eight or ten years the city

would be reimbursed for bringing those particular areas up to urban standards. I

think it was a grant paid over an eight or ten year period, and that is the way

it should be. If they went into municipalities and said, 'look, we will help

you.' I have a municipality over there: Deer Lake, Nicholsville, Spillway. It is

going to cost $10 million to bring Spillway, Nicholsville and the infrastructure

in Deer Lake up to the point where it can be the same, where they can provide

services to Nicholsville and Spillway. If they are amalgamated tomorrow morning,

how is the town of Deer Lake going to pay for those services to Nicholsville and

Spillway? They cannot. They can, but there is only one way to do it, and that is

to push the mil rate sky high. Now some hon. members will say yes, but

Nicholsville and Spillway will be paying the same mil rate as Deer Lake. They

will, but I do not have to tell hon. members what that is going to do.

The infrastructure, the water lines and everything that is in

Deer Lake, is satisfactory to Deer Lake, but when they have to go up to the main

dam and put in larger pipes - a sixteen inch pipe - in order to service not only

Deer Lake but the other outlying areas, that costs money. That costs money. The

sewer lines cannot handle it. The first thing you need is a sewage treatment

plant which is $6 million or $7 million. They cannot afford it, and that is the

type of thing I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. There has to be more planning,

there has to be more consultation, and there has to be more co-operation with

those municipalities. You cannot just go in and say do this and do that, and we

are going to do this and do that. We cannot do it. Now the consistency shown

opposite is just not there. Out here now under this Bill there are going to be a

bunch of municipalities amalgamated. All kinds of problems. We have people in

the gallery today who are graphic evidence of one of the problems. A

municipality, as I said before, that is paying its way - I just named two or

three this morning that I knew about out here. That is another one. The city of

Mount Pearl paying its own way, not costing anybody a cent, in fact, paying more

than they should be paying. Good tax payers. No burden on society, no burden on

this Administration. But I am sorry boys, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry. We

are not only going to amalgamate the other areas, but we are going to make sure

- we will not put Mount Pearl in with St. John's because the Premier said out to

a Chamber of Commons meeting, I believe, that because of the public outcry, and

the large percentage of the public in Mount Pearl who were against it, we will

not do it, but we will make darn sure that you are not going to grow any

further. You have what you have. You have your 23,000 or 24,000, and that is all

you are getting because we are going to take Southlands out, and we are going to

strip everything from around you. You cannot move. You can have your so called

city of Mount Pearl, but that is where you stay.

AN HON. MEMBER: And after the next election, if he wins

you are gone.

MR. WOODFORD: And after the next election - that is what

I was getting to - because after the next election if the 25 per cent of the

citizens of Mount Pearl who are in the Minister's district thinks that is going

to stay as it is, you have another think coming because after the next election

I would say the next bill - it could be Bill 51 if they are going to keep the

numbers in line - that will be the one saying to Mount Pearl: 'I am sorry boys,

you are gone.'

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to win first.

MR. WOODFORD: But he has to win first, remember that and

keep that in mind. There are thirty-one firemen if I am not mistaken, or

twenty-six. They should remember that for the next election, and every one of

them start knocking on doors. That will be a good campaign thing.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated yesterday in questioning

from me about municipalities in the Province when I asked him about the rating

sheets; I asked him if he was going to stick to it and he said yes, he was going

to stick to it. I asked him if he was going to give municipalities in the

Province any consideration, those who are having real problems with their

deficit because of the new grant system, if he was going to do anything with it,

if he was going to extend the three year deadline, if he was going to abolish it

altogether and give the municipalities a better chance to try to recoup and to

try to bring in line -

These are hard times, Mr. Speaker; it is no secret. The

municipalities in this Province are no different than this Government and no

different than the Federal Government; we are all in the same boat and Mr.

Speaker, we are taxing the same people. The Feds tax us, the Province taxes us,

the municipalities tax us, we are all taxing the same people, the only

difference is the distribution of taxes; the fairness and balance in the

distribution of taxes in this Province has to change, no question; no question.

