November 21, 1995          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLII  No. 59


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to correct some major errors that have recently been reported by the media in relation to government's light vehicle fleet.

In 1991, government issued a directive to reduce the light vehicle fleet, which includes sedans, station wagons, vans, pick-ups and 4-wheel drives. As a result, government's light vehicle fleet was reduced from 1,217 units to 917 units.

Mr. Speaker, since that time Vehicle Fleet Management has made every effort to control fleet size and structure. Vehicle replacements are permitted only when the vehicle in question is unsafe or uneconomical to keep in service, and even then only if the unit is proven to be definitely required to maintain a mandated service. This action has subsequently reduced the fleet to its present total, 876 units.

Mr. Speaker, these 876 units are significantly lower than the approximately 1,500 units that have been incorrectly reported by the media. Where they came up with this inaccurate number is uncertain, but I hope they will do the right thing and correct this misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, also in 1991, government ordered that all vehicle rentals in excess of thirty days be approved by Vehicle Fleet Management. A review of vehicle rentals for the past four years shows that rental costs have decreased by approximately $470,000 and the total units rented decreased from 227 units to 145 units, or 82 units total.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, government has been continuously looking for more efficient and more cost-effective ways to operate. Vehicle Fleet Management will continue to monitor and control the size and structure of the government-owned fleet as well as vehicle rentals in an effort to reduce cost wherever possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister for sending over a copy of his statement five minutes before the House opened.

He says that the light vehicle fleet was reduced from 1,217 units to 917 units. Why should the people of the Province trust those figures when the government doesn't even know how many employees they have employed?

He says that vehicle replacements are made only when the vehicles are unsafe, and I have to question that. How does he know when the vehicles are unsafe when he has dropped motor vehicle inspections?

He says the fleet is now down to 876 units, but I believe that is really too many units when we have health care cuts in this Province. Maybe if government looked at proper management in the departments themselves, instead of having separate vehicles, they should look at having a proper car pool and allotment that way, Mr. Speaker. Also, he says that in 1991, government ordered all vehicles rentals in excess of thirty days be approved by Vehicle Fleet Management.

Now, that goes to the point of saying, every twenty-eight days we could have the same vehicle renewed or rented, Mr. Speaker, and he says that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, he says that the cost has been decreased by $470,000, but he did not say how much he actually spent on vehicle rentals this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier.

In the next few days, before the end of the month, the Federal Liberal Government will be making a major announcement about radical changes in Unemployment Insurance. I ask the Premier: how much money will the UI cuts cost Newfoundland and Labrador? How much money will the Newfoundland and Labrador economy lose as a result of the UI cuts during the short-term transition period, and then annually, beyond the transition period, and how will the Premier propose to make up the loss?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same today as it was last week when she asked the question.

I still don't have the detail of what the Federal Government is proposing. Now, I have taken a variety of steps that I am not prepared to make public right at this time. They have been in progress for the last month and certain plans that had been made, were derailed for other reasons, but I have taken steps and I expect that within the next little while I will be able to provide the House with some more detailed information. But, as at this moment, the answers are precisely the same as they were last week.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the fate of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Newfoundland and Labrador families and communities is in the hands of a passive, silent Premier.

I ask the Premier: Are you still pushing your Income Supplementation Program, even though the ISP has been scorned by thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and even though the ISP has been rejected as an option by the Federal Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: All of that introduction was so much balderdash and that's all I need say about it, typical balderdash, but, Mr. Speaker, we have been addressing the issue in a serious way and we will continue to do so, with an objective to achieving results rather than making political noise. Now, that's the approach we intend to take.

In terms of the question about the ISP, I believe the day will come when the Leader of the Opposition will be eating her words, when she will find that the ISP is the real answer to many of the concerns that trouble not only this Province in terms of employment opportunities and protection of income, but trouble much of Atlantic Canada and a good deal of the rest of the country. I believe the day will come when we will see the ISP widely accepted, not only in this Province, but in much of the rest of the country as well.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the Premier is still pushing the ISP.

I have another question for the Premier: Has the Chrétien Government discussed with the Provincial Government, the option of provinces delivering employment training programs instead of having the Federal Government's Human Resources Development, HRD, handle training, and if this choice is available to Newfoundland and Labrador, what will this government do, I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I agree, the Federal Government ought not really to be involved in detailed training programs. That is a trespass on the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is a legitimate complaint that Quebec has made for years because the Federal Government uses its spending power to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, and other smaller provinces, have welcomed these expenditures because they are money that we might not otherwise have to spend. What the Federal Government should really be doing is increasing the level of equalization and getting out of these kinds of programs and letting the Province set its own priorities in training, health, and other matters. That is the right way to deal with it.

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

MS VERGE: The Premier has past been silent as the Chrétien government both cuts transfer payments and downloads program responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on something that he is directly responsible for. Has the Premier completed his count of temporary employees, and staff with deputy minister and assistant deputy minister status in government departments and agencies? If the Premier has completed his count, what are the numbers? Since the Premier is personally responsible for deputy ministers, will the Premier confirm that while he has fourteen departments, there are more than twice as many government officials with deputy minister status?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, most of what the hon. member said is not correct, either. The numbers have not been totally completed. I say a list and it wasn't totally complete so I sent it back to have added to it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: And to address - yes, and it is being done and it will be tabled. Part of the problem is getting the full information on the comparables in 1989. The preliminary indications are that the number is well less by 20 per cent than what it was in 1989 in the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister level appointments, but I want to make sure that everything is included as it stands at this moment in 1995, that there is nothing left out, no basis for complaint or criticism, everything is included but that everything is included in 1989 as well.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, can it ever be possible that the Premier of this Province, after being asked repeatedly in the House of Assembly, cannot tell the people of the Province how many officials are on the government payroll with deputy minister status?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the total number at the moment, as nearly as I can understand, will be in the neighbourhood of about 110. There was 129 in 1989, now I know it is down by that much. The comparables, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make sure that all of the comparables are included, that we don't fail to include anybody. The preliminary assessment - I have had a deputy clerk of the council working on it for several days to make sure that he includes everybody, the indications are at the moment that there are about 20 per cent less now then there was six years ago.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of a value added production line that produce a product known as Surimi at the Terra Nova fisheries plant located in Clarenville? I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that this particular production line is now being dismantled and shipped outside of the Province?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed I am aware of the Surimi production line at Clarenville but I must say, I am not aware that it is being dismantled and shipped out of the Province. If that is the case we will certainly find out and I will report back to this House.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to tell the minister that I am aware that it is being shipped out of the Province and from what I understand it is being taken out as we speak here today. I would like to also ask the minister if he would be kind enough to check to see if there are any provincial loan guarantees or if any provincial taxpayers money was used to purchase this Surimi equipment and if it is I would like to ask him to find out now or let the House know if the Province is going to be reimbursed now that this particular piece of equipment is going to be taken outside of the Province and operated in Canso, Nova Scotia?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure this hon. House that I will have a full investigation of this issue. If these claims that the hon. member is making are indeed true proper action will be taken, rest assured of that.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've got a question for the Premier. Over the last few weeks I've questioned the Minister of Natural Resources on a number of occasions with regard to a tax amendment for mineral finds such as Voisey's Bay that the Premier promised in the last sitting of the House. The minister has given general assurances that the thing is forthcoming but very little in the way of specifics as to time or how or the nature of such an amendment. Can the Premier indicate whether or not such an amendment to increase revenue intake from Voisey's Bay will be brought forward in this particular sitting of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question as well for the Minister of Natural Resources. It has been a while since we've had an update in this House as to the fate of the Terra Nova project, where it sits now on its way to development. I wonder as well could the minister give us some indication of where the oil find on the West Coast is at at this present time.

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

DR. GIBBONS: I will start with Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in the Province knows that we've been negotiating with the Terra Nova consortium for some time. We've had lots and lots of meetings, we've made great progress, but we are not there yet. When we get there we will tell the public and be glad to do so.

Secondly, the oil find on the West Coast. As far as I know there is no oil find on the West Coast. Whatever the company may or may not have found it will tell us two years from August 1, 1995 because they have two years' confidentiality under the law from August 1, 1995, the date they released the rig from the first well.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that all the speculation in the press, all the reports in the media, of oil or gas being burned off at night being visible for miles, all of this is the stuff of imagination, or is the minister just being coy with the situation?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying anything about the flares that have been seen. Things are real. When something is real it is real. I just said that there is no oil find and there has not been any announcement of any oil find. We will have to wait and see.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice.

On Saturday morning there was a Mr. Kevin Smith from Conception Bay South found dead in a cell at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, early Saturday morning. The minister said yesterday in a Ministerial Statement that it was either late Friday night or early Saturday morning that the death occurred. Some reports now have stated that it was from natural causes. Could the minister tell the House what type of surveillance is used at the Penitentiary now? Is it actual, physical surveillance, the use of cameras, or a combination of both?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, first of all a minor slip by my hon. friend, Mr. Smith died in the lockup here in St. John's, not at the Penitentiary here in St. John's. I have not yet received the full reports that I have requested. I expected I would have them by now but I do not. In fact, I am just looking at a note from one of my officials telling me that I should have them shortly; and, of course, the police investigation will take whatever time it takes. I will not see that, and indeed will know nothing about it until the police take whatever decision they consider appropriate on the basis of whatever evidence they may gather. With that said, let me come back to the narrow point.

My understanding, subject to getting the full reports - all I have had are oral briefings at this stage - my understanding is that video surveillance equipment was in place, as it is supposed to be, and that there was a video record, in fact, of what occurred in the lockup, or the relevant portions of the lockup, that evening.

Now the hon. gentleman may have some supplementaries, and I shall try to respond to them, but I must say to him and to the House that I cannot go very much further. Not only is there a criminal investigation under way; there is an investigation which is being carried out by the adult corrections officials, as I said yesterday, and on that at least I shall be able to report as soon as I have something to report.

I think that answers the hon. gentleman's question, but I will obviously try to answer any supplementaries he may wish to raise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley on a supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if there was a physical surveillance in this particular case at the lockup, and the minister has stated that there was camera surveillance there, and it was determined at 7:45 a.m. that this gentleman was found dead in the cell, is there anything to indicate so far to the minister that that cell was checked, once that gentleman was put in there Friday night, before 7:45 a.m.; and if the cameras were in place at that time, what was on the cameras? First of all, was there any physical check of the cell, most importantly, from the time the gentleman was put in there Friday night until he was actually found Saturday morning, or was that the first physical surveillance?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question because that is precisely among the information that I have requested as to exactly what happened. All that I do know, and all that I am able to tell the House is that - and this is I think now, all of it is public - Mr. Smith was taken into custody by the police under the detention of intoxicated persons legislation. He was taken to the lockup, that is not an unusual course of events, at some point during the evening - and I have been very vague on the time. It is not that I don't have some indication of the time but I have been vague deliberately and for what I believe are proper reasons - at some point overnight Mr. Smith died. Until the investigations are completed we can say nothing more but I assure, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend in the House that I will present a full report here as soon as I am in a position to do so. Really I cannot get into details beyond that until we know exactly what happened or as best we can from the record, we know exactly what happened.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention that the department has decided to cut the position of mechanic at the depot in Trepassey. I would like to ask the minister, due to the fact that this part of the Province and indeed part of my district, we see many problems in relation to snowstorms, et cetera and last year this mechanic that was in place at the depot worked many hours of overtime. I would like to ask the minister, has there been a cost analyst put in place of what it will cost to take the mechanic out of Trepassey and to take any breakdowns to bring mechanics into the area or to bring the machines out of the area versus what it would cost to keep the mechanic in Trepassey?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last two to three years and I guess probably before that, the department began to reorganize the whole of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, especially on the transportation side. Now one of the reasons for it, number one, now you have most of the roads, all except 1,400 kilometres of road is paved in the Province so therefore you don't need as many depots around the Province. Number two, we started buying a whole new fleet of trucks. One of the things about those trucks are, they come with a five-year warranty. So once they come with a warranty you don't need as many mechanics in the garages around the Province.

The other thing we've done is we have centralized the garages because a lot of those trucks are computerized and different new technology is there and you cannot have that kind of equipment and tools and stuff out in every garage around the Province. So you build a larger garage and you centralize all the equipment into one centralized position. So we've made significant changes in the reorganization of the whole department to deal with all the changes in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation because of circumstances. So what we have done is make a major saving in the cost effectiveness, less people and less staff right throughout the department. I think it is something like $5 million a year less in salaries within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. In the changes that we've made we are still delivering just as much service to the general public as was delivered with the former numbers of people that were there, I think it was 567 people. What we have done is totally reorganize. Yes, it is more beneficial, yes it is more cost effective because in small places like Trepassey and like many other places, when a truck broke down the first thing you would have to do is send somebody in to St. John's or to the nearest major outlet to get a part. It is much more cost effective, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't feel safe in taking the minister's comments that it is totally cost effective. I would like the minister to table something in the House to that effect. I would also say to the minister, when he gets up to answer all he talks about are major savings. Mr. Speaker, I have had calls from the Trepassey area last night and this morning, I have letters coming to me now about the situation as it relates to Trepassey. People are concerned yes, about saving dollars but they are also concerned about saving lives. I would like to ask the minister, is safety a concern or is it just cutting the dollars?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that almost does not deserve an answer. Safety is the number one concern. No matter how many trucks you have on the road, no matter how many ploughs you have out all over the island, no matter how many mechanics or how many drivers, we cannot stop the snow from falling and people have to adjust. They are speeding in driving conditions when we have a snowstorm like last evening. I am not aware of any major problems because a mechanic was laid off in Trepassey caused by laying off that mechanic.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The minister has indicated of late that there will be a delay in preventing a report on the wind-up of the Cabot Corporation. I ask the minister why, and when can we expect the report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everybody on this side of the House and those involved in the government realize that it is time sensitive for us to give a clear indication to everybody in the Province of the basis on which we proceed and move forward with the celebration plan for 1997. However, in doing that the government also wants to be assured that the plans that were drawn up for us by the transition team that worked very diligently for a couple of weeks make sense and have the appropriate level of detail. We are doing some final analysis again of that and some other scenarios that we will present again back to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

It would be, in our view, inappropriate for us to be giving partial information. Because what the House, the hon. members opposite, the media and the public have been expecting is an accounting of the expenditures on the Corporation to date, the cost of winding down some of the operations that will no longer be necessary, and the basis for which we plan to proceed and go forward.

Until we are firmly in a position to announce the last part of that, which is the basis on which we will go forward, the rest of the information would remain incomplete. Rather than give incomplete answers we've decided to hold it until the Cabinet has been briefed again and we will give assurances to everybody that we will have complete information on all three counts that I've mentioned.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect we will get the report when the House closes. The minister has indicated that the Cabot Corporation had more administrative expenses than was originally expected. Can the minister explain these extra expenses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: I don't recall, Mr. Speaker, making such a statement. What I did indicate was that the Cabot Corporation, from the analysis that we had done in making the final decision to take the steps necessary to dissolve the Corporation, had gotten to the point where the administrative cost of the Corporation itself, irrespective and regardless of any of the costs associated with planning events and moving forward, had gotten into a range of some 40 per cent or so of the total budget, and that that was unacceptably high, and was one of the reasons why we decided to dissolve the Corporation and move forward on a different basis. Which, leading back to the fist question, is again the analysis that we are concluding now so that we can give full information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - as to the cost to date -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - and how we go forward.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to explain today to this House the difference in views, especially between himself and the MP, Mr. Brian Tobin, on the level of federal support for the Cabot '97 celebrations. It seems to be at two opposite poles. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate that question. Either the hon. member who asked it is probably the only person who is supposedly interested in the issue that hasn't listened to myself and Mr. Tobin, the federal Cabinet minister, address that issue. Because in fact it is the exact opposite of what the hon. member would try to describe it to be.

Myself and the federal minister, both of us have been saying exactly the same thing about funding for the Cabot Corporation. It was explained the very day that I rose in this Legislature and announced that we would take the necessary steps to dissolve the Corporation at the earliest opportunity. That day, in addressing the issue to the media, I had indicated that the federal government had expressed a willingness to continue funding the Corporation, provided the Province was willing to take that expenditure from the $100 million economic renewal agreement, and that the Province had stated that in our view that was not an appropriate use of that particular money and we were not willing to have the Corporation and its activities funded from that source.

Mr. Tobin, as the federal minister responsible for Newfoundland generally, said exactly the same thing to the public, and now this is only the second time that I have heard anybody suggest there is a difference of opinion. Some of the media first suggested that we were saying something different but we were not, we said exactly the same thing. Now, the hon. member opposite is suggesting there is some difference in the two statements when any checking of what we have said will show that we said exactly the same thing from day one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

Approximately one year ago, a constituent of mine, Ms Jean Noseworthy and myself met with the Premier and the Minister of Justice dealing with the issue of the control and use of pellet and BB and air guns generally in the Province. At that time the Premier gave a commitment to Ms Noseworthy, and the Minister of Justice as well, that they would be lobbying or speaking with the Federal Government, whether that be the Prime Minister's office or the federal Minister of Justice, to attempt to have the control of those types of air guns included in the Criminal Code of Canada. Can the Premier indicate today if he has done that, who has he talked to, what correspondence has he sent, and what has been the reply to date?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of the Premier. The answer is that representations were made. I am not sure if the Premier signed the letter as acting minister or whether I signed it.

MR. TOBIN: How come he was acting minister?

MR. ROBERTS: He was acting minister because there was a police investigation underway at the time into the affairs of a company in which I have a publicly declared interest. That investigation was resolved by charges being laid, and that is all I am going to say about that.

I believe, if memory serves me well, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Ilater sent copies to Ms Noseworthy of the letter that had been written to Mr. Rock, the minister in Ottawa, and we have had a letter of acknowledgement from him. There has been nothing more since then in a correspondence context but I do know from my officials who sit on the appropriate committees that the process of considering whether the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to actually change the muzzle velocity of projectiles - now, the permitted muzzle velocity is not something that my friend, the Member for Grand Bank is familiar with. The permitted muzzle velocity is the measure that distinguishes a firearm from an non-firearm, and the officials are now at work deciding whether they should recommend to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, and to the Cabinet, that the Criminal Code be amended to bring air guns, I guess, is the correct title, within the Criminal Code. So there has been some progress. But has there been measurable progress? The answer is, no.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: While this may not seem like an important issue to many, there are hundreds of children in this Province who have been seriously injured. Every year as a result of the unlimited use where people can go in and buy off the shelf, twelve-year-olds and thirteen-year-olds can go in and buy off the shelf at any store a pellet or BB gun.

Let me ask the minister: Has any consideration been given to introduce provincial legislation whereby the control of air guns and pellet guns would be limited, and if so, can the minister report that such legislation will be coming to the House, either this fall or in the next sitting?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the hon. gentleman, and I don't think he needs this assurance, but we on this side, including the ministry, certainly take the concern seriously and we have evidenced that by our action. I guess I can make two comments in response to his question, Sir. The first is that some municipalities have found authority, they say, within the Municipalities Act, to enact regulations by municipal bylaws. I am not sure whether the City of St. John's and Mount Pearl have done that? There are one or two others, but secondly, I must say that there is a very real legal question, and without getting into a constitutional dissertation, its the characterization issue, is this criminal law or is it a matter of property and civil rights, or a matter generally of a local nature within the Province? That, of course, as my friend would recognize, is the constitutional division of powers.

A number of provinces have got into a lot of trouble by trying to enact legislation that the courts held was criminal. I am not aware that the air guns issue has been addressed and that is why we haven't done anything about the air gun thing, but I may say, the legal advice I get is that this House probably does not have authority to enact legislation with respect to air guns if it's of a criminal nature, if it is characterized by the constitutional test to be criminal; that's why we haven't moved on it. We believe the answer is to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, which already regulates firearms using this muzzle velocity, a factor of which I spoke a moment or two ago.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government has already moved in one area, in enacting legislation that flies in the face of the Criminal Code of Canada when it introduced .05 alcohol level, when the Criminal Code of Canada suggests that .08 is the legal level.

Let me ask the Minister of Justice this question then: I mean, why would it be impossible to enact legislation through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that would set up limits in terms of who could buy pellet guns, how they can be used and what age people have to be in order to use them? Why is that so impossible? Why do we have to wait for the Criminal Code of Canada to be amended when we have the power in this Legislature to take care of it right now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, time for a quick answer.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a little at sea, I fear, when he confuses the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act of .05 - which, by the way has been a great success from all the information I have seen - when he confuses that with criminal legislation. In the case of a .05, we are legislating with the respect to the Highway Traffic Act and the license to drive which is issued under that.

Now, let me come back to the major substance or his major point. He says it is not impossible to act, but what I have said to him is, the legal advice I have is that it is impossible to act. Parliament has already to moved to occupy the field on using its criminal law jurisdictional power by enacting legislation regulating firearms. Now, if we are to enact a bill here, the concern would be, the advice I am given, is that this would be struck down.

Now I must -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. May I have leave to finish the -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I must acknowledge the advice, and in my judgement it is sound advice, so I accept it. We could go ahead, I suppose, and adopt the bill but the risk would be struck down.

Now, the municipalities have enacted regulations, they have not been struck down and that speaks for itself. If, in the fullness of time - and it takes a while to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, it's a major piece of legislation and it affects every Canadian, often very directly - in the fullness of time, Ottawa says no, and my understanding is, that's not the answer, at least we have not been told that as yet. If Ottawa says no, then I think we will have to revisit the issue and decide what we should do.

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we first of all, please, deal with Motions 5 through 8. Those are leave to introduce - first of all, I think, the Premier would like... Could we have leave to revert to - he has found the answer to the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. ROBERTS: No leave? Alright, that's fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, give him leave.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman, the Member for Mount Pearl says no leave; that's fine. If he wants to be surly and sullen, let him be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he will get no leave from me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, sobeit. We will go back to Motions 5 through 8, if we may, and we hope that the hon. gentleman, the Member for Mount Pearl is in a little better temper later in the day.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds in St. John's Act". (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations". (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For Non-Elected Public Office Holders". (Bill No. 41)

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many of the bills are actually printed, but they will be made available to members as soon as they are printed now that the House has given leave.

I wonder if I might first of all move, in my desire to accommodate members opposite, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to call Order 24, which is the adjourned debate on the House of Assembly amendment act. Let me say again to the House, as I have told my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, that the government propose to call no other business today. I don't know whether this matter will come to a vote at second reading today or not; that is essentially to be determined by the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's fine, I mean, that's up to the House; I couldn't care less. What I am saying is, if we come to a second reading vote today, we shall adjourn. If we don't, we shall go on not later than 10:00 p.m. and then we will carry on, on Thursday, and deal with it again. That's fine; I am in the hands of the House. So I say to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, he can govern himself accordingly and I shall abide contentedly by the side of the road.

Now, the hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East adjourned the debate, but he has not seen fit to join us today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I think he is down trying to get some money out of the government in court, if you want to know the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, he ain't got it yet, I tell you.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I assume somebody will rise to catch your eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 24, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was expecting somebody from the other side to rise and give them leave to go, but I will take my turn to rise and have a few comments on this very particular and significant issue that has come before us, which is the reducing of the number of seats in this Legislature. It was said to be famous, but I think it would be better classed as the infamous proposal put forward now.

Mr. Speaker, it is just a little over three years now since I have entered this Legislature, and long before that, before even being elected, I always concerned myself, like many people in this Province, with the number of members that represent us in this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two years.

MR. SHELLEY: Two years. It seems like a lot longer than that.

And we have always questioned the number of members we think necessary to serve us in this Legislature and to represent people throughout this Province. Of course, the Premier keeps referring to the hundreds and hundreds of communities spread over hundreds of miles of coastline in this Province, so right away we wonder how many legislative members we really need to do a good job of representing people who are so widely distributed over such a large land mass, including the Labrador, of course, and the Island portion of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to mind when you consider those numbers - of course, I guess each and every one of us has to decide what we think is right, the right privileges and the right justification for us, as members of the House of Assembly, how we serve each and every person who has elected us to come here and represent them.

First and foremost, I would just like to give my comments on that particular part of this, which is how we represent our district, and how we represent each and every individual who elected us to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I will first talk about my own district, of course, being a rural Newfoundland district, the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, to which I was glad to be elected in May of 1993. My district is not unlike that of many of the members here in this House who serve rural Newfoundland districts that make up a lot of small communities, and in my particular district, I have twenty-one communities spread over the Baie Verte Peninsula. Right now, if you take Route 410 down the Baie Verte highway, all of the twenty-one communities branch out from them except for one which is Great Harbour Deep which is isolated which I have to go to either in boat or by air. Mr. Speaker, it is the type of make-up of that district which poses the question for any member who would take on this particular district: How can you best serve your district?

I have certain criteria that I follow as a member in rural Newfoundland that I've had since the day I was elected, and that I'm going to hopefully hold on to for as long as I represent that district. One is: Do I return phone calls when I get phone calls from so many different communities? I do. Second is: Do I raise issues both in the media, and, third, in the House of Assembly here on behalf of my district? The fourth one I ask is a criterion for myself as an elected politician.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is: The people in my district, do they see me in the district? Do I make presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much noise in the House. The hon. members to my left, if it is necessary for them to engage in a discussion or a conversation I would like for them to do it so that it won't interfere with the House, or do it outside.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Because I believe you are right, Mr. Speaker. I think we should all listen to each other in this particular debate and get the opinions and ideas and concerns from each and every member in here. Because we are the ones affected by this directly, and of course it affects the entire Province and the people who we represent.

As I was saying, the four criteria I look at as representing a rural district is first of all, of course, keeping in touch through phone calls. When you have phone calls you return those calls and you try to do the best you can for the people who call you. We all know that a lot of times we can't always correct everything. We try our best to do what we can for our district and for the people who we represent. Secondly, of course, is standing in this House of Assembly and representing their views and concerns and bringing them forward to the House of Assembly. That is our job. Third of course is to make sure you raise the issues publicly and in the media and that you are always heard as a voice that is representing your district and your concerns. The fourth one is being seen in your district. Not getting elected and have the old cliché stuck to you as a politician who gets elected every four years, and of course you don't see him for another four years until an election is called and you hear a knock on your door and you get a pamphlet pushed in your face, and you are expected then to vote for this person who you haven't seen for four years.

Myself, along with many of my colleagues, and I know a lot of people on the other side of the House, like to get into their districts and to be seen and to go around from house to house and visit some people that you know and some people who you just met through the election and people who you've gotten to know over the years. I know there are many people in this House of Assembly here who enjoy doing that, who enjoy going out to their district and having the time which, it is hard to sometimes, but it is having the time to go and talk to people personally in their homes. We can't do every house-call, I'm not suggesting that at all, but it is nice to be able to go especially into the smaller communities, which don't get much chance to see their elected officials. Come into their home and sit down and find out that they are real people and they are really listening to their concerns.

