November

21, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 59

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to correct some major

errors that have recently been reported by the media in relation to government's

light vehicle fleet.

In 1991, government issued a directive to reduce the light

vehicle fleet, which includes sedans, station wagons, vans, pick-ups and 4-wheel

drives. As a result, government's light vehicle fleet was reduced from 1,217

units to 917 units.

Mr. Speaker, since that time Vehicle Fleet Management has

made every effort to control fleet size and structure. Vehicle replacements are

permitted only when the vehicle in question is unsafe or uneconomical to keep in

service, and even then only if the unit is proven to be definitely required to

maintain a mandated service. This action has subsequently reduced the fleet to

its present total, 876 units.

Mr. Speaker, these 876 units are significantly lower than the

approximately 1,500 units that have been incorrectly reported by the media.

Where they came up with this inaccurate number is uncertain, but I hope they

will do the right thing and correct this misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, also in 1991, government ordered that all

vehicle rentals in excess of thirty days be approved by Vehicle Fleet

Management. A review of vehicle rentals for the past four years shows that

rental costs have decreased by approximately $470,000 and the total units rented

decreased from 227 units to 145 units, or 82 units total.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, government has been continuously

looking for more efficient and more cost-effective ways to operate. Vehicle

Fleet Management will continue to monitor and control the size and structure of

the government-owned fleet as well as vehicle rentals in an effort to reduce

cost wherever possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

thank the minister for sending over a copy of his statement five minutes before

the House opened.

He says that the light vehicle fleet was reduced from 1,217

units to 917 units. Why should the people of the Province trust those figures

when the government doesn't even know how many employees they have employed?

He says that vehicle replacements are made only when the

vehicles are unsafe, and I have to question that. How does he know when the

vehicles are unsafe when he has dropped motor vehicle inspections?

He says the fleet is now down to 876 units, but I believe

that is really too many units when we have health care cuts in this Province.

Maybe if government looked at proper management in the departments themselves,

instead of having separate vehicles, they should look at having a proper car

pool and allotment that way, Mr. Speaker. Also, he says that in 1991, government

ordered all vehicles rentals in excess of thirty days be approved by Vehicle

Fleet Management.

Now, that goes to the point of saying, every twenty-eight

days we could have the same vehicle renewed or rented, Mr. Speaker, and he says

that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, he says that

the cost has been decreased by $470,000, but he did not say how much he actually

spent on vehicle rentals this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier.

In the next few days, before the end of the month, the

Federal Liberal Government will be making a major announcement about radical

changes in Unemployment Insurance. I ask the Premier: how much money will the UI

cuts cost Newfoundland and Labrador? How much money will the Newfoundland and

Labrador economy lose as a result of the UI cuts during the short-term

transition period, and then annually, beyond the transition period, and how will

the Premier propose to make up the loss?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same today

as it was last week when she asked the question.

I still don't have the detail of what the Federal Government

is proposing. Now, I have taken a variety of steps that I am not prepared to

make public right at this time. They have been in progress for the last month

and certain plans that had been made, were derailed for other reasons, but I

have taken steps and I expect that within the next little while I will be able

to provide the House with some more detailed information. But, as at this

moment, the answers are precisely the same as they were last week.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the fate of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Newfoundland

and Labrador families and communities is in the hands of a passive, silent

Premier.

I ask the Premier: Are you still pushing your Income

Supplementation Program, even though the ISP has been scorned by thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and even though the ISP has been rejected as

an option by the Federal Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: All of that introduction was so much

balderdash and that's all I need say about it, typical balderdash, but, Mr.

Speaker, we have been addressing the issue in a serious way and we will continue

to do so, with an objective to achieving results rather than making political

noise. Now, that's the approach we intend to take.

In terms of the question about the ISP, I believe the day

will come when the Leader of the Opposition will be eating her words, when she

will find that the ISP is the real answer to many of the concerns that trouble

not only this Province in terms of employment opportunities and protection of

income, but trouble much of Atlantic Canada and a good deal of the rest of the

country. I believe the day will come when we will see the ISP widely accepted,

not only in this Province, but in much of the rest of the country as well.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the Premier is still pushing the ISP.

I have another question for the Premier: Has the Chrtien

Government discussed with the Provincial Government, the option of provinces

delivering employment training programs instead of having the Federal

Government's Human Resources Development, HRD, handle training, and if this

choice is available to Newfoundland and Labrador, what will this government do,

I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I agree, the Federal

Government ought not really to be involved in detailed training programs. That

is a trespass on the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is a legitimate complaint

that Quebec has made for years because the Federal Government uses its spending

power to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, smaller provinces like Newfoundland and

Labrador, and other smaller provinces, have welcomed these expenditures because

they are money that we might not otherwise have to spend. What the Federal

Government should really be doing is increasing the level of equalization and

getting out of these kinds of programs and letting the Province set its own

priorities in training, health, and other matters. That is the right way to deal

with it.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: The Premier has past been silent as the

Chrtien government both cuts transfer payments and downloads program

responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on something

that he is directly responsible for. Has the Premier completed his count of

temporary employees, and staff with deputy minister and assistant deputy

minister status in government departments and agencies? If the Premier has

completed his count, what are the numbers? Since the Premier is personally

responsible for deputy ministers, will the Premier confirm that while he has

fourteen departments, there are more than twice as many government officials

with deputy minister status?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, most of what the hon. member

said is not correct, either. The numbers have not been totally completed. I say

a list and it wasn't totally complete so I sent it back to have added to it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: And to address - yes, and it is being done

and it will be tabled. Part of the problem is getting the full information on

the comparables in 1989. The preliminary indications are that the number is well

less by 20 per cent than what it was in 1989 in the deputy minister and

assistant deputy minister level appointments, but I want to make sure that

everything is included as it stands at this moment in 1995, that there is

nothing left out, no basis for complaint or criticism, everything is included

but that everything is included in 1989 as well.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, can it ever be possible that the Premier

of this Province, after being asked repeatedly in the House of Assembly, cannot

tell the people of the Province how many officials are on the government payroll

with deputy minister status?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the total number at the

moment, as nearly as I can understand, will be in the neighbourhood of about

110. There was 129 in 1989, now I know it is down by that much. The comparables,

Mr. Speaker, and I want to make sure that all of the comparables are included,

that we don't fail to include anybody. The preliminary assessment - I have had a

deputy clerk of the council working on it for several days to make sure that he

includes everybody, the indications are at the moment that there are about 20

per cent less now then there was six years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

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

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of a value

added production line that produce a product known as Surimi at the Terra Nova

fisheries plant located in Clarenville? I would like to ask the minister if he

is aware that this particular production line is now being dismantled and

shipped outside of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed I am aware of the Surimi production line at

Clarenville but I must say, I am not aware that it is being dismantled and

shipped out of the Province. If that is the case we will certainly find out and

I will report back to this House.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to tell the minister that I

am aware that it is being shipped out of the Province and from what I understand

it is being taken out as we speak here today. I would like to also ask the

minister if he would be kind enough to check to see if there are any provincial

loan guarantees or if any provincial taxpayers money was used to purchase this

Surimi equipment and if it is I would like to ask him to find out now or let the

House know if the Province is going to be reimbursed now that this particular

piece of equipment is going to be taken outside of the Province and operated in

Canso, Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure this hon.

House that I will have a full investigation of this issue. If these claims that

the hon. member is making are indeed true proper action will be taken, rest

assured of that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've got a question

for the Premier. Over the last few weeks I've questioned the Minister of Natural

Resources on a number of occasions with regard to a tax amendment for mineral

finds such as Voisey's Bay that the Premier promised in the last sitting of the

House. The minister has given general assurances that the thing is forthcoming

but very little in the way of specifics as to time or how or the nature of such

an amendment. Can the Premier indicate whether or not such an amendment to

increase revenue intake from Voisey's Bay will be brought forward in this

particular sitting of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Green Bay.

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

well for the Minister of Natural Resources. It has been a while since we've had

an update in this House as to the fate of the Terra Nova project, where it sits

now on its way to development. I wonder as well could the minister give us some

indication of where the oil find on the West Coast is at at this present time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: I will start with Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody in the Province knows that we've been negotiating with the Terra Nova

consortium for some time. We've had lots and lots of meetings, we've made great

progress, but we are not there yet. When we get there we will tell the public

and be glad to do so.

Secondly, the oil find on the West Coast. As far as I know

there is no oil find on the West Coast. Whatever the company may or may not have

found it will tell us two years from August 1, 1995 because they have two years'

confidentiality under the law from August 1, 1995, the date they released the

rig from the first well.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that all

the speculation in the press, all the reports in the media, of oil or gas being

burned off at night being visible for miles, all of this is the stuff of

imagination, or is the minister just being coy with the situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying anything about

the flares that have been seen. Things are real. When something is real it is

real. I just said that there is no oil find and there has not been any

announcement of any oil find. We will have to wait and see.

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

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

the Minister of Justice.

On Saturday morning there was a Mr. Kevin Smith from

Conception Bay South found dead in a cell at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, early

Saturday morning. The minister said yesterday in a Ministerial Statement that it

was either late Friday night or early Saturday morning that the death occurred.

Some reports now have stated that it was from natural causes. Could the minister

tell the House what type of surveillance is used at the Penitentiary now? Is it

actual, physical surveillance, the use of cameras, or a combination of both?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, first of all a minor slip by my

hon. friend, Mr. Smith died in the lockup here in St. John's, not at the

Penitentiary here in St. John's. I have not yet received the full reports that I

have requested. I expected I would have them by now but I do not. In fact, I am

just looking at a note from one of my officials telling me that I should have

them shortly; and, of course, the police investigation will take whatever time

it takes. I will not see that, and indeed will know nothing about it until the

police take whatever decision they consider appropriate on the basis of whatever

evidence they may gather. With that said, let me come back to the narrow point.

My understanding, subject to getting the full reports - all I

have had are oral briefings at this stage - my understanding is that video

surveillance equipment was in place, as it is supposed to be, and that there was

a video record, in fact, of what occurred in the lockup, or the relevant

portions of the lockup, that evening.