But Mr. Speaker, there is a better way in doing - I said it at the outset that I

am not against amalgamation, I am not against the concept; I am against the

approach taken and the way this was handled.

If the city of Mount Pearl was given a chance of coming under

a regional services board, why not leave them alone? Why not leave them alone,

what is the difference? They have operated before and never caused anybody any

harm, they can operate today, tomorrow not causing anybody any harm and I just

do not understand the rationale behind it. I do not know how much time I have

left, Mr. Speaker, because to cover everything when it comes to municipalities

in this Province you could speak for a month. One of the things I would like to

touch on - there are a couple of things I would like to touch on directly in the

Bill - is pertaining to the new structure for the regional fire service. It is a

regional fire service anyway; and the new structure under this particular act

for fire fighters within the municipalities, says - I have forgotten what

section it is now - the fire fighters of St. John's are unionized.

We are taking in Wedgewood Park and the Goulds. The Goulds

has a volunteer fire brigade and a good one; that is the only way that

municipalities around this Province can operate, especially in the smaller areas

of the Province; there is no other way for them to operate. But the Goulds in

this particular case, and I would say this is probably why it is in the act -

something that the fire fighters in St. John's should keep in mind and I would

say the fire fighters in Mount Pearl - because if this act goes through, it is

automatic that those people would lose their jobs and probably have to go

through the fire department in St. John's in order to get a job.

The fire department in St. John's as I understand it have six

people gone; six people dropped over the last few months or so and it is only

automatic then that if this goes through that this is dead, those fellows who

trained, women who trained hard for a job with their own tax money, under their

own council, will be told to hit the road. So where do they go then if they want

a job with their so called regional fire service to which their tax dollars are

going - their tax dollars are going right into the City of St. John's; they have

to come back then and try for a job there.

Now what is going to happen?

Section 353 (2) of the Act, it says: The council shall

establish, operate and maintain the fire department which shall be composed of

paid employees or partly of paid employees, and partly of volunteers and acquire

or provide fire halls, fire alarm systems and so on and so on.

There are three statements here, composed of paid employees,

or partly of paid employees and partly of volunteers. Now, Mr. Speaker how is

that going to work? You have a paid fire fighters association in St. John's, and

we have a volunteer one, for instance, in the Goulds.

If the people from Mount Pearl do get hired through the other

system, they will come under the union. Now, how is it going to work with regard

to the Goulds?

AN HON. MEMBER: It cannot be done.

MR. WOODFORD: Is the Government saying to those people,

probably by attrition - the City of St. John's Fire Department has six gone now

- are they saying that over a period of time your numbers are going to get lower

and lower and lower, or are they saying the opposite that, listen, we will

operate with both. We will operate with a paid fire department in the City of

St. John's covering the regional area, but we will have our volunteer fire

brigade in the Goulds. We have other areas outside that now, but that is one in

particular under that particular region. What is the answer? That is not

answered, and I am sure that the Minister opposite is not going to get up and

categorically state that we are doing this or that, because it is very vague. It

is in there for that reason. Now it is up to those people to ask the questions.

I would say that the answers they are going to get, Mr. Speaker, will be just as

vague as the particular statement and clause in this particular act.

The last part of Bill 50,

Part VII, under 'Resolution,'

Section 3, Mr. Speaker: "In addition to establishing and altering the boundaries

of the cities and towns under subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

may, in the order referred to in that subjection, (

a) amalgamate a town with a

town or city and annex areas to a city or town." What does that say? I talked to

a couple of my colleagues this morning, and they say that possibly it just

pertains to this particular area. Is it possible that they can go outside,

anywhere in the Province? I do not know. The Minister can probably answer that

when he does get up.

Section 3 (b): "establish an area as a town; and (

c) disestablish a town." They are strong statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can do what they like when they

like.