I really enjoy that part of this job, being able to go into these small communities like Purbeck's Cove, Tilt Cove and Snooks Arm, these places that are small, that are basically isolated, except for a rough dirt road that leads into the community. To be able to, as an elected member in the House of Assembly to go and visit those people in their homes, sit down and have a cup of tea with them, and talk to them just as people. I really cherish that part of this job. I know a lot of members in this House do.

So when we start to talk about changes to the electoral boundaries we start to talk about factors that may affect that whole process. To be able to go into the rural communities and let people know that you are not just a face sitting here in the House of Assembly who speaks every now and then, or a voice you hear on t.v. or radio every now and then. It is great that we as elected politicians can actually go into those communities and get first-hand - not over a phone, or not through t.v. or radio - what they believe the concerns and issues are. It gives us a great insight into how rural Newfoundland especially works. I cherish that part of this job where we can go and do that.

For example, in my district now I have twenty-one communities. With the proposed final change here of forty-eight seats I will go to thirty-four communities. The two things to consider here are population and also geography. I've got no problems - and I've said to my colleague for Green Bay many times, I welcome the thirteen communities that I would pick up from the Green Bay side of the district opposite of White Bay, of course. I have no problem accepting that. I, like any other member here, will do the best job they can for the people no matter what comes into your district. I would say that with all sincerity. We will do the best job we can, no matter if you pick up thirteen or twenty communities.

But that is a significant jump from twenty-one communities to thirty-four. Not only that, the number of communities, then we look at the geography. That is one thing that a lot of people have concerns with when they look at the changes to these boundaries. My district, when you have to come up the Trans-Canada and go down to another peninsula about an hour's drive on the Trans-Canada, Mr. Speaker, but then I look at something like Windsor - Springdale and how that is split, and how you have to drive past Badger, but go to Windsor to represent that part of the district.

Mr. Speaker, so the geography and the number of communities, for example, and I have done it in this House before on petitions, compared it to my colleague from Kilbride. Right now, when he serves his district, he can leave here today drive around his district, visit the people whom he has to see with some serious concerns and be back here in a half-an-hour. If I leave here, the first thing I have to do is, get to my district which is a seven-hour drive and once I get to my district, Mr. Speaker, what I have calculated is approximately nine hours of driving just to stop in to each community; just to stop and leave again, not to do any work, just to get there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's not a fabrication, it is not made up, it is not imagination, those are the facts. Anybody who serves, and I am sure different members here, can get up and tell you of how they drive to their districts. My colleague from Bonavista South, the number of communities that he will pick up now and, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to do a just job of all this, those factors have to be considered not just on a population basis. I mean, I am sure my colleague from Kilbride can handle 20,000 people in that area, a small area that you can drive around with probably a mile radius, but why shouldn't there be more consideration given to the simple fact of geography?

This Province has the most rugged coastline of any island in the world and those people still live there. Yes, some people may think there is a resettlement program ongoing and that sooner or later, a lot of these communities will be no more. Mr. Speaker, that may be true but we can't decide the fate of those communities, and maybe, in two years from now, two or three of the small communities in my district will be a ghost town and will not be served by me or any other member but, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, they are there now, they still have their homes there.

I have a small community of Purbeck's Cove with eighteen families there but it is still a forty-five minute drive from Baie Verte where I live and there are still people there who have concerns. Just a couple of weeks ago I brought concerns from the people of Purbeck's Cove. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, those communities are still surviving, they are still there and as long as there are two people left in a community, then they are still people of this Province and they deserve to be represented by a member in this House of Assembly as well as anybody who lives in St. John's Centre, or Corner Brook or Humber Valley or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker, so a very, very important factor to remember in something that should have been considered more I think, Mr. Speaker, is the rural/urban differences and also, the geography of actually driving or going by boat or by whatever way you connect with the different communities in your district.

Mr. Speaker, just for example, on one weekend, a specific example. I got home to my district at 5:30 in the afternoon on Friday, I had to be in Pacquet - which is a forty-minute drive from Baie Verte - by six o'clock, and by eleven o'clock next morning I had to be in Fleur de Lys and then the next morning and so it goes. I don't have to give examples to members here because I know they do the same thing. I know my colleague in Eagle River, because I have been up there to visit many times; you go from one community from where you come in to Blanc Sablon, and if you have to have a meeting up in St. Modeste that night then come back to L'Anse-au-Clair again in the evening, that's what happens in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I could go on through this House and give examples.

We try to get to these places and we try to hear their concerns first hand and as I said in the beginning, that's what a lot of members in here cherish, that we can sit down with people in rural communities and hear their concerns, not just use it through a secretary here in Confederation Building or ourselves on the phone. It is a very important fact to rural Newfoundland. There have also been many concerns about the idea of, of course, one person, one vote and the quotient that has been used. There has to be a variance there that is acceptable and if it going to be done, it must done throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, believe me, I know Labrador, I have also lived in Labrador for six years, in Labrador West, but I know the situation with population along the Coast of Labrador but, Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be one rule for the Province, then it is one rule as a Province and we are called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, therefore, if there is going to be any difference in variance, it has to stay for the Island portion of the Province as well as for the Labrador portion of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have some grave concerns about such things as rural distribution, and about the geography and how it was finally broken down, so there are some big concerns with rural versus urban centres in this Province, and I think it is something that should be looked at more intensely before final decisions are made. There is not an urban member here, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think would disagree with that. My colleagues from Waterford - Kenmount and Kilbride - all tell the same thing. What a difference it is when I go home on a weekend to try to hit five communities that raise some serious concerns and my colleague from Kilbride can go out and in half an hour he can be in ten different homes or talk to different people.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we look at the different communities as it relates to councils. I have seventeen councils, just for example, the issue just on MOGs it is a very serious issue. All of those councils, like all members here I am sure, wanted to talk to their member and they did not want to do it by phone, Mr. Speaker, they want us to come down or they want to come in for meetings. So, Mr. Speaker, just take for example my colleague from Kilbride has to talk to one council to discuss this very serious issue. I have to speak to seventeen and try to get them all in in one weekend when we go home on a Friday night or a Saturday. There is a difference; there is no doubt about it. The different numbers of groups like development associations, the different fire departments. My district has, I think, eight different fire departments that always have concerns of course with fire protection in their areas and so on. That is a concern. There is definitely a difference made between the rural and urban which I don't think was given enough emphasis in this particular final change.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been unfolding in such a way that we have all believed from day one, as politicians - if we asked people to bite the bullet around this Province, like we are doing, we asked people to squeeze and especially over the last couple of weeks. I think both parties, all three parties that represent in this House, all agree that we have to get deficits under control. That is the buzz word of the day, it is the buzz word nationally and it is the buzz word provincially. We have to get deficits under control; we have to be more prudent in our fiscal management and fiscal planning. We all know that, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody here who disagrees with that. I say to the Minister of Finance, we all realize the constraints he has been trying to get his budget under control and so on.

So therefore, all of us, there is not a person in this House, I don't think, would disagree that the number of seats in the Newfoundland House of Assembly should be decreased. If we are going to show budgetary constraints from all different sectors; from health, from education and so on, then I think that is the right idea. I say to the Premier, I think that is the right concept that we put out to this Province, that yes, if we are going to belt tighten let's do it from the top down and the concept is right. I say to the government, the concept is right. Let's reduce from the top down. So let's cut the number of seats. It has been talked about for years. So we all agree on that point, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, we know what the problem is in this particular issue now. It is not what we are doing but it is how we are doing it. How did we do it, Mr. Speaker, when we had to backtrack just a little bit and go through the chronological stage of what really unfolded as this happened? Good, everybody had the idea, let's reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly. So right away, Mr. Speaker, Judge Mahoney of course in December 4, 1992 with the ministerial financial statement suggested that we were going to - Judge Mahoney would head up a commission. He had a mandate of between forty and forty-six seats. Of course, Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House of Assembly realized that this was coming. I guess it would be somewhere between forty and forty-six seats.

So we are just waiting for the reports back but look what started to happen from that point on, Mr. Speaker. What really started to happen from that point on? What really started to happen from that point on, Mr. Speaker, and when his first proposal - not a recommendation when his first proposal came back for forty seats. Mr. Speaker, that is when this started to turn sour. Now we have to ask ourselves why? Now, Mr. Speaker, in the shortest terms I guess and to put it in a nutshell, that is when I believe and I think a lot of members believe that the political interference started. I think that is when we saw the first political interference. You could smell it coming. It stated forty seats in the proposal, all of a sudden it came back with, they said no, we want somewhere in the mid-forties. That was the first suggestion by government. They were not going to accept forty seats. Why not forty seats, that is a significant number? People are asking right now, what is a significant reduction in the House of Assembly, fifty-two to forty-eight?

Well I hear the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs saying go to seven. He is a long way off. I tell the minister he is forty-one seats off as of right now. A significant number, Mr. Speaker, just think about it - fifty-two. We went through all these commissions. I am not sure of the exact numbers because I don't have it in front of me now but I think it was something like $300,000 or $400,000 for the commission. I could be corrected on that but I think it is somewhere in that area. Now, Mr. Speaker, did we really take what that tax dollar paid for and came out with the forty-four seats that was suggested or the forty? Did we take that and say okay, fair enough it was an independent commission? That is what was proposed, not recommended as they keep repeating here but that was what was proposed, forty

Do we take that and say: Okay, fair enough; it was an independent commission. That is what was proposed - not recommended, as keeps repeating here, but that was what was proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Forty seats.

It would have been hard - I will make no bones about it - for me, as a member, and for any of us to swallow because we would see very large districts, and I guess a commitment by anybody who decides to run for the Legislature in this Province, to make sure they have a commitment to serve a bigger mass of people. Of course, it is spread out, like I just talked about rural, urban areas. At least it would be up front. We would see electoral boundary changes up front, and if you are going to run for a particular area you could see that you have x number of communities, x number of people, and you would then, of course, take on that commitment and you would decide if you could handle the job or not. Of course, after running for four years you would certainly know if you could handle the job or not.

Mr. Speaker, from that day on, from the first report, a proposal by Judge Mahoney, things started to happen. Things started to happen, and we all have to ask ourselves, on both sides of this House, what really started to dictate then what we were going to have as a final result, which is the forty-eight seats.

It is clear to me, and I think it is clear to a lot of people in this Chamber, that there was a lot of manoeuvring, dictating, manipulation - you can use any word you want - but things started to change from that minute on, and Judge Mahoney's proposal more and more seemed like it would be thrown in the garbage, which is exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go through a chronological assessment, I guess, of what we think happened from day one. In the fall of '92, the mini-Budget is where it all started. The government: As a further demonstration of our resolve to reducing the cost of governing the Province in the future, we will be asking the House to direct a redistribution commission, due to be appointed this coming March, to make recommendations for a House of Assembly consisting of the most appropriate number of districts between forty and forty-six. In addition, we will be introducing legislation that will restrict the size of Cabinet to not more than one-third the size of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, first when we heard this, like everybody else, we said: Oh, oh, there are big changes coming, but we all have to agree that the people of this Province believed that those changes should take place. They should take place; I don't think we will get disagreement from anybody here. It is a hard pill to swallow, but we all would have swallowed it together. We would have all taken the medicine together, and we would have dealt with it. I don't think you would get anybody in this House of Assembly on this side of the House stand up and argue that the government took the independent review, there was no tinkering, there was no gerrymandering; these words would not even be used. I don't think anybody could get up here today and debate it if that is what had to happen, but that is not what happened. That was in the fall of '92, the mini-Budget.

Then Bill 62, in 1992, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, provided that the Electoral Boundaries Commission determine the number of electoral districts between forty and forty-six, weighing certain special factors. Of course, this first reading was December 7 and second reading December 17. Then, on March 30, 1993, appointments of electoral boundaries commissioners, Mr. Justice John Mahoney, Chair, John Nolan, Dorothy Inglis, and Ray Baird.

Then, Bill 20, 1993, pre-election, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act increased the size of the Electoral Boundaries Commission from four to five members. We started to see changes in the commission, and the number of people who were appointed, and so on; the changes are starting to come out now. What was really going on here? The first reading was March 29; the second reading was March 30. Then, on March 31, 1993, appointment - the appointment of the fifth commissioner, Beatrice Watts.

August 27, 1993, proposal, the Mahoney Commission released a proposal dividing the Province into forty districts. That was August 27, 1993. This document was not a recommendation but simply a proposal that would serve as a focus of discussions in public hearings held around the Province in the ensuing weeks.

Lo and behold, October 6 we start to see interference come more and more all the time. October 6, 1993, John Efford's executive assistant, Roland Butler, at Electoral Boundaries Commission in Bay Roberts, said the long-term gains by reducing the enlarging provincial districts would not mean any real savings to the provincial coffers, but in fact would probably cost more - would probably cost more - in providing the same service. This statement seems opposed to the official position of the government. Mr. Speaker, is it as it seems? Has the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood and justified that statement? Is he really serious? Was Mr. Butler telling us what the minister was really thinking? And it continues, Mr. Speaker, as the political interference builds and builds.

Then, on November 8, 1993, Robert's presentation. In a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Clarenville, Ed Roberts said the Commission's mandate was flawed from the beginning and that the number of provincial districts should not be reduced below forty-four - all of a sudden.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know why? That was after the blow-up in the Liberal caucus.

MR. SHELLEY: We all know what it was, where all this comes from, the word interference, it comes from that back room behind this House here, Mr. Speaker, when they got into their caucus meeting and up she came. That is what happened here, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing more or less than that.

I say to the Minister of Health, up she came. They went into that caucus room, all the boys who sit in the back seats now and say nothing, all of a sudden said, hold on, close the door now for a second and we will let you know what we really think. Up she came, Mr. Speaker - the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Bellevue -that is what really happened and that is what the people in this Province know, and they are going to become more familiar with.

Now, I have to go back a little bit, October 6, 1993, `John Efford's' executive assistant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I notice that the hon. member on a number of occasions has referred to members of the House by their names and that is inappropriate.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was just referring to the document. I was just reading from the document.

On October 6, 1993 the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and his Executive Assistant, Roland Butler, at the Electoral Boundaries Commission hearings in Bay Roberts said that the long-term gains by reducing the enlarging provincial districts would not mean any real savings to the provincial coffers, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, it would probably cost more in providing the same service. This statement seems to diametrically oppose the official position of the government.

Now, is the minister's executive assistant really speaking off the cuff? Is he just speaking his own mind, or is he really speaking what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to say himself? Now, I am going to guess that the executive assistant of the minister was really reflecting on the words of this minister. Now, that is a guess and maybe the minister will rise when he speaks on this and qualify that by saying it is not so, but I doubt that very much. I would say that he was reflecting the minister's thoughts.

MR. EFFORD: Who wrote that for you?

MR. SHELLEY: Never mind who wrote this for me. That is not the question at all, who wrote this for me. Who said that for you? Who spoke for you at the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and why did he speak for you? Maybe the minister will tell me that he actually told his executive assistant not to go there at all. Maybe he went against him, but I doubt that. I say that the executive assistant to the minister went there knowing full well that the minister said: You had better get there and say exactly what I tell you. That is exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker.

So we see a continuing barrage of interference by what happened on the other side of this House. When the words `forty seat' came as a proposal, even when it was first thought about, not a word here, not a hush, you look over and everyone had this solemn look on his face, but put them out in the caucus room and they said: Premier, close the door, close the door ever so gently - and as soon as he closed the door they were just like cats and dogs.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Eagle River said: Your dog is history, Premier.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Eagle River took care of the Premier's dog. I bet you, Mr. Speaker, it was like dogs and cats in that caucus room the first day this came back. Oh, the Member for Bellevue sits so quiet so often and says nothing. He, like any member in this House, had very grave concerns about the changes that were coming, we all did. I admit that. When I first heard the word of forty seats I said, boy, there are going to be some big changes. We all have to consider what our futures are. Right? Are we all going to get elected again? I didn't worry about that because I am totally surrounded by good Tories, so I didn't care if I expanded into Green Bay or Humber Valley, anywhere. I have my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley over here who has done such a great job. I can expand anywhere. It doesn't matter where I go. I can expand up to Eagle River and still win, Mr. Speaker. We can expand anywhere and still win. I can expand up to the Minister of Education and Training, up into the Straits, or over to the Minister of ITT. I could take in all of that; I would still win. It doesn't make any difference to me. I'm just concerned about everybody else. It doesn't matter to me.

I have a colleague on my right here, in Humber Valley, did such a good job there, I could take in all of his district and I would still win it hands down. I'm not worried about winning. I could go to Green Bay. The Member for Green Bay won it hands down the last two elections, no problem. I'm not really worried about that. My constituents say to me in my district: We aren't worried about how much more you take in as long as you still focus on us. But I said, I have to focus on all my district then. It is going to be an expanded district.

MR. CRANE: No (inaudible) you've got it all.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Harbour Grace - I can't even remember where he is from. He gets up to speak so often in the House I forgot where he was from for a second. He is not sure where he is from. Mr. Speaker, actually, I could take in probably the Member for Harbour Grace, that district, too - Riverhead - but like any of the districts on both sides of me, the District of Humber Valley or the District of Green Bay, either one of those districts.

Mr. Speaker, we will move on. The Minister of Justice's presentation, November 8. In a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Clarenville, the Minister of Justice said the Commission's mandate was flawed from the beginning and that the number of provincial districts should not be reduced below forty-four. What gave the Minister of Justice the right to say that? Wasn't this supposed to be put to an independent commission and for them to decide? Right away, we see the minister on his grounds starting to interfere and impose his ideas on everybody else all of a sudden. This was supposed to be gone out independently. So far, we have the ministers from all portfolios coming to submit proposals, make concerns. This was a government that said: Let's do it independently, let's do it fairly, let's do without any change.

AN HON. MEMBER: No change - the Liberal caucus pow-wow in August of 1994, that is (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and up she came, Mr. Speaker, that is when it came up. Then in 1993, post-election, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act provided for forty-six districts. Boy, we are growing and growing. I sort of think now if we let this grow any further, if we had gone much further with this proposal, we would end up with fifty-five seats. The way it was going we would have ended up with fifty-five or sixty seats. We were growing all the time. We started by saying: Let's reduce, let's get ourselves under control, let's show the Province that we mean fiscal restraint and that we are going to work from the top down. That is what the Premier was saying. Let's show the Province that we are serious. We are going to help with the restraints in this Province by showing that from the top down we are going to reduce, so he said.

The first proposal came out for forty seats. Of course, the hullabaloo all broke loose in the caucus room of the Liberals. They came out again. Then we went to forty-four seats. Then a proposal came back for forty-six seats. Now, this week, it is up to forty-eight seats. I would guess if we went to Christmas we would be back up to fifty-two, no problem. Talk about political interference, the process. That is the word, `process'. I say it over and over. Every person I've talked to in my district doesn't say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'm glad to see them reduce the seats. But first of all we have two points. Reducing from fifty-two to forty-eight, Mr. Speaker, that isn't a reduction. What kind of a reduction is that? Where is the word "significant" in that, significant reduction? All this hullabaloo for two bloody years, $600,000 or so, sending fellows before commissions to make up all kinds of excuses why there should be different numbers, and what happens? They reduce it to forty-eight. Whoop-de-do, Mr. Speaker! I mean, the word is "significant," and fifty-two to forty-eight is not significant.

The second point that is most striking is the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to - any leave, Mr. Speaker? Do I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was our understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader indicated he would give whatever time was necessary to members to speak, whether that went beyond a half-hour or not. I would just like to rise on a point of order and ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, why is he now flying in the face of what the Government House Leader has indicated and promised to the Opposition on this particular piece of legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By the rules of the House, a member is permitted thirty minutes to speak in this debate. To go beyond the thirty minutes he has to have unanimous consent of the House and it only needs one member not to give consent, so the House Leader really, doesn't call the shots here.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: You tell him, `Bill', you tell him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Those are good words, Your Honour, uttered there, that the Government House Leader doesn't call the shots. I am sure the Government House Leader is listening. What a brave ruling!

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't he going to Marystown tomorrow?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is the Government House Leader going to Marystown?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not with you and me, he isn't.

MR. SPEAKER: That goes for either House Leader, of course, right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: That goes for both House Leaders?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course. I never thought, Mr. Speaker, that I call the shots here, with all due respect, I never did.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I don't know why he withdrew leave on my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess, yes it was, it was too scathing; a scathing attack on the minister and the administration because what he -

AN HON. MEMBER: Factual.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Factual. - backed up by documentation and even quoted the minister's Executive Assistant who indeed was speaking for the minister at the hearings and that's why the minister couldn't take it anymore. He didn't want to hear this because really, what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has been doing, has been sort of undermining the process over there, you see, because he doesn't agree with what is happening in his area of the Province with redistribution. He doesn't agree with it, and he can hardly keep himself in his seat, Mr. Speaker, from getting up and knocking this piece of legislation, of knocking the process and knocking the boundaries that we are debating here.

But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the Electoral Boundaries bill, that I went to the Commission hearings in Grand Bank. They came down to the fire hall in Grand Bank and I went down and made a presentation to them. It was a very good, informal sort of situation, a cordial get-together, and there were points I wanted to make to the Commission. The points I made to the Commission were, number one: that I certainly recognize that the economic climate in the Province, the economic conditions in the Province certainly amongst, I would think, a majority of the general public, that they feel there are too many members in the House of Assembly, I don't think there is any doubt about that. Most of them don't think we do anything anyway and that we are overpaid. That's the brutal reality of being a politician today and has been for a number of years, but more so today. They don't think we do anything, they think we are overpaid and there are even those in the public who think we write our own cheques, they really believe that.

They believe that, but that is not the case, as we all know. But what I said to the Commission was: Don't go too far. Because my worst fear was, and still is, that if we reduce the number of seats - I was thinking that time around forty, forty-four seats - that if we reduce the number of seats to forty or forty-four, then in two or three or four or five years time, the people who would be here representing those forty or forty-four districts, a lot of them would have a lot more work than we have today. They would be servicing more people, more communities in rural Newfoundland in each district, and what will we see?

There will be a request come back here one of these days for additional staff, for an assistant for each member, and instead of having fifty-two members on the payroll and say fifty-two secretaries, Mr. Speaker, we would have forty members, forty secretaries and forty assistants. So what would the end result be for the taxpayers of this Province? My worst fear was that in the long run it might end up costing the taxpayers of the Province more money. Now, that is still a possibility, who knows what the future may bring? Who knows? but I will guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker, that looking at the makeup of some of those districts, and if members are going to properly service those districts, which I am sure, it is every member's wish and desire to do, they are going to work harder than they worked before, and I am not saying they haven't worked hard, because I know most members work very hard and the representation for the communities and the individuals in them are going to decline.

There is no way that you can add five, six, ten, twelve or fifteen communities to a district and to an MHA's workload and expect the same kind of representation from the member. You ain't going to get it, Mr. Speaker. You can only go to so many firemen's balls and so many graduations. You can only go to so many of them. We are all in the midst of that now. I know, in my area, every weekend there is a firemen's ball and some weekends two.

MR. EFFORD: Do you go up there every weekend to a firemen's ball?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I could be up there at something else. I don't go to the firemen's ball all the time but last weekend I was down to a firemen's ball in St. Lawrence, yes, and the week before my colleague and I were to the Burin Peninsula's Soccer Hall of Fame.

MR. EFFORD: Where?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In Salt Pond. Sorry?

MR. EFFORD: You are in that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course I am in it. (Inaudible) Grand Bank, I got that up.

MR. EFFORD: I thought you were only (inaudible) when you are no longer here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no, no, no. You see, what the minister doesn't realize is that I was so outstanding in the sport that they made an exception for me. They wanted to recognize me before I die, I say to the minister.

MR. HEWLETT: Outstanding in the field?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Outstanding in the field, yes but my point being, Mr. Speaker, and we all go through it, I have gone to three different communities on a particular night. I have gone to three. I have gone to St. Lawrence for a dinner, I have stopped in to Lamaline or Lawn on the way back and I've ended up back in Fortune or Grand Bank to finish off the night, but that is as much as you can do. If you got that kind of demand there are going to be communities, Mr. Speaker, that you are not going to get into, communities you won't get to as often. You can only spend so much time driving. You can only spend so much time on the phone. You can only attend so many meetings. So consequently, the districts as they are now structured and the people who have been used to and conditioned to a certain level of representation by the members in this House today are going to change if the districts are made larger, no doubt about that. They are not going to see the member as often.

MR. EFFORD: We will have some time tomorrow night.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you and I will have some time tomorrow night. Well, the minister can speak for himself, I say to him. I thought you said you were going to be flying.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I said to the Commission. People are going to have to get used to seeing the member less often. You won't be able to give the same level of - now, will people accept that? Will people accept less representation? that is the question. Will they? I don't know. Of course, they are going to blame it on the member, as they do now. If they see you once a week now it is not enough. If they see you once a month in two years time, it certainly won't be enough. So the member will be no good. No one will ever stop and say well this member has ten extra communities to service in the district now, that is why you don't see him or her more often. He will still be no good and still overpaid. The minister has a question.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Bernice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I might know Bernice, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the Bernice that the minister knows. I don't know what this `Bernice' is about but for two days now the minister and the Member for Burin - Placentia West have been asking -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, you are party to it, you have been asking the minister about Bernice and the minister has asked you about it. I don't know Bernice. There must be a Bernice somewhere where the minister is going tomorrow night. That is the only thing I know but I am only guessing. I don't know who Bernice is.

AN HON. MEMBER: If his wife ever found out who Bernice is (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, we are not sending a copy of Hansard to his wife. We won't do that.

Mr. Speaker, now these are the points I made to the Commission because I was concerned about it and I am still concerned about it. In two or three years time you will have forty or forty-four members in here asking for forty or forty-four assistants costing the taxpayers more money. That is what could happen. That is what I said to the Commission, I say to the minister. That is what I said to the Commission. If you reduce it too low and members' work piles up, then the only way to deal with the work it is to work harder, and if you cannot accomplish it then, get more staff. Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, you can get to (inaudible) distance. There is no doubt about - they can come to you. They can become too familiar with you, there is no doubt about that, I say to the minister. They can get to know you a little too well, so it is a balance. You have a balancing act for members.

MR. TOBIN: They will know me well after the next election, going to lose six communities.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, you will be out there all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I said to the Commission - because they were looking at the Burin Peninsula region. And, of course, they proposed putting the Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage in with Grand Bank district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. TOBIN: Fortune Bay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Fortune Bay. What?