Now the hon. gentleman may have some supplementaries, and I

shall try to respond to them, but I must say to him and to the House that I

cannot go very much further. Not only is there a criminal investigation under

way; there is an investigation which is being carried out by the adult

corrections officials, as I said yesterday, and on that at least I shall be able

to report as soon as I have something to report.

I think that answers the hon. gentleman's question, but I

will obviously try to answer any supplementaries he may wish to raise.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if there was

a physical surveillance in this particular case at the lockup, and the minister

has stated that there was camera surveillance there, and it was determined at

7:45 a.m. that this gentleman was found dead in the cell, is there anything to

indicate so far to the minister that that cell was checked, once that gentleman

was put in there Friday night, before 7:45 a.m.; and if the cameras were in

place at that time, what was on the cameras? First of all, was there any

physical check of the cell, most importantly, from the time the gentleman was

put in there Friday night until he was actually found Saturday morning, or was

that the first physical surveillance?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question

because that is precisely among the information that I have requested as to

exactly what happened. All that I do know, and all that I am able to tell the

House is that - and this is I think now, all of it is public - Mr. Smith was

taken into custody by the police under the detention of intoxicated persons

legislation. He was taken to the lockup, that is not an unusual course of

events, at some point during the evening - and I have been very vague on the

time. It is not that I don't have some indication of the time but I have been

vague deliberately and for what I believe are proper reasons - at some point

overnight Mr. Smith died. Until the investigations are completed we can say

nothing more but I assure, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend in the House that I will

present a full report here as soon as I am in a position to do so. Really I

cannot get into details beyond that until we know exactly what happened or as

best we can from the record, we know exactly what happened.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention that the

department has decided to cut the position of mechanic at the depot in

Trepassey. I would like to ask the minister, due to the fact that this part of

the Province and indeed part of my district, we see many problems in relation to

snowstorms, et cetera and last year this mechanic that was in place at the depot

worked many hours of overtime. I would like to ask the minister, has there been

a cost analyst put in place of what it will cost to take the mechanic out of

Trepassey and to take any breakdowns to bring mechanics into the area or to

bring the machines out of the area versus what it would cost to keep the

mechanic in Trepassey?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last two to three years and I guess probably before

that, the department began to reorganize the whole of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, especially on the transportation side. Now one of

the reasons for it, number one, now you have most of the roads, all except 1,400

kilometres of road is paved in the Province so therefore you don't need as many

depots around the Province. Number two, we started buying a whole new fleet of

trucks. One of the things about those trucks are, they come with a five-year

warranty. So once they come with a warranty you don't need as many mechanics in

the garages around the Province.

The other thing we've done is we have centralized the garages

because a lot of those trucks are computerized and different new technology is

there and you cannot have that kind of equipment and tools and stuff out in

every garage around the Province. So you build a larger garage and you

centralize all the equipment into one centralized position. So we've made

significant changes in the reorganization of the whole department to deal with

all the changes in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation because

of circumstances. So what we have done is make a major saving in the cost

effectiveness, less people and less staff right throughout the department. I

think it is something like $5 million a year less in salaries within the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. In the changes that we've made

we are still delivering just as much service to the general public as was

delivered with the former numbers of people that were there, I think it was 567

people. What we have done is totally reorganize. Yes, it is more beneficial, yes

it is more cost effective because in small places like Trepassey and like many

other places, when a truck broke down the first thing you would have to do is

send somebody in to St. John's or to the nearest major outlet to get a part. It

is much more cost effective, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't feel safe in taking the minister's comments that it

is totally cost effective. I would like the minister to table something in the

House to that effect. I would also say to the minister, when he gets up to

answer all he talks about are major savings. Mr. Speaker, I have had calls from

the Trepassey area last night and this morning, I have letters coming to me now

about the situation as it relates to Trepassey. People are concerned yes, about

saving dollars but they are also concerned about saving lives. I would like to

ask the minister, is safety a concern or is it just cutting the dollars?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that almost does not deserve an

answer. Safety is the number one concern. No matter how many trucks you have on

the road, no matter how many ploughs you have out all over the island, no matter

how many mechanics or how many drivers, we cannot stop the snow from falling and

people have to adjust. They are speeding in driving conditions when we have a

snowstorm like last evening. I am not aware of any major problems because a

mechanic was laid off in Trepassey caused by laying off that mechanic.

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

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

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The minister has indicated of late

that there will be a delay in preventing a report on the wind-up of the Cabot

Corporation. I ask the minister why, and when can we expect the report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everybody on this

side of the House and those involved in the government realize that it is time

sensitive for us to give a clear indication to everybody in the Province of the

basis on which we proceed and move forward with the celebration plan for 1997.

However, in doing that the government also wants to be assured that the plans

that were drawn up for us by the transition team that worked very diligently for

a couple of weeks make sense and have the appropriate level of detail. We are

doing some final analysis again of that and some other scenarios that we will

present again back to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

It would be, in our view, inappropriate for us to be giving

partial information. Because what the House, the hon. members opposite, the

media and the public have been expecting is an accounting of the expenditures on

the Corporation to date, the cost of winding down some of the operations that

will no longer be necessary, and the basis for which we plan to proceed and go

forward.

Until we are firmly in a position to announce the last part

of that, which is the basis on which we will go forward, the rest of the

information would remain incomplete. Rather than give incomplete answers we've

decided to hold it until the Cabinet has been briefed again and we will give

assurances to everybody that we will have complete information on all three

counts that I've mentioned.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect we will get

the report when the House closes. The minister has indicated that the Cabot

Corporation had more administrative expenses than was originally expected. Can

the minister explain these extra expenses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: I don't recall, Mr. Speaker, making such a

statement. What I did indicate was that the Cabot Corporation, from the analysis

that we had done in making the final decision to take the steps necessary to

dissolve the Corporation, had gotten to the point where the administrative cost

of the Corporation itself, irrespective and regardless of any of the costs

associated with planning events and moving forward, had gotten into a range of

some 40 per cent or so of the total budget, and that that was unacceptably high,

and was one of the reasons why we decided to dissolve the Corporation and move

forward on a different basis. Which, leading back to the fist question, is again

the analysis that we are concluding now so that we can give full information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - as to the cost to date -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to conclude his

answer.

MR. GRIMES: - and how we go forward.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the

minister to explain today to this House the difference in views, especially

between himself and the MP, Mr. Brian Tobin, on the level of federal support for

the Cabot '97 celebrations. It seems to be at two opposite poles. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate

that question. Either the hon. member who asked it is probably the only person

who is supposedly interested in the issue that hasn't listened to myself and Mr.

Tobin, the federal Cabinet minister, address that issue. Because in fact it is

the exact opposite of what the hon. member would try to describe it to be.

Myself and the federal minister, both of us have been saying

exactly the same thing about funding for the Cabot Corporation. It was explained

the very day that I rose in this Legislature and announced that we would take

the necessary steps to dissolve the Corporation at the earliest opportunity.

That day, in addressing the issue to the media, I had indicated that the federal

government had expressed a willingness to continue funding the Corporation,

provided the Province was willing to take that expenditure from the $100 million

economic renewal agreement, and that the Province had stated that in our view

that was not an appropriate use of that particular money and we were not willing

to have the Corporation and its activities funded from that source.

Mr. Tobin, as the federal minister responsible for

Newfoundland generally, said exactly the same thing to the public, and now this

is only the second time that I have heard anybody suggest there is a difference

of opinion. Some of the media first suggested that we were saying something

different but we were not, we said exactly the same thing. Now, the hon. member

opposite is suggesting there is some difference in the two statements when any

checking of what we have said will show that we said exactly the same thing from

day one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier.

Approximately one year ago, a constituent of mine, Ms Jean

Noseworthy and myself met with the Premier and the Minister of Justice dealing

with the issue of the control and use of pellet and BB and air guns generally in

the Province. At that time the Premier gave a commitment to Ms Noseworthy, and

the Minister of Justice as well, that they would be lobbying or speaking with

the Federal Government, whether that be the Prime Minister's office or the

federal Minister of Justice, to attempt to have the control of those types of

air guns included in the Criminal Code of Canada. Can the Premier indicate today

if he has done that, who has he talked to, what correspondence has he sent, and

what has been the reply to date?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of the

Premier. The answer is that representations were made. I am not sure if the

Premier signed the letter as acting minister or whether I signed it.

MR. TOBIN: How come he was acting minister?

MR. ROBERTS: He was acting minister because there was a

police investigation underway at the time into the affairs of a company in which

I have a publicly declared interest. That investigation was resolved by charges

being laid, and that is all I am going to say about that.

I believe, if memory serves me well, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs.

Ilater sent copies to Ms Noseworthy of the letter that had been written to Mr.

Rock, the minister in Ottawa, and we have had a letter of acknowledgement from

him. There has been nothing more since then in a correspondence context but I do

know from my officials who sit on the appropriate committees that the process of

considering whether the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to actually

change the muzzle velocity of projectiles - now, the permitted muzzle velocity

is not something that my friend, the Member for Grand Bank is familiar with. The

permitted muzzle velocity is the measure that distinguishes a firearm from an

non-firearm, and the officials are now at work deciding whether they should

recommend to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, and to the Cabinet, that the

Criminal Code be amended to bring air guns, I guess, is the correct title,

within the Criminal Code. So there has been some progress. But has there been

measurable progress? The answer is, no.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: While this may not seem like an important

issue to many, there are hundreds of children in this Province who have been

seriously injured. Every year as a result of the unlimited use where people can

go in and buy off the shelf, twelve-year-olds and thirteen-year-olds can go in

and buy off the shelf at any store a pellet or BB gun.

Let me ask the minister: Has any consideration been given to

introduce provincial legislation whereby the control of air guns and pellet guns

would be limited, and if so, can the minister report that such legislation will

be coming to the House, either this fall or in the next sitting?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the

hon. gentleman, and I don't think he needs this assurance, but we on this side,

including the ministry, certainly take the concern seriously and we have

evidenced that by our action. I guess I can make two comments in response to his

question, Sir. The first is that some municipalities have found authority, they

say, within the Municipalities Act, to enact regulations by municipal bylaws. I

am not sure whether the City of St. John's and Mount Pearl have done that? There

are one or two others, but secondly, I must say that there is a very real legal

question, and without getting into a constitutional dissertation, its the

characterization issue, is this criminal law or is it a matter of property and

civil rights, or a matter generally of a local nature within the Province? That,

of course, as my friend would recognize, is the constitutional division of

powers.

