November

23, 1995 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII

No. 61

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on July 20th of this year, I announced a Call

for Postings, under the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Regulations,

1991, inviting companies to identify lands in Western Newfoundland that they

would like to see made available in a Request for Bids, and, Mr. Speaker, we had

a great response.

I am pleased to announce to this House today, that I intend

to make a Request for Bids. I am happy to inform you that this will be by far

the largest land offering to date. Thirty-one parcels of land totalling almost

one million hectares will be made available for competitive bidding by the

petroleum industry.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the West Coast of the Island

have long been aware of the numerous oil seeps throughout the area, and

historically this goes back to 1812. The historical record shows the first oil

seeps being noted as long ago as 1812.

The geologists and geophysicists within my department and at

Memorial University's Earth Sciences Department are very familiar with the

positive geological factors present in the area. The petroleum industry has

recently rediscovered the area as an overlooked frontier. One well has recently

been drilled and it was finished as of August 1st and another well is presently

being drilled on the Port au Port Peninsula.

We have seismic exploration ongoing in the Port au

Port/Stephenville area right now, today, and several programs are in the

planning stages, and applications have been submitted to my department. This

Request for Bids will provide the opportunity for an increased level of

exploration and for new companies to get involved in the area.

The Request for Bids will close on March 22, 1996. This will

give the companies four months to assess the potential of these parcels and plan

their bids. It will also provide companies with the opportunity to acquire

seismic data over the winter months when the ground is frozen. This data will be

used to identify promising geological structures.

The bids, Mr. Speaker, are to be submitted in the form of

work commitments. It is only by means of exploration programs, that include

seismic and drilling, that we will determine the petroleum potential of Western

Newfoundland. By accepting bids in the form of work commitments, we encourage

these crucial exploration programs to get moving.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased by the high level of interest

that the oil and gas industry has expressed in Western Newfoundland. I look

forward to reporting an enthusiastic response to the bids by March.

As an aside, I want to draw attention to the map which shows

thirty-one areas from the tip of the Northern Peninsula down to the Port aux

Basques area; there are thirty-one blocks that are up for bids.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: I also want to note that publicly,

previously, I have stated that I wanted to close this call for bids by some time

in December, to have the licences out by January, but because of the large

aerial extent of these thirty-one blocks, because we have pending programs in

application stage in the department to do seismic programs this winter, and

because it would be best for companies to get the seismic programs done so they

would know how to bid, I am delaying the closing until March 22. The winter is

the best time to do this type of exploration, so let's let them do it, and then

I expect we will have a great response come March 22.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his

statement well in advance. We, in the Opposition, consider this to be good news.

Certainly, any significant increase in oil exploration on land is doubly good in

that there is absolutely no question as to the ownership and jurisdiction over

the petroleum resources that may be there. With regard to this, and mineral

finds as well, one point that I have made that I would encourage the minister

and the government to look into is some sort of equalization deal as we have for

Hibernia so that we maximize the profit to the Province of any income from such

finds.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

As a result of a decision by Madam Justice Wilson on December

7, 1989, in the Tock versus St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, municipalities

are facing an increasing number of liability claims. This has resulted in

municipalities being sued for actions that are beyond their control.

Municipalities have no protection under current legislation and as a consequence

they face higher liability insurance costs and possibly the actual loss of

liability insurance altogether. This is a very serious issue for municipalities

and in fact a resolution at the autumn convention suggested that some

municipalities may be seriously impacted and have very serious negative

consequences for them.

Does the minister intend to introduce legislative amendments

that will address this issue in this session of the House, and if so, when, and

if not, why not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of liability to

municipalities to some degree is being addressed in the new Municipalities Act

and I was hoping that the act would be ready for public consumption, I guess,

through the Federation of Municipalities and ourselves because that is who put

it together, and in the next while hopefully get the new Municipalities Act in

place before we address changing legislation, the other parts of the act that

would need changes to the legislation.

We are taking that particular problem seriously but it is

going to take some time before we can actually address the whole question of

liability as it relates to municipalities. I would like to say to the House that

a number of these issues have been raised and are being talked about at least,

not necessarily dealt with, and ultimately, I suppose, I will have to come back

to the House. I cannot say to the hon. member and this House exactly when we

will be bringing in changes to the legislation, but I can safely say it will not

be in this sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount

on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there are four issues involved.

As the minister knows because of this decision the premiums for liability

insurance have increased, the deductabilities have increased, there has been an

increase in the cost of claims, that is the amount paid to the people who sue

the municipalities, and also an increase in the number of claims. In other words

municipalities face liability claims for performing duties and for not

performing duties, for sins of omission and commission, regardless of whether or

not the municipality had knowledge of the servicing problem or whether or not

the problem was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Or whether or not the

problem was caused by a rare occurrence, like a once in a one-hundred year

storm. Last year the minister publicly stated he would introduce legislation

this term. I want to know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: - more precisely why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct

when he is expressing on behalf of municipalities the concerns, in particular

the four concerns that he raised. He is also aware that because of recent

judgements - for example the one on Bell Island, Wabana, in regards to the fire

department, which I suppose at the end of the day you can look at as being a

good ruling from our point of view. But then, even because it was a good ruling

it is enough reason for us to go back and look at pertinent acts as it relates

to certain issues in municipalities. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are

in the process of doing it.

I will say this to him. I'm sure he understands how much time

it takes to go through the Minister of Justice's department and go through my

department and have all these people review and look at these pieces of

legislation. At the end of the day I can assure the hon. gentleman and this

House that all those issues that the hon. gentleman has raised here today will

be dealt with in due course. Hopefully sometime either in the spring session

next year or in the fall session, as quickly as I can get them in, I will bring

them to this House for House approval.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on a different question. At the

emergency meeting with the NLFM on Saturday November 18 the minister committed

support and participation of government in a cooperative and collaborative

review of municipal financing in the Province. More specifically, the minister

agreed to appoint a task force to review the operation and financing of local

government. Has the minister, in cooperation with the NLFM executive, developed

the terms of reference for the task force, and when will the minister be sharing

the specifics of this task force with the House?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I received yesterday - in fact it

wasn't me at all, it was addressed to my Deputy Minister - the suggested terms

of reference for this particular task force. I haven't had a chance this

morning, being busy. It came late yesterday afternoon. In fact I have it here.

I'm going to review it myself today and I'm going to issue some direction to my

staff, being the Deputy Minister, hopefully some time tomorrow.

Immediate attention will be paid to this. We are going to

come together with the Federation of Municipalities, maybe as early as tomorrow

if we can do it. The Federation of Municipalities to sit down - and we are going

to suggest to them the direction that we think. So it is going to be sort of a

collaboration of both groups coming together, if not on Friday, tomorrow, it

will be Monday or Tuesday. We will set the direction. The federation has said

that they are willing to contribute their share of the financing of that

particular task force. They have made some recommendations already and told me

some of the things that they suggest that we should do as a government. I have

not had time to even digest it. I just never had the time this morning to do it

because I was in Cabinet but I can assure the hon. gentleman that as soon as we

sit down and we agree on the terms of reference I will make the terms of

reference known to the hon. gentleman and anyone else in the Province that wants

to know.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the agreement that was reached

last Saturday indicates that the report of the task force will be due on or

before January 31, 1996. I would like to ask the minister, has he made decisions

or had discussions with who will be sitting on the task force? He mentioned who

is going to be paying for some of the expenses and will it be arrangements for

public hearings throughout the Province so that municipalities can have their

collective and individual concerns put forward?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any commitments

whatsoever on what the task force will actually do. I cannot honestly say to him

who will sit on the task force because the federation - in a letter this morning

that was one of the first questions. I asked my deputy, when he mentioned the

letter to me, did they recommend it? The federation has not recommended yet, who

should sit on the task force. They did suggest earlier this week in a telephone

conversation to my deputy minister that they would like to have somebody from

the federation sit on the task force. I am not sure who they are going to put on

there and I have not even thought about it yet, who I would put on there

representing the government. So the answer to all these questions is, for the

time being I have to say no to all of it.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the present cutbacks by government in all departments

and the fact that the Minister of Social Services has stated here in the House

and in the media that her entire departmental programs are under review, I would

like to ask the minister a question in relation to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Youth Centre at Whitbourne. Could the minister tell the House how many people

are presently employed at the facility and could she tell us how many are on

staff versus how many are in management?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you. I don't have the figures in front of

me but I certainly will get them for the member.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister should

be aware that the ratio of management versus staff at the Whitbourne Centre is

approximately one for two - one manager for every two staff members. A few

examples are: We have an administrator, an assistant administrator, a security

operations manager, a program manager, four facility operations managers, four

cottage managers, food manager, kitchen manager, building manager, assistant

building manager, and so on; the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is

totally out of control. The minister must be held accountable.

I ask the minister: When she proceeds to make cuts, will she

be sending home people who are in management or will, as usual, the people who

are providing the front-line duties, the youth care workers, are they the people

who are going to lose their jobs, Madam Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you.

I want to thank the hon. member for his questions. Certainly

all of these positions that he named out are correct, and the whole matter of

staffing is being reviewed by my department.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has also been brought to my attention that there are

usually eighty-five residents at the Youth Care Centre, but the number is now

hovering around sixty. There seems to be some concern that residents are being

sent home on TA - temporary absence - or early release in order to save dollars

once again.

I would like to ask the minister: Is this the case, and if so

what type of message does she believe her government is sending out to young

people and to the courts of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the people in the Whitbourne Centre make decisions

based on the information that they have regarding the young offenders, and any

decisions that they make are based on sound decisions that they have come to as

a result of why, indeed, that person is in the centre, in the first instance,

and then as to the length of time they have to serve, and so on, so all of the

issues that they deal with around young offenders is based on professional

judgement.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, Unit 5 at the Whitbourne Youth

Centre is known as the female unit. I have been told that at present female

residents and male residents now occupy Unit 5. I would like to ask the

minister, is this a fact, and is this one of her plans to save money?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any decisions, as I say, that our staff make at the

Whitbourne Centre have been made based on professional information that they

have, and they deal with the young offenders in a professional and reasonable

manner.

