November

20, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 58

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief statement.

I provided a copy to the gentleman for Humber Valley who, I guess, shadows me,

if that is the word, and I apologize because in fact I only got it to him a

moment or so ago.

Members will be aware that a man being detained at the St.

John's lockup died there late Friday night or early Saturday morning. The matter

is under investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and by those

directly responsible for the operations of the Adult Corrections Division of my

department, which of course operates the lockup.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I do not find it at all amusing I say to my

friend for Grand Bank. The man did die while in custody and I do not find it at

all amusing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I am not dead but unfortunately the

gentleman in the lockup is. Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to make a further

statement within the next day or so, but until then I can say nothing more about

the incident.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, as the minister already said

there is not much that can be said about it yet, and the only question I have

from the short brief statement would be the line in which it says, late Friday

night or early Saturday morning. The hours between that, was it 11:55 Friday

night, 1:05 or 12.05 Saturday morning? What is the difference, because in saying

that I am talking about the monitoring system at the prison?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker,

whereas the United Nations adopted

a declaration on the rights of the child on November 20, 1959; and

whereas on

November 20, 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a convention on

the rights of the child; and

whereas the convention addresses the rights of

children and recognizes their basic human rights, and gives children and youth

additional rights to protect them from harm; and

whereas the convention

recognizes the important role of the family in the upbringing of children; and

on March 19, 1993; and

whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

established a select committee on children's interests, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador would like to formally proclaim November 20, 1995 as

National Child Day in this Province.

I would also like to commend the numerous groups and

individuals throughout the Province who have organized special events to

celebrate National Child Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Social Services that if she and her

government want to commemorate National Child Day they should be introducing in

this House of Assembly long overdue and badly needed child welfare and child

care reform legislation, as well as the long promised and long overdue New

Schools Act.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. If the Premier is obsessed

with balancing the Budget this year, why didn't he and his government stick to

the expenditures authorized in their March Budget? Premier, why did you spend

over $26 million more than was authorized in your March Budget, this summer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board is better able to deal with the details of the Budget, but I can

say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there were a couple of areas where we spent some

extra money that can account for pretty well all of the increase.

One is, a decision to purchase two water bombers, because our

existing water bomber fleet, much of it is fifty years old and the argument

being made at the time and we accepted it, now if I had my time back again,

maybe I would think differently, in today's circumstances, I have to admit that

maybe I would think differently. I can't say to you that perhaps we should have

done it, but it was a compelling argument at the time. Here was an opportunity,

at relatively modest cost to put our water bomber fleet into a much better

position and we wouldn't have this opportunity in the future.

We tossed it back and forth for quite some time and

reconsidered and reconsidered and in the end, agreed to do it. Now, if I had my

time back, I think I might have made the decision differently; I will frankly

admit that. Another significant component of it was the increases in social

assistance payments and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board can give the

House the other detail, but our biggest problem, Mr. Speaker, is in shortfalls

of revenue to the Province estimated by the federal government that is:

provincial income tax and transfers, EPF transfers and other transfers to the

Province.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, my colleague is right. The problem is that this

government is incompetent at managing.

To refresh the Premier's memory, he and his government spent

$7.2 million this summer that was not in their Budget to acquire two new water

bombers. I ask the Premier: If you are going to acquire new water bombers, why

didn't you Budget for them in March, and since you didn't Budget for them, why

didn't you do without for this year?

After you went ahead anyway and spent the $7.2 million, why

did you wait until two-thirds of the way through the Budget year to tell people

that you are going to take that money back from hospitals, schools and

municipalities, $7.2 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is fairly

simple; we did not buy two new water bombers. They would cost about $15 million

to $18 million each, new. These were used water bombers. They were a good buy

and that was the only opportunity to acquire them. The argument being made, the

argument that the minister brought forward and Cabinet accepted, so it is all

our collective responsibility, the argument being brought forward is we will be

doing something in the best interest of the taxpayer if we do this now, even

though it is outside of our budget and it may place us in some degree of

difficulty. It is the right thing to do in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Now I just got through telling the House that if we were making the decision

today, knowing what we know today, we may well make the decision differently. I

can find out who we purchased it from. The company, I believe, Canadair is it?

We purchased it from the producer. I assume they were traded in by somebody

else.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: This is shocking, Mr. Speaker. What does the

Premier know now that he did not know this summer when he paid the $7.2 million

of taxpayers' money for the water bombers? What does he know now that he did not

know last March when he brought down the Budget? Now, Mr. Speaker, what does he

know today that he could not tell us a week or so ago about the number of

temporary employees on the public payroll and the number of people on the public

payroll with deputy minister and assistant deputy minister status? He and his

minister were going to count, can they tell us the numbers yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I saw the numbers on that on Friday - I

don't know if it was Friday or Thursday - and I know there was one error in it

and I sent them back for correction. I should have them today or tomorrow. I

will probably be in a position to table them tomorrow. I am happy to tell people

that there are fewer deputies now and fewer assistant deputies now then there

were say six years ago when we took office. There is no question, the record is

there and all the names are all there. So there is no difficulty judging it. It

will all be seen. There is still a significant reduction. Now what do we know

today that we did not know last March when we brought in the Budget? We know

today that the federal government, as of October, are estimating that the

revenue received from corporate income tax is going to be down by $14,000.000.

We know that the revenue to be received by way of equalization and other

transfers and total revenue transferred from the federal government is down by

about a total of about $45 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Thirty-four million dollars netted out,

but in addition to the $34 million, there is another impact built up from prior

years. So it is about $45 million less that we are going to get in this fiscal

year through that means. That is what we know now. We didn't know in March that

we would have the level of expenditure in social services that we have. We had

budgeted for a significant increase but it was higher than we anticipated, and

we didn't know that this opportunity to purchase those planes would come along.

We didn't know that last March. I've just told the House the circumstances in

which we made the decision. Maybe, given the knowledge that we have today, we

would have made a different decision.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I've questions for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Why are you cutting municipal

operating grants by 22 per cent without consultation, without concern, when you

and your department hired twenty additional employees since July; when you are

proceeding to spend $500,000 to do a feasibility study on an expanded 911

emergency response system; when you brought some sixty to eighty of government

staff together at Terra Nova Golf Lodge for a week-long seminar earlier this

month; and when you publish your departmental newsletter, at some cost to the

taxpayers, bragging about all these new expenditures?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, she has caught me completely off

guard. I don't know of spending $600,000 on an expanded 911 service?

MS VERGE: Five hundred thousand dollars.

MR. REID: Five hundred thousand dollars. I don't know

anything about that, I really don't. I don't think we are doing that. In fact,

I'm surprised that she would say that, knowing full well that the recovery from

the 911 service in St. John's and Corner Brook will provide those savings which

we hope to be able to use to offset that $500,000. I don't know the details on

what she is talking about in Terra Nova Lodge. I certainly wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I wasn't there, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, I

wasn't there. I don't know what she is talking about there. If she is talking

about twenty extra employees I would think that they were probably hired - not

extra, because I don't have any extra people, I've lost a number of people - if

they were hired, then I would assume most of them were hired through the

Government Service Centre, which took over from a number of other departments,

transferred from one to the other, but I will provide the information.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, that there is no

increase in staff in my department. There is no increase in staff in my

department.

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

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

the Minister responsible for social services.

The minister now has had the opportunity of a few days to

review the problem with her department's leaking of confidential information,

the invasion of privacy of individuals whose files are kept by the minister. I

wonder if she can tell me who in her department was aware of this problem. Does

she know how many faxes were sent to the wrong number - how many faxes - when it

started, and who knew about it?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked my officials to get me the information. I am not

sure if it is in my office today - I have not been there since 9:30 this morning

- however, as I find out the information I will certainly be willing to share it

with you.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very serious

breach of confidentiality. The minister was made aware of this on Friday. I

wonder if she can tell us what type of information was sent to this construction

company, and how confidential was it?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I said I asked for a report. I do not have the

report today.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can

confirm that a very sensitive and confidential file of a young offender was part

of the information received by this construction company? A lot of people are

concerned about this invasion of privacy, but I wonder if she would care to

confirm whether or not this is true.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the information, and until I

have the complete information I cannot comment on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek on a final

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister is undoubtedly

attempting to stonewall the House and not give the proper information at the

proper time to the people of this Province. I want to again reinforce to the

minister that this is a very serious breach of confidentiality, and I will ask

her this final question: Will she undertake to inform the individuals whose

information she has caused to be leaked to people who should not have that

information that this has been done, that their privacy has been invaded, and in

the case of minors what will she do there?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will do whatever I deem necessary as soon as I get the

information.

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

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

a question for the Premier. It pertains to committees of Cabinet. I would ask

the Premier, when ministers travel on special committees of Cabinet are their

travel and accommodation expenses charged off to the respective departments, or

is there a separate fund for Cabinet committees, Executive Council or Premier's

Office, or wherever?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know. I assume that when a

minister travels the expense is charged out through his department. I believe

that is probably the case. But the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would

be more knowledgeable than I am.

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

Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. No,

the reason I ask the Premier the question is that there is a Cabinet committee

scheduled to go to Labrador West. There has been an ad running in Labrador West

about the visit of the Cabinet committee. People are being charged a $10 fee for

a question and answer period. I'm wondering - I'm asking the Premier quite

seriously - is this to offset the cost of the ministers going to Labrador West,

or is it a new policy to recover some of the deficit problems? Because the ad

has been run for the last couple of weeks. A $10 fee for a question and answer

period with a special committee of Cabinet. So I want to ask the Premier if he

knows about it, or what it is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no knowledge about it, but there is

a Cabinet committee that deals particularly with Labrador. The Minister of

Justice is the chair of that committee, so I am going to ask him to provide the

answer to the House.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just happen to

have some information here. The question wasn't entirely unanticipated. The

Labrador West committee is going to be in Labrador this weekend. It consists of

my friends the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and the Minister of

Natural Resources, and myself. The hon. gentleman for Grand Bank has either been

misinformed or has perhaps put the wrong spin on it. Let me tell him what the

committee is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have the ad here as well. The committee

will arrive in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, at 6:25 p.m. Friday. We have an interview

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked the

question, I will make the answer.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) ministerial statement.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if it is a ministerial

statement it is more than my friend for St. John's East will ever make, I say to

him.

If I could answer the question.... That evening we are having

a social function with the Menihek Liberal Association. The $10 charge covers

that, and that doesn't cause me any difficulty at all. Anybody who wants to come

and is prepared to pay the $10 towards the Menihek Liberal club, fine. If they

don't want to come, that is fine too. The Menihek Liberal Association has to

raise money for the next election, as does any other party.