A number of provinces have got into a lot of trouble by

trying to enact legislation that the courts held was criminal. I am not aware

that the air guns issue has been addressed and that is why we haven't done

anything about the air gun thing, but I may say, the legal advice I get is that

this House probably does not have authority to enact legislation with respect to

air guns if it's of a criminal nature, if it is characterized by the

constitutional test to be criminal; that's why we haven't moved on it. We

believe the answer is to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, which already

regulates firearms using this muzzle velocity, a factor of which I spoke a

moment or two ago.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government has

already moved in one area, in enacting legislation that flies in the face of the

Criminal Code of Canada when it introduced .05 alcohol level, when the Criminal

Code of Canada suggests that .08 is the legal level.

Let me ask the Minister of Justice this question then: I

mean, why would it be impossible to enact legislation through the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs that would set up limits in terms of who could

buy pellet guns, how they can be used and what age people have to be in order to

use them? Why is that so impossible? Why do we have to wait for the Criminal

Code of Canada to be amended when we have the power in this Legislature to take

care of it right now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, time for a

quick answer.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a little at

sea, I fear, when he confuses the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act of .05 -

which, by the way has been a great success from all the information I have seen

- when he confuses that with criminal legislation. In the case of a .05, we are

legislating with the respect to the Highway Traffic Act and the license to drive

which is issued under that.

Now, let me come back to the major substance or his major

point. He says it is not impossible to act, but what I have said to him is, the

legal advice I have is that it is impossible to act. Parliament has already to

moved to occupy the field on using its criminal law jurisdictional power by

enacting legislation regulating firearms. Now, if we are to enact a bill here,

the concern would be, the advice I am given, is that this would be struck down.

Now I must -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. May I have leave to finish the -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I must acknowledge the advice, and in my

judgement it is sound advice, so I accept it. We could go ahead, I suppose, and

adopt the bill but the risk would be struck down.

Now, the municipalities have enacted regulations, they have

not been struck down and that speaks for itself. If, in the fullness of time -

and it takes a while to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, it's a major piece of

legislation and it affects every Canadian, often very directly - in the fullness

of time, Ottawa says no, and my understanding is, that's not the answer, at

least we have not been told that as yet. If Ottawa says no, then I think we will

have to revisit the issue and decide what we should do.

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we first of all, please,

deal with Motions 5 through 8. Those are leave to introduce - first of all, I

think, the Premier would like... Could we have leave to revert to - he has found

the answer to the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. ROBERTS: No leave? Alright, that's fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, give him leave.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman, the Member for Mount

Pearl says no leave; that's fine. If he wants to be surly and sullen, let him

be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he will get no leave from me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, sobeit. We will go back to

Motions 5 through 8, if we may, and we hope that the hon. gentleman, the Member

for Mount Pearl is in a little better temper later in the day.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds in St. John's Act".

(Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations".

(Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For

Non-Elected Public Office Holders". (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act". (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many of the

bills are actually printed, but they will be made available to members as soon

as they are printed now that the House has given leave.

I wonder if I might first of all move, in my desire to

accommodate members opposite, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to call Order

24, which is the adjourned debate on the House of Assembly amendment act. Let me

say again to the House, as I have told my friend, the Member for Grand Bank,

that the government propose to call no other business today. I don't know

whether this matter will come to a vote at second reading today or not; that is

essentially to be determined by the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's fine, I mean, that's up to the House;

I couldn't care less. What I am saying is, if we come to a second reading vote

today, we shall adjourn. If we don't, we shall go on not later than 10:00 p.m.

and then we will carry on, on Thursday, and deal with it again. That's fine; I

am in the hands of the House. So I say to my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, he can govern himself accordingly and I shall abide contentedly

by the side of the road.

Now, the hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East

adjourned the debate, but he has not seen fit to join us today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I think he is down trying to get some

money out of the government in court, if you want to know the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, he ain't got it yet, I tell you.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I assume somebody will rise to

catch your eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 24, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte

- White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was expecting somebody from the other side to rise and give

them leave to go, but I will take my turn to rise and have a few comments on

this very particular and significant issue that has come before us, which is the

reducing of the number of seats in this Legislature. It was said to be famous,

but I think it would be better classed as the infamous proposal put forward now.

Mr. Speaker, it is just a little over three years now since I

have entered this Legislature, and long before that, before even being elected,

I always concerned myself, like many people in this Province, with the number of

members that represent us in this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two years.

MR. SHELLEY: Two years. It seems like a lot longer than

that.

And we have always questioned the number of members we think

necessary to serve us in this Legislature and to represent people throughout

this Province. Of course, the Premier keeps referring to the hundreds and

hundreds of communities spread over hundreds of miles of coastline in this

Province, so right away we wonder how many legislative members we really need to

do a good job of representing people who are so widely distributed over such a

large land mass, including the Labrador, of course, and the Island portion of

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to mind when you

consider those numbers - of course, I guess each and every one of us has to

decide what we think is right, the right privileges and the right justification

for us, as members of the House of Assembly, how we serve each and every person

who has elected us to come here and represent them.

First and foremost, I would just like to give my comments on

that particular part of this, which is how we represent our district, and how we

represent each and every individual who elected us to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I will first talk about my own district, of

course, being a rural Newfoundland district, the district of Baie Verte - White

Bay, to which I was glad to be elected in May of 1993. My district is not unlike

that of many of the members here in this House who serve rural Newfoundland

districts that make up a lot of small communities, and in my particular

district, I have twenty-one communities spread over the Baie Verte Peninsula.

Right now, if you take Route 410 down the Baie Verte highway, all of the

twenty-one communities branch out from them except for one which is Great

Harbour Deep which is isolated which I have to go to either in boat or by air.

Mr. Speaker, it is the type of make-up of that district which poses the question

for any member who would take on this particular district: How can you best

serve your district?

I have certain criteria that I follow as a member in rural

Newfoundland that I've had since the day I was elected, and that I'm going to

hopefully hold on to for as long as I represent that district. One is: Do I

return phone calls when I get phone calls from so many different communities? I

do. Second is: Do I raise issues both in the media, and, third, in the House of

Assembly here on behalf of my district? The fourth one I ask is a criterion for

myself as an elected politician.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is: The people in my district, do they

see me in the district? Do I make presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much noise in the House. The hon. members to my

left, if it is necessary for them to engage in a discussion or a conversation I

would like for them to do it so that it won't interfere with the House, or do it

outside.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Because I

believe you are right, Mr. Speaker. I think we should all listen to each other

in this particular debate and get the opinions and ideas and concerns from each

and every member in here. Because we are the ones affected by this directly, and

of course it affects the entire Province and the people who we represent.

As I was saying, the four criteria I look at as representing

a rural district is first of all, of course, keeping in touch through phone

calls. When you have phone calls you return those calls and you try to do the

best you can for the people who call you. We all know that a lot of times we

can't always correct everything. We try our best to do what we can for our

district and for the people who we represent. Secondly, of course, is standing

in this House of Assembly and representing their views and concerns and bringing

them forward to the House of Assembly. That is our job. Third of course is to

make sure you raise the issues publicly and in the media and that you are always

heard as a voice that is representing your district and your concerns. The

fourth one is being seen in your district. Not getting elected and have the old

clich stuck to you as a politician who gets elected every four years, and of

course you don't see him for another four years until an election is called and

you hear a knock on your door and you get a pamphlet pushed in your face, and

you are expected then to vote for this person who you haven't seen for four

years.

Myself, along with many of my colleagues, and I know a lot of

people on the other side of the House, like to get into their districts and to

be seen and to go around from house to house and visit some people that you know

and some people who you just met through the election and people who you've

gotten to know over the years. I know there are many people in this House of

Assembly here who enjoy doing that, who enjoy going out to their district and

having the time which, it is hard to sometimes, but it is having the time to go

and talk to people personally in their homes. We can't do every house-call, I'm

not suggesting that at all, but it is nice to be able to go especially into the

smaller communities, which don't get much chance to see their elected officials.

Come into their home and sit down and find out that they are real people and

they are really listening to their concerns.

I really enjoy that part of this job, being able to go into

these small communities like Purbeck's Cove, Tilt Cove and Snooks Arm, these

places that are small, that are basically isolated, except for a rough dirt road

that leads into the community. To be able to, as an elected member in the House

of Assembly to go and visit those people in their homes, sit down and have a cup

of tea with them, and talk to them just as people. I really cherish that part of

this job. I know a lot of members in this House do.

So when we start to talk about changes to the electoral

boundaries we start to talk about factors that may affect that whole process. To

be able to go into the rural communities and let people know that you are not

just a face sitting here in the House of Assembly who speaks every now and then,

or a voice you hear on t.v. or radio every now and then. It is great that we as

elected politicians can actually go into those communities and get first-hand -

not over a phone, or not through t.v. or radio - what they believe the concerns

and issues are. It gives us a great insight into how rural Newfoundland

especially works. I cherish that part of this job where we can go and do that.

For example, in my district now I have twenty-one

communities. With the proposed final change here of forty-eight seats I will go

to thirty-four communities. The two things to consider here are population and

also geography. I've got no problems - and I've said to my colleague for Green

Bay many times, I welcome the thirteen communities that I would pick up from the

Green Bay side of the district opposite of White Bay, of course. I have no

problem accepting that. I, like any other member here, will do the best job they

can for the people no matter what comes into your district. I would say that

with all sincerity. We will do the best job we can, no matter if you pick up

thirteen or twenty communities.

But that is a significant jump from twenty-one communities to

thirty-four. Not only that, the number of communities, then we look at the

geography. That is one thing that a lot of people have concerns with when they

look at the changes to these boundaries. My district, when you have to come up

the Trans-Canada and go down to another peninsula about an hour's drive on the

Trans-Canada, Mr. Speaker, but then I look at something like Windsor -

Springdale and how that is split, and how you have to drive past Badger, but go

to Windsor to represent that part of the district.