MR. TOBIN: Fortune Bay went in with (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Fortune Bay would go into Grand Bank district and, of course, the people there were receptive to that, in that region. They wanted to be part of a Burin Peninsula seat, because they were split by Fortune Bay - Harbour Breton side - our side, we call it - and they wanted to be part of a Burin Peninsula seat, a structure. And we had no problem with that but, as I said to the Commission, when you look at it geographically, what they had proposed didn't make a lot of sense, I say to my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, because it would have made a lot more sense to put them in with Burin - Placentia West, or a part thereof, and a part of Burin - Placentia West closest to the boundaries of Grand Bank district into that district, so geographically it would have made a lot more sense and easier to service, because what would have happened is that the MHA for Grand Bank district would leave Grand Bank district, drive to Burin - Placentia West, and then back into Grand Bank district. So I said to them that it would make a lot more sense geographically to divide it some way so that geographically all the district was in closer proximity to each other's communities. Anyway, that obviously didn't wash. Now, in the final analysis, what we have now, as you know, is that now that part of what is now Fortune - Hermitage is now proposed to go into the district of Bellevue. Now, you talk about a change of a situation.

MR. TOBIN: You can't have a representative inside the Overpass representing Fortune Bay. It just can't work.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it will never, never, never wash down there. They don't want to be part of the District of Bellevue, or Trinity North, I say to Your Honour; there is no way they want to be. We are not saying it because of Your Honour - it doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't make any difference. They would rather be part of Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank. They don't want to be part of Bellevue, there is no doubt about that, and they are not very happy about it. We have had calls about it. We had calls about it when it was proposed to come into Grand Bank. Most of those who called, to a person, really, were delighted with it, but now they are not too torn up about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage is proposed to go into Bellevue district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. It was supposed to come in with Grand Bank district - originally. Now, it is Bellevue, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Anyway, having said that, those were the comments I made to the Commission. I guess, for the most part, most of it must have fallen on deaf ears, because they certainly didn't split the Burin Peninsula up the way we anticipated, and now it has gone to Bellevue. Of course, that is not the Commission. I guess the Commission really hasn't done this. It wasn't the Commission that really did this, I guess, which is what this debate has developed about.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk over the last twenty-four hours about the process, what people don't like about the process, and questions asked as to why we didn't accept the Mahoney Report. It called for forty-four seats. An independent Commission paid for by the taxpayers of the Province went out and about and had forty hearings, I believe, somewhere around forty public meetings, hearings, and made a report - an independent commission. The question is, why was it not accepted? It should have been accepted. They were within their legislation, they completely complied with the instructions of the legislation, but no, that wasn't good enough. Now, we are up to debating today a forty-eight seat House.

I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as supporting a reduction in the number of seats, by the way. I want to make that quite clear. I support a reduction in the number of seats in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, because it doesn't go far enough, I say to the minister. Two things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to your barbecue (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go out and get the tongs and the brush and the onion bits, and lop a bit of sauce, and mop up a bit of sole onion bit sauce, and serve up a bit of stuff with his apron and his cooks cap on, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious situation we are talking here. The minister mightn't have a seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no. Now listen. I know you are ambitious, but that is one seat you will never take, the Minister of Environment's seat. I wouldn't get that cocky now, if I was the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. No. I would say the minister's best chance now is to try and find a seat somewhere in St. John's that is vacant and that no one wants the nomination in, Mr. Speaker. That is what I would recommend to the minister. Come into St. John's and run. You would never do anything out in Port au Port or Stephenville, that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Tories (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind. This time you've got to tangle with a Liberal or two before you get to the Tory. This time you won't be tangled with a Tory because you won't win the Liberal nomination, I say to the minister. That is my prediction to the minister. I wish members opposite would stop nodding their heads in approval, Mr. Speaker. I wish they would stop agreeing with me over there. Because they know what I'm saying is correct.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what you would do then if you had a fax machine.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh well. Now, now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Settle them down, Mr. Speaker, two of them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't want to get in debate here about faxes or research or - we don't want to get into that. Telephones. Too many things can come to the surface.

I want to just talk about this process of this piece of legislation, why we are here today debating a forty-eight seat Legislature; which I think is too many. I don't it is significant enough. I think the Commission's recommendation of forty-four seats was just fine. Why do you appoint an independent commissioner, requested by legislation every ten years, to go out and about this Province and have public hearings, ask the people of the Province for input? I suppose every member of this House went and appeared before the Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say - yes, and perhaps twice, I say. The Minister of Justice, he says I did; I say perhaps he went twice. That is when it all started, Mr. Speaker. Once he went through the door in Clarenville. Once they heard he was leaving St. John's to go to Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They let him come back. But the Government House Leader knows that what he did was not taken too lightly by the Commission. It wasn't. They didn't like it. They wondered why he was out interfering in their process. That is what happened. But he went out, and he said here a couple of days ago he did it on behalf of the Ministry.

MR. ROBERTS: I opened my speech out there that night by saying (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That tells me everything. It told the Commission everything, and it is telling the people of the Province everything. That you went out there and appeared on behalf of the Ministry.

MR. ROBERTS: I certainly did. I said so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We know you did.

MR. ROBERTS: And I said so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But we question why you did it.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, that is another (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It sure is. That is the real matter.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I mean....

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is still a rebellion in the ranks, Mr. Speaker. The minister going to Clarenville certainly didn't settle it down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is one thing we do know, that the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, going to Clarenville didn't stop the rebellion, Mr. Speaker. The rebellion is still on this morning, snow storm and all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yesterday. Friday. Mr. Speaker, as I said I support the principle of the legislation, I do. I don't think we are going quite far enough, I say to the Government House Leader. The savings are going to be insignificant. All savings are important; we have to realize that, in this time of economic uncertainty and difficulty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six hundred thousand dollars, the minister said, but he said this is not done because of money.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) is not done because of money? Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Justice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was the reason then? Perception.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it was the principle of one person, one vote (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is another story, isn't it? But that only applies in forty-six of the forty-eight proposed districts, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not even that many.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not that many, forty-five of the forty-eight proposed districts, the one vote, one vote, one vote concept being equal applies. Why are there exceptions made here in this proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, fairness and balance. How is that fairness and balance when you look at the population in a couple of those districts compared to the population in the rest of the districts? How is that fairness and balance I ask the minister? How can you justify it? You cannot justify it any more than you can justify a proposal that was drafted up showing a 4000 person seat down in Burgeo somewhere; 4000 people, I think it was, a separate seat for Burgeo.

AN HON. MEMBER: A geographical difference.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What, in Burgeo? Geographical differences for what I ask the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Access down to Burgeo. There is a new highway that goes in there. A new road, the same as goes down to Bay d'Espoir and Harbour Breton, the same as goes down the Burin Peninsula, the same as goes down to Port aux Basques, no difference I say to the minister. What is the minister talking about? I thought he represented somewhere over there on the western corner of the Province. Access, 4000 people proposed.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Oh, my, oh, my.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can understand the Minister of Health saying, oh, my, oh, my. If I had to deal with Sister Elizabeth Davis on top of everything else he has to deal with, Mr. Speaker. His ally now turning the corner.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No doubt, I say to the minister. There is no doubt about that I say to the minister. I am not doubting that, but even Sister Elizabeth Davis now is seeing through the Minister of Health. She had done a masterful job, but she has even told the minister now, you cannot go any further. It hurts too much to scrape the bone she told the minister. You cannot scrape the bone any cleaner because it hurts too much. There is nothing left on the bone. Even Sister Elizabeth said that to the minister, so I know why the minister is a little testy over there.

Then with all the ruckus in the caucus about this, and the ruckus in the caucus about benefits, and the ruckus in the caucus about the leadership over there. The minister cannot wait to get out of the blocks, cannot wait to get out. He has even auctioned off some of his jewellery for his leadership account, Mr. Speaker, old gold finger himself. He is starting to auction off the jewellery for the leadership campaign. I say to the Minister of Health there are two things that we do not have in common, and that is jewellery and the ambition to be leader of anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to be.. leader of nothing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, what I can I say; we are agreeing I say to the minister. Another leadership candidate in with a big smile on his face. I am sure he has sized up now how many delegates he is going to get out of the forty-eight seats. See how quick he came in when he heard me talking about the Minister of Health auctioning off his jewellery for his account. He rushed through the door. He could see the delegates being bought.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not do a straw poll?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I have done my straw polls I say to the minister. I can tell the minister the line up. I can tell him the result of the first ballot, not by vote but the order of the first ballot results and who is going to be where, who is going to drop, and who is going to support who.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not leave him in suspense. He wants to know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no, unless they change a bit now. If this is passed, this bill, it could change. The old sleeper himself who has inflicted so much punishment on municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador is reading a book like he is not listening over there, but he is listening to every word I am saying, wondering if his name is going to be mentioned.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He has her in place, don't worry. He has the contacts. When he walked into the meeting room and plucked on Andy Wells' beard and said: You should have a shave, Andy, you knew then what he was up to. He was even trying to get Andy on side; not after the weekend, though. No vision, Andy told him. You don't have enough vision to be minister, let alone leader, so he is a cooked goose, that minister, but lots of contacts now; could get the money, no problem. Oh, he has the contacts, that minister. I am going to tell you something. I could even guess who might be his bag man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frank Moores.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Frank is too busy not answering his phone, I say to the minister. He is too busy not answering his phone now down in Florida. The Mrs. answers; she says they have been bombarded with calls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am happy that he is down in Florida. It was better waking up there this morning than it was here, but I do not know if I would want the attention the man is getting the last while. I know the Minister of Health can identify with Florida a bit more than I can.

MR. TOBIN: At least when he goes down he stays in his own condo.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is true. I am not going to get into that. Now, the Member for Burin - Placentia West is trying to get me to say something now, saying at least when the Minister of Health goes down he stays in his own place. He is sort of insinuating that when other ministers go down they do not. I do not know what he is getting at, but if the Member for Burin - Placentia West wants to say something to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I wish he would say it himself, instead of trying to get me to say it, because I am not going to get goaded into that, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't dare say it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not going to say it. As much as he wants me to say that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was down there staying with someone else, I am not going to say it. I am not saying it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Lady Di? No, I didn't see Lady Di on last night. I was here. I couldn't see Lady Di; I was in here until 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be quite interesting to see if there are any members opposite going to have anything to say about this bill. I am sure there must be concerns among some members opposite with the process and with this proposal. I am sure they are not all happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am concerned you are going to vote against it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, don't jump to conclusions, I say to the minister.

MR. TOBIN: What do you think of them Canadians, boy?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good, excellent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wish the Member for Burin - Placentia West would talk about something pleasant. He is talking about the Canadiens now. I didn't hear too much from him two or three weeks after the season started, or the Member for Menihek. I didn't hear too much blowing off. I would say he will be looking for tickets in Tampa. He will ask the minister for tickets in Tampa, and the key to his place.

MR. TOBIN: We were up to a hockey game one time before.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't doubt that.

MR. TOBIN: Years ago.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I gathered that. I gather you are kind of cosy. I heard you are kind of cosy, and the thing is that it is only a show he puts on here when he pretends he is mad at you, when he shouts at you and calls you names. It is all a show. I am not like that. When I say something to a minister, I mean it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: When you say you don't like me, you don't like me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I have not said that yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were kissing cousins.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no.

MR. TOBIN: Bill, look at that, a tender for the Town of Lawn.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A tender for the Town of Lawn; is that to buy the Town of Lawn?

MR. TOBIN: No, for a van.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, there go the rough times out there in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we have problems with this piece of legislation, problems with the process, problems with the number of seats, and to that effect I would like to move the following: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word, `that' and substituting the following, `therefore.' Bill 31, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act" be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time - wrong paper, no wrong one - because the minister did not accept the recommendations of the 1993 Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador Chaired by Justice Mahoney which recommended a forty-four seat House. This report was compiled independently without political tampering and met the commissions mandate as given by the House of Assembly. The commission acted entirely within the guidelines of the legislation and the report should have been accepted without amendment. So with this, Mr. Speaker, I submit this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Seconded by me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seconded by the Member for Burin - Placentia West, Mr. Speaker, I submit this for Your Honour's consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: We will take a short recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have looked at the amendment proposed by the hon. Opposition House Leader and the resolution as a reasoned amendment. There is no problem with what is in inverted commas, `this House' and going on to read, `down to a forty-four seat House' inverted commas. That itself is a reasoned amendment and it is in order but if the hon. member wants to include the last part of it then it is not in order. So it will be up to the hon. member.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will delete the last paragraph.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Is that the part I circled on your document?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You did. I don't know why you were out with them when they were making a ruling like that.

MR. SPEAKER: So the record will show that it goes as far as a forty-four House. There are ways to make the last part in order but it is not my job to tell the hon. member.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. TOBIN: If you don't want to tell him will you tell me?

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

No problem, Mr. Speaker. Simply put, we will move this amendment because the minister did not accept the recommendation of the '93 Electoral Boundaries Commission, Chaired by Justice Mahoney which recommended a forty-four seat House, that is basically it. I added the last paragraph which I have now deleted, just to explain for members, is that I thought that it is a reasoned amendment and I thought that gave more reason for the amendment to be very honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is why I moved it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) clarification.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I thought it was a little more support than I thought but in essence, it backfired on me but having said that –

MR. TOBIN: You should have asked me for advice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I should have consulted with my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, who has great experience in this kind of a process so, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: I am going to tell you a story about Danny; I am going to tell you a story one of these days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well you might as well tell them now.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Perhaps I will tell them now.

MR. TOBIN: No, well I am going to tell them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If I go in to tell the Premier that now, it would certainly verify the need to reduce the House by a number of seats. It would certainly substantiate the legislation that's now before us, so we are going to see a decrease from fifty-two to forty-eight seats. I would say if I tell the story, the Premier will be here to move an amendment.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier would make a contribution to the S.P.C.A.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. That's not the point I was making I say to my friend from Burin - Placentia West. What I was saying is that if I proceed to tell stories like that, the Premier will think that there is not enough work here for fifty-two MHAs, consequently it will, I guess, give merit to the principle of reducing the number of seats, not anything to do with the Member for Eagle River I say to (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say, if the Premier had his way, there would be twenty seats.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't believe that. I don't believe there will be that drastic action but I think there would be a more significant reduction, I believe that.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How big the Cabinet should be in today's environment? Today's environment? I don't know I say to the Premier in all sincerity; if he could reduce the size of the Cabinet much more, probably by a couple but I guess, you have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, what's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) counterproductive.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that's the point. That's one of the arguments I have made about the size of the House, that yes, there is no doubt, I support the principle. I don't think we are going far enough in reducing the number of seats and I say that sincerely to the Premier, and I guess it is the same with the Cabinet. You could reduce it you know, perhaps by a couple more ministers, I don't know but I mean, the Premier would know, the Premier would have a better idea of the workload, I mean, I was there, and the Cabinet was much larger I say sincerely -

PREMIER WELLS: Fourteen, thirteen ministers (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And yourself, yes. I think you can reduce it much more when I look at the situation of this Province today, I am serious, you know, there are times I clown around and be light and say things in jest but you have to be sincere about it. I know that most ministers over there if not all of them work hard, it's busy, I was a minister and there are times, particularly in a portfolio which most people would consider was sort of insignificant and not a senior portfolio of Culture, Recreation and Youth, it was a department that did something positive for somebody every day. It had all the youth services, it had recreation, sport fitness, cultural affairs and on and on it went, and I am telling you, there were days - and I know how the Premier must feel being Premier of the Province, but there were days you needed someone showing you around and saying you go here next and you know, I mean it was - if you took the job seriously, which I did at time, I say that, that I was pretty busy and then the time I went to Committees of Cabinet and then caucus -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) but then all the other things that you were requested to go to. No, seriously, I mean and I believe in all sincerity that ministers are busy. They are, I believe that and I don't think you can reduce the size of the Cabinet by very much if any and be effective, because I think by making them too busy, you are going to I think, take away productivity a bit. I don't know if I am making sense, but I am trying to be sincere with the Premier, he asked a question.

You can only expect people to do so much and be productive and efficient, I guess that's the point and I think that probably the ministers are there now, I would think, I mean it is a busy time, it is not easy times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's that? The boys don't like this but I just hope someday for more reasons than one that you get the experience, that you experience that, you know, I hope you do, because I guess it is like someone who has never been a member. They don't think we do anything, they think we are overpaid. You know, really that's the cynicism that's out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, most of us are again, I say to the Premier

AN HON. MEMBER: The ones who do the work.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, if you put the time in and you work at the district, I mean that ties into my argument before, I say to the Premier, of increasing the size of the districts, and what I said to the Commission when it came to Grand Bank. We were looking at the Burin Peninsula area of it all.

I thought the Burin Peninsula; yes, we could do with two seats in the Burin Peninsula. It would be, you know, serviceable. The Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage now represented by the member, that could be included in with Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank. It was originally proposed to go in with Grand Bank district, which didn't make a lot of sense to me geographically, as much as the people from that area would have liked to have been part of a Burin Peninsula seat. It would have made more sense to include that in with a portion of Burin - Placentia West, and then a portion of Burin - Placentia West in with Grand Bank.

Geographically, what I'm saying is the districts would be a little more compact. Because what was proposed before was - I would, say, leave Garnish - in my case now it is me; whoever it would be - leave Garnish in the District of Grand Bank say to go to Terrenceville, they would have to drive through Burin - Placentia West to get back into the district of - it didn't make sense. I said to them: Well, if you are going to make two seats of it, take part of Burin - Placentia West that is closest to Grand Bank and put in a population distribution, whatever made sense, and then put that end of Fortune - Hermitage in with Burin - Placentia West. So you make two more compact seats out of it. We could have done that. I thought it was serviceable.

Having said that, if I had picked up, in my case now, or whoever the member is, St. Bernard's, Terrenceville, Bay L'Argent, Grand Le Pierre and all those other communities in with the communities now in Grand Bank district, then it was going to make my life a lot more difficult. The people there weren't going to see me - that used to see me the way they see me now will not see me as often because I will have to - as I said, there are only so many functions you can go to.

The other thing I said to the Commission, for the Premier's information, was that yes, I support a reduction, but in doing it, don't reduce the number of members to such a degree that in three or four years time the forty or forty-four, whatever it is, are back into the House of Assembly or wherever lobbying to get assistants. Say there are forty members and forty secretaries and the workload increases in some seats, and members can't do their work properly because of the workload, then more than likely there will be a request for assistants, and then we will end up with forty members, forty secretaries, and forty assistants. That was a caution I thought I would throw out because that is the way I felt. It would be counterproductive, because in the final analysis it would cost the taxpayers more money. That was the pitch I made to them. Of course, we know what happened, and we are here today debating these forty-eights seats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) seats in St. John's.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and there have been some good arguments made the last day or so over urban versus rural. I think there is a very legitimate argument for it. The argument for one vote should count the same or be the same wherever it is in the Province. But there is one thing that strikes home to me when I think about rural versus urban.

I came into this House in 1982. It was a busy time. In my area of the Province the fishery was falling apart. The big companies were being restructured. The Lake group and all the - it was a nightmare. It wasn't very pleasant. You got elected in 1982 on a great wave of forty-four seats and, of course, you are going to come and change the world, and in six months or so the whole bottom fell out of it. You wondered what in the name of God you had gotten yourself into. Really, that was the truth of it. It was very busy. The calls in the district were unbelievable, and the meetings and everything else because of the situation, you know.

We managed it, we managed to get through it, but there is only so much of it you can do, is my point, I guess. I wouldn't want to see us be counterproductive in what we are doing here today in that we - if we reduce the seats - I mean, I believe we should go further, I say to the Premier, in all sincerity. I think forty-four seats as proposed by the Commission made a lot of sense. It was independent. It went out and about and it listened to us. It made its judgements and I think we should have left it alone.

PREMIER WELLS: What do you do (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't believe it. I don't support it.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well I don't support that aspect of it.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) forty-four (inaudible) four in Labrador.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. I had difficulty with that, I say quite honestly to the Premier. It is nothing to do with Labrador (inaudible).

MS VERGE: The problem is with the act. The Commission was constrained by the legislation.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) say: We are going to have four in Labrador and then divide up the other forty on a different basis. You can't do that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I totally agree with the Premier. I appreciate the question and I have answered it as honestly as I can answer it. I mean, it is like one proposal - we were briefed at one point in time and saw a seat proposed for the South Coast of 4,000 people or something, Burgeo I think it was. I mean, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. How could you tolerate that?

I was getting back to the rural/urban and I lost my train of thought. I said, what brought it home to me one time was during that first term - and we were busy. I remember at the time the former Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, Mr. Hearn, was here and we were busy, there is no doubt about that. It was a busy time and there were members, of course, in the caucus, quite a number of them from the St. John's region, no disrespect. I said to one of them, `I suppose you're busy?' I don't know how far we were into the term but it was certainly more than a year - and he said to me: `Well, I've had one call this term,' and that brought it home to me. I am not saying that in any way to belittle the situation but - and I see the Member for St. John's Centre there getting a little restless.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Member for St. John's Centre. I would say he has a great deal (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Listen, but that is not the point. That was recognized yesterday by a former speaker who said - I think it is obvious by the way the member behaves. I happened to be residing in his district not too long ago and all that stuff, we used to get the odd thing from him but yes, I agree with the Premier. Yes, he is busy and he gets out and about. He gets into issues that are important to the people he represents. There is no doubt about that but to a large degree - there are members here who have admitted it; Kilbride, Waterford - Kenmount, Mount Pearl and others who say that their workload is not as heavy as that of someone in rural Newfoundland. So there is an argument to be made for it, I think. We all understand where we are coming from. How to deal with it, I suppose, is the other question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if it is heavy it is easier for me to get to it quickly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes accessibility, okay, that is the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) where somebody who has seventeen councils to deal with cannot.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I made that point earlier, I say to the Premier, when I was talking about adding the six, seven, eight or ten different communities into an existing district of getting around and getting - I mentioned firemen's balls and banquets and all this stuff, you just can only get to so many.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is busy enough. We have all experienced that. I think we are sort of agreeing in what we are saying here but it is just the way of trying to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course you do. Of course the office - oh yes, I am sure you do. Listen, there is no one - I guess, what we are saying is, we realize the economic times. I guess what I am trying to say is we recognize the economic times. There is no doubt what the public would like us to do, in my view, at all. They would like a reduction and it is a matter of us who are here in the - who understand the system, who understand the workload, of trying to make a decision that makes sense. I guess that is what I am trying to say - Trying to make a decision that makes sense, that enables people to do their job effectively, to represent the people effectively, people have access to you and you can still live. You still have time to sleep, eat and breathe. I guess that is what we have to try to do here, and I think we can do that with less than forty-eight seats.

PREMIER WELLS: I agree with (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not agreeing with that. I have already stated that I don't agree with it, I say to the Premier. I do not agree with it, I cannot agree with it. As one member of this House and I see the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Menihek, whoever, I see them - I am stating a personal opinion which I am entitled to speak, any more than I can support, I say to the Member for Eagle River, any longer, three seats on the Burin Peninsula. I mean, I would be crazy to try to - why would I? When I know that whether it is me and the Member for Burin - Placentia West, or two other members, or the Member for Burin - Placentia West or someone else, two members can service it adequately, two members. Now, I could come here and rant and roar and say we should have three separate districts on the Burin Peninsula, but what would I be doing, really?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) start with the -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm not.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I know you're not and I know but some people do (inaudible).

MS VERGE: Well, they put it in the act. They put it in the act. They didn't have any choice. It is the legislation that your government initiated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Anyway, it is obvious that - it has gotten interesting, and I like the interaction because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) truth.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know about the truth, but I think we are starting to make sense among ourselves a bit, and a lot of times we don't do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that may be the case; I'm not saying that. All I say is that I can't support it, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

MR. TOBIN: There shouldn't be four seats in Labrador, `Danny'; you know that, and there shouldn't be three on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: And there shouldn't be eleven in St. John's.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is the other side of it. Some members say there shouldn't be eleven in the St. John's area, either. I don't know; I suppose we could all argue different ways.

Anyway, I don't want to belabour the point. I have said the things I want to say about it. I feel strongly about it. I would hate to see us - I want to see a reduction. I wouldn't want to see us do something where we are back here in four or five years costing the taxpayers more money, I say that quite sincerely - which we see happening over time. It happens over time. Sometimes it happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you are going to do it, do it right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Let's do it properly. Let's thrash it out. Let's take the time and debate it. Let's look at the options. That is all I am saying, and I think I have said what I wanted to say. I thank the members for their attention and for their interaction. I have enjoyed it, to be very honest with you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief but I would like a word with respect to the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I have said is that I shall be brief and already I am subjected to a tirade from my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Mr. Speaker, members will not be surprised to know that the government will be voting against the amendment and asking those who agree with us to vote against it. I gave the reasons at some length yesterday in the House why we were unable to accept the report of the Mahoney Commission as it was submitted. Now, I realize they were bound by the act, and I don't criticize them for that. In fact, I said here in the House several times that they met their mandate squarely and fully and effectively, but we were faced with the fact that they had met their mandate to recommend a forty-four seat House and had then gone on to make other recommendations, which I spelled out yesterday in the House.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing now, in effect, is implementing the most important recommendation of the Mahoney Commission, which is they said - my friend, the Member for Eagle River has said - the Commission repeatedly said there must be, in their judgement, four seats in Labrador, but to get four seats in Labrador and to preserve the plus or minus 10 per cent rule with the two justifiable exceptions, you must have a House of forty-eight seats. Now, that was the arithmetic which underlay the Commission given to Mr. Justice Noel, as I explained yesterday. Mr. Justice Noel, in his report, laid out the arithmetic, the mathematics, very clearly. If we are to have four seats in Labrador, and the two so-called urban seats, the present Menihek and the present Naskaupi, which are no different in any real sense than any other part of the Province; and, two, the Torngat and the Eagle River seats at present, which are different. If we are to have four seats in Labrador, then one must have forty-eight seats in the whole Province, forty-four on the Island, to preserve the proportionality.

Now, if hon. members opposite want to say there should not be four seats in Labrador, as my friend, the Member for Grand Bank maintains, they have every right to say so.

MR. TOBIN: I agree with him.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West takes the same position, fine. I don't hear my friend, the Member for Menihek saying that, but he can speak for himself. What I am saying is, we accept that. We accept the recommendation of the Mahoney Commission, and we are implementing it. The difference between the commission given to Mr. Justice Noel and the commission given to the Electoral Boundaries Commission headed by Judge Mahoney is that Mr. Justice Noel was not limited to a maximum House of forty-six seats as the boundary commission was. He was limited to a number of seats which would preserve the proportionality of the 10 per cent rule, taking into account the two Labrador seats as the basic factor, and he came out with a House of forty-eight seats, and that is the bill that is now before the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House on this amendment. We are here until 10:00 tonight. There will be ample opportunity for other members to speak on it. We will deal with it, and when members have finished speaking, we will put it to a vote and see what the House says. I shall vote against it, the Ministry shall vote against it, and we shall ask our supporters to vote against it.