Now Saturday, Mr. Speaker, we meet with the town of Labrador

City, we meet with the town of Wabush, we meet with the Churchill Falls Anglers

and Hunters Association and we meet with Mr. Alonzo Drover, we meet with the

Smokey Mountain ski club, we meet with the Labrador West Chamber of Commerce and

at 3:05 we depart Wabush. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the people of

Labrador West will get their monies worth out of that whether or not they come

to the social thing. Surely my friend from Grand Bank does not mind that in the

evening we are going to ask people to meet with us, if they wish to meet

politically, there will be no charge to the government for this. Indeed, if

there is a profit it not only will not go to the government it will go to the

fighting fund of the Labrador West Liberal Association. We are going to Labrador

West because we are there at least once a year to hold a meeting such as we are

holding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I think the minister doth protest too much. I just asked a

simple question. The ad is very clear; there is nothing about a Liberal

fundraiser. It is for question and answer period with the Cabinet committee, a

ten dollar fee to ask me a question which I might not answer.

MR. EFFORD: That's fairly cheap.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Fairly cheap, yes the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation for sure would not (inaudible) for that cheap I say

to get to speak to him.

But I have a supplementary question for the Minister of

Education pertaining to the deficit problem the government finds itself in. I

have been told this morning that school boards in the Province have been asked

for substantial savings between now and the end of March. I have heard figures

ranging - depending on the size of the school board and their allocation - from

$200,000 to $500,000. Could the minister confirm that and would he inform the

House of what suggestions he has for school boards to obtain those savings? Is

he suggesting an extended Christmas vacation, a four day week for schools and

children in the Province? How else are they going to come up with those big

savings in one case up to $500,000 between now and the end of March and really

they cannot begin to obtain the savings until January?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know

that all government departments and all government agencies have been made aware

of the difficult fiscal problems that the government has and all these agencies

have been asked to make a contribution to making the savings. In the case of the

school boards they have been asked to save 3 per cent by now and the end of

March, exactly the same way as the university has been asked, exactly the same

way as the various hospital boards have been asked, exactly the same way as the

Department of Education has been asked. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has

a problem with the magnitude of the cut on the one hand and on the smallest in

the cut with the other, he will understand that some boards have bigger budgets

then others, 'To him that hath shall be given,' I suppose. He who has more to

give will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Oh yes, it is 3 per cent. So if you have a

million, 3 per cent of a million dollars is more than 3 per cent of a thousand

dollars. The hon. member should understand that. That is rudimentary arithmetic,

Mr. Speaker.

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

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

for the Minister of Health.

The heads of health care organizations in the Province were

told last Wednesday that they must absorb $27 million out of the $60 million

budgetary shortfall. Mr. Peddle, Executive Director of the Newfoundland Hospital

and Nursing Home Association said after a meeting with board Chairs and CEOs,

that there is nothing that can be done to save the $27 million. He said to find

the money will have a major impact on programs and services. Now the CEOs were

to report to the minister last Friday. I ask the minister, has he received a

report and have those cuts been identified?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. members question is not premised quite correctly.

The figure of $27 million represents 3 per cent of the $900 million budget that

health has; that means right across the health care system. We are looking at

the possibility of trying to achieve that type of savings. The institutional

side spends about two-thirds of that budget which is about $600 million. What we

accomplished in meeting with the health care boards Wednesday night was not to

tell them so much that they had to come up with x amount of dollars as to make

them aware of the fiscal problem that we have. What I did do was ask the health

care system to respond with their best efforts to see exactly what type of a

contribution could be made toward that deficit reduction problem without causing

undue hardship or destabilization to the health care system. Until such time as

we have done the complete analysis of the information that comes in from the

system and also an analysis of the programs that we deliver separate and apart

from the institutional sector, I am not able to inform the House or the hon.

member as to exactly where we will achieve what savings and to what extent the

savings will come toward addressing the fiscal problem, but that will become

information in due course that will be made available through the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, and then directly through the departments as a

consequence of government's decisions.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the minister is not able to tell me if he received

the report on Friday. I asked him that question.

Sister Elizabeth Davis, who oversees a budget of $283 million

said: Any further changes means we have to compromise the quality of health care

we deliver; and she said and I quote: Our board is certainly not willing to

compromise the quality of health care we are delivering.

Now I say to the minister, the quality of health care in this

Province has been compromised on an ongoing basis, with people continuously

being turned away from hospital doors because there are no beds available and no

operating rooms.

Now, does the minister feel that his department can cut $27

million from the health care system in four months, without compromising the

quality of health care?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, having received indications

from the health care boards that they are running a pretty lean-and-mean ship if

you like, and having heard from them that over the years, and correctly so,

there has been a fair bit of adjustment made to the health care system, the

health care boards nevertheless did commit to having a look at their operations

to see if in fact there are efficiencies that they have not yet identified that

they can contribute toward this exercise.

Now, in terms of whether I heard back from them on Friday, I

have to tell the hon. member, as he would appreciate, that I hear from the

institutional side of the health care sector on an ongoing and daily basis, and

sometimes many times a day either directly or through my officials, and we are

exchanging information, we are exchanging ideas, we are exchanging all of the

thoughts and the collective wisdom that we have between us, clear across the

health care sector, not only the institutional side but the program side as

well, and the whole exercise of course, is as he correctly indicates, to try and

achieve expenditure efficiencies, that will contribute towards the budgetary

situation.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peddle, The Executive Director of the Newfoundland

Hospital and Nursing Home Association, said and I quote: Even if we were to

close an organization tomorrow, with the severance pay we would have to give

employees and so on, you couldn't accomplish it.

Now, I ask the minister: Is it government's plan to eliminate

severance pay first, to achieve this objective and then initiate massive layoffs

in the system?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to indicate to the hon. member today what, if

any measures, government will take within the Department of Health or beyond

that to address the budgetary problem.

All departments, as has been indicated by the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, by the Premier and by the various ministers who have

been asked direct questions, all departments and all ministers are looking at

their budgets, looking at the programs that they deliver, looking at the

departmental operations that we are responsible for, and from the review and

exercise we are going through, we will determine a course of action that will

help us in the most appropriate manner to address the budgetary problem and at

the same time still be committed to and in fact be able to deliver a high level

of quality service particularly as it relates to health care.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

Will the minister confirm that she has been ordered by the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland to repay to a social services recipient, a

clawback based on an overpayment that has been made to a recipient on the basis

that such a clawback is illegal, except where there has been fraud or

misrepresentation by the client? Can the minister confirm that that has

happened?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly check it out for the member, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS YOUNG: But you passed it over to me, so obviously

there is some truth to what you are saying.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct, I did

give her a copy of an order of the court dated November 10, and while the

minister is checking it out would she be able to confirm to the House that not

only was this order made but it was agreed to by the officials of government on

the basis of their acknowledgement that such clawbacks are illegal and contrary

to the regulations of the minister, and will she undertake and commit to this

House to investigate all cases of clawbacks of overpayments, and repay to the

social services recipients, as she has been ordered to do in this case, monies

that have been illegally taken out of their social assistance, their already

woefully inadequate social assistance payments? Will the minister undertake to

do that?

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, yes, if my department has been

involved in any clawbacks that were illegal we will certainly deal with that.

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

final supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for that commitment and say I will hold

it to her. I have a final supplementary for the Premier. This illegal act has

been the result of a regulation passed in accordance with the Social Services

Act which says that government can only take back social services payments if

there has been a misrepresentation or fraud by the client. I want to ask the

Premier if the minister and his government planned to bury this regulation along

with a whole bunch of others as part of Bill 7? Is this regulation going to

disappear and allow the government to take back this money by changing that

regulation? Is this one of the ones that government had planned to bury as part

of that bill without telling the public they are going it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We are not burying any regulations. What

we are doing is getting rid of an excessive burden that has accumulated over

fifty years, and it is about time we have done that, so it is not burying

anything. Whether or not that regulation is included amongst the regulations to

be repealed or altered I do not at the moment know, but I will have it checked

and we will find out.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services as

well. Following up from the declaration today, or the proclamation of National

Child Day, in November 1991 the provincial Cabinet wrote the federal government

expressing support for the adoption by Canada of the UN Convention of the Rights

of the Child. Does the minister intend to bring similar legislation of the

rights of children to this House, rights that recognize the special status of

children and youth under the age of eighteen years?

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

MS YOUNG: I am sorry I was distracted and I did not hear

the question. Could you repeat the question, please?

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I was noting that as a follow-up from the

minister's proclamation today that in November 1991 the provincial Cabinet wrote

the federal Department of External Affairs, I do believe, indicating and

expressing support for the adoption by Canada of the UN Convention of the Rights

of the Child. Does the minister intend to bring similar legislation to the House

on the rights of the child, rights that recognize the special status of children

and youth under the age of eighteen years?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you are aware we do have the select committee of the House

dealing with the services provided to the children of this Province, and I will

certainly be very interested in looking at your report and all the

recommendations that you will be making.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, while we all recognize that

legislation is not always a guarantee to a safe and happy childhood it does

indicate the level of commitment that government has to children's developmental

needs. The Child Welfare Act recognizes a child's right to be protected from

abuse and neglect from infancy to age sixteen. This means that youth whose age

is sixteen and seventeen are not protected under the current child welfare

legislation. Does the minister intend to initiate legislation that will raise

the age definition to eighteen years, keeping in mind that nearly all persons

sixteen and seventeen years old are not defined as adults, and for the most part

are still students in high school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated to you, we are awaiting the report; however,

that is an area that is not currently addressed in this Province and I certainly

will be looking into it.

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

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, some notices of legislation.

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

introduce the following bills:

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

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

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards of Conduct For

Non-Elected Public Office Holders".

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice of the following Private Members' resolution

for Wednesday coming:

WHEREAS the government's balanced Budget is a farce; and

WHEREAS part of the budgetary problem is caused by cuts in

federal transfers, about which this government has said little; and

WHEREAS another part of the problem is due to this

administration's failure to cut waste in government; and

WHEREAS the government has also failed to keep its commitment

to reduce costs by significantly decreasing the number of seats in this House of

Assembly; and

WHEREAS the government's answer to its budgetary problems has

been to download the burden onto municipalities and severely cut front-line

health, education and social services;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House condemn the

government for its weak-kneed approach to Ottawa, its mismanagement of the

government's finances, and its general disregard for the effects of its actions

on the well-being of our citizens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a

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

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, I believe it was, the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl asked some questions concerning some heat pumps. I have some information

from the Department of Finance. If it is incomplete or if the hon. member wishes

a little more information I will certainly get it for him.

