November

27, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 63

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Will the minister tell the House what time on Saturday morning

past, Saturday morning of this weekend, his department had a salt truck on the

Trans-Canada Highway between Springdale and Grand Falls?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning, as on all

mornings when the winter season starts within the department, the foreman is on

twenty-four hour duty, so at 4:30 or 5:00 usually the foreman will go out on the

Trans-Canada for a drive, as he did on Saturday morning, to first check the

roads. When he went out on the roads at 5:00 o'clock the roads were wet so he

then proceeded to go to some of the trunk roads and the byroads. There was no

frost so at 5:00 o'clock he made his first trip on the road.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister didn't answer my question. I didn't ask him what

time the foreman went out scouting. I asked him what time a salt truck was on

the Trans-Canada between Springdale and Grand Falls on Saturday morning past?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it takes him about two hours to

go to all the roads in the area that he is responsible for, by the time he goes

out, drives around, and checks the roads. From the information I got from my

staff in Central Newfoundland on the weekend, and talking to them again this

morning, I would say he started calling around 7:30. Between 7:00 or 7:30 he

started calling the trucks saying he was going to put the trucks out on the

roads and do some sanding and salting, so I would assume that it was within

minutes after that, twenty-five to thirty minutes.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister still didn't answer my question. I didn't ask

what time the supervisor phoned, I asked him what time a salt truck was out on

the highway putting salt on the road? Mr. Speaker, as the minister and everyone

else here realizes, on Saturday morning at approximately 8:00 o'clock there was

a very bad accident on the Trans-Canada Highway near Badger, an accident that

resulted in two deaths. Will the minister tell the House whether his

department's crew had salted that stretch of the highway before the accident

occurred?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in constant touch

with my office since that happened on Saturday, because I have told them, any

time there are any fatalities on the road to get in touch with me right away. It

is not an easy thing for a department official, as the people responsible out

there, it is certainly not easy for me, as minister, and it is difficult for

everybody, especially the people involved in the accidents.

The truck was out on the road within thirty minutes after it

was called by the foreman. What took place on that highway on Saturday - it had

been raining all the previous evening, all that night, there were mild

temperatures and after the sun came up the temperature dropped and it dropped

within a very short period of time according to the whether forecast out there.

That individual truck came all the way - that vehicle came all the way from

Springdale. It takes an hour or whatever length of time to drive from Springdale

to where the accident happened. So it is quite obvious that the road wasn't

slippery all the way out. As we know, in Newfoundland the temperature changes so

rapidly from time to time, it is unpredictable and it is unmanageable. There was

nothing done last Saturday morning any different from any time in the last

number of years with the operations of the department out there. They have

strict orders to put salt and sand on the road when and wherever necessary as

according to the time and what they have done in their survey of the highway.

The foreman was out, as he is always, and he did it last Saturday morning.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Is the

minister then confirming that his staff were too late on Saturday morning, that

they didn't treat the highway near Badger before the accident that resulted in

two deaths? Will the minister produce, for the House, a detailed report

concerning the actions of his staff and their response to the road conditions

near Badger on Saturday morning?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the staff for two

reasons; number one, to make sure that the proper procedures were followed and

number two, out of concern for the fatalities that happened and in part, with

that, out of concern for the staff. It is a judgement call on the part of the

foreman. The temperature was - the water on the road was not called for when he

had first went out on the highway. The people are taking it pretty hard. He went

out and did a complete survey, as he always does, as is his responsibility to

do. There was no ice on the road. It was after that period of time, when the sun

came up and he was going back ready, I guess, to do the second round, when he

got the call that there were slippery spots on the road and as soon as the

temperature dropped he went out. It is a judgement call but there was nothing

done any different on Saturday morning than at any other time of the year or any

other year in the past; it had nothing to do with the staff not doing their job

properly. I will give a full detailed statement; I have had it already checked

out myself. I am totally satisfied that the department made the decision based

on the normal thing that they do within the department's operation right across

the Island, depending on the conditions of the weather. We can't control or know

when the temperature is going to drop, rise or fall at any given minute, it is

impossible on a twenty-four-hour, 365-day basis. They have to make some

decisions, they made their decisions. What they saw was normal and that's the

way I see it but I will provide what other information the hon. member is asking

for.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Would the minister say that the accident which resulted in

two fatalities stemmed from a judgement call or a budget cut? Did it have to do

with an error in judgement or incompetence on the part of the staff or did it

have to do with inadequate staff and resources?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I guess, Mr. Speaker, when you have been in

the House as long as I have, I think this is my tenth year, now going into my

eleventh year, you expect pretty low stuff from members opposite. I think last

year, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had seen the lowest from the hon. Member from

Mount Pearl, but I think the hon. leader, went a step lower.

There was neither an error in judgement nor was there a

decision made because of budget cuts, neither one. The supervisor in charge had

a responsibility, which he has done, and he has been working with the department

for fifteen years. He has made the same decision over and over again in the

past. What happened was a quick change in the temperature, and it happened to be

on a turn or curve where there was water running across the road, a

section

before that and beyond that was not icy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Anywhere in the Province, that's the reason

we put the ads on tv and through the radio and the newspaper telling people to

adjust their driving according to the conditions of the road, so it had nothing

to do with budget cuts. It was a decision that had to be made at the time by the

foreman on the highway and I am totally satisfied. Unfortunately, there was an

accident; last year we had fourteen fatalities in two months and it is not easy

for anybody within the department to deal with it.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: How

does the minister respond to complaints from many people, motorists who were on

the Trans-Canada Highway in Central Newfoundland this week, and police who were

on the scene of the accident, that a lengthy stretch of the Trans - Canada in

Central Newfoundland, all the way from Springdale east at least as far as

Glenwood, was treacherously icy and had been neglected by the minister's staff.

How does the minister respond to those complaints?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Leader of the

Opposition that that

section of road was treacherous because the temperature

changed very quickly. Because of the drop in temperature.

Let me ask her this, as I would ask anybody: How many

hundreds of vehicles went over that

section of road during that period of time?

And there was one accident. Accidents like that cannot be prevented. The salt

and sand was put on the road when they saw it necessary to get out there. It

happens, and it will happen time and time again this winter. It is impossible to

keep a perfect situation driving in November, December, January, February, March

and April as you would do in June, July, August, or September. The temperature

changes from time to time; many times four seasons in one day. Who can predict

it?

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding the interprovincial

ferry rates.

During the '89 election campaign this government campaigned

on a policy that the provincial ferry system should be part of an extension to

the road system, and the rates were to be lowered. In fact, this government

rolled back the rates after the '89 election. My question is: Has government now

abandoned the promise and principle that the provincial ferry system is an

extension to the provincial road system, and in particular promises made to the

people of Bell Island?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what government is trying to do

is provide a service to the people in isolated areas, as an example on Bell

Island, Fogo Island, St. Brendan's Island, and all the other areas around the

Province where they need a ferry operation. The cost of providing those ferry

operations, before we put in the South Coast, was approximately $12 million a

year. We were taking in less than 7 per cent of the operational cost in fare

structure. What we have done, we tried to put a reasonable, fair structure in

place that would complement - we try to provide the services, but complement -

the use of other transportation services, for example, the bus service in St.

John's, the minimum cost $1.50 per adult. That is what we have brought the ferry

operation in line with, $1.50 per adult. They were getting aboard a ferry and

going to Bell Island for fifty cents, and under today's costs, under the

financial restraints of government, it is absolutely impossible, so from fifty

cents to $1.50 per adult is not an unreasonable amount of money to ask an

individual.

Remember, when the South Coast ferry service was operated by

Marine Atlantic, the minimum charge to get aboard the ferry service was $9; our

minimum charge was fifty cents.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer the

question, as is usual. I will ask him another question. With the new rates

announced, which will become effective December 1, 1995, there will be drastic

increases to the Bell Island ferry rates. Walked on, $0.50 cent to $1.50;

commuter, which is vehicle and driver, $0.50 to $2.25 one way; car and driver,

$1.75 to $4.50. Will the minister confirm that this is the beginning of a full

charge user-pay provincial ferry system?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. But I can

tell you one thing, I can say to the hon. members opposite, if we didn't have

the massive debt that we have to deal with which was incurred by these people

opposite, we would provide a free ferry service to Bell Island.

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

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would

ask the minister: Does the minister realize the hardship this drastic increase

will impose on the lives of the people living on Bell Island, and understand the

negative impact on tourism and jobs? Is your long-term plan - listen to this

carefully now, with your other policies in place - to price people off Bell

Island through forced resettlement?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. No more is it

the long-term plan to force the people off of St. Brendan's, Bell Island, or any

place - no more is it to force the people out of St. John's by charging $1.50 to

get on a city bus. That is all we are charging, $1.50 to get aboard a ferry to

go to Bell Island. One dollar and fifty cents to get aboard a bus, that is what

the City of St. John's charges. It is a minimum fare structure, reasonable. A

bottle of Coke and a bag of chips is $2. God, you get aboard a ferry for $1.50.

It is a day's cost of operating a service. Twelve million dollars a year, less

than 10 per cent of the operation cost being returned by a fare structure. No,

we are not charging what it would cost if you operated a vehicle. A vehicle

today costs $30,000, a vehicle which you can operate for $0.50? If you can get

me one, I will take it.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. Our Province as part of Canada was signatory to the

United Nations convention on rights of the child. Included in this was the

principle of first call, which states that the lives and the normal development

of children should have first call on society's concerns and capacities and that

children should be able to depend on that commitment in good times and bad. With

block funding anticipated under the Canada health and social transfers being

reduced there is a concern that reduced transfers may result in a lack of the

social supports that the families of many children need, in particular the

behaviourally disturbed.

The Minister of Finance made reference to the fact that there

is enough slack in the Budget to absorb the $60 million. I ask the Minister of

Health if he is committed to the principle of first call, and will he ensure

that the health of children will be a priority?

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

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

It is true that there will be some reduction in the transfer

of funds from Ottawa for health, social services, and education. The reality

that translates into will not change our government's priority in terms of what

we think the priority should be in either health care or other provincial

services, so the effect of the reduction in funding from Ottawa will have no

effect upon this government's policy or position with respect to delivering

health care services to either children, seniors, and all in between those two

parameters or those two ends of the spectrum, if you like. We are committed to

delivering quality health care at an affordable price, in an efficient manner,

and at the most appropriate point of delivery and within the constraints of the

resources we have, and we will continue to have.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next question is regarding mental health. I think it

would be more appropriate if the Minister of Social Services could answer. There

is a shortage of foster homes, generally, and even fewer therapeutic foster

homes available to handle the most difficult behaviourally disturbed children. I

ask the minister what her department is doing to address this shortage?

