December

16, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

I wanted to rule today on the matter raised by the Member for

Mount Pearl but I notice that he is not present.

MR. SIMMS: Was that the Public Accounts Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the question of privilege. I would

prefer to rule when he is here - if it would be in order, I perhaps will make

the ruling, in any event.

As I indicated, at this time I would like to rule on a point

of privilege raised on Tuesday, December 7, 1993 by the Member for Mount Pearl

while tabling the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I believe the matter raised by the member is a serious one

and I have taken some time to carefully study the issues in this case. At the

outset, I should say that this matter has given the Chair a great deal of

concern.

It has been said many times by Speakers but, I believe, it is

worth reiterating that "a genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter

and should be taken seriously by the House."

In deciding on this matter, I have been assisted by the able

arguments of the hon. members who participated in the debate on the point of

privilege and I thank them for their participation.

The hon. member's contention is that his privileges, as a

member of this hon. House, were breached when a majority of the Public Accounts

Committee, on October 12, 1993, voted not to hold hearings scheduled for October

13 relating to the award of public proposals for the construction of three

health care clinics. The committee acted on a verbal request from the hon. the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who had indicated that there

were two civil lawsuits pending before the Supreme Court of the Province. I have

since been advised by the Minister of Justice in a letter dated December 9,

1993, that on October 13, 1993, there were two actions brought against the Crown

relating to those tenders; one by Health Care Developers Inc issued out of the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland on October 29, 1992, and defended by the Crown on

November 17, 1992; the other by N. D. Dobbin Ltd which was issued out of the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland on October 30, 1992, and defended on November 17,

of that year. Some limited discovery of documents had occurred but no witnesses

had been discovered, nor had the matter proceeded to trial.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl contends that the Public

Accounts Committee deprived him of his parliamentary right to freedom of speech

by incorrectly applying the Sub Judice Convention which should only be

recognized - if at all - in criminal matters and to a much lesser extent in

serious civil matters which have proceeded to trial.

The privileges of the Canadian Houses of Parliament and this

Assembly are similar to those in the United Kingdom. Privilege has been defined

by Erskine May on page 67 of the 19th edition of a Treatise on the Law,

Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament as follows: Parliamentary

privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively

as constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by members of each House

individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which

exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though

part of the law of the land, is, to certain extent, an exemption from the

ordinary law.

Perhaps a more relevant definition for our purposes in

considering this point of privilege is that of Redlick who stated as follows at

page 46 of The Procedure of the House of Commons, Volume 1: The

particular privileges of the Commons have been defined as: - "The sum of the

fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the

prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law, and the

special rights of the House of Lords."

The rational for the existence of these privileges is that a

Legislature cannot carry on unless it has them. They are ancillary to the

purposes of a Legislature - means to accomplish parliamentary ends, and not ends

in themselves. I substantially agree with the Member for Mount Pearl's

understanding to the Sub Judice Convention and the fundamental nature of a

member's right to freedom of speech in this House and its committees. In my

view, that convention should rarely, if ever, be applied to restrict the freedom

of speech except in the most extraordinary cases.

In recent memory, questions were asked in this hon. House

concerning criminal and civil matters pending before the courts relating to

events at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John's. No objection was taken by

the government to the asking of the questions and it was left to the ministers

concerned to determine what, if any, information could be publicly disclosed

without jeopardizing the integrity of either the civil or criminal cases. This

is a recent illustration in our House of the freedom of members to raise

questions of public importance notwithstanding the fact that criminal and civil

matters are pending before the courts.

Based on my understanding of the rights and privileges of

hon. members in this House and its committees, I do not see that the Sub Judice

Convention could have been applied by a majority of the Public Accounts

Committee to postpone the hearing scheduled to take place on October 13, 1993.

The fact that two civil lawsuits had been filed against the Crown did not under

our rules, by law or convention, require the committee to postpone its hearings

on the awarding of the contracts.

However, we must also bear in mind that committees of this

House are masters of their own proceedings. Perhaps the most independent and

wide-ranging of our committees is the Public Accounts Committee, which has the

authority to investigate anything in the Auditor General's Report at its own

discretion and in its own time. In other words, it has the right to set its own

schedule independent of direction by either the government or the Speaker, in

order that its investigations may be freely undertaken and reported.

On October 12th, the committee by a majority vote decided to

postpone the hearing scheduled for the next day. While I have expressed a grave

concern that the reason given for the postponement appears to be a

misapplication of the Sub Judice Convention, the committee has the sole

authority to determine its own schedule. Even if the committee, in my view,

could have proceeded, there is no authority in the Speaker to order it to do so.

As was said by Beauchesne in the 6th edition of Parliamentary Rules and Forms

on page 222, subparagraph (3) of paragraph 760, and I quote: "The Speaker has

ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise

procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters

of their own procedure", and that is taken from the Journals , December 4,

1973, pages 709-10.

As to the point of privilege, the member has not, as such,

made out a prima facie case of breach that would justify submitting that to the

House for consideration. The committee has a right to postpone that hearing or

any others for such reasons as it sees fit. Other than expressing my view that

it seems to have misapplied the Sub Judice Convention, there is no authority to

direct the Public Accounts Committee to proceed and the decision of the

committee to postpone a hearing for that reason does not, per se constitute a

prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier's BIS Program, I guess, the

Basic Income Supplement Program. As you read through the program, the more you

read, the more startling it becomes. The program indicates, of course, that it

is going to take $630 million out of the pockets of people who depend now on

Unemployment Insurance for a substantial amount of their income, and

redistribute it primarily, to people on social assistance and people who have no

income. In other words, he is going to be taking money from the poor to help the

desperately poor. Now, in the end - a point made by the Member for St. John's

East - in the end, these desperately poor may be a little less desperate but

unfortunately, the level of poverty will increase for those who are now at the

margin of poverty, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us, of course, will blissfully

be left alone.

The Premier refers to this approach now then as fairness and

balance. I want to ask him: Is this the new liberal program for social reform,

to have the poor take care of the poor? Why is the Premier so tenacious and so

determined to increase by thousands, the number of families in this Province who

will be forced to live in desperate poverty if this plan is approved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take full

credit for the ingenuity that this report contains, but I can't. The work was

done by Dr. House and put forward. The government accepted the approach in

principle as being sound. So for whatever reason the Leader of the Opposition

wants to give me full credit for it in saying it is my report, but I want to

honestly report to the House what the situation is and if he wishes to continue

on that line, as least I will have discharged my responsibility to make the true

facts known. He can continue to say it as he pleases.

Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal that would see us in this

Province address a major problem. It is a major problem not alone in this

Province but it is also a major problem in this nation. The nation can't go on

and continue to finance the social security system of the nation structured as

it is with the burdens that it has, with the impediments that it has. We cannot

build and rebuild the economy of this nation and continue to finance it in that

way. If that could be done then we could sit back and perhaps not worry too much

about it. But the government must be concerned about the overall protection of

the economy and the people generally, and rebuilding and restoring economic

competence in the Province.

This is part of the overall plan. I keep emphasizing, this is

not in itself the sole solution to all the problems. Remember, it is part of the

Strategic Economic Plan, and all of the other aspects of it I have mentioned in

the House on numerous occasions. I don't want to take the time of Question

Period to re-state them all again. I just want to draw members' attention to the

fact that this is part of an overall plan.

It is not a scheme to do, as the Leader of the Opposition

says, quoting the Member for St. John's East, to take from the poor and give to

the desperately poor. That is kind of a trite, silly statement that seems to

want to catch headlines. If you want to deal intellectually, honestly, with the

overall problem, let's admit the nature and extent of the problem and have the

political courage to face up to what is necessary to deal with it. This is what

we are doing in this proposal.

We asked the ERC to develop an approach that would do that.

They've developed and put one forward that we think can work. We've put the

proposal to the federal government and asked them to be prepared to participate

in it, and I certainly hope that they will.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can squirm out from

under the responsibility for this all he wants. His bureaucrats put it together,

sure, and they do for all the government programs. But he is the one after his

Cabinet approved it who took it to the Prime Minister. Now you can be sure, Mr.

Speaker, any time the Premier tends to dismiss any criticisms by using words

like `tripe' or `silly', and `stupid' and all those kinds of thing, you can be

absolutely certain that we are getting closer and closer to the truth every time

we ask the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: The Premier has referred to this as an

incentive program. The only incentive that we can find in this is to force

people to go to work by first driving them into poverty. That is what is going

to happen under his program. The program proposes, as well, to eliminate federal

and provincial job creation programs, so obviously the opportunities for

employment are not going to be there.

I want to ask the Premier the question, once again: What does

he expect people to do? How does he expect people to supplement the meagre

incomes they now get? Where is the opportunity going to be to find jobs? Where

will the jobs be? Where will the work be? Does he expect thousands of people to

pick up rocks, paint pictures of cod fish on them and sell them to tourists? Is

that the way he expects them to earn their money?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is too bad the Leader of the Opposition

has such a narrow focus. He can only see one thing at one time. It is

regrettable.

I emphasize again, this is not a proposal to generate

employment opportunities. This is one part of an overall Strategic Economic

Plan. Now it is too bad that the breadth of their thinking is so narrow that

they cannot conceive of something that is all-encompassing. It is too bad that

they can only see it in this one, narrow focus.

I emphasize again, for the Leader of the Opposition, this is

one part of a broader program. This is not intended to provide the job

opportunities. We intend to adjust our taxes, as we talked about, on business.

We intend to correct the excessive regulatory burden. We intend to provide for a

better economic climate, a better labour relations climate, a better

environmental assessment climate. This is all part of what is being done. A

better education climate - it is all part of what is being done. A better

private sector climate by privatization - it is all part of what is being done,

and we rely on the whole to generate the employment opportunities, not that one,

narrow bit. We do not put it forward as that. We put it forward as one essential

part of the better whole, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition

would see beyond that one, narrow thing, and I ask him to think about it again

before he asks the next question.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First it was Triton. Now he says we have a narrow focus. I

suppose the next answer will contain the term `You have a concrete mind-set'.