Mr. Speaker, so the geography and the number of communities,

for example, and I have done it in this House before on petitions, compared it

to my colleague from Kilbride. Right now, when he serves his district, he can

leave here today drive around his district, visit the people whom he has to see

with some serious concerns and be back here in a half-an-hour. If I leave here,

the first thing I have to do is, get to my district which is a seven-hour drive

and once I get to my district, Mr. Speaker, what I have calculated is

approximately nine hours of driving just to stop in to each community; just to

stop and leave again, not to do any work, just to get there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's not a fabrication, it is not made

up, it is not imagination, those are the facts. Anybody who serves, and I am

sure different members here, can get up and tell you of how they drive to their

districts. My colleague from Bonavista South, the number of communities that he

will pick up now and, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to do a just job of all

this, those factors have to be considered not just on a population basis. I

mean, I am sure my colleague from Kilbride can handle 20,000 people in that

area, a small area that you can drive around with probably a mile radius, but

why shouldn't there be more consideration given to the simple fact of geography?

This Province has the most rugged coastline of any island in

the world and those people still live there. Yes, some people may think there is

a resettlement program ongoing and that sooner or later, a lot of these

communities will be no more. Mr. Speaker, that may be true but we can't decide

the fate of those communities, and maybe, in two years from now, two or three of

the small communities in my district will be a ghost town and will not be served

by me or any other member but, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, they are there now,

they still have their homes there.

I have a small community of Purbeck's Cove with eighteen

families there but it is still a forty-five minute drive from Baie Verte where I

live and there are still people there who have concerns. Just a couple of weeks

ago I brought concerns from the people of Purbeck's Cove. Mr. Speaker, the

reality is, those communities are still surviving, they are still there and as

long as there are two people left in a community, then they are still people of

this Province and they deserve to be represented by a member in this House of

Assembly as well as anybody who lives in St. John's Centre, or Corner Brook or

Humber Valley or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker, so a very, very important factor to

remember in something that should have been considered more I think, Mr.

Speaker, is the rural/urban differences and also, the geography of actually

driving or going by boat or by whatever way you connect with the different

communities in your district.

Mr. Speaker, just for example, on one weekend, a specific

example. I got home to my district at 5:30 in the afternoon on Friday, I had to

be in Pacquet - which is a forty-minute drive from Baie Verte - by six o'clock,

and by eleven o'clock next morning I had to be in Fleur de Lys and then the next

morning and so it goes. I don't have to give examples to members here because I

know they do the same thing. I know my colleague in Eagle River, because I have

been up there to visit many times; you go from one community from where you come

in to Blanc Sablon, and if you have to have a meeting up in St. Modeste that

night then come back to L'Anse-au-Clair again in the evening, that's what

happens in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I could go on through this House and

give examples.

We try to get to these places and we try to hear their

concerns first hand and as I said in the beginning, that's what a lot of members

in here cherish, that we can sit down with people in rural communities and hear

their concerns, not just use it through a secretary here in Confederation

Building or ourselves on the phone. It is a very important fact to rural

Newfoundland. There have also been many concerns about the idea of, of course,

one person, one vote and the quotient that has been used. There has to be a

variance there that is acceptable and if it going to be done, it must done

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, believe me, I know Labrador,

I have also lived in Labrador for six years, in Labrador West, but I know the

situation with population along the Coast of Labrador but, Mr. Speaker, if there

is going to be one rule for the Province, then it is one rule as a Province and

we are called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, therefore, if there is

going to be any difference in variance, it has to stay for the Island portion of

the Province as well as for the Labrador portion of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have some grave concerns

about such things as rural distribution, and about the geography and how it was

finally broken down, so there are some big concerns with rural versus urban

centres in this Province, and I think it is something that should be looked at

more intensely before final decisions are made. There is not an urban member

here, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think would disagree with that. My colleagues

from Waterford - Kenmount and Kilbride - all tell the same thing. What a

difference it is when I go home on a weekend to try to hit five communities that

raise some serious concerns and my colleague from Kilbride can go out and in

half an hour he can be in ten different homes or talk to different people.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we look at the different communities as it

relates to councils. I have seventeen councils, just for example, the issue just

on MOGs it is a very serious issue. All of those councils, like all members here

I am sure, wanted to talk to their member and they did not want to do it by

phone, Mr. Speaker, they want us to come down or they want to come in for

meetings. So, Mr. Speaker, just take for example my colleague from Kilbride has

to talk to one council to discuss this very serious issue. I have to speak to

seventeen and try to get them all in in one weekend when we go home on a Friday

night or a Saturday. There is a difference; there is no doubt about it. The

different numbers of groups like development associations, the different fire

departments. My district has, I think, eight different fire departments that

always have concerns of course with fire protection in their areas and so on.

That is a concern. There is definitely a difference made between the rural and

urban which I don't think was given enough emphasis in this particular final

change.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been unfolding in such a way that

we have all believed from day one, as politicians - if we asked people to bite

the bullet around this Province, like we are doing, we asked people to squeeze

and especially over the last couple of weeks. I think both parties, all three

parties that represent in this House, all agree that we have to get deficits

under control. That is the buzz word of the day, it is the buzz word nationally

and it is the buzz word provincially. We have to get deficits under control; we

have to be more prudent in our fiscal management and fiscal planning. We all

know that, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody here who disagrees with that. I say to

the Minister of Finance, we all realize the constraints he has been trying to

get his budget under control and so on.

So therefore, all of us, there is not a person in this House,

I don't think, would disagree that the number of seats in the Newfoundland House

of Assembly should be decreased. If we are going to show budgetary constraints

from all different sectors; from health, from education and so on, then I think

that is the right idea. I say to the Premier, I think that is the right concept

that we put out to this Province, that yes, if we are going to belt tighten

let's do it from the top down and the concept is right. I say to the government,

the concept is right. Let's reduce from the top down. So let's cut the number of

seats. It has been talked about for years. So we all agree on that point, there

is no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, we know what the problem is in this particular

issue now. It is not what we are doing but it is how we are doing it. How did we

do it, Mr. Speaker, when we had to backtrack just a little bit and go through

the chronological stage of what really unfolded as this happened? Good,

everybody had the idea, let's reduce the number of seats in the House of

Assembly. So right away, Mr. Speaker, Judge Mahoney of course in December 4,

1992 with the ministerial financial statement suggested that we were going to -

Judge Mahoney would head up a commission. He had a mandate of between forty and

forty-six seats. Of course, Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House of Assembly

realized that this was coming. I guess it would be somewhere between forty and

forty-six seats.

So we are just waiting for the reports back but look what

started to happen from that point on, Mr. Speaker. What really started to happen

from that point on? What really started to happen from that point on, Mr.

Speaker, and when his first proposal - not a recommendation when his first

proposal came back for forty seats. Mr. Speaker, that is when this started to

turn sour. Now we have to ask ourselves why? Now, Mr. Speaker, in the shortest

terms I guess and to put it in a nutshell, that is when I believe and I think a

lot of members believe that the political interference started. I think that is

when we saw the first political interference. You could smell it coming. It

stated forty seats in the proposal, all of a sudden it came back with, they said

no, we want somewhere in the mid-forties. That was the first suggestion by

government. They were not going to accept forty seats. Why not forty seats, that

is a significant number? People are asking right now, what is a significant

reduction in the House of Assembly, fifty-two to forty-eight?

Well I hear the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

saying go to seven. He is a long way off. I tell the minister he is forty-one

seats off as of right now. A significant number, Mr. Speaker, just think about

it - fifty-two. We went through all these commissions. I am not sure of the

exact numbers because I don't have it in front of me now but I think it was

something like $300,000 or $400,000 for the commission. I could be corrected on

that but I think it is somewhere in that area. Now, Mr. Speaker, did we really

take what that tax dollar paid for and came out with the forty-four seats that

was suggested or the forty? Did we take that and say okay, fair enough it was an

independent commission? That is what was proposed, not recommended as they keep

repeating here but that was what was proposed, forty

Do we take that and say: Okay, fair enough; it was an

independent commission. That is what was proposed - not recommended, as keeps

repeating here, but that was what was proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Forty seats.

It would have been hard - I will make no bones about it - for

me, as a member, and for any of us to swallow because we would see very large

districts, and I guess a commitment by anybody who decides to run for the

Legislature in this Province, to make sure they have a commitment to serve a

bigger mass of people. Of course, it is spread out, like I just talked about

rural, urban areas. At least it would be up front. We would see electoral

boundary changes up front, and if you are going to run for a particular area you

could see that you have x number of communities, x number of people, and you

would then, of course, take on that commitment and you would decide if you could

handle the job or not. Of course, after running for four years you would

certainly know if you could handle the job or not.

Mr. Speaker, from that day on, from the first report, a

proposal by Judge Mahoney, things started to happen. Things started to happen,

and we all have to ask ourselves, on both sides of this House, what really

started to dictate then what we were going to have as a final result, which is

the forty-eight seats.

It is clear to me, and I think it is clear to a lot of people

in this Chamber, that there was a lot of manoeuvring, dictating, manipulation -

you can use any word you want - but things started to change from that minute

on, and Judge Mahoney's proposal more and more seemed like it would be thrown in

the garbage, which is exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go through a chronological

assessment, I guess, of what we think happened from day one. In the fall of '92,

the mini-Budget is where it all started. The government: As a further

demonstration of our resolve to reducing the cost of governing the Province in

the future, we will be asking the House to direct a redistribution commission,

due to be appointed this coming March, to make recommendations for a House of

Assembly consisting of the most appropriate number of districts between forty

and forty-six. In addition, we will be introducing legislation that will

restrict the size of Cabinet to not more than one-third the size of the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, first when we heard this, like everybody else,

we said: Oh, oh, there are big changes coming, but we all have to agree that the

people of this Province believed that those changes should take place. They

should take place; I don't think we will get disagreement from anybody here. It

is a hard pill to swallow, but we all would have swallowed it together. We would

have all taken the medicine together, and we would have dealt with it. I don't

think you would get anybody in this House of Assembly on this side of the House

stand up and argue that the government took the independent review, there was no

tinkering, there was no gerrymandering; these words would not even be used. I

don't think anybody could get up here today and debate it if that is what had to

happen, but that is not what happened. That was in the fall of '92, the

mini-Budget.