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

MS YOUNG: I thank the hon. member for the question. We

are always looking for foster homes for the children who come into the care of

our department. It is an ongoing concern, as you can well realize, to get foster

homes for some of the more difficult cases we have to deal with, and we are

continually looking for proper homes.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: When a behaviourally disturbed child is

assigned to a foster home a social worker is assigned to a foster child, another

social worker to the foster family, and a third social worker to the natural

family. Now, lack of communication among social workers is a cause of hardship

for the children and their families, and the turnover rate for social workers

assigned to these children is alarming, and causes disruption in dealing with

these cases. I ask the minister what her department is doing to address those

concerns and to ensure that the child's mental health becomes a priority?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member can certainly appreciate as well the fact that

sometimes the child is taken from one community and moved to another location in

the Province. So it might be necessary for two social workers to deal with the

case but one with the natural family, another one with the foster family - with

the foster child and the natural family and then as well there may be, as you

say, a need for another social worker with specialities to be able to deal with

the child's special needs. So there could indeed be three people, yes.

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

Last Tuesday I asked the minister a series of questions about

a surimi line that was moving from Terra Nova Fish Plant in Clarenville to

Canso, Nova Scotia and the minister stood on Answers to Questions for which

Notice has been Given on Thursday and pretty well accused me of misleading the

House. His answer was, Mr. Speaker, `all equipment still remains in that plant.'

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

Monday. All of the equipment still remains in that plant. I ask the minister if

he still stands by that answer?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday morning of last week I spoke with the owner of

the plant and all of the equipment remained in the plant at that time and as one

of the earlier Premiers of this Province said years ago in talking about another

issue, I certainly prefer to take my information straight from the horses mouth

rather than the other end of him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister find

a new source of information. When I stood here, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs pointed his finger at me and accused me of lying and

misleading the House. I say to the minister: minister this equipment started

moving out last Tuesday, Tuesday morning a tractor trailer load left, another

tractor trailer load left on Wednesday morning and the final tractor trailer

load left Thursday morning, I say to the minister. So I say to the minister, you

should find out a new source of information. Minister, since this equipment is

now in Canso, Nova Scotia and eight to ten jobs have been lost, I would like to

ask you where the product is going to come from in Nova Scotia? It is my

understanding that in order to make surimi the product you must have is silver

hake, haddock, cod -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask where this product

will come from in Nova Scotia if it is not available here in Newfoundland?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, the equipment that the hon.

gentleman is referring to was indeed equipment associated with the production of

surimi back in the mid to late '80s. The raw material used for that surimi

product was small cod from the cod trap fishery. In 1992, when the moratorium

went on cod, the source of raw material was no longer there. The equipment was

dismantled, stored in the corner and has not been used since 1992.

I don't really know where he is coming from with regard to

ten jobs being lost because the equipment has not been used since 1992. As far

as the equipment being moved out in one tractor trailer load after another, as I

said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the owner of the plant indicated to me as late as

Thursday, not Tuesday, not Wednesday, not Monday, but Thursday, Mr. Speaker,

that the equipment was still in the plant.

If the hon. gentleman is accusing the owner of that plant of

lying, then I leave that up to him to answer, but I will still stand by what I

said, because the owner of the plant indicated that the equipment was still in

the plant as of Thursday of last week. I don't know why you want to accuse the

owner of lying - I really don't know - but I will accept his word for it.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services as

they relate to the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne.

Mr. Speaker, at the centre, there are four cottages with two

units in each cottage. They house about ten residents per cottage when they are

full to capacity. The old Whitbourne Youth Centre is one of those cottages,

cottage No. 4, which houses units 7 and 8. We believe that due to temporary

absence and early release, cottage No. 4 has been closed for quite some time. I

would like to ask the minister: Can she confirm that cottage No. 4 is closed,

and also confirm that even though it is, the manager/supervisor is still on the

payroll?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, you are referring to the centre across the road

from the correction centre in Whitbourne, and currently there are no residents

in that facility because we have enough accommodations in the new centre, so as

of today, there are no residents in the facility across the road from the

centre.

With regard to the manager, I am sorry, I don't have that

information.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have the

information but I do. At any given time when cottage No. 4 is closed, or any

cottage, the front-line workers, the youth care workers, are laid off or placed

back on call while, strange as it may seem, the cottage manager is reassigned to

perform other duties across the street. My question to the minister is: Who

performs these other duties when cottage No. 4 is open, and isn't this a place

where you could make some major savings in your budget?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that we will be looking at all ways in which we can

ensure savings in our facility at Whitbourne, and indeed the remand centre here

in St. John's, and if there are people who are on our payroll who certainly

should not be on our payroll, that will be dealt with as well, because we are

into a time of fiscal restraint; however, we have to ensure that we have the

correct number of people there to work with the people who come into our care at

the centre.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a final

supplementary.

I ask the minister, when she is reviewing, would she also

find out and confirm to the House that there is an administrator at the Youth

Care Centre who has been suspended with pay? I would like to ask the minister,

can she confirm this now and explain the circumstances that surround the

suspension of that person at this time?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the hon. member must be aware that there is

such a thing as breaching confidentiality

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS YOUNG: - by presenting the circumstances as to why...

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

The removal of machinery and equipment from municipal

assessment rolls resulted in significant losses of revenue for many

municipalities. Of course, this is on top of the loss of the 22 per cent cut to

the MOGs. Will the minister reconsider the removal of the machinery and

equipment from the assessment rolls in municipalities especially in view, of

course, of the other fiscal problems that are currently being encountered by the

towns, cities and communities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we backed off on the assessment

rolls of machinery and equipment for last year. It was supposed to be introduced

on January 1, 1994. We have gone through a full year of postponing, suspending

the assessment rolls. It is the government's intention this year to introduce

the elimination of machinery and equipment from the assessment rolls beginning

in January of 1996.

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

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the removal of this machinery and

equipment from the assessment rolls does nothing at all for the provincial

Budget, yet it means $40,000 to Mount Pearl, $48,000 to the town of Marystown,

$55,000 to Grand Falls - Windsor, and $300,000 in Corner Brook. The minister

said last year he went and deferred it. I'm asking him if he would do the

municipalities a favour and if he would discuss with his colleagues the

possibility of further deferment, and probably putting the change over a two- or

three-year program.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Federation of Municipalities

have already made that request to me. They made it two Saturdays ago at the

Holiday Inn. I made the commitment at that particular point in time that I would

re-address the question with my Cabinet colleagues. I still stand on the fact

that the government has made a decision to eliminate machinery and equipment

from the assessment rolls for 1996, but I did make that commitment to the

Federation of Municipalities, and I have not had the time yet to discuss it with

my Cabinet colleagues.

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

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister commit to assuring the municipalities that

he indeed will make a submission to his Cabinet colleagues, that he would do so

at a time that will be able to facilitate their preparation of their 1996

municipal budgets - in other words, have a decision to them within the next week

or ten days.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't make that commitment.

It would be ludicrous or foolish for me to make that commitment. With the

numbers of things that we are dealing with on a daily basis right now it is

difficult to get an item like that on the agenda, believe it or not. When the

time comes, the right time and correct time for me to talk to my Cabinet

colleagues about that particular situation, I will do that at the request of the

Federation of Municipalities.

I will say to the hon. member that there are reasons why this

was introduced and that bill went through the House some two years ago. It was

debated in the House, and I don't need to get into that today. But I've made

that commitment - and I reiterate, Mr. Speaker - to the Federation of

Municipalities and I will do it when the time provides itself. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Mineral Act requires that I

annually submit a report of all mineral licences and mining leases issued in a

particular fiscal year.

Today, I am pleased to table the Report of Mineral Licences

and Mining Leases issued for the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Government Services Committee recently met to discuss

Bill 28 with the committee and the representatives from the Department of

Finance, and we hereby submit Bill 28, "An Act To Revise The Consolidated Law

Respecting Credit Unions", to go through its regular proceedings here in the

House of Assembly.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 23, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, asked questions regarding the ratio of management employees to

non-management employees and operational procedures at the Newfoundland and

Labrador Youth Centre. Today, I have the information and I will answer those

questions.

There are sixteen managers currently employed at the

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre and the Pleasantville Remand Centre. In

comparison, there are 265 non-management employees at the same facilities.

Apparently, the hon. member received incorrect information regarding the ratio

of management to non-management employees; it is not one to five employees as he

had stated, rather, it is one manager to every 16.5 employees.

In regard to questions about staffing requirements and

procedures, I must refer the hon. member to the recently announced study being

conducted by Dr. Linda Inkpen. The appropriateness of the staffing component in

youth corrections is one of the terms of reference in the study and the result

should be available next spring.

As I said on Thursday, residents are not sent home on

temporary absence to save money; instead, residents reach certain levels of

merit and when the levels are appropriate, and based on the recommendations of

the individual case management teams, they can be eligible for temporary relief.

The member said, unit five is known as the female unit and

asked if meals are housed as a cost-saving exercise. The Newfoundland and

Labrador Youth Centre is actually a co-ed facility and while the unit may

regularly house females only, sometimes meals are placed in this unit to avoid

using the overflow facility which is a separate building from the main facility.

I am sure the hon. member will agree that it is fiscally

responsible to operate one building rather than two, and if one facility can

meet the needs of the residents, and in light of the fact that the centre is

indeed co-ed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions and

concern, and I invite him to visit either the Youth Centre at Whitbourne or the

Remand Centre in St. John's at any time that it is convenient for him.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Member for St. John's East Extern put a

question to my colleague, the Minister of Environment, re Hibernia layoffs and

contributions.

I am happy today to table the answer to that question.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, I believe it was a week

ago Thursday, asked me a question concerning heat pumps. I told him I would get

as much details as I could and I think I have the final information.