I am told that the installation of heat pumps in Clarenville

is part of a contract between Atlific and Honeywell. As the hon. member knows,

Atlific was the operator of the hotels, and Honeywell is an engineering/computer

firm which specializes in these devices, so the contract was approved by Hotel

Buildings Limited but it was not a party to it as far as I know. This was to

install an energy management system in three Holiday Inns in Newfoundland.

Apparently a similar device had already been installed in St. John's. This was

to upgrade the hotels, and did not cause any capital cost to Hotel Buildings

Limited, that being the company owned by the Province, the cost release financed

through the bank, and Fortis will assume the lease, so it was not a case of us

having spent a capital sum and then that money having been sunk. It was set up

as a lease so that there were monthly payments over the period of the lease.

There were savings in energy costs for the hotels, with a

pay-back period varying between three and eight years in the various hotels.

Certain savings are guaranteed by Honeywell, and any additional savings above

the guaranteed amounts will be to the benefit of the hotels. I have not seen the

leases, and I have asked for copies of them. I suspect what that is, is if they

could not demonstrate there were savings of a certain amount in heating costs

then Honeywell would probably be responsible for the difference between the two.

The St. John's system has been installed some three or four years and has been

working well over that period of time, and the savings to date are greater than

anticipated.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there has not been

a net cost to the Province. It has, in fact, saved on the operating cost of the

facilities, certainly in St. John's at the Holiday Inn, and the extend to which

there were any capital costs remaining, or any lease payments remaining, those

will be borne by the purchaser, in this case Fortis. If the hon. member requires

any further information, I will certainly get it for him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the first thing we

could do, please, is call Motion No. 5, which is the motion to refer Bill 28 to

the Government Services Committee. I understand this is not a debatable motion,

but that is not for me to say; I am advised of that. In any event, could we deal

with it and the bill can go to the committee and the committee will deal with

it?

Motion: To move, pursuant to Standing Order 54.2(3), that the

bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Credit

Unions" (Bill No. 28) be referred to the Government Services Committee.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House on

Friday morning, we are anxious to afford members an ample opportunity to debate

the bill we are about to call, so accordingly I move that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, just one final announcement.

Bill No. 32, which is the Executive Council bill, I'm advised by the Clerk's

office, is now available for distribution so it will be made available. I say to

members they shouldn't be put off by the size of it. The last thirty or forty

pages of it are simply a re-enactment of some existing substantive legislation.

MR. TOBIN: We won't get to that this year.

MR. ROBERTS: I have no idea when we will get to it, Mr.

Speaker, I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West. We are in the hands of

the House.

Mr Speaker, with that said I wonder if you would call Order

No. 24, the House of Assembly amendment act, please.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House

Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act". (Bill No. 31)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move

second reading of this bill. Let me say that I do so with a great deal of pride

and with a great deal of confidence. This bill is the best redistribution bill

ever presented to this House of Assembly, it is the fairest redistribution bill

ever put to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It is founded squarely and frankly on the

basic democratic principle that the vote of any one person is worth no more and

is worth no less than the vote of any other person in this Province. That is the

principle upon which this bill was founded. That is the sole principle on which

this bill is founded, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was

making is that the bill is founded squarely and frankly on the basic democratic

principle that the vote of one person is worth no more and no less than the vote

of any other person in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite can make

an effort -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak,

so I would ask hon. members to my right to restrain themselves, please.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members

opposite can heckle and catcall if they wish but I have the right to speak and I

am going to speak. I am going to say what has to be said in favour of this bill,

and I shall gladly sit and listen to members opposite. If they don't want to do

me the courtesy of allowing me to make my case - I realize that I'm speaking to

a jury that has tried, convicted, sentenced and executed the plaintiff in this

matter, but I am going to say what I have to say in accordance with the rules of

this House.

The point I made, Sir, is that this bill is founded squarely

and frankly on what I suggest is the basic democratic principle that the vote of

one person is worth no more and is worth no less than the vote of another. The

forty-eight seats that will be the basis of the election of the next House of

Assembly, with a handful of exceptions, all fall within the 10 per cent rule and

that was the rule established by this House in December 1993. A big step

forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I will come back to deal with the handful of

exceptions, but before I do let me first of all address a couple of ancillary

points.

The first is: Why are we bringing a redistribution bill

before the House now? Given all the problems that confront this Province, why

are we asking the House to deal with a redistribution bill? The practice, Mr.

Speaker, has been for the last thirty years that after every decennial census

the House makes the adjustment in the boundaries of its seats to reflect the

results reported in that census. It was done in 1974 after the 1971 census, it

was done in 1984 after the 1981 census, and it is being done now after the 1991

census.

Even if there had not been the tradition of the census, the

tradition of doing a redistribution every ten years, as does every legislative

assembly throughout Canada, to my understanding, we are left with the

inescapable fact that in district after district, Mr. Speaker, because of the

movements in population that have come in the last ten or fifteen years the

votes of some individuals are worth a great deal more than the votes of others.

I have a table here and I have copies of all these tables,

Mr. Speaker, for anyone who wishes them. Anybody who is interested in having the

facts, the information is available and the Pages will distribute it.

We take for example, Bay Verte - White Bay - and I am using

the existing census figures and the existing districts there - Mr. Speaker, and

the norm is 11,207. If you take the population of this Province as found in the

1991 census and divide by fifty-two you get a quotient figure of 11,207. Baie

Verte - White Bay is 17.3 per cent below the norm; Bonavista South is 22.5 per

cent below the norm; Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, 29.1 per cent below the norm; Burin

- Placentia West, 26.7 per cent above the norm; Eagle River 54.2 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: One of the handfuls of exceptions, I will

deal with it.

Ferryland is 27.9 per cent below the norm; Fortune -

Hermitage, 17.2 per cent below the norm; Grand Falls, 15.5 per cent; Harbour

Grace, 13.7 per cent; Harbour Main, 24.1 per cent above the norm. So the votes

of 124 or 125 people in Harbour Main district are equal to the votes of 100

persons in the average district. Now, Mr. Speaker, should we take account of

that or should we not? What about Humber East, 14.7 per cent up; Humber Valley,

14.2 per cent down; Kilbride, represented by my friend the Member for Kilbride,

40.1 per cent above the norm; Mount Pearl, 61.7 per cent above the norm; Mount

Scio - Bell Island, 51.9 per cent above the norm; Placentia, 27.8 per cent

below; Pleasantville, 27.7 per cent up; Port au Port, 24.3 per cent below the

norm; St. Mary's - The Capes, 30.5 per cent below the norm; St. Barbe, 12.4 per

cent above; St. George's, 17.1 per cent down; St. John's East Extern, 44.1 per

cent. So 14,410 people in St. John's East Extern, Mr. Speaker, have the same

voting power as 10,000 in the norm. Now, Mr. Speaker, those are unacceptable

figures and we are not prepared as a government to go into the next election

with those figures. We will go on, St. John's South, 12.3 per cent below; St.

John's West, 16.5 per cent above; Stephenville, 29.1 per cent below; Terra Nova,

14.2 per cent below; Torngat Mountains, one of the justifiable exceptions, 73.4

per cent below the norm; Trinity - Bay de Verde, 21.4 per cent below the norm;

Twillingate, 26.4 per cent below the norm; Waterford - Kenmount, 44.5 per cent

above the norm and Windsor - Buchans, 30.5 per cent below the norm.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what those figures show very clearly is

that no matter what size of House we establish there must be a redistribution.

Thirty-one, Mr. Speaker, of the present seats are well beyond the 10 per cent

norm and no democratic assembly worthy of the name could tolerate that

situation. That is the governments position, that is the policy on which we

stand and that is the policy we shall gladly defend, honour and implement. Now,

Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that perhaps we should take something else

into account beside population. Mr. Speaker, members of the House fulfil many

roles and I've been here a bit and I have some idea, Mr. Speaker, through eight

elections, through eight terms in this House, some idea of what some people in

this Province expect of their members.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the basic function we

have here is to elect the government and hold it accountable. That is our role

because this is the way in which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador elect

their government, through the House of Assembly and that is why it must be one

person, one vote. That is why, while we will bring in this bill which, Mr.

Speaker, sets it down with a handful of justifiable exceptions that every seat

falls within the 10 per cent norm and that is the tightest there is in Canada

with the single exception of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, they made it 5 per cent

with a handful of justifiable exceptions. In this Province when this bill

becomes law, as I predict it will, it will be 10 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's the first point. The second point,

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be shouted

down by members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: If they don't have the courtesy to listen, I

am not going to be shouted down by the likes of you yahoos. I have seen beer

gardens in this House before and I am not going to tolerate one now. I have the

right to speak, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, if they are not

prepared to listen, should at least sit there in silence, they will get their

turn to speak, we are going to let the House sit, we are going to ask the House

to sit until ten o'clock tonight to accommodate them all. If they want to make

the same speech seventeen times they can do it and we are going to sit until ten

o'clock tomorrow tonight, if need be, to accommodate them. We will give them

every chance to make their case, Mr. Speaker, and say whatever they wish subject

to the rules of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first point is: Why should we do

redistribution now and I have given you our reasons, Sir. Next is: How large

should the House be? Now there is no magic number, there is no perfect number.

We could have seven MPs, we have had seven MPs representing this Province since

Confederation, Mr. Speaker, we have had seven, we could have seven MHAs or we

could have 107 or we could have 727 if we wanted; there is no magic number.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. ROBERTS: There is no magic number, Mr. Speaker. The

Commission of Government, my friend from St. John's Centre reminds me, had

seven, six commissioners and a governor. There is no magic number. We have set

the size of the House at forty-eight, and I will tell the House, in a few

minutes, how we came to that number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Hon. members may know, Mr. Speaker, hon.

members may know or not know. I am going to tell the House whether they know or

not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have set it at forty-eight for two

reasons. That produces an average size district, the quotient is 12,181 and in

our judgement, that allows for effective representation; that means each member

will be responsible for a constituency that on the average is 12,181. It could

go up and down, 10 per cent.

Secondly, we believe there should be a relationship between

the House and the Cabinet, the House and the Ministerial Payroll and that

reflects the fact that the Cabinet could be fifteen or sixteen, add on the other

offices in the (inaudible) to the administration and you have a situation where

the Cabinet and those who look directly to the government, directly to the

ministry for their payroll, Mr. Speaker, are far less than a majority of the

House.