That is about to come for sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what this plan does and what the

government intends to do with this plan is drive virtually every rural community

in this Province into abject poverty. That is what the plan does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: The fishing industry, the fishing economy is

destroyed, mechanical harvesters have eliminated jobs in the forest industry and

there will be no more government funded job creation programs, we are told.

Thousands of families in this Province will be forced to live off this BIS

supplement program which will give them $9,000 a year. Rural communities cannot

and will not be able to survive this attack. This is another resettlement

program, that is what the Premier has here. Does the Premier realize that the

real effect will, in fact, be to kill off rural communities in this Province, to

force people to resettle to other places where they might have a chance to

scrape up a few dollars or in fact to force them to leave the Province

altogether, does he realize that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I could never accuse the hon.

member of having a concrete mind. I have never seen him put forward anything

concrete yet. He is so wishy-washy he could never produce a concrete mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing concrete has ever come from

anything he ever said. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make the point again. Let me

make the point once again. Partly as a result of the approach that the former

government took - but they are not totally responsible for it, I cannot give

them the whole blame for it, they are not totally responsible, Mulroney

contributed his fair share - partly as a result of the economic irresponsibility

of corporations, governments, governments of all political stripes over the last

number of years, we have mismanaged the economy of this Province. We have

created a circumstance where neither the nation nor the provincial government

can continue to provide the social security system that we have in place without

putting the entire future of the country in jeopardy and anybody with any degree

of responsibility or concern for the future would not be so narrow in their

focus as to think of only the immediate political reaction, that is the way the

other side governed. We are prepared to demonstrate the courage of real

leadership. Lead and put forward real solutions to the problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the people

of this Province we are not prepared to sit back and see the Government of

Canada, as it must, put in place a solution that is insensitive to the reality

of Newfoundland. To put in place a solution that is more suited to Vancouver,

Montreal and Toronto than it is to Newfoundland. That is why we developed and

put forward a proposal that is better suited to Newfoundland. The Leader of the

Opposition misleads this House and misleads the people of the Province when he

says it is going to affect adversely rural Newfoundland. It will improve things.

To begin with, the figures show that 60 per cent of the population will not be

affected. The figures also show that another 27 per cent will have some

improvement in their income. It shows that only 13 per cent will have some

reduction in their income.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

PREMIER WELLS: Now they scream, `not true.' Now maybe

they are right but the proper word is inaccurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Listen to the whole and you won't have

cause to applaud. Listen to it all and you won't have cause to applaud.

It may be that the figures will not pan out that way but I

believe they will. I believe that on the basis of the advice I have gotten from

Dr. House and the officials who do it, and let me tell the members of the House

that I have infinitely more confidence in Dr. House's judgement on this matter

than I do in the judgement of the Leader of the Opposition or any of the

characters that advise him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, probably the Premier should also get the advice

of Professor Locke and some of the other economists at the University who have

been discussing his plan over the past few days.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy if he can tell me

if Norwegian Contractors have been brought into Bull Arm and if so for what

purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Norwegian Contractors as a

company has not been brought into Bull Arm, but a number of senior experienced

people with Norwegian Contractors are being brought in as part of the management

team. They are brought into the team there.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why would Norwegian management at

this point in time be sending people in as part of a team? If they are coming in

as part of a team, who are they replacing? Will the changes in this management

strategy that the minister now confirms, will that have any effect on

Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, is has no effect on

Newfoundland. It is up to the company what people they want to hire to help them

manage the project. I have no problem with it.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that they are

being brought in. If there are no changes being made why bring them in? I ask

the minister to come clean with this House. Tell us why Norwegian Contractors

are being brought in, who are they replacing, and why are they being replaced.

Let me also ask the minister to answer this question: Can the minister tell this

House, Mr. Speaker, if the Hibernia project is on

schedule and on budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Hibernia

management company who they want to hire as part of their management team, and

as I said a minute ago they are hiring some people who work with Norwegian

Contractors and they are going to be part of the management team. Very

experienced people with gravity-placed construction. That is just normal. Right

now I am told by the company that they are expecting to meet their milestones,

to have the first oil in 1997, which is all of our aim.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they on budget?

DR. GIBBONS: On budget? As far as I know they are on

budget. I've seen no indication that they are not on budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: On schedule.

DR. GIBBONS: In any major construction project you are

going to be up and down, but the key thing is that you meet your milestones. I

am told by the company that they will meet their milestones that will allow them

to have first oil by 1997. That is all that we can expect and that is all that

we can desire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a

question to the Minister of Education. On November 30 the minister tabled the

government's model for restructuring the school system. In his comments and

comments of members opposite it said that the pre-eminent goal of the

government's proposal was, to quote: to transform this society from one of

persistent underachievement to one whose achievement ranks with the best in the

nation. To achieve this goal the model articulates substantive changes to the

denominational structure as is currently existing in the Province.

Will the minister explain to the House why his government

chose to change the denominational structure as its primary focus at this time,

and more specifically how the change in denominational structures will change

this society from one of persistent underachievement to one whose achievement

ranks with the best in Canada?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he

says it is the intention of this government to change the educational system

from one which is underachieving till it achieves with the best in the nation.

If anyone has any doubts about where we are I would suggest that they would look

at the results of this test which will be made public today which shows, Mr.

Speaker, that 37 per cent of our thirteen-year-olds who are in Grade VIII are

achieving at a Grade III level. Thirty-five per cent of our Grade VIIIs are

achieving at a Grade VI level. So this is underachieving.

The hon. member talks about why we are focusing on

governance. We are not focusing on governance. There are 211 recommendations in

the report. One of twenty, twenty-five or so recommendations deal with

governance. That is the issue which receives all the public attention. It is a

big thing in the media. But the Royal Commission has been divided into twelve

sections. Every single

section is being worked on. That includes dealing with

time on task, the lengthening of the school year. That deals with the way

teachers are being trained. That deals with the ways that parents should have

more input into what is going on. So the hon. member's premise is not quite

correct when he suggests that all we are doing is dealing with the

denominational issue.

I cannot blame him for reaching that conclusion, because that

has received such publicity over the past number of weeks that it is only

natural, I suppose, that he would arrive at that position, but the reality is

that the Royal Commission is being implemented and he should come over to the

Department of Education some time to see just how actively the department is

pursuing the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

I can excuse him for thinking it is only a governance issue,

but it is anything but only a governance issue.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in the Williams Royal Commission

there is reference to a wide variety of studies on many aspects of the

educational system; however, can the minister share with this House, and the

people of this Province, those research studies which draw a profound

correlation between our denominational structure and what the Province alleges

to be persistent underachievement?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, no one is blaming the

denominational system per se for causing underachievement. It is duplication

which causes underachievement. As a result of the denominational system, in the

Town of Roddickton, in which I grew up and raised my family, there are two

schools about 1,000 feet apart. They are not there because the people want

separate schools, per se. They are there because of the denominational system.

In one school there are 178 students from K-XII. In the other school there are

192 students from K-XII.

My children went through the system without getting chemistry

or physics or advanced math. The Pentecostal people across the street went

through their system without the advantage of chemistry or physics or advanced

math. Now, does the denominational system cause that? I do not know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: It is the way the denominational system is

being implemented that causes that.

Our model says that we can still keep the denominational

system, but cases of duplication like that, where the children's ability to

achieve is being interfered with, then our model would see an

interdenominational system in Roddickton and some other places - many other

places around the Province - and this would certainly help our children to

achieve better.

It is not the denominational system per se. It is the way

that it is implemented in a good many places throughout this Province.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the minister

would rise and say that he does not know, because we have the Williams Royal

Commission, we have the whole list of recommendations that are contained in the

summary documents, all the research, and yet we do not know exactly what is the

cause of the underachievement, as the minister just said.

Research indicates that many other factors affect the

achievement of students in school - the urban, rural nature of the community,

social and economic factors, parental expectations, the level of funding, the

level of teacher training, the quality and quantity of instructional time. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, research shows that structure -

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. HODDER: Structure ranks as sixth, seventh, or eighth

in the list of items -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question, I think he should now ask

it.

MR. HODDER: Structure ranks as sixth, seventh, or eighth

in the list of items that might affect the performance of students, and I ask

the minister: Why will he not now delay his implementation target beyond

September of 1994 to allow for further dialogue and participation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, remember flip and flop.

Two weeks to the day, in this House, that hon. member got up

and criticized this government for dragging our feet with educational reforms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that was flip. Flop, Mr.

Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition, when at a public meeting of Roman

Catholics, got up and said: oh, we are going to keep the status quo, we are not

going to interfere with anything in the system. That is Flop.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time for hon. members on the other

side of the House to get their act together. They can't run with the foxes and

hunt with the hounds and that is exactly what they are trying to do. So Flip and

Flop are going to have to get their act together and then maybe the level of

questions which they put forward in this House might be of the calibre that the

people of this Province deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the

Minister of Education.

Is the minister aware that there are over sixty students from

the area of the Battery, Quidi Vidi, Forest Road areas of St. John's, who don't

have access to school busing and have to walk for an hour-and-a-half each way,

to and from school at Gonzaga High School? As the minister knows, school busing

would be available to these students if they lived outside St. John's in any

other part of the Province. Will the minister not agree that his government's

policy on school busing discriminates against students in the St. John's area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the hon. member,

I have to say, yes I am aware of it, because if I were talking to his

constituents I would have to tell them that he keeps bringing this to my

attention and is doing a magnificent job of bringing it to my attention and I

have to commend him for that.

Busing of school children is a problem in this Province. We

are spending close to $30 million in busing children around, Mr. Speaker, and

you will find that there are an awful lot of inconsistencies in our busing

program. The hon. member is quite right when he says that people who live in St.

John's, in many cases are not being bused because we do not bus in urban areas.

Yet having said that, I can tell the hon. member that there are school bus

contracts in this city which are busing people around.

Now, there is a need for a lot of work to be done in the

busing area. My latest appointed assistant deputy minister is paying a lot of

attention to this and trying to somehow come to grips with the problem. Now it

is not as simple as saying we are going to solve it and bus those sixty

children. The St. John's Transportation Commission has to be involved in busing

in the city and all this sort of thing.

