Volume 3 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1974 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 91

December 17, 1974 The House met at 10:00 A,M, Mr. Soeaker in the Chair. Order, !)lease! Tape 2171 (Morning) ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR, S. A. NF~RY: The honourable Minister of Fisheries was going to get me an answer to a question concerning the L:!.nerboard Logging Operation in Goose Bay. PK - 1 HON. J. C. CROSBIE, (MINISTER OF FISHERIES): The honourable gentleman must be psychic. I am just getting to my feet, Mr. Speaker.

I have no ob.1ect1on to getting the honourable gentleman information, in fact, I love getting him information, especiallv with Christmas coming on us, The only thing that I am going to give the honourable gentleman for Christmas is some information. Now, ~r. Speaker, the honourable gentleman asked a question yesterday, the honourable and agile gentleman - MR. NEARY: Do not be nasty now! 1iR. CROSBIE: Agile is not nasty. Mr. Speaker, the position is this there is nothing sinister, Mr.

Speaker, the honourable gentleman asked a question yesterday as though there was something sinister happenin g at the Labrador Linerboard, you know something unusual, somethin11: out of the ordinary. Now the position is this, Mr.

Speaker, that all of the emPloyees of the Labrador Linerboard Lim:!ted, in the Happy Vallev/Goose Bav Area who are covered by the collective a11:reement are treated in the following manner in order to encourage people from the Island to 11:0 there and work, loggers and that kind of worker - they have the followin11: arrangement: when they go uP there from the Island of Newfoundland their transportation up is oaid by the company. AN HON. MEMBER: 1-ffi. CROSBIE: Inaudible. Just a minute! I never asked the honourable 1 gentlem~n to answer a question for me, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer a question for him.

Their way up is paid by the company, sometimes it is paid by Canada Manpower. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 8298

necember 17, 1974 Tape 2171 (Morning) PK - 2 MR. CROSBIE: If - Thanks for your help. Now that pavment though is deducted from their wages,vou seeJbut if they stay for three months then their transnortation uo is refunded to them or credited to them.

If they stay for four months and they produce at a certain rate, two and a-half cords a day, I think, for cut and slash or something or other, cut and haul, anyway there is d{fferent amounts for different phases of the activity, if they meet those incentives and they stay four months then their vay out to the Island is oaid by the COllll'any, they are given two weeks leave and their way back in is again paid for by the comoanv, Tf they stay six months but even do not meet these various incentives but if they stay six months their transoortation up to Labrador and back again to the Island is paid by the company in any event.

So that aoolies to those members the ooeration covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Now in addition, of course, Mr. Sneaker, there are also a large number of employees there who are white collared workers or a nart of the management or administrative staff not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. In an attempt to attract peoole to work in the area and to stay there an~ to be contented the company decided that some kind of an arrangement like this would have to he out into effect for the administrative staff.

The scheme devised 1s that emplovees who are not in the collective bargaining unit, if they have worked with the company for six months or four to six months the company decided that they would nav their wav nut to Stephenville, St. John's or ~ontreal, they and their wives, in the case of men if thev are married. they will pay their way out and hack before Christmas so that they can go shoooing or whatever. They will have a trip out and hack naid for by the company. That is what the honourable gentleman was asking about yesterday. If a woman is involved who works for the company - AN HON. MF.HBER: Inaudible. MR.

CROSBIE: The worse fear I have,Mr. Speaker, is that I will wake un some morning and turn on the radio and not hear the honourable gentleman's voice on the media. I have never seen a media so constioated 8299

Decemher 17, 1974 Tape 2171 (Morning) for news that they had to use the outflowings of the honourable gentleman. MR. DOODY: He gets a LIP grant every morning. PK - 3 MR. CROSBIE: If it is a woman involved who works for the company, Mr. Speaker, her way is paid out but not her husband' r.. Now that is the policy and it seems to me eminently sensible. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for St. Barbe North. MR. F. B. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I have a ouestion for the Minister of Fisheries.

Would the minister explain why the government are holding back fifty per cent or one-half of the compensation payments for the lobster fishermen of the province until the soring of the year? MR. SPEAKER: The Ron. ~inister of Fisheries. MR. CROSBIE: I thought, Mr. Speaker, I explained that the other day but I do not mind explaining it again. Now the honourable gentleman asks - this has to do with lobster pots? The position, I think, is very simple that the federal government officials advised that the value of the lobster pot today is ten dollars.

Therefore, the scheme devised is that the fishermen will be paid now five dollars so he can get the material to construct his lobster pot. The honourable gentleman knows, I assume in just about all cases, they make their own lobster pots. So they are now being paid five dollars. Now we would like to ensure that the gear is replaced. We do not want to pay to a fisherman who says he lost 200 lobster pots $2,000 and then he does not spend it on lobster pots, he goes on a trip or he spends it on his house or he does whatever he likes with it.

So in an attempt to ensure that the money is used to renlace the lobster pots he says, he lost, he is to be paid five dollars now so he can construct the lobster notr and the fisheries officers will go back next spring and see has he got the lobster pots made that he said he was going to make to reulace those he lost. Once they verify that he has now got the lobster pots constructed that he was given the five dollars for then he will be 8300

December l7, 1074 T>1pe 2171 (Morninit) PK - 4 the other five dollars. So it is five dollars now and five dollars when the pot is construct .ed. The reason for that is to attempt to ensure that the pot is renlaced. HR. F. B. ROWE: A ~Tllementary. I do =t know how to ask thi!l without outtinR i~ into a form of a statement but does the minister realize that the fisherman do,in fact,have to buy the wood and they have to buy the twine, the wire and the nails and what hav~ you - AN HON. MEMB~: Inaudihle. MR. F. B. ROWE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had - ~: SPEAKER: Order , please! MR. F. B.

ROWE: In view of the fact, Sir, that I have had representation from the fishermen of my own district saying that, they do TIOt have their own little sawmills, they do not cut their OWTI slats or whatever they are called ) would the minister onderta ke to j ust check into this a little further? 8301

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2172 NM - 1 MR. F. ROWE: and see whether the fishermen can get all the lobster pots constructed before the spring because in the spring they need to put the pots in the water and not start constructing the pots all over again. MR. CROSBIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you know I am advised by the experts that this should be eminently satisfactory but I will ask them to ensure that it is. Now I do realize that the lobster pot has to be ready by the spring because I understand that is when the lobster season is , in the spring , that is not this fall and it will not be in January or February.

I am glad the honourable gentleman brought that to my attention because I am a bit of a land lubber and I surely want to make sure. I will check that out. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, seeing the minister is in a generous mood this morning, going to give me a Christmas present. I think I will put a lobster pot in his stocking for Christmas.

Sir, would the Minister of Recreation and Rehabilitation inform the House if he has received a request from the Town of Badger for additional government financial assistance to install an artifical ice plant in the new stadium to complete this project in Badger. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Recreation and Rehabilitation. MR. DOYLE: Yes we have, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker - MR. CROSBIE: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: If the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. CROSBIE: Mr . Speaker, if the honourable gentleman wants information - MR. NEARY: No, Sir, I got the answer, Mr. Speaker. MR. CROSBIE: No, Mr.

Speaker, I want just to make this simple statement. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I think the honourable Minister of Recreation and Rehabilitation has answered the question for the honourable m~mber for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Sir, I am about to ask a supplementary, would the minister inform the House what action the government has taken on this request? 8302

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2172 NM - 2 AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: We do not care about strings over here, Mr. Speaker. We are not puppets on a string. We have members who vote against us. There is nobody on a string over here. We have democracy in this great party, in this great government. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of action that the Minister of Recreation and Rehabilitation takes. He communicated with me as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and pointed out to me that Mr.

Rompkey had said to the people in question in Badger that this ice surface on the stadium at Badger was very likely a good project for DREE and I took it up with the honourable Donald Jamieson during our five hours last Thursday and Friday. One of the items discussed was an ice surface for the stadiU111 at Badger. I think I concluded from that conversation that the chance of getting the ice surface at a stadium in Badger from DREE - MR. NEARY: They have the ice surface, what they need is an artificial - MR.

CROSBIE: It was at least five hundred million to one against since DREE does not engage in the financing of recreational programmes. I want to inform the people of Badger now that they have been misinformed by Mr. Rompkey. They will not be getting an ice surface on their stadium at Badger from DREE. That is the kind of action we are taking. We are following up every lead even if the chances are five hundred million to one. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spread the questions around a little bit this morning.

I wonder if the honourable the Premier could inform the House what action his government has taken to encourage the development of a more integrated and more competitive system of food marketing in Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. MOORES: The Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the honourable the Premier.

I wonder if the Premier, Sir, could inform the House what action his government has taken to provide an improved regional system of storage, including particularly storage with controlled temperature for perishable foods to reduce the cost of living in Newfoundland. 8303

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2172 NM - 3 MR. MOORES: Order Paper. MR.. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Fisheries, I want to spread them around a little bit, Sir. In view of the difficulties reported by consumers throughout the province in buyinp fresh fish, will the minister indicate to the House what action his government has taken on a recoffl!Dendation of the Food Prices Review Board to give consideration to the establishment of retail fish markets in St. John's and other urban centres. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, we now have an intensive search underway to contact Mr.

Michael Maher and get his report on what happened to his fresh fish venture on the Southside. When we have the results of his experience we will let the honourable gentleman know. MR. NEARY: The dragnet would be out for brother Andrew. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of - MR. CROSBIE: Do not be attacking your fellow Liberals. MR. NEARY: Fellow Liberals my foot, sabotaged the Liberal Party. Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture care to indicate to the House if the provincial government has enquired into the marketing of eggs in Newfoundland, especially, Sir, the margin between producer prices and retail prices as recommended in the Food Price Review recoffl!Dendation. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. COLLINS: MR. Speaker, there must be an investigation into every egg that is produced in Canada I believe. I have lost track of them. The officials in the department are trying to get them all together and see if any of the investigations might make sense.

I mentioned a little while ago that we are awaiting the outcome of the special committee in the House of Commons which is supposed to report to the House this week and that will determine what we might do. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, can I fling one over at the Minister of Justice? Would the minister care to indicate to the House if the C.I.D. has been reorganized as promised by the Minister of Justice in a public statement of November 6. MR. HICKMAN: I do not recall making that kind of promise, Mr. Speaker, 5304

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2172 NM - 4 but there is a great deal of reorganization going on within the Newfoundland Constabulary at this time and we have provided I think it is either four or six additional posts within the C.I.D. but that is only part of the reorganization that is going on. The rest I will be able to indicate to the House when we have completed the assessment of what the cost item is . MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Mines and Energy, Sir, can tell me in thirty seconds or less if there is anything he can report on a study that was undertaken by BRINCO into the feasibility of establishing a cement plant in the Port au Port Area? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that study is still proceeding. I am not aware of when they expect to have a final report in but I should expect that it would be within the next six months. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of Mines inform the House, Sir, if he has yet received a report of a peat-moss consultant, Dr. Bruce Grahame, who was engaged by the government, Sir, back earlier this year to investigate the possibility of commercial sale production of peat-moss for the export market? Would the minister make his answer brief? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has received the report will the minister be making the report public or tabling the report in the House? MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I shall take a look at it and see if it is appropriate. It was an internal report done to assist the Department of Mines and Energy in continuing the excellent work that is being done in developing the mineral resources of the province. I think, Mr. Speaker, from recollection that there is no reason why the, substance, in any event, of this report could not be made public. MR. NEARY: I thank the minister, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the same minister, Sir, would inform the House if he is yet in a position to give the details of an assessment of dolomite deposits on the Port au Port Peninsula? 8305

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2172 NM - 5 MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, this will be the subject mat -ter of a report, if it has not alr-eady been published and l do not remed>er at the moment whether or not it has. been, but this - MR. NEARY: Newfoundland Information Services have not put out the information yet. MR. BARRY: This matter, Mr. Speaker, -was the subject o.f a field-party, l believe, from the Department of Mines and Energy t~t periodically go~ out and assesses various mineral potentials within the province. Once the findings are put together, Mr.