MR. WOODFORD: What it says is 'notwithstanding'. That is

powerful stuff. If that is so, we do not have to come back to the House any

more. We do not have to come back to the House any more. This legislation is

dictatorial. Those three particular sections, (a), (

b) and (

c) say it all. They

say it all, and using the notwithstanding clause is worse than the situation in

put up French signs or else. At least they could still operate and go around. To

hell with the signs; everybody knew where you lived. Everybody knew where to go.

But in this particular situation you are stripping, taking away the democratic

right of rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today to have a say over their

own affairs.

If this Administration wants to do away with municipalities,

then do away with them. Take them over. But take the onus and the responsibility

off the backs and shoulders of the people in those areas who are trying to run a

local government during very, very hard times, and against very, very difficult

odds. As far as I am concerned, this is discriminatory. I do not know, but if

this particular

section of this act was challenged under the Charter of Rights,

I would say that this particular part of this act would be struck down. That is

strong stuff - establish an area as a town, and disestablish an area as a town.

It is just as well to take the Municipalities Act, and the City of St. John's

Act, and the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, and throw

them in the garbage. As far as I am concerned they are nonexistent, and what is

the point? I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that municipalities in the Province use

the Municipalities Act as their bible. They use it as their constitution. They

have nothing else to go by. What do they go by now? It is very ad hoc; there is

no consistency.

I remember when we were there in the federation; we used to

have amendments now and again coming out of resolutions from the main body of

the Federation of Municipalities. We would get some of them passed. More would

be lingering, and left there, and left there, and left there, and we would be

crying 'change it'. At least though, we could look at this and say - and do what

we wanted to do. We could take this and go by it for our own protection, if none

other, and for the protection of the people whom we represented. We cannot do

that today. We cannot take this Act today and we cannot take all the amendments

of that Act today and store them in there in our own computers and say that we

can go by it. They cannot, because they do not know what is coming next.

How can a body like the Federation of Municipalities, which

is representing every municipality in this Province, speak on behalf of their

municipalities, expect their municipalities to pay dues, and then come in here

and be treated with contempt? They cannot. To my knowledge, as of this morning,

the president of the Federation of Municipalities did not see a copy of this

Act. Now that to me is criminal. That takes me back to the sub-judice question

brought up by our House Leader yesterday.

What is any more criminal than stripping sections from the

Municipalities Act without any consultations with the rest of the municipalities

in this Province? What, may I ask? And if it is looked at in that light, I mean,

you talk about predators, and you talk about criminals. There is nothing more

criminal you can do. As far as I am concerned that is the basic right of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That is democracy. Democracy I always thought

was a matter of choice. But it is not being practised. They are not being

consulted. There is no cooperation. Until we do have cooperation we are going to

have nothing good said about the Department of Municipal Affairs. We are getting

it every day, and the Minister knows quite well that the Federation of

Municipalities is fed up. He may not get up here in the House and say it but

they are. They have all kinds of problems with the Department, with the way

things are handled.

In September, I suppose every municipality gets a copy of

this, the municipal news, go through that - executive director's report - and

talk about problems. Little progress has been made on any of them - talking

about issues that came up the previous year. There are other issues of

significance which also remain on the LMFM's agenda, namely amalgamation. Slow

and simmering discontent with the process and the results as they are now

emerging. That the merits of individual cases, the basic level of trust among

the participants, and trust that the process is indeed a fair and reasonable

one. These are not statements from me, these are not statements coming from a

politician. Those are statements made by the Federation of Municipalities

representing every municipality in this Province.

What about the regional services boards? This legislation has

been adopted without change from the initial proposal. However, it has not yet

been proclaimed and may not be for some time. I asked the question yesterday:

why isn't that proclaimed? Because the Minister could do the same thing under

the Regional Services Board Act with a couple of changes and satisfy a lot more

municipalities in this Province than he did through forced amalgamation. You

could do all those things under the Regional Services Board Act and I would say

that municipalities in this Province would probably go along with it.

I mean all this brings obvious financial implications to

municipalities in the Province. How are they going to survive? They go on.

Municipal general assistance grant, have real problems with it; taxation, real

problems; the Municipalities Act review, you might as well throw that out. What

is the point of reviewing the Municipalities Act? What is the good? It is just

as well to forget it and throw it out the door, it is absolutely no good.