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

Capes, on a final supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I have several other questions

but I guess I will have to make one.

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention also that

there are very well-paid resident unit supervisors at Whitbourne, who are

responsible for each, individual unit, but they only work the day shifts, Mr.

Speaker, and sometimes on Saturday mornings.

I would like to ask the minister: If they are only needed on

days and not on nights and on weekends, the question has to be asked, are they

needed at all, and isn't this the place where money could be saved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the day there is certainly a lot more movement of

residents from one unit to another, and back and forth to the school and to the

working areas, so I would assume there would probably be need for more workers

during the day than there would be during the evening.

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

Capes, this will be his final supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the problems at the Youth

Centre in the past especially not long ago when a youth care worker was

attacked.

With the proposed cuts, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that the

department plans on cutting the youth care workers from two to one per cottage,

per unit, from twelve midnight until the morning shift in order to save dollars

again.

I would like to ask the minister: Can she confirm that this

is going to take place and will she be taking responsibility for the youth care

worker who will be left alone with ten residents on the midnight shift?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what I am hearing. One minute he is advocating

that we cut down on the number of workers at the centre and the next instance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS YOUNG: - he is asking us to improve it, so all of our

budgetary measures are being reviewed. We are looking at ways that we will be

improving our fiscal situation and any decisions we make at the Whitbourne

Centre will be made with sound, reasonable judgement.

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 asked the minister if he or his department has had any

input into the calculation of the proposed licensing fees that were recently

brought forward by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To answer the question correctly I would have to say in the

exact calculations, no, but my officers had discussions with the federal

minister on the issue of the fees and we have expressed a view.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the minister has remained silent once again on this

financial hardship about to be inflicted upon the fishermen and women of this

Province by his cousins in Ottawa, we can only assume that the minister agrees

with the proposals as brought forward.

I would like to ask the minister, how he can justify agreeing

with 1400 per cent to 1500 per cent increases in license fees at a time when

this industry can least afford it. Minister, do you agree with those exorbitant

increases and I would like to ask you, what views did you put forward to your

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question that the timing of these fee increases

are off as far as my ministry is concerned and this government is concerned,

simply because of the state of the fishing industry in this Province. I should

also say that it is probably easy to justify somewhat the increases in fees for

the fisheries that are lucrative fisheries, those fisheries that retain and

continue to retain a good return on the investment and the work involved. But

even having said that, for those fisheries as well, I should say that it is my

view that the increases should have been introduced in a more graduated rate

than a one time imposed fee.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the

minister if he is at all concerned about the cost of a groundfish licence to

fisherpersons after the moratorium ends. Those fishermen and fisherwomen could

end up paying thousands of dollars under this proposed structure in the area

where the industry might be experiencing a total failure. I ask the minister if

he would consider this, and if he is about to make a proposal to the federal

minister to make changes in this proposal as put forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the reason why it can change, I

say to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Eagle River to restrain himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the minister.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. To

go back to the question now. As the hon. member is well aware the present fee

increases of course exclude those licences affected by the groundfish fishery.

With the return of the fishery and the opening up once again of the use of those

licences, then the whole issue of the licence fee will have to be reassessed

vis--vis that fishery and the condition of that fishery in the Province. Or I

might even say, in certain areas of the Province versus other areas. If, as the

hon. gentleman suggests, that in some cases there may be a severe hardship on

those using those licences in certain areas of the Province, then this whole

thing would have to be addressed at that time, of course.

The interests of this government, and certainly of this

minister, is to do everything possible to ease the pressures today and even in

the future on those involved in the fishery of this Province. That includes the

groundfish fishery when it returns. I believe indeed it will be returning, and

probably quite fairly soon. Thank you.

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

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

the Minister of Justice concerning the electoral boundaries bill. As you are

aware, the new boundary changes will divide the town of Grand Falls - Windsor,

placing a small part of the town in the proposed district of Grand Falls -

Buchans, and part of the town in Windsor - Springdale, and ten or so houses in

the Grenfell Heights area, which is now under the District of Grand Falls, and

according to the boundary description will be placed in Exploits district.

Since only the House of Assembly has the power to amend the

proposed boundaries, notwithstanding the fact that the population of the town of

Grand Falls - Windsor according to the 1991 census is 14,693, which is

approximately 1,300 persons above the 10 per cent variance; and given the fact

that the town was recently amalgamated and there is still a lot of sensitivity

with regard to splitting the town into two districts; and also given the fact

that two districts in Labrador were given exemption from the plus or minus 10

per cent variance, my question is: Would the minister consider an amendment that

special consideration be given to amend in the electoral boundaries act to

permit all of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in a single

district known as the district of Grand Falls - Windsor?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon.

gentleman doesn't mean to suggest that the situation of the people who live

along the Coast of Labrador between L'Anse-au-Clair and Nain is comparable to

that of the people who live in the town of Grand Falls - Windsor in the middle

of the Island on the Trans-Canada Highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let me go on. If the gentleman

for Mount Pearl would contain himself. I realize he is fulfilling all of the

roles of the leadership on the other side today, but let me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the hon. gentleman needs help

understanding, and it is beyond my help. Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the

gentleman for Grand Falls. Only the House can set the boundaries, and this

matter will go in Committee on Monday, I anticipate. I assume the House will

deal with it at second reading today but that remains to be seen. The House can

deal with it. We have brought before the House the recommendations of Mr.

Justice Noel. Mr. Justice Noel was given a commission that allowed him to vary

by 10 per cent from the quotient. He drew the boundaries and we are bringing

them here before the House. All I can say to my hon. friend is that government

are not going to make an exception for the reasons he has given because, in our

opinion, the reasons he has given are contrary to the principles upon which the

bill is founded. Now, he can try in making his case in Committee when we come to

it and the Committee will be the master, because in that context, the Committee

is the House.

Mr. Speaker, I must reject, it is really specious in the

extreme, the analogy to try to compare the situation of people who live in

Makkovik, Davis Inlet, or Cartwright, or L'Anse au Clair, with the people who

live in the town of Grand Falls - Windsor. Surely, that is not worthy of the

hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Speaker, my question was not to compare

the District of Grand Falls - Buchans or Grand Falls - Windsor to Coastal

Labrador. My question was: Would the minister consider an amendment, given the

fact that it was like an exemption in the case of two districts, an exemption

that the 10 per cent variance was made in that case, and where the town of Grand

Falls - Windsor seems to be on the other end of the scale and having nothing to

do with the size of the geography, but the population. My question was, would he

consider it as a single district?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware there was a

question. I heard an attempt to rephrase the earlier question and I have as much

difficultly understanding the second one as the first one. In case my first

answer wasn't clear, let me say again, we are not prepared to consider an

exemption on the grounds put forward by the hon. gentleman because the situation

of Grand Falls - Windsor, in our view, is no different from that of the people

who live in St. John's, Corner Brook, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, or anywhere

else. The only exemptions we are prepared to put forward are those in respect of

the people who live along the 800 or 900 miles of coastline between L'Anse au

Clair in the south and Nain in the north.

Now, the hon. gentleman can state his case in the Committee

of the Whole House here and if he can persuade the committee that is fine. The

committee sets the boundaries, but the hon. gentleman, in my submission, has not

made a case for an exemption and indeed I think he has even acknowledged he has

backed off himself in his second attempt to phrase his question. He really

should speak to whoever writes the questions for him, is my suggestion, and ask

them to do it better.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make no comment about the attack on the new member.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from Long Island in my District of

Green Bay. It is in arrears with regard to debt charges, and if these are

refinanced and it meets its current ongoing charges, it is going to have to come

up with something like $68,000 a year for a community of some 200 taxpayers.

Actually, getting into the situation in order to get another phase, to be

allowed to have another phase of water and sewer, would mean a raise of say from

$175 a year poll tax to about $650, nearly 400 per cent. Is the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs saying that this kind of exorbitant increase is

the price that a community must pay if it is to remain rural in these economic

circumstances and still expect services from the government?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I really don't know, Mr. Speaker, what his

question was. I am assuming what the hon. member is saying is correct, that a

400 per cent increase is necessary in order for that community to stay viable as

a rural community. I don't think that any community in this Province is going to

disappear because of the amount of taxation a municipality charges people to

live there. I am led to believe that there are a lot of people, or a number of

people, in this Province who are moving out of the Province today for various

reasons, mostly to find employment, and I challenge anyone in this House to find

me someone who moved out because the taxes in the community were too high.

Ironically enough, most of them are moving to Edmonton,

Toronto, and places where they will have to pay ten times the amount that they

would have to pay in some of the communities in rural Newfoundland. So, I am not

going to accept the fact that people are moving out of rural Newfoundland today

because taxes are too high. The hon. member has communities in his district

where they are paying as low as $100 and less than $100 a year for services

provided to the people in various communities around this Province and

especially in his. I say to him, we have reached a point in our history when

people who are living in these communities are going to have to start paying for

services. This government can no longer afford to be going out into communities,

be it rural or urban Newfoundland, and saying here are millions of dollars,

millions and millions of dollars of money each year for you to put Cadillac

water and sewage systems in the ground and not having to pay anything towards it

and that is what is happening in a lot of communities around this Province. A

lot of communities around this Province are saying categorically, I am not

paying any more. I am not going to raise the taxes. I am not paying any more.