Now, in the Peckford Administration and in the Smallwood

Administration we, in both instances, saw a situation where the Premier of the

day had arranged a situation where far more than a majority of the House was

directly beholden to him for substantial emoluments, legal, but substantial over

and beyond their pay as MHAs. We believe that's wrong and this bill implements

that principle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go through the history of the

redistribution leading to this bill. In December, 1992 - and I wonder if the law

clerks would be good enough to pass me the 1992 and 1993 volumes of the

Statutes, please?

In December, 1992 this House amended the act and we provided

there, that the Commission would have five members and that the size of the

House would be reduced between forty and forty-six members, and that's found in

Chapter 56 of the Statutes of Newfoundland, 1992. Those amendments were adopted

in December 1992, subsequently, the Speaker, Mr. Speaker Lush, appointed a

Commission of five members, the Chair was Mr. Justice Mahoney, who was nominated

by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland; the other four members were: Mr. John

Nolan; Mr. Raymond Baird, Mrs. Beatrice Watts and Mrs. Dorothy Inglis, all

people with an interest in politics, all in fact, with previous and well-known

partisan affiliations, all with considerable experience in public life.

Three of them, Mr. Justice Mahoney, Mr. Nolan and Mr. Baird

have sat as members of the House. I said all had political affiliations, Mrs.

Watts doesn't to my knowledge, have any political affiliation but the other four

did, all of them estimable public citizens. Now, Mr. Speaker, their first role -

and I am not sure if my friend from Grand Bank mentioned it but let me make the

point so it's on the record - Mr. Justice Mahoney did sit in this House as a

Liberal but went to the Bench in the early 70s and of course, has had no

political affiliation or partisan involvement of any sort since then, and I

certainly don't want to leave any implication that he did. He did sit in this

House as the Liberal member for the old dual district of Harbour Main between

1966 and 1971. I say to my friend, the Page, that I have all of these tables so

do not leave them again. Thank you, very much.

The committee was constituted by the order of Mr. Speaker

Lush and it went to work. It presented its preliminary proposal in August 1993.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the preliminary proposal is not required by the act, but it is

not barred by the act either, and there was ample precedent for what the

Commission did in presenting its preliminary proposal. Both the commission

headed by the late Mr. Justice Higgins in 1974 and the commission headed by Mr.

Justice Bartlett, now retired as a judge of the Supreme Court, but Mr. Justice

Bartlett did the same thing in 1974 in the case of the Higgins commission and in

1984 in the case of the Bartlett commission.

As an afterthought let me add that both Judge James Higgins

and Judge Rupert Bartlett served as members of this House, Mr. Higgins as the PC

and United Newfoundland Party member for St. John's East, and Mr. Justice

Bartlett served as a member of the House for one day, sitting for the old

Trinity South seat. He was elected in October 1971, was sworn on March 1972, and

then the dissolution came that evening. My recollection is he stood for

re-election but was not successful in Trinity South district. That was not a

good year for Liberals I say to those who forget.

Mr. Speaker, the commission, as I said, produced its

preliminary report and it was made public. The commission then began a round of

public hearings. I asked leave to appear before the commission and they agreed

to hear me. Then in November 1993 I appeared before the commission at a public

meeting held in Clarenville. The hon. lady may well choose to differ. She has

every right to differ as she is very different. If she wishes to differ on this

she may well indeed, but my submission is that it is entirely appropriate in

every sense of the word for me to appear and to make the statement I did as a

minister of the Crown speaking for the ministry. I said to the commission, and I

say here now, that I made that statement as a minister of the Crown and speaking

for the ministry.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the members of the ministry do not

lose their right to speak and to make representations. We are bound by Cabinet

solidarity but we are still citizens, we are still members of the House of

Assembly and we still have the right to speak. Secondly, if we are going to

speak to the Commission, a statutorily created body operated on a statutorily

created basis it is appropriate that we do so openly and not in the dead of

night, not in the dark of night, and not by some roundabout backdoor way, but

openly, so I appeared before the commission and I made my submissions on behalf

of the government.

Mr. Speaker, these submissions led to further amendments here

in the House because there were two changes made in December 1993, and in case

member's memories have failed or they have not had a chance to look at it, the

changes are found in the Statutes of Newfoundland 1993,

Chapter 57. One was to

introduce the 10 per cent rule. Up until then we had followed the 25 per cent

rule, and the House in 1993, at the request of the government, replaced the 25

per cent rule with the 10 per cent rule, so if one were to take a seat of 1000

or 10,000 people as being the norm, a seat could be as small as 9000 or as small

as 11,000 under the new rule, and under the old rule it could be as large as

12,500 or as small as 7500. We brought it down to the 10 per cent tolerance, we

gave our reasons then, the House accepted them then, and that was one change.

The second change we made was to say to the commission that

in preparing their report they should try to create a forty-six seat House and

if they could not they had the liberty to go to a forty-four, a forty-two, or a

forty seat House. Those are the two significant substantive changes made by the

1993 amendments. Why did we ask for those amendments? Well, they were debated at

length in the House at the time, and I will refer very briefly to our reasons,

there were two.

The first is that simply and solely when we saw the forty

seat proposal, which the commission made public, and we reviewed it as a

government, we saw two problems. The first was the 25 per cent variation was too

large. We came to that view as a Cabinet. Were we right or were we wrong? That

is for others to judge, but this House sustained that view and this House

enacted the change we requested subsequently.

Secondly, we came to the view that a forty seat House was too

small, that given the geography and the population size of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the historical role of members, we thought it should be of the

order of forty-six seats and, as I just reminded the House, we gave the

commission the leeway to recommend a smaller number of seats if they wished, but

we did say that we were not prepared to sponsor a bill which reflected the

original proposal. Given that - and the commission did their job well and

properly in making the preliminary proposal - if we decide, as a government, we

were not prepared to ask the House to adopt those changes, the hon. thing to do,

I suggest, was what we did, which was to let the commission and the world know

publicly and openly what we were doing. Otherwise, we are going to let them go

on their merry way, bringing in a report, carrying on with a report that we had

said we were not prepared to implement. So, Mr. Speaker, no; we made our views

known frankly and publicly, and we came back to the House, made our requests to

the House, and the House approved them, and the commission said: Very well, we

answer to the Legislature; we accept the legislative direction, and they went on

with their job.

MS VERGE: Then what (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady asks then what we

do. If she will simply control herself just a teensy-weensy bit - I know it is

difficult for her, but if she would simply exercise a little bit of the

self-control that I believe she has - and possess her soul in patience for a few

minutes I will tell her what we did. She may have a different view, but that is

for her to say when her turn comes, and her turn will come; she can be assured

of that.

Mr. Speaker, the December, 1993 amendments carried those

changes into effect. The commission continued with its work, and it presented

its report in June, 1994. It was made public very shortly thereafter, and in due

course was tabled in the House when the House met.

Before I get into the substance of the report, let me make a

statement or two about the commission. The report of the commission headed by

Mr. Justice Mahoney - Mrs. Watts, Mrs. Inglis, Mr. Baird, Mr. Nolan were the

members - was a comprehensive report, and it was a clear report. They discharged

their mandate from this House fully, squarely and effectively; one could not

argue with that. Their report spoke very clearly, and the mandate that they were

given and have been given by the Legislature in the act as amended in December,

1992 and December, 1993, the Electoral Boundaries Act, was discharged fully,

squarely and effectively. I thanked Judge Mahoney and his colleagues then when

they presented the report to me, and I stand here in the House today and

acknowledge gladly and happily and willingly and proudly and with gratitude

their contribution and the way they did their job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come on to the report because the

report was there, and when we got the report we had to deal with it. Among the

materials that have been passed out to members, in my understanding, are the

pages from the report which represent their final recommendations, and it is

worth, I think, drawing the House's attention to these. This is the report. I am

reading now from page 4 of the final report. Page 5 actually bears facsimiles of

the signatures of the members of the commission.

After thirteen months, and the discharge of two separate

legislative mandates - those are the '92 and '93 ones - we hereby submit our

unanimous report:

(

a) As to the names, descriptions, boundaries and populations

of the forty-four one-member districts that are within our mandate - and I

acknowledge that was their mandate; it fell within their mandate and they

discharged that mandate fully and squarely and effectively, forty-four seats,

all within the plus or minus 10 per cent tolerance ratio set down by the House;

and

(

b) Our recommendation with respect to Labrador, for the

reasons stated in our final report, and at our second press conference, that the

Act be amended to permit Labrador to retain its present four provincial

electoral districts so that only the removal of Churchill Falls from the

District of Naskaupi - Churchill Falls is now in the district which I represent,

and has been since 1975 when this was corrected - and its inclusion in the

District of Menihek, represented obviously by my friend for Menihek, which since

its inception has included only Labrador City and Wabush. The Commission said:

Four seats for Labrador, but move Churchill Falls from Menihek into Naskaupi.

That was its recommendation. It speaks for itself.

It went on and said: We further recommend the Legislature

consider amending the electoral boundaries act to permit the inclusion of

Reidville, Cormack and Howley in the proposed Humber district. The report as you

will find, if you go back to it, Mr. Speaker, included Reidville, Cormack and

Howley, those three communities, in the District of St. Barbe. It went on: And

that we further recommend that notwithstanding the population of the resulting

districts that the Legislature consider amending the act to permit:

a) all of

the town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in a single district;

b) the town

of Peterview to be placed in Exploits district, and;

c) the proposed Lewisporte

district, less the town of Peterview, to remain as a district. The effect of

those three - the a, the b, the c - would be to leave us with those three seats,

each more than 10 per cent away from the tolerance.

The Commission's recommendations were straightforward and

they speak for themselves. We as a government then had to address these issues

and decide what we would do. We had the unanimous report of a commission which

had had exhaustive hearings and done a great deal of consultation and a great

deal of consideration and debate among themselves. The final report, members

will recall, was very extensive, very lengthy, very substantial. We had to

decide what to do with it. We weren't going to dismiss it or treat it lightly.

We had to take it, analyze it, decide what we were prepared to do. It

recommended, again, forty-four seats and it said: We further recommend a fourth

Labrador seat, and then the changes I've given in Humber Valley, Lewisporte,

Exploits and Grand Falls districts.

As a Ministry we were impressed with that report. We were

very much inclined to try to implement it. After consideration and discussion in

Cabinet and caucus the decision was taken to try to implement the report. We

could have done it two ways. We could have simply taken the recommendations of

the Commission, the forty-four plus the extra seat in Labrador. My hon. friends

over there are now objecting apparently to the Labrador seat distribution, but

the Commission recommended clearly a fourth seat for Labrador, and then the four

other seats that would be out of the ten or - plus or minus - we could have done

that. No trouble to draft a bill, bring it to the House, ask the House to deal

with it.