Thank you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: And surprise, too, `Bill'.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not surprising to hear that the Government House Leader has instructed his crowd to vote against it. That is not surprising. But, anyway, I am glad today, Mr. Speaker, to be able to get up here to speak on this amendment, forty-four in the Justice Mahoney Commission Report.

Personally, with what is going on out in rural Newfoundland now, being torn apart, torn to ribbons, resettlement, people leaving in droves, probably it should be forty seats. Why do you have forty-four, probably forty. There would be some scrambling then by the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, just as much scrambling done as was done last year, when they were talking about forty-four; scrambling.

Members found their tongues after so many months of a vow of silence; they found their tongues and we see in one report that Bellevue had been eliminated, the Bay of Islands had been eliminated and then in the next report, all of a sudden, presto, they were back.

This bill, the bill that has proposed forty-eight seats is only a token savings - four seats, while on this Island, people in health care, people who get sick, people who get old are paying a high price for cutbacks, education, we heard during the referendum on education the money they will save, will go back into education but with all these cutbacks and what we see coming down the pipe and what we can guess at coming down in the future, there won't be much money put into health care or back into education like it was promised.

Forty-four seats, Mr. Speaker, we all know was the legal, Mahoney Report, and anybody who wants to spend his time, they are sixteen or eighteen-hour days, like some members I know, devoting their time to the district, they can find the time. We all know that the people out in Newfoundland, the majority of them, don't know what you do here; they don't care. They expect to put a person when they elect him, that he will represent them, that he will be honest and that he will always be on watch. But what we see now, happening in this Province, is it's out of control.

There were more people leaving on the Argentia ferry this year, one-way tickets to the mainland of Canada, than ever before in the history of that service. If they can get one-way tickets in Argentia to come back to North Sydney or to come back to Port aux Basques, but one-way tickets, Mr. Speaker, they were buying, going away, looking for work or going away to work. I would like to see the statistics today showing the people who have gone and I would like to be able to look forward to next Spring to see how many more have joined them.

We see little bits and pieces on tv and in the papers about people in other parts of Newfoundland, but every one of us, Mr. Speaker, I bet you, Mr. Speaker, every one of us knows of such families - as a CBC reporter said last week, the Newfoundlanders in exile, which is a good term but a sad one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: You are going to be exiled, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, after the statements you made a couple of years ago about the people in Island Cove, Upper Island Cove and Spaniards Bay. They are waiting for you, Sir, when these boundary changes come in. They are going to get even with you, and your gospel singers won't save you at all. You are finished, you are in exile. You will be as scarce as the wingmen on the ploughs. You will be like the auk, another bird gone.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Shakespeare (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You knew Shakespeare, did you? You're that old. I always knew, Mr. Speaker, that is not his first time on this earth. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a face that wore out several bodies, I would say.

This bill, to save a token amount of money, has cost somewhere around $400,000 to the people of this Province. It is nothing compared to what Social Services has had to save, or Health, Education and Training, any of them. But the people out there in rural Newfoundland where I come from, what they have to try to keep their families together, very inadequate types of money. But we've seen the history of this government, its fairness and balance. Or its slogan in 1989 of vote for a real change. Well, they did. You got your change alright, you got your real change. They talk about no money, and then all of a sudden last year anywhere, from what we can know, somewhere in the range of $10 million thrown away on trying to sell Hydro; this year another $2 million thrown away on a referendum. They can find money when they have to.

Forty-eight seats is not going to do very much. The Member for Eagle River, their job in Labrador now is being done by a Senator. They don't even have a representative in the House of Commons. It is being done by an absentee Senator. They are not kicking up about their representative. People should be represented, and represented properly. I know members here, I said earlier, who spend sixteen and eighteen hour days responding to their people. That doesn't stop when this House is closed. This is what they see if they want to be present in the gallery.

This bill is outside - forty-eight members - the scope of the current law. Three years ago, the Minister of Finance, in the Fall mini-Budget stated that the government was going to direct a redistribution commission to make recommendations for a House of Assembly consisting of the most appropriate number of districts, between forty and forty-six. When they came in with a proposal that was down around forty, a lot of members opposite found their tongues. It was a miracle, as if they were struck by something divine. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was nothing divine, it was some members just wanting to hold on to their seats.

There is another thing going on. We have the rural versus urban. In this forty-eight seat proposal, rural Newfoundland is going to lose some four seats and the biggest urban district in the Province will gain three.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to support four seats in Labrador (inaudible)?

MR. CAREEN: No, not when I see other places falling apart. If you were any good you would have your pilot's licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) explain it again (inaudible) referendum (inaudible) leader explain it again now (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You are isolated. You thought it was alright to have 4,500 people represented up on the South Coast. What is the difference in the people on the South Coast? What is the difference in a person up in MacCallum, or Francois?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I respect the member's position. I disagree with it but I respect it.

MR. CAREEN: If the Premier comes back, the Member for Eagle River will go mute again. It would be interesting if he did come in with forty seats to see where they would have wound up, and as I said earlier, I don't see why it can't be forty seats. Nurses are expected to do two or three jobs, assistant nurses, two and three, janitors and secretaries, so you make the cuts at the top, Mr. Speaker. You get to the Legislature here and then you get at the deputy ministers, ADMs and directors. If you want to go by example you start here, and an example of cutting it to forty-eight is not near enough.

St. John's will have eleven members, Mr. Speaker. Now, some of the members here are split, they have rural/urban districts. I spoke to the Member for St. John's Centre yesterday and he told me about the calls and activities he has, but that is not all rampant throughout St. John's. I tell you that for Liberals I know over there, and PCs here in rural Newfoundland, it is an endless, endless day of phone calls and letters. Some people will accept a secretary getting back to them, or taking care of their problems on the spot, but other times, other days, the constituents expect their representative to get back to them.

Mr. Speaker, when the Mahoney Commission was on the go and they were out to Dunville I had the worst kind of a flu. I went to Dunville to make an appearance, to be civil and to make an excuse that day to say that I would welcome to the Placentia area but that I would make my statements known at a later time, and I did appear before the Commission in St. John's. The tack I took at that time was similar to what the Member for Grand Bank took, you can't have a cutback too much unless you make sure that members afterwards would not have extra secretaries, extra assistants. You don't want to save money on the one hand and start wasting more on the other hand.

This forty-eight seats is a sham. These forty-eight seats they say will save some seats for the Liberals. There are some districts that are back and some have been changed a little bit since we listened to Mr. Jones last fall, some changes, but the changes are not enough. When the people of this Province are hurting, when a family reunion in this Province is a wake or a funeral, and that is what they have to look forward to now, they have joined the emigration trail -

MR. EFFORD: You've lost it altogether (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: - they've joined - oh, you're not conscious of your district, are you? You're not conscious of what is going on out there in Newfoundland, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You are in your own bubble. You're not responsible. You don't know. You don't know about anybody leaving. You don't know about nurses, that they are coming from Yellowknife and Western Canada and from down in the United States to get them to go somewhere else to practice. You're not conscious about the thousands of people leaving here.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Your government, your Premier said, a number of years ago, they are going to manage Newfoundland in decline. Well, you're not even managing it in decline. It has gotten out of hand. You've got no control. You've got no fight left in you. You are letting Ottawa get away with murder up there and you are not even standing up for the people down here. Get a bit of guts about yourselves. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, try a bit of guts, get in your own seat and rise up and speak. Tell us why, when your e.a. went to the Commission report and he made statements there a couple of years ago, who was he making the statements on? His own behalf, or was it the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's behalf because he couldn't get there?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I'm not saying that he doesn't have a brain. The one I'm questioning is the minister's. Does the minister have a brain? We know he doesn't have a heart.

Anyway, we've seen this government, Mr. Speaker, on empty promises. What we have seen is a litany of these people since 1989, broken dreams. They haven't got guts enough to stand up to anybody who is making it harder on the people of this Province. Questions are being asked about Voisey's Bay because they don't trust them to deal with it. We hear the answer today about the proposed oil on the West Coast. Isn't that slick? Talk about oil slick. We are talking about minister slick.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes. He agreed that the flares existed.

AN HON. MEMBER: They might have been only to stimulate the stock market.

MR. CAREEN: Probably. This is the same crowd, Mr. Speaker, who was trying to get rid of Hydro, and all of a sudden they claim that this is the real thing, these forty-eight seats. Fool me once, shame on you, and fool me twice, shame on me. The people of this Province are not fooled and neither will they be fooled the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about begging, we can only imagine the way he got on trying to get back into Cabinet, and what he said to the fishermen and the plant workers of this Province when he was trying in a sham running up against Richard Cashin. He got the publicity he wanted, he got the votes he wanted, and then he went into Cabinet. Since that time he has been taking apart the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the interference that was done with this Commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Why not seventeen? Why not nineteen, and double them up? Go with nineteen and your economic zones that you all so love to talk about? Why not put two people in each economic zone?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes.

MR. HEWLETT: One male, one female, one Catholic, one Protestant.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HEWLETT: Like the old days.

MR. CAREEN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I remind you again how this started. It was the former Finance Minister, Mr. Baker, on behalf of the government, on December 4, 1992, who announced the government's intention to introduce the legislation calling for a reduction in the number of seats to between forty and forty-six. Now what happened after? Didn't they talk to anybody before they made that statement? Didn't they talk to anybody when they introduced the bill after? Didn't they know? Now they are talking about excuses, and Labrador. There is never a Plan B or a Plan C for this government.

MS VERGE: There's not even a Plan A.

MR. CAREEN: No, no plans at all. All they listen to, and they are signing out of the hymn book of the resettlement of Newfoundland that was put forward by Parzival Copes over twenty years ago, and then they heard about Mr. Parker, and now there is a Mr. Walker, and that Newfoundland could only support some 250,000 people. Is that what you want? Well, certainly then you will not need forty-eight members. You will not need forty-four. You will not even need forty if you listen to the economies put forward by those people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I will tell you what I will say to the Member for Eagle River. He doesn't know very much about friends, he doesn't know very much about colleagues, and he doesn't know very much about relatives.

The District of Placentia - St. Mary's, because you have the numbers to put it through, it will not be fought over like a dog over a bone, like I have seen some of you fellows. We will talk it over, and we will make a decision, but we see you out there in the by-election in Placentia, and we see who you hang around with, your company, and you cost the election. Whoever runs for Placentia - St. Mary's the next time, the more often they see the likes of you in the district the better chance they have of getting elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: And hopefully they will put all the same team together.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, inflicting a lot of pain on poor people. You were trying to inflict a lot of pain on a lot of people, I say to the member from Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, but probably Mr. Short might let him get in some.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Cashin.

MR. CAREEN: Oh, Mr. Cashin, oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, yes.

Now, as I was saying there a few minutes ago, I mentioned about the Minister of Finance three years ago, in a mini-Budget, but it was the Premier in that same month, in December, 1992, who brought in the measure on behalf of the Cabinet to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly, and he was not talking, at that time, of forty-eight. Probably the only bit of pressure he ever got from his caucus was the thought that some of these people might lose their seats. The only time, probably, they ever stood up for anything was the thought that they might lose their seats because Mr. Baker brought it in, the Premier brought it in and they ganged up to save their seats. Well they are going to have to do something to save their seats in the next election.

I can guess at three or four Liberals that will be re-elected. I say there will be a whole bunch of front-benchers gone. They will be gone before the election. They will not take a chance on running. They will run and they will have their pensions. They know when the going is good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true that Danny was going to kill Harry?

MR. CAREEN: Harry? There are not too many people who know about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, everyone knows about that.

MR. CAREEN: No, no, outside this Legislature I would say there are not too many people because there are not too many people who read Hansard. There are not too many who read it.

MR. ROBERTS: There are not very many in this House who read Hansard.

AN HON. MEMBER: And there is no one here who can read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker does.

AN HON. MEMBER: What read Hansard?

AN HON. MEMBER: Reads it, can't stand to listen to it let alone read Hansard.

MS COWAN: I got two here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two what? Two Harry's?

MR. CAREEN: She got two Harry's. Well I tell you what, you better be careful about your Harry, I say to the member. You better be careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get them mixed up with the Premiers Harry.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder is that complimentary - did she call her dog Harry because the Premier had a dog named Harry just like Mr. Neary when his wife had twins, he called one Pierre and the other Elliot after the Prime Minister of Canada? Is that the kind of complimentary stuff we are into here today?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member's dog is called Lynn. The hon. member's dog is called Lynn?

MR. CAREEN: No, that would not be appropriate, I got a male dog.

MR. ROBERTS: Then call it (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, no.

What is happening in this Province now, Mr. Speaker, what people in this Province are going through, what they have to try to maintain their lives, that is what it boils down to with me, personally. What they have to face every day of their lives, because every parent would like to see their children do better than they did, a very simple fact of life. What we see is the ruination of Newfoundland by a whole bunch of forces outside this Province, and sometimes it is sad to see the perception of it as being aided and abetted by our own government. That is the perception. I am not privy to all that is going on, or anything that is going on in Cabinet, but the fight seems to have gone out of them.

Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, is telling us all to tighten our belts, and he is the fellow who got rid of his ships with Canadian personnel to some flag of convenience and now crewed by foreign sailors. He is telling us to tighten our belts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the Government House Leader has an answer to his yet?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I did, but unfortunately it was only the Auditor General.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, what the people I know have to face on a day to day basis, reducing this House to forty-eight seats is not near enough. It does not mirror what is going on out in Newfoundland, it does not mirror our economic times, it does not mirror or parallel the cuts all other sectors of this Province are being hit with, and we should as an example to the people of this Province be willing to take the cuts, be willing to forty-four seats in this amendment, or indeed what I say personally, forty seats which are well enough for this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak in this debate. I was not going to rise but obviously after listening to some of the members opposite I am forced to come to the defence of our part of the Province in Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for some time but I have not heard the assault on Labrador from members opposite any time in the last six-and-a-half years than I have heard here today, so I don't know what's happening on the other side, I don't know what's happening with the PC Party, if they have abandoned their commitment to Labrador, but I mean, Mr. Speaker, right now, we have at least 80 per cent or so of the opposite side standing up and saying, they do not support four seats for Labrador.

Now I don't know what they are saying, I haven't heard from the Leader of the Opposition, yet. I know that she stands alone many times over there, I know she is not supported many times over there by her side and I am anxious to hear what she has to say on this but certainly, at this point in time, what we now have on the record, is that 80 per cent of the PC members of this House are saying they do not support four seats in Labrador and that will not be lost on the people of Labrador I can tell the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: That will not be lost on the people of Labrador.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the member can't make false accusations, we have seen him do that in the last week or so and was taken to task by Your Honour. He said 80 per cent over here is assaulting Labrador and supporting a reduction in seats. The Member for Eagle River should remember that in my exchange in debate across the House with the Premier, the Premier himself said that he would like to see a reduction of seats in Labrador but he felt bound by the commission.

Now, the member, being the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier -The Premier of the Province said that he finds it hard to justify four seats in Labrador, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Now, let's get the facts straight for the record.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two things, first of all, the Premier clearly said that he would like to see three seats for Labrador in a context of a much smaller House and there is no difficulty, if there are only thirty-six seats in the House, I see no problem with three seats in Labrador. Secondly, hon. members opposite made it very clear they are against four for Labrador. My hon. friend has given his estimate of 80 per cent of them, let them stand in their places and deny it. I say, that the PCs in this House have now made it clear, they are against four seats in Labrador and there is no point of order -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Premier is not against it. The government led by the Premier is bringing before this House a bill that creates forty-eight seats including four for Labrador and it will become law as soon as this silliness by members opposite stops, so we will carry on with the debate, we will get on with it but there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member on the same point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, the Member for Eagle River clearly stood in his place and said that 80 per cent of the members of this side of the House stood in their places and said there should be less than four seats. If you have something to say, stand in your place and say it.

Anyway, he said that 80 per cent of the people on this side stood in their place and said there should be less than four seats in this House of Assembly for Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, I want the record checked and if that is not accurate I want those remarks taken back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order in this House is an order in terms of procedure. What the hon. members have taken the opportunity to do is to interject in a debate to clarify matters and there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker, there is obviously no point of order here. What we see now is the people who have already made their public statements, have already been smoked out now, and they already know that the people of Labrador are not going to forget during the next campaign that the opposite party over there would never support a fourth seat for Labrador. We will make sure of that when we go down to Menihek the next time to take that seat back. We will be able to go into Labrador West, the new seat of Labrador West, and say: You are here because it was this government that kept you here. It was not that party. If that party had their way, they would have taken your representative out of the House of Assembly. That is the record, and they can check back to the answers. They can check with the Member for Grand Bank, or the Member for Burin - Placentia West, or the Member for Placentia, or any other member that I am sure will get up over there from time to time; they will be able to check through them.

Now maybe we do not have the Leader of the Opposition on the record yet. She may be the one yet standing against their party. That is not unusual. We have seen that before, and obviously there is a lot going on over there that does not meet the eye, but I say to members opposite, if you do not want the leader then just tell her, but don't go trying to make her ashamed before the people of this Province, getting up and isolating her on very important issues, because I argue that the representation of Labrador has a unique geographical, cultural and otherwise region of this Province. It is very important that it be recognized in the Legislature of this Province. That has been recognized by the commission, and the Member for Grand Bank cannot have it both ways. He gets up and puts an amendment forward that says that the House did not accept the recommendations of the 1993 Mahoney Report. I am reading from the 1993 Mahoney Report, and it says, the final recommendations: Our recommendation is that, with respect for Labrador, that the act be amended to permit Labrador to retain its present four provincial electoral districts! That is the recommendation of the Mahoney report.

Now the Member for Grand Bank cannot have it both ways. He cannot call for the recommendations of the Mahoney report in one hand and get up in the other hand and say that he is not in favour of that fourth seat for Labrador. Now that is the clear facts of the record, Mr. Speaker. Also he is asking for the recommendations of the Mahoney report to be brought in but he is not reading again, the other considerations that were made and said by the Mahoney report which specifically said that the act should be amended to permit the inclusion of Reidville, Cormack and Howley to be brought into another district. So you cannot have that recommendation brought in then and not be able to have another seat if you are going to keep the rule and the principle in place that we set out in the legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, members over there cannot have it both ways. It is another very, very solid sign again of the narrow-sightedness, the blindness of the Tory vision that they have offered the people of this Province for a number of years. I would argue that if the people of this Province were looking now at where we are going to see people in the Province going to take up new jobs and have their families move there and grow up, if we are going to see economic development in the future it is going to be in Labrador. I would make a prediction right now, Mr. Speaker, I will make a prediction here and if I am here in ten years time - I hope I will get a chance to be here in ten years time and I will be able to read whether I am or not but I think largely, through the work of the Minister of Natural Resources and this present government, we have now seen the Voisey's Bay development in very, very good form. I predict here now that the present Torngat Mountain seat, as it is constituted geographically, will be amongst the largest seats in this Province in ten years time.

So what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is acknowledging what I think everybody in this Province really believes and knows is going to happen. We are going to have a new town on the northern coast of Labrador. We are going to have a tremendous influx of people into the Northern Labrador communities. I am sure in my district, Cartwright is also going to see a nice few number of new families move into that community as we prepare to support the Voisey's Bay one and I am sure there are going to be other Voisey's Bay. I know that there is some very encouraging work going on in Port Hope Simpson, the Alexis River area of my district and certainly inside of Red Bay and down along the inside of Cartwright there is very encouraging things happening there in mineral development. There is absolutely no doubt that the Labrador section of this Province is in for an economic boon in the next ten years for sure. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this government is working very, very hard at trying to put a deal together to complete the northern gulf route which will take a road across Labrador. It will open up our forest industry which the people on the island certainly need to supply the mills in Stephenville and places like that. We can also support an operation in the Lake Melville area. We are going to ask thousands of people to move to Labrador. There is no doubt about that, and what the legislators are suppose to be doing is looking ahead ten years because this is only done every ten years. Look ahead for a change instead of at your navel like the PC opposition is doing here today and as they have done for years. That is why they were thrown out of government six and a half years ago.

We are here today looking at the Province in the future and having a solid vision of the future. We know that Labrador is going to have thousands of new people. In ten years time I suspect there are going to be thousands of new people, new jobs, in Labrador, mostly on the coast but we hope they are all over Labrador, whether in the forest industry, the tourism industry, the magnesia plant up in Western Labrador, or any other happenings that might take part up there with the iron ore.

We have tremendous potential and everybody in the country, everybody in the world now knows that Torngat Mountains and the area of Voisey's Bay is going to see a massive development, so we are doing what we are expected to do. Have a little bit of vision, have a little bit of foresight as to what is going to happen to our Province and our economy, and put plans in place that will see these people protected.

This is what we are doing in this particular act; we are acknowledging that we are going to have thousands of new people in our part of the Province that we call Labrador. Liberals certainly feel that this is going to happen for all the right reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will be like Joey and say that you have to have the secondary processing done in Labrador or you will resign.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, we are going to build an economy in Labrador where Labradorians are going to get jobs. There are going to be a tremendous number of jobs in Labrador and we are not going to have enough people who are resident there now to be able to go to work in Labrador in ten years time, I say to the member opposite. Now, what more do you want? We are standing here as a government today and saying to the people of Labrador that we have a program that is going to see jobs for anybody in Labrador, and anybody who is there now and wants to stay there will be able to get one.

We have done that in the fishery this year, in Mary's Harbour and St. Lewis. There was not one person in that community - as a matter of fact we had to bring people in from the Northern Peninsula and in from the Island of Newfoundland so we could have people enough to work in our crab processing operations, so we do have jobs down there and we do have work down there, and yes, we are going to have jobs for the people.

Now I am sure the people are not going to be, in Labrador, any different than they have always been. We are willing to share; we are willing to make sure that our compatriots on the Island are also taken into consideration. We are going to welcome people to come to Labrador and live there. We are going to welcome people to join us as we develop a tremendous part of our Province, and be able to raise their families, but we are also not going to be insensitive to the fact that there are many people on the Island who are without jobs, many people in the fishery who are trying to get retrained, to diversify, trying to get into new businesses, and we want to reach out to them like we always did in Labrador, and we know we are going to be able to accommodate quite a number of people from the Island of Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) forty-eight seats?

MR. DUMARESQUE: What about the forty-eight seats?

AN HON. MEMBER: The number of seats.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What do you mean? The government bill is before the Legislature. Obviously we support the forty-eight seats, and we endorse the four seats for Labrador. We are very proud to be able to do that here for all of the right reasons, not looking at the partisanship or the narrow-mindedness of people opposite who stood up now, at this point, and said they will not support four seats in Labrador. They do not understand that. They do not understand what they are saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the comments of the Member for Eagle River pass. The reality is this, that this party has unequivocally stood up in this House, to a member, and said that we support the recommendations contained in the Mahoney report, independent recommendations that were not gerrymandered by this government. Now that included the recommendations contained, that the Member for Eagle River read out earlier which called for a four-seat Labrador. What is the Member for Eagle River trying to create? We asked for, we support the recommendations by the Mahoney Commission, not put forward by the government, not put forward by the Opposition House Leader, and a forty-eight seat Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is just taking the opportunity to engage in debate. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously again no point of order. What is happening here is very, very obvious. We are smoking out the members opposite. The Member for Kilbride, I don't know; he has not stated his position on the record here yet. I would hope that he will support the four seats for Labrador, but his House Leader stood in his place today and the leader of the party, who stood right next to him, did not deny it. She did not get up and say that this is not the position of my party. She did not get up and say that this is not the position of myself, she did not get up and take the opportunity - the Member for Burin - Placentia West has no problem telling me that he doesn't agree with four seats for Labrador; the Member for St. John's East Extern doesn't have any problems telling me he doesn't agree with four seats for Labrador. The Member for Placentia didn't have any problem saying into the record: I don't agree with four seats for Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, what we have here, clearly, is a very, very serious issue when it comes to how Labrador is treated in this Province, and I am not going to stand by and let it go on.

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

MR. TOBIN: The hon. member said I didn't have any difficulty in telling him that I didn't agree with four seats -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I said was when the Premier and the Member for Grand Bank had an exchange and the Premier said he didn't agree with four seats for Labrador, the Member for Grand Bank said: I agree with him, and I said: I agree with the Premier, too.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province does not shrink behind any unnoticed microphones. The Premier of this Province submitted this bill to the Legislature as a government bill which said there are four seats in Labrador. Now, that is the record, that is the bill and that is what we over here, are unequivocally supporting. But you guys over there have obviously decided for your own partisan reasons, and your own parochial reasons that you are not going to do that, and I am saying to you as a member for Labrador that I will not stand here and see my part of the Province being treated like that by a Party that is supposed to understand and recognize Labrador's place in this Province. Now, then, Mr. Speaker, that's something that won't go unnoticed, I can tell you that. It won't go unnoticed in Labrador.

The Member for Kilbride got up and he said that we acknowledge the recommendations of the Commission, and the Commission's recommendations are there, I read them out and I will read again: `...that are recommendations with respect for Labrador, is that Labrador is to retain its present four provincial electoral districts.' Now, the Government House Leader and the Leader was sitting next to him, he said into the record quite clearly, I do not agree with this four seats for Labrador, I do not agree with it, and to all kinds of applause from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

But the Premier's views and the government's views are based in our bill, in our Legislative Agenda, we are not shrinking behind anything. This is our agenda, this is our position. Obviously, if it wasn't, we would bring forward a bill which said there were two seats in Labrador, or one in Labrador, but we said four, we did not shirk our responsibility and we did not say that we are insensitive to Labrador's place in this Province and lest it be lost on people, that Labrador does have a unique place in this Province and will for some time in the future, Mr. Speaker. We are a net contributor to this Province, our region, and we are very proud of it, and we will be for sometime in the future. I am sure we will be able to help out in the future as we did in the past, and for that to be lost on the official position of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the PC Opposition, as they so proudly say they are, for that to be lost, I would say to all members opposite, stand in your place when you get the opportunity and denounce your House Leader, denounce your Leader, denounce the Member for Placentia, denounce the Member for St. John's East Extern, denounce yourself if you can't come to grips with the reality of the world.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that today we have fully exposed again another tremendous weakness in the party opposite over there and one more reason why they will not get one seat in Labrador come the next election. We have lots of reasons to believe that we are going to get all four seats in Labrador the next time, but today they have given us another very solid reason why they will not be able to go to Labrador next time and claim any kind of recognition because they were the ones who would not give the representation to the people of Labrador in the Legislature of this Province. It is on the record, it is the position, and it will not be lost, I can guarantee you.