Sobeit, Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to pay any more then they can't

expect to get any more services then what they have at the present time.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: In the case of Long Island we are dealing

with a situation where we have a town with half a Cadillac system that was put

in under a different set of rules and regulations. The minister is basically

saying and I want him to answer - what he is saying that if they want any more

water and sewer that fits in with half of the town that is already done then the

only way they can do it is go through these exorbitant local tax increases or

literally do without half of the town being done at all.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if the

people on Long Island, be it Lushes Bight or Beaumont or wherever it is, want to

continue getting funding from this Province for water and sewer services or

upgrading, street improvements and road improvements, they are going to have to

pay the money that they signed for over the last number of years in the

commitment they made to the Government of Newfoundland - your government by the

way, because 90 per cent of what they have in the ground out there you gave it

to them and put them in the situation that they are in. They pay their share

that they agreed to pay to NMFC. Now, at the end of the day, if they can't

afford to make that payment then that is the point in time when I will have to

step in and do something about that. But I am saying exactly what the member is

saying, I don't disagree at all. I agree with you but you have to agree with me

as well. Government does not have the money any longer to put these expensive

systems in the ground. If people want them, if people want to live in this

Province in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and not have these services, and not

avail of these services, sobeit. It doesn't matter to me and I am certainly sure

it really doesn't matter to the government where people live, but they can't

live in places in this Province and expect the government to foot the bill for

all the expenses incurred.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Order, please!

Before we move on with the proceedings, I just want to draw

hon. members' attention to some of the rules governing Question Period and I

refer them to Beauchesne, Paragraph 409, which says:

"A brief question seeking information about an important

matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of

the government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order.

(1) It must be a question, not an expression of an opinion,

representation, argumentation, nor debate.

(2) The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed

one carefully drawn sentence. A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair

share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question

should need no

preamble."

With regard to the nature of the question, it:

(5) "...ought to be of some urgency. There must be some

present value in seeking the information during the Question Period rather than

through the Order Paper or through correspondence with the Minister or the

department.

(12) Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for

the day, but should be reserved for the debate."

I would just ask hon. members to keep these in mind, on both

sides, when asking and answering these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My friend, the Minister of Natural Resources, is out of the

House for a moment or two. On his behalf, may I give notice that he, on

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

Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on

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

Accountancy Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander has a

Notice of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Could we revert to Notices of Motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador are the most easterly

points in North America, which historically had and continues to have major

importance as a strategic military location; and

WHEREAS only 2 per cent of Canada's national defence budget

is spent in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS every other Province of Canada, except two, receives

a higher percentage of the Department of National Defence budget;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call

in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

FURTHER

BE IT RESOLVED that this House recognize Gander as a

to take appropriate action to strengthen, modernize and expand Gander and other

military locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, obviously, from the applause,

members recognize that in the words of one famous former member of the House,

the hon. the Member for Gander just made his `first' maiden speech.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, I had this answer and it

was hidden and I couldn't get it, and hon. members weren't willing to give me

leave to give it, but I am happy to give it now. I was asked some time ago by

the Member for St. John's East whether the government was in the process of

burying the regulation on which the recent court case was founded. My reaction

to the member at the time was that that was an inappropriate characterization of

what the government was doing in terms of eliminating the excessive regulatory

burden, but I am happy to tell the House that the recommendations recommend the

re-enactment of those regulations and not the elimination of them.

Secondly, I was asked some time ago, by the Leader of the

Opposition - or in response to her suggestions that there were now more deputy

ministers than there were six or seven years ago, and more assistant deputy

ministers. I had a very thorough assessment done. I had to make sure that

everything was corrected. I was out a little bit. I had suggested - I was pretty

well dead on in one - but I had suggested that in 1989 there was something like

129. It turns out there were 131 all told, and in 1995 there were 110. So it is

a reduction of twenty-one members, roughly about 17 per cent or 18 per cent less

than it was in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to table the information. It contains

a list of all of the positions and all of the persons filling those positions,

or an indication that the position is vacant if in fact it is vacant.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in

response to a question put by my hon. friend the Member for Bonavista South

earlier this week concerning a surimi production facility at Clarenville.

Back in 1984 two lines were established at the Clarenville

plant. One line was a surimi line and the other was an imitation crab line. The

surimi line of course was in place utilizing small fish from the cod trap

fishery. The source of raw material for the source of surimi came to a halt with

the moratorium that was called in July of 1992. Since 1992 that particular

equipment has been sitting idle in the plant occupying space and gathering dust.

The imitation crab line has continued to operate utilizing surimi material from

the West Coast of Canada at a considerable cost to the company.

The member also raised the question as to whether there were

any government funds involved. The company received no assistance under the

department's loan guarantee program to purchase any of this equipment.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Finance and Treasury

Board have confirmed that there are no financial obligations between the company

and the Province on any of this equipment either.

It is my understanding as late as this morning, in speaking

with the owner of that plant, that all equipment still remains in that plant. I

think I understood the hon. member on Monday to say that it was moving out on

Monday. All of the equipment still remains in that plant.

Further to this, this particular company is now exploring

opportunities to utilize the surimi line in a joint venture effort elsewhere in

order to be able to attain a reasonable price product to continue on with the

imitation crab line so that that production facility can be put on a more viable

basis. This of course will enhance the operation in the production of the

imitation crab product.

It is unfortunate the way the question was worded on Monday.

It sort of incited some degree of unsureness of the workers out at that plant,

and it created some problem as you know. The media on Tuesday morning indicated

that the production facility was closing and moving out of the Province. That

created some uncertainty amongst those workers and I'm very sorry that that

happened. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question

I asked the minister was if the equipment was being moved out of Clarenville and

to the Province of Nova Scotia. The minister in responding to Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given stated it was still in the plant in

Clarenville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - but then he went on to say that it was

moving somewhere else in order to make it viable. Now is it being moved

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - out of the plant or is it not? That's

the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member may have a

difference of opinion with the hon. minister but that certainly doesn't

constitute a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the hon. Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay was inquiring about the status of an application under the Program for

Older Worker Adjustment with respect to the mining operation in Baie Verte. As

indicated, Mr. Speaker, the layoff occurred in November last year, the

application under the program was submitted in July of '95, the permanent layoff

status of the company which is required under the program did not occur until

August of '95, a couple of months ago. This is done under a federal/provincial

agreement and there is a process in place, Mr. Speaker.

The provincial approval designating - the official layoff

took a total of two days, that was done back in August, it was then forwarded to

the federal government system for the rest of the approvals, normally that

process, Mr. Speaker, because this is done on a nation-wide process for layoffs

in all industrial sectors, takes up to six months in most cases because the

final decisions in the federal process are made at the federal treasury board

and there is quite a system to go through to get on the treasury board agenda.

The individual verifications have all been done. If in fact

it is approved through the system in its next meeting in December month, then

the process requires that there is a tendering process because the benefits paid

under this early retirement program, Mr. Speaker, are contracted out through

annuity, that will take a period of time and the earliest date for this one,

could be concluded, in our last check with Ottawa, is likely to be still March

month and that would be with everybody's best effort, so I provide the

information and I am sure the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay will get

the information from Hansard tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might begin by moving that the

House do not adjourn at five and that the House do not adjourn at ten, tonight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at

five and do not adjourn at ten.

All those in favour, `aye"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call, Motion

No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, moved by the hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the

debate or further consideration of second reading of Bill No. 31, entitled, "An

Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act",

standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and any amendments to

that motion for second reading of Bill No. 31 shall not be further adjourned and

that further consideration of any amendments relating to the second reading of

Bill No. 31 shall not be further postponed.

All in those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Order 24,

which is Bill No. 31?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to speak again to this particular debate, not so

much because I have anything new that I did not say in the first part, but to

protest the message used by the government in bringing closure to the debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of us I think, on this side of the

House have been very co-operative and very understanding of the process and

yesterday we were -

MR. SPEAKER: I was just wondering if the hon. member -

yes, we are now debating the amendment and it's twenty minutes. Each individual

who speaks can only speak for twenty minutes and the members who had spoken on

the amendment cannot speak a second time of course, and members who have spoken

on the main motion cannot speak a second time, I just want to inform the House

so that all hon. members will be aware of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is that a person who has

spoken on the main motion may not speak again, and my friend from Waterford

-Kenmount, has spoken on the main motion in this debate, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: But he can speak on the amendment.

MR. ROBERTS: He has not spoken on the amendment, Sir, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No, we are not debating the closure motion. The closure

motion has been passed. We are now debating the amendment. We are now debating

the amendment to Bill 31.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of order, fifty in our own

Standing Orders, which is the closure motion, says once the closure motion has

been resolved in the affirmative no member shall thereafter speak more than once

or longer then twenty minutes. It has always been a practice in this House that

once closure is called, because all other debates, whether they be amendments,

sub-amendments or the main motion have been therefore eliminated that every

member now has one opportunity to speak but for only twenty minutes. That has

been the practice, Mr. Speaker, in the past for as long as I've been here.

MR. SPEAKER: I will just address the point of order

raised by the hon. member. We are now debating the amendment under the closure

motion. Amendments can be made under that but no person can speak if he has

already spoken to the main amendment or if he has already spoken to the main

motion or the amendment and this has been ruled on on several occasions. I have

here the latest ruling on that. On May 10, 1994, the hon. Speaker ruled that on

the question that was raised with respect to Standing Order 50 - I will first of

all point out that what is being debated is not the closure motion. The motion

is neither debatable nor amendable. What we are now doing is debating the

question of second reading and accordingly those who have spoken on a previous

day are not entitled to again speak because they have already spoken to the

second reading except, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has, with leave.

However, if the bill is amended or it is amended at second reading then those

who have spoken on a previous day and not spoken to the point today may again

speak, provided they do not exceed the twenty minutes. That has been ruled again

- the same ruling - on April 8, 1991. So clearly that is the procedure that we

have been following and that is a precedent.