Speaker, they are usually published - once the $eologists ·have had an opportunity to analyse their findings. I am sure that the results of this particular party will be published just as soon as it is in an appropriate form. MR. NEARY: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could now inform the House whether or not the success of this :p.articulal':' research will be related to the operation of the magnesium plant? 8300

December 17, 1974 Tape 2173 (Morning) PK - 1 AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Tom noyle. MR. BARRY: I am not aware that the magnesium plant is a sine qua - -· --- non for the renort on dolomite being published. AN HON. MEMBER: Are vou aware of that? "ffi. NEARY: Sir, I would suggest to the minister that he read the Newfoundland Information ServiceR Bulletin that was put out under the minister's signature? AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: -----·- I wonder if the Hon.

Premier, Sir, would tell the House what steps have been taken by the Rovernment to fulfill a connnitment to the Town of Stephenville, the Community of Stephenville to provide a community college? HR. MOORES: MR. NEARY: Order Paper. Order Pa!)er? Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Mannower and Industrial Relations, Sir, t.muld inform the House what action his denartment or the p.overnment have taken on a reouest from the Newfoundland rP.deration of Labour to include in the curriculum of the schools throughout the province at least the basics of the trade union movement? "IR.

SPF.AKE?,_;_ The ~inister of Mannower and Industrial Relations. HON. E. MAYNARD (MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS): We are worlring with the De!)artment of Education, Mr. Speaker, to try and devise some sort of a nrogrannne. There is to he a pilot programme put on this vear, I believe the Ninister of Education can answer that better than I can hut there is to be a pilot programme nut on this year in Grade X. We are hoping to exnand that into the high school curriculum in all grades and as well with trade schools but the subject to be taught in the schools has not been devised as yet. MR.

NEAFY: Would the "linister of Education care to elaborate on that statement1 XR. SPFAKER: The Hon. ~inister of Education. H_ON. G. R. OTTENHEI~~(MINISTER OF EPUCATION): I could add something to that, Mr. Speaker, in a rumber of the vocational schools now cr~ur,.es ir industrial relations are in fact being given. In the high school, of

December 17, 1974 Tape 2173 (Morning) PK - 2 course, it is something of a different matter. I would sav in many of the civic classes that this is an important area and that it is covered. It certainly is not done in all schools but in most of the vocational schools industrial relations is being taught. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice could inform the House if a writ has been served on him by "The Daily NPws" for unchecked crime anparently in the downtown St. John's Area? I know the minister has had a lot of writs served on him recently. ~~S!'..~..:.. The Hon. Minister of Justice.

HON, T, A. HICK)-1.AN (MINISTER OF JUSTICE): No, Mr. Speaker, there - MR. NEARY: Would he remember that one? MR. HICKMAN: There have been no writs served on me or anyone acting on behalf of"The Daily News". I must confess I would love to see the grounds of the cause of action, I would be very curious. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of writs, Sir, I wonder if the Hon. Premier could tell us whether or not a writ was served on himself and the Minister of Industrial Development during his recent trip to New York for kidnapping? AN HON, MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Yes or no? - --- - MR.

MOORES: I thought it was public knowledge. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was public knowledge. The answer is partially, yes. It was kidnapping plus some other facetious charge. MR. DOODY: AN HON. MEMBER: because I did not get one. Does he feel left out? MR. NEARY: Well just the Premier then had a writ served on him in New York. MR, MOORES: Inaudible. -- - - - MR. NEARY: In a law firm in New York. MR. ROBERTS: Is that all she served on vou? - ---- - MR~~~ Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR ~ NF.ARY: As these matters have international implications - 8308

Decemher 17, 1974 Tape 2173 (Morning) PK - 3 AN HON. ~MBER: Re1)ercussions. MR. NF.ARY: Repercussions or whatever way you want to nut it, Sir. I wonder if the Hon. the Premier would tell the Rouse whether or not the issuance of these =its "South of the Border" in the United States would have any effect on business relocating in Newfoundland or would it have anv effect on our horro,,Ting in the United States hond market? MR. MOORES: The answer, Mr. Sneaker, of course is ''No''. I do not even think it will affect the kidnapping right in the States. MR.

NEARY: Mr, Speaker, is the Premier aware that in 1972 his government announced that they were going to set up a Newfoundland Conservation Corp? If so, would the Premier care to give us a progress report on the activities of the Newfoundland Conservation Corp? MR. MOORES: Order Paper! ---- MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memher for Twillingate. Mr. Speaker, I have a auestion for the Minister of Tourism, if he will. It concerns the good ship "The Norma and Gladys". Will the minister inform the House how much has been snent on that project to date? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Tourism. ----- RON. T.

RICKEY (11INISTF.R OF TOURISM) : Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that under advisement, I do not have the exact figures. ORDERS OF THE DAY The honourable Member for Bell Island. ~-~KER: _ MR. S. A. NEARY: -------- Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the honourable House in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 that the regular business of the House be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, Sir, namely: the serious affects of alcohol on our citizens and their families this time of vear and the absolute necessity, Mr.

Speaker, for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to set up emergency telephone numbers in major centres throughout the province from the present time through to January 6, so that individuals feeling incapable of functioning pro1)erlv because of overindulgence in alcoholic stimulants, Sir, or is incapable of driving or reaching his home by another means mav through 8309

December 17, 1974 Tape 2173 (Morning) PK - 4 these telephone numbers, Mr. Speaker, secure transportation and any other assistance necessary at the expense of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. We would like to get this through, Sir, we want to protect the administration. Self-preservation. MR. SPEAKER: The motion resembles somewhat and some implications of, well it is not really similar in that sense to the motion made nreviously by another honourable member, I think the same Member for Bell Island.

The Chair does not consider it to be of ?uch urgence that we would adjourn the ordinary business of the day to debate this matter. MR. W.W. MARSHALL (MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO): Mr. Speaker , as usual the government are running ahead of the nrinter in its business and we have not got the Order Paper but Motion

(2) I would like to call which is first reading of the Labour Bill of the Minister of Industrial Relations. ?-1R. SPEAKER: It_. is moved and seconded that the honourable member shall have leave to introduce a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Labour Relations Act." Is it the pleasure of the House that the honourable Member shall have leave to introduce the said Bill. Those in favour "Aye", those against "Nay". Carried. HON. E. M. ROBERTS (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under Standing Order 16(B). Can the House proceed without an Order Paper, Sir? We have no Order Paper before us.

The government may call orders in whatever precedence they want, I mean there is no Question about that but can the House proceed without an Order Paper? Up until this point our proceedings have been governed by the appropriate Standing Order which set~ forth the regular routine order of business and so-called. We are now down to Orders of the Day and, of course, the Government House Leader has the right to call orders but from what, Sir? There is no Order Paper before the Chair at present unless the page has just dashed in with one now. MR.

SPEAKER: The page has just dashed in with one but if that had not been so, this procedure has been followed in the past, it has been done several times when the Order Paper was not available for a while, so it is going to be done any wav. 8310

necember 17, 1Q74 Tape 2173 (}1orning PK .l 5 On motion a Bill, ''An Act Further To Amend The Labour Relations Act '' . 1:'ead a first time, ordered read a $econd time on tomorrow. Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.• · HR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Min:l.stel:" without Portfolio . HON. W. ~ - MA1!.SRALL (MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO): Mr. Sneaker, I have no intention of soeaking on this bill, int r oducing it becausP. it is the same as the hill that we have discussed fol:" the past three weeks, the resolution,that is, with resoect to redistribution .

I do not s e e really mvself any noint in, as vou kno,,1 f!VP.rvthin~ that can be said has been said . I 'l'ould urge the Oooos ition - the Onnosition have made their ooints in the re-solution . I kno"I that the Onposition are nrohably t~red of listenin~ to this debate as much as we al:"e on this side and everybody who ha~ had to listen to :It. I think everythinsz really, ~rr . Speaku. has been said on it. As far as the governm ent are concerned, the governme nt are determined. of course, that the hil l is going throuP,h and it is 8311

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2174 NM - 1 going through as a government measure and it is going to be adopted and I would hope that the opposition now would accept this for second reading without seeing the necessity of any protracted debate on it. HR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, despite the House Leader's honied words, I for one have no intention of seeing this bill go hhrough at all if I can prevent it and I do not think for one minute that I can nrevent it but that does not mean that I will not try and I feel confident I speak for my colleagues, including those who are not here.

I expect they will all be here before the debate ends. The gentleman from Bonavista North has I gather, run into some trouble driving in from his home in Gambo. The gentleman from Labrador North is on his way, courtesy of EPA. The gentleman from Fogo has had some illness in his family but he will be present and the gentleman from Hermitage has served his sentence, endurance vile and will be back in time for the debate. Now, Mr.

Speaker, either we can have little Leo participating in the debate in the proper way or we can have him participating in the debate in his _usual way and I am quite prepared to deal with him, however he chooses to raise the issue. I would not bother threatening little Leo, Mr. Speaker. He is not worthy of a threat. I would only say to him what John Diefendbaker once said to a number of people - HR. SPEAKER: Order please! I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition he is not being relevant to the particular bill being debated. HR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was being perfectly relevant to the bill when I said that when one is searching for elephants one does not get distracted by rabiits. Now, Mr. Speaker, the honourable little Leo's mentor, Big John is in action now. Now, Mr. Speaker, considering that the Minister of Fisheries has not had the courage to participate in this debate and has in fact sat idly by, this I suppose must be the first debate since he left the Smallwood Administration, over an alleged issue of principles, six or seven years ago, this must be the first debate in which the 8312

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2174 NM - 2 Minister of Fisheries has not favoured us, usually at some length, with his views. I would hope that he will speak in this debate because I would like very much to hear from hi.a his explanation of how and why he accepted the course of action that the administration of which he is a part have done with this Redistribution Bill. AN HON. MEMBER: Party discipline. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I think that is it, party discipline.

His principles, whatever they may be, have taken second place to party discipline and if the truth be known, Sir, that is exactly what has happened with every one over there with the sole and !audible exception of the gentleman from St.

John's North who whatever the rights or wrongs of what he has done on a number of issues in the past and he and I have certainly disagreed on many political issues and I suspect we will continue to disagree on a number of political issues but at least he had the courage to say in this House and to support his words with his vote and say what many of the honourable gentlemen opposite have said privately and almost-publicly outside. Now, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader, the gentleman from St.

John's East, I think made one of the most shameful statements I have ever heard in this House in his very brief introduction to this bill. I do not know if I am quoting his words exactly but I reproduced his thought precisely. He said in effect, the governmenc are going to put this bill "through, it does not matter what anybody says, it does not matter what anybody thinks, we ,are going to put it through. llow I accept that fact. I accept it, I take it as a statement of fact and I think the honourable gentleman meant it. I have no doubt at all he meant it.