Then Bill 62, in 1992,

An Act To Amend The Electoral

Boundaries Act, provided that the Electoral Boundaries Commission determine the

number of electoral districts between forty and forty-six, weighing certain

special factors. Of course, this first reading was December 7 and second reading

December 17. Then, on March 30, 1993, appointments of electoral boundaries

commissioners, Mr. Justice John Mahoney, Chair, John Nolan, Dorothy Inglis, and

Ray Baird.

Then, Bill 20, 1993, pre-election,

An Act To Amend The

Electoral Boundaries Act increased the size of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission from four to five members. We started to see changes in the

commission, and the number of people who were appointed, and so on; the changes

are starting to come out now. What was really going on here? The first reading

was March 29; the second reading was March 30. Then, on March 31, 1993,

appointment - the appointment of the fifth commissioner, Beatrice Watts.

August 27, 1993, proposal, the Mahoney Commission released a

proposal dividing the Province into forty districts. That was August 27, 1993.

This document was not a recommendation but simply a proposal that would serve as

a focus of discussions in public hearings held around the Province in the

ensuing weeks.

Lo and behold, October 6 we start to see interference come

more and more all the time. October 6, 1993, John Efford's executive assistant,

Roland Butler, at Electoral Boundaries Commission in Bay Roberts, said the

long-term gains by reducing the enlarging provincial districts would not mean

any real savings to the provincial coffers, but in fact would probably cost more

- would probably cost more - in providing the same service. This statement seems

opposed to the official position of the government. Mr. Speaker, is it as it

seems? Has the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood and

justified that statement? Is he really serious? Was Mr. Butler telling us what

the minister was really thinking? And it continues, Mr. Speaker, as the

political interference builds and builds.

Then, on November 8, 1993, Robert's presentation. In a

presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Clarenville, Ed Roberts

said the Commission's mandate was flawed from the beginning and that the number

of provincial districts should not be reduced below forty-four - all of a

sudden.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know why? That was after the

blow-up in the Liberal caucus.

MR. SHELLEY: We all know what it was, where all this

comes from, the word interference, it comes from that back room behind this

House here, Mr. Speaker, when they got into their caucus meeting and up she

came. That is what happened here, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing more or less than

that.

I say to the Minister of Health, up she came. They went into

that caucus room, all the boys who sit in the back seats now and say nothing,

all of a sudden said, hold on, close the door now for a second and we will let

you know what we really think. Up she came, Mr. Speaker - the Member for Eagle

River, the Member for Bellevue -that is what really happened and that is what

the people in this Province know, and they are going to become more familiar

with.

Now, I have to go back a little bit, October 6, 1993, `John

Efford's' executive assistant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I notice that the hon. member on a number of occasions

has referred to members of the House by their names and that is inappropriate.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was just

referring to the document. I was just reading from the document.

On October 6, 1993 the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and his Executive Assistant, Roland Butler, at the Electoral

Boundaries Commission hearings in Bay Roberts said that the long-term gains by

reducing the enlarging provincial districts would not mean any real savings to

the provincial coffers, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, it would probably cost more in

providing the same service. This statement seems to diametrically oppose the

official position of the government.

Now, is the minister's executive assistant really speaking

off the cuff? Is he just speaking his own mind, or is he really speaking what

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to say himself? Now, I

am going to guess that the executive assistant of the minister was really

reflecting on the words of this minister. Now, that is a guess and maybe the

minister will rise when he speaks on this and qualify that by saying it is not

so, but I doubt that very much. I would say that he was reflecting the

minister's thoughts.

MR. EFFORD: Who wrote that for you?

MR. SHELLEY: Never mind who wrote this for me. That is

not the question at all, who wrote this for me. Who said that for you? Who spoke

for you at the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and why did he speak for you?

Maybe the minister will tell me that he actually told his executive assistant

not to go there at all. Maybe he went against him, but I doubt that. I say that

the executive assistant to the minister went there knowing full well that the

minister said: You had better get there and say exactly what I tell you. That is

exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker.

So we see a continuing barrage of interference by what

happened on the other side of this House. When the words `forty seat' came as a

proposal, even when it was first thought about, not a word here, not a hush, you

look over and everyone had this solemn look on his face, but put them out in the

caucus room and they said: Premier, close the door, close the door ever so

gently - and as soon as he closed the door they were just like cats and dogs.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Eagle River said: Your dog

is history, Premier.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Eagle River took care of the

Premier's dog. I bet you, Mr. Speaker, it was like dogs and cats in that caucus

room the first day this came back. Oh, the Member for Bellevue sits so quiet so

often and says nothing. He, like any member in this House, had very grave

concerns about the changes that were coming, we all did. I admit that. When I

first heard the word of forty seats I said, boy, there are going to be some big

changes. We all have to consider what our futures are. Right? Are we all going

to get elected again? I didn't worry about that because I am totally surrounded

by good Tories, so I didn't care if I expanded into Green Bay or Humber Valley,

anywhere. I have my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley over here who has

done such a great job. I can expand anywhere. It doesn't matter where I go. I

can expand up to Eagle River and still win, Mr. Speaker. We can expand anywhere

and still win. I can expand up to the Minister of Education and Training, up

into the Straits, or over to the Minister of ITT. I could take in all of that; I

would still win. It doesn't make any difference to me. I'm just concerned about

everybody else. It doesn't matter to me.

I have a colleague on my right here, in Humber Valley, did

such a good job there, I could take in all of his district and I would still win

it hands down. I'm not worried about winning. I could go to Green Bay. The

Member for Green Bay won it hands down the last two elections, no problem. I'm

not really worried about that. My constituents say to me in my district: We

aren't worried about how much more you take in as long as you still focus on us.

But I said, I have to focus on all my district then. It is going to be an

expanded district.

MR. CRANE: No (inaudible) you've got it all.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Harbour Grace -

I can't even remember where he is from. He gets up to speak so often in the

House I forgot where he was from for a second. He is not sure where he is from.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I could take in probably the Member for Harbour Grace,

that district, too - Riverhead - but like any of the districts on both sides of

me, the District of Humber Valley or the District of Green Bay, either one of

those districts.

Mr. Speaker, we will move on. The Minister of Justice's

presentation, November 8. In a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries

Commission in Clarenville, the Minister of Justice said the Commission's mandate

was flawed from the beginning and that the number of provincial districts should

not be reduced below forty-four. What gave the Minister of Justice the right to

say that? Wasn't this supposed to be put to an independent commission and for

them to decide? Right away, we see the minister on his grounds starting to

interfere and impose his ideas on everybody else all of a sudden. This was

supposed to be gone out independently. So far, we have the ministers from all

portfolios coming to submit proposals, make concerns. This was a government that

said: Let's do it independently, let's do it fairly, let's do without any

change.

AN HON. MEMBER: No change - the Liberal caucus pow-wow in

August of 1994, that is (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and up she came, Mr. Speaker, that is

when it came up. Then in 1993, post-election,

An Act To Amend The Electoral

Boundaries Act provided for forty-six districts. Boy, we are growing and

growing. I sort of think now if we let this grow any further, if we had gone

much further with this proposal, we would end up with fifty-five seats. The way

it was going we would have ended up with fifty-five or sixty seats. We were

growing all the time. We started by saying: Let's reduce, let's get ourselves

under control, let's show the Province that we mean fiscal restraint and that we

are going to work from the top down. That is what the Premier was saying. Let's

show the Province that we are serious. We are going to help with the restraints

in this Province by showing that from the top down we are going to reduce, so he

said.

The first proposal came out for forty seats. Of course, the

hullabaloo all broke loose in the caucus room of the Liberals. They came out

again. Then we went to forty-four seats. Then a proposal came back for forty-six

seats. Now, this week, it is up to forty-eight seats. I would guess if we went

to Christmas we would be back up to fifty-two, no problem. Talk about political

interference, the process. That is the word, `process'. I say it over and over.

Every person I've talked to in my district doesn't say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'm glad to see them reduce the seats. But

first of all we have two points. Reducing from fifty-two to forty-eight, Mr.

Speaker, that isn't a reduction. What kind of a reduction is that? Where is the

word "significant" in that, significant reduction? All this hullabaloo for two

bloody years, $600,000 or so, sending fellows before commissions to make up all

kinds of excuses why there should be different numbers, and what happens? They

reduce it to forty-eight. Whoop-de-do, Mr. Speaker! I mean, the word is

"significant," and fifty-two to forty-eight is not significant.

The second point that is most striking is the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to - any

leave, Mr. Speaker? Do I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was our understanding, Mr. Speaker, that

the Government House Leader indicated he would give whatever time was necessary

to members to speak, whether that went beyond a half-hour or not. I would just

like to rise on a point of order and ask the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, why is he now flying in the face of what the Government House

Leader has indicated and promised to the Opposition on this particular piece of

legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By the rules of the House, a member is permitted thirty

minutes to speak in this debate. To go beyond the thirty minutes he has to have

unanimous consent of the House and it only needs one member not to give consent,

so the House Leader really, doesn't call the shots here.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: You tell him, `Bill', you tell him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Those are good words, Your Honour,

uttered there, that the Government House Leader doesn't call the shots. I am

sure the Government House Leader is listening. What a brave ruling!

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't he going to Marystown tomorrow?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is the Government House Leader going to

Marystown?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not with you and me, he isn't.

MR. SPEAKER: That goes for either House Leader, of

course, right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: That goes for both House Leaders?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course. I never thought, Mr. Speaker,

that I call the shots here, with all due respect, I never did.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation I don't know why he withdrew leave on my colleague,

the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess, yes it was, it was too

scathing; a scathing attack on the minister and the administration because what

he -

AN HON. MEMBER: Factual.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Factual. - backed up by documentation

and even quoted the minister's Executive Assistant who indeed was speaking for

the minister at the hearings and that's why the minister couldn't take it

anymore. He didn't want to hear this because really, what the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation has been doing, has been sort of undermining the

process over there, you see, because he doesn't agree with what is happening in

his area of the Province with redistribution. He doesn't agree with it, and he

can hardly keep himself in his seat, Mr. Speaker, from getting up and knocking

this piece of legislation, of knocking the process and knocking the boundaries

that we are debating here.