MR. WINDSOR: Your Honour, if I might? I know it is not

permissible to debate with Your Honour but maybe you can correct me, Your

Honour, are we not debating the member's motion that the debate shall not be

further adjourned? That is what the member moved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No. As I explained, we are not debating the closure motion

that motion has been put and carried. That is not amendable nor debatable. What

we are debating is the amendment to Bill 31.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair just thought that we would

clarify that point before we got too far into the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that

your ruling indicates that if I have not spoken on the amendment then I may

proceed to make my comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my commentary reflects the fact that the House

was, I thought, proceeding quite nicely with the discussion. We have had a good

dialogue back and forth and members have expressed a variety of opinions.

Members from rural Newfoundland have advocated the opinion that there should

have been some leeway in the 10 per cent rule. Mr. Speaker, we have had

discussion relative to the cost, to the process that was followed and relative

to the appointment of Justice Mahoney and then the report and then the following

report by Justice Noel. There have been some good points made. So therefore, Mr.

Speaker, we were quite surprised in yesterday's session when the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation rose in his place and said that when the

debate started today that it would not stop until the debate had ceased and a

vote had been called.

Now, Mr. Speaker, closure is always a very profound weapon. A

weapon of last resort that a government has. We don't, on this side, fault the

concept of closure. We only say that, why would we introduce it when the

Government House Leader knew, or should have known, and I know he knew because

he keeps very accurate records of everybody who had spoken, he would have known

the members on this side who had spoken, unless, of course, he happened to know

that there were a lot of people who wanted to speak on his side of the House and

they had not yet had an opportunity to stand in their place and express their

opinion. I rather doubt if that would be the case, however, he would have known

exactly how many minutes each member on this side would have taken. In looking

across at the benches here he could have found out how many speakers there would

have been left to speak on the amendment and also on the main motion. In fact,

there is only a handful of us left to speak on the amendment and there are only

two or three at maximum left to speak on the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have some concerns that this closure motion

was introduced without fair consideration to the concept of parliamentary

debate. We, over here, could certainly not be accused of delaying the debate.

The motion was introduced on Monday of this week, November 20, and today is the

23rd and we are saying that it must pass second reading today. Now, that

certainly is a fair enough reason for me to stand and exercise my right, which

is to speak on the amendment even though I had already spoken on the main

motion.

When members have been speaking there have been a variety of

viewpoints. Some people are in favour of the forty-eight seat concept, and some

believe it should be reduced to forty seats. I haven't heard anybody say it

should stay at fifty-two, but there may be members who might hold that viewpoint

who have not spoken. My own viewpoint is that the membership of the House should

be nearer to forty than it should be to forty-eight; however, I am prepared to

accept the forty-four seat concept.

I listened to the Premier's dialogue with the Opposition

House Leader a few days ago and it was a very good exchange, I might say, in

fact one of the better exchanges that I have seen in the House in the last

while. It was rational, it shared the rationale that the government had for

moving from the forty-four, it was logical, and I am sure it helped enlighten

members as to the reasons and the viewpoints that government have. In fact, it

was probably the one ten minutes that we had here when there was some semblance

of what I would call real dialogue and exchange that was meaningful. I thank

both hon. gentlemen for arranging that. I know it wasn't arranged in that sense

of the word, but it just happened, and it was very useful.

Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about the 10 per cent versus

25 per cent variation, urban versus rural. I know that we have to try to have

representation by population, and I listened carefully the other day to the

viewpoints put forward by the Member for Eagle River when the member argued that

we should have four seats in Labrador because there is going to be a phenomenal

growth take place in Labrador. I hope that there is an increase in the

population in Labrador, and in fact I expect there will be an increase in the

population with the economic activity that is occurring or is expected to occur

in Labrador in the next several years.

However, likewise, we have to be careful with that kind of

rationale because if we applied that to other parts of the Province, to rural

Newfoundland, we would have to look at the fact that there is an expectation

that there will be more and more people move out of rural Newfoundland. It is

totally unfair in 1995 that we should allocate fewer seats to rural Newfoundland

on the basis that we might expect the population to be declining by the year

2000 or the year 2005, and you cannot accept one rationale without accepting the

other. Likewise, in the district that I represent, Waterford - Kenmount, it is

recognized that in what is the Waterford

section of that there have been

tremendous changes in the population statistics since 1991, the year in which

the last official census was taken. Two major subdivisions have been built in

that district since then, but we have to take a year, and when we take a year,

in this particular case, we take the official Census of Canada data, so that is

June of 1991, and over the ten-year period, the figures will change. People

move. Some areas, some communities, will grow, and some will decline, and this

is why every ten years we have a census and why, every ten years, or as near to

that as possible, we have a review of the electoral boundaries for the House of

Assembly. That has been the practice for a long, long time and I suspect it will

continue to be the practice in the future Houses.

Mr. Speaker, the other issues that have been raised have been

addressed, I think, adequately by my colleagues. Again, I go back to the closure

that has been introduced by the minister. I think it is regrettable, because it

kind of indicates that members on this side of the House have not been

co-operative and therefore the government, as a last resort, said: We will have

to introduce closure out of absolute frustration.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the House again, I have seen no

evidence of any attempt on this side of the House to frustrate the process, that

this bill was, I think, ready to be put to the House this day regardless of

whether or not there was going to be closure, or whether or not there would be

the normal process followed.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments I again indicate that I will

be voting against the bill. It is a step in the right direction. I would have

preferred if it had gone further towards the forty rather than up to the

forty-eight, and I would have preferred a smaller House than the forty-eight

seat proposal as is indicated in this bill.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak on the amendment put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, I guess, and to make a couple of points

related to the bill that we are dealing with.

There are two major problems, as I see, with this particular

piece of legislation. The first one is that, in my opinion, the reduction in

seats does not go far enough, particularly in the strong or more populated

regions of the Province, urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

In my case, I represent a district of some 15,000 people, the

statistics presented as proposed in the 1991 census. I can say with certainty,

because of the parameters and the geography from which that population lives,

that it would be no problem for myself to service an additional 6,000 or 7,000

people. I have a busy district; it is very rural in many ways, a heavy farming

area, agricultural area, fishery area - people who are fishermen and fisherwomen

also reside in my district - many public servants, many social services

problems, so it is a large district with a hodgepodge of problems, but the

reality is, for members who represent urban districts, we are in a far more

advantageous position to represent more people simply because of the nature of

how close we are to the district.

I live directly in the center of my district. If a

constituent has a problem, or contacts me either through my office here or my

district office on Bay Bulls Road, or at home, it is very easy for me to respond

to that situation very quickly. The situation is not true and does not exist for

many members in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who represent rural ridings. The

reality is, members here who represent rural districts may have to travel

upwards to seven, eight or nine hours. They have sixteen, seventeen, sometimes

eighteen different municipal councils to deal with, interact with, on a regular

basis. I have two. Members who deal with specific problems related to fishery;

high unemployment, moreso in rural Newfoundland than in more urban areas - these

are the issues that rural Newfoundland representatives have to face on a more

daily basis.

I know, in our office, the number of calls MHAs who represent

Newfoundland receive in a given week far exceed the norm that most St. John's or

other urban members receive in a given week. Again, these are general statements

I make because there are specific examples which do not apply.

Mr. Speaker, my feeling, and I submit to the House and to the

government, is have another look at this piece of legislation. Why can't we

reduce it to forty-four or to forty seats, forty-two seats, as the old

boundaries indicated?

I wanted to be on the record as well, as saying that, as a

member of the House, I support four seats for Labrador. A definite case can be

made and has been made, obviously, for the distinct cultural and linguistic

differences that exist in a northern region of the Province, in a huge region

that makes up Newfoundland and Labrador. As one member - and I believe there are

other members on this side of the House as well - I say to my friend, the Member

for Eagle River, that this member here supports four seats for Labrador, and

this Party does not have a position by which we do not support four seats for

Labrador. There are specific members who have different opinions than mine as

expressed here, and that is their right to express them, but there is no PC

Party position that exists by which we do not support four electoral seats for

the region of Labrador.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes there is. We support the

recommendations that came in the Mahoney Commission report as proposed, a

forty-four seat Legislature, with the recommendations, two other -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Our position is -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) privileged position

(inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? Maybe I'm misunderstanding

something.

PREMIER WELLS: Do I understand that the hon. member is

suggesting we support a privileged position for the people of Goose Bay or

Menihek district (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, what -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) that is the result.

(Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What I am saying is that this member

supports four seats for Labrador as is put forward by the government.

PREMIER WELLS: Even though it results in that privileged

position?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

PREMIER WELLS: Even though it results in a privileged

(inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a matter of opinion, I say to the

Premier. There is a definite case that can be made - let me ask the Premier,

does he support four seats for Labrador?

PREMIER WELLS: I accept the principle of four seats for

Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: Based on what?

PREMIER WELLS: Based on the seats in the other part of

the Province be treated the same as Menihek and Naskaupi. That results in

forty-eight seats. If you don't do that, if you are going to reduce it for the

Island part of the Province, you have to reduce the proportion for Labrador.

(Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: So the point that you make then, is that if

we reduce the seats lower than forty-eight as proposed in Bill 31, then we can't

have four seats in Labrador.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely right, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is fair enough. I mean, that is an

opinion that the Premier has expressed, obviously.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) position, and it is the whole

principle underlying (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. But let me say to the Premier,

I don't necessarily agree with the principle that underlines the bill. I made

the point here yesterday; a legitimate point, Premier, it is just a difference

of opinion - and there are places in Canada and provinces in Canada which have

done this - that in certain parts of the province where strong representation is

needed, distinct rural differences, distinct linguistic and cultural

differences, that the variance proposed in the bill - like in urban

Newfoundland. You could have put in this piece of legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Just one second now, just let me finish for

a second, please. In this bill you could have proposed a plus or minus 10 per

cent variance for strong, urban, populated areas. But in rural Newfoundland the

problems are distinctly different. I don't accept the principle that you put

forward. There is a different set of problems and realities that members in this

House who represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador have to deal with than urban

members. And the Premier - or the government could have given the Mahoney

commission and Justice Noel more flexibility in terms of a variance for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe a plus or minus 20 per cent, as opposed to plus

or minus 10 per cent.