That one statement by the House Leader, Sir, reveals in a nut shell the entire and whole strategy of this Tory Government with respect to this redistribution exercise. I say, Sir, that they set out a couple of years ago to deliberately mislead the people of this province, that each and every one of them is guilty of taking

part in a conspiracy to deceive thfs House and to deceivP thi8 province. The conscious agent of this was the Minister-of Justice who, 8313

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2174 NM - 3 when he spoke in the government's name, spoke for the government, aided and abetted by the Premier in March of 1973 in support of this bill or in support I am sorry of the Electoral Boundaries Delimitation Act, the beginning of the Eedistribution process,said in unequivocal terms that the Tory Administration of which he was so prond a part and was so proud to be a part, would never again engage in electoral gerrymandering.

In a second or two I will have his words and although they have been read before I think they are worth reading again because if honourable gentlemen opposite have any conscience or any political courage, they will address themselves to the point. Now they do not have to agree with us. Men of conscience and men of courage can disagree on political issues and disagree genuinely and disagree openly and honestly. I do not know if there are any rights or wrongs in many questions. _ These are not matters of moral rightness_, they are not matter of philosophi<:__al absolutism, they are matters of which men may differ.

What I find hard to accept and what hundreds and thousands of people throughout the province find hard to accept is the _abysmal lack of courage and the retreat from principle, the abandonment of principle which honourable gentlemen opposite have shown. We had a lengthy debate on the redistribution resolution and so we should have. The debate went forward according to the rules of the House and no member spoke more often or at greater length than the rules permitted him, indeed encouraged him to do. That debate, Sir, was marked by the cowardly cringing of members opposite.

The gentleman from Bonavista South spoke, I think he spoke twice. He spoke in the aain debate and he spoke on the amendment. He certainly addressed himself to the question of fifty-one or forty-two. Let me say now that question of fifty-one or forty-two is a question on which men can differ. There is no magic about any number in the House of Assembly. This House, Sir, at one time had twenty-seven members.

In 1949, the first election, the first House after Confederation had twenty-eight members, the twenty-seven districts which were constituted, on which the 1932 election was fought and then the one extra district which was given to Labrador. It then went to thirty-six and then it went to forty- 8314

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2174 NM - 4 two. Previously in the 1920's it had been forty members. There is no magic about the number of members in the House. Men can disagree. They can disagree reasonably and with conviction. The member from Bonavista South spoke to that point and while I do not agree with Mm and he does not agree with me, I think we can agree to disagree. We say that forty-two is enough for the present time and we made our points. I do not propose to go through them again, but I do want to re-emphasize the point.

We originally felt that fifty-one should be looked at but it quickly became obvious to us when the commission began work that fifty-one was too many, so we said forty-two. We still think forty-two is enough and we will be moving an amendment at the appropriate time in this debate. I believe committee stage will be the appropriate time. We will be moving an amendment there to make our point again. I may add we are not alone in our view.

I have here a letter which came to me a dav or so ago, It is addressed to me and I do not propose to read the name of the lady who sent it because I do not want to embarrass her by bringing her name into the dehate but she sent ae the letter and she did not mention anything about keeping it private or confidential or personal or anything else. "Dear Sir," it :Is a letter from a lady who lives here in St. John's, "Though I have always voted P.C., I most 8315

December 17, 1974. Tape 2175 RH - 1 strongly oppose the redistribution bill at present before the House. The Province most definitely does not need and cannot afford fifty-one members. Your efforts to prevent the passing of this useless, wasteful and senseless piece of legislation are much appreciated.' Yours sincerely," and the lady signs her name. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible . MR. ROBERTS: I do not know the boundaries well enough. She may or may not live in St. John's North and I say; "So what if she does?" She lives in St. John's. Now, Mr .

Speaker, the House these last couple of weeks has been performing on a higher plain than it has during much of the earlier part of this session. Whether or not this laudible achievement was a result of the absence of the Member from Burgeo/La Poile I know not but I know that he is back again and if he insists upon performing and making a fool of himself in this debate, - MR. EVANS: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, - Your Honour did not rise to reprimand any honourable gentlemen opposite and I have a right to defend myself.

If the Member from Burgeo wishes to participate in this debate in the way in which he usually does, I am willing to deal with it. I regret it, I think he is a will not. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! While it is certainly very true that the honourable member speaking has the right to be heard in silence, if he is interrupted or provoked by some member opposite it still does not give him the right to make comments with regard to the comments from the other side. MR. ROBERTS: That is fair enough, Mr. Speaker, but I assume and hope Your Honour will crack the gentlemen on the other side. It is all very well.

They interrupt and then when we reply to them, then we are MR. BARRY: Sit down. Sit down. - MR. ROBERTS: I have no desire to sit down. I will sit down when the Speaker asks me to, not when little "Leo" does. Now, Mr. Speaker, - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! Members to my left do keep on interrupting and speaking when perhaps they should not. I mentioned that a 8316

December 17, 1974. Tape 2175 RH - 2 few moments ago when I made a few comments with regard to the Leader of the Opposition. I recognized the Leader of the Opposition, he does have the right to be heard in silence. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this lady writes me a letter. It is a very short, it is a very polite letter, it is very much to the point.

I think, I know that the sentiment expressed by that lady is shared by many people, some of whom may have voted Tory in the past, some of whom may even vote Tory in the future, some of whom may have voted Liberal in the past, many of whom will vote Liberal in the future. This question of fifty-one or forty-two is one issue before the House with respect to this bill. We stand against it. We think that forty-two M.H.A.s can adequately represent this country. The government differ with us. So be it. We will fight them.

I do not fear the fact that the government majority, the trained seals on the other side will triumph. In that sense every question in the House is predecided. Indeed it is not even decided by the members on the other side because the private members have no real say in this. They do what they are told. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Is that so? MR. ROBERTS: They do what they are told, Mr. Speaker. The Cabinet decide and it is not even the Cabinet. It is a small group within the Cabinet and probably aided and abetted by some men who are not even in the House.

In any event the naked force which the honourable gentleman from St. John's East talks about does not bother me in the least. I have as much right to stand in this House and so does the gentleman from Bell Island or from St. Barbe North or from Hermitage or from -Twillingate as does any honourable member. I care not whether the government will triumph or not. They may triumph here, they will not triumph in the country. Any time they want to put it to the test, the Premier has merely to get in his car, go down and call upon His Honour the Governor. ~e will not need a Bill Saunders this time.

All he has to do is call upon His Honour and advise His Honour to dissolve the Assembly forthwith and it will be done. I will gladly take my case to the country at any time under any map they care to bring up. Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman from Bonavista South spoke in 8317

December 17, 1974. Tape 2175 RH - 3 the debate. The honourable gentleman from Placentia West spoke in the debate and I thought the "Evening Telegram's" editorial comment really took care of what little he had to say. The honourable gentleman from St. John's Centre, the Minister of Social Services spoke in the debate in his usual entertaining fashion. Other than that, Sir, and of course the Premier opening and closing the debate, - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: No, I will come to the gentleman from St. John's North.

I do not, I am sorry, the gentleman from Trinity North gave us, I believe, some of his vile and concentrated half wit stuff. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Be nice now. MR. ROBERTS: I am being nice to the honourable gentleman. If I were being kind to the honourable gentleman, he would be in the Waterford institute by now. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the notable facts of this entire debate is the lack of participation by any of the honourable gentlemen opposite. I say that they will have to live with that. I find it most interesting that the one man who had the courage to say what ' he really believed, the gentleman from St.

John's North, made the statement here in this House yesterday and it has not been contradicted, that at least one-half of the members on the other side are not happy with the government's redistribution bill. He made that statement and I say that the only way that can be disproved is for every honourable gentleman opposite to indicate to the contrary. The honourable gentleman from St. John's North sits in their caucus. Why should he not? - He is one of them. He had the courage to say where he stood. The gentleman from Bonavista South has said where he stands, he accepts this gerrymandering.

The gentleman from Trinity North accepts it. The Premier perpetrated it, so he accepts it. But now what about all honourable gentlemen opposite. I say they have an obligation to speak and a special obligation rests upon the gentleman from Labrador West. He has given us one of the greatest displays of political cowardice I have ever seen. This bill and the Premier yesterday in closing the debate on the resolution, the Premier rejected any suggestion of any amendment with respect to the two seats in Eastern most Labrador. 8318

December 17, 1974 Ta~e 2176 (Morning) PK - 1 He made a-half concess1on with respect to the seat in Labrador West, the new seat to he called "Menihek". The Premier's half concession should have been a full concession because,! think, everybody concerned feels that there are more people living in Labrador West than there are reported bv the census figures. Even the Statistics Canada people confirm that and they give the explanation and the reason why. But, Sir, my concern for the moment is not with Labrador West, I think, they are entitled to more rePresentation because, I think, there are more people there.

I think that point has been established. My concern is with the coastal seats. Every member with anv knowledge of Labrador who has spoken in this debate, and I do not feel that the Minister of Social Services has any knowledge of Labrador, he keeps exposing that to us) !!:very 'member with any knowledge of Labrador who has sPoken, and I am not saying that I for one am not an expert on Labrador, I am not but I say that I have some knowledge of Labrador.

My colleague for Labrador North who has lived in the Goose Bay/Happy Valley Area for twenty years, who has twice been elected by the People there to be their rePresentative, the gentleman for Fogo although he has never lived in Labrador traded up and down the coast for twenty or twenty-five years and was elected in 1956 and in 1959 and in -1962 and in 1966, four times elected by the neonle of the old districts, the oresent District of Labrador North) _the gentleman for Labrador South who was born in Cartwright, grew up in Cartwright, has worked in many parts of the coast, has thrice contested in an election down there, twice came close and the third try was elected by a ma1ority. each of these men has said two things about Labrador in this ~ill 0 ,Fir!it of all, that there is a very real danger of giving fuel to the separatist cause.

Secondly, that the seats as constituted do not reflect as adeauately as they could the true needs of the neople of Eastern Labrador. Now let me deal with each of those noints, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they are imoortant. First of all, let me deal with the senaratism point. The Minister of Social Services gave us, I am sorry he is not here, I gather he is out in Clarenville doing something 83i9

December 17, 1974 Taoe 2176 (Morning) PK - 2 with the Social Services Department. Yes, I must say I agree Clarenville is a great place to be and I would think that the citizens of Clarenville will feel it is even greater when the Minister of Social Services leaves it later today. Mr. Speaker, the minister attemnted to dismiss the talk of separatism or of separatist feeling.That can only show his profound and abysmal ignorance of what is really happening in Labador. Now I suppose somebody opposite is going to stand and say that I am contributing to the feeling by talking about it here in the House.

Well let them sav it. I re.1ect it utterly and completely. There is a problemJ there is that feeling. How strong it is, I do not know. Pow concentrated it is or how pointed it is, l do not know but it is there. There is a feeling among peonle in Labrador and it is growing that their interests can be best served bv some form of oolitical arrangement other than the one they now have as part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They feel that. The gentleman for Labrador West if he had the courage to stand in this debate would have to confirm that feeling does exist.

The Member for Labrador South, the Member for Labrador North, any of us who has anything at all to do with Labrador knows that the feeling is there. I say, Sir, that this bill can only add fuel to that feeling. The feeling is not going to go away by ignoring it. The people's House, the House of Assembly is the proper place to discuss this issue.

The people in Labrador, Sir, many of them, and I have noticed in the nast two or three years a growing number of important and influential people who are more and more attracted to the thought of a new nolitical arrangement., S:ome talk of territorial status similar to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, !fome sneak of going it alone as in effect a separate nrovince. All of them have the common underlying denominator that they are not getting a fair dealJ that the nresent political svstem in Newfoundland and Lahrador does not give adeouate vent to their needs and to their feelings.