I will undertake, on behalf of the people of Labrador, to make sure that position that is annunciated by so many of those members is taken and delivered to households in my district, and if I can get them to talk to their friends in Labrador, I will certainly do that as well. It will not be lost, and I am sure my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains is not going to be reluctant to go back to his district and tell the people of Torngat Mountains, you would not be here as a district. The people of Torngat Mountains would not be here as a district in the Legislature of this Province if you had to ask for the assistance of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, we can go to the people of Labrador West and say to them, you would not have your member, whatever he does or whatever he doesn't, you would not have that member in this coming election if it had been for the will of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. If they had their way, you would not be here, so I don't think we will have a very difficult time convincing the people of Labrador, don't go and buy a pig in a poke this time. The record is very clear. They have stated so many times and through so many people that they did not want to have the adequate representation in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that that is going to be a very prominent issue. I am sure that the newspapers in Labrador and the radio stations in Labrador are listening to this debate because it was very, very important to the people of Labrador. Obviously, more people in Labrador requested that they come and have hearings in Labrador. More people in Labrador made representations to that committee; more people in Labrador were totally unequivocal about their position. Even the people on the Northern Peninsula, in one particular instance, made sure that the people on the commission fully understood that they believed the people of Labrador should have their four seats. So it is a very important issue to the people of Labrador and for the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador to come out now and condemn them and say no, this is our position. We have to wonder about the representation that that government gave to Labrador in the past, Mr. Speaker, with an attitude like that.

So I am very pleased today to be here to support this legislation. I am very pleased to be able to stand in my place and say that I am a member of a government that recognized that Labrador had a very unique position in this Province, a place that was important. That we recognize that we have a vision for this Province that includes Labrador. We have a vision in this Province that includes Labrador as a very prominent part of our economy, as a very positive element of our future economic development, Mr. Speaker. Labrador is first and foremost and very prominent in our agenda on this side of the House and that is not going to be lost on the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, in ten years from now we will have thousands of new people in Labrador. The quotient that we have here now of 11,000 or 12,000 people, I submit will be reached and bypassed in districts in Labrador and obviously Torngat Mountains will be one of them in ten years time. We are going to see tremendous development there. We want to see it there, we want to see those jobs for Labradorians, we want to see those jobs that we will be able to share with Newfoundlanders and other Canadians. We want to be able to contribute the dollars, the revenues, the extra compensation that is necessary and will come from the Voisey's Bay development, Mr. Speaker. We want to see that put into the treasury so that we will be able to lower the deficit so that we will be able to have a manageable economy, so that we will be able to continue to supply the services that the people of the island and all throughout this great Province are demanding. We want to be there and contribute like we have never before. That is what our ambition is in Labrador. We do not want to tear down something. We do not want to be destructive. We do not want to say you are not allowed to have your voice in the Legislature of the Province. We do not want to be there saying that we have no regard for you, we have no program for you, which is obviously the position of the Opposition and the PC Party of this Province.

So today is a very important day to me, as a member, for that district on the coast presently called Eagle River, but I am pleased to see will now be renamed the District of Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair. Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair is the all-encompassing name for the district. Cartwright is the most northern community, and L'Anse-au-Clair is the most southern community, just two miles from the Quebec/Labrador border, so I guess the new name will immediately mean to the people who hear the name that this is indeed a Labrador district. The name Eagle River at one point, I guess, was the midway point, or could be seen as the midway point, between Mary's Harbour and Nain if you look on the map, but it did not have the kind of geographic reference that obviously Cartwright does, and L'Anse-au-Clair, so I am pleased to see that the name change is being proposed.

I am pleased to see that the four seats are maintained for the people of Labrador. I am pleased to see that yes, forty-eight seats are coming forward because it is something that is going to save $600,000 to the taxpayers of the Province forever. I think the timing is right for that. I think it is important for us in the Legislature to send a positive signal on those lines. I think it is important, although it is my personal feeling that we cannot have too much representation, it is my personal feeling that we would not be doing an injustice to the people if we had eighty seats here. I do not believe we would, but I recognize the financial times that we are living in, I recognize the leadership that we must have in those times, and I recognize that this is a kind of commitment that we need to make and be able to save those dollars that are necessary now to meet some of the demands in our social services, health care, justice, and other departments that are being demanded by our people.

I am pleased to support the bill. Obviously I will not be supporting the amendment. It was another amendment that was moved on the basis of pure partisanship. It was made on the basis of pure parochial approach to debate on this issue, and one that is unfortunately all too reflective of the positions that the Opposition have taken on many issues of importance. They are always concerned about the short term partisan points that they may be able to score, but I think today they have heard, in their approach to partisanship. Because they have obviously sent a very clear signal to the people of Labrador that we do not support four seats in Labrador, that we do not support having adequate representation in the Legislature. I'm sure that the people of Labrador would say I would be remiss if I didn't stand in my place today and put on the record and make sure that particular position was fully exposed.

With that, I would conclude by asking all members on this side of the House to support this bill, because I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation for Labrador, for the taxpayers throughout this Province, and obviously it will be a very solid piece of legislation for democracy. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


 

November 21, 1995         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLII  No. 59A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I've never heard such tripe, diatribe, before in my life. A member stood up to defend Labrador, the same member who used taxpayers' money to rent cars in Quebec when he was driving through Labrador so he could get points. Took the taxpayers money from this Province, went to Labrador, and rented cars. Paid the taxpayers' money to the Province of Quebec, rather than rent cars in his own district. That is the great commitment he has to Labrador. When he would spend Newfoundland hard-earned taxpayers money in the Province of Quebec so he could rent a car where there are travel points, as opposed to renting a car in his own district in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

I know why the member is upset because there was mention that there shouldn't be four seats in Labrador. I know why he was upset. He was upset because his Premier, his Leader, was the man who first brought it up to the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He asked me the question.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. He asked: Do you agree with Labrador having four seats? The Member for Grand Bank said: No, I don't agree with Labrador having four seats. The Premier said: I agree with you. But he said: When the Commission recommended four seats for Labrador there was no way I was going to subject the people of this Province to have less representation than the people of Labrador. That is the exchange that took place in this Legislature this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. That is what took place in this Legislature after dinner. That is the truth. I know that that word is foreign to the Member for Eagle River. I know he has no understanding or concept of what that word is all about, but that is the truth.

That can't be allowed to stand (inaudible). He almost sounded like someone was going to seek the nomination or something for the Liberal Party. But I understand that is gone. I am not sure that himself and the Member for Port de Grave will spend much time on the Labrador Coast with the proposed member. I'm not sure that himself and the Member for Port de Grave will support the member who is going down there. I don't know what my friend for St. John's East thinks about the proposed candidate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He will support him too, will he? Well, Mr. Speaker, unlike the Minister of Natural Resources he only changed his politics once. He was always a Tory. He only became a Liberal. But some people can be Liberals and NDPs and Liberals, like the proposed member for Labrador is known to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You don't know, do you? One of your learned friends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: A former member of the House of Commons, as a Liberal for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: A learned Liberal who is under the guise of the NDP for the last several years.

MR. TOBIN: The former Member for St. John's West.

MR. ROBERTS: Billy Browne, he is dead.

MR. TOBIN: Who was after him?

MR. ROBERTS: Everyone was after Billy.

MR. TOBIN: Who was after Billy in St. John's West?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not immediately after, after –

MR. TOBIN: Who did Carter defeat?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Roberts, you are not -

MR. SULLIVAN: Ed's memory is only short term, is it? Alzheimer's setting in?

MR. TOBIN: Well, think on who defeated Billy Browne in St. John's West.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he knows full well who I am talking about.

MR. ROBERTS: No. Who are you talking about?

MR. CAREEN: He will be his nominator if Brian Tobin tells him to.

MR. ROBERTS: You are not as dumb as you look, Glenn.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good! He can't say the same about you.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, boy! I liked that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: One up on him.

MR. TOBIN: One up on him. He just got in. It is a good thing he his not here all day.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was all day thinking about that one.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I share the views of the Premier of this Province, that you can't have four seats in Labrador. I support the Premier; I agree with the Premier, that you can't have four seats in Labrador and only forty in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the Premier's position?

MR. TOBIN: The Premier's position was loud and clear in this Assembly this afternoon, and I agree with him, Mr. Speaker. Everything the Premier said -

AN HON. MEMBER: I must go in and turn on the radio now. I must go in and have the news spread all over Labrador -

MR. CAREEN: You are going in to get your supper now. They have that brought in for you, that is where you are going.

MR. TOBIN: The best thing you can spread over Labrador is Newfoundland taxpayers' money and not in the Province of Quebec.

I support this amendment put forward by my colleague from Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, because it is right. There is only one reason that there are not forty-four seats brought into this House and it has nothing to do with the recommendation on Labrador. It has all to do with the recommendation that saw the Premier's seat disappear from the electoral map in this Province. It has all to do, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Justice's seat disappearing from the electoral map in this Province. That is why it is forty-four seats.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is why I brought it from you, I say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I wouldn't doubt that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HEWLETT: They must be charging him too much.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we today are involved in debating an amendment that is not going to change very much this House of Assembly. The Minister of Fisheries will no longer have a seat and I would suspect that that is what the government wants. He has been nothing but a liability to this government since he went into Cabinet. He has been nothing but a liability and I think the government is trying to push him out. In terms of his having to go up against the Member for Port au Port or the Member for Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, he won't get votes enough to wad a gun, Mr. Speaker.

The other seats are Harbour Grace, Carbonear, and Port de Grave becomes - there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is in big trouble in his district. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. There is a very energetic young doctor out there waiting to take him on to render judgement. I can tell you one thing, that I have all the confidence in the world that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, the Member for Placentia, and the Member for Ferryland will be back in this Legislature after the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are seats like St. John's North that any of them can win because you will never win it again.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: A likely story.

MR. TOBIN: You will never win it again, Mr. Speaker. Any man who has attacked the health care and attacked the sick and suffering in this Province like the Minister of Health will never be elected again.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I could be on the system. Mr. Speaker, you were going to put Burin - Placentia against me.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I never said I would beat you down there.

MR. TOBIN: And I never said I would beat you in St. John's North, but I said that either one of those members could beat you in St. John's North.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Do you think they are all better men than you?

MR. TOBIN: They may be, but the fact that they may not be better than me does not mean they would not be better than you.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The hon. member may think he is better in certain quarters of this Province but not in St. John's North. That would not be an obstacle.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was born, raised, and bred in rural Newfoundland and I think when they burn me, put me in a hole or sinks me it will be in rural Newfoundland. I have no great desire to become part of the cities. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, if the health care system keeps getting cut and if you are still the Minister of Health there is no doubt about it you will perish somewhere, you will never die in a hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he cannot find his wheelchair.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are wheelchairs missing from the hospital system is very serious because there are people who need wheelchairs.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, if that is the case then I can understand it. People are crying out, they are crawling for wheelchairs. If this government keeps cutting back the constabulary may need wheelchairs because they will have no cars to go on calls. That is what is going to happen in this Province. If the Minister of Justice gets his way God only knows the cuts that are going to be made to his department. He will make a greater negative impact on his department than the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education and Training made upon theirs I say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bad.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that's bad. There is no doubt about that, that is bad if he does that.

MR. ROBERTS: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not carried and it will not be carried this time next week, or this time next month, I say to the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to place a wager?

MR. TOBIN: No, I do not want to place a wager.

I understand that the Minister of Justice is a good person to place a wager with because the Minister of Education, I understand, just won a wager from the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: I bet him that the hon. lady didn't have the guts to do what she did and vote at second reading for the (inaudible).

MS VERGE: And you lost.

MR. ROBERTS: I lost and I will gladly pay the bet too.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Minister of Justice that I lost a bet on the Minister of Justice to my colleague from Grand Bank in the by-elections. I bet that he would have the guts to run on the Southern Shore and my colleague bet that he would not and he did not, Mr. Speaker, so I lost. I lost that bet too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Did you pay?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I paid. No, it is not a change. I always paid my bets. I am not a great gambler, Mr. Speaker, but I make a few bets every now and then but if I spent as much time gambling as some of the members opposite I would be supporting the casino for Argentia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When he went home and opened the closet door he found his gold plated slippers.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, somebody - the minister and now he wants to take another trip.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: He traded in his gold plated slippers for a pair of gaiters.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that there are going to be amendments brought into this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say one thing, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's bite is a lot worst then his bark. His bark is worst then his bite. He would not give you a piece of chicken, Mr. Speaker, and then he will turn around tomorrow and he will give me -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is your bedroom floor paved, John? Andy said your bedroom floor is paved and everything, is it? Right up to the second floor is paved, up the stairs -

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Port de Grave, Mr. Speaker, better pave it now because there is a young doctor out in his district who is going to take him on and defeat him, going to make him history come the next election.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They will be looking after you the next time though, I will tell you that.

MR. SULLIVAN: You will be going out with your hand out looking for more pavement.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he will get close to you and when the votes are counted he will be far ahead of you on election night.

MR. SULLIVAN: John might not win the nomination, that's another thing, he might not win the nomination. The nominating meeting is going to be down in Upper Island Cove for the liberals in Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: The nominating meeting is going to be in Upper Island Cove.

MR. EFFORD: I hope so.

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not only do I say about four seats for Labrador. I would also say that there should be only two seats on the Burin Peninsula, and that the Fortune - Hermitage part of the Burin Peninsula should be brought in with the Burin Peninsula. There should be two seats. They should get representation from the Burin Peninsula because there has been a period of time now, for the last little while, that the member who represents them has not been on the Burin Peninsula, has not been as actively involved, has not been as aggressive (inaudible) of his constituent's interests in this House from the Burin Peninsula as he used to be in the past. Now I think he should.

The people from Fortune - Hermitage called me, called my colleague from Grand Bank, and they were really pleased and happy that they were going to be part of the Burin Peninsula riding - Fortune Hermitage - and I would say something else. Probably I am wrong, but I think I am right; I would think they would much rather remain part of the present district of Fortune - Hermitage than become part of the Bellevue district, and I hope when the vote comes before this House, and it may be necessary to bring in an appropriate amendment in this House requesting two districts for the Burin Peninsula, and give every member an opportunity to stand in their place and tell us whether they support it or whether they don't. That opportunity may be given to members of this House on Thursday or Friday or Saturday, next week, when we get in second reading. There may be an amendment dealing with the fact that there should be two seats on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two seats?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, two is enough. I think there should only be two seats on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't think there is a need for two-and-a-half. I don't think that that Bellevue district is going to be very easy to represent. I don't think for one minute it is going to be very easy to represent, I say to the minister. When you take in the parts of the Province that district represents, with all due respect to all the people in the district - fine people - but when you have to put St. Bernard's and Jack Fountain and Monkstown in with Bellevue, Thornlea, Long Cove, Come By Chance, Dildo South, that is a big district - Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay and Trinity Bay all thrown into one. It is a big district, and I would say the people of Fortune - Hermitage would much rather remain as part of Fortune - Hermitage than in Bellevue district.

Now I called up my home on Sunday evening regarding this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I did so. Oh, yes, I most certainly did.

I can tell the member something else. I had a call Sunday evening regarding the dump truck operators who were supposed to meet with the minister this morning. They asked me if I would be able to go to the meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You wouldn't be able to keep me out if I wanted to go. If I wanted to go, you wouldn't be able to keep me out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't know who you will have with you to stop me if I decided to go, but it wouldn't be you; I can tell you that right now. If I decided I was going in, it wouldn't be much good of you standing up and saying I wasn't; I can tell you that right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would serve notice on the minister, Mr. Speaker, that he had better watch his bobber over the next twenty-four hours or his aspirations on the Burin Peninsula won't come to pass.

MS VERGE: What aspirations does he have?

MR. TOBIN: No, I can't tell that.

MS VERGE: Just give us a hint.

MR. TOBIN: No, I can't tell that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I'm not a wingman, Mr. Speaker. I won't make any phone call for him (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Member for Port de Grave doesn't support this piece of legislation. I would suggest that if he wasn't in Cabinet he would be voting against it like other members over there are going to oppose it and vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they?

MR. TOBIN: Yes they are. There are members over there who are going to vote against this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if they took your district right now and threw you out of the House you would be delighted with it. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Wouldn't be surprised.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was drafted by the Minister of Justice. This is the Roberts' act. I never thought that the Minister of Justice could rally the troops behind him in the caucus and in the Cabinet like he has done on this piece of legislation. Because I thought that the Minister of Justice didn't get along very well with his colleagues.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has thought, is that what he is saying?

MR. TOBIN: I was told, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Justice -

MR. ROBERTS: Told by me?

MR. TOBIN: Not by the Minister of Justice, I was told by members opposite, the respect that they had for the Minister of Justice. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice drafted this piece of legislation; the Minister of Justice put this piece of legislation together because neither he nor the Premier had -

MR. ROBERTS: Did the hon. member say he thought? This is a once in a lifetime experience if the hon. gentleman thought.

MR. TOBIN: Well, probably it would be a once in a lifetime experience.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on, now, come on, you have a few minutes left.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of minutes left I would say. I have hours left by the time this is passed.

MR. ROBERTS: That is reassuring.

MR. TOBIN: Well it is reassuring. I will be on my feet Thursday evening, Thursday night, Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saturday?

MR. TOBIN: No, not Saturday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? Have they a comparison there to the time you were Leader of the Liberal Party to see if you were tied?

MR. ROBERTS: That is the time you were supporting me. No wonder I (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I never supported you. I never supported a Liberal in my life, Mr. Speaker. I never voted for one and never will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Justice stands to close this debate, sometime in the New Year, I hope he will tell me why he saw fit to take six communities from my district, to reduce my district by six communities, why that is necessary in a time of restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many times have you said that now?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it as often as I have the opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Are you going to support Mr. Cashin now for the Liberals in Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You and Danny will be going door to door with him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: You didn't hear the news, did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I didn't want to.

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't hear the news today?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the Member for Eagle River and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and their long-lost friend will be working jowl to jowl, cheek to cheek and toe to toe -

MR. EFFORD: Put me on record, no.

MR. TOBIN: You will do whatever you can to see that he is defeated? Mr. Speaker, that is what is going to happen in the next few weeks, we will see him -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What about old shish kebab here, is he going to help out?

MR. TOBIN: Shish kebab?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Shish kebab, Bob.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, anyway, in conclusion -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave, by leave?

MR. TOBIN: No, no leave today; I have my thirty minutes gone. John, do I have leave?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation won't give me leave –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is not up yet.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is not yet up.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, then I will keep going; I don't need leave. But it is going to be nice to see the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation with his long-lost friend under the new redistributions and the four seats in Labrador going door-to-door, down promising pavement, and see him now: If you vote for my friend, if you let me call him a colleague, if you give him the opportunity to go to Ottawa, let me work with him, I will pave your roads, I will pave your driveways. That is what we are going to see.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You will take it up. Mr. Speaker, he will beat the roads with him and don't ever doubt it. Because we saw what he did in this House when he was out of Cabinet when he tried to get the Premier. What did he do? Who did he attack when he was trying to get the Premier? He undermined the Minister of Fisheries, he attacked the president of the Fishermen's Union at the time, and then tried to take credit when he resigned. When the president of the fisheries union resigned he tried to take credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do you know what we are going to see? We are going to see the Premier, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the former president of the Fishermen's Union going door to door.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now the hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members for -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. TOBIN: - their due attention, and I would like to say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that I look forward to seeing television some night, watch him pounding on the doors with his newfound friend.

MR. EFFORD: Question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) question, there was nobody speaking.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought for sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was going to make a contribution to this debate on the amendment proposed by the Opposition House Leader essentially rejecting the bill that is before us, because the minister didn't accept the recommendations of the legitimate Commission constituted by law which, in its final report, recommended a forty-four seat House.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West raised the ire of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when he broke the news that the former president of the fisheries union who has been so successful in Ottawa in recent years is looking at running for the Liberals in Labrador. The Member for Burin - Placentia West predicted that the minister and the Premier, as well as other members of this provincial Liberal caucus, will be assisting Mr. Cashin in his campaign in Labrador.

We can just see it now. We can imagine the feisty Member for Port de Grave who is now minister in charge of paving and contracts, who is in charge of the Labrador highway, accompanying Mr. Cashin and making announcements in Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Churchill Falls and Labrador City, Wabush, about how he and Mr. Cashin are going to work together to complete the Freedom Road. We can just visualize it now. We can imagine that the Member for Port de Grave will be one of the chief boosters of Mr. Cashin in his campaign in Labrador.

I'm supporting this amendment and I'm opposing the bill before the House because I'm concerned about two issues. Cost to the taxpayers of this Province. The taxpayers are so overburdened now with ridiculously high taxes, and who are being further assaulted because of the cuts to municipalities, the taxpayers who are seeing vital public services, health services, education services, reduced. I am concerned about cost to the taxpayers for the House of Assembly, and the number of members of the House is one of the main factors in determining the cost. I am concerned about the cost of operating the House of Assembly.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the process that is used to draw the boundaries. In my view the process has to be impartial and non-partisan. It has to be a consultative process. The cost has to be apportioned to the economy of the Province and to the public spending on vital public services. Mr. Speaker, forty-eight seats is out of proportion to what the government is providing to education, health and social services. Forty-eight seats is more than the Province can afford.

The process by which the forty-eight districts in the bill were drawn is a tainted, unacceptable process. The process was partisan and it was not consultative. Basically what happened is that the Minister of Justice and a few of the other Liberals opposite carved up the map looking at individual political considerations, looking at the voting patterns of the past, and then they had one of the judges of the Trial Division who was willing to do the minister's bidding put his name on the cover of a document that was prepared by the ministry, to use the Government House Leader's word.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a product of gerrymandering, with a cost that is out of proportion to the provincial budget and the economy of the Province. On those two key issues the bill fails, and the only alternative for us in the Opposition is to move this amendment involving a rejection of the bill because the minister did not accept the recommendation of the duly appointed commission.

Mr. Speaker, when the commission was first constituted three years ago the government had led people to expect, and had given a mandate to the commission to draw boundaries to reduce cost to the public, and that was popular. That was well received. The PC Opposition supported the objective.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, the same as the act which was operative the last time the redistribution was done, provided for a commission with a chairperson chosen by the Chief Justice of the Province and other commissioners selected by the Speaker. In other words, the legislation provided for a commission which was non-partisan, provided for a group of people who were not beholden to any one political party, headed by a chairperson chosen by the Chief Justice of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation further provided that in drawing the boundaries the commission could have populations departing from the provincial average by 25 per cent high or low. That range is acceptable in Canadian law, and there has been some jurisprudence on this point. It is also in keeping with the law in several other provinces.

When I spoke yesterday I indicated that British Columbia doesn't have any limit, and in fact district populations in that Pacific province range as high as 60 per cent above the provincial average and 40 per cent below. There are three or four other provinces that permit a variance of 25 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in a province with our geography 25 per cent is sensible.

I believe one bad mistake this Administration made throughout this long and confusing process is changing the law from what it was in the beginning. Because after the Mahoney Commission started to work, after they had the mandate of recommending between forty and forty-six districts, with populations departing from the provincial average by as much as 25 per cent, the Commission published a proposal calling for forty districts. That was on the low side of the permitted range.

The forty included three and a fraction for Labrador. One of the four districts in that original forty proposal straddled the Strait of Belle Isle. I think it was called Eagle River - Strait of Belle Isle. It was after that the Administration made a bad mistake. That was changing the law to restrict the scope of the Commission by authorising variances from the provincial population average by only 10 per cent. That amended act specified that the Commission draw boundaries for forty-six districts and allowed only a narrow scope for a lower number of districts.

At any rate, the Commission in its final report said that they all, all five of them, concluded that the original mandate was acceptable and that they could have done their work quite well and satisfactorily with the original mandate. However, the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government interfered, changed the law, changed the rules in midstream. The Commission presumably had a choice of resigning or continuing with the second mandate, with the changed mandate, and they opted for the latter. They carried on and completed work with a second mandate.

In their final chapter in the final report published in the summer of 1994 the Mahoney Commission, all five of them, wrote: After thirteen months of intense work and the discharge of two separate legislative mandates we hereby submit to the Minister of Justice and the House of Assembly for its consideration our unanimous report. As to the names, descriptions, boundaries and populations of forty-four one-member districts that are within our mandate and our recommendation with respect to Labrador for the reasons stated in this report, and at our second press conference, that the act be amended to permit Labrador to retain its present four provincial electoral districts, subject only to the removal of Churchill Falls from Naskaupi district and its inclusion in Menihek district.

Mr. Speaker, the government did not take the Mahoney Commission report and write it into a bill and bring it to this House of Assembly. The bill that is now before us represents not the work of the Mahoney commission, not the work of a lawyer in the Department of Justice. It represents the work of a few Liberal politicians dressed up with the name of a judge hand-picked by the Minister of Justice on the cover.

There are two issues and only two issues members of this House should concentrate on: One is cost to the taxpayers, the second is the process by which the boundaries were drawn. The government's bill fails on both counts. The cost of having forty-eight districts is out of proportion with the money that is being provided to hospitals, schools and municipalities. Forty-eight is more than the government originally announced in the mini-Budget three years ago in the first announcement of intention to reduce the size of the House of Assembly. In that mini-Budget announcement in December of 1992 three years ago the government signalled an intention to reduce the House of Assembly not by four districts but by a minimum of eight. By twice as much minimum, and up to three times as much as the government is proceeding to do.

The Minister of Health yesterday scoffed and said: Why are we against cutting $500,000 from the cost of the House of Assembly? The Minister of Health must estimate at $500,000 the cost of four members, four districts. I say to the member, in that case why not save three times that much by cutting three times the number of districts, which would have been the likely result if he and his colleagues had not tampered with the process and changed the law? Why not save twice as much by accepting the final report of the legitimate Commission which did carry out two mandates and completed a second mandate, writing a final report in the summer of 1994 calling for forty-four districts?

Cost and process are the two issues we have to focus on. When members get into a discussion about this community and that community and this neighbourhood and another neighbourhood, and the east side of the bay and the west side of the bay, that is gerrymandering. The reason that we have a law requiring that boundaries be drawn by a commission constituted by the Chief Justice and the Speaker is that for voters to have respect in the democratic institutions and processes boundaries have to be determined by non-partisans, by people other than members of this House. We have a law, we have a process. This government is violating the law and ignoring the process.

As I indicated yesterday, if these were the best of economic times, if we were rolling in money, if we were here debating a mini-budget to grant more money to municipalities and provide additional funding to hospitals and augment operating grants to school boards, if we were here looking at a surplus of revenue over what was forecast last March, the government's bill for redrawing boundaries would still be wrong. It would be wrong because it has been determined by an illegal and an immoral process.

Mr. Speaker, this is extremely important. During the last three decades in this Province many of our democratic institutions have improved. There has been an evolution. This action by the current Liberal government represents a turning back of the clock. The Premier and the Minister of Justice basically have lapsed into practices that they were part of when they were first elected to this House of Assembly in the mid-1960s when Joey Smallwood was reigning. In the mid-1960s there was no law governing redistribution of seats, there was no public tender act, there was no Public Service Commission, and there was no pretence of impartiality in making important decisions affecting the political process or the spending of public money. There was no pretence of fairness or balance.