Those are just two of the things I would like to raise. With

that, I will sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the

amendment, but first of all I wish to thank you for your clarification on asking

questions on an issue that is currently in debate before the House, and

apologize to the House if in any way my question was not in order.

Perhaps what I am attempting to do, since closure has been

invoked, I look at it as an attempt by the government to try to muzzle debate;

however, with the issue regarding the District of Grand Falls - Windsor, while I

agree with, perhaps, one person, one vote, and that some exceptions could be

made for areas that were significantly below the norm, and if you take into

account the size of the districts, especially for the District of Torngat

Mountains and Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair, what I am trying to put forth is an

argument that could be used in certain areas where population slightly exceeds

the norm, and in this case, with particular reference to Grand Falls - Windsor.

The government legislation will place part of the town of the

proposed District of Grand Falls - Buchans, and part of the District of Windsor

- Springdale, and about ten houses or so from Grenfell Heights, which is part of

the current District of Grand Falls, and putting that in Exploits District, so

what we have seen, in effect here, is that a relatively small town of 14,683

people is being spread across three districts.

Mr. Speaker, there are provinces throughout the country where

legislation recognizes the importance of keeping towns together in terms of

representation in the Legislature so there is a strong representation on behalf

of the common interest of the townspeople, even if this means going slightly

above the district population.

According to the 1991 census, and these are the figures that

were used to justify the numbers and the variance there, the town population of

Grand Falls - Windsor, according to the 1991 census, was 14,693 people. Now,

this would be just slightly under 1,300 more than the 10 per cent variance

level, an amount that would be more than acceptable in any other province. Not

to forget the fact that the House of Assembly does have the power to define a

district, and it can define the district as Grand Falls - Windsor, again I make

reference to the legislation in treating the Labrador districts of Eagle River

and Torngat Mountains, which were given exemption from the 10 per cent variance

rule.

Now, there are a few other concerns that I want to draw

attention to on that. Of course, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, which was

only amalgamated in 1991, and there were a lot of dollars spent on that

amalgamation - the figure of $16 million is one that I am aware of - and there

is still a lot of sensitivity with regard to splitting the town into two

districts. The removal of the greater part of the former Town of Windsor from

Grand Falls - Windsor to form another district, while Badger - Buchans is added

to the former town of Grand Falls. This division perpetuates the old division

that the town has been trying hard to remove. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the naming

of the two districts completely disregards the fact that on January 1, 1991, two

towns disappeared and one new one emerged. The use of the names; Windsor,

Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans ignores a fact of history. The

amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, has worked well and this latest provincial boundary

report, to all intents and purposes, jeopardizes the achievements that have been

made to date. That is the retaining of former separate names.

Mr. Speaker, since we are debating the amendment to accept

the Mahoney report, the recommendation in that report says something to the

effect that notwithstanding the population of the resulting districts, that the

Legislature consider amending the act to permit all of the town of Grand Falls -

Windsor to be placed in a single district. That was a recommendation that was

made by the Mahoney Commission and I think, Mr. Speaker, it is not unreasonable

to ask this House of Assembly to consider amending the boundaries act to reflect

that change and a new district retain the name of Grand Falls - Windsor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak on the amendment as put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, an amendment to see the number of seats in

the House of Assembly revert to forty-four as put forward by the Mahoney report

back a couple of years ago.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember how this whole debate came

about. It came about as a result of somebody - and I think it was a member on

this side of the House, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He stood

in his place and suggested that there are far too many members of the House of

Assembly representing far too few problems, I suppose, out there in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a prime example of somebody probably about to

leave politics and not caring what happened or if not caring what happened, then

certainly was not going to be around to face the music once the decision was

made. Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to bring in a suggestion or bring in a

proposal when you know that you are not going to have to be there to deal with

it in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I could touch on one thing which

would be the shame of this whole process, it would be the plus or minus 10 per

cent which the Minister of Justice brought forward should be the quotient to

deal with reducing the number of districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we

could bring forward one particular item, at least that bothers me, it is the

plus or minus 10 per cent when you are dealing with two different districts

altogether, Mr. Speaker, when you compare urban to rural districts. Many of us

stood here in our place and members, at least one or two from the other side,

have stood and compared the duties of a rural MHA compared to an urban MHA. We

all know that they are completely different, Mr. Speaker, and the chores, I can

assure you, are much more demanding in a rural city in this Province, not to

some of those areas. Some of our members here, on both sides of the House, have

to travel many miles to get to their districts, have to travel by boat, some

have to travel by plane and, Mr. Speaker, that's one heck of a lot of difference

I can assure you, from having to get up in the morning and on your way to work,

pass by or pass through your entire district and be able to go out on any

afternoon, and in some urban areas, I suppose, to walk to your district and

almost see everybody if they happen to be on their front lawns or in their

gardens.

The problems of representing a rural district, is that you

get to do many of the things that many other people did in the past. People have

become reliant on their MHAs to do many things, to do many personal things for

them whether it is to slip down here in the House and pick up a birth

certificate or whether it is to go and fill out an unemployment insurance form,

an income tax form or, to go and sit down in their house and write a letter to a

government department or some other place where they are experiencing problems

and need some guidance and understanding. And I suppose they have every right to

expect that.

Many of those duties, at one time were provided by the local

clergy in the community, the local school teacher in a community provided many

of those services at one time, but I can assure you that many of those people

today are not there, Mr. Speaker, to help those people who need to be helped,

and as a result, when you go and knock on their doors or they see you or your

telephone rings, many times it is a request to drop by and do some of those

simple things which mean a lot to them, and mean a lot to us if we want to be

re-elected again. Because I personally think that what people remember when they

go to the polls, what people remember when they mark their `X' on that ballot,

is not the bridges that were built or the streets that were paved or the water

and sewer project or the infrastructure money that was spent. I think what they

remember is the personal contact, the personal telephone call that was made and

was never answered or, was answered promptly. I think, Mr. Speaker, also what

people remember, is that they will not always judge you on your accomplishments

but I think a lot of times, people will judge you on the effort put forward in

trying to solve some of their problems as well, something which is very

important and should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, in my District of Bonavista South, for me to get

up and leave and go to the biggest community in my district which is Bonavista,

it is sixty miles from where I live, you know, it is an hour and fifteen minutes

drive every morning just to get down or whenever I can go to visit, to get down

to that community and another sixty miles to get back again. And to leave the

House of Assembly, to drive to my district, Mr. Speaker, you are talking about a

three and three-quarter hours drive, so if you are going out there in the

morning and come back again that day, you have the whole day shot, the whole day

is gone.

Many times, as you know, and we have heard people get up here

on both sides of the House and talk about attending different functions, whether

it is one, two or - somebody said he was invited to seven functions this

weekend. Mr. Speaker, that's not out of the ordinary; it is out of the ordinary

to be invited to seven, it is out of the ordinary, I say, to be able to attend

three or four in the same day but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There were about 200 if you count them,

about 200 people I say to the member.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the point of how many people were out

to dinners and dances. We heard this all the time when we were having the Hydro

debate. The first thing that was said was how many people were there? Mr.

Speaker, you go out and you give people an opportunity to come forward, let them

know you are there. I go out and at least three times in my district I have a

clinic, in the Town of Bonavista twice a year and in other smaller communities

once a year, and I do that every spring.

What I do is, I advertise in the local paper, Mr. Speaker, to

let them know that I will be there and to let them know that I am there for the

whole day or a half-day, depending on how busy it is. Now, whether I go -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fund-raising (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, some days you go there and

you might see fifty people, it is not uncommon to see seventy-five people, but I

have gone there on other days and have only seen ten or fifteen, so it is not

the point of how many people were there, the point is, that you did it. You went

there, you told people you were going to be there and gave them an opportunity

to come out, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that is very important. I think we should

today, that is why we sit here in the House of Assembly, and we bring in

closure. I heard one member shout about how much money he had in the bank and

how big his bank account was. Now, that is the problem here today. I don't think

this is the place for a rich man or a millionaire. I think it is the place for a

common person to come and put forward the desires and the aspirations of the

common people out there who are his constituents, Mr. Speaker. That's what is

important and that's what is not being done here in this House of Assembly.

The Member for Eagle River continues to shout and holler, and

whenever anybody makes a mistake it is almost like a contest because he is ready

to pick it apart. That is the pettiness of the member, Mr. Speaker, and it only

goes to show what he has his mind wrapped around instead of speaking up for his

constituents. And hearing the Premier say things that are certainly completely

different from what he espouses that should be right for his district, that is

when he should get up and speak and not be there like a little puppet and not

say a word only when the Premier allows him to get off his chair and put forward

a suggestion or a proposal.

Mr. Speaker, most of the rural districts in Newfoundland are

no different from mine. It is an area that needs a lot of attention. We are

experiencing a downturn in the economy and 90 per cent of the phone calls that I

get are from people looking for guidance to find themselves a job or to find

help with their unemployment insurance or social services. That is very

important to most people out there, and when you compare the number of phone

calls, and the number of visits to offices that rural MHAs get compared to

urban, I think you will find it is completely different, no comparison

whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that the minister or

the Mahoney Inquiry should have looked at and paid a little bit more attention

to and not be stifled by the 10 per cent plus or minus that the minister put

forward when he provided them with a mandate when they went around the Province

and had something like forty public hearings. I remember the day that I appeared

before the Commission in my district and I talked about how busy the distinct

was, being a fishing district and experiencing the moratorium in the fishery and

how people were left without a job, without hope, not knowing where to go, and

in most cases, a lot of them were left finding themselves in a condition they

had never experienced before.