But we were not prepared to do that. We were not prepared to

ask the House to adopt a bill that, leaving aside the handful of justified

exceptions in Labrador - and that is essentially Torngat Mountains and the new

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair seat - we take position that the seats should be

plus or minus 10 per cent. There is a wrinkle with respect to Naskaupi, or Lake

Melville as it will be called, and Labrador West, as it will be called. I will

deal with that in due course.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible) more than one wrinkle in this

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady has a wrinkled mind, Mr.

Speaker. She sees wrinkles where there is a seamless garment. We are dealing

with reality now, and I ask the hon. lady not to interrupt when we are about

important things. She will get her chance.

We decided as a government we would try to implement this

bill. But as I said, we weren't prepared to allow greater tolerances. That has

been our consistent position, and that is the position on which we stand, the

position on which we will fall should we have to fall, but I don't believe we

will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. `Byrne Primus' would

be well-advised not to enter a debate until his turn comes, and in turn I shall

not interrupt him when his turn comes. We carry on.

I asked, with the acknowledgement of the government, one of

my civil division solicitors, David Jones, who had been secretary to the

Commission and done admirable work - or legal counsel, whatever his title was to

the Commission. Did admirable work, and knew the file well. I asked Mr. Jones -

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady keeps interrupting me. I

realize she doesn't mind if she is rude. She thinks that is probably politically

desirable. I would say to her that if she expects to be heard in some kind of

respect here she has to extend it to others. That is pretty basic. Her mother

would have told her that when she sat at her mother's knee three or four years

ago. The hon. lady, I ask her again, please to allow me to get on with what I'm

saying and I will let her get on with what she is saying. i gather I'm to have

the honour of having her respond to these few humble remarks.

Mr. Speaker, let me carry on. I asked Mr. Jones, who is a

civil division solicitor, been with the government for a number of years,

probably back to the time when my hon. friend the Member for Humber East was the

Minister of Justice. He is a very good lawyer and does very good work. I don't

know how long he has been there but probably back in the hon. lady's time. I

asked him to tell us what would be involved in implementing the recommendations

of the commission and staying with the 10 per cent rule, those two directions. I

said David start at forty-four seats and see what you have to do. He did all the

numbers and in fact, in due course I asked him to brief both Opposition

caucuses. It did not take him long to brief my friend from St. John's East, his

Caucus is still fairly small but the official Opposition Caucus were briefed

fully by Mr. Jones, as were our own Caucus. He came back and he said in due

course: Minister, I must tell you that the 10 per cent rule, to make that work,

will take a House of forty-eight seats. That is where we got the forty-eight, no

more magic then that.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West knows all about foolishness and he exhibits it and proves it

daily. Let me say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I have said to the hon.

gentleman - let me say to the hon. gentleman as I said to his leader, if he

wants to be rude, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to pray the aid of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am about serious business.

The hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West is pretty good at badinage, not

as good as he thinks he is but I would say to him, let him badinage outside and

let there be some good work done in here for the moment.

Mr. Speaker, we concluded that forty-eight seats were

necessary if we were to have four seats entirely in Labrador, as the commission

recommended and if the other seats were to be plus or minus 10 per cent. There

is no more mystery then that. We then, Mr. Speaker, said well what shall we do?

We finally said we shall ask some independent person, we shall give him or her a

commission, we shall ask him or her to take the numbers, to take the data made

available to the commission headed by Judge Mahoney, to take the evidence given

before the commission headed by Mr. Justice Mahoney and to come back with a

suggestion. That, Mr. Speaker, was the commission that was accepted by Mr.

Justice Noel, at that time a Judge of the Supreme Court. He has since retired.

Mr. Speaker, we asked Judge Noel to accept the commission and table the

commission here in the House. I thought I had a copy of it but I cannot seem to

lay my hands on it. I believe one has been distributed to members and if the

Clerk has one to hand perhaps he or she could pass one to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

MR. ROBERTS: The commission of Mr. Justice Noel. It is a

copy of the Order in Council that was adopted. We tabled it here in the House

but if it is not here we will get one. I can tell members pretty well what is in

it and I think I have here in this book a brief of it in any event but whether I

do or not, let me say what it was. Let me say what was in the commission issued

to Mr. Justice Noel. We said to him take Labrador and take the two urban seats

in Labrador. Now that is the seat represented by my friend from Menihek and the

seat I represent and he and I will agree, whatever else we may disagree on, that

those seats are urban seats. They are both a long way from St. John's, his

somewhat further then mine but they are not rural seats. I have a couple of

communities that are perhaps rural; North West River, Sheshatshiu, Mud Lake but

the town of Happy Valley - Goose Bay is as modern and as urban a centre as we

have in this Province today. I know my friend would agree that Labrador City and

Wabush are as modern and as urban centres as we have today in this Province.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from St. John's East, I

hope there is more jet traffic in Goose Bay because that's jobs and it is jobs

at an acceptable price and I would do it any time. I said an acceptable price

and I do that any time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back - and I say to my friend

from St. John's East let him too possess us - we will even hear him, we are that

democratic in this House. Now, Your Honour, Judge Noel was asked to take the

population of the -

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Here goes the hon. lady once again erupting.

I wish she would do her erupting in private. It is more socially acceptable.

Now Your Honour, we asked Judge Noel to take the two urban

seats in Labrador - Menihek and Naskaupi in the present House - to take their

population, add it up, divide by two and get a quotient and then to take that

quotient as the quotient for the Province and come up with the number of seats

that were necessary to carry that quotient throughout the Province using the

plus or minus 10 per cent.

Now, the Order in Council says that a little more succinctly

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) be the judge of that.

MR. ROBERTS: - but, Mr. Speaker - the hon. gentleman for

St. John's East once again is erupting and he is like his soul mate, his fellow

Scorpio, his birthday mate, his intellectual equal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I wouldn't go that far - his soul mate

but not his intellectual equal, the hon. lady from Humber East. If he doesn't

know why we need judges, he should go back to law school, maybe some judges will

tell him in due course.

Mr. Speaker, the Commission given to Mr. Justice Noel by the

Cabinet, which was tabled here in the House, roughly contemporaneously, I don't

remember the dates, they are on the record, provided for a House of forty-eight

seats, and when he did the arithmetic in his report and the report was tabled

here as soon as we received it, and I believe the House was in session at the

time but in any event, if not it was tabled soon after that as the House met,

came up with forty-eight seats and he then, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the

Commission here and nobody has given it to me so I won't be able to read it as

my note said, but the Commission is public.

He then took the population of the Province, took the census

data, took the evidence from the representations made to the Commission headed

by Judge Mahoney and he came up with a map dividing the Province into

forty-eight constituencies and that's the map that's in the bill now before the

House. There is not a boundary changed. There are some changes in names and I

will deal with those, but there is not a boundary change. The boundaries in the

schedule of Bill 31 are those recommended by Mr. Justice Noel in his report,

with not a jot or a tittle of an exception.

His report, in my judgement and that of the government, is an

admirable job and I want to thank him too, I want to acknowledge; he was not

paid a nickel for it. He did it as part of his regular work, he did the report

expeditiously and efficiently, and I thank him for it, his report is here and in

due course the House will be asked to address it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the Commission now. Let me just

make reference to it. It was the Order in Council, 95-082, adopted on the 8th of

March, 1995 and I will table it, but we gave the judge an instruction as I say,

to put four seats in Labrador thus implementing the report the recommendation of

the Commission headed by Judge Mahoney; we then directed him to get a quotient

using the process I have set out by subtracting the population of the present

Torngat and Eagle River districts and taking the remaining number and dividing

it by the lowest number that will enable the two remaining Labrador districts to

fall in plus or minus 10 per cent if they were divided equally - I thank my

friend - and then we went on to allow the Commissioner a special power with

respect to the southwest coast of the Island of Newfoundland and then we said,

subject to the above, the boundaries of the remaining districts shall be such as

to ensure that the population of no district shall vary from the quotient by

more than 10 per cent, and when Judge Noel did his numbers he came out with the

quotient, it was 11,126 and then he took the plus or minus 10 per cent, and

dividing 11,126 to fall within plus or minus 10 per cent of the quotient, 11,126

of the Labrador seats going 10 per cent up or 10 per cent down, he came to

12,181 and that's the figure he adopted, 12,181, forty-four on the Island, four

in Labrador, and he sets out that succinctly in

Part 2 of his report dated

April, 26 which has had an analysis admitted in Council, MC 95-0153, which is

the one I just read. It's OC 95-082, it's MC 95-0153. Only the Cabinet office

can explain the arcane process by which we number OCs and MCs and the difference

between them.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady may know what arcane is, but

she doesn't what good manners are, and if she wants to be as intelligent as I

believe she is, she would show a little good manners.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Byrne Primus, has something to say and I

will gladly hear him when his turn comes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House implements Judge

Noel's report with only one change. We have changed some names and among the

papers provided to the members is a concordance which shows the district name

recommended by Judge Noel and the name which is in the proposed bill. We have

also provided members with an analysis, which I think is a very interesting one,

of the historical names of districts. For example, there has been in this House

since 1832, in every House, and we are now up to the Forty-Second General

Assembly, there has always been a seat with the name Bonavista in it. There has

always been a seat with the name Burin in it. Since 1855, the first Responsible

Government House as opposed to the Representative Government House, there has

been a seat with the name of Burgeo and LaPoile in it, or Burgeo. There has been

a seat called Conception Bay. There has been a seat called Ferryland. Right from

the start in every House of Assembly elected since elections began in this

Island of ours, in 1832, it has had a Member for Ferryland, a Member for Fortune

Bay, a Member for Placentia and St. Mary's, a Member for Trinity Bay, a Member

for Twillingate and Fogo. They are all laid out here up to Confederation, and if

anybody wants post - Confederation I am old enough and I have been around long

enough to be able to give members that, or they are out here on the roles that

are hanging in the lobby behind the government side here, all except 1949. I

have no idea what happened to that but I suspect it went to Russwood one day on

loan and the loan is still outstanding if the truth were to be known, but I do

not know that. All I know is that the 1949 role has gone missing but the others

are hanging out here. Mr. Speaker, we did change some of the names for

historical reasons.

MR. A. SNOW: Why Labrador West?