The hon. member will know that some time ago he brought a

group to me from Quidi Vidi actually who had a problem. We sat down and were

able to solve it and I would suggest to the hon. member that maybe he should

bring this particular situation to my attention as I know he has been doing at

the official level, but he and I should sit down. I cannot assure him that we

will solve it but I can assure him that we will look at it and do the best we

can within the rules.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members will know, the St. John's Transportation busing

which the parents must pay for themselves directly is another part of the

problem. In this case, these students, some of whom are here in the gallery, are

required to take three bus changes and still cannot get to school on time. They

are missing school now and it is going to get worse as the winter weather goes

further, and so I thank the minister for agreeing with me, but will he talk to

some of the students afterwards and explain how the process works and perhaps we

can get together to try and solve this problem too. Will the minister do that?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I certainly would be glad

to do that. As I pointed out, it is not a simple problem, it is one we have to

deal with and I would be only too well-pleased to meet with his constituents

after Question Period.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

I am wondering how much interaction the minster and his

political staff, officials, would have with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador

when it comes to funding applications directly to Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador and funding applications to other government agencies, departments such

as the Employment Services Division of Employment and Labour Relations. Does the

minister or his staff have much interaction with officials of Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador in seeing funding approved or considered?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Very little, Mr. Speaker. We have a board of

directors that we have put in place to basically monitor all applications. Now,

from time to time members will come to me and ask me to intercede it they feel

that one of their constituents has been treated unfairly, and I can think of two

cases which the Opposition just recently brought to my attention that we solved,

but other than that, Mr. Speaker, it is at arm's length and we try to let them

deal with it in a responsible manner.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Opposition House

Leader.

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

wondering if the minister could explain - and perhaps it will be difficult under

those circumstances - but I have here a copy of a memo dated September 30, 1993,

to Mr. Jim Janes from a Rod Regier, an acting vice-president. Where he said he

was approached by the Grand Meadows Golf Association, which wants to build a

golf course at Frenchman's Cove Park.

He goes on to indicate - Mr. Regier to Mr. Janes - that the

people in that area happened to elect an MHA of our party stripe, a PC, and they

face an uphill battle. As a result, Mr. Janes had contact with an executive

assistant in the minister's office on the matter, and he proposed to send a copy

of the package to the minister, C. Furey.

Is this a regular occurrence? Why would an official, an

acting vice-president of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, be in touch with

the minister's executive assistant with an indication of a memo there? For years

we've been saying that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is a patronage

trough. To me this is clear evidence that it is. I would like for the minister

to try to defend (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to respond

to that, not having a copy of the correspondence. I thought I heard you say Rod

somebody. He would be the acting vice-president for the Eastern region. I would

like to take a look at it.

I can tell you that we treat everybody with what has become

the theme and hallmark of this government, fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker. If

you would like to have proof of it, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay came

to me the other day seeking some financial help. I brought the cheque with me

today so that he can take it himself and deliver it to the group in Baie Verte.

That is fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we have some terrific people

working at Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the hon. members have

come to me and told me how good they are. I have instructed, and this government

has instructed, that there be no political interference whatsoever. Hon. members

can laugh because they don't understand that. We've asked every application to

be treated fairly and honourably. Now I would ask the hon. member to provide me

with a copy of the letter. I will look into it and I will report back to the

House as soon as it is physically possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

public galleries, Mr. Ted Blanchard, the former Minister of Labour and Member

for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I welcome, as well, fifteen students from

Gonzaga High School, St. John's, accompanied by their Principal, Father Paul

Crouch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay on the

Table of the House a copy of the Annual Report of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary for the year 1992. Copies are available for the press and for

members in the usual way.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that - the report is to me; the

cover letter to me is dated May 3, 1993, but I only received it recently. I will

have a word with the Chief as to what happened, but obviously, the transmission

between Constabulary headquarters in Fort Townshend and the offices here at

Confederation Building leaves something to be desired. In any event, I lay it on

the Table of the House. It is interesting reading for members.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

introduce the following resolution:

`WHEREAS school bus transportation is provided by the

provincial government, through the Department of Education, to students who live

a long distance from their school, at no direct cost to students or their

parents; and

WHEREAS in the City of St. John's, where the St. John's

Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the

Department of Education may not operate and students, or their parents, must pay

directly the total cost of school bus transportation; and

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many

families and results in lost school time, lack of safety, and other problems for

students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares; and

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in an inequality

of treatment, and discriminates against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on

record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their

families regarding school bus transportation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to

provide school bus transportation to students within the City of St. John's on

the same basis as is provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to four questions from the Member for St. John's

East relating to the brochure, or information kit, entitled Low-Level Flying

in Labrador , I would like to table the four answers.

MS. VERGE: What about the Public Libraries Report?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, be quiet, will you? Be quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago when I made a statement

about West Coast exploration, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked if I

could take an opportunity sometime to give an update on petroleum exploration in

Western Newfoundland.

I asked my staff to put together a few notes on that, so I am

prepared to table a document. I would like to draw attention, in particular, to

pages 6 and 7 of the document, and a couple of charts there.

Relative to 1993, we have seen some very interesting

activity. For example, in the Parson's Pond area, Labrador Mining and

Exploration has acquired ninety-four kilometres of seismic data. On the Port au

Port Peninsula, in the Bay St. George area, Hunt Oil and Marathon Oil have

acquired 3,300 kilometres of aeromagnetic data.

Right now, as we speak, Hunt Oil is collecting eighty-seven

kilometres of seismic data on the Port au Port Peninsula on land. They haven't

yet completed it. They started this in September and, as I said a couple of days

ago, Marathon Oil has now given us preliminary notice that they will be drilling

a well starting about April.

I am pleased to table this document for the information of

members. If they would give me another moment or two, I would be glad to say a

few words about what is happening with mineral exploration this year, because

that is improving, that is turning around a little bit.

For example, last year, 1992, there were 5,118 claims staked.

This year, to date, we have gone over 6,000. Last year, in drilling, 21,873

metres of drill core were collected. This year, to date, we have reached 45,000.

We have more than doubled the drilling in mineral exploration, and we have a

number of very interesting projects going on, particularly in the last three,

four or five months.

There are six projects for gold around the Province. There

are a number of projects for base metals. There is one for antimony, and there

are a couple of drilling projects on dimension stone, so I am very pleased with

the outlook for mineral exploration.

PREMIER WELLS: Mining tax (inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, I attribute a lot of this to some of

the things we have done in the last year or two relative to mining taxation,

etcetera.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to present a petition

on behalf of approximately 400 students from F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate in

the District of Grand Falls, but the town of Grand Falls - Windsor. These

students, in fact, I heard on the news today, yesterday, had a public rally at

their school and outside their school in support of preserving their school and

their rights. The prayer of the petition is short and to the point. It says:

`The government is planning on removing our Pentecostal denominational school

system. We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate, disagree with the

government's proposal, and we show our disagreement by signing this petition.'

They further added a letter, and I just want to quote briefly from it, a couple

of paragraphs. `We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate, would like to

tell you that we want to keep our Pentecostal school system because it

influences our lives in a very positive way. We understand that it may cost a

little more money, however, we must get our priorities straight. Our future and

Christianity is far more important than any amount of money' - in their point of

view. They also say, `Our generation will be running this Province soon and we

think our education now will influence the way we do this. A Christian

background will help us and our future greatly. Please understand how we feel.

We ask you to present this in the House on our behalf,' etc., etc.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a petition generated by a group of

students. Yesterday, I presented in this House a petition containing some 1,116

names of parents in the Exploits Valley region from all three of the Central

Newfoundland constituencies, the District of Exploits, the District of Windsor -

Buchans, and the District of Grand Falls. These students, too, are from that

same region and from that same area and they have a lot of concerns with what

government is proposing, as do a lot of other people around this Province. In

fact, today, I had a meeting for about an hour or so with a group from the Port

de Grave area, a Pentecostal pastor and some members of the school committee in

that area. They wanted to impress upon me some of the reasons why they want to

see their system stay as it is. They were in the gallery a little earlier but I

am not sure if they are there now. We spent an hour with them, the Member for

Mount Pearl and myself, listening to their explanations, and their explanations

made all kinds of sense. We thought perhaps there may even be some

misunderstanding of what is going on, because when they said - they quoted the

minister's quotes from last March, where the minister, himself said, `We are not

in the business of destroying a denominational educational system and replacing

it with a public system.' The minister said that. The Premier, himself said,

`But let's not try to provoke difficulty' - that was on March 12th - `Let's do

this by means of developing a consensus. But let's never put ourselves in a

position where either a government or anybody else will use the majority that

they have in this House to take away important and fundamental rights of a

minority group.' I said to them, one of the problems we have is that the

government doesn't understand why the denominations feel that the government

intends to break up the denominational system.

MR. BAKER: How could you say that?

MR. SIMMS: Because they told me today, I say to the

Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: How could you say that the government

(inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: Well, if the minister will let me explain, I

say to him, they were quoting the minister's comments of last March, and I said

yesterday, the minister said in response to a petition yesterday: we still hold

to those words. I asked them: Why do you not understand? The minister says, I

don't know why the churches don't understand what it is we are trying to say. We

don't intend to take away denominational rights. But the denominations clearly

think they intend to, with this proposal that government has tabled. That is the

point, I say to the Minister of Finance. There obviously is a problem somewhere

in communication if that is the case because, clearly, that is what the

denominations feel. It was expressed again to me today by this group that I met

from Port de Grave.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our party's position, despite the

accusations - I mean, if you talk about `flip and flop' all you have to do is

read those quotes again by the Premier and the Minister of Education, last

March, but that is not the issue here anymore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and I hope

that somebody on the other side will respond to it.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in

support of the petition presented by the Leader of our Party. In doing so, I

want to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by the hon. the

Premier on March 12th of this year. I am quoting from the Premier's statement -

he said: `in response to the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain

recommendations of The Royal Commission Report would jeopardize their

traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking

change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally-protected

rights of classes of people specifically provided for.' Further on it reads as

follows, `government re-emphasised its desire to see major reforms in education

and is confident that these reforms can be achieved within a denominationally

based education system.'