If we do not take that into account and try to measure it and cope with it then it wi.11 be at the peril of this orovince, Sir, because it is the province that will lose. 8320

Number 17, 1974 Tape 2176 (Morning) PK - 3 When this administration crone into office most people in Labrador, no matter what their Political affiliati~n, and I may add, the Tories have had little nolitical support in Labrador at any ooint 1 the gentleman for Labrador West got a very good vote and did verv well indeed in the 1972 election. In 1971, the Tory candidate in Labrador West finished a dismal third. The most recent test of electoral ooinion,in a nrovincial sense in Labrador was Labrador South where the Tory candidate ~r.

Kearsey from Corner Brook, formerly an executive assistant to the Premier, got less than six per cent of the vote. The neonle in the district tell me that he had more peoPle on his payroll than voted for him in the election. Whether that is true or not, he had an abysmal vote. He got 132 votes out of 2,150 cast. TJ-ie member elected got about 1,150 and the Liberal candidate got just under 1,000.

The Tory Partv have had no suPnort there but despite that fact, I think, many peoPle in Labrador, the peoole who think about these issues, who are fair-minded and who are prenared to try and make things work, many people felt that when the Torv Government crone into office they would get their place in the sun, that Labrador would come into its place in the sun. After all the Tories had said that they would do it. The Liberal record in the last few vears with respect to Labrador was not satisfactorv to the people of Labrador. Many of them spoke out against it.

We saw the growth of the New Labrador Party, a regional partv, the first time we have ever had a regional oarty in this nrovince, the first time. The first time that we ever had any party, certainly in modern times, that did not make an attemnt to appeal to all parts of the province and to all segments of the nopulation. The New Labrador Party grew, ~r. Sneaker, because it was fertile soil.

The Tories when thev came in peoole believed that they wouad do something about these oroblems and that they would take them into account and that they would bring in nolicies that would help to remove the feeling and help the neople of Labrador to feel that they were a part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cared about them and dealt 8321

December 17, 1974 Tape 2176 (Morning) PK - 4 with their problems. What has happened now? This map, Sir, these seats, this hill will add fuel to the separat1Rt cause. The gentleman for Labrador South has announced he is dropninr, out of active politics at the next election. As far as I know his decision was not connected with any redistribution issue but his decision to leave active politics, I fear, and I fear as a Newfoundlander, I do not fear in a partisan sense, his decision will add fuel to the separatist cause aF well.

I fear that in the next general election we will see in Labrador a frankly and avowedly separatist party. I think, that is going to hanpen. I think that the Tory Government are going to make it happen. I think this hill will do it. Now, Sir, I do not know whether they are trying to nunish Labrador or not. It may be that they are. Labrador,with the one exception of the gentleman for Labrador West in 1972, has consistently voted against the Tory Party. Mr. Court Janes got the skinning of his political life when he hit Labrador. I mean it was shameful. The noor man went down to Goose Bay to ~neak.

He had the big gun., he had the Minister of Finance as he then was with him and they got fifteen people at a meeting. They had to hold it in a nhone booth there was that little interest for the Tory Party. Maybe the Tory Government are nunishing Lahrador. They are trying to punish the Northern Peninsula, maybe they are doing the same to Labrador. But in any event they are presisting in a course of action that is ill-advised and it can onlv lead to harm. I am not asking for more seats for Labrador, although I think there should be more, but I will not press that point now.

What I am asking is that the Tory Party and the Tory Government reconsider this ill-advised bill. It does not take - it is no humbling of their nride if they redraw that boundary in Labrador. Every segment of oninion in Labrador with the notable exception of the gentleman from Labrador West, every segment of opinion that has come to my notice favours the recommendations of the final report of the Higgins'Conmdssion. I had a letter the other dav from a well-known clergyman, Reverend Francis Buckle. 8322

December 17, 1974, Tape 2176, Page 5 -- apb Morning ~ HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. ROBERTS : I know but I am going to read it again. The Reverend Mr. Buckle, who is a native of Forteau, I believe, on the Straits, an Anglican Priest, he is now at the Parish in Happy Valley, he used to be on Bell Island, he was at the Cathedral Parish for a while, sent me a copy of the letter which he sent to "T},e Evening Telegram". He sent a copy to the Premier, to my colleague from Labrador North and to the gentleman from Labrador South. I think it is worth reading again, Mr.

Speaker, because I think this letter expresses the feelings of many people in Happy Valley. As far as I know the Reverend Francis Buckle has no political axe to grind. I have never heard of him in any political context at all, I have never heard of him in any partisan frame. To my knowledge if he votes at all, Sir, his vote is a matter that only he knows about. I do not think he has taken any political part. The letter reads: "Dear Sir; 11 (It is addressed to the Editor of the "Telegram.") "If the present plan of redistribution of seats in the House of Assembly is passed Labrador will be the real loser.

The plan, as Mr. Mike Martin has stressed, does not tale into consideration the expansion of population in Labrador West. It is difficult, actually, to see what it does take into consideration other than political 8323

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2177 NM - 1 expediency. The area from Battle Harbour to Nain for example is by far the most deprived area of the province. It poses an impossible problem for any M.R.A. to deal with its many and varied problems. Travel in the best of times is difficult and expensive. It is simply an insane proposal to include this vast area in one district. Surely more than the number of people in any given area must be taken into consideration. The proposal to place a

section of Southern Labrador as an appendage to the Northern Newfoundland Area is a political move and if passed shows how far this government is willing to go with integration. Mr. Moores has expressed real concern for tradition in dealing with some Newfoundland districts, let him apply the same kind of logic and concern to the Labrador districts. Traditionally Labrador has stood on its own. The decision some years ago to change the province's name to Newfoundland and Labrador was simply a recognition of that fact and made some of us feel for the first time, a part of the provincial and political scene.

Unfortunately there have been countermoves in the last several years to break down any special place that Labrador might have in the political setup, even though Labrado~ is nearly three times as large as Newfoundland. I feel strongly that if the southern part of Labrador is included in the Newfoundland district it will be nothing more than a subtle political move to in~egrate further Labrador into Newfoundland. Row far is this government willing to go? Sincerely, Francis Buckle." Now, Mr. Speaker, those are strong words from a gentleman of the cloth.

I say to the Premier again, I appeal to him to reconsider these Labrador seats. Every single expression of public opinion that has come to my kuowled2e. with the notable exception, I will return to him, of the gentleman from Labrador West, every single expression from Labrador has been in favour of the Riggins' recommendation as against the government's recoDDDendation. People are not satisfied with the Higgins' recommendation but if they have to choose they will take the Higgins one over the government one. 8324

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2177 NM - 2 Now why do the Tories persist? The Premier yesterday rejected any change and gave absolutely ludicrously foolish reasons for doing so. He talks about setting up a corporation in Cartwright and more power to them. The Premier is having a fascinating chat and I am interested in hearing it but it is very hard to both listen to him and it is hard not to listen to him when he is speaking in his stentorian voice again. If he wants to chat, maybe he and the House Leader could slip outside and do whatever they want to do. What I want to know, Mr.

Speaker, is why the government are ignoring this feeling from Labrador. Are they trying to punish Labrador? Are they trying to hurt the people down there? They talk of a corporation in- Cartwright. Now first of all, Sir, Cartwright has about as much in common with Makkovik or Nain or anywhere on the Northern Coast as Florida does with Spain. Nothing in common, Sir. They are a different type of people., they live in a different environment, they live in a different way, they have different political needs. They talk of a Crown Corporation in Cartwright. The biggest need of Cartwright right now is water and sewer.

It is not a very dramatic need but a very real need. That is the biggest need of the people of that community right now, not a Crown Corporation. We can have the Hudson Bay Company and the Grenfell Mission and a Crown Corporation and all the people there will still be living amidst water and sewerage problems. But a Crown Corporation, Sir, will do nothing to solve the political problems, the problems of representation. So I say again to the Premier why not? It is no great partisan defeat. Nobody is going to go out and cheer and crow about it. It is not going to change the balance of seats in any way.

There are two in a given geographical area now, there will be two in that given geographical area if that proposal were to be accepted. The Higgins' Commission made a suggestion, heard hearings and changed their suggestion. The government for no apparent reason have changed it back. The member for Labrador South said that the Tory proposal fuels the separatist feeling. My colleague for Labrador North feels the same way. Why are this government doing it, Sir? Forty-seven years ·s325

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2177 NM - 3 ago a group of Newfoundland patriots won a battle in the Privy Council to make Labrador, to have it declared a part of Newfoundland. The Tory Government now are trying to do away with that? Is that it? This is the government that talked so much about developing the Churchill and yet here they are for no reason, no reason they have given, hurting Labrador, going against the open and expressed wish of the people there. People came out to the hearings, all kinds of people, not just the M.H.A. 's. The govenunent have given no reason. What are they trying to do? Why?

It is not as if one were suggesting more seats. No, Mr. Speaker, the same two seats, the same geographic area except instead of the line running east and west it will run north and south. That is all. Anybody who knows that coast, anybody who knows anything about that area would realize that the Higgins' proposal is instantly to be perferred to the government's proposal. So I say again to the Premier that I appeal to him to reconsider this point. They are going in the face of everything, all reason, all logic, all expressed public opinion. There is no need for it, Sir. There is no cause for it.

It will not cost anything. It will not make any real difference except to the people in Labrador to whom it will make all the difference. As a Newfoundlander I am concerned. I think the people in Labrador have just grievances. I think this decision will add fuel to it, so will the proposal in the Straits. The Higgins' Connnission Report was bad enough. They worked within the bounds of the legislation and that they had to do. They had no say in the legislation. They had to work with what they were given. They did the best of it.

The present government proposal, Sir, is designed deliberately to hurt the people of that part of Labrador South and the people of the Northern Peninsula. That is quite obvious. They are being punished because they vote Liberal. There is no other reason for it. You cannot talk of a balance of interests. The gentleman from Labrador South has made it quite clear where the interests lie and he knows the area well. Less than 2,000 people on the Straits side, nearly 9,000 people or more than 9,000 peoplE 8326

December 17, 1974 Tape ?fo. 2177 t,M - 4 2,000 people on the Straits side, nearly 10,000 people on the island sid.e • that is not giving Labrador a fair deal• The eighth largest seat in population in the entire province and one of the most difficult to travel in. No, it is just a clear case of punishing the people on the Northern Peninsula. That is all it is., punishing tnem because they voted Liberal, because they dared to express their fr.ee right to vote as they wish in a secret election and because they cons .istently voted Liberal.

They voted Liberal in 1972 and they vot .ed Liberal in the fall of 1972, not even Jack Marshall has won St. Barbe North. They voted Liberal in 1974 and they will vote Liberal whenever the next election comes because they will do what they believe. It should be recorded that the Tory Government are punishing them. That is the only reason for the change, to punish them, to hurt them. The gentleman from Labrador Wes.t is aiding and abetting it. I am hurt and disappointed. When I spoke earlier on the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I called upon the honourable gentleman to speak. He has not said a word.

That can only mean that he has accepted this. I really thought he 'lr(luld take a stand. He h.as not. He is part and parcel of the conspiracy to hurt Labrador 8327

Morning Session, December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2178 Page 1 tlW and it will haunt him. People in Labrador will not forgive nor will they forget, There comes a time in a man's political career, Sir, when he must take a stand and this is such an issue for the gentleaan from Labrador West that he has taken his stand. He has taken his stand with the Tory Party against Labrador.

If he had any courage he would have left the cabinet, He could have come back next week, He could have gone to the Premier and said, "Premier, I cannot suppott that proposal, If it is not to be changed, if the decision of our colleagues in the cabinet is to stand by it, I must leave the cabinet, I shall vote against that bill." The gentleman from St. John'~ North is going to vote against the bill, He does not have to leave the Tory Party to do it, The gentleman from Labrador West, Sir, when the crunch came did not have what it took. That is a very sad thing to have to say.