As I indicated earlier, the heat pump contracts would not

cost the government anything or Hotel Buildings Limited; they will be assumed by

Fortis Corporation. There were three, as I mentioned, I will give the amounts in

the projected savings: At Clarenville, the total cost was $183,139; the lease

period is for seven years at a monthly payment of $3,524. At Gander, the total

amount of improvements to the property including caulking and weather stripping

was $166,000, the lease period again is seven years and the monthly payments are

$3,189. At Corner Brook, the total amount is $80,800. That is broken down

between the cost of the project itself being $30,800, and caulking and

weather-stripping at $23,000. There is another amount in there of $27,000 that

is related to that, for a total of $80,800. Again, the lease period is seven

years; the monthly payments are $1,552. The leases will be finalized upon

completion of the projects and are to be assumed by the purchaser.

The work, as I think the hon. member indicated in his

question, is ongoing. The allowed for interest rate is 9 per cent but the rate

will be locked in concurrent with first draw down. That is the scope of the

projects being undertaken. It is anticipated that savings will in each case be

in the vicinity of $23,000 to $27,000. So the government will not be the owner.

It is anticipated that over the life of the heat pumps they will more than pay

for themselves in terms of energy cost to each institution or each building.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the principal order of business

for the day will be to deal with the Committee stage on the redistribution bill.

I believe there has been an understanding reached -

MR. WINDSOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, for a point of clarification, I

would like Your Honour to rule on something for us. In this same debate on

Friday we had quite a debate over the rules of procedure under closure that was

proposed by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, or notice was

given. We anticipate closure will be called today.

There was quite a debate about the fact that members would

only be entitled to speak once, once closure was called. We were all concerned,

of course, that there are so many clauses, so many amendments being proposed, we

understand, from various members, maybe six or seven amendments being proposed.

Some of them will change the proposed boundaries of districts. Members, of

course, would want to have a right to speak on any change or any amendment,

particularly that would affect his or her district, and there may be several

amendments that would do that.

Obviously, under closure, the impression that we had on

Friday was that members would only be able to speak once, and therefore, to one

clause or one amendment. I refer Your Honour to our own Standing Order 50 which

deals with closure. It reads in part, once closure in invoked: "no member shall

thereafter speak more than once, or longer than 20 minutes in any such adjourned

debate; or if in the Committee, on any such resolution, clause, section,

preamble or title...." That reads to me - and I ask Your Honour to clarify and

confirm - that no member shall thereafter speak more than once on any such

resolution, clause, section,

preamble or title.

It follows from the very nature of committees that the

purpose of the Committee is that we have clause-by-clause examination of each

section of a bill, and each clause, each

preamble, each title requires a vote.

They are all separate votes. So, I'm submitting that in fact it could be argued

- probably it may in fact be the case - that closure in fact would have to be

invoked on each clause, since they are each a separate vote. But clearly by the

wording of this

section each member, once closure is invoked, can only speak

once on each section, subtitle, clause, or whatever.

I'm submitting that under closure in Committee each member

does have the right to speak on any amendment, on any clause, and any section.

Obviously, in accordance with that same Standing Order, the debate will close at

1:00 a.m. It cannot go beyond 1:00 a.m. But between now and then each member

will have an opportunity to speak on each clause, which is entirely, Mr.

Speaker, in my view, in keeping with the whole spirit of the Committee, which is

that each member would have an opportunity to examine in detail each clause of

that particular bill.

I would ask Your honour to give us a ruling on that, please.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order.

First of all, that is a hypothetical question and I suggest

it would be contrary to principle for the Chair to rule on a hypothetical

question. If the situation arises in real life, then if some member wishes to

raise a point of order Your Honour should deal with it, in my submission, and

deal with it in accordance with the appropriate rules of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, secondly - I do not care if we

get leave or not, I say to the hon. gentleman from Mount Pearl. I was about to

suggest to the House that there had been an understanding - now, the hon.

gentleman may not wish to be part of that understanding, and if so I respect his

right, but he must acknowledge that he will have frustrated the will of perhaps

some others.

What I was going to suggest was, when the point of order now

before you is disposed of, Sir, my understanding is that there is an

understanding with the gentleman from St. John's East, and with the House Leader

for the Opposition with respect to a procedure which would accommodate the

situation without the need to invoke a closure proceeding. Now, if the gentleman

from Mount Pearl wishes to withhold his consent, I acknowledge he has the right

to do it and sobeit. Now, Your Honour, I will refrain from further comment. If

this arises in an actual case I will speak to it and I will make a submission to

the effect that on the plain words of Standing Order 50 as it is written the

hon. gentleman's submission is without substance and without merit, but I will

reserve on that until we come to the point where we have a real case, because I

hope that common sense and reason will prevail, and with the arrangement worked

out among the three groups in the House, or the two groups and my friend from

St. John's East who, in this context at least is a group -

AN HON. MEMBER: Groupie.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? A groupie - that we can then go

ahead and have a debate that accommodates the legitimate needs of members on

both sides of the House, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl to the

point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, just very briefly,

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the words of the Government House Leader and I also

advise him, of course, that you cannot work out an agreement between groups of

the House. It requires unanimous consent, as he has said. It requires agreement

from all members.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that this is not a

hypothetical question. I am bringing up a point of order based on the discussion

that was held in this debate, which the minister has just called, so this is not

a hypothetical question at all. We are now into a debate with notice of closure

invoked, and I am asking Your Honour to deal with this issue before we proceed

further.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl, as I understand it Notice of Motion has been given but

the closure motion has not been called, the debate has not been called in

committee today, and it would be dealing with a hypothetical situation if the

motion has not been called. The motion has not been called in committee, as I

understand it, and therefore should the circumstance arise in committee then, of

course, the hon. member can raise the question at that point.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before my friend raised his point, it is my

understanding that there is a consensus, and I am about to outline what I

understand to be the consensus, which will require unanimous consent, in my

understanding of the rules. If there is such unanimous consent then we can

proceed on that basis. If there is not, then we will have to proceed on the only

other basis available to us.

The consultations to which I referred behind the Chair, as it

were, have produced an arrangement which I understand to be this, and in

accordance with what has been our practice I shall state it and then if my

friend from Grand Bank feels I have erred - it will not be deliberately erring

on my part, but if I have erred - he would correct me, and equally my friend

from St. John's East. I have spoken with both of them this morning, of course.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we will go into committee, of

course. Members will be able to speak as often as they can catch the Chairman's

eye - more than once, more than twice, as often as they can catch the Chairman's

eye. Secondly, no member may speak at any one time for more than ten minutes.

Thirdly, the debate will conclude at 10:00 p.m., and we will not adjourn at 5:00

p.m. - the debate will conclude at 10:00 p.m. - or earlier if all who wish to

speak have spoken, but if at any time before that there is still somebody who

wishes to speak then we will go ahead and carry on at 10:00 p.m., at which time

all the questions necessary to dispose of any matters at committee stage, and to

deal with the final committee stage consideration of the bill, will be dealt

with.

Now if that is acceptable to the House, and in my view it

should be, as one member of the House, but only one member, then we are prepared

to proceed on that basis, and in that case as soon as we move into substantive

business I would call the order for committee stage; and secondly we will not

have to ask the House to deal with the motion to invoke Standing Order 50 which

my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so kindly moved on

Friday morning, at my request. But Your Honour, that is my suggestion. I believe

that meets the legitimate needs of the government and I believe it meets the

legitimate concerns of members on both sides who wish to participate in this

debate and this will give us an opportunity to do so, sir.

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

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

Government House Leader has stated the offer correctly. I have full

understanding of what is involved here with a ten minute maximum debating time.

Members can speak as many times as they so desire if the Chair recognizes them

and the deadline for conclusion will be 10:00 p.m. and we concur.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would just record my agreement to that,

Your Honour, that is the understanding on which I was coming here this

afternoon, that that would be agreed unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what we have been asked to do

this afternoon is to make an agreement which gives us the rights that I believe

we have in this House in accordance with the rules. Government is using the

closure rule and a closure motion to try to control this House, to restrict

members from speaking on the most important debate perhaps that we could ever

have in this House, which is the structure of this Assembly.

The Premier may find it amusing, Mr. Speaker, but I assure

him the people of this Province, who feel very strongly about democracy in our

parliament, do not find it very amusing at all. The Premier may - if he finds it

amusing I suggest, he find some other place to keep himself.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a mockery, it is a travesty

of justice of the rules of this House, it is an abuse of the rules and the

rights and the privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker. We are being asked now in

order to find an agreement that is acceptable that allows members the right that

I believe they have, which is to speak as often as they want in committee stage

on a very important piece of legislation. We have been bamboozled by the

Government House Leader in accepting some sort of an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Am I to understand that the member is not in agreement with

this?

MR. WINDSOR: I am just about to conclude and to advise

you of that, Your Honour, of your tolerance for thirty seconds.

As I say, I think that this is a gross travesty of justice

and I think it is a disgrace to the House of Assembly and the whole procedure,

Mr. Speaker, but out of respect for my colleagues I will concur with their

agreement.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. gentlemen for

their understanding and gracious acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, there are two preliminary matters. I wonder

first of all, if we could simply call for leave to introduce Motions 5 and 6,

that is leave to introduce two bills. I don't know if either is ready for

distribution yet but if you can call them, sir, we can move them ahead - five

and six.

On motion, Bill Nos. 43 and 42 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: May I, in accordance with the relevant

statutory requirement, declare that I have an interest in matters dealt with by

Bill No. 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have had absolutely nothing to do with

it at any stage through the process but in a previous existence I represented,

in a professional capacity, a group which is involved in the matters put forth

but I have had - and the interest is not new, I have declared it here many times

over the last couple of years. I shall take no part obviously in the debate or

decision with respect to the bill. Your Honour, I would move that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion, that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, please which is

committee stage on the redistribution bill.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 31, Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I made some comments in Committee on Friday on the Bill and

have some further comments today, particularly with the procedure and the

overall thrust of what is happening. I have certainly gone on record as

disagreeing with a token effort of a four seat reduction which will save us

probably $400,000 and spend another $400,000 on the committee. This government

gave the impression way back that they would make significant changes that would

enable this House of Assembly to be restructured in line with the population of

our Province and in line with the fiscal times in which we live today.

We are living in very trying times, as I am sure the Minister

of Finance is very much aware, and to come back to forty-eight seats in the

House is only a token effort for us to bear our part of the burden of reducing

costs to government. Government is too big, it is a bloated bureaucracy. We have

been hearing in the media that there are 1500 vehicles within government, and we

have been hearing about increased numbers of expenditures. We have not decreased

the public service in total expenditures at all. We have been adding on

temporary staff when looking at salaries. We have not been reducing

expenditures. Our expenditures have been rising in this Province in a time of

fiscal restraint.