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Menihek asks why drop Menihek

and Labrador West. I asked widely around Labrador West, including councils and

the Chambers of Commerce, and people there told me that Labrador West, in their

view, was more descriptive and a better term than Menihek. Menihek is a river, I

guess. It was a power station many years ago and the power station is still

there, up near Schefferville. People in Western Labrador in my dealings, and my

hon. friend will contradict me if he believes I am wrong, but in my dealing it

has always preferred to be said Labrador West, Lab West, or Western Labrador, so

that is why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say you did it, or the judge?

MR. ROBERTS: The judge recommended Menihek, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you do that?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I did. The judge did not hold hearings.

I asked. I am a minister and I am responsible for the conduct of this bill. I

asked, yes. I asked and I made the answer. I asked people in Western Labrador,

and I asked people in my own constituency, what should this be called, and they

said, well, Naskaupi means nothing to us. It is the name of a river and it is

the name of an Indian tribe who ironically live in the Torngat Mountains

district. The Innu people living in my constituency are primarily Montagnais and

the Naskaupi people live up in Davis Inlet, the members of the Innu nation. They

said they were always known as Lake Melville. Eagle River is really only the

name of one of Frank Moores sporting haunts, and when we consulted the people in

that area they said Cartwright to L'Anse au Clair was a more descriptive one.

Here in St. John's Judge Noel suggested Columbus Drive. Now,

Columbus Drive is not an old street and it is certainly not a name connected

with St. John's. I think my friend for Waterford - Kenmount agrees with that and

we made a change. It was given some merriment in Column seven today of The

Evening Telegram but we have made a change and are calling it St. John's

West, and all the other seats were changed.

My friend for Fortune - Hermitage disagrees with the

suggestion of Fortune Bay and Hermitage so we will have to try and find a name

that suits that. Mr. Speaker, the point of it is we have tried to preserve the

sense of history and I have tabled both the concordance which shows the changes

we have made and also the historical analysis which gives the history of seats

going back to 1832. Now, those are the only changes we made, Mr. Speaker.

Let me make one other reference to the instructions given to

Judge Noel so that it is on the record in case members want to refer to it or

are interested in it, and that is the situation in the two urban Labrador seats,

my seat and the seat represented by the Member for Menihek, Naskaupi and

Menihek. Strictly speaking each of them it out of tolerance. The instructions of

Judge Noel were cast very carefully. The quotient for each of the other

districts of the Province subject to, with exceptions for Torngat and Eagle

River, shall be determined by subtracting the population of the present Torngat

and Eagle River districts and that of the Province, and dividing the resulting

total by the lowest number that will enable the two remaining Labrador districts

to fall within plus or minus 10 per cent of the quotient if they were divided

equally.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the two Labradors - the reason those words

`if they were divided equally' are in there was what would happen if we do not.

If you look at, again, the table that has come out, it will be noted that the

new Lake Melville district is somewhat higher than the 10 per cent rule, and the

new Labrador West district is somewhat lower. The two together fall within - if

you add the two of them together and divide the total by two, you come into the

plus or minus 10 per cent. Now the reason for that is that the population of

Labrador West is marginally greater than that of the present Naskaupi, including

Churchill Falls, Northwest River, Sheshatshiu, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and Mud

Lake. The only way to bring them into sync would be to take, I think it is, 105

residents of Wabush and put them in with the new Lake Melville district. Now I

think my friend from Menihek would agree with me; that is not a very good

solution. To divide the two of them equally, to bring both into the 10 per cent

rule, it would be necessary to take, I think it is, 110 people from Wabush and

make them part of the new Lake Melville district, and the other people in

Wabush, and all of the people who live in Labrador West, would be constituents

in Labrador West; so that is what happened there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That was the Mahoney Commission

recommendation. I agree with my friend from Menihek that people in Churchill

tend to look to the west as opposed to Happy Valley. I am aware of that, as is

he, and we are both right, but the population of Churchill, which is about 800

in round numbers, would hopelessly skew the two, and the two seats in Labrador

are both urban seats; he will acknowledge that. They are the concerns of the

people of my constituency, by and large, and the concerns of the people of his

are those comparable to the people who live in Grand Falls or St. John's or

Corner Brook as opposed to those who live in Conche or in Pigeon Cove or

Belleoram, in the smaller communities around the Province, so that was the

reason why.

Let me talk for a moment about Torngat and Eagle River, the

new L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright seat. They are the handful of exceptions. I do

not believe there is a member of the House who would stand and say - if there

is, let them do it - that the people who live along the Coast of Labrador, and

there are in the area from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain, which is about 900 miles, if

memory serves me correctly, of some of the most rugged coastline in our

Province, there are approximately 9,000 or 9,100 according to the 1991 census; I

do not believe there is a member of the House who would say they should be

formed into simply one seat. That was tried once, in a district that began at

Mary's Harbour and ran to Nain. If one looks at the 1975 roll, and there were

fifty-one seats in the House in that stage, you will see, opposite the name of

the Eagle River district, the name of Ian Strachan, who was the Liberal member

for that seat elected in '75, and Ian's seat began at Mary's Harbour and went to

Nain. Experience showed that was unworkable in every sense of the word, and in

1979, or 1978 the House amended - no, it was '79; Mr. Peckford was Premier - and

added the fifty-second seat to the House, and did that by creating the present

Eagle River and Torngat seats, and they made an incidental adjustment in the

seat I represent, the Strait of Bell Isle, because the area from Red Bay, the

community immediately south of Mary's Harbour, to L'Anse-au-Clair in the 1975

distribution was included in the Strait of Bell Isle. Now that was done simply

to discomfort me, of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. ROBERTS: One of Mr. Frank Moores' efforts to... But I

did my best to try to discomfort him on occasion. If it had not been for Mr.

Smallwood, I think we would have discomforted him mightily in 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's Centre recollects,

my friend for Terra Nova recollects. (Inaudible) any others in the House who

recollect, but we recollect mightily -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all the friends you have.

MR. ROBERTS: I believe my friend, but that is more than

he has on occasion, I would say to him. I would say that we would have

discomforted Mr. Moores mightily in 1975 if Mr. Smallwood had stayed out and let

it be a two-person fight, a two-party fight.

In any event, the point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is that

there is nobody, I believe, who would stand and say that the people of Torngat

do not in themselves deserve a special electoral district. The six communities

from Rigolet to Nain are among the most isolated in our Province. The terrain is

among the most rugged in our Province. The difficulties of travel and

communications, the problems are such, and add on the fact that that is the one

area of our Province where a majority of the people are aboriginal. The great

majority of the people there are aboriginal. We believe it is appropriate and

proper to create a Torngat seat. We have done that, and it has been there since

1979 in the present form. We ask the House to continue it.

Also, that leaves Eagle River. There are about 5,200 people

in the area of the present District of Eagle River. Fifty-one hundred and

thirty-three. The question then comes: Where does one put those? The Boundaries

Commission led by Judge Mahoney recommended they go in with the Island. The

Island was one proposal, and the other proposal was Goose Bay. Either way you

have an impossible situation. Again, the area between L'Anse au Clair and Red

Bay, my friend for Eagle River will agree, is comparable to any other rural area

in the Province. Once you get north of Red Bay you get into Mary's Harbour and

St. Lewis and Lodge Bay, communities going down through Black Tickle and on into

Cartwright into Paradise River and Separation Point, and the mouth of the Eagle

River where the Lethbridge family - I guess that is the most northerly or the

most westerly place in the constituency - the problems of distance and of travel

and communication are such that in our mind it is justified. That is why we have

the second seat on the coast of Labrador. Again, we make no apologies for that.

We are proud of it and we believe it is appropriate.

I've only got a couple of minutes left. I believe I have

about ten minutes, I would ask the Clerk at the Table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, pardon? Eight minutes. I thank my

friend for Ferryland. He has never been able to shut me up, and I can tell him

the only people who can in this House are the Speaker or my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about the financial aspects. I

anticipate there will be a considerable amount of hoopla about this in the next

day or two while we are debating this bill. This bill is not brought in as a

money-saving measure, but it will produce substantial savings annually and on a

recurring basis. The budget for the House on the Estimates - now, I'm not

counting special warrants, I'm not counting any reductions that may be made in

the consequence of the present exercise - the budget for the House is $8.206

million. That is the House of Assembly. That doesn't include the Chief Electoral

Officer or the Auditor General's Office which are under the same head. That is

the budget of the House.

Just divide that by fifty-two. I know that is rough justice

but it is a way to do it. If you divide it by fifty-two you have $157,000 for

each member.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have fixed costs.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have fixed costs. If only

the hon. gentleman would have a fixed mouth we would be okay. That $157,000 does

not include pension payments or the pension liabilities that accrue, because the

pension liabilities are not recorded in the annual accounts, not separately - I

don't know if they are there under - and the pension payments are paid out of a

different head. The retired members of the House who are drawing pensions,

payments to that come from a different head entirely than that in the House.

Reducing the House by four MHAs will save about $600,000 a

year every year forever. That is not a huge amount of money, but it is a

significant amount of money. We don't put this forward as a cost-reduction bill,

but we put it forward acknowledging that it will save some money. We could save

even more. If members wanted, we could abolish the House, but the last

government that did that was a Tory House in 1934. Let it be remembered, the

last time the House cost nothing was when the Tories formed a government in 1934

under Prime Minister Alderdice and they abolished the House. We can do that and

we can save the entire $8.206 million.

Let me say one or two words about one other feature of the

bill. We are asking as well the House to change the

section -

AN HON. MEMBER: So moved.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm glad the member moves it. To change the

section of the act that sets the requirements for the degree of support needed

to make the orders of the House, the rules of the House, the Standing Orders.

That is found in

section 3, Mr. Speaker.

At present, Mr. Speaker, the House requires that - a change

in the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, requires the affirmative support of

two-thirds of the members of the House, that is 34.32 MHAs in the House of

fifty-five. I don't know whether it is thirty-four or thirty-five unless my

friend from Ferryland is the .32 which perhaps he could be, but it takes

thirty-four or thirty-five MHAs to change a rule. I am not going to give a legal

opinion at this stage. It is not my place to give legal advice to the House.

There is no other Legislature in Canada that has that rule; most are a simple

majority of the members present and voting. The rule we suggest to the House,

Mr. Speaker, the rule we suggest to the House will be that the vote of 50 per

cent plus one of the members present and voting in favour will be sufficient to

make the rules of the House or to change them once made. Now, Mr. Speaker, that

is not something we plucked out of thin air; that of course is the test of the

Houses confidence. The government's right to hold office is judged by that

measure. Our right to hold office is tested every day by that standard, 50 per

cent plus one of the members present and voting. Mr. Speaker, we put it forward

on that basis and we have no hesitation in commending it.