It is true, Sir, I wish I did not have to say it, I like the honourable gentleman personally, I consider him a friend, I hope we will always be friends. Politically, Sir, he has met his Waterloo and he is on Napoleon's side and not Wellington's. He has failed in the hour when he was needed. The other members from Labrador have spoken, The gentleman from Labrador West has not spoken, Therefore under the rule of collective responsibility, he must be taken to agree with what the Tory Government are doing.

When the Premier spoke yesterday to close the debate, he spoke for all the cabinet, The Premier rejected any changes. The gentleman from Labrador West has accepted that, Re sold Labrador, Sir, for whatever gain, whatever in his own mind, he sold out Labrador, It stands very much to his discredit. I had honestly and genuinely believed that he had what it would have required, if necessary to leave the cabinet, It is not a terrible blow, The honourable gentleman was not elected as a minister, He was elected as a private member, as a backbencher.

He was then invited into the cabinet and he has added considerably to the stature of the cabinet. He has added to his own stature as well by his performances. 8328

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2178 Page 2 When the crunch came, he just could not do the right thing. He just did not have what it required. He did not have what it takes. I say that with infinitely more regret than partisan feelings. He is the one who will pay for it. He will pay for it personally and politically. The people of Labrador will hold him to account more so than any other individual because he is the only Labrador !llember who sits in the cabinet. This is a cabinet bill as the Member for St. John's East made quite clear. The member has accepted it. Indeed for all I know, he may have encouraged it.

He has not said a word in this debate. He voted in favour of it. It is recorded in the journals of the House. He accepts it. He glories in it. He supports it. He will have to answer for it. My regret is not that the honourable gentleman will have to answer for it. That is his concern. I believe he knows what he is doing. I believe he has decided to junk Labrador, to scuttle Labrador and take his stand with the Tory Cabinet. He has decided that. That is his decision and more power to him. He has not tried to weasel about it. He stood up and he voted for it in the House.

He has not tried to weasel nor whine, no.My regret is that the people of Labrador will suffer. I think that the Member for Labrador West has enough influence -.1th the cabinet to swing them on this point. What conceivable difference can it make? They have already agreed in their minds and in the House to give that

section of Labrador two seats. What conceivable difference does it make where the boundary lines are drawn? What could it matter? I know what it matters. It is designed to punish Labrador. It is designed to make a man go down there and get elected whatever party he is in, a man who cannot possibly serve those people. I am sorry. The honourable gentleman from Labrador West has let himself down as well as letting Labrador down. As for the Minister of Justice, the least said the kindest. Of all the hypocritical men who have ever been exposed in this House, he has to take his stand at the head of the line. He 8329

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2174 Page 3 came in here two year's ago and trumpeted his virture. He was like a woman of easy virture parading her virtues. Then when it came to the crunch he knuckled under in a sycophantic way as I have ever seen • . He has not had the guts to stand in this House and say a word. He has not had the guts to stand. He just silently stands by and watches the dirty deed being done.

He is the man who used to boast, "We will never again see gerrymandering in this House." "The Evening Telegram" ·: "Hickman I s words back to haunt the Tories." Of all the sad spectacles in public life in Newfoundland, the Minister of Justice. A little cutting from "The Evening Telegram," January 3, 1974, Sir, another quote from the honourable gentleman. You see his change of heart on this was only recently when it was put to him. "Boy Alex either you accept this or you get out." He did not have the guts to do it.

"The Evening Telegram," January 3, 1974: "Hiclanan wraps Liberal House Leader." 'Why does he not read the act?' an irritated T. Alex Hickman said today of Opposition House Leader, Bill Rowe, who Wednesday called for the immediate release of the Electoral Boundaries Collllllission IU!port?" 'The act provides for two debates on the report's recommendations,' Justice Minister Hickman said. 'What is all the fuss?' Answering his own question (in those days the minister used to speak) Mr.

Hickman said, 'He can understand why theLLiberals are upset about the Electoral Boundaries Commission, 'The Liberals firmly believe in gerrymandering, he said, 'their record proves it."' Now the minister would never be part of that, Sir. He would never stand in the House and vote against a motion to adopt the report of the independent commission. Oh not our Minister of Justice! Not that man of principle, of virtue, of honour, not him, no! Of all the hypocritical, sycophantical actions ever taken - MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): Order please!

The word hypocritical is one of these unparliamentary words that falls within the prohibitions outlined by Beauchesne,

Section 155, page 130. Although I know that it has been used a number 8330

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2174 Page 4 of times in this honourable House, I think that it is now time that it cease misuse. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had not been advised that it was not parliamentary because, as you said, it has been used in the House without drawing the Speaker's ruling. Of course, I will accept your ruling. The minister's actions speak for themselves. I do not need to put a word on it. Everybody in Newfoundland has already done that. The minister's actions speak for themselves. Let us just refresh our memories because it is worth recalling.

Whenever the minister speaks from now on, Sir, the people of Newfoundland will know hb ior what he is. His words are not worth the paper they are written on. His words sound fine and they sound sincere until he has to put his principles to the test and then he backs off and does whatever the convenience of the moment dictates. Hansard, March 20, 1973, the Minister of Justice, great words, Sir, great words: "Mr.

Speaker, in rising to move second reading of this bill, The Electoral Boundaries Delimitation Act, I think that this should be regarded as somewhat of an historic occasion in this House because we are and we will, if this honourable Rouse approves the bill, take out of the hands of government the responsibility for setting the boundaries and the population of the various electoral districts in the province." That is what he said in March, 1973. January, 1974, he said: "However we believe in setting boundaries by a public commission." Right!

December, 1974, how the mighty are fallen, !he great protestations of principle now have been put aside, a man of no political principles and no political courage. A 8331

December 17, 1974. Tape 2179 RH - l shameful act, shameful and he has not even spoken. I hope he will speak. I hope I can draw him into the debate. I hope he will stand and explain his conduct, these words,clear, unequivocal, straightforward, clean-cut, sincere, the way we used to regard the minister, the way even "The Evening Telegram" used to regard him until they looked at his words and looked at his subsequent actions.

Talk is cheap, Sir, and the minister has shown just how cheap and how shoddy his talk can be; thirty-one changes out of fifty-one, some of them minor, some of them very major, the changes reversing the report. Almost every major change made was to reverse the considered report of the commission. The map the government proposed is close, Sir, to the commission's first recommendations, close. The only big change really is trying to save the Minister of Rural Development by creating a little seat for him in Trinity Bay. It is the only real change.

The commission, Sir, presented their preliminary report and after hearings and after taking evidence and after mature and considered study proposed another map, the one that is there on that easel now and the government have thrown that out and gone and done their own little thing. The Minister of Justice - there used to be hundreds of people, thousands, Sir, I suppose, who felt the Minister of Justice was an honest and honourable man. I speak only of his political stand.

They used to believe the Minister of Justice, my friend from Hermitage once followed the Minister, of Justice in a leadership campaign, helped to draft his speech. MR. SIMMONS: Not the speech he gave. MR. ROBERTS: No, but he should have taken the speeches that were written for him1 they would have been better than the ones he gave. There were hundreds and thousands of people throughout this Province, Sir, who believed the honourable gentleman was a man of political honour and political principle.

His name is often spoken of as a man who aspires to hig~er office from the mere legislative office, a man who might even rise to the heights of his chosen profession at the bar of the Province.Common talk among our brethren at the bar, Mr. Speaker, and among the people who take an interest in these matters, regarded as a man who would stand for what he believes, a man who left the Smallwood Cabinet because he would no longer accept it. 8332

December 17, 1974. Tape 2179 (Morning) RH - 2 If one looks at the record one sees his reasons for leaving as stated at the time were a little different. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Bora Laskin. MR. ROBERTS: No, he is not even fit to walk upon the same earth as Bora Laskin trods but a man, Mr. Speaker, I tenderly regarded and genuinely regarded as a man of courage, as a man who would stand and when he brought in this bill, we for one, Sir, supported it.

If you want to look at my colleague, the then member for White Bay South, spoke for us in the debate, welcomed the words and said that whatever may have gone on in the past, I mean - want to talk about the pastr Sure the Liberals may not have done perfect in the past and the Tories cannot always claim to have been completely above board. There was the marvellous Tory Government in 1924, the last Tory Government we had with the exception of the one that drove the country under. It is necessary to go back a long way in Newfoundland to find a Tory Government, the Tory Government - Mr. Walter Monroe was Premier.

That ended income tax. That was a move that helped the little man, the little fisherman, it really helped them and increased the tariffs on nets and gear and it was shear coincidence that leading members of the government controlled - MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order, please! Order, please! I fail to see that this is relevant although very interesting. MR. ROBERTS: It is relevant because I am attempting to show that what went on in the past is not necessarily a guide for the future.

The Premier yesterday was allowed to go on at some length, I do not know if Your Honour was in the Chair or not, about alleged past misdeeds and all I am talking about is,~aying that while I do not feel,the Premier has no idea what he said yesterday but neither does any of his listeners either. What I am showing quite simply is that while I am not prepared to say that everything the Liberal Party did was the acme of wisdom, I can equally show that not everything the Tory Party has ever done is the acme of wisdom and light. However, I have made my point. I do not quarrel with Your Honour's ruling.

I am all for relevancy in debate. I think it is a very useful rule to have. I was talking of the Minister of Justice speaking of irrelevant 8333

December 17, 1974. Tape 2179 RH - 3 things. People used to believe he was a man of courage and principle. Well he has shown us now. MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition gets carried away from time to time with his own rhetoric and only he gets carried away with it. But, Your Honour, he is not allowed to make allusions to any member of this House with reference to their courage or their principle.

He is allowed to draw issue with statements that have been made from time to time if he so wishes but allusions against the integrity ~fan individual, their courage and their principles, it has long been established that such derogatory reference as to other members is not permitted under the rules. MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking of the minister's political - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Why do you not listen "Witch Hunt" for once? MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order, please!

The honourable Leader of the Opposition has on most occasions, virtually all occasions, prefaced his remarks of political courage and morality with the word political. However on the'last occasion he may have been carried away and did not preface it as such although I drew by inference from having listened to his debate earlier that he was not departing from his earlier theme although I draw to his attention that he should preface his remarks properly in the future. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course I am speaking of the honourable gentleman's lack of political courage and lack of political principle.

His private life, his private standing is entirely his own. I was speaking of his public life, his life here in this House.

What I was saying is that most people in Newfoundland, I think, would have felt that the honourable rentleman's political principles were above reproach, that of all the men in public life in Newfoundland, he stood at the summit, not necessarily alone although he may often have felt so but stood there alone a paragon, of virtue, sincere, straightforward, would never stoop to any low political chicanery, would never be part of anything as terrible as a gerrymandering of a redistribution bill, that he was the man 8334

December 17, 1974 Tape 2179 RH - 4 who was responsible for setting up the Electoral Boundaries Delimitation Commission, that the legislation was his handy work, that he had sponsered it, that he had spoken for it in the debate, that he had chivvied it through a reluctant Cabinet and they think all of those things were true. I think the honourable Minister of Justice was regarded as such. But now he has come crashing down, not just feet of clay, Sir, he has knees of clay and thighs of clay. The honourable gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

I am ashamed of him and I do not speak as leader of an opposing political group. I once served in a cabinet with the honourable gentleman, once served in a cabinet with him and he has not had the courage let alone the decency to stand and to speak in this debate. Just as every other ~onourable member opposite, he has not addressed himself to the central problem of whether boundaries are to be set by an independent coumission or whether they are to be set by the government. We take our stand. We say they are to be set by an independent co11!11lission.