We should make more than a symbolic effort. We should

eliminate at least twelve seats in this Province and we would still have an

average of about fourteen hundred thousand people per district in this Province.

Now, that is not too much to expect when there are districts out there now with

many, many, more people than that. This government, this House, is not prepared

to bite the bullet when they are asking frontline workers in health care, in

education, and everywhere else, and in municipalities, but they are not willing

to do it here themselves. Protect your own turf. That is what we are doing. That

is the thrust of government.

Back in the fall of 1992, in a Ministerial Statement, this

government expressed its intention to appoint an independent commission to look

at the redistribution of seats in this Province. That was December 4, 1992. This

particular committee consisted of five people, a chairperson appointed by the

Chief Justice of this Province, and on August 27, 1993 they released a proposal

that divided this Province into forty districts. They went around and had a

series of forty public hearings to listen to what the people in the Province had

to say. The people in the Province went to those public hearings and passed

their comments. They were well attended as indicated in the submission, but at

the thirty second meeting, after spending $250,000, the Minister of Justice went

out to Clarenville and said to the committee, after a working order, a forty

proposal, it wasn't a report but a proposal, telling him that the mandate should

not be forty - and they were given forty to forty-six but they chose forty, he

said, it should start at forty-six and work back, take a higher number on that

scale.

The commission, with eight public meetings still left for the

Province, were given a different direction and a different mandate. Now, this

committee went out around the Province and again came back with a forty-four

seat proposal again, and this forty-four seat proposal came back, it was on

February 25, '94, and on this forty-four seat proposal, they went around and

held public hearings around the Province again, much less the numbers of

hearings the second time around, but you had it open to the public to hear what

the public had to say.

They came back and they presented to this House, a report and

that report that was tabled in this House, included forty-four seats in the

Province. Still, government wasn't happy with forty-four seats, it would impact

too heavily upon many members' districts, I think, seven out of eight members

would be negatively affected from that side of the House, one from this side of

the House. They interfered with the process and didn't bring that to the House

of Assembly here for discussion and for the House of Assembly to approve or make

amendments here in the House.

Instead, what happened was, the Minister of Justice went out

and took a lawyer in his department, who is subject to him in his department, to

draft up a proposal with different scenarios and they asked - they wanted to

brief us on it, brief our caucus on what is happening, brief the Liberal caucus

on what's happening. We should not have interfered at all in that process, it

was a judge - Judge Mahoney was duly appointed by the Chief Justice, the

minister went out and obtained, or went judge-shopping, got another judge, not

appointed by the Chief Justice, appointed here, by the ministry, to go out and

do a report that is contrary to the legislation we have here, that indicates a

report to the House should be filed by an appointee, a chairperson appointed by

the Chief Justice.

They violated that, they manipulated the process in electoral

boundaries, and I feel very strongly that we should accept what the Judge who

was duly appointed, an independent judge, mentioned; and in my district, it

would have been a huger district geographically but, I would have accepted and

tolerated it, it would have been a huge district, taking in most of St. Mary's

and into Ferryland, almost all that's there now would be spread out

geographically with fifty-some communities.

If you look at the number of communities with all the town

councils and recreation commissions and all the committees you have to deal

with, it would be a tremendous amount of work; fire departments, et cetera; but,

I believe strongly, we shouldn't interfere with that process, it should be an

arm's length, independent process that should come back here and be adopted in

the House of Assembly. But we are not dealing with that report now; we are

dealing with a manipulated report, a report that was given and briefed to

caucuses before the judge came back with the report, with the scenarios,

different things, what they wanted and they struck the boundaries and gave

references that were contrary. They were contrary to what the general intent was

in the beginning and I don't think that's proper.

If you look across this country, Newfoundland is as hard-hit

a province as any in this country and if you look at electoral reform across

this country, you will see that only Saskatchewan has a 5 per cent variation

from the quotient in Saskatchewan, and he did make an allowance for two northern

ridings and the fifty-six southern ridings had to fall within that, but all

other provinces, from British Columbia with no deviation from the quotient at

all, we have other provinces that went up to 60 per cent deviation and I will

just make reference to a few provinces, just to touch on a few things that are

happening in other provinces.

Let us take New Brunswick, for example. The average district

voter population was 9411, there is now going to be an alteration. They have a

25 per cent deviation from the quotient. We reduced ours to ten. In Manitoba,

for example, in certain areas they made distinctions. They have districts that

deviate a reasonable degree from the quotient up to 25 per cent or more in some

cases in Manitoba.

If you look at Alberta, for example, Alberta has districts

that vary - I am looking at a few districts here, 45.9 per cent, 48.6 per cent

in certain instances. The average district population in Alberta is 30,788

people, a province that's much wealthier than our Province, I believe the

wealthiest province in Canada in terms of resources and their debt and their

ability to control that debt, and here we have to function with only 40-some per

cent of the people in a district that a wealthy province like Alberta has to do.

I think we should be willing to bear a fair share of the cuts by elected members

here in the Province and not asking front-line workers all around.

I mean, a cut of twelve would save us in the vicinity of $1.5

million this year and next year and forever. The ability of the Province to

finance that, $1.5 million, would escalate at a going rate of another $100,000

to finance that each year. Take that for one year, $100,000 in ten years, we

would have it over double again. We would be up to $2.5 million, $3 million debt

because of not making the appropriate cuts here in the House of Assembly. That

goes on forever as long as we have a debt, unless we eliminate the debt

completely. Then it only becomes a one-time or a short-term cost. It is going to

be a cost forever.

I think we have to look at a little common sense, a little

bit of restraint, as members here in this House. We shouldn't expect people

around the Province to do something that we aren't prepared to do. We haven't

been prepared to take our fair share of the cuts here in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, sure, I can speak again later on if I

need to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, if you want to give me leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) need to get some clarification.

My understanding is, I think, that most of the amendments are probably going to

take place in the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Most of the amendments are actually - so we

need to pass along until we get to the

schedule of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Okay. But if members are speaking now

to propose amendments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GILBERT: No, I wouldn't - Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, now, I am not going to finish

up in ten minutes, but I understood - you know, I have an amendment that I wish

to make and (inaudible) as I go along, so I am going to speak for ten minutes,

but I don't think I will get to the amendment stage of this before I speak.

MR. ROBERTS: Are you going to lay out the introduction,

then the next time you are recognized -

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but when can you introduce the

amendment? After the...?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GILBERT: So we don't have to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, when we get to the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the districts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we call the districts, the schedule.

MR. GILBERT: So it could be 12:00 a.m. Alright, I will

sit down and let the Government House Leader speak.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, as a suggestion, we have in

the bill seven clauses and then we have the schedule. I understand the

amendments will be in the schedule. Somebody may have amendments to the clauses

themselves. I think it is simply a matter of how we, as a Committee, wish to

approach it. The most logical way would simply be to start at 1 and carry - I

assume you've called clause 1, Your Honour. Clause 1 -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate right now is at clause 1.

MR. ROBERTS: We could simply move through 1 through 7 in

the usual way and then deal with the schedule. Or if the Committee prefers - and

I'm in the hands of the Chair and the Committee - there is no reason that I can

think of why we can't start with the schedule. I mean, we have to deal with them

all before we can report. I have no problem, if that is the wish of the

Committee, to suggest that Your Honour let clause 1 stand for the moment and

call the schedule. Then the clerks can advise you whether that is appropriate -

but in my judgement it is, and then members could get up and then have their ten

and ten.

I understand my friend, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir

figures he will need more than ten minutes. That is fine. All he has to do is

get recognized more than once, and that shouldn't be difficult. He is a big,

tall man and easy to see. So we could move on. I mean, I know there are

amendments to the schedules, and let's deal with them. That will leave us then

whatever time is left to deal with 1 through 7 before we conclude for the

evening. If that is acceptable, let's do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it is my understanding that we could

revert and do it backwards. We have a tendency for doing that sort of thing. We

will start with the

schedule and then go back to the clauses afterwards.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if that is going to be more

awkward or less awkward than another procedure. It seems to me that I don't

think we are going to vote on any of the amendments, in any event, until the end

of the day, whenever that comes. Would it not be appropriate for members when

they are speaking to essentially give notice of their amendments and put them

before the House so that the Chair then has the amendments there, and when we

get to the point of voting, I don't think there is going to be any debate on the

specific amendments at the time of the vote, then all the amendments can be put

one after the other and the vote can take it. So if the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir has an amendment he can give notice of it while he is speaking, and

then at some point it can be produced for the Table and not formally moved, in

fact, until later on this evening when it is time for a vote that it is accepted

as having been moved and seconded at that time, and we don't have to start this

artificial thing of talking about a

schedule and then someone maybe reverting to

clause one or two or three. I think it seems to be artificial to do it that way.

The real intent here seems to be that everybody gets their motions on the Table,

and then, at some point in the evening, we will be voting on them all. I would

suggest that as a procedure, if it is acceptable to the Table, as a way of

operating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was just looking for some

direction because, in my understanding, there could be quite a number of

amendments and we just wanted to make sure that it was all straight and that -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). Well, I am easy. If you want to

do it the other way, fine, deal with clause 1, and I would say to my friend, the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, he can either speak now and begin his

presentation or wait until we get to the schedule, as he prefers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the Government House Leader didn't

listen to what I said. What I suggested was that we operate on clause 1, which

we normally do, where members can talk about any aspect of the bill altogether,

and if the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir wants to, in his speech, give notice

of an amendment, lay it on the Table, and it will be formally moved at the time

of the vote later on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I think we should follow the pattern as proposed by the

Member for St. John's East. I think it makes a lot of sense. Members can give

notice of their amendment and then we will deal with it when we get to the

schedules.

There is just one thing I would like clarified. When we get

to the districts, I guess all we are going to do is read the name of the

district; we are not going to read the whole description.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Good heavens, no.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Right; so we just call the name of the

district and then a member will stand and make the appropriate amendment, if one

is proposed, pertaining to a respective district, as I understand it. I think

that is the way we should proceed. I don't see it as being any being any big

problem or delay. I think we will move through it fairly quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the agreement is 10:00 p.m., not

10:00 a.m.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Far be it from me, in this hour of good

feelings, to say anything other than that I concur.