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is a difference between what

was said and what was heard, what was written in the government's proposal and

what is being communicated. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can't have it two ways, either

we have to say that the representatives of the churches are not able to

understand the communications that have been emanating from the government

offices, or they can't understand the text of the proposal that is put forward,

or else the proposal, indeed, as put forward, intends to do exactly what it says

it is intended to do, and that is, it is going to substantially change the ways

in which education is delivered in this Province, and part of that change is a

fundamental restructuring of the denominational system. The people who are

involved in education in this Province are demanding of the Premier that he

stand by his March 12th statement and that he not do anything directly or

indirectly to remove from the classes of people those constitutional rights

which they brought into Confederation and that he recognize the role of the

churches in education that began with the Society for the Propagation of the

Gospel, when they built their first school in Newfoundland in 1723.

Mr. Speaker, the churches have been involved in education for

a long, long time. The government should recognize that role, they should stand

by their word, don't say one thing in March and by their actions, say something

different in November and December. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of 1,278 residents of the District of Terra Nova. The prayer

of the petition reads as follows:

`To the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Terra Nova humbly

showth,

Whereas the name of the District of Terra Nova offers a

reminder of our historic past and bright future; and

Whereas the communities in the District of Terra Nova share a

common economy based in the forestry, agriculture and tourism industries; and

Whereas the tourism industry offers special opportunities

associated with Terra Nova National Park, Terra Nova Lodge and other

opportunities capitalizing on the Terra Nova identity; and

Whereas the current boundaries provide our MHA with the best

possible combination of communities, population and distance to provide

constituents with needed service; and notwithstanding a recognition of the need

to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly and our acceptance of an

expanded District of Terra Nova;

Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon you to reconsider the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission, with regard to maintaining the integrity of the District of Terra

Nova, and as duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

As well, the residents of the community of Brooklyn presented

a petition when the Electoral Boundaries Commission met in Clarenville. That

petition had an identical prayer to the one presented today. I would like to

point out, Mr. Speaker, that I will be advising the Electoral Boundaries

Commission of this petition. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a total of 695

residents of St. John's, some students and some parents, from the areas of

Forest Road, Cuckhold's Cove Road, Quidi Vidi Village, the Battery and Signal

Hill in St. John's.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the electoral

district of St. John's East states that the students of Gonzaga High School from

Forest Road, Cuckhold's Cove Road, Quidi Vidi Village, the Battery and Signal

Hill in the City of St. John's request a school bus to pick them up in their

neighbourhood, to take them to and from school, as it takes one-and-a-half hours

to walk to school, and to take the Metrobus requires three bus transfers in

order to get to school. The cost of the bus is too expensive for most families

in the area. The petitioners respectfully request that the House take such

action as may be deemed appropriate.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, was referred earlier in Question

Period, and of the sixty students who are affected by this, some fifteen of them

are here in the gallery today. The school bus situation for these students is

very serious. These students - I have met with them - have to walk a great

distance in all kinds of weather. Some of them are able to get, I guess it is a

lift, really, on an existing bus that is not really supposed to take them, and

some of them manage to get to school within the first twenty minutes after

school has started. They are late for school, they are disrupting classes. It is

causing problems for themselves, with their school work, and for other students.

Many students have to walk to school for an hour-and-a-half and the weather that

we have been having leaves them arriving in school soaking wet. Some of them

have to turn around and go home because they are too wet to attend school.

This problem is only going to get worse as the winter weather

progresses. We are going to have students dropping out of school. That is a

concern expressed by these students. If these students lived in Mount Pearl, as

the Member for Mount Pearl knows, or if they lived in the Goulds, or if they

lived in Torbay, or any other part of this Province, in Grand Falls or Corner

Brook, they would get school busing provided by the Department of Education. It

is not available to students as a right in St. John's. They are required to use

the St. John's transportation system. In this particular case, the bus routes

are not effective. They don't provide an adequate service. The students can't

get to school on time with the buses, even taking three buses, and getting the

first bus at 6:45 a.m., and this is right here in the city of St. John's. It

calls out for a solution from government. It is a situation that has been

allowed to operate for the last number of years. Students in St. John's are

expected to pay directly - they or their parents pay directly for the cost of

buses. It is quite expensive. A school bus pass costs $25 per month, and it is a

burden on parents, particularly if they have more than one student in school.

And, in this case here, the St. John's transportation system is inadequate to

meet the need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are, as the minister has said in his

remarks in Question Period, school bus contracts in St. John's. Students from

Brophy Place are bused to Gonzaga High School. Students from Virginia Park,

along Newfoundland Drive, are bused to St. Paul's and other schools. So there

are some school bus contracts in St. John's for various reasons, various

agreements that have been made, various special arrangements. What we are

looking for here, Mr. Speaker, what this petition is looking for, is some

arrangement that will look after the needs of these sixty students.

We are looking at, I guess, one school bus or one school bus

contract to take students from Quidi Vidi, from the Battery, from the Signal

Hill Road area, that neighbourhood, I guess it is around St. Joseph's Church,

around St. Joseph's parish. Hon. members will know of this area. It is a very

scenic area but it is also a very windswept area particularly in the winter,

coming up out of Quidi Vidi and Maxwell Place along Forest Road, the wind sweeps

down over the Quidi Vidi Lake and in a bitter cold winter many students have

turned back, went back to their homes because they were unable to walk to school

when the winter weather gets worse, so it is a problem, Mr. Speaker, a very

serious and a very real problem, suffered by real individuals, some of whom are

in the gallery suffer every day when they have to walk to school. It is not

right that these individuals be treated one way

whereas students everywhere else

in the Province are treated in another way, so I ask hon. members for their

support for this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of my friend, the NDP Leader, from St.

John's East. There is an old saying that `kids is kids', and we all know what

some people in this Island and around, not only in St. John's, lived in the

shadows of schools or what they had to go to. Now in my own history, I used to

live in the shadow of the school and I was an idler, I used to try to get wet so

I would be sent home, but that was my fault. I do not like the idea of

youngsters who trudge off to school to be soaking wet and to go through the

discomfort of having wet clothes or to be late and interrupt classes or try to

catch up themselves.

Youngsters are youngsters and they should be treated as such

and I was glad about what the Member for St. John's East said about one bus

driver who was not supposed to pick up some children, who did. Well, to him, a

Merry Christmas, but I hope the minister puts Scrooge aside and does something

for those children from St. Joseph's and area, and accommodates these kids as

well.

Thank you.

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition from approximately 170 students

from the Ralph Laite Pentecostal Academy in Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, this is not

of the approved form; I have shown it to the two House Leaders and I have shown

it to Your Honour and I will ask leave of the House to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. PENNEY: The petition basically just says: Please sign

our petition if you are in favour of keeping our denominational school system as

it is, but attached to that, is a letter addressed to me, and it says:

Dear Mr. Penney: You visited our Grade VI class a while ago.

We asked some questions concerning the government's proposal to do away with our

denominational school system as it is today. Your reply was, that you would be

against such a move. I know you are only one member to speak on our behalf in

the House of Assembly, but please voice our concerns on this topic especially.

It seems to be the biggest concern on teachers, students and

parents minds. Everyone I have talked to so far had not wanted the present

system to go. We are very concerned. I know I am only in Grade VI, but we all

have a right to be heard; after all, our forefathers fought for freedom of our

land and I think that making our own choices was included in what they fought

for. Three of my friends and I are circulating a petition on behalf of the

elementary students who are in favour of keeping our schools the way they are.

We are counting on you to make our petition known to the government and to the

House.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter; and it is

signed: Sincerely Yours, Leslie Pinksen and friends. Now, I have looked at the

names, Mr. Speaker, and of the 170 signatures that are on the petition, I would

conclude that probably twenty of them would be teachers, the others would be

students.

I did in fact visit that Grade VI class a few weeks ago,

probably five, six weeks ago and I found those students to be very impressive

young men and young women. It is one thing to call them children or call them

students, but they are tomorrow's leaders and based on what I saw from them that

day, and the quality of the questions they asked and the dedicated manner in

which they showed their concern, I have no doubt that our future is in good

hands.

Mr. Speaker, I believe quite sincerely that our students

today must receive a well-rounded education. It is not sufficient to educate

them in the academics, we must instill in them moral values and a social

conscience. It is not in the best interest of our society if we create well

educated individuals who know their mathematics, their history and their

geography. What we will have created would be well educated ignoramuses and I

don't think that is to the benefit of our society.

The young man who wrote this letter says, and I quote, `I

know I am only in Grade 6 but we all have a right to be heard.' Yes, Mr.

Speaker, these young people are only in Grade 6 and they do have a right to be

heard. They have just as much of a right to be heard as anybody who sits in this

hon. House and, Mr. Speaker, they are being heard. When those individuals

contact me their views are listened to, when they contact any of the members of

this House of Assembly they are being heard, they are being listened to and

their views are being presented here in this House on a daily basis. This

petition, even though it is from a Grade 6 class, is no less important than any

petition signed by any individual who lives in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we cannot have any form of an

educational system in Newfoundland that somebody can point a finger at and say:

that is a Godless secular system of education. We must not permit that to

happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don you support the petition?

MR. PENNEY: The hon. member asked: do I support the

petition? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do support the petition and I will be adding my

signature to it. I believe what we have seen here, in the last few weeks, is we

are now in a process of negotiation between the government and the churches -

and I believe we can and we will arrive at a conclusion or a point that is

acceptable to all parties, we will have formed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PENNEY: - an educational system here that will be the

envy of the rest of this continent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to lend

my voice in support as well to the petition that has been presented by my

colleague from the District of Lewisporte on behalf of the students there. I

concur with some of the things that he has said with respect (

a) to the need for

change within the system, (

b) for need to contain that change so as the

integrity of the rights of the minorities and the majorities, both the

constitutional and the historical rights are preserved and are kept so that the

people who now enjoy them will still have the opportunity to enjoy them if they

so desire.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is incumbent upon the members

of this House to do some work between now and the time that we come back in the

spring. I think the message that we need to get out there is that there is,

ongoing within the Province, a discussion that should be understood in the

context of a willingness to negotiate or there should be a willingness to

negotiate and to be conciliatory on both sides of this very important issue.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is

important that we get the truth out as it exists today.