Because as far as I am concerned, when you see bills like this come into the

House, there is no point in having

an act. Because it is no good for

municipalities to say that they are going to follow it. They can't! It is

changing every other day and there is no way in the world for them to follow it.

The Minister and his bureaucrats came like thieves in the

night and took away from the municipalities in this Province the basic,

fundamental, democratic right that they had to govern their own affairs. They

have not, despite what the Minister says, as of today got complete autonomy over

their own affairs. You talk to mayors and councillors in this Province today and

they have not. If they have it, they certainly do not feel like they have it. I

think that is wrong.

I always used to attend the Humber joint council meetings.

Over the years the Federation of Municipalities meetings. I will tell you the

situation that municipalities are in today. You can cut and cut until you get to

the bone. The question I asked then, is what do you do with the bone?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: When we get there everybody knows what

happens then. Listen to the hon. Member for LaPoile. If the hon. Member has

something to talk about, (Inaudible), you should get up and stand up for the

municipalities in your area. Stand up for the taxpayers whom you represent, who

in the new year I would say are going to be hit with a full mil rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Frequent. Get up and speak with authority

for your municipalities and tell them where you stand. Don't get on the fence

because one of those days you are going to fall off and both legs are going to

go both ways, and I do not have to tell you what is going to happen.

MR. HODDER: His constituents don't even talk to him so he

wouldn't know what is going on!

MR. WOODFORD: Stand up for the municipalities you

represent. You are taxing the same -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it puts me in mind of an old

fellow one time. An old fellow one time came into the field and he asked about a

tree they had there. He asked me about a plant, and he said: I am wondering how

does that grow? He said: I wonder what it is like? And he went over until I

caught him, and he was about to haul it up. Well I stopped him and I said: what

were you doing? He said: I was going to haul it up to see what kind of roots

were on it, see how it was growing. Now that's something.

Same thing applies to the gentlemen opposite. They went and

uprooted and took the guts out of the municipalities in this Province and now

they are taking a good look at it. Because they are holding it high. They are

taking a good look at the root system because it is going in every municipality

around this Province. But I will tell you one thing, that municipalities in this

Province will remember some of the objections coming from this side; they will

remember that some Members opposite did not speak on their behalf; and they will

remember. Because you know why? It is going to hit the pocket book. When it hits

the pocket book come January or February in this Province, it also hits the

stomach and the heart. That is when it starts to hurt.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, trying to stifle debate. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gets up to try to clue up this

Bill, trying to stifle -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: I wonder if by leave I could answer a

question raised by the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has leave.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: It won't take a second. Mr. Speaker, the

question was raised - and I think it is important that I answer it before debate

goes on - as to who pays for the elections in the amalgamated areas. Whether it

be the northeast I guess or anywhere else in the Province. In fact, the first

election for a new council caused by amalgamation, a new council being formed, a

new municipality being formed, in that first election, all expenses are covered

by the Province.

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

West.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) what a plum though, eh? Put you

in debt the rest of your life but pay for the first election.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words to say

in this debate as well, as it relates to the slaughter that is being implemented

by this Government on the municipalities throughout the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. I do not think that any of us, Mr. Speaker, can get much enjoyment

today from debating this issue. I do not think we can do it with much pride. I

do not think it is a day when any of us, who take this situation in the Province

seriously, can get much enjoyment from debating a piece of legislation that is

equivalent to Bill 101 that was introduced in the Quebec Legislature some years

ago. That is the sad reflection, Mr. Speaker, of what this bill is all about.

The notwithstanding clause that was used in the Legislature

of Quebec, denying people the basic -

MR. GRIMES: What a pile of foolishness! Don't be so

silly,' getting on with that nonsense.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, the notwithstanding clause in Quebec is no

different from the notwithstanding clause here. It denies the people their basic

rights. They have done it in Quebec, and he has done it here, when he sits in a

Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, and votes for a bill that clearly states, 'Notwithstanding

The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The St. John's

Metropolitan Act, and The Municipalities Act.' That is what is there, Mr.