There is one point with respect to the

schedule I can advise

members about now. As I said at second reading, the names in many cases, and I

tabled a list of them, have been changed from those suggested by Judge Noel, and

my list gives, if you wish, Judge Noel's name and the name in the bill so

members can compare.

It has been pointed out to me, by people who read the

schedules with perspicacity and application, that there are errors in the

schedule in that - take, for example, Judge Noel suggested a constituency to be

called Avalon Centre; that now appears, I believe, as Harbour Main - Whitbourne

in the bill. There are, in the detailed text to the schedules, in the metes and

bounds descriptions of the constituencies, references to Avalon Centre. I am

told by the law clerks that those are editorial errors, assuming the Committee

passes the name of Harbour Main - Whitbourne, and that the law clerks will pick

these up when they prepare the bill for final publication as

an act, so members

need not be concerned about that. I notice those, as I said, with perspicacity,

some of them have approached me and said so, so that is not a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The suggestion by the hon. the Member for

St. John's East is a good one, and I guess that is the one we will follow in

that hon. members will table their amendments and introduce them at the

appropriate time when we get to the particular district that is under

discussion.

Now, we will call upon the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

spirited welcome by the Minister of Education and Training.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't speak in second reading of this bill,

and I didn't for a very specific reason. I felt that I might be influenced by

some of the personal concerns that I have about this, because the District of

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, under this redistribution, is going to disappear, the

district that I happen to represent at this time. So, if I spoke and expressed

some views that were somewhat controversial, people would say I was speaking out

of my personal concern. I didn't want to do that and I want to point out that I

recognize government actually has to, every ten years, draft up a redistribution

of seats, and that is not going to please everybody. Out of the three versions I

saw, there was one that would have pleased me, the forty-six seat version. That

gave three seats to the South Coast; however, the one that government finally

had the wisdom to present has raised a lot of concerns, not only with me, but

with some of the people in my district, so I am going to try to narrow it down

to the concerns that were expressed by the people of my district.

When I appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission,

one of the things I pointed out was, you have been given instructions to treat

the South Coast in a different way, the same way you would the Coast of

Labrador, and I say to you, whatever you do be sure to put the communities of

Burgeo, Ramea, and Grey River in the same grouping because historically and

traditionally this has been the way. The Ramea town council on March 2, 1994

took the opportunity to write the Electoral Boundaries Commission before I

appeared, and I am going to table this letter in the House later on today. I

think the letter from the Ramea town council sort of sums up the main thrust I

am going to be talking about here today. The second paragraph of that letter

says: Historically, traditionally, geographically, Ramea has always been tied to

the town of Burgeo and the area to the west. We have the same concerns and

issues, and both communities are dependent upon each other. Every government

service is combined in the two communities. For example, the Ramea-Burgeo-Grey

River ferry service, the Western Integrated School Board, the Western Memorial

Hospital Corporation, the Department of Social Services, the Department of

Fisheries, the RCMP, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs are all in the western region.

Then they say: With the present transportation system, it

would be much cheaper for one government member to cover the area than for two.

If you split Ramea and Burgeo you will double the cost for each district visit.

One member would have to travel 146 kilometres over the Trans-Canada to see his

constituents in Burgeo and the other member who is representing the eastern

district would have to fly to Stephenville, then drive to Burgeo, and get a

ferry to go to Ramea and Grey River. What they are saying is that it would seem

to be much easier and much more sensible to have the communities of Ramea and

Grey River into the proposed district we have here now under the forty-eight

configuration, the district of Burgeo - LaPoile.

This letter was written to the Electoral Boundaries

Commission and as I said, I think this is the one that should be adhered to, and

somehow or other, in the Noel Report this didn't happen. On May 19 I took the

opportunity to write the Premier and I pointed out the directions that were

given under the Electoral Boundaries Act of 1992, that the communities of

interest, the residents of those communities in the Province that are not

connected by road, including those communities along the Coast of Labrador and

the Southwest Coast of the Island portion of the Province should be taken into

consideration and given special consideration.

Then I also pointed out that under the instructions given to

Commissioner Noel, the commissioner may recommend the creation of one district,

or two districts, if the commissioner is of the opinion that the two districts

should enable more reasonable transportation access, located in whole or in part

of that portion of the Southwest Coast of the Island of Newfoundland from

Petites to Rencontre East, and so on. But the more reasonable transportation

access is the one I want to stress here.

Now, what happened was that Commissioner Noel chose to ignore

the recommendation of the MC which set him up and he took the occasion - and the

Coast of Labrador he took into consideration - he didn't take in the variance

because in the Southern Labrador seat it is minus 53 per cent less than the

variance. On the South Coast they cut out a seat and they drew a line according

to the population variance and without any consultation, Ramea and Grey River

ended up in the district that is now going to be referred to as Fortune

-Hermitage Bays.

In the letter that I wrote to the Premier I also included,

not only the letter from Ramea which I have already referred to, but I included

the letters from the local service district of Grey River which said essentially

the same as the Ramea letter did and a letter from the town council of Burgeo

which said essentially the same thing. So by those three letters in the district

that I now represent, the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, that is in excess

of 50 per cent of the people who live in that district, who live in those three

communities. So I feel that there is a legitimate reason to have these two

communities of Ramea and Grey River added to the District of Burgeo - LaPoile.

Now, when we talk about those areas - and we are into a

situation right now where we are talking about the concerns of the people who

live in the communities of Ramea and Grey River and the fact that they want to

be and have been traditionally and historically in the same district as Burgeo -

I feel right now that this is the only sensible way to handle that. Now, I know

that what they are saying about it is it doesn't - if you are going to talk

about the strict rules that were put in place, the variance, if you are going to

include Ramea and Grey River in the Burgeo - LaPoile district based on the 1991

census, there are going to be 679 people over the variance established by

Commissioner Noel. Now, this, in itself is - I don't think it is significant in

this particular case because if you are to - well, this is based on the 1991

census. Now, since that time, I have checked with the community of Ramea,

checked with the town clerk and I asked him and he tells me that the population

of Ramea has decreased by approximately 150 people - 150-164; 164 he gave me but

he said 150 would be safer. The Burgeo town manager tells me between 200-240

people have left Burgeo. So I would assume that in the other areas of that

western district from Rose Blanche to Port aux Basques, we would have the same

sort of decrease. So when we are talking about a 1991 census in saying that it

is 600 people over the 1991 census, in actual fact, I say to this House that

those figures are now ghosts, they have gone. So, in other words, the 1996

census will say that this district, with the communities of Grey River and Ramea

added to it, will meet the variance that was set up in the Noel recommendation.

I don't see that - because of the fact that the line was

drawn, it just doesn't make sense to me, as a member who has represented that

district since 1985, that with the division and cutting out one district, we

have now two districts on the South Coast. The western district which is going

to be Burgeo - LaPoile is an easy district to manage when you take into

consideration the fact that the member, whoever he is, can fly to Stephenville,

take his car, he can drive to Port aux Basques and he can drive to the Burgeo

end and by adding Ramea, Grey River, there is a regular ferry service that he

can go to Ramea and back in a day and he can go Grey River and back in a day. So

it is much simpler and much more economically feasible to operate that district

this way than the proposed way.

What they have done now by taking the District of Fortune -

Hermitage Bays -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple of minutes to finish up.

MR. GILBERT: Well, I will finish up in a couple of

minutes at this point. What I am saying is, the member who represents that

Fortune - Hermitage district will have to leave here, go to Gander, drive to Bay

d'Espoir and then out to Harbour Breton and Hermitage, come back, drive to

Gander, get on a plane, go to Stephenville, get a car, go down to Burgeo have

nothing to do in Burgeo, get a ferry go to Ramea, go to Grey River come back and

do it again, so it just doesn't make sense the way this line is drawn now even

though the population variance in the 1991 census says there are 600 people

over. I say that these people are now ghosts because they have moved out.

Right now, if you were to take a census out there today, it

will fit the variance that's there. So, at this point, I am going to give

notice, that I will, at the appropriate time, present an amendment which will

change the boundaries of the District of Burgeo - LaPoile and the District of

Fortune - Hermitage. And what this amendment will do is, it will take the

communities of Ramea and Grey River and include it in the District of Burgeo -

LaPoile and it will take the two communities of Ramea and Grey River out of the

Fortune and Hermitage Bays district.

I am moving an amendment on this district and my colleague,

the present Member for Fortune - Hermitage has agreed to be the seconder for

this amendment. I am prepared now to submit this to the Chair for its

examination, so I will do this at this time and I will conclude at the time that

the

schedule is called.

Thank you.

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

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in the House of Assembly on Thursday, I asked

the government to make change to its electoral boundary distribution legislation

to permit the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in a single district

known as Grand Falls - Windsor. I think, Mr. Chairman, that dividing the town so

soon after amalgamation is a bad idea. I believe there is a great danger in

dividing the newly amalgamated Town of Grand Falls - Windsor as the legislation

proposes.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of positives with the Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor. Grand Falls - Windsor is one of the best places in the

country to live; in fact, a couple of years ago it was listed as one of the top

ten towns in the country, and since Canada is one of the best countries in the

world to live, Grand Falls - Windsor is one of the best towns in the world to

live.

There are many other positives about Grand Falls - Windsor.

The amalgamation has brought people together and it is a shame that the new

House of Assembly Act will divide the town. Legislation covering the setting of

electoral boundaries in other provinces recognizes the importance of keeping

towns together, because the people have common issues and interests and prefer

to speak through one voice.

Mr. Chairman, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor has become

recognized over the years as the host of one of the major events in this

Province and in this country. The Salmon Festival is a huge tourist draw. It can

draw anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people during that weekend of the festival

and, Mr. Chairman, Grand Falls - Windsor is also a service centre for all of

Central Newfoundland and if we want to look at, say from the Baie Verte

Peninsula to the South Coast, to Lewisporte. Mr. Chairman, the future looks good

for the town and for the town's major employer, Abititbi-Price. As the new

newsprint industry abounds, we must ensure we take care of our forestry

resources by doing more in the way of silviculture at Wooddale and at other

places.