I want to highlight that suggestion by referring to an

incident that I had this week when I spoke in one of the schools of the city

regarding the models that are under consideration. The understanding, Mr.

Speaker, believe it or not of the teacher in that class, Canadian Issues class,

the understanding of what was happening today in the Province is that we were

discussing legislation that was before the House to be voted upon. Now, when the

teachers in the classrooms of our Province do not know exactly where the debate

is at the moment then it is sometimes difficult to have an informed, intelligent

and reasonable debate about the issues. So in supporting the continuation of

dialogue on this serious issue and in the spirit of encouraging all parties to

be willing to come to the table and to be open minded, fair minded and

conciliatory, I would ask that we, over the holiday season and over the time

that expires between now and when the House meets again, take every opportunity

that we get to first of all let the people know exactly where the discussion is

at the moment, let them know exactly where we are in the stream of time and

secondly to let them know that at the end of the day we will arrive at a

position on this matter, a model that will be universally accepted within the

Province, if we come without any prejudices, without any ill will, without any

perception of what we think is going to happen. Let's come with an open mind and

with a willing spirit to negotiate a model that will be acceptable to all.

If I thought we were not still talking I would not be

standing today and speaking as I am, but I believe that we are in the spirit of

wanting to reach a position that will make everybody happy, but more so even

important than making everybody happy, we want to arrive at a point in education

where the product that we turn out of the classrooms will be better because of

the programs that we offer and because of the way in which we offer those

programs and the people that deliver the programs to them.

Mr. Speaker, I again say that I support the spirit of the

petition. I would ask that we all be responsible in being positive towards the

dialogue in the few months ahead. We do not need people who are trying to set up

strong and entrenched positions that give the indication that there is no room

for movement. There is room for movement. There is room for a model that will be

acceptable and that will get the job done. It will be, as I said when I spoke on

this originally, done in a spirit of negotiation, not in a spirit of litigation

or in a spirit of confrontation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

support the petition sent by Leslie Pinksen and friends, students at Ralph Laite

Pentecostal Academy in Lewisporte. I find it interesting how the members are

approaching this on the other side. They must find themselves in some kind of a

difficult situation and position. Because clearly the impression out there by

groups like this is that the government does intend in fact to tamper with the

denominational education system. There is no denying that that is what is

perceived.

If one reads Altering the Course or whatever that document is

called one can easily see why they would draw that conclusion, because there are

threats in that document to the denominational educational system regardless of

what the minister does try to say. That is why Leslie Pinksen and friends and

others are putting together these petitions. That is the reason why they are

doing it.

I had the privilege as well of attending a session at Ralph

Laite Pentecostal Academy some time last year, I guess it was, in the spring of

the year before the election. At that time colleagues may remember this issue

was just as hot then as it is now. It was on the heels of the Williams Royal

Commission. At that time there was a lot of concern expressed about certain

recommendations in that Williams Royal Commission. The recommendations that

everybody was concerned about, or most people seemed to be concerned about, were

the very recommendations that we now find filtered into this document,

Adjusting the Course . So the concerns are there now as they were last year.

Why those concerns haven't been alleviated, if it is the

government's intention not to tamper with the denominational education system,

as the Minister of Education said yesterday in this House, why then didn't they

use the period of time over the last year to correct the perception about this

whole problem? Why is it there again? Why is it up again, I ask the Member for

Lewisporte, and the Member for St. John's North? He is asking for more

consultation, more dialogue. We should have that, I agree with him. Why hasn't

that dialogue and so on occurred over the last year or so since this original

recommendation to tamper with the denominational system first appeared in the

Williams Royal Commission?

The fact of the matter is that the government very neatly, a

week before the election last March, gave the impression that they were prepared

to reach an agreement by consensus, that they were prepared not to tamper with

the denominational education system. Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, six

months later, after the election is over, they come back into the House with

their document and they do precisely what was recommended in the Williams Royal

Commission of the year before, which everybody opposed back six or seven months

ago.

So I say to the Member for Lewisporte, and to the Member for

St. John's North, who just spoke in support of this petition from Leslie

Pinksen, be more adamant within your caucus, be more outspoken outside your

caucus, on this issue. If people like you do that, on the government side, then

we can assure all the denominations who have concerns that the educational

system can be restructured, can be reformed, but it can be done within the

constitutional jurisdiction that now is in existence, and all of us, as members

of the House, if we do not do anything else, surely we should stand up and

defend the constitutional rights that people of this Province have, whether it

is denominational education or whatever else.

I support the petition.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition, not on the educational subject for a

change. It is a matter that I brought before this House, I guess, every year

since I was elected in 1989. It reads as follows:

We, the undersigned residents of Jackson's Cove, Langdon's

Cove, Silverdale and Nickey's Nose Cove, hereby petition the hon. House of

Assembly to pave the remaining thirteen kilometres of road on the Jackson's

Cove, Harry's Harbour Road. We are shocked and concerned at the continued

neglect and poor maintenance of our road by the government.

Mr. Speaker, this was a road that was essentially a path that

was rebuilt in the eighties. In the late eighties pavement was started on this

road, and as soon as the Liberal government came to power, pavement stopped on

this road. In spite of protestations by myself, in spite of students in the

gallery from the area, in spite of other petitions, nothing has been done on

that road. As a matter of fact, the current Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation wrote me back awhile ago and said that basically a gravel road is

good enough for those people and they should not expect any more.

Well that is not good enough and I stand again, for the fifth

or sixth year running, and ask that this government do the right and proper

thing and finish paving the road to Harry's Harbour and Jackson's Cove.

Thank you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As transportation critic, I rise in support of my colleague,

the Member for Green Bay. On similar occasions since I took my seat here, back

in June I rose to support the Member for Fogo, opposite, in his petition to get

road work done in his district. In the past two weeks I rose here to support a

member from the other side, from Eagle River, to get road work done in Lodge

Bay.

I am supporting a petition from a man from Green Bay, some

road work to be done over a thirteen kilometre area, and I am standing here to

support the Member for Green Bay to get that thirteen kilometre area done. It

has been six years, the man said. Six years is too long. I ask the members

opposite, when budget time comes up, to take a serious look and to accommodate

that area that has been so long in want.

Once again, I thank the member for bringing it forward, and I

thank you for the opportunity of hearing my support.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, before we get into the debate,

may I move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. please?

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Menihek

that I made the motion because I hope we will get home for Christmas, but that

is with him and his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, could we please begin by calling Order No. 8

which is Bill No. 48, the adjourned debate on the Electoral Boundaries Act, and

when that is done we will go on to

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, and when

that is done we will go on to

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, and

whenever that happens we will go home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Second reading.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Grand Bank, `open

covenants openly arrived at', in Woodrow Wilson's phrase. He and I agreed last

night that when the three bills receive second reading we will adjourn the House

and come back tomorrow morning and deal with the rest of the Order Paper.

Thank you, Sir.

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

West was last speaking when we adjourned debate on Tuesday.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the Government House Leader that when himself

and my colleague for Grand Bank decide to talk about when the House closes as it

relates to the discussion on bills they should not exclude the Member for St.

John's East because he may have a lot to say as to when the House adjourns. I

understand he probably will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: The leadership candidate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is that who it is, the leadership

candidate?

MR. TOBIN: The $6 million leadership fund that he just

spent and never gave the Member for Pleasantville a penny.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. John's North that I

would think he is probably one of the reasons why we are standing in this

Legislature today to discuss this bill, because together with him and a lot of

others the District of St. John's North, Mr. Speaker, was no longer going to be

the District of St. John's North, but as a result of the fuss kicked up by the

Member for St. John's North on this issue and by other members from the St.

John's area the Government House Leader who only a few weeks ago got up in this

Legislature and said: I cannot make representation to the commission. He finally

got in his car and got outside the overpass, believe it or not, he really did,

he went to Clarenville and made the submission, away from the media and the

attention that was going to be passed. What did he say? He asked the commission

on behalf of the Cabinet to throw away everything they have done and the

$250,000 they spent, throw it away because it is no longer any good. The act

which we passed in this House that became the law of the Province -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Exploits

that I would rather stay away from the Mall than get his reputation. In any case

I understand the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, like myself, does

not enjoy doing a lot of shopping.

MR. SULLIVAN: His exploits are well documented.

MR. TOBIN: I cannot say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying that either.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not saying what?

MR. TOBIN: What they want me to say.

I want to get into discussion on this bill, and I would

appreciate it if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would stop

trying to distract me from getting into what is going on here in exposing the

government for what is taking place. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is

that the government asked the commission to be established, gave them $250,000

to go around the Province and have public hearings, and at the end of the day,

through this piece of legislation, the work they had done through the law of the

land that they had abided by will be thrown out the window and $250,000 wasted.

What is now happening is the Minister of Justice and this government are asking

the taxpayers of this Province to forget the condition of the economy, but to

ensure that there is 12,000 people in every district in the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, 12,000 people in the district of St. John's. Under the proposal

that was submitted by the commission a little while ago you would have seen an

average of 17,000 in every riding in St. John's. Any member worth his salt in

the City of St. John's should be able to represent 17,000 people. They should

not be in asking the government to reduce it to 12,000.

MR. BAKER: You have to be fair to St. John's.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander would know

a lot about it, representing the little town of Gander. One town and another

one. Ask the Member for St. Barbe what it is like to represent a district in

rural Newfoundland. Ask the Member for Fortune - Hermitage what is it like to

represent districts in Newfoundland. I can say that it is a lot easier to

represent 27,000 in St. John's than it is to represent the District of Fortune -

Hermitage. That is what I would say to members opposite. A lot easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the people of St. John's

don't know it either, because most of them don't even have representation

according to the calls we get, particularly from St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology is now trying to throw me off. Because I'm exposing the government

for coming in here and playing politics. The Premier gets up in this House, or

the Minister of Finance, whoever it was, and announced in the Budget that

because of the economic conditions in this Province the House of Assembly had to

be reduced. We on this side endorsed that.