The big difference today is that we have a premier and a minister who try to camouflage their actions. They are no better, they are no more democratic, they are no more respectful of public opinion, they are no more honest, they are no more fair than the Liberals of the 1960s, but they are slicker. They have a big public relations staff. They have fooled many people in our population for much of the time they have been in office. But people have seen through the charade, I say to the Minister of Justice. People are gradually getting to see the true nature of this operation.

There is no way the government can trick people into thinking that this bill to redraw the map of the Province is a product of a proper, fair, democratic process. There is no way they can make people believe that a reduction of four districts is a reduction of eight districts, which was recommended by the Commission, or a reduction of twelve districts which was first proposed by the Commission. There is no way the Member for Eagle River, despite his actions to deflect attention, despite the sleaze that he might try to indulge in, there is no way the Member for Eagle River can make people throughout the Province believe that cutting the number of seats in this House by four measures up to the promise that he and his colleagues made three years ago when they said in their mini-Budget that while they were cutting hospitals and schools and municipalities they would also cut politicians. There is no way that he can make people in Eagle River believe that promise was kept. That was a promise to cut between eight and twelve districts, and here they are cutting four.

Which four? It is four that were hand-picked and manipulated by a few Liberal politicians. What very few people in the Province have yet realized is that in reducing four seats the government, through its bill, is trying to add two to the St. John's area. It is eliminating six from rural parts of the Province, rural parts of the Island of Newfoundland, and it is adding two more to St. John's. That is ridiculous. That goes back to my point about plus or minus 10 per cent being too narrow a variance for our geography. The variance was selected by a premier and a minister of justice who have a resettlement agenda. These are urbanites who are through a variety of methods trying to discourage people from continuing to live in small communities around our long coastline.

Again we have to wonder about the connection to the 1960s. These are Liberals who were part of the Smallwood Administration in the 1960s which had a formal resettlement program. Back in those days the government paid families and individuals to move from small communities to growth centres. This Administration has a resettlement agenda much the same; it is just that they don't name it and they don't provide financial assistance to help people move. Instead they starve people out. They cut municipalities to the point that volunteers are no longer willing to carry on, to the point where small communities have to turn off their street lights and they are cutting them even further now.

Mr. Speaker, it is a government that has already cut school boards, and despite much talk of consolidating school boards, taking money from administration and extending it to the classroom, what they are doing is cutting at the classroom level and forcing boards to close small schools and bus children inordinate lengths to get to school. It is a government, Mr. Speaker, which has not been able to hold an adequate number of doctors or nurses in rural parts of the Province. It is a government which is reducing and consolidating and centralizing health services, so the resettlement agenda is just as real as it was in the 1960s. It is just that it is slightly camouflaged and there is no financial assistance.

The boundaries redistribution which are set out in this bill is another part of the resettlement agenda, two more districts added to the St. John's area where members on both sides of the House for metropolitan St. John's will save. Their workload is much less than the burden carried by rural members. Very few people in the Province have yet realized that the reduction of four districts involves an addition of two districts to the St. John's area. Now, how can anyone rationalize adding two more MHAs to the St. John's area when St. John's is more than adequately served by MHAs now. St. John's is also served by a city council with well paid councillors and a large bureaucracy.

Where St. John's, in any case, is the capital city, residents of St. John's have easy access at no long distance charge to provincial government head offices and provincial government officials. People in the St. John's area needing information from the provincial government, needing help with a provincial government program more often than not can pick up the phone and call a civil servant who may happen to be a neighbour, a friend, or a relative and get the answer or get the help. If there is a complication the person can very easily contact an MHA or a cabinet minister. Many St. John's resident's basic needs fall within the jurisdiction of the municipality and, as I mentioned, there is a large city council and councillors in St. John's are well paid. Many of them, some of them at any rate, work at it full time or for a substantial part of their time, and there is a very large staff at city hall.

St. John's residents place relatively few demands on their members compared to people who live in rural parts of the Province, and who also live a long distance away from provincial government offices, so what are we doing here with a bill that will add two more seats to St. John's? How is that justified at a time when such severe cuts are being made to municipalities and hospitals and schools?

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the two key issues that we should be focusing on in this debate. They are cost and process. Cost which is in proportion to what the government has to spend and what the economy of the Province can provide, cost that will ensure a reasonable service by MHAs to the people of the Province, and that does not mean adding two MHAs to the St. John's area, it does not mean reducing the size of the House by four, when a commission of independent people originally said that forty would be adequate.

Process, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us represents boundaries which were chosen through a corrupt process, chosen by Liberals who picked boundaries and shaped them and contorted them, I say to the Member for Eagle River, to serve their partisan purposes and I include him and the Minister of Justice in that category. They looked after their own narrow, personal, partisan interests in Eagle River and Naskaupi. They were not concerned about justice, it was the Minister of Injustice who presided over this process and remember, the Minister of Injustice, after changing the law three times after having a legitimate commission carry out its mandate twice after spending $400,000 of taxpayers money, then, was not satisfied to implement the report, went back to the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Justice Mahoney, a third time and asked him to rework it a third time. Can you imagine what Mr. Justice Mahoney told this Minister of Justice? Can you imagine what Mr. Justice Mahoney told the Minister of Justice, your buddy and colleague and crony, I ask the Member for Eagle River?

Mr. Justice Mahoney said no. We did our work, we carried out our mandate, we carried it out twice. We even (inaudible) after you changed the law in midstream and we are not going to do anything more with this. We are finished with it, we wash our hands off it, we have written our final report, it is a unanimous recommendation for forty-four districts and that's it. So the Minister of Justice then had one of his staff scurry around, coming to the Opposition, trying to get the PC Opposition to collude in a tainted process, to have politicians carve up the map, and we wouldn't have any part of it. And then out of a concern for optics, the Minister of Justice found a judge who was willing to do his bidding; he had Mr. Justice Noel put his name on a document which was worked up by the Minister of Justice and the Member for Eagle River and their Liberal cronies. So, make no mistake, the authors of the bill now before us were the Minister of Justice and other Liberal partisans, not Mr. Justice Noel, not a staff lawyer in the Department of Justice, and certainly not the duly authorized commission headed by Mr. Justice Mahoney.

Now, the bill before us violates the law now in force. We have a law of this Province which says that there is to be a maximum of forty-six districts. We have an act of this House of Assembly that says the boundaries not exceeding forty-six are to be drawn by a commission headed by the appointee of the Chief Justice with the other commissioners being chosen by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is the contempt of our own House. It flies in the face of the law, it violates the Electoral Boundaries Act, it stinks, in a word. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails the two tests. It fails the test of reasonable cost and it fails the test of a non-partisan consultative process.

Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose the bill before us and I certainly support the amendment moved by my colleague the Opposition House Leader. We have to decline to give second reading to this bill because the minister did not accept the only legitimate recommendation that is available, the final report of the Mahoney Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the Mahoney Commission was composed of five individuals and some of them are known to members opposite: Mr. Justice Mahoney is a former member of this House who was chosen by the Chief Justice; John Nolan who was a member of this House and who has been a supporter of the Liberal Party; Ray Baird, a former member of the House who is a supporter of the PC Party; Dorothy Inglis, a supporter of the NDP and Beatrice Watts who is a constituent of the Minister of Justice and who lives in Labrador. All five of those people unanimously, under the law, submitted this report. This is the only legitimate report that we have and, Mr. Speaker, the act makes no reference to the report, the act ignored the report, the act involves acquiescence -

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up.

MS VERGE: - in the wastage of $400,000 in money.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, proceeding with the act is totally unacceptable, it is immoral and it is illegal. Mr. Speaker, I note that the Member for Exploits is getting very testy. The Member for Exploits is very testy. I hear many of his constituents are upset with him because he is part of an administration that is inflicting cuts on their municipalities and their hospitals.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: I just wanted to check on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the hon. member was still recognized by the Chair. I understood that her time was up and I did not want to hear anything else that she had to say because I heard it all yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. members time is up and she does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that this is going to be the last amendment that we are going to see pertaining to this particular piece of legislation. In saying that, I don't mean it's just from this side of the House. I would say, Mr. Speaker, well maybe not through second reading but once we get into committee you could probably see some other amendments from members opposite.

The members talk about sensible amendments, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything sensible in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well if it has to come from over there it won't come from the member. If it comes from over there it certainly won't come from the member. It might be the other fifty-one but not him. I say the member is after spreading more then his legs when he is out on that bike. Mr. Speaker, I would say that if members here in this House, the fifty-two districts in the Province, got up - Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to defend himself let him get up. Everybody has a right to speak in the House. They can say what they like when they like. They can be taken to order by the Speaker and if not they can continue.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that will be made will be made by members who have some concerns with regard to their districts in particular and adjoining districts, some concerns with the communities that will probably be added to their district, whether it has to do with geographics, everything is supposed to be in the plus or minus 10 per cent. Any amendments, I would say, that would be within the plus or minus 10 per cent would probably be accepted, but there is no doubt in my mind, no doubt at all in my mind, that - I think when I spoke here yesterday I can't remember if I referenced going to forty seats. I cannot remember if I did or not. If I didn't, I meant to, and to make sure I am on the record today, I think there is nothing different about it, and I want to be put on the record, and in the record of Hansard, as saying that we should have nothing less than forty seats, absolutely nothing less than forty seats in the Province.

Now maybe we could do with less, but I don't think so. It is every ten years that this is looked at. We have another ten years after this, once it goes through the House of Assembly this time, before we look at it again, and I think that in our wisdom every member here in the House knows full well, and I don't want to be repetitious in what I said yesterday as it pertains to urban centres of the Province, but I think we should all make sure that when this is passed it is down to forty seats, nothing less than forty seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing more than forty seats.

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing more than forty seats.

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing more; yes, that is true, nothing more, because I said that maybe we could do with less but I think that by taking twelve out of it we would be taking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Minister of pickles. I might have been the minister of pickles, but I stood for something. I am not in a pickle like the minister all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I saw the minister one night on a bike.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I did so. I saw him on a bike, and I guarantee you, if the Constable here had been where I was he would have had you, a guaranteed fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No excuse; and you were speeding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Went right through the lights down by Holiday Inn, no lights on his bike, absolutely nothing. Nothing on the bag on the back, nothing, and the cap hauled down over his eyes, and he going. I thought it was a janny.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he coming or going?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know. I don't think he knew whether he was coming or going, but he was going all out. I would say that he never stopped until he hit Quidi Vidi.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) red light.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, yes, red light, right on through it. When we got out of a committee meeting here, he was that excited, he got on the bike out here by the Confederation Building, down over the steps, and right on down through Holiday Inn, right through the red light. When I saw him coming I said: Well, well, well, get out of his way; here he comes. I think he had a Tilley hat on, and when I looked you couldn't see the eyes, nothing only a part of the forehead, and he was giving it to her, going. Knapsack on the back and neither light on that, nothing. Well, I said, he is either hungry or he just wanted to commit suicide.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Flemish Cap.

MR. WOODFORD: He had his Flemish Cap on that night.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, as far as I am concerned when this is passed, Thursday, Friday, Monday, or whenever it is, we should have this go through the House based on forty seats and do the realignments based on forty seats. Having said that we know that the government of the day has the majority. We know that at the end of the day, regardless of what we say - and there are not enough over there in the back benches, along with members here on this side of the House, to make sure that this does not go through. There are not enough there to vote against it. Obviously everybody will support it.

If we are going to be meaningful about this, and we are talking about saving money, if there is no other reason to do it, to drop from fifty-two to forty-eight, forty-seven, forty six or forty, if there is no other reason to do it other than to save money, why even drop it four? From fifty-two to forty-eight is only a sham. We save absolutely nothing. By the time the whole Commission is paid for, by the time we go through the $150,000, or whatever it is, to pay for a member in here for a year to represent his or her constituents, we will save absolutely nothing. In order to make it meaningful and to make it worthwhile, especially in the dollar sense when it comes to the budget in the House of Assembly, if we went down and chopped another twelve seats off it, do a realignment in and around the urban areas, and if you have to add a few to the rural districts of the Province, and put it down to forty seats.

One of the first reports that came out when they were using the 25 per cent quotient had the communities in my district, the community of Reidville, Cormack, and Howley, in with the district of St. Barbe. My colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, is not here today but we talked many times about it, and it does not make a bit of sense in the world, not a bit of sense whatsoever geographically. You are talking about members now who probably have to work full time catering to their district, and getting back and forth to their districts, so this would make it a lot harder for them in this particular, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the member that it said right here in the recommendations that the three communities be put in with St. Barbe. That was the first recommendation made, and this was the same one that said Churchill Falls should come out of the member's district and go into Menihek. I think that was the first or second one, but that is not going to happen. I must admit that under this report they left the communities of Reidville, Cormack, and Howley in the district of Humber Valley, so under this report here I have the old district, the same district that we had before, the same communities, but I have the addition north to southeast down in Gros Morne Park, and then we go over to Trout River on the south side of Bonne Bay, so that would take in Woody Point, Trout River, Glenburnie, Lomond, and that is going north or south that way. Most all of it is in Gros Morne National Park. It takes in almost half the park in this particular case.

I don't mind that at all. The beauty about it is that I never lost a big part of my original district. I did lose the communities of Hughes Brook and Humber Village. As far as I'm concerned, under the original plan brought in I think in 1985, that should have been in anyway in the District of Humber East, Humber Village should have been, and Hughes Brook should have been in the Premier's district of the Bay of Islands. Some surveyor came in I guess and instead of using the line went and used the river as a line, as a boundary, and took everything sort of north of the Humber River and put it in the District of Humber Valley, instead of putting one in the District of Humber East and the community of Hughes Brook in the District of Bay of Islands, the district that the Premier represents today.

I would have to leave the Deer Lake area and you drive to Humber Village, which is midway between Deer Lake and Corner Brook, about forty-eight, probably fifty-odd people in there. Then you go to Hughes Brook, you drive down there, and then you go over on the north shore of the Bay of Islands into the small community of Hughes Brook. Right on the road, just down below that, Summerside, Irishtown, Gillams and so on, and it didn't make a bit of sense in the world. So that now under this realignment will be looked after, those two particular communities. I will keep the original part of the district, but in addition to that, like I said, I go north to Wiltondale, or beyond Wiltondale, southeast, and over to Trout River, those particular communities.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind that at all. Those extra couple of thousand people I don't mind at all with regards to representation, if we have to do that in order to make the realignments compatible with the Member for St. Barbe, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay on the other side of me. Now, Harbour Deep is the other one. Harbour Deep was always in Baie Verte - White Bay. Now that will also be in the new district –

MR. ROBERTS: Harbour Deep wasn't always in Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. WOODFORD: Not always, but the last time -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is under the old -

MR. ROBERTS: Until the Tories gerrymandered (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, they didn't gerrymander with it at all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: It was White Bay North, but in order to get there you would have to go in by plane anyway or else take the ferry from Jackson's Arm.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, a long walk. I don't say the minister went there very often if he had to walk. Mr. Speaker, you go there by the ferry from Jackson's Arm, that is where the ferry operates from now, and I think the boundaries in this one now go down as far as I believe on the old White Bay North down to - I believe it goes down to Englee. So, it is well down the Northern Peninsula anyway on that side of the bay. Then again, that is not a big community either, but it is a little bit hard to get to. Accessibility is not going to be easy.

In any case, the alignments, the final figures and the final communities that were named in this new proposal I will no doubt find no problems to administer. There are a number of communities now, Mr. Speaker, in this new alignment, I think it is something like twenty-odd communities. So again it comes back to the old argument about representing one particular town, whether it be a Grand Falls or a Gander or such, or some town in a confined area, or the City of St. John's split up, we will say, with the number of members in and around the City of St. John's.

I cannot for the life of me see why we would have to add two members to this area in here. I cannot understand why we should add two members to this particular area in here, to sit here in the House of Assembly, and at the same time knock four seats off the fifty-two, and not bring those numbers down in areas that have least accessibility.

In here, as far as I am concerned, they can run in here any day of the week. The member can meet with any of them, like I said before, any day of the week, any night of the week. They can go to any function whenever he or she feels like it, and they are always there when their constituents want them, but when you have to travel back and forth this Province, and I know my colleague here from Menihek, and the Member for Naskaupi, and the Member for Eagle River, anybody who has seats like that so far away from the seat of government, when they are called on to go to a function it is a full evening's work just getting there. Then, when you get there, you go to the function and then you have the next day just fooled up trying to come back out of it. It takes a long time, especially in the wintertime when flights are not - because there is no other way to get to Labrador; you have to take a flight, and you go, and it takes time. People down there then, nine chances out of ten, as soon as the member gets back to his office then he gets a call that someone else wants to meet with him. That always happens. When you go to the district, as soon as you get back to your office someone will call, or an organization, who will always say: I would like to see you. Can I have a meeting, and so on. Then you are caught in the same bind again.

Like I said when I started the few comments on the amendment that there will be others, I am sure - and I would say for members opposite there might be some amendments - I don't know if their concerns will be able to be addressed within the plus or minus 10 per cent. I don't know. If not, it's not likely that the Government House Leader is going to agree with it, but it is unlikely, very unlikely, and then again he might.

The Member for St. George's district, and the Member for Stephenville and the Member for Port au Port districts, there will only be two districts out there now after this is all over with, but there will have to be different - it is going to be interesting. The next provincial election is going to be very, very interesting. It is going to be very interesting around this Province when we have the addition of new communities, and people who are interested in those communities wanting to run for a particular party. They may challenge an incumbent. They may. You don't know what the member in that particular area is going to do, whether they will run in that same area, or will they run in another. The next election is going to be very, very interesting.

Then again, having said that, when you walk into this Chamber after the next election, I would submit, I don't think the people who are here today, and those of us who will come back into the Chamber, I don't think there are going to be too many familiar faces in this Chamber that we are going to be able to walk up to and say: How have you been since before the election? I can assure you, this Chamber is going to change. The faces in this Chamber are going to change dramatically. Some of it will be on an involuntary basis. Some of it will be by choice, by design; people will give up and get out. Others, like I said, will be involuntary; the electorate will have a say, and some of it will be due to this piece of legislation which we have here today. Some of it will be because of that; that is what will dictate some of the faces that will be back in this Chamber after the next election.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I think we all have to be cognizant of, and I said it yesterday, and that is representation. Regardless of what the size of it is, we have to try to do our best, we have to try to stand here, read legislation, look it over and make sure that we make decisions that are helpful, anyway, in identifying some of the new polls or some of the problems that are in each and every piece of legislation.

There is not always - I have stood here over the last ten-and-a-half years and watched, and the Government House Leader knows full well what I am talking about because of the fact that in his position, he has to be on top of all those amendments, all those changes to legislation whether it be just a word `shall' or `will'. He has seen it over the years, he has been here a lot longer than I have been, twenty, twenty-five years, and he has seen all kinds of cases whereby he had to bring legislation back just to change a word or to change a paragraph or to add or whatever, some of it, when I have been here, probably just passed the year before. So in saying that, Mr. Speaker, it is just another part of our job here as legislators, keeping an eye on legislation, keeping an eye on what is good or bad. Granted, we all have ideas, not listened to all the time, but at least there is a chance for us to stand and at least, let people know what is wrong with legislation, what is wrong with a certain policy from members opposite and so on, and let the people ultimately be the judge.

The difference with this particular piece of legislation, and like I said, Mr. Speaker, the next election - we have to go out now - is going to be interesting. Very interesting, because you have to go out now - I know, in my case, in the District of Humber Valley, I will be down in the Northern Peninsula over in a new area, a completely new area, campaigning. If this passes before Christmas, I won't even have a holiday because I can see myself now where I am going to spend Christmas, down in Trout River, Woody Point, Glenburnie, down in Wiltondale, going throughout the new part of the district, making sure the people realize that they are in a new district for the next election and no better time to go out than Christmastime, no better time.

The only danger with going before Christmas is that they might think that you are supposed to bring something good with you but, you have the time, the three or four weeks then and you have another couple of months before the House opens, so it gives every member, it gives us all a chance, if this is passed. I don't know if it will ever be proclaimed and if it is proclaimed, I don't know if it will ever be gazetted and until that is done, it won't be really law.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could go mummering.

MR. WOODFORD: You could go mummering, yes.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, we all have changes - The sad thing about it is, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, I believe his district is gone completely. His district is gone completely. Like I said, the Member for St. George's, the Member for Stephenville -

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor - Buchans.

MR. WOODFORD: Windsor - Buchans, there was another one -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bellevue is gone.

MR. WOODFORD: Bellevue is gone the other way. So it gives us all an opportunity and that's the only good thing I see about this particular piece of legislation, is the timing. The timing, as far as I am concerned, members are right, it gives you a chance, like I said, to go out. You know that once it is passed that this is what you have in the next election; this gives you a time and a good, I would say, probably a year or so before the next election, although one never knows, but at least you will be ready.

But having said that, then, the very people as in my district, Mr. Speaker, the people of Trout River, Woody Point, Glenburnie, Wiltondale, Lomond, any of those people today, I venture to bet you not one person in that particular part of the Province tonight is aware that they are about to come out of the District of St. Barbe and go into the District of Humber Valley, and that goes for all the other changes around here. Very few people realize what is happening in this House today. They will hear that there is a debate taking place with regard to the change of boundaries, they will hear that there is a debate taking place with regard to changes to districts and so on, but really, until something hits the door one of these days or it is on the news saying categorically that those particular communities are gone now into another district, they won't know.

Mr. Speaker, with those few, short comments on this piece of legislation - this is our second day of debate, I believe - is it second or third? The second day of debate, long hours, but tomorrow we get a little break and we are into it again on Thursday. And as I said, I am sure there will be other members who will bring forth some amendments whether it will be out of second reading and into Committee, that is another story, but if we are, well the opportunity is still there to bring forward amendments that will address some of the members' concerns. Until then, Mr. Speaker, we will just have to see if members opposite do see the light. You never know, there might be a member opposite who may get up and make an amendment that we introduce and accept legislation that will bring the districts from fifty-two down to forty.

If some member wants to do that, Mr. Speaker, they will probably, nine chances out ten, get support from this side of the House. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will wait until there are some other amendments made before I get the opportunity to speak again. Thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: You are going to listen to me? Well, the hon. the Minister - what is he minister of anyway? Tourism and Culture.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Recreation and Culture - well, Recreation just about gone, it will soon be Tourism and Culture.

MR. A. SNOW: Tourism and Culture and sometimes Recreation, although I have heard it said that he is more interested in Recreation than in Culture and Tourism.

I just want to have a few words on this debate, Mr. Speaker. When the government announced in 1992 in their mini-Budget that as one of their cost-saving measures, they were going to appoint a commission to save money and that is why it was announced in the mini-Budget. It was a move to save money. It was done for financial reasons; it was a manner of saving tax dollars, the government felt that is why they announced it in the mini-Budget. It was not done in a Throne Speech; it was done in a Budget.

Now, there is a distinct difference there, Mr. Speaker, and yet we found that after the government looked at it, and the private members, the backbenchers, the rebels, got hold of it and saw what some of their Cabinet colleagues were allowing to occur, they instructed the government: We don't care how you do it, but fix it. We don't want it, we can't live with it, that is what happened. And that is why we are here today looking at the government presenting legislation that was supposedly brought in as a cost-saving measure because of the scarcity of the tax dollars to maintain the services that are necessary for the people of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we see what the government is doing. Again, they are attempting to deceive the people of this Province by suggesting as the minister suggested when he introduced the bill, that `This is not a bill to save money,' he said, `this has nothing to do with finances - this is all about one person\one vote.

DR. GIBBONS: Do you agree with three seats for Labrador?

MR. A. SNOW: Do I agree with three seats? The Minister of Natural Resources - the unnatural minister responsible for the natural resources of this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: The supernatural resources of Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: The supernatural minister. That is probably a more apt and a more appropriate description of the particular minister. Now, I tell the minister right up front that I agree with four seats in Labrador, and not only that, I, too, would be willing to put a smelter in Labrador. I know where the minister wants to put it and it is not in Labrador. He might think it is funny, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. That is the problem with this crowd over there, they think it is funny. They can laugh off a smelter out of Labrador. They can rip off the resources from Labrador.

You want to put it in St. John's West. That is what the minister suggested, put it in St. John's West. We are not satisfied for the people of Western Labrador to have the iron ore mines, we are not satisfied to just take their tax dollars and spend them in St. John's West, we now want the smelter down in St. John's West. That narrow-minded, myopic, colonial attitude has got to disappear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is not.

MR. WOODFORD: No, he is not mad yet.

MR. A. SNOW: I am not even mad yet; I am not even wound up yet.

MR. WOODFORD: Stocks are down today, be careful.

MR. A. SNOW: Stocks are going to continue to go down when we see an administration like this who have absolutely no appreciation nor understanding of the private sector, absolutely none. Profit, and delivering a service to people, that is what it is all about, and, yes, they do pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in this particular piece of legislation is this government attempting to perpetrate this electoral fraud. In a referendum that occurred in Quebec, there were some people who suggested that there was a deliberate systematic fraud with regard to the placement of appointed scrutineers by the government of the day, rather than from parties. The government of the day appointed scrutineers, they were not independent scrutineers, and some people suggest that was an orchestrated fraud.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I am talking about the referendum in Quebec.

Some people suggest that in the recent referendum in Quebec that is what was done, and that is why there were 80,000 spoiled ballots, because of this electioneering fraud they committed by changing the law and appointing scrutineers. Now, a lot of people in this Province are now suggesting that this piece of legislation is electioneering fraud. All the seats that deviate in the population quotient are Liberal. They are all Liberal seats, so what else could one believe? It would be favoured toward them, favoured towards the Liberal Party. We heard the Member for Eagle River who was probably out getting ready to organize now for the upcoming federal by-election in the district of Labrador, probably out organizing for one of the members.

I hear the rumours around Labrador that Mr. Richard Cashin may be offering himself as a candidate, and he would be a tremendous candidate. I am looking forward to the Member for Eagle River being out campaigning in the federal by-election. I am sure that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be out campaigning for Mr. Cashin, a fellow who has a lot to offer, who has a tremendous amount of experience in the fishing industry, who has a tremendous amount of experience in the union business. I am sure that the Member for Twillingate would support him wholeheartedly. He has experience in the Canadian Parliament, he is a lawyer.

MR. TOBIN: The last time he was elected it was the Member for Twillingate who defeated him and he never ran for office since.

MR. SULLIVAN: And you put him into retirement, did you not, `Walter'?

MR. A. SNOW: What was that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: I mean, he is a tremendous candidate who also - now, I don't know about it. I mean, I don't have the inside track like you people, but I am told that he has the endorsement of the federal Cabinet minister. I am told that he has the endorsement of Brian Tobin. He is a very credible candidate, a man who -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), don't be so foolish, boy.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I would say to my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West that Richard Cashin would be a formidable candidate in any forum in this Province. The man has a lot of credibility. He would be a good candidate for any party.