Speaker, 'Notwithstanding what is in them, we will do what we like.' That's what

is in this piece of legislation before the House today, 'We will do what we

like.' Tear up The Municipalities Act, Mr. Speaker, tear up The City Of St.

John's Act, and tear up The Mount Pearl Act, tear up The Metropolitan Board Act,

tear them all up and throw them away, Mr. Speaker. 'Notwithstanding that, what

this Government feels is right, we will do. What everybody else thinks is wrong,

is not important.' That's what is in this piece of legislation.

What purpose will be served, Mr. Speaker, by the Federation

of Municipalities in this Province anymore?

MR. EFFORD: Isn't it the same way Conception Bay South

was done?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Port de Grave, Mr. Speaker,

would be well-advised to worry about his fishing license.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That's what is in this act - 'Notwithstanding

any of that, that's what is going to happen.' We have seen amalgamation, Mr.

Speaker, being put in place in this Province through a program of consultation,

particularly in Grand Falls and Windsor, where it probably took ten years to

negotiate it. But when it was done, it was done acceptably to the people of

Grand Falls and Windsor. Why the hurry? Why the hobnailed boots approach, Mr.

Speaker, by this Government and this minister, in terms of forcing amalgamation

upon the people? Why deny them their democratic rights? Are we not elected to a

legislature, Mr. Speaker, where we debate issues, where we listen to the people,

where we act upon the requests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

including the Northeast Avalon, or is it what this Government wants to do? Is it

what this Government wants to do, Mr. Speaker, that has to be inflicted upon the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

What we are involved in today is not strictly a debate on the

Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker. What we are involved in today as a legislature,

in opposing this bill, is fighting for democracy because it is dead, it is

slaughtered, it was thrown to the wolves in this bill. That's what is happening,

Mr. Speaker. The notwithstanding clause in this Act, against the wishes of the

people living in the Northeast Avalon -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) democracy.

MR. TOBIN: We've seen how you stood up for democracy when

they put the boots to the people in terms of a health care system in your

district. We've seen that, Mr. Speaker, and we will see what will happen to you

come the next election. We will see all of that.

Mr. Speaker, this is far too important for the yaps from the

Member for LaPoile. We are involved here in fighting for the rights of

democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. TOBIN: Where is that? The notwithstanding clause, Mr.

Speaker, is on page 23 of the Act, the top of the page.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province supports

that type of a bulldozer approach. If you do not agree with it, then take it and

put up with it, that is the approach that has been taken here.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the Member for Port

de Grave to keep quiet and let me speak in this debate. I ask for the protection

of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that is asking for too much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has requested silence.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have communities in my own

district the communities of Lewin's Cove, Burin, and Port au Bras, and Mortier,

Fox Cove that have been suggested for amalgamation, and I don't know what is

going to happen. I really don't know what is going to happen, nor do they, Mr.

Speaker. This Government is saying, in letters signed by the Premier, that if

you do not want to amalgamate you will not have to. That is one letter. In the

next letter, Mr. Speaker, he is saying, whatever the House decides. Well it will

soon be time to make up his mind, because what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is

that there is total confusion in all of these towns that are being forced. I

have seen the recommendations of the commissioners, where they recommended that

there would be an amalgamation take place with Burin, Lewin's Cove and Port au

Bras in the first phase, and Fox Cove, Mortier in the second phase, after some

consideration being given to the financial plight. How does the minister expect,

in 1991, to have amalgamation take place when this year, under the capital

funding for water systems, the best he could offer the people of Port au Bras,

because of the desperate situation they are in, was a well and a draw bucket? A

well and a draw bucket is what they got this year, Mr. Speaker, in terms of

capital works.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the Member for Port

de Grave to take it easy. If he wants to go yell and shout there may be another

forum for him to do it in, but this is not the place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is the

rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Throw him out! Throw him out!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, again I ask for your protection.

Again I ask the right to be heard in silence, and if the Speaker does not wish

that, then no one wi