Mr. Chairman, the government's legislation, as proposed, will

place part of the town in the proposed district of Grand Falls - Buchans,

part

in the district of Windsor - Springdale, and about ten houses or so from

Grenfell Heights, part of the current District of Grand Falls, would be placed

in Exploits district. According to the 1991 census figures, the population of

Grand Falls - Windsor was 14,693. This is approximately 1,300 people above the

10 per cent variance, an amount that would be more than acceptable in many other

provinces.

It is my intent today, and I give notice now, that I will be

putting forth a motion to amend the

schedule to Bill No. 31,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act, to change the boundaries

of the districts of Grand Falls - Buchans and Exploits to include the following

changes in the boundary description:

For the district of Grand Falls - Buchans, a line running

east along the said parallel of 49 o North Latitude to its

intersection with the Meridian of 55 o 33' West Longitude; thence

running along the western boundary of the district to Exploits, south along the

said Meridian of 55 o 33' West Longitude to the intersection with the

centre line of the Trans-Canada Highway.

The change for the district of Exploits:

A line running in a general north-easterly direction along

the centre line of the Trans-Canada Highway to the intersection with the

Meridian of 55 o 33' West Longitude; and running north along the said

Meridian of 55 o 33' West Longitude to its intersection with the

parallel of 49 o North Latitude.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Table already has a

schedule for the boundary description as it pertains to Grand Falls - Buchans

and to Exploits.

My reason for putting forth this amendment was to accommodate

the ten or so houses at the lower end of Grenfell Heights which is now in the

District of Exploits. Since this impacts fractionally on part of the District of

Exploits it is my understanding that the hon. Member for Exploits already

supports this minor adjustment. For those who may have been sitting in the House

during the mid-1980s, they may recall that Mr. Simms, former Member for the

District of Grand Falls, presented a petition on behalf of those ten or so

families at the lower end of Grenfell Heights, and that was accepted.

Furthermore, I think that Mr. Justice Noel intended that these ten or eleven

homes would be included in the District of Grand Falls. This does not affect the

10 per cent variance of the provincial average. It is in the vicinity of thirty

people or so who live in that area.

I want to serve notice now that I will be moving an amendment

to change the said boundaries as described herein and of which the Table has a

copy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words at this stage of the debate

as well. The citizens of Central Newfoundland, northeast coast, Green Bay area,

are, to put it mildly, somewhat confused as to just what is going on. Certainly,

leading up to today, in conversations I've had with the hon. the Member for

Windsor - Buchans, conversations the Member for Grand Falls has had with him,

and indications from the hon. the Government House Leader, it appeared that

there would be a significant amendment concerning the seats of Windsor -

Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans.

My colleague, the Member for Grand Falls, gave notice of an

amendment there a few moments ago with regard to a handful of houses on the

border between the Districts of Grand Falls and Exploits and that doesn't appear

to be a major problem. But the Member for Windsor - Buchans had indicated to

people in this House, and to the Government House Leader, that he was planning a

substantial rearrangement of the borders comprising the Districts of Windsor -

Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans, as laid out by Judge Noel.

Subsequently to all this I had a conversation briefly in the

corridor with the Member for Windsor - Buchans a few moments ago, and he

indicates to me now that he has since reassessed his position with regard to the

District of Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans, and is not going to go

with the change. So as far as I understand now, unless the Member for Windsor -

Buchans stands and indicates otherwise, the report brought in by Judge Noel as

it affects Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans will stand, and that

the shifting of the borders within that population envelope of some twenty odd

thousand people will not change except for the minor amendment being proposed by

my colleague from Grand Falls.

Mr. Chairman, what has gone on here in regard to this, I

think, is indicative of the embarrassment that the Liberal Party feels with

regard to this mess that it has created regarding electoral boundaries, and in

Central Newfoundland for the Liberal Party it is nothing short of an

embarrassing mess. The Town of Grand Falls - Windsor was recently amalgamated at

a considerable cost of money, and in terms of grief and agony involved in the

public debate that went on over some time, but amalgamated they are, and there

was much hue and cry from the council in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor and

the citizens generally that the town now amalgamated was again going to be split

along the borderline of the railway tracks that had long separated the two

communities. Well, if the Member for Windsor - Buchans does not bring forward

the amendment that he said he was going to bring forward, then I guess the

railway tracks are again the border between Windsor and Grand Falls.

Mr. Chairman, the petitions I have presented in this House

have been from the people of Green Bay who do not want their district to be

split, so it is academic to the people of Green Bay whether Green Bay adds

Badger, Buchans, a small piece of Windsor or the majority of Windsor, to Green

Bay. That, to them, is academic. We could add a chunk of Mars as far as the

people in Green Bay are concerned. They are concerned with the fact that their

district is being divvied up in this border realignment, and they do not want to

have some of the citizens of Green Bay on the Baie Verte side of the border and

some of the citizens of Green Bay on the Windsor - Springdale side of the

border. So, all I can say is that out of this exercise has come considerable

confusion for the people in the central Newfoundland area, and obviously in

terms of the Liberal Party some considerable damage to its reputation that it

would so ardently foster the amalgamation of Grand Falls and Windsor into one

town called Grand Falls - Windsor, and then through the electoral process, in

which it had its fingers directly in the pie on an ongoing basis, somehow not

having sufficient manipulatory ability with regard to those fingers, to actually

work it so that the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor became one electoral seat in

that process.

Mr. Chairman, the current population of Grand Falls - Windsor

is approximately 1,800 to 2,000 people above the magic number as designated by

the government and given to Judge Noel to work things out. The previous final

report of the independent commission recognized this and asked that this House

make an exception to make Grand Falls - Windsor one seat, as it asked the House

to make an exception to have an additional seat in Labrador. The House somehow

had no problem accommodating that particular request, but it refused to

accommodate the request of making Grand Falls - Windsor one whole seat.

Mr. Chairman, when Judge Mahoney had his first mandate and

produced a forty seat House, he had Grand Falls - Windsor as one seat, he had

Green Bay - Buchans as one seat, and there was no need for people in the Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor to be added to Green Bay - Buchans. Because he had plus or

minus 25 per cent he had the flexibility to behave within certain mathematical

considerations, but those were wide enough to take into account community of

interest. Unfortunately, given the plus or minus 10 per cent and a forty-eight

seat House, community of interest goes out the window except on the Labrador

Peninsula, Mr. Chairman. That is what has happened here and that is the

embarrassing mess that this Liberal Party has created in Central Newfoundland.

So it has been on again off again, on again off again for quite some time and

now the Member for Windsor - Buchans is not bringing forward his amendment.

So, as I understand it now, at the end of the day this House

will be voting on the district of Windsor - Springdale which involves the

northern communities in Green Bay being put in with Bay Verte District,

Springdale, South Brook to Brighton and the greater part of the former town of

Windsor being one district. The rest of the former town of Windsor, all of the

former town of Grand Falls, Badger and Buchans being put together to form a new

seat called Grand Falls - Buchans. That was what Judge Noel recommended which

was different then what the government official briefed us on before Christmas.

So there has been considerable confusion, all of which could have been taken

care of, Mr. Chairman, had the government accepted Judge Mahoney's

recommendation that an exception to the rule be made and Grand Falls - Windsor

town be made, Grand Falls - Windsor seat even though it was 2,000 people over

the limit.

So here we are, Mr. Chairman, early in last week we thought

there was going to be a major change in the boundaries inside the town of Grand

Falls - Windsor. The public knew it, the Government House Leader knew it and

today nobody knows it and we can only hope, Mr. Chairman, that there will not be

any more gyrations out of Central Newfoundland with regard to the boundaries

until such time as this matter is settled. Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, this

is a genuine mess which has come about because the government was not content to

accept the report of an independent commission. It involved itself in an ongoing

manipulation process and as a result we have the mess we see before us today.

In my case, a coastal seat mixed with part of a large

interior town, limited community of interest, certainly widespread geography

but, as for myself, should I seek renomination in Windsor - Springdale come the

next election, which I expect I will, Mr. Chairman, then obviously I have to get

to know a large number of people in what is the former town of Windsor. I

welcome the opportunity. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that I have sufficient

time to go door to door in the former town of Windsor because one has to wonder

if this particular government, in its rush to get this particular bill through

the House, may not be planning a quick trip to the electoral route and going to

the people this spring before bringing down a budget. One has to wonder if there

will be anything left of this government if they finally got to bring down a

real budget which may well be the case, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to have

the opportunity just to arise for a few moments again to reiterate what I have

said before, forty-eight seats in a time of restraint is not nearly good enough.

Forty-eight seats means nothing. Forty-eight seats does not mean anything to the

front line workers that have been picked off since 1991; nurses, nursing

assistants, janitors, secretaries. The cuts should start here as an example and

spread through the administration to show them that we mean business. You never

ask anybody else to do what you don't do yourself.

We seen back two years ago that there was a proposal in for

forty seats and then the scrambling started. Bay of Islands was knocked out, the

seat was and the Premier had to go look at it. We see Bellevue, that

disappeared. Drastic changes to Eagle River because finally they had to come

across the straits and there were others across this Province. That was not good

enough. They were as busy as one-armed nailers for a few days and there was

interference by the ministry. You cannot kill the messenger but the messenger

was the Minister of Justice who went to Clarenville on behalf of the ministry we

were told, and they go it up, up to forty-four but that wasn't good enough

either. So then they were talking about forty-six and now, there are

forty-eight. After $400,000 going down the toilet, wasted, we are back talking

about - and the numbers will go through, you have the numbers to shove

forty-eight seats through to save a minimum amount of money and that is not good

enough for the people of this Province, not good enough. But then again,

interference by this Premier is not a new matter.

Let me go back, Mr. Chairman, to quite a number of years ago.

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, when they were saying goodbye to J.R. and

there was a leadership on the go, a leadership of the Liberals where the present

Minister of Justice was running against Tom Burgess, a Mr. Vince Spencer and a

Mr. Rod Moores, but during that weekend, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) weekend.

MR. CAREEN: I was having a better weekend, I was working

somewhere else I must say, but during that weekend, the present Premier, a

Corner Brook lawyer who had quit the Liberals as Labour Minister in 1968, after

a dispute with Mr. Smallwood, on that Tuesday, prior to this convention, that

neither Mr. Burgess or Mr. Shea should be accepted into the caucus of the

Liberal Party. He was interfering back then, and they were expecting some time

that afternoon, a motion would be brought forward to oust Mr. Burgess and Hugh

Shea from the Liberal Party.