AN HON. MEMBER: I voted for him in 1964.

MR. A. SNOW: See, here is another man, look, jumping on the bandwagon. Everybody wants to get on Richard's bandwagon now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You have a lot in common, yourself and Cashin. You are both socialists.

MR. A. SNOW: There is nothing wrong with having a social conscience - that the man has a social conscience, sobeit. I, too, have a social conscience.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The next one. No, the next one. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but smile when I heard the Member for Eagle River up speaking so vociferously -

MR. TOBIN: So what?

MR. A. SNOW: Vociferously. Mr. Speaker, he was excited when he talked about the importance of having four seats in Labrador. I think it is important for Labrador to have representation in the Legislature, but it is not the all important thing of just having representation in the Legislature. I think you have to have an understanding of what the people of Labrador want. What they don't want is just token representation by numbers in the Legislature. They want the people of this Province - and not just the Legislature, the whole population of this Province - to recognize what the Labrador portion of this Province contributes to the overall well-being of the whole Province.

My district by far contributes more per capita than any other electoral district in this Province, gives more to St. John's West than any other district, my district does. To think that all they would want is a representation, an extra half a seat in a legislature and they would be satisfied with that, is fundamentally wrong and is not reading what the people of Labrador want. The people of Labrador want the recognition, and they also want the people of this Province to recognize that Labrador is sick and tired of being taken for granted.

They are tired of the abuse that Legislature after Legislature, government department after government department, bureaucrat after bureaucrat treats Labradorians. They take them for granted and don't give them the proper service that they have earned whether it is with regard to delivery of the services in health care or in social services. We have seen a travesty of justice that occurred in Labrador last week with regard to the Department of Social Services in the leaking of confidential information. The minister has failed to respond to it. She has failed and her department has failed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River failed to mention about how he and the government that he is part of feel about the development of the resources in Labrador. People in Labrador are sick and tired of seeing the resources taken from Labrador and moved either to another province, i.e. Quebec, and they deriving greater benefit than we do as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, or indeed taking the resources and moving them to the island portion of the Province and thinking that is the right way to do it. It is wrong, it is fundamentally wrong. I am living proof that if a person establishes a job somewhere in Labrador, that person will leave the island portion of the Province and go to Labrador, live there, and that will become his home.

I am proud to say that I went to Labrador and was going to stay for six or eight months to get enough money to go to university, only to find that somewhere along the way I met and married a woman and between us we had two children. They were raised in Labrador and it has become our home. A lot of people who live in Labrador came from the same roots as I did, a small town in rural Newfoundland and went to Labrador because there was a better job there and a better way of life there. Believe me, it is a lot better for Newfoundlanders to leave this island, go to Labrador and go work in the plants than it is for them to leave the island and go to Prince Rupert, Fort McMurray, or wherever - Oshawa, Toronto or Montreal. It is better for them to be in Labrador. It is still part of this Province.

So I say, what the people of Labrador want is not the extra representation in this Legislature, what they want is to be treated with respect and dignity with regard to the development of their resources. That is why members on the other side would not answer the question about where a smelter should go. I will tell you where it should go, it should go in Labrador.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) what you are talking about.

MR. A. SNOW: The minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

MR. SULLIVAN: And for higher taxation.

MR. A. SNOW: - and for higher municipal taxes, he is responsible for that, makes the irresponsible statement that I am foolish to suggest that; but, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to bet that 99.9 per cent of the people in Labrador will agree with me and not him. What we want is to maximize -

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say 100 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The candidate himself, the leading contender, I would say he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no!

MR. A. SNOW: He is the leading contender. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I think, has his fist around more delegates, I tell you, than any of the other contenders so far. Now, he had better make sure, if he wants to get the Labrador delegates - because it is universal in Labrador, whether they are Liberals or Tories, the people who live in Labrador want to see more secondary processing in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, he has a tight hold on delegates. I am told he can have a tight hold on delegates when they are on their way to the Liberal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: So the idea that this government is attempting to perpetrate this fraud on the people of this Province, that this was brought in as a piece of legislation that had all to do with representation in the Legislature and was based on the principle of one person\one vote is wrong. We have seen the evidence of it in the report with regard to the lack of symmetry, the lack of equality in the number of electors in each district, and we have seen that it has been done because of their political stripe. At least each one that is different is a Liberal seat, so I would assume something smells there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is what smells. That is the only deviation from the quotient. In reality, when they brought this bill in, it was supposed to be a cost-saving measure - that is why it was announced in a Budget and not a Throne Speech - and they failed to measure up to it, which isn't surprising when you look at the history of this particular regime because they say one thing and do another, whether it is signing collective agreements and tearing them up, with nurses or policemen or fire-fighters or whomever. They will say one thing, call an election, and do another thing. It is what they did with regard to the reform in education.

They suggested, made commitments to the church leaders, that they would not seek constitutional change, called an election, pacified the church leaders and the church groups, and then came back into the House, uncrossed their fingers and said: That little fib doesn't count so we are going to ask for constitutional reform. That is what they did. They say one thing, do another. They are doing the same thing with this. They did the same thing with their Budget. It is a hallmark of this Administration, of this regime, and to suggest what they are doing now is a substantial reform, it isn't. It is a reform that started out to be done based on economics, based on the savings of taxpayers' dollars in a time of restraint, and what do we see? Instead of a saving of $600,000, their initial recommendation would have saved them in excess of $2 million or $3 million, I guess - about $7 million - a substantial saving, and they systematically set the stage of doing this.

When they initially set out they appointed a commission, the Mahoney Commission, which was the third such commission in the history of the Province. The first one was chaired by Justice James Higgins in 1973, I believe it was, and the second by Justice Rupert Bartlett in 1983. Then, in 1993, we saw this one by Mr. Justice Mahoney.

The government was keeping close tabs on what happened, what was going on when Justice Mahoney was going around the Province seeking public input, and they did receive quite a bit of public input. They had thirty-two days of hearings, thirty-two sites throughout the Province, and they had over 166 submissions, but when the government started to recognize what was happening here and there was a rebellion in the back ranks, the private members got their hackles up. They saw their seats could be wiped out. They were not going to be able to get what they perceived as fairly lucrative pensions, so they called a caucus meeting and read the riot act. The first signal that we got on that was when the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, his executive assistant showed up in October and submitted a report that suggested that the electoral changes that were being proposed were impractical, and he floated out the idea.

Now you have to set the stage for this. You have to visualize the stage on which this is being done. Here was a member, a private individual who also happens to be an aide to a Cabinet minister. Now you and I both know that - I won't say he was pressured, but he would undoubtedly, I think, parrot or say the things the minister would want said. He would say and believe in the things that he was going to present to this commission, and the minister would only be saying what his colleagues would be saying in Cabinet. So really this aide to the minister was saying what the Cabinet wanted them to do. That is what was being said.

Lo and behold, subsequent to this aide appearing in front of the commission, immediately following, a month later, we see the Minister of Justice trotting off to Clarenville. It was about a month later, I think it was, that the Minister of Justice trotted off to Clarenville, and he made a submission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The minister suggested all of this stuff had been said before. It probably had, and it probably will be again. I would only wish that he would stand and speak so we could hear what he has to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mum's the word.

MR. A. SNOW: Mum's the word, he said. Well, I am glad. Actually, I am rather relieved at that. That is probably his greatest contribution to the debate in this House. That is probably his best contribution to most of the debates I have heard him participate in in this House. Now, outside the House on the steps I have heard that he has done better speeches, but we will leave that for another day.

But in November, Mr. Speaker, we saw the Minister of Justice appear in Clarenville, trot off to Clarenville, at the urging of the backbenchers. At the urging of the backbenchers the Minister of Justice goes out to Clarenville and in a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, he says that it was flawed from the beginning and the number of provincial districts should not be reduced below forty-four. He wanted to make sure now that this was going to be the new mandate of this Commission. He started to interfere in the process then, Mr. Speaker, and then we see that the Mahoney Commission submitted its first report to the House, dividing the Province into forty-four districts according to the constraints of its legislative mandate.

The Commission appended to its report certain suggestions for improving the redistribution noting that in so doing a government would have to further amend the act to make these changes possible. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was where we came in with the Labrador seats and I believe they could very easily have amended it. They deviated from the population quotient in the Torngat region for specific reasons; they could easily have deviated from the population quotient in all of Labrador if they wished to do it, they could have easily done that.

The Member for Eagle River suggested that it was a big issue in Labrador to have four seats, that they should have three seats or four seats and, Mr. Speaker, the government could easily have done that if they had listened to some of the people who had spoken in this House or had made submissions, it could easily have been done. Labrador could have still four seats; the Premier himself suggested that he didn't agree with it and both the Premier and our Opposition House Leader did not agree that Labrador should have four seats. They said that Labrador should have three seats, but I think they could easily have gone and have the four seats in Labrador and then use a 25 per cent difference in the quotient of population and on the Island portion of the Province, in the difference between the urban and the rural seats, and that would have allowed a Legislature that could still be able to serve the constituents of this Province. Mr. Speaker, we could still have done this, saved money for the people of this Province and still allow the Legislature to have an ample number to allow a good representation and good service to the constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did the government do? They went out judge shopping to give credibility to this gerrymandering that they are about to set out. What did they do? They went out judge shopping, found a judge, lo and behold, this particular piece of legislation was drawn up around it and that is tampering with the service. It is fundamentally wrong and it is not what we should be doing. It is not what the Legislature should be doing.

As I suggested in the beginning, if this was submitted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today and support the amendment moved by the Member for Grand Bank and seconded by the Member for Placentia. The amendment says that all the words after `that' be deleted and the following substituted therefore: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 31, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act," because the minister did not accept the recommendations of the 1993 Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador chaired by Justice Mahoney which recommended forty-four seats, Mr. Speaker.

Now, while I support that amendment that is exactly what I believe should be happening in this House of Assembly today. I believe that this government should have accepted the report of Justice Mahoney and gone with forty-four seats. I do not believe they should have tampered with the report and get into gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you be a bit quieter, please?

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will keep it down. I will try and keep you awake.

The Member for Eagle River stood in his place today and it was actually good to see a member on that side of the House stand and say a few words on Bill 31, the second one that spoke on Bill 31, I believe the first one was the Minister of Justice. I agree with much of what the Minister of Justice had to say with respect to Bill 31 and the reasons why Bill 31 was implemented and brought into the House of Assembly, although I disagree with the process they followed. The Member for Eagle River stood in his place today and said that 80 per cent of the people on this side of the House did not support four districts in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the House and listened to all the speakers on this side, and I believe I might have heard two say that there should be less than four seats in Labrador, but that does not necessarily mean that they disagree that there should be less than four seats or that there should be four, but I believe I only heard two referred to that. I believe that there should be, when it comes to seats in the Province, what the people of the Province wants and forty-eighty is not what the Province wants. I believe there should be as many seats in Labrador as the people of this Province want and what we are getting is forty-eight seats, but I do not really know at this point in time, so I am not going to commit if there should be three, four, two, or one.

Anyway, the Member for Eagle River said that there should be at least four and he said that I, the Member for St. John's East Extern, told him there should be less than four seats in Labrador. Now, I did not stand in my place in this House of Assembly and say such a thing, and I say to the Member for Eagle River that he should not be repeating things that he cannot back up. What did happen though is that two people over on this side of the House did say, I believe it was two, did say there should be less than four, basically agreed with the Premier of the Province, depending on the overall number of seats in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that the Premier of the Province agrees that there should be less than four. I do not know if he said how many there should be but he certainly said less than four.

Now, with respect to Bill 31 the point of the bill, of course, is to reduce the number of seats in this House of Assembly and the number of districts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We now have fifty-two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador and this bill proposes forty-eight seats. Now, that is a very small reduction in the number of seats in the Province. If the main criteria set was to save money for the taxpayers of this Province four seats is not going to go a long way, Mr. Speaker. The figure that is being tossed around is that there has been at least $400,000 spent so far, up as much as $600,000 on the cost of implementing this bill, $400,000 spent on the commission that went around the Province, and basically this reduction of four seats will not even save that $400,000.

In reducing the number of seats of course in the House of Assembly we have to look at the representation that the people of this Province and the taxpayers of this Province will get. The people deserve proper representation. The vote or the idea that was put forward why we should go with forty-eight seats was to get the one person one vote, or one person's vote is equal to another person's vote throughout the Province. That of course is a very legitimate view.

But in this Province with forty-eight seats we are really not achieving that. We are partially achieving it to a great extent, but not completely. In Labrador, of course, we have a district which is going to be very sparsely populated when we compare the average throughout the Province and the quotient or the variance. Also, on the South Coast we have a similar situation where the average I believe is greater, or the variance is greater than the 10 per cent that was permitted under the act or under the regulations that were put forth by this government.

We are looking at a 10 per cent variance. In many of the provinces in this country they have as much as a 25 per cent variance, which seems to be a normal or an average for the variance permitted from the average. In some provinces it goes up as much as 60 per cent above and 30 per cent below with respect to the variance.

The electoral boundaries act which was brought in in 1973 allowed for a four-man commission, or four man is not proper terminology these days, but a four-person commission that would review the electoral boundaries every ten years. Every ten years they would go around the Province I suppose and look at the demographics of the Province, population-wise and where people are living at that point in time, and look at reviewing the boundaries.

Bill No. 20, which amended the electoral boundaries act, received royal assent May 31 1993, which added a fifth person to the four-person commission which would now become a five-person commission. I agree that there should be a review at least every ten years with respect to the electoral boundaries in the Province, or any province. As I mentioned, demographics change in the Province and any province. Today, this past year, two, three years, we see an increase of course in out-migration from the Province. People, families. A few years ago you would see maybe a parent, a father or mother, leave the Province to go and get work and come back and support the family that way. Since this Administration took over what we see now are families up and moving, we see tractor trailers leaving every day out of the Province taking families, their belongings, what they worked and strived for in this Province, U-hauls behind cars. The ferries leaving the Province are loaded down. Even this time of year they are loaded down with families leaving the Province and it is a shame to see that happening.

I believe again that one person's vote certainly is equal to another person's vote in the Province when it comes to the electoral boundaries and the people being elected to this House of Assembly to represent them. But certainly that is not the only criterion that should be looked at. We should look at the actual representation and the workload of the MHAs. An MHA elected to an urban district compared to an MHA elected to a rural district, certainly in the past their workloads have been vastly differently. I can speak to that from personal experience.

I believe the Member for St. John's Centre spoke and he said that the workload of the District of St. John's Centre certainly has increased over the past number of years. The Member for Mount Pearl stood in his place yesterday and he talked at some length with respect to the amount of time that he has spent in this House of Assembly, I believe twenty years. What he was saying is that over the past number of years, compared to say ten years ago, the workload he has as an MHA, the number of calls, the concerns that people have and the problems that arise, is much, much heavier today, and that member should certainly know what he is talking about.

With respect to an urban district versus a rural district, I represent the district of St. John's East Extern, Mr. Speaker, which is both urban and rural. I suppose you could look at that as my having the best of both worlds. That district, of course, is probably the third largest in the Province with respect to population. Geographically it is also a fairly large district, Mr. Speaker, compared to the urban districts in and around St. John's. The number of calls I get from the urban part of my district, I have to admit, compared to the rural part of my district; there is no comparison whatsoever. I would go so far as to say that the number of calls I get from the urban part of my district, which represents about 25 to 30 per cent of the district, I will get maybe one call for every ten to fifteen calls from the other part of my district, Mr. Speaker.

So you can see that maybe the criteria that was put forward by the government to the Mahoney Commission was too strict. It tied their hands in that they could not come up with a more equitable workload for the various MHAs in the Province that will be elected after the next election if this bill goes through the House of Assembly. I expect that this bill will go through the House of Assembly. Certainly the government has numbers to put it through. If they did not have the numbers to put it through well certainly they would not have brought it to the House of Assembly.

I do know that there are a number of members on the opposite side of the House, on the government side, members in the back benches and some of the members in Cabinet themselves have some serious concerns and questions with respect to the boundary changes when it comes to their own personal districts or the districts that they represent and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, they should have concerns. They should bring those concerns forward but I see very little evidence of that other then rumours and private conversations that the members on the government side of the House are quite concerned. I do believe that what they are planning on doing is bringing forward some amendments themselves which may or may not be supported by this side of the House. If they are legitimate amendments I am sure they would be supported by this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. Now I believe that a rural district should be held at a 25 per cent variance and maybe an urban district could be held at a 10 per cent variance of the average. I believe a 25 per cent variance from the average is quite reasonable and would be acceptable to the people of the Province. It certainly would give any commission more leeway to come up with a more equitable representation in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Now, as I said earlier, a purpose to review any number of seats in the House of Assembly would - the purpose of course is always threefold, I believe. First it would be, more then likely, to save money for the government. Now the second of course would be to try and get equitable representation in this House of Assembly for the people of the Province. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, often times I would say, the third reason that the government would look at reducing or changing electoral boundaries will be for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering would allow the government to change the seats in the Province either up or down or change the boundaries to support themselves. When they are looking forward to elections in upcoming years they would have to look at or not that they would have to but certainly they would and have looked at what was best for themselves in changing the boundaries.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now I will say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that he should not say to much tonight because I have a note here - and I really don't want to embarrass the minister - a note sent to me by a person on his own side of the House and it is not very complimentary to the minister. It really tells us what the members on that side of the House think of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. So I really would not want to say anything because he refers to some of the wing nut policies of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and some of the other policies. He just may be foolish enough to actually consider this. So maybe if he continues and he wants me to read it I will probably read it in due course but I kind of feel for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is such a nice, pleasant gentleman. I really would not want to embarrass him at this point in time and maybe I will show it to him in private.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not going to embarrass you, I will say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, members on your side of the House are embarrassing you, not me. I would not do that. That is why I am not saying, that is why I would not read it for you.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the changes - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, we have about another sixteen or seventeen minutes I would say maybe or perhaps a little longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) someone else might get up and make sense.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, someone else may get up and make sense. If I am irritating the members on the other side, the government side of the House, I am doing my job.

Mr. Speaker, changes at this time, of course, are for two reasons -it is a combination of changes in the electoral boundaries this time - one is to save money and the other one is gerrymandering which this government has been involved in, especially the Minister of Justice who went to Clarenville and made a presentation to the committee. He basically said that himself here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. He confirmed that.

In 1992, Mr. Speaker, there was a mini-Budget brought down by this government. The government at that time committed to reducing the cost of governing in this Province, and by committing to that they committed to reducing the number of seats in this House of Assembly down to approximately forty, certainly between forty and forty-six. That is what they committed to, Mr. Speaker, but, of course, it is another broken promise on the list, and the list goes on. Probably we will get to them in due course. There are quite a number of broken promises by this government.

Bill 62, Mr. Speaker, in 1992 received Royal Assent on December 23 and provided for an electoral boundaries commission to reduce the number of seats in this House, the actual bill reducing the number of seats to between forty and forty-six.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he may end up hearing it another four or five times yet.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) read.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not reading it anyway; I am referring to my copious notes, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, on March 23 this government appointed an electoral boundaries commission which certainly appeared to be an independent commission made up of Mr. Justice Noel who was the Chair, John Nolan, Dorothy Inglis and Ray Baird. This commission, Mr. Speaker, went around the Province and did a good job. Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 in 1993 increased the size of that commission by one and appointed Beatrice Watts to the commission. The commission itself did a good job from my perspective. I have to say that the commission did a good job.

In August of 1993 the Mahoney Commission released a report which proposed forty districts. Now, they took into consideration the dollars that would be saved by this government, Mr. Speaker, they took into consideration the representation and I believe they did a fairly independent job, as they set out to do, until the Minister of Justice got involved. Mr. Speaker, when they recommended forty seats, of course, it was a proposed forty-seat report. The purpose of that report was to go around the Province, hold public hearings and have input from various people in the Province, various committees, town councils, the MHAs and what have you, Mr. Speaker, and they did just that. They had a really good turnout; a lot of people made presentations, some really good presentations.

As a matter of fact, I made a presentation to the Mahoney Commission in the Colonial Building and it was well received by the commissioner himself and the commissioners, although my presentation, Mr. Speaker, and the presentations of all the people who took the time to go to that, were in vain. They were all in vain. As I said, my presentation is certainly a matter of record. I did make certain recommendations that were seriously considered. We had some very good discussion at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, but, as I said, it was in vain. The number of recommendations by all the people in the Province were in vain because the government did not accept the report.

Mr. Speaker, some members of the House of Assembly, and I heard them stand in their place and say that maybe the number of seats in the Province at fifty-two is sufficient, could be reduced by one or two. Some even hinted that maybe they should increase it. I really don't agree with that view. Fifty-two is there now. They could certainly be reduced as I said down to forty-four. But some people believe that with this government, and the way things are today in this Province and the hard times that the people are experiencing in this Province, and the extra workload on many of the MHAs, that it should stay the same. Everyone is entitled to his view, not necessarily one that I subscribe to.

In October of 1993 as I said the other day, or yesterday I believe, the executive assistant to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did so. I did say. I have to repeat myself in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, because the members opposite will not let what we are saying on this side of the House sink in. They don't heed what is being said in this House of Assembly when they should be heeding it. Because members on this side of the House are getting many of the similar calls that members on that side of the House are receiving and they are not heeding what is being said in the House of Assembly. That is the reason why we have to repeat it.

Anyway. The executive assistant to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation made a presentation. I would say that this individual represented the views of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He was stating that there was no real savings in reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly. I would imagine that he would have had a figure in mind. If it was going to go down two seats, four seats, ten or fifteen or twenty, there has to be a savings at a certain point in time. But maybe if you just reduce it by four seats he was right, and there is no real savings, and maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation agrees with that. I really don't know if he does or not, but I can't see an executive assistant going and making a presentation on behalf of the minister and the minister not agreeing to what he is saying.

As I said, the Minister of Justice went and made a presentation in Clarenville. He said basically that the mandate of the Commission was flawed from the beginning. Actually what he did at that hearing, he basically said that the government set the wrong criteria, that the government set the flawed Commission in place, but that was just trying to justify the presentation that he made. I believe that he said it should not be reduced below forty-four seats. So of course now we have forty-eight seats. Not forty, not forty-two, but forty-eight. No real savings to the people of the Province, not at all. The first Mahoney report strangely enough recommended forty-four districts.

MR. LUSH: Plus one.

MR. J. BYRNE: Plus one. The Member for Bonavista North reminds me (inaudible) forty-four plus one. That is strange in that the Minister of Justice said it should not be below forty-four. They recommended forty in the first place, and what they recommended was the very minimum that the Minister of Justice had recommended to them. So obviously they felt it should be on the lower part of forty, the number of seats in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, not in the higher range of forty-eight. They were trying to make I suppose a significant change in the number of seats, a significant savings to the taxpayers of the Province, and with forty-eight seats none of that is happening.

The Throne Speech of 1995, this government on that side of the House basically threw the Mahoney report out the window and they ended up with forty-eight seats being recommended by this government. At that point in time the government appointed a new commissioner.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, basically I wanted to bring up the point that the Member for Bonavista North said. In '93 they threw out the Mahoney Report, but in 2003 - I don't think that is quite right because if this was brought in now, in 1995, it would be 2005 when it would be reviewed again; is that not right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It goes right on back to '92, so it is from the original appointment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh. So basically in '93 we are looking at, if this is passed through, and if this government stays in power, they will not have to look at reviewing the boundaries for another eight years. Now, again, in another year to year-and-a-half if, or I should say when, we are elected to the House of Assembly and we form the government - it is just that we must look at it by 2003, but we certainly can look at it before that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the government appointed a new commissioner at that time, Mr. Justice Noel, and he was to report by April 30, 1995. Now Mr. David Jones, who is with the Department of Justice, also was appointed, and he has done a lot of work on the electoral boundary issue. He is quite familiar with it. I know Mr. Jones. He is quite capable, and he knows his stuff, but he has been directed, I believe, by this government to do certain things with respect to the electoral boundaries and that was what we ended up with, forty-eight seats. I believe he was directly told to look at forty-eight seats, and to come up with the boundaries for forty-eight seats, looking at the quotient that was set up by the government of 12,181, to look at the variance, and he came up with forty-eight seats doing what he was told to do, and quite rightly so. I am not criticizing Mr. Jones at all, but in appointing Mr. Justice Noel I am led to believe, from what I read in the act, that I am really questioning if this is legitimate or if it is legal at this point in time that the person or the commissioner who is to be appointed is supposed to be appointed by the Chief Justice and not by the government. If that is the case, this is not legitimate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, according to the act, if you read the act, and I am sure the Minister of Justice is quite familiar with the act.

Now, as I said, the government did not accept an independent commissioner's report, and I would say, "Why not?" Why didn't they accept the report? It was an independent commissioner's report, they made the recommendation of forty-four seats, and it was not accepted by the government. They must have wanted to include something in that to suit themselves, and I believe that is what we have ended up with in this House today, something that suits this government and, more in particular I suppose, the man who had a lot to do with it, who drew it up, who made a presentation, probably, on behalf of government, is the Minister of Justice. Now we have forty-eight seats; again I have to repeat, no big saving to the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We have forty-eight now. It is four more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If an hon. member wishes to ask questions of the member who is presently debating in the House, he can stand in his place and be recognized and ask the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I believe there are certain members in the House who would like to know if I have a theory as to why the government would have changed it from forty-four seats up to forty-eight seats. Who knows? Who can guess? This government has been so secretive over the years, Mr. Speaker, and hiding stuff all the time, for me to say exactly what the government was doing. But I could take a guess in that saying increasing four seats from forty-four to forty-eight would be to look at maybe pacifying members of the back benches over there when they put a revolt in last August, when they almost strung up the Premier when he came back from a trip out of town. I think that it is basically pacification and to make it more comfortable for a few of the back benchers over there.

As I said, the government didn't accept the independent Commission's report. I believe that it should have, and I've stated that on a number of occasions. They wanted to, in my opinion, manipulate the boundaries to suit their own specifications. As I said earlier, government has wasted over $400,000 so far to reduce the House of Assembly by four MHAs, or four districts. Four hundred thousand dollars, that is what we know of, that is what has been stated. It could be as much as $600,000, I really can't say how much, but it looks like approximately $500,000. With respect to the Budget this year, to the cutbacks, to the so-called smoke and mirrors Budget this year, the Budget that was supposed to be balanced, and now we have another $500,000 spent. Even if looking at a year or two down the road we will not save that $500,000.

We have to ask the question: Is a four-seat reduction worth the effort on the part of this government? Is it worth the effort of the presentations of all the people who made presentations to the government, to the commissioner, to his Commission? I don't know if it was. I believe that the forty-four seats should have been implemented. If that was the case we could have brought that bill in this House here today. There would be no discussion, we would have very little discussion, and members on this side of the House I'm certain would have supported a forty-four seat Assembly.