Then, next thing we know, the Minister of Justice is telling

the people that: I cannot get involved. Before we know it he slips out to

Clarenville, says: pop it up to forty-six members at least. Look after the boys

and girls in St. John's, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BAKER: I believe he went in an unmarked car, too.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, unless it was like the one

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation used to go playing golf in.

In the District of Burin - Placentia West, for example, for

the last number of years I've represented it. Under the existing distribution

there are 14,388 people. I believe I can say that I've done a half-decent job in

representing those 14,388 people in the District of Burin - Placentia West. They

have elected me and sent me here four times. Why is it that I can represent a

district that spreads probably 100 miles, isolated communities in this Province,

only way to get there is by air or by water, and yet the Minister of Justice

comes in here and asks the House to approve a plan that will give 12,000

constituents to the members of St. John's? In every district this is what they

will end up with - around 12,000 for the ridings in St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are in your district now?

MR. TOBIN: In my district, under the proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, under it now.

MR. TOBIN: Now, 14,388. Under the proposal it would be

basically the same. Actually, it is an interesting point. The only district that

the commission has reduced in the Province when they brought it down to forty

was mine. They took it from 14,388 to 14,189. I've asked them to increase it.

That is what I said to the commission, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite.

That the only district in this Province as I know that the

commission recommended a decrease in constituents was in the District of Burin -

Placentia West. Do you know what I did? I went to the commission and said: don't

reduce the number of constituents in my district, increase it, put it back up

where it was. Because I believe that we should be representing in this Province

at least 14,000 people, I would say to members opposite. If I can represent

14,000 people in isolated communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I can say to the Minister of Health that the

constituents that I've been elected to represent have always re-elected me,

unlike what they did to him, Mr. Speaker, when they gave him the boot, when they

kicked him out because of his lack of representation. I would say that. To judge

whether you are doing the job or not, Mr. Speaker, is whether you have been

re-elected. In my case I have always been - in the case of the Minister of

Health, he knows what it is like to be defeated, that is the difference.

What I have done, Mr. Speaker, is go to the commission and

say: don't reduce the number of constituents in Burin - Placentia West, put it

back up to where it was. Mr. Speaker, while I am doing that and accepting part

of the responsibility in looking after the taxpayers dollars in this Province,

the Minister of Justice is introducing a new piece of legislation to make sure

that the City of St. John's has members and their constituents will be in the

area of 12,000 people. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. There are other

members here; the Member for Fogo, the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle,

sitting in his chair, St. Barbe, the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, Bellevue,

Mr. Speaker, a lot of districts in this House wouldn't mind having 12,000. When

you walk out through your door, Mr. Speaker, 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. you can say

I visited the district. We don't have that luxury, most of us representing rural

Newfoundland, nor do we want it. We like out living with the people we

represent, we like out mingling with our constituents but I say to the Minister

of Health, when he is closing hospital beds in this Province, Mr. Speaker, how

can he in all conscience turn around and get the Minister of Justice to ask that

he represent only 12,000 people? That is what I say to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, this is another sham, that is what it is. The

Premier comes in one day and the Minister of Finance says one thing and the next

day they are changing it all. Something like prior to October 25, all we heard

from the Liberals in this Province is that the NCARP package will stay.

MR. GRIMES: What has that got to do with this?

MR. TOBIN: I am exposing the lies, Mr. Speaker. The NCARP

package will not continue, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations and he is one of the authors of it`s death. I would like to say other

things about the Minister of Finance coming in and promising one thing and

changing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what you are talking about?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I do. I know the Minister of Finance

doesn't know how to tell the truth and that is knowing what I am talking about.

Does the Minister of Finance support his brother and the crowd in Ottawa

increasing the UI by $800 million today, does he support that? At the same time

as he is asking the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of Canada

to increase their UI premiums by $800 million.

MR. ROBERTS: The sad thing is, he is the best speaker

they had over there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: At least we have one good speaker. You

don't have either one and you are the worse.

MR. TULK: Sign that and get your book.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm signing for a book whatever

that means. I hope it is not another one, Mr. Speaker, written by Doug House and

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I say to the people of this

Province. I can say as we talk about the electoral boundaries and how they are

going to change - I say what is in the electoral boundaries, Mr. Speaker, won't

matter a whole lot. When this book here gets into action, what is going to

happen to fish plant workers and the fishermen in Harbour Breton, I say to

members opposite, what is it going to matter to them about the electoral

boundaries?

MR. GRIMES: Have you read that?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I have read it. What is it going to

matter to them, Mr. Speaker, when they realize that the government has wiped out

- the people of Harbour Breton this year are going to get work, thank God, Mr.

Speaker, and there is no one happier than I am for the people of Harbour Breton.

What is happening is that they will not get UI because there is no UI left for

fishermen if the plant does not operate for twenty weeks and if it happens to

operate for twenty weeks, they will only get twenty weeks UI. What is in the

Electoral Boundaries Act for the people of Port au Port, the fishermen and

fisherwomen in Port au Port when the UI program is wiped out? What is in the

Electoral Boundaries Act in this parcel here, Mr. Speaker, for the fishermen in

the Straits of Bell Island or for the people from Labrador? What is in this for

the people of Bonavista South, in the Electoral Boundaries Act for Bonavista

North? Nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing.

MR. TULK: Don't forget Fogo.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I won't forget Fogo. The

people of Fogo will never forget you either when this is implemented. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if the new leadership candidate, Premier Grimes as he

likes to be referred to -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It has a nice ring about it.

MR. TOBIN: - Premier Grimes, there will be one ring about

it I tell you that, if the future Premier Grimes happens to end up in the ring,

I will say to the Minister of Justice, if Mr. Grimes, in the battle for the

Premiership of this Province ends up in the ring with the Minister of Justice,

there will be a great ring about Premier Grimes, it will ring loud and clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is time for someone to

set him straight because he has done some disservice to the name, but in any

case -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if you have a point, make it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I have a point and I would love to make

it. The point that has to be made is that this minister, the Minister of

Justice, has gone back to the days when he was groomed in politics, where

nothing was important, back to the days when there was no such thing as local

preferences, back to the days when there was no such thing as lowest bid, back

to the days when there was no Tendering Act, back to the days when you looked

after your buddies, that is where this Minister of Justice has taken this

Province as it relates to the Electoral Boundaries Commission; who does he think

he is, to come in this House and say: bring up the City of St. John's to 12,000

constituents per district? Who does he think he is, Mr. Speaker? His training -

AN HON. MEMBER: Heave it out of you, brother, heave it

out.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in most cases, I do heave it.

Unlike the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, he usually takes it in. The

Minister of Justice usually takes it in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. ROBERTS: I have dealt with better than the hon.

member, but carry on.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have dealt with better

people too than the Minister of Justice. As a matter of fact, the Minister of

Justice might not realize it but this Province continued and this House operated

during his absence. He might not believe that, that is why -

MR. ROBERTS: Is that true, Winston?

Is what he said true?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. TOBIN: I would say, unlike the Minister of Justice,

what I say is true and what I say, Mr. Speaker, like the Member for Grand Bank

in this House, we will say it outside and we will never be intimidated if

someone challenges us to say it outside; never, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not attacking, no I am not; but I am

like the Member for Grand Bank, I will say what has to be said and I will not be

intimidated by someone who threatens me to say it outside, I would say to the

Minister of Justice.

Why, why did the Minister of Justice foul up last year then,

Mr. Speaker, why did he bring in

an act last year and ask us to approve it,

which we did and this year bring it in and change it? Why did he ask?

MR. SULLIVAN: There was an election coming up.

MR. TOBIN: Sure it was done for election purposes; why

did the Minister of Justice tear up the act and waste $250,000 of taxpayers'

money? This piece of legislation will do just that, waste $250,000 because now

the commission -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Shame.

MR. TOBIN: Yes it is, yes it is, Mr. Speaker, it is a big

shame when you consider the hospitals in this Province that are closing; when

you consider that someone in Grand Bank died a few months ago because there was

not a nurse available to go in the ambulance, because of the cutbacks. When you

consider that, Mr. Speaker, and realize that we have wasted $250,000 on an

election campaign, on an election issue, saying forty seats and then turning

around after the election - I agree with the Minister of Finance, it is a bloody

shame. With debts in this Province because of cutbacks, yet we can spend -

MR. GRIMES: Your time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he might want to be the Premier,

but I didn't know he wanted to be the Speaker. The Speaker will decide when my

time is up, not the aspiring Premier.

MR. ROBERTS: That put you in your place, `Roger'.

MR. TOBIN: Every time I refer to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations as being an aspiring Premier, or future Premier,

the Minister of Justice become irritated. Why, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the Minister of Justice that

his shot at becoming Premier of this Province is long in the past.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who shot him, `Glenn'? Tell us the story

about who shot him down.

MR. ROBERTS: In that, I have something in common with the

gentleman for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't. I never ran for

the leadership.

MR. ROBERTS: I know `Len' is looking over his shoulder

all the time.

MR. TOBIN: I have never run for the leadership of a

political party, I say to the Minister of Justice, but you should have looked

over your shoulder a little bit closer when you were cuddling up to Bill Rowe

and Steve Neary and a few of them, I say to the minister. You should have looked

over your shoulder a little bit closer then. You got the fate you deserve, and

there is no one more proud than I am.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: What is wrong

with the recommendations that were made?

MR. ROBERTS: Which recommendations?

MR. TOBIN: The forty-seat recommendation they proposed,

went around this Province and had hearings on, that saw 17,000 people assigned

to their ridings in St. John's?

MR. SULLIVAN: Unanimous approval here in the House.

MR. TOBIN: Unanimously approved in the House, I say to

the Minister of Justice.

What is wrong with having 17,000 people in a riding in St.

John's? What is wrong with it, I ask the minister?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is against one person,

one vote; is that it?