But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the

Electoral Boundaries bill, that I went to the Commission hearings in Grand Bank.

They came down to the fire hall in Grand Bank and I went down and made a

presentation to them. It was a very good, informal sort of situation, a cordial

get-together, and there were points I wanted to make to the Commission. The

points I made to the Commission were, number one: that I certainly recognize

that the economic climate in the Province, the economic conditions in the

Province certainly amongst, I would think, a majority of the general public,

that they feel there are too many members in the House of Assembly, I don't

think there is any doubt about that. Most of them don't think we do anything

anyway and that we are overpaid. That's the brutal reality of being a politician

today and has been for a number of years, but more so today. They don't think we

do anything, they think we are overpaid and there are even those in the public

who think we write our own cheques, they really believe that.

They believe that, but that is not the case, as we all know.

But what I said to the Commission was: Don't go too far. Because my worst fear

was, and still is, that if we reduce the number of seats - I was thinking that

time around forty, forty-four seats - that if we reduce the number of seats to

forty or forty-four, then in two or three or four or five years time, the people

who would be here representing those forty or forty-four districts, a lot of

them would have a lot more work than we have today. They would be servicing more

people, more communities in rural Newfoundland in each district, and what will

we see?

There will be a request come back here one of these days for

additional staff, for an assistant for each member, and instead of having

fifty-two members on the payroll and say fifty-two secretaries, Mr. Speaker, we

would have forty members, forty secretaries and forty assistants. So what would

the end result be for the taxpayers of this Province? My worst fear was that in

the long run it might end up costing the taxpayers of the Province more money.

Now, that is still a possibility, who knows what the future may bring? Who

knows? but I will guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker, that looking at the

makeup of some of those districts, and if members are going to properly service

those districts, which I am sure, it is every member's wish and desire to do,

they are going to work harder than they worked before, and I am not saying they

haven't worked hard, because I know most members work very hard and the

representation for the communities and the individuals in them are going to

decline.

There is no way that you can add five, six, ten, twelve or

fifteen communities to a district and to an MHA's workload and expect the same

kind of representation from the member. You ain't going to get it, Mr. Speaker.

You can only go to so many firemen's balls and so many graduations. You can only

go to so many of them. We are all in the midst of that now. I know, in my area,

every weekend there is a firemen's ball and some weekends two.

MR. EFFORD: Do you go up there every weekend to a

firemen's ball?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I could be up there at something

else. I don't go to the firemen's ball all the time but last weekend I was down

to a firemen's ball in St. Lawrence, yes, and the week before my colleague and I

were to the Burin Peninsula's Soccer Hall of Fame.

MR. EFFORD: Where?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In Salt Pond. Sorry?

MR. EFFORD: You are in that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course I am in it. (Inaudible) Grand

Bank, I got that up.

MR. EFFORD: I thought you were only (inaudible) when you

are no longer here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no, no, no. You see, what the

minister doesn't realize is that I was so outstanding in the sport that they

made an exception for me. They wanted to recognize me before I die, I say to the

minister.

MR. HEWLETT: Outstanding in the field?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Outstanding in the field, yes but my

point being, Mr. Speaker, and we all go through it, I have gone to three

different communities on a particular night. I have gone to three. I have gone

to St. Lawrence for a dinner, I have stopped in to Lamaline or Lawn on the way

back and I've ended up back in Fortune or Grand Bank to finish off the night,

but that is as much as you can do. If you got that kind of demand there are

going to be communities, Mr. Speaker, that you are not going to get into,

communities you won't get to as often. You can only spend so much time driving.

You can only spend so much time on the phone. You can only attend so many

meetings. So consequently, the districts as they are now structured and the

people who have been used to and conditioned to a certain level of

representation by the members in this House today are going to change if the

districts are made larger, no doubt about that. They are not going to see the

member as often.

MR. EFFORD: We will have some time tomorrow night.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you and I will have some time

tomorrow night. Well, the minister can speak for himself, I say to him. I

thought you said you were going to be flying.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I said to the Commission. People

are going to have to get used to seeing the member less often. You won't be able

to give the same level of - now, will people accept that? Will people accept

less representation? that is the question. Will they? I don't know. Of course,

they are going to blame it on the member, as they do now. If they see you once a

week now it is not enough. If they see you once a month in two years time, it

certainly won't be enough. So the member will be no good. No one will ever stop

and say well this member has ten extra communities to service in the district

now, that is why you don't see him or her more often. He will still be no good

and still overpaid. The minister has a question.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Bernice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I might know Bernice, Mr. Speaker, but

it is not the Bernice that the minister knows. I don't know what this `Bernice'

is about but for two days now the minister and the Member for Burin - Placentia

West have been asking -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, you are party to it, you have

been asking the minister about Bernice and the minister has asked you about it.

I don't know Bernice. There must be a Bernice somewhere where the minister is

going tomorrow night. That is the only thing I know but I am only guessing. I

don't know who Bernice is.

AN HON. MEMBER: If his wife ever found out who Bernice is

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, we are not sending a copy of Hansard

to his wife. We won't do that.

Mr. Speaker, now these are the points I made to the

Commission because I was concerned about it and I am still concerned about it.

In two or three years time you will have forty or forty-four members in here

asking for forty or forty-four assistants costing the taxpayers more money. That

is what could happen. That is what I said to the Commission, I say to the

minister. That is what I said to the Commission. If you reduce it too low and

members' work piles up, then the only way to deal with the work it is to work

harder, and if you cannot accomplish it then, get more staff. Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, you can get to (inaudible) distance.

There is no doubt about - they can come to you. They can become too familiar

with you, there is no doubt about that, I say to the minister. They can get to

know you a little too well, so it is a balance. You have a balancing act for

members.

MR. TOBIN: They will know me well after the next

election, going to lose six communities.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, you will be out there all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I said to the Commission -

because they were looking at the Burin Peninsula region. And, of course, they

proposed putting the Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage in with Grand

Bank district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. TOBIN: Fortune Bay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Fortune Bay. What?

MR. TOBIN: Fortune Bay went in with (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Fortune Bay would go into Grand

Bank district and, of course, the people there were receptive to that, in that

region. They wanted to be part of a Burin Peninsula seat, because they were

split by Fortune Bay - Harbour Breton side - our side, we call it - and they

wanted to be part of a Burin Peninsula seat, a structure. And we had no problem

with that but, as I said to the Commission, when you look at it geographically,

what they had proposed didn't make a lot of sense, I say to my colleague, the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, because it would have made a lot more sense

to put them in with Burin - Placentia West, or a part thereof, and a part of

Burin - Placentia West closest to the boundaries of Grand Bank district into

that district, so geographically it would have made a lot more sense and easier

to service, because what would have happened is that the MHA for Grand Bank

district would leave Grand Bank district, drive to Burin - Placentia West, and

then back into Grand Bank district. So I said to them that it would make a lot

more sense geographically to divide it some way so that geographically all the

district was in closer proximity to each other's communities. Anyway, that

obviously didn't wash. Now, in the final analysis, what we have now, as you

know, is that now that part of what is now Fortune - Hermitage is now proposed

to go into the district of Bellevue. Now, you talk about a change of a

situation.

MR. TOBIN: You can't have a representative inside the

Overpass representing Fortune Bay. It just can't work.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it will never, never, never wash

down there. They don't want to be part of the District of Bellevue, or Trinity

North, I say to Your Honour; there is no way they want to be. We are not saying

it because of Your Honour - it doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't make any

difference. They would rather be part of Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank.

They don't want to be part of Bellevue, there is no doubt about that, and they

are not very happy about it. We have had calls about it. We had calls about it

when it was proposed to come into Grand Bank. Most of those who called, to a

person, really, were delighted with it, but now they are not too torn up about

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Burin Peninsula side of Fortune -

Hermitage is proposed to go into Bellevue district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. It was supposed to come in with

Grand Bank district - originally. Now, it is Bellevue, which doesn't make any

sense whatsoever.

Anyway, having said that, those were the comments I made to

the Commission. I guess, for the most part, most of it must have fallen on deaf

ears, because they certainly didn't split the Burin Peninsula up the way we

anticipated, and now it has gone to Bellevue. Of course, that is not the

Commission. I guess the Commission really hasn't done this. It wasn't the

Commission that really did this, I guess, which is what this debate has

developed about.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk over the last

twenty-four hours about the process, what people don't like about the process,

and questions asked as to why we didn't accept the Mahoney Report. It called for

forty-four seats. An independent Commission paid for by the taxpayers of the

Province went out and about and had forty hearings, I believe, somewhere around

forty public meetings, hearings, and made a report - an independent commission.

The question is, why was it not accepted? It should have been accepted. They

were within their legislation, they completely complied with the instructions of

the legislation, but no, that wasn't good enough. Now, we are up to debating

today a forty-eight seat House.

I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as supporting a

reduction in the number of seats, by the way. I want to make that quite clear. I

support a reduction in the number of seats in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, because it doesn't go far enough, I

say to the minister. Two things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to your barbecue (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go out and get the tongs and the brush

and the onion bits, and lop a bit of sauce, and mop up a bit of sole onion bit

sauce, and serve up a bit of stuff with his apron and his cooks cap on, Mr.

Speaker. This is a serious situation we are talking here. The minister mightn't

have a seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no. Now listen. I know you are

ambitious, but that is one seat you will never take, the Minister of

Environment's seat. I wouldn't get that cocky now, if I was the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. No. I would say the minister's best chance now

is to try and find a seat somewhere in St. John's that is vacant and that no one

wants the nomination in, Mr. Speaker. That is what I would recommend to the

minister. Come into St. John's and run. You would never do anything out in Port

au Port or Stephenville, that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Tories (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind. This time you've got to

tangle with a Liberal or two before you get to the Tory. This time you won't be

tangled with a Tory because you won't win the Liberal nomination, I say to the

minister. That is my prediction to the minister. I wish members opposite would

stop nodding their heads in approval, Mr. Speaker. I wish they would stop

agreeing with me over there. Because they know what I'm saying is correct.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what you would do then if you had

a fax machine.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh well. Now, now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Settle them down, Mr. Speaker, two of

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't want to get in

debate here about faxes or research or - we don't want to get into that.