Informed sources said that a meeting was then on the way

between the Liberal delegates from Labrador West and Mr. Clyde Wells to discuss

strategy, but then it goes on, and this is supposed to be in conjunction with

the leadership and a farewell to J. R. Not J. R. Ewing I must say, the other J.

R., J. R. Smallwood, but anyway, that day for an interview by Mr. Smallwood

concerning Mr. Wells, Mr. Smallwood said: Mr. Wells shows very little hesitation

in advising Liberals what they should do. During the election he offered his

advice repeatedly to the Liberals of this Province. His advice to them was that

they should all vote Tory. If the Liberals had listened to him then, there would

not be any Liberals in the House of Assembly today. There would be forty-two

Tories, added Mr. Smallwood, Liberals did not take his advice last October and I

doubt that they will do so now. That was at the leadership for the Justice

Minister. The present Justice Minister had run for leadership against Burgess,

Spencer and Rod Moores, a number of years ago, but the former Premier, Mr.

Smallwood, had known whom he was dealing with; he was known at the time but he

was being interfered with then because he was on his way out.

Now we see, other, high interference coming from the Premier

now, Chairman of the Board to just forty-eight seats but his seat is protected.

Either he is running again and probably there will be a snap election, probably

that educational referendum is gathering a bit of dust and some time this

spring, before Budget, a snap election will be called and blaming Ottawa; that's

a proper thing in Newfoundland, to blame Ottawa at times, blame Canada.

Well, that's what we see here, gearing up for an election. A

possibility but the other shame is that in a time of restraint an example is not

being set by this House. I will find a job somewhere, it makes no difference, I,

as an individual, I will find a job and it won't be any political patronage job

either. I will find something between here and Vancouver like a lot of my other

Island countrymen had to find. As the CBC reporter had coined, and a good term

it is, and a sad one, Newfoundlanders in exile.

Anyway, these forty-eight seats, the Commission had heard

thirty two-hearings. Then it was interfered with. After all of that it was up to

forty-four. Then it was asked to interfere again, and the judge at that time,

Judge Mahoney, refused to have anything else to do with it. Then they found the

civil servant and then they found the judge.

It is amazing that the people of this Province are not

yelling and screaming about what is going on in this area. Probably they are fed

up. Probably they know, or think they know, that questioning will not be

listened to, questions will not be answered. But they should remember that their

outcry about Hydro, of which this government wasted anywhere from $6 million to

$10 million, was stopped by public opinion. They should remember, Mr. Chairman,

that public opinion - no matter who the government, they respond to numbers.

We saw what happened to Klein and his health cuts when they

started to march out in Alberta. They weren't long changing their minds. It is

not too late here today. We are beyond the eleventh hour, but the best causes

sometimes are the lost causes. It is something to fight for, it is something to

demand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: `Old blubber' is at it again. More blubber.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a few licks in, that if there is a

fight on you should participate. If there are cuts being demanded of the people

the representatives should be cut too. Not by four seats but cut her by twelve.

Wasting $400,000 and not doing anything about it, and a minimal saving, is a

dirty rotten shame. Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the

course of debate on this particular piece of legislation I've risen twice from

my seat to speak to the legislation, and I will just take a few moments to

further reiterate some of my thoughts for the record, and for those who wish to

hear it, and for those who I guess do not wish to hear it.

I supported an independent boundary commission being put in

place - I supported that privately, I support it publicly -, and that the

results coming from the boundary commission be implemented without delay.

Independently, without looking at it a second, third, fourth or fifth time. The

other thing I supported that was not within the Commission's mandate was a

greater degree of variance in terms of the population and the quotient, that it

be given to those districts which are wholly or mostly residing in rural

Newfoundland.

The reality is that most members who represent rural

districts in this Province today have a far greater workload than members who

represent urban districts in the Province. There are many reasons for that. It

has always been that way, and as long as there are rural and urban districts in

this Province it will always be that way. Just the nature of coastline, the

amount of geography from point A to point B that members have to travel in rural

Newfoundland, provides serious limitations in the way in which they can

represent their district, as compared to my district which is, parts of it,

rural, but all within a half hour to forty-five minute drive. I can get to any

place within half an hour, to the furthest point within half an hour. Most rural

members cannot.

My colleague for Baie Verte - White Bay is a great example.

Twenty-one different communities, twenty-one different town councils, twenty-one

different Kinsmen clubs, twenty-one different Lions clubs. The amount of work

that is generated from his district as compared to mine, there is no comparison.

My district is a busy one, but I live in it each and every day. I do not have to

move outside my district when the House of Assembly is open, and do most of my

business by phone. I can still conduct that, and get it done personally. Members

from rural Newfoundland cannot. I think that is where the government failed

ultimately in the boundary commission, that they did not give the commissioners

the latitude, a greater variance that would see, I guess, more reality reflected

in the types of districts, and take into consideration the workload that rural

representatives have to face.

Having said all that, it is obvious at the end of the day,

and that day being today, that we will end up with a forty-eight seat proposal,

and I would like to give notice now that I will be putting forth an amendment to

the District of Kilbride, based mostly upon the boundary line, how it was drawn

by the commissioners.

In the western portion of my district, where the district

begins, Judge Noel drew a boundary line. He did not take into consideration, in

my view, where he was drawing the line. He took into consideration just wholly

numbers and the quotient that was given to him, and it is very confusing the way

the line was drawn for residents in the District of Kilbride and then, on the

other side of the boundary line, residents in the District of Ferryland. I will

be making a proposal that will see that line become a lot straighter. As we

exist now there is a bridge in Kilbride called Ryans River Bridge that, on the

west of the bridge, people who are there reside in Ferryland; on the east side

of the bridge, people east of that and further east, live in Kilbride, and that

is exactly what my amendment will deal with, a more common sense boundary line

on the west end of the district.

It does not change the numbers of people significantly. It is

within the quotient as proposed by the government. The Minister of Justice is

familiar with it. David Jones, the individual who was charged with the

responsibility of dealing with putting together the numbers, has seen it and

dealt with it. The cartographer in Crown Lands has dealt with, and the

descriptions have been tabled with the Clerk in terms of what they would look

like, and when the opportunity arises to get into the amendment portion I will

be saying more on it at that time.

Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to rise today to make a few more comments

pertaining to this particular issue. Of course, we have said quite a bit here in

the House so far but I would like to make a few more points.

As my colleague just mentioned a few times, and I have said

it since the beginning of this debate, and before the debate and during

commission stages, the difference in urban and rural communities is something

that should have been factored in more through this whole discussion, and the

commission should have had more latitude to consider those points.

As for my district now, which specifically I will speak of,

is going from a total of twenty-two communities, and now with this proposal of

forty-eight seats I will end up with thirty-two communities, but not just

thirty-two communities but also spread in such a way with effect to the linkage

of transportation. What I mean by that is that to drive down the Baie Verte

Peninsula now, the twenty-one communities are on the peninsula, all serviced by

that main highway that goes down the peninsula. The adding of the ten seats from

the Green Bay area will mean that I will have to then travel the Trans-Canada

Highway and then go down another stretch of highway toward Springdale to take in

the communities of Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove, Langdon's Cove, Nickey's

Nose Cove, Rattling Brook, Silverdale, King's Point, Beachside, Little Bay, St.

Patricks, and Little Bay Islands.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make mention today in this

particular part of the debate that the name which my district would now have

under the new proposal would just be called Baie Verte right now. Of course,

right now it is referred to as Baie Verte - White Bay District because it

referred to the twenty-one communities on the peninsula and also Great Harbour

Deep, which I will lose now because that was on the other side of White Bay. So

I had one community on the other side of White Bay in my district, and it was

called Baie Verte - White Bay, and now I am picking up ten new communities in

the Green Bay area, but it will now be referred to as just Baie Verte, and some

of the people in that district, as my colleague from Green Bay mentioned on

petitions before, will have some problem already that they will be moving from

the Green Bay district over to the Baie - Verte White Bay district.

Although it might be minor to many people, Mr. Speaker, those

people are concerned, are worried, or are wondering, I guess, you could say as

to why the name of just Baie Verte which has no relation to them whatsoever. The

twenty-one communities on the Baie Verte Peninsula, fair enough, that

part is

called Baie Verte and now the district referred to as Baie Verte, but meanwhile

I have ten communities from the Green Bay side, the Springdale area which will

be part of the district of Baie Verte, and nothing more than Baie Verte, so it

is something I would like to mention here today.

Since the beginning of this debate, and I will continue to

raise it as an issue with the people in my area, is that if it really was a fair

assessment and was done to go to forty-eight seats, because if we were really

going to make some change, if the government of the day was really serious about

making a reduction and cutting the fat at the top - they did start on the right

path by saying there would be a reduction in the House of Assembly, but the real

truth is that the people of this Province do not believe it is a significant

cut, and the word significant is the most prominent word to use here, Mr.

Chairman. A significant cut, fifty-two seats in this House of Assembly down to

forty-eight, after two years, after a commission, after $400,000 spent on a

commission, no, it is not significant.

Mr. Chairman, I still hold true that the initial commission,

the independent commission of forty-four seats, or in fact back to the very

early stages when the mandate was forty seats, was the one that should have been

accepted, adopted, voted on, and supported by the members of this House of

Assembly. That was a more drastic move but it certainly was a more significant

move. All members of this House of Assembly would have seen the effects of that.

We can see now with the upheaval on the government side, of just going from

fifty-two to forty-eight, I can imagine what it would be if we did have to go to

forty-four seats, Mr. Chairman.

We would have all taken the blow, all of us together, and

accepted the real responsibility and showing real cutting of fat by going from

fifty-two to forty-four seats, or indeed to forty seats. The process is what has

been tainted, the interference of politics in this, not the real cutting of the

fat, not a significant cutting of the fat, but in fact political tinkering to

make sure that appeases many people. Of course, Mr. Chairman, what happened here

was that the process was tainted and people were left out of the process.