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not against one person, one vote. I

am for democracy, and that is not what you are for, when you tore up the Terms

of Reference. I have my doubts about you having the right to vote, the conflict

you are after being in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I have four minutes left, and I would suspect

there is a good chance the Minister of Justice may recommend I have leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I would gladly grant the hon. gentleman

leave (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I want to ask the Minister of Justice to

explain clearly, when he gets up, and I say this sincerely, why he wants to

change back to forty-six seats from the forty that are recommended. Why does he

want to set the population of a district at 12,000? What happens to the South

Coast, to the Burin Peninsula, for example, where if you take the Burin

Peninsula side of Fortune Bay - the Fortune Bay Side of the Burin Peninsula -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to the Minister of Finance, once

you take away the Fortune Bay part of the Burin Peninsula -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I also say to the Minister of Justice, when

you look at the Burin Peninsula - just take that for an example - take away my

colleague's Fortune Bay part of Fortune - Hermitage, the Burin Peninsula side,

and put it in Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank, or you divide it by two down

the middle, you are still not going to fall within the guidelines of 12,000

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, if you say 10,000 - if you take the 10 per

cent factor there - you will not fit in with the guidelines either, either in

Burin - Placentia or Grand Bank district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is only one way you can do

that, and that is if you revert to the old system which, I think, is probably

there, and say that in certain circumstances you can look at a 25 per cent

ratio.

Now what is happening here is, I would say to members

opposite, that 25 per cent ratio will apply only in rural Newfoundland. The

districts like Burin - Placentia West, Fortune - Hermitage, or Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir, or the Straits or St. Barbe, or Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, or Bonavista

South, they are the districts that that 25 per cent will apply to. Within the

city limits, within the big urban centres of St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount

Pearl, and all of these places, I will venture to bet that you will see less

than 13,000 people per district. I think that is wrong. I think it is unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: That is right.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Employment says that is right.

Well, I don't think it is.

MR. GRIMES: Nothing wrong with it.

MR. TOBIN: Nothing wrong with it. Mr. Speaker, I don't

think that is right, I say to members opposite. And I say to the Minister of

Justice, it is very important that these changes he is now making should not be

made strictly to satisfy his colleagues in the city of St. John's. They should

not be made.

I ask that someone with a bit of common sense, a bit of

decency and a bit of honour - if there is anyone over there like that, if there

is anyone over there who fits into that category - to sit down some day and take

a serious look at what is happening here. Because I don't think for a minute

that the Member for St. John's North should have 12,000 in his seat, in the City

of St. John's, when just say, for example, the Member for Bonavista North would

have 14,000 or 15,000 in his.

MR. GRIMES: Sit down now before you make a fool of

yourself. You don't want to make a fool of yourself, sit down.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is why the hon. member is

sitting, he has already made a fool of himself.

MR. ROBERTS: In conclusion.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, in conclusion, I say to the Minister of

Justice: What does he propose - why does he say, prior to an election, that

forty seats is enough in this Province, and after the election why does he goes

to Clarenville and ask for forty-six?

MR. GRIMES: He didn't say it.

MR. TOBIN: That is the question. Why the hypocrisy, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SULLIVAN: He saw the report.

MR. TOBIN: Why the hypocrisy?

MR. GRIMES: Ask him.

MR. TOBIN: I am asking the Minister of Justice, Mr.

Speaker. By the way, the Minister of Justice doesn't have to take direction from

you yet. I am asking the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I don't know. My friend over there

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He is no friend of yours, according to what

I'm hearing, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, my time is up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I know I'm speaking by leave. (Inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask the Minister of Justice to

respond to these questions when he gets up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave from the House

to respond to a question that came up in Question Period today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is

asking leave to address the House on a matter that was raised during Question

Period, I understand. Does the hon. minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this -

MR. ROBERTS: Now, remember, we are supporting this bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible). We are not in committee.

MR. FUREY: Even when I try to speak. Mr. Speaker -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) second reading now you are

on.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have thirty minutes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On Bill No. 48.

MR. FUREY: That is alright. We have all day.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to keep it narrow.

MR. FUREY: That is right. I would like to narrow it, in

fact, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the seat of Grand Bank and what impact this

particular bill has on the seat of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we sent him a foot, we

should have sent him a boot, really, instead of a foot the last time.

In fact, the member from time to time raises some interesting

points about his district. I want to make sure that his district is intact so

that he can survive, so that anybody who worries about voting Tory down there

will know they will never be penalized or - this is not a punitive government.

That it will treat everybody with a sense of fairness and balance. Now, how can

I use an example? Where could I find an example? Let's take Question Period

today. There was an interesting question. My hon. friend tabled a document, and

the document was a letter to the President of Enterprise Newfoundland, from the

acting vice-president in Clarenville.

In it, in fact, he proposes to send these documents to the

minister to review. I want to tell my hon. friend that he never did send those

documents. In effect, I spoke with him just a little while ago. He regrets

having said what he said in this memo, but let me tell you what was the true

meaning of the memo.

They elected PC's in their riding and face an uphill battle.

He has spent considerable time working with the Grand Meadows Golf Association

himself. He has worked very hard to try to pull this project off. It was shortly

after the election when a number of applications were made, indeed, to ENL, as

well, and some people in the hon. member's district felt that because they voted

Tory -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. FUREY: This is true - because they voted Tory, they

were going to be somehow hurt by this government. In fact, the very project that

my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, refers to, they

approved it for $25,000 for seven jobs - the very project that he was worried

about.

Let me make a second point. That is called fairness and

balance, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the higher amounts of those emergency

projects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is he unhappy?

MR. FUREY: He thinks there is some kind of political

interference when the fellow that he named in the House has been very dedicated

to this project - very, very dedicated.

Now, let me make a second point. Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador, the very outfit you charged for political patronage today because it

is a Tory district, had approved $100,000 for this very project, in the hon.

member's district. They approved it in 1992. The association couldn't use the

funds because they couldn't get money from ACOA, run by your colleagues in

Ottawa at that time, and other agencies.

Now let me tell him something else. They have re-applied to

Enterprise Newfoundland, and I can't prejudge the board, but I would suspect

that they will reinstitute that $100,000 and I would also suspect that ACOA will

be in with its share, as well.

So when you see things in writing sometimes, it can be

awfully misleading. When he says: `I propose to send it to the minister,' it

never arrived at the minister's desk - number one. Number two -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, he spoke to her briefly on the telephone.

She recalls speaking about the project -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why did he speak to her?

MR. FUREY: To let her know that this was coming. It never

did come. Now let's be fair about this. Let's be fair and honourable about it.

So when he goes on to say: `They elected PCs in their riding

and face an uphill battle', that is what he was talking about. He says that some

people were worried because it was shortly after the election -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good `out'.

MR. FUREY: I am being honest with you. I am being honest

with people. If they don't want it, they don't want it, but the proof is in the

pudding, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-five thousand from the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, $100,000 from the minister responsible for ENL; that is pretty

good.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, but my point is that it was done in 1992.

I don't know if my friend for Grand Falls is getting a little old and cannot

hear, but I said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: I don't know if he didn't hear me earlier -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a slight on all

of us in this Province with hearing disabilities to refer to a member, because

he cannot hear, as getting old. I think the minister should apologize and

withdraw that comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of young people in this

Province with hearing disabilities, and I am sure the minister didn't mean that

they are all old. All he has to do is look at myself and the Minister of

Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if I have offended anybody with

that comment, I withdraw it and I apologize.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think that should clarify for my

hon. friend. If he has another question on the issue, I would be most happy to

respond to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The explanation to the question was honest.

Honesty is something that is pretty foreign to a lot of members on the other

side.

AN HON. MEMBER: What clause is it?

MR. FUREY: Santa Claus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, to speak to the bill and to narrow it down to

the hon. member's seat, I should also say that my hon. friend for Burin -

Placentia West had some interesting comments to make earlier, too, about income

security. He was making some statements that somehow the income security program

is bad and nobody is treating his district correctly, and there was a whole wide

range of attack that I heard.

MR. BAKER: Against it all, he is against the whole thing.

MR. FUREY: Against everything. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my

concluding remarks are to say that if this were on the Order Paper, time to

respond to questions, which it isn't, that would be my response.

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

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

I, as well, would like to rise to speak to Bill No. 48, "An

Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act".

I thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for

speaking to the bill, for being so relevant to certain clauses in the bill. I

will attempt to be the same. Because he is very worried about the District of

Grand Bank, and I thank the minister for that. We have witnessed that the last

four or five years, how worried he has been about the district, I say to him,

quite sincerely.

I have to give the minister credit, you know. How you can

twist things! How you can try to twist a memo from the acting vice-president to

the president, when quite clearly it said: We have been approached by the Grand

Meadows Golf Association to assist in their emergency employment funding

application to Employment and Labour Relations. They elected PCs. Not: they said

they elected PCs, not they insinuated because they elected PCs. Old Rod said:

they elected PCs in their riding and face an uphill battle.

MR. SIMMS: Who, Rod?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what he said.

MR. SIMMS: He is a Tory now (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, you can't twist that - oh yes, now

he is a Tory. Perhaps he is. Perhaps they were.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible). You should be angry with him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I'm not - angry with this gentleman?

Is he gone? He is gone. If he is not, within the next three years he will be

unemployed, I say to the Minister of Finance. If he is not gone now he will be

gone - both of them.

MR. SIMMS: They were only doing what they were told.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Both of them will be gone. If they are

not gone now, I would say I would start making arrangements of some kind,

whether, Mr. Speaker, it is to run in a district, one of the districts that will

fall under the new electoral boundaries act, I don't know, that they might run

in to secure their future. But they had better.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is leaving, look.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He can't take it, he walks away, just

like he was in the Stephenville Festival, when he went to drama school - stood

there and acted and he walked off the stage, never to be heard tell of again

until the next Stephenville Festival.