Telephones. Too many things can come to the surface.

I want to just talk about this process of this piece of

legislation, why we are here today debating a forty-eight seat Legislature;

which I think is too many. I don't it is significant enough. I think the

Commission's recommendation of forty-four seats was just fine. Why do you

appoint an independent commissioner, requested by legislation every ten years,

to go out and about this Province and have public hearings, ask the people of

the Province for input? I suppose every member of this House went and appeared

before the Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say - yes, and perhaps twice, I

say. The Minister of Justice, he says I did; I say perhaps he went twice. That

is when it all started, Mr. Speaker. Once he went through the door in

Clarenville. Once they heard he was leaving St. John's to go to Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They let him come back. But the

Government House Leader knows that what he did was not taken too lightly by the

Commission. It wasn't. They didn't like it. They wondered why he was out

interfering in their process. That is what happened. But he went out, and he

said here a couple of days ago he did it on behalf of the Ministry.

MR. ROBERTS: I opened my speech out there that night by

saying (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That tells me everything. It told the

Commission everything, and it is telling the people of the Province everything.

That you went out there and appeared on behalf of the Ministry.

MR. ROBERTS: I certainly did. I said so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We know you did.

MR. ROBERTS: And I said so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But we question why you did it.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, that is another (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It sure is. That is the real matter.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I mean....

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is still a rebellion in the ranks,

Mr. Speaker. The minister going to Clarenville certainly didn't settle it down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is one thing we do know, that the

Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, going to Clarenville didn't

stop the rebellion, Mr. Speaker. The rebellion is still on this morning, snow

storm and all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yesterday. Friday. Mr. Speaker, as I

said I support the principle of the legislation, I do. I don't think we are

going quite far enough, I say to the Government House Leader. The savings are

going to be insignificant. All savings are important; we have to realize that,

in this time of economic uncertainty and difficulty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six hundred thousand dollars, the

minister said, but he said this is not done because of money.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) is not done because of

money? Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Justice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was the reason then? Perception.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it was the principle of one person,

one vote (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is another story, isn't it? But

that only applies in forty-six of the forty-eight proposed districts, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not even that many.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not that many, forty-five of the

forty-eight proposed districts, the one vote, one vote, one vote concept being

equal applies. Why are there exceptions made here in this proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, fairness and balance. How

is that fairness and balance when you look at the population in a couple of

those districts compared to the population in the rest of the districts? How is

that fairness and balance I ask the minister? How can you justify it? You cannot

justify it any more than you can justify a proposal that was drafted up showing

a 4000 person seat down in Burgeo somewhere; 4000 people, I think it was, a

separate seat for Burgeo.

AN HON. MEMBER: A geographical difference.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What, in Burgeo? Geographical

differences for what I ask the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Access down to Burgeo. There is a new

highway that goes in there. A new road, the same as goes down to Bay d'Espoir

and Harbour Breton, the same as goes down the Burin Peninsula, the same as goes

down to Port aux Basques, no difference I say to the minister. What is the

minister talking about? I thought he represented somewhere over there on the

western corner of the Province. Access, 4000 people proposed.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Oh, my, oh, my.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can understand the Minister of Health

saying, oh, my, oh, my. If I had to deal with Sister Elizabeth Davis on top of

everything else he has to deal with, Mr. Speaker. His ally now turning the

corner.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No doubt, I say to the minister. There

is no doubt about that I say to the minister. I am not doubting that, but even

Sister Elizabeth Davis now is seeing through the Minister of Health. She had

done a masterful job, but she has even told the minister now, you cannot go any

further. It hurts too much to scrape the bone she told the minister. You cannot

scrape the bone any cleaner because it hurts too much. There is nothing left on

the bone. Even Sister Elizabeth said that to the minister, so I know why the

minister is a little testy over there.

Then with all the ruckus in the caucus about this, and the

ruckus in the caucus about benefits, and the ruckus in the caucus about the

leadership over there. The minister cannot wait to get out of the blocks, cannot

wait to get out. He has even auctioned off some of his jewellery for his

leadership account, Mr. Speaker, old gold finger himself. He is starting to

auction off the jewellery for the leadership campaign. I say to the Minister of

Health there are two things that we do not have in common, and that is jewellery

and the ambition to be leader of anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to be.. leader of nothing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, what I can I say; we are agreeing

I say to the minister. Another leadership candidate in with a big smile on his

face. I am sure he has sized up now how many delegates he is going to get out of

the forty-eight seats. See how quick he came in when he heard me talking about

the Minister of Health auctioning off his jewellery for his account. He rushed

through the door. He could see the delegates being bought.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not do a straw poll?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I have done my straw polls I say to

the minister. I can tell the minister the line up. I can tell him the result of

the first ballot, not by vote but the order of the first ballot results and who

is going to be where, who is going to drop, and who is going to support who.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not leave him in suspense. He wants to

know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no, unless they change a bit now. If

this is passed, this bill, it could change. The old sleeper himself who has

inflicted so much punishment on municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador is

reading a book like he is not listening over there, but he is listening to every

word I am saying, wondering if his name is going to be mentioned.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. He has her in place, don't worry. He has the contacts. When he walked

into the meeting room and plucked on Andy Wells' beard and said: You should have

a shave, Andy, you knew then what he was up to. He was even trying to get Andy

on side; not after the weekend, though. No vision, Andy told him. You don't have

enough vision to be minister, let alone leader, so he is a cooked goose, that

minister, but lots of contacts now; could get the money, no problem. Oh, he has

the contacts, that minister. I am going to tell you something. I could even

guess who might be his bag man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frank Moores.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Frank is too busy not answering his

phone, I say to the minister. He is too busy not answering his phone now down in

Florida. The Mrs. answers; she says they have been bombarded with calls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am happy that he is down in

Florida. It was better waking up there this morning than it was here, but I do

not know if I would want the attention the man is getting the last while. I know

the Minister of Health can identify with Florida a bit more than I can.

MR. TOBIN: At least when he goes down he stays in his own

condo.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is true. I am not going to get

into that. Now, the Member for Burin - Placentia West is trying to get me to say

something now, saying at least when the Minister of Health goes down he stays in

his own place. He is sort of insinuating that when other ministers go down they

do not. I do not know what he is getting at, but if the Member for Burin -

Placentia West wants to say something to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, I wish he would say it himself, instead of trying to get me

to say it, because I am not going to get goaded into that, I say to the Member

for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't dare say it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not going to say it. As much as he

wants me to say that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was down

there staying with someone else, I am not going to say it. I am not saying it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Lady Di? No, I didn't see Lady Di on

last night. I was here. I couldn't see Lady Di; I was in here until 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be quite interesting to see if

there are any members opposite going to have anything to say about this bill. I

am sure there must be concerns among some members opposite with the process and

with this proposal. I am sure they are not all happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am concerned you are going to vote

against it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, don't jump to conclusions, I say to

the minister.

MR. TOBIN: What do you think of them Canadians, boy?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good, excellent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wish the Member for Burin - Placentia

West would talk about something pleasant. He is talking about the Canadiens now.

I didn't hear too much from him two or three weeks after the season started, or

the Member for Menihek. I didn't hear too much blowing off. I would say he will

be looking for tickets in Tampa. He will ask the minister for tickets in Tampa,

and the key to his place.

MR. TOBIN: We were up to a hockey game one time before.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't doubt that.

MR. TOBIN: Years ago.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I gathered that. I gather you are kind

of cosy. I heard you are kind of cosy, and the thing is that it is only a show

he puts on here when he pretends he is mad at you, when he shouts at you and

calls you names. It is all a show. I am not like that. When I say something to a

minister, I mean it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: When you say you don't like me, you

don't like me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I have not said that yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were kissing cousins.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no.

MR. TOBIN: Bill, look at that, a tender for the Town of

Lawn.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A tender for the Town of Lawn; is that

to buy the Town of Lawn?

MR. TOBIN: No, for a van.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, there go the rough times out

there in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we have problems with this piece of legislation,

problems with the process, problems with the number of seats, and to that effect

I would like to move the following: That the motion be amended by deleting all

the words after the word, `that' and substituting the following, `therefore.'

Bill 31, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries

Act" be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time - wrong

paper, no wrong one - because the minister did not accept the recommendations of

the 1993 Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador Chaired

by Justice Mahoney which recommended a forty-four seat House. This report was

compiled independently without political tampering and met the commissions

mandate as given by the House of Assembly. The commission acted entirely within

the guidelines of the legislation and the report should have been accepted

without amendment. So with this, Mr. Speaker, I submit this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Seconded by me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seconded by the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, Mr. Speaker, I submit this for Your Honour's consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: We will take a short recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have looked at the amendment proposed by the hon.

Opposition House Leader and the resolution as a reasoned amendment. There is no

problem with what is in inverted commas, `this House' and going on to read,

`down to a forty-four seat House' inverted commas. That itself is a reasoned

amendment and it is in order but if the hon. member wants to include the last

part of it then it is not in order. So it will be up to the hon. member.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will delete the last paragraph.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Is that the

part I circled on your document?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You did. I don't know why you were out

with them when they were making a ruling like that.

MR. SPEAKER: So the record will show that it goes as far

as a forty-four House. There are ways to make the last

part in order but it is

not my job to tell the hon. member.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. TOBIN: If you don't want to tell him will you tell

me?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No problem, Mr. Speaker. Simply put, we will move this

amendment because the minister did not accept the recommendation of the '93

Electoral Boundaries Commission, Chaired by Justice Mahoney which recommended a

forty-four seat House, that is basically it. I added the last paragraph which I

have now deleted, just to explain for members, is that I thought that it is a

reasoned amendment and I thought that gave more reason for the amendment to be

very honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is why I moved it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) clarification.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I thought it was a little more

support than I thought but in essence, it backfired on me but having said that

MR. TOBIN: You should have asked me for advice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I should have consulted with my

colleague from Burin - Placentia West, who has great experience in this kind of

a process so, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: I am going to tell you a story about Danny; I

am going to tell you a story one of these days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well you might as well tell them now.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Perhaps I will tell them now.