I think it is a very frustrating thing to find yourself at

fifty or fifty-five years of age without a job and without an education. As I

put forward the thoughts that I thought these people should hear and my comments

on the way the boundaries should be changed if they were looking at reducing

them, I was told that for busy districts maybe we could hire more staff. Instead

of somebody dealing with the MHA, maybe they could deal with another secretary

or another office, but that is not what people want when they go and elect

people. When you go and knock on people's door and ask for their support come

election time, then you have to go out and support them if you ever want to get

elected again, because I can assure you, that will be the first thing that is

thrown up at you when the time rolls around again.

In the first proposal that was put forward by the Mahoney

Commission, I think it suggested forty seats in a new House of Assembly. At that

time, the District of Terra Nova was one of the districts that would have

disappeared. It is one that I am familiar with because it is the district where

I live, and at that particular time there were people coming forward with

petitions, people coming forward to speak and provide written submissions,

telling all the reasons why they thought Terra Nova should be put back in as a

district again. They were all the right reasons and those people had every right

to go forward and bring forward their suggestions to support and to have their

district included in the forty-four seats, or the forty-three seats, or whatever

the number was going to be, that would provide the final submission by the

Mahoney Commission.

As it turned out, there was a forty-four seat proposal, a

forty-four seat proposal which I must admit that I did not agree with, and I

still do not agree with the way it was presented, the boundaries that were

drawn. Because if you take into consideration the district that I represent, it

is on the north end of the Bonavista Peninsula, and when you drive down to the

Peninsula, you come to a community called Southern Bay and it forms an isthmus,

if you would, for the Peninsula, and I have always maintained that should be the

boundary for any particular riding if we were going to make changes. It would

have provided a district on the south side of Bonavista Bay and on the north

side of Trinity Bay, and it would be totally, totally fishing. Everybody there

would have had a lot in common in that the industry that was common to most

communities was the fishing industry, and a lot of people use the facilities at

Bonavista and at Trinity to go and do their banking, do their shopping,

etcetera, but when the final sketch came back, what it did was it went down and

took five communities out of the district now known as Bonavista South, and went

all the way up to include an area that had no relationship whatsoever to the

rest of the district, that went up and took in an area that bordered on

Clarenville, right up on the Smith Sound area, which took in an area that was

about to be incorporated with the Town of Clarenville.

The Mayor of Clarenville, and all the other community people

who came out to speak at that particular time, told the Commission that there

should be changes, the boundaries should be reconstructed, and in the

submission, the judge, I think, wrote that it would make sense to make some of

those changes, but the reason they weren't made is because some of the

communities on the other side, including Dover, Hare Bay and Gambo, I think,

didn't want to be included in the new District of Terra Nova, and wanted to

continue in the District of Bonavista North.

So I suppose we all have reasons to want to support our own

districts and keep them the way they were, and not bring about any changes, but

the problem we face is that if we are going to reduce the number of seats then

there have to be changes, but I think the changes should have come about in a

different way. I think they should have come about by the Commission looking at

the geography of the area, the population of the area, and not be saddled by the

plus or minus 10 per cent which the minister provided in the mandate to the

Commission when it set about to have its public hearings.

As for Labrador being different or separate, I fully agree

with the number of seats allotted to the Labrador Coast. I think when I complain

- not complain - but when I talk about travel through my district, comparing it

to the travel of an urban area, I think any member representing any district in

Labrador can certainly compare his or her district to almost any rural district

in Newfoundland and still find it completely different.

It is sad when you see the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation standing up for the Minister of Justice to bring in the gag order

again, as it was called. I think when we bring about legislation which is going

to have such a profound impact on most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I think

the least the minister should allow is people to have ample time to get up and

at least once speak for or against the changes as put forward to them by their

constituents. Because, after all, that is why were are here, to stand in our

place and to provide to this House, and hopefully to have fall on ears that are

listening, their concerns and their suggestions on what the government should

do, and what the geography of this Province as it relates to boundary changes

should look like.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Minister of Justice, in his own

bullying fashion, dictate to the House once again that enough is enough; we are

going to try to get out of here; we are going to try to close this place down

and not give people's representatives a chance to speak anymore, Mr. Speaker. By

doing that we will bring in the gag order and introduce closure on this bill.

There are lots of other bills I can suggest that might be

coming forward, lots of finance bills where people here can stand in their

places and bring forward concerns of their districts. I can assure you that we

will not be stifled by the minister on the other side or by the members who

don't want to stand in their places and bring forward the wishes of their

constituents, which is the reason why they were elected here in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader is very eager for me to rise

there. He has been begging me for the last few minutes. I feel an obligation to

rise and express my views about electoral boundaries. I had intended - and I

told the minister yesterday - to say some things about him that are not very

complimentary, but they are truthful, I told him, the Minister of Justice who

left. Maybe he doesn't want to hear it.

Actually, I said way back on December 16 1993 in this House,

I said at the beginning, that I feel in a province with 570,000 people - less

now, 567,000 and dropping; maybe less again by the time I'm finished speaking -

is that forty seats is enough in a province our size. We have to have

belt-tightening. We have to show leadership out there around the Province when

front-line people are losing their jobs. There are people being laid off in

hospitals, being laid off in the public service, being laid off in industry

today, and we have a House of Assembly with forty-eight members representing

only some 560,000 people.

I also stated that I support a 25 per cent variation in this

Province between urban and rural districts. I think it is reasonable to expect -

and according to that average - and I did a press release this week. It didn't

get any coverage, now, nobody wanted to pay any attention to it. But for the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - well, leave out recreation, that

is gone - the `Minister of Tourism and Culture' -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, yes. The minister

sent me over a few Timbits. I was in my office this morning, actually. I would

like to know who paid for them, I say to the minister, the Timbits that were on

my desk this morning. I had them analyzed. They are doing a bio-chemical

analysis now of the nutritional value of what I received from the minister. When

we get that - they are in the lab and they are undergoing a bit of scrutiny now.

I said: Leave no bio-chemical element unturned. No holes barred, I said. Put

them in the hole farther. They couldn't make money before and they subsidized

out of the money given to do heart surgeries and everything else. The minister

is going to make $200,000 now, that is what he is going to do. He said: We are

going to hire - how many more nurses, eleven?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it now?

MR. SULLIVAN: Seven new nurses, he said. What else did

the minister say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven support staff.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eleven support - eighteen people for

$200,000. That is what we are going to hire.

AN HON. MEMBER: More!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he said. He said seven nurses

and eleven support staff, eighteen people on the $200,000 profit. Do you know

what Ms Peachy said, what they are going to do with their money?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ms Peachy?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Ms Peachy of the Health Care

Corporation. She said: If we make a surplus more than expected some of the other

hospitals might benefit. We might give some to the other hospitals by selling

Timbits. That is the ultimate. And the minister had the gall to stand up in this

House and say that is privatization, supporting private business. That is

nationalization of businesses, that is state-controlled business, by having

hospitals and governments buying-in and running operations. That is not

privatization, it is de-privatization, I say to the minister.

Now, I only have limited time. I want to get a few points in,

points I want to make on electoral boundaries here. To be relevant, the Member

for Eagle River was wondering where I stand on four seats for Labrador. I will

tell him where I stand on issues. I have made it clear before and I will do it

right now. I believe we should take the population of this Province, which is

567,000 approximately, and we should divide that by forty -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - and that gives you - wait until I'm

finished - that will give you an average of 14,200 people. Then we should allow,

like we had here in this legislation and the Minister of Justice changed, then

we should have a variation of 25 per cent. I stated in that release and I

indicated here: Sullivan questions the appropriateness of having a district as

small as Torngat Mountains with only 2,984 people. That is what Sullivan said if

he wants to know. He said he believes that districts should not stand separately

but should be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody cares boy about what you said.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know but he wanted to know, the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier asked me and I said I would tell him on

the record and I am doing that, I say to the minister. I said oh Giovanni I am

going to tell a parliamentary assistant where I stand. He said he believes the

district should not stand separately but should be incorporated in another

district when a number of districts is reduced. He said there should be a

flexibility in defining boundaries for the more remote, geographically dispersed

areas of the Province such as Northern Labrador but added the variance should be

within 25 per cent of the quotient of the Province. That is what I said and that

is what I agree with. That would save $1.5 million out of the budget of this

House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you agree with yourself anyway

because nobody else does.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do. The most sensible conversation I can

get is when I sit down, I say to the minister, and have a talk with myself. I

cannot get any sensible conversations from people on that side of the House.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That would mean that Labrador West and

Eagle River or at least part of Eagle River has to go together. You know that

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What it means, are you saying that because

Eagle River was with Northern Newfoundland before that representation there was

not adequate? Is that what the member is saying? The person who represented

before did not do the job? The Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader

could not handle it properly?

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's right.

MR. SULLIVAN: I toured your district - I almost toured

your entire district in a day, I say to the minister and there is a growing

number of PC people down in your district.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No boy, I went up to Cartwright and

everywhere. There are too many PCs - they have not told you up there.

Now I would also like to - the Minister of Justice, the

Government House Leader talked about other provinces. Well Saskatchewan is the

only province in this country that has a limited variance of 5 per cent.

Saskatchewan has a special allowance for two northern ridings, they have

fifty-six other ridings. In a province with over 1 million people they have

fifty-eight ridings with a variance of only 5 per cent.

Let's look at other provinces and the minister did not refer

to any other province in this country because the results are quite a contrast

to what is being proposed here in this Province. If we look at Nova Scotia, they

are now compiling and looking at boundaries in Nova Scotia. In Prince Edward

Island for example, there is a variance of plus or minus 25 per cent in a rural

province like Prince Edward Island and it should be here in this Province. There

is one district there that has 21 per cent over that quotient, a district with

20 per cent less then the quotient and that is acceptable. I think that is

acceptable, 10 per cent is too narrow a focus.