Let me just say a word about the two-thirds requirement, it

has been there since Confederation. I did not go back before Confederation, it

may or may not have been there in the pre-Commission House but while the result

is very clear, you get rule changes in only one of two situations, either when

you have an overwhelming government majority or unanimous consent. Now the

second is a receipt for paralysis, you get the lowest common denominator. The

first we have seen - we have seen two situations in this House where the

government had an overwhelming majority, one was after '49 and the other was

after '72, I sat here in '72. It was in 1974 when the Moores administration,

using its overwhelming majority, within the rules, changed the rules to try to

silence the Opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, in '74 the Moores administration used

its overwhelming majority to force changes through. Now, Mr. Speaker, our

suggestion is that we should put this on the same basis as the confidence of the

House, namely that 50 per cent plus one is sufficient to make the rules, it is

sufficient to make a government and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite may

say what they wish and we shall listen to them with the respect their remarks

deserve. They may vote as they wish and at the end of the day we will see who

has the votes and the votes will decide because this is a measure of confidence,

as is every government bill, Mr. Speaker. If we don't carry this bill, I say to

my friends opposite, if we don't carry this bill the Premier will be down at

Government House, not for dinner, not for a cup of tea but to go to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Talk about whistling past the graveyard.

There is nothing hon. members on the other side would like less then to have to

face the electorate today, nothing we on this side would like more, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude that this is a good bill.

It is the best redistribution bill ever to be brought before this House. The

best, bar none, ever to be brought before this House. We had twenty-eight seats,

we went to thirty-six, we went to forty-two, we went to fifty-one, we went to

fifty-two and now we are going back to forty-eight and for the first time, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to do it firmly on the basis of one person, one vote. As

nearly as it is possible to do so.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few brief remarks I commend this

bill to the House and I look forward with confidence to seeing it read a second

time and then becoming law, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Opposition Leader I would like to

welcome to the public galleries, on behalf of hon. members, the former Member

for St. George's, Mr. Alec Dunphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members want to argue I suggest they leave the

Chamber. I have recognized the hon. Opposition Leader.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Leader of the Opposition to speak,

if hon. members like to argue they can go outside.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is bad. This bill represents the worst kind of

crass gerrymandering. This bill will produce a modest amount of savings, most

unfair in the light of the massive cuts being imposed on hospitals, schools and

municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and his Liberal

colleagues are responsible for this atrocity. Mr. Justice Noel is not

responsible. A staff lawyer in the Department of Justice is not responsible. The

legitimate boundaries commission constituted by law, with the chief commissioner

appointed by the Chief Justice of the Province and the other commissioners

appointed by the Speaker are not responsible.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will produce forty-eight districts, a

token reduction of four. This bill ignores the proposal of the legitimate

commission to have forty districts, a reduction of twelve. This bill effectively

flushes down the drain the $400,000 of taxpayers' money spent on the legitimate

commission, and the bill is contrary to the final report and recommendation of

the legitimate commission calling for forty-four districts, a reduction of

eight.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, in calling for forty-eight districts,

is outside the scope of the current law. When the current Liberal government

launched this process three years ago, the Minister of Finance of the day

announced, in a fall mini-Budget, that the government was going to direct a

redistribution commission to make recommendations for a House of Assembly

consisting of the most appropriate number of districts between forty and

forty-six. That was announced along with roll-backs and cuts which were imposed

on individual citizens and publicly financed organizations providing public

services.

After that announcement the government initiated three sets

of changes to provincial legislation. Later that year the government initiated

amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Act to direct the Electoral Boundaries

Commission to determine the number of districts between forty and forty-six.

That bill was passed in late December of 1992. The next spring the government

initiated another amendment to enlarge the size of the commission from four to

five. The original act said that the commission had to be composed of a

chairperson chosen by the Chief Justice and other commissioners - three other

commissioners selected by the Speaker - and that was designed to ensure that the

commission would be non-partisan and impartial.

In the spring of 1993 the government initiated a change to

enlarge the commission by one, and when that was passed the government proceeded

to announce the commissioners. The government announced that the Chief Justice

of the Province had chosen Mr. Justice John Mahoney of the Court of Appeal, and

the Speaker designated Beatrice Watts, John Nolan, Ray Baird and Dorothy Inglis.

The five-member commission, under the provisions of the law, which the

government had reviewed which allowed a range between forty and forty-six

districts with the population varying from the provincial average by plus or

minus 25 per cent, proceeded to have hearings in many locations in the Province.

The commission preceded their meetings by publishing a proposal for forty

districts. The law gave them the discretion to have between forty and forty-six.

They proposed forty as a starting point for the public discussions. After they

had had several public meetings the current Minister of Justice started

interfering. The minister appeared before the Commission at a public meeting in

Clarenville and told them that the government - or to use his word, the Ministry

- didn't like its proposal for forty districts. It, on looking at the political

fall-out for the Liberal Party, was objecting to a loss of twelve districts. The

government then proceeded to change the law. For the third time in this process

the government changed the law.

In the amendments made at that stage in the late fall of 1993

the government changed the act to say that there had to be forty-six districts,

giving options in restricted circumstances for a smaller number of districts,

but the amended act provided for a variation from the provincial population

average of no more than plus or minus 10 per cent. By changing the law the third

time after the Commission had been constituted, after the Commission had

proposed forty districts, after the Commission had had several public hearings,

the government changed the rules.

The Commission carried on and held more hearings. Finally in

the summer of 1994 the Mahoney commission published its report with

recommendations calling for forty-four districts. That was a reduction of eight.

Mr. Speaker, the government didn't like that either. Members of the Liberal

caucus rebelled. The Premier yielded to the pressure and then authorized the

Minister of Justice to concoct boundaries. The Minister of Justice and some of

his cronies went into the back room and rigged a map dividing the Province into

forty-eight districts. They had a staff lawyer consult the Opposition caucus.

Some of us did not attend the meeting on principle. Then the Minister of Justice

went to Mr. Justice Mahoney and asked Mr. Justice Mahoney if he would rework the

boundaries for the third time. The Mahoney commission initially, under the

original legislation, proposed forty districts. After the legislation was

changed the Commission recommended forty-four districts. Then the Minister of

Justice asked Mr. Justice Mahoney if the Mahoney commission would produce a

third recommendation, namely a recommendation for forty-eight districts. Mr.

Justice Mahoney refused.

There only ever has been one legally authorized boundaries

commission. That is the Mahoney commission. Mr. Justice Mahoney was not

hand-picked by the Minister of Justice. Mr. Justice Mahoney was not picked by

the Ministry. Mr. Justice Mahoney was chosen by the Chief Justice of the

Province. The other commissioners were designated by the Speaker. All five

commissioners under the law that is still in force, the law that the Ministry

changed in mid-stream, made a final recommendation for forty-four districts.

When the Minister of Justice went to Mr. Justice Mahoney and

asked for a third proposal, a recommendation for forty-eight districts, Mr.

Justice Mahoney said no. The Minister of Justice, in an effort to hide, to

camouflage what he had done, in an effort to put an ethical face on

gerrymandering, went to Mr. Justice Noel. The Ministry selected Mr. Justice

Noel. Mr. Justice Noel put his name on the cover of the rigged forty-eight

district map which the Minister of Justice and his Liberal colleagues rigged in

the back room.

This bill that is now before us is the product of a flawed,

tainted process, and on those grounds alone we in the Official Opposition will

vigorously oppose it. Worse than that, it amounts to only a token reduction in

the number of seats, a minimal savings of public funds, at a time when this

Administration is more ruthlessly and recklessly than ever before slashing

public services, cutting hospitals, putting the boots to municipalities,

threatening to roll back wages, lay off staff, water down services at a time

when the government is demoralising people, preaching doom and gloom.

Mr. Speaker, how can this government in good conscience,

reduce the House of Assembly by only four districts when the legally authorized

commission recommended forty-four, when the commission under the original law in

the early days of its mandate proposed forty, and now, carry on to make drastic

reductions in hospital funding, in grants to schools and colleges, in funding

for Memorial University, in operating grants to municipalities? I mean, what an

appalling double standard and on top of all that, Mr. Speaker, this government

spent over $400,000 on the Mahoney Commission, whose work they have rejected,

whose recommendations they have totally ignored.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Question Period, I asked the

Minister of Justice if he and his colleagues who are responsible for this whole

process, who controlled it from the beginning, who changed the law three times,

and who in the end, rigged their own boundaries, would repay to the public

Treasury the $400,000 that was wasted on the Mahoney Commission? Mr. Speaker,

the waste of money was not an accident. It didn't result from carelessness; it

didn't happen because of unforeseen circumstances.

The Premier and the Minister of Justice directed this whole

process from beginning to end. Remember, they changed the law three times after

they made the announcement in the mini-Budget three years ago that they were

going to reduce the number of seats by eight to twelve, they changed the law to

direct the redistribution commission to recommend a number within that scope,

they amended the law later to enlarge the size of the commission which of

course, drove up the cost of the commission and then they changed the law a

third time to handcuff the commission, to direct forty-six unless certain

exceptions were found, and to restrict the population variance to plus or minus

10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, this process is contrary to the democratic

practices that evolved, it amounts to turning back the clock, it's tainted, it's

corrupt, it's partisan, in a word it is gerrymandering. The process produces a

budget savings which is unreasonable and out of proportion to the kind of cuts

that are being inflicted on vital public services. It amounts to the breaking of

a promise issued in the mini-Budget three years ago, and it has the effect of

wasting the $400,000 that were spent on a legitimate commission; the $400,000

that was deliberately authorized and spent by this government which controlled

the whole, crooked, redistribution process from beginning to end.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice bragged about the bill

providing for Island districts that vary from the provincial population average

by no more than 10 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is not a goal, that is not a

restriction that is appropriate for our geography and it is not a restriction

that is found in the legislation governing district redistribution in most other

provinces. I recently canvassed most of the provinces and found that British

Columbia has no population restriction whatsoever, and the districts in British

Columbia in fact have populations deviating from the average by as much as 60

per cent - 59.9 per cent precisely - on the high side, and 40 per cent on the

low side. Plus 59.9 per cent minus 39.8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the last redistribution, I say to

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, happened about a year and a

half ago.

In Alberta the law allows a maximum deviation from the mean

district population of 25 per cent, with the exception of a maximum of four

districts whose population can be 50 per cent below the average if specific

conditions are met. There is some latitude given in determining the population

for those exceptional districts.

Saskatchewan is the example the Minister of Justice and the

Premier keep pointing to because it is the only one which happens to approximate

their rigid, narrow, urban-based way of thinking, the only one which facilitates

their quest to have a further accelerated shift of population from rural areas

to urban areas.