Although we would have said that we felt there should be forty-two members rather than fifty-one, we are prepared, we were and we are still to accept the principle of having the boundaries drawn by an independent c011111lission, If the House decides on fifty-one and the conmission reconmends sOJlle boundaries for fifty-one then we will have to accept that. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice does not feel that way. He has not even had the decency - I understand he has no political courage and I understand that his political principles have been jettisoned.

He has not even had the decency to stand up and say, "Well, boys, I did say those things and you know how it is, Mr. Speaker, I could not carry through with it. When it came to the crunch at the Cabinet I could not carry the crowd with me. I just had to go along with it. I was not willing to leave the Cabinet on the issue and so I accept it and here I am," A little sackcloth and ashes, a little humble penitence - no, he will sit over there brazenly, arrogantly and above all silently. Maybe I will tempt him into the debate.

Maybe after my few words about him, he will be able to get up and try to explain this course of action. I hope so, I think his friends and his admirers, some of whom are in the Tory Party, some of whom are not, would expect it of him. I 8335

December 17, 1974. Tape 2179 RH - 5 think he owes it to himself to try to explain. Nobody expects it, for example, from the Junior Member from Harbour Main. He made no speech in the House about not being in favour of gerrymandering. 8336

December 17, 1974 Tape 2180 PK - 1 You know the minister is ~eing consistent. I am paying the minister a comol:'-ment. The min:'-ster should l,eaware :tn that case I can tell him but I am paying him a compliment. He has not recanted his nolitical princioles. Th1s hill I have no doubt is auite true to the minister's oolitical orincioles. Re would have heen equally at home with Mr. W. J, Bro"1Tle, the Honourable Bill Browne twenty or thirty or forty years ago concerning ·~hat went on then, Of courRe. , he would. Of course, he would.

You know I will give him full marks for consistencv and for - but it is the Minister of Justice who oaraded himself as being the paragon, as being above reproach, He used to tell us so time and time again. Why I could find, if I were so minded, in the Hansard, '1r, Sneaker, I am sure one hundred times when we kne,~ the Minister of Justice for being so sincere and honest hecause he told us so here in the House but now we know him for what he is.

If this debate has established nothing else in the ooli~ical history of Newfoundland, it has established that the Minister of Justice is a man whose political nrincinles hlow with the wind and they are like the snow here todav and gone tomorrow. The only difference is the snow is white and clean. Well he fell off his white horse, as my colleague says, and he is now in the product of the white horse, the product that comes out of the stern end of the white horse. Anyway I could go on but out of kindness to the honourable gentleman I 1ust as soon, I thin~, I have made that noint.

Mr, Speaker, when the Premier onened this debate he told us at some length, by way of trying to justify the unjustifiable that the reason the government had re .1 ected the commission reoort and made thirty-one changes in fifty-one districts was that they had received hundreds and hundreds and more hundreds of renresentations from people and from bodies and agenc{es and organizations, He was au{te eloauent on that. I challenged him to nroduce one. He has not.

Therefore, we are forced to conclude that either thev do not exist or the Premier is 1ust so arrogant and so uncaring for the sensibilities of the House and the neonle of Newfoundland that he will just try to dismiss the issue. 8337

December 17, 1974 Tape 2180 PK - 2 But I believe there are some such representations. I know that the Councils in Marystown and in Burin did request some changes in the name of the constituency. I think the name of the constituency in the bill now very much is satisfactory to them but that is not the sort of change of which I am sneaking. I know there are representations from Harbour Main District, the people there were very unhappy about the commission's proposals and so were the commission as they say in their report.

I have no doubt there were such renre­ sentationa, I do not know to what extent they may have been solicited, AN HON. MEMBER: To a large extent. 'MR. ROBERTS: To a large extent they were, in other words the member went to the council - MR. DOODY: ~. ROBERTS: Oh, no, not by me, they were solicited by the late ••• Okay, okay, well we will trace the change back but we cannot until and unless the Premier is man enough to produce them. MR. DOODY: Inaudible. ------ ~. ROBERTS: I mean I asked the question and I wanted the answer and I am grateful to the honourable gentleman.

I think everybody was unhappy w:1.th the Higgins recommendations with reSl)ect to the Harbour Main Area but that does not mean that two wrongs make a right and the present solution, of course, is even worse. S6 I am forced to the conclusion, Sir, that the Premier either has no protests other than the two that I have mentioned, the two areas I have mentioned, the two geographic areas I have~mentioned, in which case he is making up his statement out of whole cloth or he is just choosing to ignore it.

He has not produced anything, not a letter not a jot, not a tittle, not a scrap of paper bas he produced to convey any protests.

So I say1 that with the exception of the Burin/"'!arystown Areas and the Harbour Main District, and each of these made a valid point, and only one dealt with boundary changes, the other one dealt with a name change, if you want to include name changes thirtv-seven of the fifty-one districts were changed but I am only concerne4 with substantive changes in boundaries, the name really is of little import, I say that the Premier has not got any protests and that is why he has not produced them. I say that he cannot produce them, not a matter that he will not,

December 17, 1974 Tape 2180 PK - 3 that he cannot. He was challenged. He did not meet the challenge. Now the Premier is not a coward, he did not back away from the challenge. He could not meet the challenge. So I say to him again now produce those representations because if not the people of Newfoundland will judge him, they will take his words and they will measure them against his nerformance, and the two, there is a great gap which only he can close.

Of course, even if there were renresentations the Premier in no way, no honourable gentlemen opnosite in any way dealt with the substantive point that if the government were not satisfied with the Higgins recommendations and wanted to make further changes, how come everybody in the nrovince was not allowed to get in on the act? Let us recall what happened, Mr. Speaker. Let us recall what hapnened. The Higgins Commission was constituted under legislation passed with the support of every member of this House. The Higgins Commission produced a preliminary report, as they were required to do under the legislation.

This report was widely circulated. It was printed in the newspaners. The Commission as they were required to do then proceeded to hold a series of public hearings throughout the nrovince. They received briefs and representations. Then they submitted to the government their final report. That report waE submitted about a year past, in December 1~73. The government made it nublic, I am not sure whether they made it public in the House or whether they made it public though the Minister of Justice,who then had some nolitical nrinciples, releasing it to the press hut.in any event, it was made p~l~.

The map which is there is the diagrammatic representation of the commission's final report. What hanpened then? That was in December 1~73. The House met at the end of Januarv, six weeks after that. The government in their Throne Speech which was read by His Honour the Governor, ~r. Harnum was governor then, the government said that they would be laying before the House a bill to frnplement the electoral boundary changes. That was January 31, if I am not mistaken. The end of Januarv the ~ovel"tllllent said that. The House then met for February, March, April, May, and June. We 8339

December 17, 1974 Tane 218() PK - 4 were in ad.1ournment for July, August, September, October, and most of November, and not a word was heard ahout redistribution or ahout the Higgins Report or anything else. I know what was happening, the Premier and his bunch of merry men were down on the eighth floor with their little nencils trying frantically to draw some boundaries that would save their oolitical hides. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudihle. MR. ROBF.RTS: The gentleman for Bonavista South can laugh, it will not save his hide no matter how they draw it.

The only chance he will have of getting elected is a houndarv that included his wife and himself, if his wife did not vote. He would probably win that election. Now, Mr. Sneaker, ~. EVANS: Inaudible. MR. ROiERTS: I must say, you know, Al Evans adds something to the dehate. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): Order, nlease! I detect a note of disillusion to the debate. I suggest to all honourable members that the right of an honourable member to be heard in silence be observed. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Jlurgeo is reallv a will not, and I will not go any further than that because - Now, Mr.

Speaker, the point I was making is that the government gave no notice that they were going to make any changes. Some of us less charitable than others may have suspected it but, in any event, the government gave no notice. Then for no apparent reason they called together the House the end of November and suddenlv it is urgent that we get the Redistribution Bill through. Well some of us have our thoughts as to why it may be so urgent but we will deal with that in due course. !,for one, hope that it leads to a general election.

I would like nothing better than a general election fought under any Redistribution Bill because I do not care how the Tories do it, they are not going to win it. Mr. Speaker, if thev do not accept my word, let us put it to the test. Let us! But now, Mr. Speaker, what was goinr, on all of those months? The gentleman for Labrador Vest was wrestling with his conscience and he wrestled successfully. The gentleman for Burin, the Minister of Justice confronted himself and decided that 8340

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2181 NM - 1 all his talk of political principles should go by the board because political convenience dictated that he stand by the Tory Government and against his principles and alleged protests were coming in. We have not seen a protest. I will . grant the ones from Harbour Main, I will grant the ones from the Burin - Placentia Area and St. Mary's as well. When I talk of Harbour Main I mean the proposed Conception - Salmonier.

The real protests, Sir, were members opposite scurrying in and saying, "Premier, boy I am up the creek, if you do this I will never get myself re-elected." Now the Premier, having to cheer up the troops who were in bad form anyway, said, "Boy you are going to make it," but then he said, "We are going to change some boundaries." That is what happened to the gentleman from Bonavista South. That is what happened to the gentleman from Trinity South and Trinity North. Sure! Sure, that is what happened. The gentleman from St.

Mary's, nobody in the province was allowed to participate in this except the members of the Tory Party. Nobody on Bell Island was given the opportunity to make any representation or even told that representations were being received. MR. NEARY: They will in due course. MR.

ROBERTS: Not one member of the government, not even the Minister of Justice who at that stage had not exposed himself as being without political principle, not even the Minister of Justice had said, "We are thinking of possibly making some changes because we are not entirely satisfied with the report: There was not a word out of him, not even a syllable, not even a letter. MR. MARSHALL: Would the honourable Leader permit a question? MR. ROBERTS: I will permit any question the honourable gentleman would like. MR.

MARSHALL: Do you not think it is rather ludicrous for a man who sat in the Smallwood Administration for eight years to talk about political principles~ Somebody who sat there when $30 million was floating between Paris and Panama, somebody who clung to power with his toe nails when he ought 8341

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2181 NM - 2 to have resigned. Do you not think it is a little bit foolish talking about political principle in that easer MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will now talk about political principles in the Smallwood Administration, if it is in order? MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! If I may interject here, I do not think that the honourable the House Leader's point was a point of order - MR. ROBERTS: No, it was a question, MR.SPEAKER (STAGG): In that case I apologize to the House for having interjectedi MR. ROBERTS: I am most anxious to deal with it at some length.

Let us talk about the $30 million. The honourable the House Leader has just attempted to deliberately mislead the House. He has deliberately misled the House. cnnRr.iously, openly. All he has to do, he has had access to the documents and he is one to talk about political principle, he and his colleagues. Let us just go down the line now and talk about some of them. We will talk about the Premier's political principles in dealing with the Smallwood Administration.

We will talk about the Minister of Finance's political principles in dealing with the - (is Your Honour scratching or is Your Honour about to say something?) Or is he electrocuted or something? MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. ROBERTS: We will now talk about some of the other political principles of gentlemen opposite. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please!

Having refreshed my memory on the rules and being refreshed by one of the gentlemen at the table, the fact that a question is asked does not make the ensuing debate in order and certainly a prolonged debate on the political principles of the present government or the past government is irrelevant to this debate and accordingly this whole line of questioning and answering is out of order. MIL ROBERTS: I reluctantly accept your ruling, Sir. Of course I do accept it but I am sorry that I cannot expose, there will be another opportunity to expose the gentleme1i opposite for what they really are.