Yes, I say to members of the House and the Member for

Bonavista North for example, I will use a comparison - I don't think it is

unreasonable to think in a rural area, Bonavista North or any other rural area

or even the south coast spread out, Fortune - Hermitage area spread out - in

Labrador there are lots of rural areas that are fairly well dispersed. According

to a 25 per cent variance divided by forty, no district would have more then

17,750 and that is not too much for urban areas. Districts have more now and

they are not near as busy. We don't want to upset the one person, one vote, we

have to work within that concept. If you look at a rural area that is spread out

they will still have down to 10,650. I mean that would be the low end of the

scale. The upper end of the scale would be 17,750 and that is an acceptable

range. No one riding then, I say, has any more then 58 per cent or 59 per cent

more then the other riding and that is within reason. Some now it is double, 2.5

times now. So that is keeping within an acceptable range.

Now New Brunswick for example, they have no more then a 25

per cent variance in New Brunswick also. They are reducing it now - they are

recommending New Brunswick reduce to fifty-five districts from fifty-eight

districts. There is only one exception there with a smaller one, that is Fundy

Isles district there and that is the only variation. So I say we should look at

parts of the country, what is acceptable in other areas of the country. If you

look at Manitoba for example, Manitoba has two different standards basically

based on more northern and southern areas.

If you are north of the 53rd parallel, there is a certain

ratio and south of that because it is more dispersed in northern Manitoba. In

Manitoba 60 per cent of the population live in Winnipeg, 60 per cent out of over

a million people, for 600,000 of them in the City of Winnipeg so there is

allowance for urban versus rural.

This Province doesn't acknowledge there is a rural

Newfoundland; it doesn't acknowledge it. It is pushing people out in those areas

and it is not allowing the latitude when in legislation to be able to have

people representing districts that do not have city councils like here, don't

have the services of a council, they don't have a lot of the amenities that you

are seeing in urban areas of the Province and they depend on the member to deal

with concerns, to deal with appeals, to deal with numerous sources of his

problems, unemployment problems.

Many of these are federal in nature but the local member

usually gets the call and has to do all of the work in these specific areas and

I think there should be some allowances, based upon a reasonable variation and

based upon a workload and the ability to serve those people. Isn't that what we

are all about, to try to best serve the people of this Province, and if we can't

serve it by giving a slightly better variation in districts to have a

geographical - another disadvantage - whether the aboriginal people in Labrador

should be given the leniencies in a distributed, geographical area, they

shouldn't have the same numbers as a city as here in St. John's or in southern

Labrador and they are the only two exceptions they made here, in Eagle River and

in Torngat Mountains. There are other exceptions I say and we should be put into

the one pot and the Premier said a citizen is a citizen is a citizen and I would

say, if a citizen is a citizen is a citizen, they should be treated as citizens,

equally in this Province and to look at something that is fair and reasonable

across the entire Province and that is not getting done in this Province. That

is not getting done.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't believe that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I sincerely believe it.

In Alberta for example, certain population ranges can vary up

to 50 per cent. They are looking at catering to more geographically,

disadvantaged areas of the province to give them an opportunity to have input.

That's happening. We have districts in British Columbia for example, with large

numbers, a 59.9 per cent, more than average and 39.8 per cent less will be the

other extreme in British Columbia. We have districts in British Columbia of

43,000 people represented by a member and here in this Province, we have over

three members to represent that many people in some areas, areas that do not

need that level of representation, they have it.

They have it at city council levels, now they have it at MHA

levels, the federal levels and so on and people out in the areas of this

Province, who need that extra attention, extra assistance and so on, who don't

have those infrastructures there. They have to drive in to rural areas in the

cities to see doctors now, to do their shopping, to pay for services, to avail

of other recreation facilities, whether it is figure skating whatever the case

may be, they don't have it in rural areas and they are calling upon a fair

chance and a fair opportunity.

The Member for Eagle River wanted to know where I stood on

things and doesn't seem to like some of the views there because they fly in the

face of what has happened here and what has happened here, in this House, back

in the fall of 1992, there was an Electoral Boundaries Commission to go out and

look at a redistribution of seats in this Province within a forty to forty-six

range, and I agree with that. I would have liked it to be a little more

restrictive, probably thirty-eight to forty-two range but I can accept forty to

forty-six. That Commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) disagree with it.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I wouldn't. If you say something and I

agree with it, I will tell you that and if I don't agree with it I will also

tell you that. I felt strongly that the Commission with their forty

recommendations was an acceptable number and if the House feels that some areas

were done a disservice and they should be shifting within that forty, fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know but I am entitled to express my

opinion and the right to be heard is important and the only person that I am

going to judge, is what I feel I have done, the people will judge on what they

feel I have done every four years or three years or five or whatever happens,

but I want to be satisfied that I have done my part and I have spoken what I

feel on behalf of the people, my views and I am going to do that. The Minister

of Tourism, Recreation and Culture is not going to deny me that appropriate

process to do that.

Now, back with the forty seats, the Minister of Justice went

out to Clarenville on the 32nd meeting and that's where I disagree. They gave a

mandate to that Commission and a quarter-of-a-million- dollar budget. When that

committee had a forty, a working amount, it wasn't a report to the House and I

agree with that, it was subject to change but after being given a mandate from

this government, of forty to forty-six, the minister goes out and interferes

after thirty-two meetings with the mandate of that commission.

That commission came back and filed a report on forty-four.

That is the only report filed by the Mahoney Commission and as a result of that

report there were many people not happy, maybe people on this side and people on

the government side, and really I do not care who is unhappy with it in the

sense of it being proper. You have sympathies if something has happened.

Everybody has that in his nature, that they do not want anyone pushed out, but

you have to look at something fair. When a commission does something you have to

live with an independent commission, and we should. We should not manipulate a

commission and I do not agree with it.

I do not care what the PCs did in the past and I do not care

what the Liberals did in the past, but I do not agree with appointing a

commission to give a report and manipulating and changing that. The House of

Assembly has authority for that I know, but if we are going to have authority

for it why give it to a judge if we are going to come back and tear it apart? We

wasted $400,000. Here is what the judge said on Page 5 of his report, `Therefore

from the foregoing it can be seen that the commission acted entirely within the

legislation and instructions under it. Subsequent events have demonstrated that

it was all a waste of time and public money.'

That is what was stated, and that is why Justice Mahoney

would not accept to go back again. That is why the Minister of Justice or

somebody went judge shopping and tried to get somebody to take it, because it

was improper for someone in the judiciary, and dishonourable, not proper to go

in and tamper with it, and it should not have been. We should have accepted the

hon. judge's report, even though I agree with forty. If he had said thirty-six I

would have agreed with him, but he said forty-four. I would have liked it to be

forty or less in a time of restraint. We have to show it here in this House of

Assembly.

If we are going to try and protect our own turf and territory

here and the hell with the rest of the people of this Province it is not the way

to go. If you do not lead by example, if you do not lead the way and take your

share, and more of your share of the cuts, how do you expect the people of the

Province to follow in line with you? It is not proper and if we need to scale

down the House of Assembly to forty seats we should do it. We should not have

interfered out in Clarenville with that judge and his commission, duly appointed

by the Chief Justice, and to have someone who is not appointed by the Chief

Justice is gerrymandering of the highest form, and is totally unacceptable.

MR. GRIMES: You're wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am entitled to my opinion. I say to

the minister if anyone refutes what I said in terms of sequence of events I

stand to be corrected.

MR. GRIMES: What you said did not happen.

MR. SULLIVAN: What I said did happen. I know the minister

is playing his games to throw it off course but I am not going to be dragged

into that. If he feels so strongly let him stand up and tell us what the real

truth according to him is. I followed the sequence of events. I made a

submission once on the forty boundary. I agree with forty. I felt there could be

alterations within the forty because in some parts of the Province granted there

were things that might have divided communities where you did not have to. We

like to keep communities together.

I represent a very small community in this Province with

another member. Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove is the one town. I represent Petty

Harbour and the hon. Member for Kilbride represents Maddox Cove. I know that is

not an acceptable thing, it is not practical, a small town with 1100 people

represented by two members. Under this proposal now they are going to be in the

one, and I think they should be one small community. If you have to go 15 per

cent over it, or under it to get communities together, instead of dividing

communities, let us do it.

Let us do it up to 25 per cent if you need it, but let us not

go drawing borders down through the centre of small towns, let us not cut off

your next door neighbour who has to go to a political rally or meeting, or

literature from one member and the person next door probably a different party

or a number of different things. Let us get everybody in smaller communities at

least - the cutoff should be between communities is the point I am making here,

or as reasonable as possible within towns or to try and keep sections of towns

that have a historic attachment and grew up as part of one riding. One proposal

had Mount Pearl divided in four different areas. If Mount Pearl only has enough

people for three ridings, give then three, and if it has enough for two give

them two, but do not put it into four.

MR. GRIMES: What are we suppose to do now, take out Mount

Pearl separate and then figure out all the rest after and just give Mount Pearl

to the city? Make some sense, boy. What are you suppose to do, say -

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not disagreeing with that proposal

(inaudible). The minister is not paying attention to what I am saying, not

paying attention at all. The questions I ask -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave? The hon. member does not have

leave.

Is the House ready for the amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

We are back on the main resolution now.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment.

CLERK: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr.

Hewlett, Mr. Manning, Mr. E. Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Careen, Mr.

Mackey, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training,

the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the

Minister of Environment, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Mr. Lush, Mr. Penney,

Mr. Dumaresque, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Health,

the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ramsay,

Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Noel, Mr. Anderson III, Mr. Smith, Mr. Whelan, Mr.

Vey.

Mr. Speaker, eleven `ayes' and twenty-three `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. ROBERTS: Question!

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

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

MR. MANNING: I'm allowed to speak. I suppose you are

allowed to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to have an opportunity to

say a few words on this important piece of legislation that has come before the

House. I got taken away from my comments the other night due to the interference

of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, so I hope to have the

opportunity to go on uninterrupted today and say a few things.