MR. TOBIN: No, well I am going to tell them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If I go in to tell the Premier that now,

it would certainly verify the need to reduce the House by a number of seats. It

would certainly substantiate the legislation that's now before us, so we are

going to see a decrease from fifty-two to forty-eight seats. I would say if I

tell the story, the Premier will be here to move an amendment.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier would make a contribution to the

S.P.C.A.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. That's not the point I was

making I say to my friend from Burin - Placentia West. What I was saying is that

if I proceed to tell stories like that, the Premier will think that there is not

enough work here for fifty-two MHAs, consequently it will, I guess, give merit

to the principle of reducing the number of seats, not anything to do with the

Member for Eagle River I say to (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say, if the Premier had his way, there

would be twenty seats.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't believe that. I don't

believe there will be that drastic action but I think there would be a more

significant reduction, I believe that.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How big the Cabinet should be in today's

environment? Today's environment? I don't know I say to the Premier in all

sincerity; if he could reduce the size of the Cabinet much more, probably by a

couple but I guess, you have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, what's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) counterproductive.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that's the point. That's one of

the arguments I have made about the size of the House, that yes, there is no

doubt, I support the principle. I don't think we are going far enough in

reducing the number of seats and I say that sincerely to the Premier, and I

guess it is the same with the Cabinet. You could reduce it you know, perhaps by

a couple more ministers, I don't know but I mean, the Premier would know, the

Premier would have a better idea of the workload, I mean, I was there, and the

Cabinet was much larger I say sincerely -

PREMIER WELLS: Fourteen, thirteen ministers (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And yourself, yes. I think you can

reduce it much more when I look at the situation of this Province today, I am

serious, you know, there are times I clown around and be light and say things in

jest but you have to be sincere about it. I know that most ministers over there

if not all of them work hard, it's busy, I was a minister and there are times,

particularly in a portfolio which most people would consider was sort of

insignificant and not a senior portfolio of Culture, Recreation and Youth, it

was a department that did something positive for somebody every day. It had all

the youth services, it had recreation, sport fitness, cultural affairs and on

and on it went, and I am telling you, there were days - and I know how the

Premier must feel being Premier of the Province, but there were days you needed

someone showing you around and saying you go here next and you know, I mean it

was - if you took the job seriously, which I did at time, I say that, that I was

pretty busy and then the time I went to Committees of Cabinet and then caucus -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) but then all the other

things that you were requested to go to. No, seriously, I mean and I believe in

all sincerity that ministers are busy. They are, I believe that and I don't

think you can reduce the size of the Cabinet by very much if any and be

effective, because I think by making them too busy, you are going to I think,

take away productivity a bit. I don't know if I am making sense, but I am trying

to be sincere with the Premier, he asked a question.

You can only expect people to do so much and be productive

and efficient, I guess that's the point and I think that probably the ministers

are there now, I would think, I mean it is a busy time, it is not easy times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's that? The boys don't like this

but I just hope someday for more reasons than one that you get the experience,

that you experience that, you know, I hope you do, because I guess it is like

someone who has never been a member. They don't think we do anything, they think

we are overpaid. You know, really that's the cynicism that's out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, most of us are again, I say to the

Premier

AN HON. MEMBER: The ones who do the work.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, if you put the time in and you work

at the district, I mean that ties into my argument before, I say to the Premier,

of increasing the size of the districts, and what I said to the Commission when

it came to Grand Bank. We were looking at the Burin Peninsula area of it all.

I thought the Burin Peninsula; yes, we could do with two

seats in the Burin Peninsula. It would be, you know, serviceable. The Burin

Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage now represented by the member, that could

be included in with Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank. It was originally

proposed to go in with Grand Bank district, which didn't make a lot of sense to

me geographically, as much as the people from that area would have liked to have

been part of a Burin Peninsula seat. It would have made more sense to include

that in with a portion of Burin - Placentia West, and then a portion of Burin -

Placentia West in with Grand Bank.

Geographically, what I'm saying is the districts would be a

little more compact. Because what was proposed before was - I would, say, leave

Garnish - in my case now it is me; whoever it would be - leave Garnish in the

District of Grand Bank say to go to Terrenceville, they would have to drive

through Burin - Placentia West to get back into the district of - it didn't make

sense. I said to them: Well, if you are going to make two seats of it, take part

of Burin - Placentia West that is closest to Grand Bank and put in a population

distribution, whatever made sense, and then put that end of Fortune - Hermitage

in with Burin - Placentia West. So you make two more compact seats out of it. We

could have done that. I thought it was serviceable.

Having said that, if I had picked up, in my case now, or

whoever the member is, St. Bernard's, Terrenceville, Bay L'Argent, Grand Le

Pierre and all those other communities in with the communities now in Grand Bank

district, then it was going to make my life a lot more difficult. The people

there weren't going to see me - that used to see me the way they see me now will

not see me as often because I will have to - as I said, there are only so many

functions you can go to.

The other thing I said to the Commission, for the Premier's

information, was that yes, I support a reduction, but in doing it, don't reduce

the number of members to such a degree that in three or four years time the

forty or forty-four, whatever it is, are back into the House of Assembly or

wherever lobbying to get assistants. Say there are forty members and forty

secretaries and the workload increases in some seats, and members can't do their

work properly because of the workload, then more than likely there will be a

request for assistants, and then we will end up with forty members, forty

secretaries, and forty assistants. That was a caution I thought I would throw

out because that is the way I felt. It would be counterproductive, because in

the final analysis it would cost the taxpayers more money. That was the pitch I

made to them. Of course, we know what happened, and we are here today debating

these forty-eights seats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) seats in St. John's.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and there have been some good

arguments made the last day or so over urban versus rural. I think there is a

very legitimate argument for it. The argument for one vote should count the same

or be the same wherever it is in the Province. But there is one thing that

strikes home to me when I think about rural versus urban.

I came into this House in 1982. It was a busy time. In my

area of the Province the fishery was falling apart. The big companies were being

restructured. The Lake group and all the - it was a nightmare. It wasn't very

pleasant. You got elected in 1982 on a great wave of forty-four seats and, of

course, you are going to come and change the world, and in six months or so the

whole bottom fell out of it. You wondered what in the name of God you had gotten

yourself into. Really, that was the truth of it. It was very busy. The calls in

the district were unbelievable, and the meetings and everything else because of

the situation, you know.

We managed it, we managed to get through it, but there is

only so much of it you can do, is my point, I guess. I wouldn't want to see us

be counterproductive in what we are doing here today in that we - if we reduce

the seats - I mean, I believe we should go further, I say to the Premier, in all

sincerity. I think forty-four seats as proposed by the Commission made a lot of

sense. It was independent. It went out and about and it listened to us. It made

its judgements and I think we should have left it alone.

PREMIER WELLS: What do you do (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't believe it. I don't support it.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well I don't support that aspect of

it.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) forty-four (inaudible) four in

Labrador.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. I had difficulty with that, I say

quite honestly to the Premier. It is nothing to do with Labrador (inaudible).

MS VERGE: The problem is with the act. The Commission was

constrained by the legislation.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) say: We are going to have four

in Labrador and then divide up the other forty on a different basis. You can't

do that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I totally agree with the Premier. I

appreciate the question and I have answered it as honestly as I can answer it. I

mean, it is like one proposal - we were briefed at one point in time and saw a

seat proposed for the South Coast of 4,000 people or something, Burgeo I think

it was. I mean, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. How could you tolerate

that?

I was getting back to the rural/urban and I lost my train of

thought. I said, what brought it home to me one time was during that first term

- and we were busy. I remember at the time the former Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes, Mr. Hearn, was here and we were busy, there is no doubt about that.

It was a busy time and there were members, of course, in the caucus, quite a

number of them from the St. John's region, no disrespect. I said to one of them,

`I suppose you're busy?' I don't know how far we were into the term but it was

certainly more than a year - and he said to me: `Well, I've had one call this

term,' and that brought it home to me. I am not saying that in any way to

belittle the situation but - and I see the Member for St. John's Centre there

getting a little restless.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Member for St. John's Centre.

I would say he has a great deal (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Listen, but that is not the point. That

was recognized yesterday by a former speaker who said - I think it is obvious by

the way the member behaves. I happened to be residing in his district not too

long ago and all that stuff, we used to get the odd thing from him but yes, I

agree with the Premier. Yes, he is busy and he gets out and about. He gets into

issues that are important to the people he represents. There is no doubt about

that but to a large degree - there are members here who have admitted it;

Kilbride, Waterford - Kenmount, Mount Pearl and others who say that their

workload is not as heavy as that of someone in rural Newfoundland. So there is

an argument to be made for it, I think. We all understand where we are coming

from. How to deal with it, I suppose, is the other question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if it is heavy it is easier for me

to get to it quickly.

point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) where somebody who has

seventeen councils to deal with cannot.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I made that point earlier, I say to

the Premier, when I was talking about adding the six, seven, eight or ten

different communities into an existing district of getting around and getting -

I mentioned firemen's balls and banquets and all this stuff, you just can only

get to so many.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is busy enough. We have all

experienced that. I think we are sort of agreeing in what we are saying here but

it is just the way of trying to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course you do. Of course the office -

oh yes, I am sure you do. Listen, there is no one - I guess, what we are saying

is, we realize the economic times. I guess what I am trying to say is we

recognize the economic times. There is no doubt what the public would like us to

do, in my view, at all. They would like a reduction and it is a matter of us who

are here in the - who understand the system, who understand the workload, of

trying to make a decision that makes sense. I guess that is what I am trying to

say - Trying to make a decision that makes sense, that enables people to do

their job effectively, to represent the people effectively, people have access

to you and you can still live. You still have time to sleep, eat and breathe. I

guess that is what we have to try to do here, and I think we can do that with

less than forty-eight seats.

PREMIER WELLS: I agree with (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not agreeing with that. I have

already stated that I don't agree with it, I say to the Premier. I do