But I will come back to redistribution ·and we will go on from there. We can talk about I the political principl~; of a man who is the solicitor for the Bank of ! Montreal. We could t aJk about some other things too. t 8342 i

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2181 NM - 3 Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, nobody in the province was given the least opportunity to make any representation. There was no public statement from any of the honourable and loquacious gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Manpower, who issues more press releases than a dysentery sufferer issues dysentery, said not a word on this. The gentleman from Ferryland whose picture appears in the papers with all the regularity of "Little Orphan Annie" and with about as much relevance, said not a word on this point, not a word.

Nobody in the province had any idea the Tory Government were considering any changes. After all, all they knew was what the Minister of Justice had said, the man whom they then thought was a man of political principle and political honour and what he had said was that the government would never again - and I will find his exact words in a minute - would never again set the bound•ries by political purposes, they would always set them - yes here we are, page two, three, four, seven of Hansard, I would suggest - AN HON. MEMBER: What date is it? MR. ROBERTS: Oh it is March 20, 1973. It was the day of infamy.

The day that the Minister of Justice wishes he had been born dead. ''Today we find that people are no longer happy over the prospects of the government of the day, with the ma.1ority in the House, sitting down and carefully calculating what number of seats would be in their best interest and how boundaries should be adjusted in order to suit voting patterns throughout the particular jurisdiction over which that particualar parliament 1overns." "I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that this legislation (the Electoral Boundaries Delimitation Act) will convince the people of Newfoundland that we, as a government," he was not even speaking just as a solitary man of political principle, he was speaking for "we the government," the honourable crowd over there as my colleague from Bell Island calls them, that "we as a government, and that we, as a House of Assemblv, are determined once and for all to do away with any suggestion that there can be gerrymandering insofar as electoral boundaries are concerned and voting patterns in this province of Newfoundland." There they are.

Words which should be enshrined in the democratic 8343

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2181 NM - 4 history of Newfoundland . Everybody in Newfoundland believed those words and right up until two or three weeks past, the time is going so quickly I lost track of exactly when the House met, it was two or three weeks ago we reconvened, everybody believed that was the government's position. Why should they not? This man is the Deputy Premier. This man is the Minister of Justice. This man is the paragon of virtue and of political honour and of political principle and of political sanctity. Those were his words. I have not misquoted him, I have not attempted to misconstrue them.

I have not misrepresented them, I have given them in context and fully and completely. This man spoke for the government. He would not permit any gerrymandering. in his resignation. Why the very least he would do would be to send He did it before when a Premier had a row with him over an electoral contest in a leadership convention. He left the Cabinet over that, not a great public issue, a dispute between two men.

Surely an issue like this, where the minister had nailed his colours to the masts on behalf of the government, the very least he would do, the very least a man of tender political conscience would do, the very least that would be done by a man vho had any concern for political morality or political propriety would be to ~esign. But what did our buddy do? He just accepted it. Cravenly and politically cowardly, that is what it is. Scandalous. Not only that, Sir, he misled, and the government misled the people of this province.

Nobody in Newfoundland was told that the government - no I will not say nobody was told, some of the favourite people in the Tory Party were told ., but the people of Newfoundland and this House of Assembly were not told that the government were going to redraw the boundaries. There was not the merest hint. It was a deep, dark secret, nearly as deep and as dark as the deal with TRIZEC.

But it was a deep, dark secret and they were down there scuttling around night by night, I can just picture, drawing their little pencils and saying, "Ah, put a jig there and a jag there," and then somebody had the genius of an idea, "We will nail Neary. We will put him in there with the junior member for Harbour Main and we will nail him." There was great jubilation. They probably all went off to Boston and had a party on the strength of that, 8344

Decemb~r 17, 1974 Tape No. 2181 NM - 5 a tea party. It will be the first time that those of that particular group ever drank tea. AN HON. MEMaER: Boston is famous for tea parties. MR. ROBERTS: Boston is .;tlso famous for political pr;l.nciples. The honourable gentle111en opposite would not know about that ei,=her. Mr. Speaker, the government misled the people of Newfoundland. The Mini-ster of Justic .e misled the people of Newfoundland. consciously, deliberately, defiantly. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG) : Deliberately, misleading may or may not be parliamentary. I will have t.o adjourn for a minute or so. 8345

December 17, 1974 Ta'Pe 2182 PK - 1 !"'l•~S.!'._EAKER: (STAGG): Order, 'Please! The Leader of the 0'P'POSition has,to coin a phrase, or to use a familiar nhrase, been on the razor's edge for some time in his remarks concerning misleading or deliherately misleading or whatever. I think his last remarks saying that "The government or the Minister of .Justice has deliberatelv misled the peonle' amounts to charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood, dealt with on nage 130,

Section ~55(1) of Beauchesne and accordinglv is unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw the statement. MR. ~OBERTS: I have no intention. Mr. Sneaker, in withdrawing it without Qualification. What I will sav is that the oeoole of Newfoundland were misled, I do not say bv whom, they can judge for themselves. The ~inister of Justice made a speech in the House, it was widely reported, then the government made some subseQuent legislative action. I am not saying who misled anybody but I will say the people of Newfoundland were misled. Those who did it can answer to themselves and to their constituents.

Now, Sir, - 'MR. SPEAKF.R (STAGG) : Order, nlease! The honourable member may not say indirectlv what he has not been allowed to say directly. I thin!<: again he is skating verv close to the edge of the lake, to use another nhrase. I suggest that he mav have gone heyond,:lt could be the suh.iect of some debate and I suggest to the honourable member that he refrain from th:1.s type of 'illusion. MR. ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour for Your Honour's guidance, I shall trv and heed it. Now the point I was making, Mr. Speaker, was that the government rece:f .ved this reoort about one year ago.

It was made oublic shortlv thereafter. I think it was made public only after there were some nuhlic demands by my friend, the then ~'ember for White Bay South . That, of course, produced the cutting to which I referred the Minister of Justice saving that "The government then believed in settinii: boundaries by a nublic commission.·• A most interesting little statement. 8346

December 17, 1~74 Taoe 2182 PK - 2 Then came the Throne Soeech with the announcement in it that the goverrunent intended to proceed. Then nothing hapoened nubliclv for ten months hut ohviously a p.reat deal haonened privately and then in comes the hill which is a classic example of gerrymandering. A classic example. Sir, clear cut, unarguable, undefensible and indefensible and nohodv on the other side to give them credit has even tried to defend it, even the Premier has not tried to defend this. No honourable gentleman who has sooken has tried to defend what the government have done.

Not one man has risen on their side, Sir, to defend this course of action. The two or three who were temptec:l to their feet, the gentleman for Trinity North, the gentleman for Bonavista South sooke only of their m-Ttl little - I am sorry the p;entleman for Placentia West snoke only of minor matters, not one of them dealt with the great nrinciple. The gentleman for St. John's North did to give him hii; due. Phen he spoke, when he said, what he believed, when he sooke to the principle he had to vote against the government. He did. No other honourable gentleman has snoh~n, not a word.

They would like to do this I would suggest, Mr. Sneaker, in the dark of night. They would like nothing better than to have the House meet some night and ahout four o'clock in the morning whin the Redistribution Bill through. That is the way they would like to do it because they are ashamed of this. They know what they are doing and yet as the House Leader said ~-•hen he onened this debate on the hill now he i;aid, ''We are going to put it through. We do not care what anybody says. We do not care what anybody in Newfoundland says, we are going to put it through. We are determined." I have no douht thev are.

I have no doubt they are. I have no doubt thev are, ~r. Sneaker but I say to them that they may have the final "WOrd in this House, thev do not have the final word in this province. There is a greater court, a greater body than this. I have seen even in my short nolitical career, I have seen government£ come and r,o. T'fiere was a government elected in 1%6 that sat over there with infinitely more talent and infinitely more men then the present government have to their hacks. AN HON. t-lEMBFR:: What hanoened to them? 8347

December 17, 1974 Tape 2182 PK - 3 Order, please: MR. SPEAKER: ~- ROBERTS: That government, Sir, in five years was humbled hy the neople of this province. I say to this honourable crowd, Sir, these gentlemen onposite that they too have a day of reckoning coming. The peonle of Newfoundland, Sir, know what is happeninp. It matters little where the boundaries are drawn and one can always agrue for or against and every point raised hv an honourable gentleman onnosite can be countered and dealt with on its merits.

There is not a point about the houndary of whether it should go here or half a mile this way or two communities the other way that thev cannot argue one way or the other. That, ,ir, is not the lssue here. Honourable gentlemen opposite would like to think that it is, would like to have people believe that it is. The issue is whether the boundaries are going to he drawn not hy the House, no, Sir, whether the houndari.es are going to be drawn by a group of men working in the office of the Premier or under the Premier's direction, the cabinet's direction or whether thev are to he drawn by an independent commission.

People of Newfoundland !<now, thev know two thinp:<:, they kno~, that the Tory Government said that they would never again gerrymander and the Tories have not kent that nromise. Then they know too that they have gerrymandered. This bill will go through. The government intend to have the House meet tonight, maybe at three or four o'clock tomorrow morning the debate will end and the hill will be given, I sunpose, they will probably have the Governor standing downstairs ready to give the Royal Assent.

The hill will go throu11;h,surel This ma.1ority over there, the same as an¥ majority anywhere can do what they wished. Mr. St. Laurant and Mr. Howell put the Pipeline Bill through nari .liament at Ottawa too. It went through, all stages, all readings, bang; hang~ bang it went right through. Of course, it did hut there 1.s a greater court and there is another majoritv. Honourable gentlemen onnosite stand indicted 1.n that court and stand expoised, exnosed by their own words and bv their own actions. The 'Minister of Justice stands exnose<l hy his words and bv his actions.

He stands in the dock, the dock of political sin. The 8348

December 17. 1974 Tape 2182 PK - 4 Member for T.ahrador West stands there. Othe r honourable jtentlemen stand there . The onlv one who can stand with courap,e, nolitical couraRe is the 1tentleman for St . John's North who defied his oarty - AN H('IN. )-fl:'{llF.!l: Inaudihle. ':1)!., ROBEJ!TS: Who defied his narty to do what he believed . It mav be that other honourable - lam not savinR that honourable ~entlemen opnosite do not helieve in thi.s bill, Sir. I assume they do. I will 1tive them that much credit but that 1ust shows how oerverted their oolitical ~rincinles have hecome . if thev believe in this bill.

Thev were the crowd ~•ho made the itreat reform . Let us never a1tain set boundaries bv a ROvernment. Let us set them hy 8349

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2183 NM - 1 an independent connnission, Instead, Sir, when it came to the crunch they backed away. They think it does not matter. In a sense it does not because as I said earlier, if the government cannot claim the support of a majority of the people in an election it will not win that election, nor should it. That is what happened to Joe Smallwood. Of course it did. That is what will happen to the present Premier if it has not happened already. They will find out when the writs are issued for another general election to elect a general assembly to succeed this one. Mr.

Speaker, the people of Newfoundland believed the Tory Party, believed they were men of political honour and political principle. AN HON. MEMBER: Still do. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, they believed what the government said, but never again will they. This

article in "The Eveninr: Telegram," a newspaper that I read and though I often do not agree with it, it very often does not agree with me. It is one of the sadest indictments I have ever seen of a man in public life. That is worse than what they used to say about Mr. Smallwood when "The Tele!!;ram" led very effectively the opposition and Mr. Smallwood. I am sorry that Ray Guy is not writing for them. I would like to hear him comment on the performance of the gentlemen opposite. It would be very entertaining.