Let's talk about the electoral district boundary changes that

the government has put in place. I think when we talk about making changes to

the districts we do it for three reasons, I guess: one has to do with financial

reason, the second has to do with efficiency, and the third has to do with

public perception. I think that the government is not realizing any of those

goals with the changes that it is planning on putting in place, not financially,

efficiency or public perception. Because we are talking about reducing the seats

in this Legislature from fifty-two at the present day down to forty-eight. We

are talking about taking six districts away from rural Newfoundland and adding

two on to St. John's.

I think when I look at a district such as mine as St. Mary's

- The Capes and I'm thinking about what the changes will do to that district and

the concerns that the people have raised in that district in relation to the

changes, I feel that the government is on the wrong course and that once again

rural Newfoundland is getting the dirty end of the stick, I say.

I will go back, if I could, to May 3 1993 when the people of

the District of St. Mary's - The Capes elected me as the member to come forward

and bring the concerns of their district to the House of Assembly. I've

attempted to do that over the past couple of years in many concerns that have

been raised. There are several concerns that people have in relation to the

changes under this piece of legislation that I would like to have the

opportunity to raise today.

Those are the fact that in my district at present we have

thirty-one communities, twelve community councils, fifteen volunteer fire

departments, four development associations, and so on that I have to deal with

on a constant basis, plus all of the individual concerns that people raise.

Rural politics, I am sure, anybody would be honest,

definitely has a major difference than what it does in urban centres. In my

district I deal on a daily basis with people who have problems with local

councils, problems with their UI, problems with TAGS, problems with social

services, and so on and so forth. In the meantime there are also problems that

have been raised about garbage collection, water lines, and everything else that

in St. John's is usually dealt with by a council,

whereas in rural Newfoundland

many people call upon their Member of the House of Assembly to take care of

those issues for them.

Well, I have been pleased and honoured to have the

opportunity to do so for the people of St. Mary's - The Capes. I am just trying

to get across the point that an urban district is very, very different from a

rural district, and the fact that these changes are going to enlarge the rural

districts in this Province, at the same time cutting down the size of an urban

district, I think that the government is definitely on the wrong track.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the government, in

their wisdom, even with the changes, which is not very wise, but even in their

wisdom, have decided to include the name St. Mary's once again in the district

changes. When it was announced first it was just the District of Placentia. I am

pleased to see that the community of St. Mary's has been added since the fact

that Placentia and St. Mary's go back to a Representative Government in 1832,

and the name of St. Mary's has been there, along with Placentia, for those

number of years. So I am very pleased to see that the government, in their

wisdom, has included the name of St. Mary's - the historic name of St. Mary's -

in the new district name, at the same time not agreeing exactly with what the

government is planning on doing with the district changes, but I do agree and am

very pleased that after consulting with the Minister of Justice back some months

ago about the concern that people in the St. Mary's area had raised with me

about the name being dropped, that the Minister of Justice has come forward and

included the name of St. Mary's back into the district again, and I am very

pleased to see that.

Mr. Speaker, we have come through a long process since the

government began this process in relation to changing the districts. We go back

to 1992 when the Wells' government announced that they were going to make some

changes, and we will jump ahead, if we could, up to August 27, 1993, when the

Mahoney Commission released a proposal dividing the Province into forty seats.

When you talk about the reductions that we are asking people in this Province to

make today through municipal grants, through health care cuts, through

transportation cuts, through cuts in social services and so on we, as

legislators, and definitely you as the government, are trying to send a loud and

clear message out to rural Newfoundland that everybody has to tighten their

belts, and I find it very appalling, to say the least, when we are asking people

to make those drastic cuts in rural Newfoundland and in the whole Province, and

at the same time we are only willing here, in the House of Assembly, to reduce

the seats by four. I think this sends a mixed message out to the people of the

Province.

I believe that we are not sending the message that the

government is trying to send in all their other policies when they talk about

the reductions that they are trying to make, so I believe myself that the people

will see through this convoluted message that the government is sending out, and

see that definitely the government is taking care of their own table while not

worrying about the tables of the many people living in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when Justice Mahoney came forward with the forty

seat proposal he travelled around the Province and held hearings, and I had the

opportunity to present a brief to the Justice and his group at the Colonial

Building, and I presented a case of my District of St. Mary's - The Capes being

spread out over such a large geographical area, and the fact that many of the

communities are calling upon you several times during the year to partake in

different functions, and the calls from rural Newfoundland due to the economic

crisis and the fishery shut down are definitely after increasing. I believe that

when Justice Mahoney came forward with the forty-seat proposal, the concern that

was raised at that time, and I will raise it again, is that we have to send the

message out to the people of this Province, loud and clear, that we are willing

to reduce also, but at the same time protect rural Newfoundland. I believe, once

again, the government has stuck the knife in the back of rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the forty seat proposal came forward and we had

interference. We had interference from the government. We had interference from

John Efford's executive assistant, Roland Butler, at a hearing in Bay Roberts on

October 6, 1993, when he put forward that the cuts were too large, enlarging

provincial districts would not mean any real savings to the provincial coffers.

We had interference on November 8, 1993, when Ed Roberts made a presentation to

the hearings in Clarenville when he said that the mandate of the Commission was

flawed from the beginning and that the number of provincial districts should not

be reduced below forty-four. Then we had to come back on February 25, 1994, a

proposal by the Mahoney Commission that divided the Province into forty-four

districts. It is very strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice would

go out and propose forty-four and then the Commission had to answer to that

particular minister that they will come back with forty-four.

The first Mahoney Commission divided the Province into

forty-four seats, again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, interference by this

government because they were not getting what they wanted through the

independent commission, or the so-called independent commission that they have

put forward, Mr. Speaker. So they decided to change the rules halfway through

and put pressure on the Commission to put back what they wanted. So instead of

accepting the report of the independent commission or the amending of

an act to

facilitate the implementation of the Commission's suggestion, the government

hired Mr. Justice Jones to rework the boundaries according to the Terms of

Reference which the government withheld from the public. They withheld the Terms

of Reference from the public.

The government hired Mr. Noel to lend credibility to

government's efforts to manipulate the boundaries according to their own

specifications. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this whole process has been flawed

from the beginning because of government's manipulation and interference. I

believe that the people of the Province know full well what government is trying

to do here and definitely, not trying to put our House in order but indeed to

take care of the people on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. The

government tabled Bill 31 in the House of Assembly on November 14, providing for

forty-eight districts, which I believe was concocted by the government here and

indeed, was not what the people of this Province wanted. They wanted the seats

of the House of Assembly reduced by a measurable number that would put forward a

message to the people that yes, we are trying to tighten our belts also in the

same manner that we try to send the message out to you.

Mr. Speaker, this Commission's report has cost this Province

and the taxpayers of this Province almost $500,000. I believe that the

independent commission that was put in place to bring forward these concerns and

changes was definitely - the government just squeezed them off and did exactly

what they wanted to do. To ask for a 7.5 per cent reduction in the House of

Assembly while we are asking for health care people, people on social services,

people in transportation, school boards and everything else, to make more major

cuts than 7.5 per cent I think, Mr. Speaker, is definitely not the route that

the government should be taking.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I'm not finished yet, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I have my time limit and I'll

use it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments if I could

on the district of St. Mary's - The Capes once again and bring forward the

concerns that people have out in that district. We have been, over the past

number of years, I would say, wrecked with havoc over the closedown in our

fishery. It has definitely dealt blows to communities from Portugal Cove South

right out to Barasway. Representatives from different communities, Mr. Speaker,

have been on a constant basis trying to find ways and means to offset the

closedown of the fishery and the impact it is having on the communities and I

believe that only by sticking together can we find those solutions. I believe

that expanding the district now and not providing that fair representation that

the district has been used to, Mr. Speaker, I think is definitely not the route

to take. I believe that the people of, not only my district but indeed the

people of the Province have told government time and time again that the House

of Assembly should be reduced by a fair number of seats and not by the four that

the government is proposing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I talked the other day for some time on the

economic zonal concept. The Minister of Justice asked it, I think it was right

to have two seats within St. John's. I will go back to that if I could for a

minute, I believe that yes, there may be room for a couple of extra seats in St.

John's to bring it up to maybe four or five seats, but not to have eleven seats

inside the overpass, while outside the overpass we see a loss of six seats. I

think it is unfair and I believe that any - I had some nods from some ministers

the other day, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on that. I believe that any minister

who represents a rural part of the Province, any member of government or the

Legislature that represents a rural part of the Province would agree with me,

Mr. Speaker, that there is not a need for eleven seats inside the overpass at

this particular time in our history when rural Newfoundland is being dealt one

of the heaviest blows I feel it has been dealt in the past number of decades.

I believe that over the past couple of days - we see the

government bring in a closure motion that has really limited debate on this

issue. We are not having the opportunity to stand up in the House of Assembly

and put forward the concerns of the people of our district and indeed the people

of the Province. I believe that the government has intentionally put forward

this so we can get this over with and get it under the table and have it dealt

with. I believe the strong arm of the Minister of Justice is behind this and

that he wants to close off debate. I believe that it is not fair to the people

not only on this side of the House of Assembly, but indeed unfair to the people

of the Province who have raised these concerns with us.

If I could just once again go back to the District of St.

Mary's - The Capes and say that since May 3, 1993 when I was elected I have felt

very proud and very honoured to have the opportunity to stand here and represent

the people of my district. I feel that I have carried out their wishes to the

best of my ability. I'm sure there are many things that we would like to see

done, and I'm sure the people of the district would like to see done, but we are

all under restraint. It is definitely not an easy time to represent any

district, and especially not an easy time to represent any district in rural

Newfoundland. When we have a government that, as far as I am concerned, have

their own agenda for the future of rural Newfoundland, I think it makes it all

the harder to be able to stand and represent those people. But I have put

forward their concerns, I've brought the issues to the House of Assembly, I've

represented the people to the be