MR. SULLIVAN: McCurdy will take care of him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, oh, who? Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: `Danny'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can't talk about that man without

wondering where he is, and where he would have been, of course, if it weren't

for the change in this bill, Mr. Speaker, where he would have been if there

hadn't been an amendment, if the Minister of Justice hadn't scuttled the

Commission. They would really be saying: where is `Danny Dumaresque' now?

AN HON. MEMBER: `Daniel'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Where would he be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat until I

inform the House of the Late Show questions?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: May I have a comment on that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I meant to speak to the Government House

Leader about that. We have three questions in for the Late Show, and I was going

to suggest to the Government House Leader that we forego that. Since we are

making so much progress on government business, I was going to propose that we

continue. I don't know if there is anyone over there who could - is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is there anyone with any authority since

the Premier is gone, the Minister of Justice is gone? Is that okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: So we have an agreement then to forego the

Late Show.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Alright. Thank you. I just want to

conclude by saying that I just question - I knew the minister wasn't aware of

this today. I mean, I wouldn't expect - unless his e.a. went in and told him: we

can expect a package up from `Jim' and `Rod'.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You were just being mischievous.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No I wasn't, really, I say to the Member

for Eagle River. I asked the question first for a good reason. How much

communication is there with the minister's office and his political staff from

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? That is a legitimate question. Because

when you read this you would certainly think that the minister and his staff -

because it was an executive assistant that they contacted - was involved in

approval or recommending approval for applications, I say to the member. It

makes you quite suspicious, you know, especially when an acting vice-president

makes reference to the way they voted in the area. It was that acting

vice-president who made that reference, no one else. Why shouldn't I bring it up

here? Because I hope it stops.

MR. BAKER: They had no business to make that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Precisely. I'm sure if he hasn't already

been told that today he will be told by tomorrow, by the time - perhaps he will

have a long weekend I say to the Minister of Finance.

MR. TOBIN: He was suppose to think it but not to write

it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right. The big thing is, why did

you put it in writing, Rod? You could have said what you like to Bruce, or to

Jim, but you did not have to put it in the memo that was going to end up in

Matthews' mailbox. That is the problem. I cannot help it when all those

envelopes come into the office. I have about 200 up there that I have not even

raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right under the books.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are not under the books that fell

on your head I say to the minister. You are the one who told us about how the

books fell on your head. Remember you told us that story and said you have not

been the same since, which we all agree with, by the way.

Actually, I received this I say to the Member for Eagle River

on October 27. I think that was when this showed up in my office with a little

note attached to it. I do not know where it came from or who brought it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, I say to the Member for Eagle

River, if there is one in this House who should not give lectures on behaviour,

how to handle matters, when to bring it to someone's attention, and when to

break it to the press, it is the hon. member because he is just now starting to

get his lumps, I say to him. He is finally being exposed for what he really is,

a rabble rouser, a maverick, a loose cannon, a wimp, immature, on and on it

goes, but having said that and it being the Christmas Season, I say sincerely to

the Member for Eagle River that I hope he soon occupies a seat in the front

benches. Even with all those adjectives to describe him he will be far better

than some who are there now.

That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. I know I have

strayed from the topic and I apologize for that but I just wanted to react to

what the minister said. What I did today was no reflection on the minister and

the minister knows that full well. If there are bureaucrats and officials out in

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, or anywhere else, who behave in such a

manner, then they should be exposed and should be dealt with accordingly. At

least that is the way I feel and that is why I did what I did today.

Thank you for your time.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and make a few

comments relative to the bill under consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Julie got the Southlands back.

MR. HODDER: Good for Mayor Bettney. I laid the groundwork

there and she is following through and doing a wonderful job. Congratulations to

her. Mount Pearl is left in good hands. Now, if the member opposite had run his

campaign better a few years ago in 1985 he would have gotten elected the first

time when he ran in Mount Pearl. He was defeated when he ran in Mount Pearl in

the municipal election. He came number seven or eight, something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. HODDER: The hon Member for Bellevue could not rank

better than seventh or eighth when he ran in his first election in Mount Pearl.

Mayor Bettney ran that time and she beat him soundly.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a couple of comments about the

legislation. First of all I support the proposal to reduce the number of seats

in this House, however, I do have some difficulties when we go out before an

election and talk about reducing the seats from fifty-two down to forty, and

then after we have gone to the people we come back and start procedures to put

that up a little bit. This is not the first time, and members may not know, it

is not the first time that a Liberal government decided they would reduce the

number of seats. In fact in 1928 the Liberals of that day decided they would

reduce the number of seats as well, from forty down to twenty-eight. In 1932

when the Liberals went to an election they found that people were not too

pleased with them. In fact they didn`t get anyone elected other than in Green

Bay, and I think it was Humber, and they were reduced to a party of two.

Mr. Speaker, we should know that the comments often made in

this House are that the federal Conservative Party was the only party that ever,

ever was reduced to a party of two. In fact, that is not true. In the 1932

election in Newfoundland, the government went from a Liberal majority under Sir

Richard Squires, with twenty-four Liberals and twelve Conservatives, down to a

total of twenty-eight with two Liberals elected in 1932. Of course they were, if

people know Newfoundland history, Gordon Bradley who got elected in Humber on

the slogan, `who put the hum on the Humber,' and we had Roland Starkes elected

in Green Bay. So these were the only two Liberals elected. Maybe, Mr. Speaker,

the omen is very much out and that is that the next House here will see a

similar thing happen to my colleagues opposite. In fact, maybe putting more

seats in St. John's will backfire. It backfired in 1932 and it might backfire in

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the principles that have

been put forward. For example, the fact that rural municipalities should have a

lower quotient, I think is quite agreeable. I have no difficulty at all with

rural municipalities having a lower number of constituents than urban

municipalities, particularly the urban municipalities in and around St. John's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of logic to that. Each day when I leave here I

can visit my constituency. It is accessible, it does not have the same kind of

problems that many rural municipalities have and the workload is different. I do

believe that we should recognize that particular fact.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I wanted to say that this variation of

10 per cent - I would even say to this House that the maximum variation should

be even higher than that. We should allow for maybe 15 per cent. Dropping from

25 per cent as a lower limit is probably - it might be a little bit too high of

a variation but certainly dropping it down to 10 per cent is probably again, a

little too drastic. Maybe if we, in trying to recognize the principle of

representation by population, we should consider all the factors that go into an

MHAs workload, how it varies from urban to rural, how it varies from whether the

communities are one or two communities and in my particular instance, as the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount, I have two city councils. These city councils

handle many of the constituent problems that would fill the day of many of my

colleagues who represent rural municipalities. So therefore we handle different

kinds of problems.

The other fact that I wanted to note going through, is the

fact we must recognize as well that in certain parts of St. John's and Mount

Pearl there is very much, a growing population. For example, the stats will show

that since June of 1991, in Waterford - Kenmount alone the number of houses and

the new residents moving into the St. John's part of that district number

approximately 1200 to 1250. In the Mount Pearl part of that district the number

of new residents since June of 1991, the last date of the census, is about 800

to 900. So if you look at the data that is already there, using 1991 data, by

1993, only two years into the ten year review, we would find that already the

population of Waterford - Kenmount has increased by approximately 2,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the difficulty in trying to select a

base year, you have to select the data, the census year and we understand that.

However, in looking at representation by population and looking at the 10 per

cent variation, we also think that the House in its final deliberations should

look at some of the growth that has occurred since the last census and also to

look at the projection for growth that will occur over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other point I wanted to make and

that is the fact that, if we are doing the reduction in members in order to

economize on I guess the taxpayers dollars, if we are doing it for that reason,

then we must be aware of the fact that we do not want to get into a situation

where members have a workload that will cause them to have the need for

assistance and that kind of thing. In other words, you cannot save it in the

House of Assembly and then have to spend it when we come to get support staff.

I want to just say again, that as far as I can see with this

particular change up to forty-six, it is suspect, people are saying that this is

to accommodate members on the government side, we certainly have heard that and

the Minister of Justice, will, I am certain, respond to that; he has made notes

of that particular matter and with these comments, I thank you for the time.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity today to speak on, Bill 48,

An Act

To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

The question that I have is, what is the purpose of bringing

in the act?... and I have come up with three possible reasons. One is financial,

one is efficiency and the other is public perception. I believe that the

financial savings in reducing the number of members in the House of Assembly

from fifty-two to forty-six will be minimal in regards to the loss of the type

of representation that people have been used to. I am concerned about the

numbers being based on population only, and it is in that regard that I speak

today on behalf of St. Mary's - The Capes.

My district encompasses thirty-one separate communities,

twenty-odd councils, four development associations, twelve fire departments,

recreation committees and the list goes on. It takes me approximately three

hours to drive from one end of my district to the other and many times it is

hard to get around and meet the people as much as I would like to, due to the

fact that my district is 100 per cent rural.

Geography should, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, be

taken into consideration in re-aligning the districts and not just population

only. I run into many problems in my office, Mr. Speaker, that have to do with

council matters, different department matters that I am sure if it were an urban

area, these matters would be brought to the council's desk and not to mine. The

indication is that people had been used to calling on their MHA to help them out

whenever possible, and I guess that has been a tradition and people have been

used to it and that is why they continue to do so, but the fact that in the

urban parts of Newfoundland such as St. John's and Mount Pearl, many of the

problems that I deal with, I believe are deal with at a council level. Not

diminishing the workload of members from St. John's and Mount Pearl, but just to

highlight that I receive approximately thirty-five to forty calls each day

concerning everything from garbage collection to unemployment, to housing and

everything else that comes with it.

Will less MHAs save the public purse a large number of

dollars? I have to question that because, if they have x running as is and if

the people come back with forty-six MHAs, or forty-four or forty-two, whatever

the case may be, there is a possibility that there may be some more support

staff needed and in that sense, Mr. Speaker, in the overall look at things then,

will money be saved or will it just be passed on from one to the other?

Basically I'm concerned about the financial implications for the Province in

having fifty-two MHAs, and the financial savings to the Province by reducing to

forty-four or forty-six or whatever the case may be.

The efficiency may not be brought about by reducing the

members in the House for the simple reason that larger geographical areas such

as my own, and the possibility of enlarging them to bring in more smaller

commu