In Manitoba, where a very high percentage of the population

is concentrated in Winnipeg and a couple of other smaller urban centres, the law

authorizes variants from the provincial population average by 10 per cent,

except for northern districts where the variants may be plus or minus 25 per

cent.

In the Maritime provinces, plus or minus 25 per cent seems to

be the norm. That is specifically the case in New Brunswick and in Prince Edward

Island. In New Brunswick, in addition to the general rule of plus or minus 25

per cent, a greater latitude is allowed for one area in the Fundy Isles.

On the Island of Newfoundland, as members of this House

should be well aware, we have a high percentage of people living in small

communities, in rural areas, and we have a very large territory in proportion to

the population. The original law allowing plus or minus 25 per cent is much more

reasonable and suitable for our geography and our population than the amended

provision which is now operative, the 10 per cent. I would say to the Minister

of Justice who now represents Naskaupi that the case he makes for smaller

populations on the Coast of Labrador can and should be applied to many rural

ridings along the coastline of Newfoundland.

Even after changing the law and restricting the parameters

for the legitimate Boundaries Commission the Ministry, to use the Minister of

Justice's word, wouldn't go along with the final report. The last time districts

were changed in this Province, a bit more than ten years ago in the mid-1980s, I

was a Cabinet minister. Under the provisions of the act which was then in

effect, which were the same as the act in effect three years ago when the

Liberal administration began the process that is now coming to a conclusion, the

Peckford administration accepted in total, without change, the report of the

commission. The commission was headed by Mr. Justice Bartlett and there were two

or three other commissioners. The Peckford administration implemented the final

recommendation in total without any deviation.

Mr. Speaker, for some members of the PC caucus of the day

there were changes which were upsetting, or changes that did not make sense, but

as a matter of policy the Peckford government decided that we should implement

the report without change. The feeling was that if we started to tamper with the

recommendations, even though the temptation was there and there were plausible

reasons to make some amendments from the Bartlett commission report, that we

would be essentially opening Pandora's Box and we wanted to be seen to be

presiding over a process that was impartial and fair. There is an expression

used by lawyers that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be

done, and in the case of the boundaries redistribution in the mid '80s the

Peckford cabinet wanted not only to have changes that were chosen impartially

but we wanted people to see the changes as the product of an impartial and a

fair process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the current Liberal government does not

seem to care anymore what people think, and I cannot help but shake my head at

the disillusionment that former supporters of this government must feel. Many

people in the Province voted for the Liberals in 1989 believing the promise of

real change and liking the sound of the fairness and balance slogan. Again, in

1993 people in the Province gave the Liberals a mandate. Budget responsibility

was more of an issue in the 1993 election so people who had faith in this

Liberal administration believed that they would adhere to a high ethical

standard, that they would be fair and honest, and they expected that the

government would be responsible in making spending decisions, and would be

consistent.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done exactly the

opposite. The government has basically blatantly rejected the recommendations of

a legally constituted impartial non-partisan commission, wasting $400,000 in the

process, $400,000 which is so badly needed today in the health system, in our

schools, and by municipalities. Then they proceeded to have the Justice Minister

and a few of his cronies rig the boundaries without any pretence of using the

work and the impartial recommendations of the Mahoney Commission.

Now, the Minister of Justice did make an attempt to

camouflage skulduggery. He did go to Mr. Justice Mahoney and ask the Mahoney

Commission to produce a third recommendation calling for forty-eight districts,

and he must have been upset when Mr. Justice Mahoney said, no. We can only

imagine that conversation, we can only imagine what Mr. Justice Mahoney must

have thought after having produced a final report calling for forty-four

districts, following a change in the law, up four from the initial proposal of

forty, to be confronted by the Minister of Justice and told that government was

not satisfied with a forty-four district result, and wanted the commission to

re-work it a third time. Well, you can only imagine what Mr. Justice Mahoney

thought, and we can think what his reply must have been; it was a `no'. The

Minister of Justice then went judge shopping, and he found a judge who was

willing to do his bidding. He and the Ministry hand-picked Mr. Justice Noel, and

Mr. Justice Noel put his name on the cover of the forty-eight district proposal

which the Justice Minister, and probably the Minister of Tourism and Culture,

cooked up.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Justice could

not sell to the Liberal caucus either the forty district proposal of the Mahoney

commission in the early days under the original law or the forty-four district

recommendation in the final report under the amended, amended law. Mr. Speaker,

when you remember that the Liberal government controlled this process all along

the way, all along the twisting and turning path, then you have to conclude that

they are totally incompetent - totally incompetent. Even when they have total

power and control to make the law, they cannot accept the product. They have to

keep making changes until finally, in this case, they had to abandon the

$400,000 work of the legitimate commission and rig boundaries themselves.

Mr. Speaker, since Confederation democratic practices in this

Province evolved. In the Smallwood era in the fifties and sixties, and I realize

that is when the Premier and the Minister of Justice learned their trade in

politics, there was no pretence at impartiality in determining electoral

boundaries. The Liberal Party did not have a public process or an open-party

process for nominations. There was no Public Tender Act. Joey Smallwood

basically carved up the Province and gave contracts to construction firms and

wholesalers and other business people who supported him and the Liberal Party.

He ruthlessly withdrew business and penalized anyone who crossed him, or had the

nerve to voice dissent with his administration. In the Smallwood Liberal days

there was no Public Service Commission. The Premier and his henchmen blatantly

and openly handpicked civil servants. They interfered with the courts. They had

magistrates run for them as Liberal candidates, or deputy ministers run for them

as Liberal candidates.

Mr. Speaker, when the PCs came to office in the 1970s things

changed. The Public Tender Act was made law; the Public Service Commission was

constituted; the merit principle was established to guide hiring for permanent

public service positions.

Now the Member for Bonavista North is exclaiming, evidently

from his perspective, everything was not as it should have been in the 1970s.

Now I can believe that. I was not associated with politics in the 1970s. I was

not a member of this House until late in 1979, but I can tell the minister that

we then progressed from the Moores' PC era, which went from '72 to early '79, to

the Peckford PC administration, and in the Peckford days there was a high

ethical standard, a high standard for contracting and hiring, and in the case of

a determination of electoral boundaries and redistribution, I can assure the

Member for Bonavista North that the law was followed to the letter. A

commission, headed by a judge chosen by the Chief Justice, held hearings and

made a final report and the Peckford Cabinet implemented that report to the

letter, without any deviation.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is happening now, represents major

regression. We made progress from the '50s to the '60s to the '70s to the '80s.

Here we are, in 1995, with a government that is behaving the same as the

Smallwood Liberal Government carried on in the 1960s. The only little bit of

difference is that the current Liberal Government is stuck with certain laws and

even after the government changed those laws to facilitate its partisan

objectives, when the result didn't suit them they have blatantly ignored the

law.

The current law of this Province restricts the size of the

redistributed House of Assembly to a maximum of forty-six. What are we doing

here today considering a bill proposing forty-eight districts? The current law

of Newfoundland and Labrador says that districts have to be drawn by an

impartial commission made up of a chairperson chosen by the Chief Justice of the

Province and four other commissioners selected by the Speaker. What are we here

today debating a bill which provides for boundaries that were rigged by the

Minister of Justice and rubber-stamped by a judge whom he selected? It's a

contaminated process. It's unacceptable in the 1990s; as I mentioned, it

represents turning back the clock.

Mr. Speaker, for the people we represent, process may not be

of paramount consideration. Most people in this Province today are worried about

earning a livelihood, buying groceries. Many people are wondering if they and

their families will be able to continue living here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are seeing an alarming increase in out-migration. Just over the

last few months, moving vans are fully booked; U-hauls are all rented. Tractor

trailers are in use to ship out people's belongings from Newfoundland to

Alberta, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

People who work for the airlines, people who work for Marine

Atlantic, say that over the last six months there has been an unprecedented

number of one-way tickets sold. One-way tickets for Newfoundlanders who are

leaving this Province hoping to find work on the mainland of Canada, mostly in

Western Canada, who don't expect to be able to come back home. Mr. Speaker, some

of these people have given up and concluded that there is no future for them

here because the message they hear from the Premier, the message they hear from

the Member for Eagle River, is that there is no future. This is a do-nothing

government; this is a government lacking an agenda. This is a government that's

not talking about opportunity or jobs.

This is a government that is obsessed with cutting and

rolling back, it is a government that has a Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs who seems to enjoy telling volunteer councillors and mayors that they

are going to be cut more than they were before, that even more responsibilities

are going to be down loaded to them. This is a government that says on the one

hand, that people are taxed to the hilt but on the other, that people in rural

communities should be paying higher taxes. Now, how, I ask the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, are people in communities on the northern tip

of the Northern Peninsula going to come up with money to pay more taxes? There

is a massive unemployment problem. The populations are shrinking, most

communities are lucky if they have a complement of volunteers willing to carry

on.

Mr. Speaker, if additional taxes is the best answer this

government can come up with, then I say, to the ministers opposite: you impose

the taxes, don't make volunteers, in small, rural communities do your dirty

work. Mr. Speaker, redistribution was an overt, deliberate, formal program of

the Smallwood Liberal Administration in the 1960s. In the 1990s, this Wells

Liberal Administration has a hidden agenda of resettlement and this

redistribution bill is facilitating that agenda.

This redistribution bill, with the Minister of Justice

bragging about this particular feature of it, restricts population variances in

Newfoundland ridings to plus or minus 10 per cent. The Minister of Justice and

the Premier, who are controlling this process, want rural districts made larger

in size and territory and therefore more difficult to service, rendering access

to members more difficult and more frustrating, using as the excuse, equality.

They don't seem to appreciate the fact that St. John's and Corner Brook urban

ridings, where the population is compact in each district, where members can

literally walk from one end of their district to another, involved much less

work for members than sprawling rural ridings.

I say to the Member for Bonavista North that while his

population now may be less then the population I represent, it is certainly less

then the population of the Member for Waterford - Kenmount. I would venture to

say that he gets many more calls in the run of a month, in the run of a year,

then I do or my colleague representing Waterford - Kenmount. His district is

much larger in size, it is spread out. It encompasses several communities, some

unincorporated. The ones that are incorporated are served by volunteer mayors

and councillors.

The Member for Waterford - Kenmount represents some 24,000

people. They are all in the city of St. John's. They have their basic services

and needs met by the City Council for provincial government requirements, they

are within easy reach. A local phone call or a short trip from a provincial

government office where public servants can provide most needed information or

provide most wan