It is a sad day when a government that held itself out as being unlike other men, as being above other men, fell away from that high standard, for no reason except the grossest sort of political expediency. We have seen it time and time again. We have seen it time and time again, now we are seeing it in clear and unmistakable terms. There can be no defence of this bill and in three weeks of debate not one member opposite has attempted to defend it, not one has attempted to defend this bill.

We get the final revelation of the government's position today when the House Leader, the Premier has not even got the gall to propose this one, he has used up his quota of gall, which is considerable, and now he turns it 8350

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2183 NM - 2 over to his seat mate, an equally galling or gallful gentleman, the gentleman from St. John's East. He says, "We do not care what you say. We are going to put it through." Fine, in due course we will have a vote and then we will stand and vote as they wish, vote as they believe and it will be recorded and then it will pass and we will go on to do some of the other crucial business before the House, the reason we have been called together.

Such things as, "An Act To Amend The Historic Objects, Sites and Records Act." There was a mass public meeting the other night demanding that this go through immediately. We will be sitting from 6:00 P.H. to 7:00 A.H. tomorrow morning. We will be sitting Christmas Day. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Here is one that concerns the honourable gentleman obviously because he will benefit from it, "An Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act." We will be sitting Christmas Day to deal with that one. Then, Mr.

Speaker, we will have another one which really hits home with the people of lfewfoundland, that will help them, "An Act Respecting Public Libraries and Boards to Operate Them." Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the matters that come before this House and when we deal with the Redistribution Bill, when we deal with the Redistribution Bill, when it is disposed of, we will deal with these great crucial matters and we will see the honourable gentlemen opposite expose their political principles again. MR. NEARY: They would be arrested for indecent exposure. Ml.. ROBERTS: Yes, except they have so little to show. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I do not propose now, I will in committee stage, go through the changes the government have made and expose exactly ~hy each boundary has been changed. I shall give the portion of the story that the Premier conveniently or not did not give. But I will say without any fear of contradiction, people aay argue it but they will not be able to contradict it, that the only changes that have been made in the commission report, are ones that in the belief of the Tory Government, will help the Tory Party. Those are the only changes. 8:-J51 .

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2183 NM - 3 The districts they are punishing, and I use the word "punish," it is a sordid word to describe a sordid act. The districts they are punishing are the Northern Peninsula districts that voted liberal. The commission said there should be three seats on the Northern Peninsula. That was their considered opinion, ~perating within the terms of the legislation so eloquently and with such great devotion to political principle, introduced and sponsored by the gentleman from Rurin .

The government with no reason stated, with every reason in their minds, political cunning and expediency, have decided to throw that out. They have created, Sir, two seats on the Northern Peninsula, one of which is the second largest seat in a population sense in the province~ another which is the sixth or seventh largest in the population sense in the province. seats which geographically will be extremely difficult for a man to serve and seats which will add further fuel to the separatist feeling in the Labrador part of this province.

They have done it for only one reason, to punish the people for voting Liberal and to try to protect their members down in Trinity Bay. That is why they have done it, Sir. Let is stand on the record . Let the people judge. They talk of growth, how can they explain growth, when the largest seat in the province, the proposed Conception Bay South seat, is one in which we are going to get great growth. That is an area of the population of which we will expand, expand very rapidly if ever the Tory Government can get moving and provide water and sewer services there.

But it is an area in which the population will grow rapidly. So that principle of growth does not exist. They propose to create the proposed seats of St. Mary's - The Capes, Ferryland, two of the smallest seats in Newfoundland, an average of 8,200 people a constituency. On the Northern Peninsula, difficult, remote, they propose to create seats with an average of 11,000 and 12,000 people a district. Why? There can only be one explanation and let it be said, to punish the people, to hurt them, to try to take away their political voice, to give two members on the Northern Peninsula instead of three.

That is why they are doing it, to punish them because they voted Liberal. Sir, I say to this government, that the people on the Northern 8352

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2183 NM - 4 Peninsula will vote as they believe, no matter what seats they have. I think they will vote Liberal. But we will find out when the time comes. But in the meantime they are being made to suffer for their political beliefs. The gentleman from St. Mary's profits directly from that decision, as do the gentleman from Ferryland. Neither of them has had the political courage to stand in this debate and take part. They accept what the government are doing. Silence is consent. The government are punishing Labrador.

Stubborness on the Premier's part because he made a fool of himself in introducing the bill, a resolution I am sorry. Re made another fool of himself in the Rouse, he did not know what he was talking · about. Re made that obvious. Re will not give way on Labrador. It can make no real difference. The same geographic area divided between two seats, just a different boundary. A boundary change that every expression of public opinion that has come to my attention, and I know of none elsewhere, a change is favoured. They are too stubborn.

They are too small minded, like a child, like a four year old child who is too stubborn to admit he is wrong. The government, Sir, and I do not mind them being stubborn if they want, that is their problem not mine. But, Sir, it is the people of Labrador who will suffer and the government will not listen to anybody who knows anything about Labrador. They just will not listen. They do not care. That is the message that is getting through the Labrador. That is the message that is getting through, Sir. That does not hold well for this province.

Nearly fifty years ago a group of men fought hard to ensure that Labrador was part of this province. Now we have a group of men who apparently are determined to split this province and to encourage Labrador to go its own separate way. Strange actions for a group of men who like to pretend that their big monument will be the Gull Island project. They cannot maintain both positions, Sir, not with any cons1stency of principle. Of course that does not bother them. The Minister of Justice has showed us where political principle ends up when he has to show some guts. 8353

December 17, 1974 Tape No. 2183 NM - 5 Yes, I stood by the Smallwood Cabinet, Sir. I did it openly, ril!:ht or wrong. I will stand by what I did, Sir. If the people do not think that is the way that a nian should act there is a remedy available to th.em, just as there is a rememdy available when it comes to the Minist er of Justice , whom I assure , will have to seek re-e lection if he is to continue in political life. It is eit.her that or back to the Bar. I do not think that he will 11:et to be the Chief Justice or the Justic e of ·Appeal. I hope and I pray that with no matte .r what deal he may tcy to work out with Ottawa - A.~ RON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 8354

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2184 Page 1 - MW MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is ridiculous for the Leader of the Opposition to be getting on with his personal innuendoes, not innuendoes but direct references which are completely irrelevant, childish, churlish, out of order and he should be called to order for it, Mr. Speaker, and told to desist from this type of diatribe against the Minister of Justice. It only derogates the 6pposition and himself. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The honourable Leader of the Opposition was being irrelevant and I think he was on the verge of impugning perhaps the character of the Minister of Justice. I suggest that he get back to the principle of the bill. _MR. ROBERTS : I need not impugn his character, Sir, his actions speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, the point that I was 1118king is that the government are too stubborn to make the change in Labrador. I have no hope that this government will desist from their decision to punish the people of the Northern Peninsula, to hurt them to~try to harm them because they voted Liberal.

There is no other explanation for creating a seat with 11,600 people, another one with 12,088 people, according to the governmeiE's figures compared with other seats, 8,000 in Grand Falls; 8,000 in Ferryland, 8,400 in St. Mary's - The Capes. There can be no justification. History? The only history in the Tory action is the history of trying to save some of their members. There can be no justification. I regret that they say they will not change the Labrador boundaries. I appeal to them again to do so. It will not change the balance of seats.

It will give the people concerned an infinitely better opportunity for political representation no matter what man or representing what party they choose to send 8355

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2184 Page 2 to this House in the future, The commission wrestled with that problem and came up with a solution. I might add that one of the members of the commission, Magistrate Seabright, who has said the obvious thing that, of course, the government are free to do what they want with the rec0111111endatinns and we knew that . He said so and it was fair enough. Magistrate Seabright has lived in the Happy Valley Area for a couple of years now. He has been posted there by the Minister of Justice as a magistrate or what they call provincial courts now.

We no longer have the honoured title of magistrates, we now have provincial courts. Mr. Speaker, Magistrate Seabright was a member of the commission,with firsthand knowledge. The conmission made an unanimous finding so we assume that Magistrate Seabright's personal knowledge agreed with the findings on the Labrador seats. The government just will not give way. If they will not give way because they believe they are right, that ie one thing but they have given no arguments to show that they are right. The Premier yesterday was not even pathetically weak in his arguments. He was just ludicrously weak.

He showed once again that he has no understanding of Labrador, of the people there, of their needs, of their aspirations and of their hopes. Re just proved that conclusively. I will not claim it is a triumph if it will make them feel happy. I will not say it. I will ask my colleagues not to say a word that, ah, we made them change their minds. Let them do the right thing for that part of the province. The Straits thing, if they want to change that, then they have to go back to the Higgin's Report. They will not do that because they have decided to scuttle their principles and protect themselves.

Let them speak for Labrador. Let them care about Labrador. If we have in ihe years to come a separatist movement 8356

December 17, 1974 Page 3 growing in Labrador and the nucleus of it is there now, these men here this day will have done a great deal to foster its growth. One of the great disservices ever done to the people of this ­ province is this act. Mr. Speaker, I will comment in detail on committee stage. The bill requires each boundary to be called, there is a clause dealing tith it and each boundary can be debated, the clause as a whole and it can be debated. We intend to debate it. If it requires that the House meet until 4;00 A.M. or 5:00 A.M., that is the government's decision.

If they want to ram. this thing through, if it is so urgent that all bu•iness must stand aside and the House of Assembly must meet morning,noon and night, we will be here. They will not shut us up that way, Sir. They will not wear us down that way. The people of Newfoundland will judge for themselves the urgency of this business and the way in which the government are handling it. I want to make one further point, Sir. The government have put in the bill a request that the quorum be fourteen. It is now fourteen out of forty-two. It should be seventeen out of fifty-one. Even that is ridiculously low.

It should be at least one-third of the House. I would ask that they consider amending it. I am prepared to move an amendment or equally if they prefer to have one of their own men do it. I would be quite willing to stand aside on the point. Mr. Speaker, the quorum of the House should be one-third of the members. That in itself is low enough. I am sure that that was just an oversight in the draftsmen. Nobody real¼y put much attention to that point. It is fourteen out of forty-two. The principle has been established throughout the years. It was twelve out of thirty-six and it should be seventeen out of fifty-one.

That is few enough men to deal with the business of this province. It is an easy amendment to move. It would be just simply to drop the word fourteen and replace it with the word seventeen. Sir, that is what little I have to say on the bill at this stage. I will not vote for it. My colleagues will not vote for it. We will not vote for it because we feel that fifty-one M.H.A.'s 8357

December 17, 1974 Tape no. 2184 Page 4 are too many. There will be no change in our position in that from the time I stated it in this House two or three weeks ago. We have been forced by the rules to engage in some pwocedural gymnastics in an attempt to enable the matter to be fully debated. We will do it again. Our position is quite clear. We think that fifty-one M. H. A's are too many. Mr.

Speaker, I say now that the next Liberal Government, which will take office whenever the ~ext general election is held, will bring in a bill that will set up an independent collllllission that will be directed to draw the boundaries on the basis of forty-two K.H.A.'s. There will be no gerrymandering then. Those words will be noted in Hansard. I expect to have a certain role to play in the next Liberal Administration of this prvvince. Those words, Mr. Speak.er, will be there on the record. The Liberal Administration will honour those words. Fifty-one K.I.A's are too many.

A House of forty-two can adequately represent the interests of the people of this province. We do not need fifty-one. The government have given no reason. The only real reason is to justify the swollen size of the cabinet. Furthermore, Sir, we will vote against this bill beca