Mr. Chairman, as to the name of my particular district as I

speak in this part of the debate I would like to make reference to the fact that

the ten communities now being picked up from the Green Bay side in my riding

should have some kind of recognition that they are indeed not on the Baie Verte

Peninsula, not in a bay called Baie Verte, have nothing to do with Baie Verte,

the town of Baie Verte and the Peninsula of Baie Verte, they are cut off really

by the Trans-Canada, and there is no symbolism when talking about the ten

communities which I will pick up now in the Green Bay area or to do with the

Springdale area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern I though I would mention here

today, and I will continue to criticize the two major factors here, that there

was an insignificant reduction in the number of seats and also that there was

political interference and tinkering by the government of the day in this

process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: I would like to make a few further points of

clarification with regard to the situation in Central Newfoundland. I had an

opportunity after I spoke last to confer with Mr. David Jones the solicitor who

had the population numbers. The Member for Windsor - Buchans has indicated he is

not going to go with an amendment to make a major change in Central Newfoundland

to change the current Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans seats to Green

Bay - Buchans and Grand Falls - Windsor. The bottom-line on it all, Mr.

Chairman, is that the Green Bay - Buchans seat would have taken 2000 Windsor

people and the Grand Falls - Windsor seat would have taken roughly 3200 Windsor

people.

Under the current scenario that Judge Noel recommended, and I

presume we are going with it because the Member for Windsor - Buchans has not

brought forward his amendment, the Windsor - Springdale seat will contain the

southern part of the existing district of Green Bay and will include roughly

4,500 people from the former Town of Windsor.

The Grand Falls - Buchans seat will obviously include the

former Town of Grand Falls, the Badger to Buchans area, and will include nearly

700 Windsor people. So, Mr. Chairman, no matter how you cut it, the former Town

of Windsor is being cut in the electoral changes being proposed by this Liberal

district, and as I stated earlier, as it goes now, the report that we are

currently debating in the House, which I presume will be unamended, will see,

approximately 4,500 people from the former Town of Windsor included with the

southern part of Green Bay district to form a seat called Windsor - Springdale,

and the remaining approximate 700 people in Windsor will be added to the Grand

Falls - Buchans seat to form the other seat in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Chairman, this confusion I lay squarely at the doorstep

of the Liberal Party. This didn't need to happen. Grand Falls - Windsor could

have been one, distinct seat; this government backed away a little bit on a

recommendation from a judge to make an exception to his plus or minus 10 per

cent rule. The government didn't see fit to do it so no matter how you cut it,

Mr. Chairman, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor and the former Town of Windsor

are going to be cut in this boundary change.

Thank you.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am simply going to sum up my views of this bill by saying

that, in the lead up to the announcements by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board about $60 million worth of rollbacks, cuts, downloading and other

dire measures, we should be here debating a bill that would give effect to the

initial Mahoney Commission proposal for a forty district map. Mr. Chairman,

instead, what we have, is a measure which reduces by one-third only, the initial

proposal of the Mahoney Commission.

Members opposite have suggested that the savings from

reducing the Legislature by four seats would be approximately $500,000. In that

case, the savings from a reduction of twelve seats would be three times that

amount, would be approximately $1.5 million. And, Mr. Chairman, the spending on

the Legislature, which is derived through a number of variables, only one of

which is the number of members, the spending should be in proportion to total

government spending, to the outlay for vital public services, and should be in

proportion to the provincial economy.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier

tell us that we have a serious fiscal problem. In my view, they have exaggerated

the seriousness of the fiscal situation; they are saying that, `come hell or

high water', they are going to extract $60 million-worth of cuts or additional

revenue in the remaining quarter of the year, yet, they are not doing what was

available to them to reduce the cost of operating the House of Assembly. So, Mr.

Chairman, this measure is seriously flawed on two counts.

It is flawed in terms of fiscal policy, it represents a

double standard, a higher standard for the politicians, a lower standard for the

people who are depending on government-funded health and education services, and

the process by which the districts were derived, is tainted. It's plain,

old-fashioned gerrymandering. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the House of

Assembly; we are here discussing the details of the bill in Committee under a

gag order, after the government had given notice of a closure motion and we were

threatened with debate, on Committee stage of the bill, being cut off this

evening.

Mr. Chairman, this issue will not die. Members opposite may

hope that by rushing it through the House of Assembly, by using closure twice

already, that they may dispense with it quickly, they may expect that voters

will forget by the time of the next election, but let me assure all members that

the people of this Province will remember this measure come next election.

People will realize that the same standard was not applied to determining

funding for health and education as was used for the House of Assembly. People

will realize that the boundaries were not drawn through an objective, impartial

process. They will be reminded of the fact that this proposal, this bill, is

contrary to the proposal of the duly authorized Commission, with the

Commission's work having cost the taxpayers of the Province $400,000.

This represents an obscene waste of public money - four

hundred thousand dollars for a commission whose work the government totally

ignored, an opportunity to save approximately $1 million a year which the

government shoved aside at the exact same time as they are proceeding to find

$60 million in a four-month period. Sixty million dollars annualized, of course,

is $180 million.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill in the strongest possible

way, on the basis of bad fiscal policy and on the basis of corrupt process.

Thank you, Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have some specific comments on specifics of the act, but

first of all, let me outline, since we are talking in general about all of the

clauses of the act, what I believe to be the - what we are dealing here today

with is the end product of a process that started off under then-existing

legislation to be an objective way of having the electoral boundaries be

considered by an objective commission chaired by someone appointed not by the

government but appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland.

The then-existing act provided that every ten years an

electoral boundaries commission would be appointed to be chaired by a judge, a

justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, who was to be appointed by the

Chief Justice - not by the Premier, not even by the Legislature, certainly not

by the Government House Leader, but appointed by the Chief Justice of

Newfoundland and three other commissioners. The idea was, that would give some

impartial view of the creation and changes to boundaries, and the changes that

were to be made in those boundaries would be devoid of political motive.

In the appointment of people to the Commission it was clear

that the people on the Commission, including the person appointed by the Chief

Justice, did have a political history. The Chair himself, appointed by the Chief

Justice, was a Liberal member of this House, but has been a Supreme Court

Justice for many, many years. Of course, once someone is appointed a Supreme

Court Justice, he or she is required to leave their political stripes behind

them and act in a totally non-partisan way.

The other three commissioners had a political history - all

were candidates for this House of Assembly. Two were sitting members of this

House of Assembly for a number of years representing three different political

parties, including the New Democratic Party. That was the way the Commission was

set up and my understanding is that the Commission, in its operations, was

determined to be and was exhorted by the Chair to be non-political and that if

political motivations were to enter into it that the Chair would not longer

continue as Chair of that Commission.

So they went about their business and heard submissions

across this Province. There were some changes, amendments to the Electoral

Boundaries Act brought in by the government back in 1992 - assented to December

23, 1992 - to suggest that there should be between forty and forty-six proposed

one-member districts with certain special provisions for Labrador and where

special geographic considerations abound. That was the amendment that was

brought in, with some fanfare by the Premier, to indicate that government was

taking seriously the desire to reduce the cost of government. One of the costs

of government was the cost of operating the democratic procedure of this House,

the cost of the House of Assembly and a proposed reduction of from six to twelve

members, and lo and behold, the commission was taking their legislation

seriously. They were taking it seriously. They looked at the legislation and

said we must obey the law. We must do what the law tells us. They also had a

mandate to listen to submissions. They went around the Province and they heard

submissions. They listened to what the Premier had to say in the House and no

doubt they read Hansard and the exhortation of the Premier to go to forty, if

necessary, as long as you can provide adequate representation in the House, and

they gave every indication of doing so.

When this word got back to the political people on the other

side of the House - the backbenchers, the frontbenchers - it looked like this

Commission was going to follow the legislation, take the Premier at his word,

listen to the public and come back with forty seats. So something had to be

done. The Government House Leader went off to Clarenville and made a

presentation to the Commission. Then he came back to the House and proposed new

legislation to make sure the Commission was not going to do what the old

legislation said and they came back with forty-four seats. Was there something

wrong with that? Did they not follow the law the second time? No, they followed

the law. They followed their mandate and they brought back a report totally

within the mandate of the legislation governing their existence, but once again

it was politically unacceptable to members opposite, politically unacceptable to

Liberal members in the back bench and on the front bench. If the government

wasn't going to satisfy the back bench maybe there wouldn't have been a front

bench for very long, so there had to be new changes. So what happened to this

impartial legislatively mandated commission in its report at a cost of over

$400,000? It got thrown in the wastepaper basket - thrown away, despite all of

the exhortations of the government about saving money, how we had to cut down

expenses of government. They threw a $400,000 report in the wastebasket.

MR. CAREEN: The toilet.

MR. HARRIS: In the toilet, the Member for Placentia says.

They flushed it down the drain, wasted it. They probably didn't even recycle it,

Mr. Chairman. I would say there are copies of that report out in Robin Hood Bay.

I bet you they didn't even recycle it. I would say there are piles of them out

in Robin Hood Bay not even recycled, right down the toilet, right to the dump.

MR. CAREEN: It went through the shredder first.

MR. HARRIS: They had a shredder; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: When they hired all those portable shredding

machines for Hydro, to get rid of all the Hydro dirt and evidence, they probably

had hordes of them `hove' in the back of that, and I don't know what happens to

that.

In any event, they may well have taken 400,000 one-dollar

bills and tossed them into the shredder, because that's what they did with this

report. They decided that they must re-construe the rules a little bit, and then

they went looking for a judge or someone else to carry out a new mandate. Now,

as I said in this House before, I have a lot of respect for Justice Nathaniel

Noel, as a man and as a judge, but I think he was being used by this government,

and the one report that was thrown in the garbage was replaced by another

report, and I guess if they didn't like that one they probably would have had a

third one. I guess they probably said: Well, I guess we will just keep on

getting reports until we find something that we can live with, or that they can

find enough people on the other side to live with. So they decided - there are

people over there who are bursting at the traces trying to leap out of their

seats, and trying to restrain themselves and be restrained by other members over

there, but enough of them seem to accept it to keep the pot from boiling over

completely. It hasn't boiled over completely yet - not yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: What pot?

MR. HARRIS: The lid has been kept on, I say to the

Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: What pot?

MR. HARRIS: The bubbling cauldron of dissent amongst

members opposite. The lid has been kept on for another little while, not for

long. When the Premier announces he is going for another term, then she will

boil over. She will go then. The top will go right off her when the Premier says

he is looking for another term. Then she's gone. As soon as the Premier says: I

think maybe term number three might be in order, up she comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will get to my district now in a minute, I

say to the Member for St. John's South, or the hon. Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. I will get to St. John's East - the former St. John's East, if

this government gets its way. They haven't been happy with the fact -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will resume my

comments when I get to speak again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I want to

make this afternoon. It is too