It comes as a far cry from solving the problems that we have in this House of Assembly today, the four seat reduction. Government basically in my perspective is adding to the problems that have been created over the past number of years. It is completely demoralizing the civil service, and that actually is having an effect to spread out and demoralize the general public in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues. I say I have a sore throat so I won't get the opportunity to speak very long.

MR. EFFORD: Sit down (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he wouldn't want to get me upset now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand and say a few words on the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague for Grand Bank and to speak about this important piece of legislation that is before the House at this present time. As many of the speakers before me have touched on, and not to sound repetitive, but I think I have to have an opportunity to say a few words on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Basically this has been a process that I feel has been flawed, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning. Definitely it is a process that is causing -

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

It is becoming increasing difficult to hear the hon. member speak.

MR. MANNING: Good ruling, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, there was an independent commission put in place to put a proposal on the table for a forty seat legislature. After some discussions throughout the Province and some representation from a couple of departments of government, the proposal came back to look like a forty-eight seat Legislature and that is what we have before us today and I believe, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty that, whether it is forty seats, forty-two or forty-four, forty-six or forty-eight, it causes me some problems in my District of St. Mary's - The Capes, being cut up like a hot apple pie on Sunday afternoon to being sliced in three loaves of bread, really does not matter because it is going to be sliced one way or the other anyway and I have some problems with it but again, I support the reduction of the seats here and definitely the proposal put forward, I don't think it goes far enough as it relates to the number of seats that are now in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, when we look around our Province today, and we are asking for major cutbacks in municipal grants, in any funding that is going to municipalities, we are looking for major cuts in transportation, the level of services that we receive from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation; we are asking for major cuts from the people of this Province in health care in the amount of beds that are open in hospitals et cetera. We are asking for major cuts in recreation grants, we are asking for major cuts in almost every department of government and at the same time we are only asking for a $600,000 reduction here in the House of Assembly which will eliminate four seats, so when we look at it, we are talking about a 7.5 per cent reduction here in the House of Assembly when at the same time we are asking different organizations and different civil servants around the Province to take a much larger cut than 7.5 per cent, so I think Mr. Speaker, if we put an independent commission in place, what came back from the independent commission I believe should have been accepted here by the House, but instead, we see gerrymandering by the members opposite which brought us into a forty-eight seat Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, when we look around the Province over the past couple of years, since this government was elected in 1989, they brought forward the economic zone concept which is interesting. As a person who is involved with road development throughout the Province for a number of years, when you look at the economic zone concept that we have, we are looking at nineteen zones and information has led me to believe that there is a possibility that there could be twenty put in place, but, Mr. Speaker, what would be wrong with putting two members per zone which will give us a total of forty in this Legislature.

If those zones are being put in place for economic reasons, which I believe they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman I understand is suggesting two members of the House for each zone, is that his proposal?

MR. MANNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: I just want to understand that is what is being suggested?

MR. MANNING: No, I am just throwing that out as an idea.

MR. ROBERTS: An idea. Well then, perhaps the hon. gentleman will want to expand upon the idea of two members representing the City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why St. John's?

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

MR. MANNING: Well, I think myself, Mr. Speaker, that would be a step in the right direction; definitely a step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. A couple of members for inside the overpass would not be a bad idea, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: As far as we know, there are only two who are really representing the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I ask for protection from the Member for Eagle River. My name is not Harry; I only have two legs not four.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there is a fair amount of the Cabinet itself who would support me in reducing the number of seats inside the overpass. I would not want to throw around numbers but I am sure that a fair amount of the Cabinet would support a drop in the number of seats inside the overpass.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a district of thirty-one communities. Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I had seven different invitations to attend functions within my district. Virtually, humanly impossible to do so but there are districts within St. John's that can be drove around -

MR. EFFORD: Name them, name them.

MR. MANNING: Now I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Speaker, I can remember up on - if the minister would just be quiet for a minute - I can remember up on the White Hills - I will tell you a story about the minister now for anybody who would like to listen, I can remember up on the White Hills when we were having a rally or get together up there - I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I ask for protection from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a total attack on me this is.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood on the White Hills with hundreds of people, there by the fisheries building and said I think you should all get together, have a meeting and discuss what you are going to do in support of Brian Tobin's actions on the high seas. He said I will tell you what you should do, you should all come over to my boardroom at 11:45 and have a meeting in my boardroom and get this fishery issue on the table of this Province so people can really understand what is going on here. I am elected to represent the fishing district so I trotted along over to the minister's office - thank you for the invitation, I say to the minister - we sat down at a table, the boardroom, Mr. Speaker, was packed solid. Mr. Speaker, there were people there - fishermen, plant workers, there were people from the union, there were government people there, there was everybody there. We were there discussing what we were going to do in relation to the rally down on the waterfront and some other things that came up. A knock came on the door, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which department?

MR. MANNING: We were in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social services.

MR. MANNING: No, no, the Department of Works - we were in the boardroom with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when Roland rolled in, Mr. Speaker, and said the minister said to get out. Get out! No time to explain, he does not have time to explain, he will explain later, move it, move it, move it! So we were all there and we did not know what was going on, Mr. Speaker. We were all surprised that the minister would invite us over and then send us back. An Indian giver, Mr. Speaker. He gave us a gift then he took it back and he drove us out. So in a little bit of investigating afterwards I found out that when it went to the Cabinet Table, Mr. Speaker - and talk about Cabinet solidarity, I tell you this one, Mr. Speaker, it went to the Cabinet Table and the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture - sitting right next to the minister there - said: Listen here now, who is the Minister of Fisheries here? Mr. Premier, who is the Minister of Fisheries? Those people should be in my boardroom, Mr. Premier. What did the Premier do? He said: John, Bud is the Minister of Fisheries, not you. He said, this Bud is for you. You tell that crowd to get out of your boardroom. You are not the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: And, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude on that story, I found out afterwards that the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, no it never happened. No, it never happened. I can guarantee you, Mr. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that two of your Cabinet colleagues told me it happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Two of your Cabinet ministers told me it happened and I believe the two of them before I believe the rest of the twelve of you. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it was very interesting.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, it was not - Mr. Speaker, it was not - one of those two was not -

MR. SULLIVAN: It must be true. He is admitting it now.

MR. MANNING: It is true, I don't tell lies. I say to the minister, I don't tell lies.

AN HON. MEMBER: The two ministers (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I would not name the two ministers because they helped out a little bit of the financing in my district. Do you know what I mean?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say in all honesty, just to let the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, Sir, you could torture me and I wouldn't tell you. Anyway, just to let you know that one of those two was not the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

MR. EFFORD: I know it wasn't.

MR. MANNING: No, he wouldn't tell me; he would fax it over to me.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) name the functions.

MR. MANNING: Okay, I will name the functions for the minister now because, like I said before, I don't tell lies, I say to the minister right now, not like some other members.

I will start on one end of my district, of the historic district of St. Mary's - The Capes, and I will go to the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one? Name it.

MR. MANNING: Name it? I was invited to a fireman's ball in Trepassey.

MR. EFFORD: When?

MR. MANNING: How many were you invited to the weekend, I say to the minister? You are upset because you don't get any invitations from your district.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I had the invitations up in my office, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: Come on now, name them.

MR. MANNING: Trepassey Fire Department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

MR. MANNING: Table them? No, I am a private member; I don't have to table anything here. I will name them and I will put them in Hansard, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, no, I have no problem naming them. Will I name them? I will name them.

I was invited to a fireman's ball in Trepassey, which I didn't get a chance to go down there because - I attended one of the functions in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was invited to a senior citizen's party in St. Vincent's, in the Caribou Country Lounge Club up on top of the hill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Hold on, now. I say to you, I am just trying to think, now, and make sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah.

MR. MANNING: Hold on, now. You can get excited all you want. My only worry is I don't get invited to too much down that way the winter. With you having taken the mechanics off the road, I won't get through down there with the snow.

I was invited to the St. Joseph's fireman's ball, which is one that I attended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I said the weekend, now. You check Hansard; I said the weekend. I don't have to think about what I said. There is no .05 in me; .00 I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were invited to a 50th anniversary.

MR. MANNING: No, hold on now. I was invited to a 61st anniversary down in St. Vincent's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was invited to a christening of a family friend of mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: A christening. We are happy, I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I said Sunday afternoon. Will you hold on, I say to the minister? Listen, the district of St. Mary's - The Capes rejoices when there is a new Tory born into the district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The whole place comes out, I say to the minister.

I was invited to a meeting of a fire department in St. Bride's, the annual meeting where they have the election of officers at the fire department in St. Bride's. How many is that, six?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's six.

MR. MANNING: I can't think what the other one was, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: That's six. Hold on, now, that's pretty good.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I say to the minister, I attended three funerals on the weekend. I wasn't invited to them; I went to them myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) invited to them, too, I suppose.

MR. MANNING: No, no, I wasn't invited to those. I went on my own, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Invited to a funeral. That's not bad.

MR. MANNING: No, I didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pretty low now.

MR. MANNING: No, no; I said I attended. I didn't say I was invited. I said I attended.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I got the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation upset.

MR. EFFORD: I am not upset.

MR. MANNING: You are upset, because I told the story that I heard about what happened over in your room when you threw the fishermen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I named the six functions, I say, minister. I named six functions in my district, Mr. Speaker. I said I had a weekend, and I don't take it lightly to any member. I mean, look, I just said I attended three funerals in my district. That is not a light matter, I say to the members opposite. Not a light matter for the families of those people, I say to the members opposite. I say don't try to put words in my mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I'm talking serious here. I just said about the functions of a district that I have in rural Newfoundland, that the amount of time it takes me, Mr. Speaker, to attend to the people's needs, whether it be a fire department's fireman's ball or whether it be a garden party, or whether it will be a funeral. Whatever the case may be, all this amounts for time for a member to attend it. If you have anything at all left in you, you will understand that those things are serious. When I talk about something like that - we are talking about respect here. Something that maybe a lot of the members on the opposite side don't understand. But I'm going to talk about that.

I have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation a little upset. Because I found out afterwards why he had to throw the fishermen and the plant workers out of his office when he was up on barrel boxes out going around this Province being the defender of the fishermen and the plant workers of this Province a few years ago, but then when he got back into Cabinet he was forced to (inaudible). That is it. When you got back into Cabinet everything was over, I say. Everything was over when it came to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Right? The only time he is allowed to open his mouth now is when he is cutting something else, I would say to the minister. The only time he opens up is when he cuts something else.

There are a lot of things happening in this Province now. I happened to be in the home the other day when a lady told me that her mother was brought to hospital and had to be sent home because there were no beds. I talked to people who are out on the highways who are fearful of this coming winter with the cutbacks that this government has forced on the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I'm talking about what is happening in this Province now in relation to what we are doing here today. There are a lot of other concerns; there are a lot of other issues.

We are here now - the classic Newfoundland joke, reducing this Legislature by four seats. Nothing short of it. We have people in this Province who we are asking -

MR. EFFORD: Are you going to lose your seat? Are you losing your district?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. That will be up to the people - it will be up to the people down in your new district whether you stay there or not, I say.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) district disappears.

MR. MANNING: Whether it is forty-two, forty-four, forty-six, forty-eight, anything but fifty-two causes some problems. Anything but fifty-two causes some problems, I would say to the minister in all honesty. To tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I'm not so concerned about me.

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker. No, I say to the minister. Thanks be to God I lived a half-decent life before I came in here and I expect I will live a half-decent one after I leave, I would say to the minister. Right?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was employed. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to get into how I was employed. I wasn't going around selling pencils and erasers and rubbers, I say to the minister. I was going around -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) wrong with that?

MR. MANNING: I don't see anything wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, as long as you - no, there is nothing wrong....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I tell you one thing, I wouldn't change my bank book with yours.

MR. MANNING: What is that?

MR. EFFORD: I wouldn't change my bank book with yours.

MR. MANNING: I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: And I wouldn't change my interest (inaudible) with your (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would say now the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I would say, Mr. Speaker, the only person now who would be concerned about my bank account, or the minister's bank account now, would be the local bank, I would say to the minister.

Anyway, you need not be worried about my bank account. The problem we have in this Province as I see it, and I do not see everything with clear vision as I only have four out of twenty in one eye, but one of the problems we have in this district is that there are an awful lot of people who have no bank accounts. There are an awful lot of people in this Province who from day to day just make ends meet, Mr. Speaker, because of the coldness and cruelty and the callous acts of this government during the past six years which have forced the few people who were trying to get ahead in this Province to back up ten years, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation played as important a role in that as any other minister, Mr. Speaker.

We came here to debate, as I said before, what I believe is not the answer to the problems that face this Province at this time. If we want to send a message out to the people of this Province, if we want them to make cuts, and want them to make sacrifices, then I think the fifty-two members of this Legislature - and like I say whichever way the chips fall I am in the middle of it - if the fifty-two members of this Legislature want to send a statement out to the people of this Province we should reduce the seats in this House by at least twelve seats, and maybe less, but at least twelve.

MR. EFFORD: You fellows are no longer in government and you do not make the rules.

MR. MANNING: I have stood up on several occasions and listened to members talk about when we were in government. I was never in government I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I have never had the privilege of serving in government.

MR. ROBERTS: Nor, will you ever.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, never say never. I would never say never. Our day will come I say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: And have not will be no more. I have been down that road.

MR. MANNING: I will not finish that one.

The point I am trying to get across is that we have a problem in rural Newfoundland, as far as I am concerned, that has not been equalled in many, many years. We went through the 70s and 80s when everything was fine and there was plenty of fish around. Everybody was doing well in their communities and the communities were flourishing because there was a base within the community to allow those people to flourish.

I think it is only now that people are starting to realize the impact that the fishery had on this Province. I think it is only now that people are starting to realize the impact that the fishing industry had on the communities of this Province. When you take the fishery out of a community like St. Bride's in my district, when you take the fishery out of a community like Trepassey in my district, when you take the fishery out of a community like St. Mary's, St. Joseph's, or anywhere, you take the heart out of that community and everything else falls down around it in time. I go around my district and I can see the looks on the faces of the people in my district as have come over the past couple of years because of the turndown in the fishery.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs asked them last week to take their cut, the Minister of Health stands up and asks them to take their cut, and so on and so forth, and at the same time we are asking a 7.5 per reduction in the members of this House here, Mr. Speaker. Like I say there should be no more that forty seats in this Legislature. When Judge Mahoney first came out with a forty seat Legislature - and again I say in all honesty that would have caused me problems in the district I represent, Mr. Speaker, but again it would have been independent and fair, and it would have saved an amount of dollars that we could have put into opening up beds in this Province and into operating municipal councils and everything else. There are a lot of other concerns here and I think we, sitting here in our little bubble in this House of Assembly, are not realizing the impact and what is happening out in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of cases. I think we are sending the wrong message out to Newfoundlanders when we say we are going to reduce this House by four seats.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an average now of 12,181 people in the new districts. I come from a rural district, as I said, and I get calls from people on a continuous basis, about garbage collection, about lights on the poles, about water lines, you name it. A lot of these things in the city have to do with the council and are handled as council matters. I am sure that members of rural districts in this Legislature, if they were completely honest - I have talked to members here from inside the overpass, Mr. Speaker, and find that the day-to-day routine of my office, which some days receives up to forty and fifty calls - I am sure the member for St. George's and other members here realize that rural Newfoundland politics is totally different than urban politics. People look to their members for everything, Mr. Speaker. There are days I have half a dozen calls. I am not going to stand here and say I have forty or fifty calls every day, but there are days - when I got elected we were into the NCARP and then followed into the TAGS and I was doing appeals on a continuous basis, representing fishermen and plant workers throughout my district in the appeal process. There was a steady, steady stream of people to my office and telephone calls.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the new district of Placentia - St. Mary's will encompass the greater part of Placentia district, plus almost 75 per cent of my own district. It will be very, very difficult for a human being to be able to give representation to that district in the way we are giving it today. Now, if this passes through the House of Assembly we have no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to do what we can. What I am saying is that the concerns and issues of the people of the district, as far as I am concerned, will not be forefront in what we can do, because humanly we will not be able to do it.

It places a strain on individuals, Mr. Speaker, being elected to this House of Assembly. Representing the people of the district of St. Mary's - The Capes has had its strains. It certainly has had its advantages, there is no doubt about that. I have enjoyed it tremendously, the honour and the privilege to represent it, but the fact remains that it is very, very difficult sometimes to be in all parts of your district at the one time. It is very difficult sometimes, Mr. Speaker, to give the people the type of representation, the personal type of representation that they wish to get and should have.

We talk about the concerns that are out in the districts on a day-to-day basis. We are here asking different ministers questions as they relate to different things within the Province and within our districts. Mr. Speaker, at the same time we stand up here in this hon. House and say to the members: Yes, you have to make cuts. Yes, you have to make sacrifices. But we are not going to really make a sacrifice, we are going to send four members out which will give a reduction to rural Newfoundland of six seats, and add on two inside the overpass. I think it is grossly unfair, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to end up with districts in this Province that will not be able to enjoy the type of representation they have enjoyed over the past number of years.

My district, which is close to St. John's, within a couple of hours reach, is one thing, but you talk about districts that are out on the West Coast, Mr. Speaker, districts on the Northern Peninsula, districts on the South Coast, up in Labrador and all those places, those people want to continue with the representation they have received over the years, and I don't think that this legislation is doing that.

If I could get back, Mr. Speaker, I believe what we are at here today is sending the wrong message and I think we should reconsider it. I think we should accept the independent commission report by Judge Mahoney and even improve on that, because that will bring us back to forty-four and still, I don't believe that is enough, Mr. Speaker. I believe the cuts should be sending a straight and clear message to the people of this Province that we, as members of the Legislature, are going to take the same pain and indeed make the same sacrifice we are asking the people of this Province to make.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that back from the days of Representative Government, these districts in this Province have enjoyed fair and equal representation. And that one part of the Province would have the upper hand on another, I think is unfair in one sense of the word, but then, you have to look at rural Newfoundland versus urban and I don't think that has been looked at here, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the commission that was put in place, had the freedom to make the decisions and to make the recommendations that they felt would be fair and equal to the Province. I presented a brief to the commission, Mr. Speaker, on a (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be back again to speak on the main motion.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the opportunity to speak on this bill before the House and the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

The Opposition has tried, and I would submit, have not done a very good job of putting forward the argument that the government has somehow gerrymandered this whole process of the electoral boundaries. Now, to look at the issue and whether they have proven their case. Because ultimately, to gain any credibility with the public in their dealing with this issue, and we can see, with the exception probably of the two gentlemen in the gallery there - they are really hanging from the rafters in anticipation of the Opposition making such good points on this issue - really, Mr. Speaker, have they proven the case? Have they been able to demonstrate, on a political basis and in a clear and articulate way, that the government has done what they have suggested? I don't think they have. I don't think they have done a very good job of putting forward the issue. I think also, hon. members should note, that the term `gerrymandering'- you know, they speak of it so loosely, as if in fact the government has gone and taken a pen - really, in my study of the word `gerrymander', it refers to doing something to your own advantage, not necessarily with respect to the numbers of districts or anything of that nature but to do the drawing of district boundaries as would replicate a salamander.

The gentleman, Mr. Elbridge Gerry, who was Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, had the districts in that particular constituency drawn and they looked a lot like a salamander because they go in around different streets and do all kinds of things to capture their constituency, to capture the specific constituency of the party in power at that point in time, of that particular governor, Governor Elbridge Gerry.

Really, to suggest that in this case anything other than pure numbers, and the matching of numbers and the use of percentages of variation from one district to another was really the only case. There was no drawing of lines because I can suggest to hon. members opposite, without fear of being corrected, that the number of new seats and the drawing of the district borders do nothing more for the people on this side of the House than it does for the Opposition. In fact, it is probably a lot more detrimental to the members on this side of the House - in some cases, in certain, specific areas - than it is to the Opposition. So one would then have to throw out the argument they have been making about gerrymandering as being something that they cannot demonstrate with any matter of fact at all.

Another thing that I wanted to do - and I must say, I enjoyed the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes remarks. He was much more relaxed this evening. Usually when we see him, he is very, very intent on getting through the remarks that he has to make, but this evening it was pleasant to listen to him, and I must say, I really did enjoy hearing him speak, and the comments he was making about some of the hon. ministers, and this sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, to look back to the issue at hand, and the way that the Opposition, when it was the party in power, dealt with issues like this in the past, all we have to do is go back to the Hansards of old, and go back to the way the issue was debated. Now, I have some older Hansards here and I will just read to you from one of these.

I will just point out one case in particular, that of the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl who, of course, thinks this act as it has been brought forward is a terrible miscarriage of justice. The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, strangely enough, in 1984, seemed to think the same thing, even when he was in the government. He spoke vociferously against certain aspects of the electoral boundaries issue at that time, even to a point where on page 4441 of Hansard from May 17, 1984, Mr. Windsor spoke about the idea of the stadium. The line was drawn unusually in Mount Pearl to include the stadium, and the hon. member, as he mentions in here, was really involved in the funding for that particular stadium in the city of Mount Pearl, at the time, the town of Mount Pearl. The line was drawn to include the stadium - it did not include the parking lot, he mentions, but it did include the stadium. And he went so far as to say that even though the line did not include the soccer field, he intended to get the funding for it anyway. Regardless of whether the people of his district would vote for him or not, he would get the money anyway, and the lines were changed from the original recommendations at that time. I don't know if any of the other hon. members over there -

The hon. the Member for Kilbride regards any ties with the past over there to be ghosts. He wants little or no association with the PC governments of the past. Really, he disassociates himself from the governments of the past. He calls the full front bench over there ghosts. He says they have no real part of the operation today, and the past is all but forgotten.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: When the hon. member can raise $500,000 as a volunteer, come and talk to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: - the Bruce arena back then.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, the Bruce arena. Well, that is what we said, we have to raise $500,000 as volunteers again, but we are going to try. We will do our best and hope that government can help out, if possible. In the financial situation they may not be able to.

Anyway, to get away from the questioning of the hon. members, there are some very interesting comments as well going back to 1973. In looking at what was done back in 1973 in a debate at the time between Mr. Marshall, I think it was - no, His Honour Mr. Hickman, who is currently with the Supreme Court, having introduced at that time the changes to the electoral boundaries. You speak of history repeating itself, well, of course, we are here as a result of the changes that are required for the numbers having changed in the various districts. But to look back at that time, speaking of the number of people in the different seats, he spoke of there being forty-six members in Nova Scotia in 1973 and one member for every 17,000 voters.

Even back then there was an understanding, and it was without question, that the one person/one vote principle was paramount, that voting for a member, every elector in a given district should follow that element of the way that parliamentary democracy should work. In looking through this debate, as I have done during the past couple of days, it shows clearly that not only did the government but also the Opposition of the day, the Liberal Opposition at the time led by Mr. Rowe, now of Open Line fame, was of the same opinion that the one person/one vote principle should be upheld within reasonable numbers. The variation should be within reason.

To look at what we have here before us now is a case where there are a number of districts that will step outside of the variants. In Labrador there are a couple and in certain cases with difficulties of drawing the lines, there are probably some that step a little bit outside in the Province itself, but, in general, very much a numerical equation, and not an equation of politics or gerrymandering, one where the number of seats was determined based on a very strict application by Mr. Justice Noel, directly relating it to the report of the commission. The commission requested that we do forty-four seats plus some other changes, and the changes were then made to bring about a forty-eight seat House with a very small variation in numbers.

Mr. Speaker, to speak of my constituency, it will be one of the large ones population-wise. I suppose it will be above the number, the median number, but also it will be a difficult constituency because you will have some 200 to 300 miles of driving from one end to the other. Currently, my constituency can be driven in a matter of about fifty miles, so it will mean a very large increase with the community of Burgeo added. Other communities between Burgeo and Port aux Basques are currently communities that are isolated and therefore it is very much a part of the district at this stage. But now, because of the road links to Burgeo there will have to be a drive all the way up past the Stephenville area and on down the Burgeo Highway to include Burgeo.

I understand there are some indications that the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has an interest in having Ramea, Grey River and some others included in that constituency, although the problem then becomes that the district becomes the largest population base in the Province for a given district. You would have not only a very difficult geography, but you would add to it the representing in excess of 14,000 constituents by the population figures used for the analysis.

So based on that, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the amendment would be in order. It would certainly change the overall quotient for the district and would ultimately leave the district not only with a difficult geography but also with a very difficult situation with respect to the large number of electors. And as we increase the number of electors in a given district each vote carries less weight.

Now, the process, of course, is not perfect. This House of Assembly is one that represents the people of the Province by virtue of the general elections held. One point I think has to be made, and maybe it is the kind of thing that the government can take under advisement because certain areas of the Province have their difficult situation from a geographical standpoint or other standpoint looked after by virtue of the fact that they have a certain number of seats; an example being Labrador, a part of the Province, very much a part of the Province, and yet they have a large number of seats in that given area and the Avalon Region having the largest population of a given area of the Province. That will certainly lead us to a situation where there is a voting power in St. John's in the Avalon Region and there is also a very large voting power as a result of Labrador having four seats.

The rest of the Province, namely, I suppose, the bulk of rural Newfoundland, people would suggest would be the place where elections are won or lost. St. John's has to swing one way or the other, but normally it is basic rural Newfoundland itself, the Island portion of Newfoundland, that tends to decide elections. So that swing in rural Newfoundland, or the way that rural Newfoundland votes, can certainly decide the overall electoral result for the Province.

The problem with it all is that having no extra strength in the voting power - the Avalon Region has a super strength as a region having so many of the different members in the given region, the area of Labrador has the four seats of Labrador as a region itself, and the rest of Newfoundland being a very vast land mass, more sparsely populated, really does not have that kind of kick when it comes to offsetting the populace of the St. John's area, Mount Pearl, and really the strong population base of the Avalon Region and the base of four seats in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that I think we have to look at. It is almost like the domino effect when you start adjusting the different seats. If you adjust the different seats and you change population figures, once you change one another changes, and that, in turn, affects the next and so on. The same thing, Mr. Speaker, can happen when you are talking about having to have four seats in Labrador, something which this government is supporting and something which will certainly be of benefit to the people of Labrador.

The other thing is, in other areas of rural Newfoundland, the communities in my district along the South Coast, the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and the hon. the Member for Bay d'Espoir - Connaigre, or whatever it will be called then, Fortune - Hermitage, these isolated people from these various districts certainly require a level of offset that they do not have at this stage. The process should take this into account. We can all speak to the various commissions that come up but they do not understand it and realize it the same way that we as members here in the House do.

They are only appointed to the commissions as learned people in various professions with certain backgrounds, and certainly, on that basis, Mr. Speaker, they have a given perspective. But we, as elected members, although not allowed under the legislation to serve on said commissions, still have our perspective which each and every one of us, I think, brought to the commission as a result of our districts.

My given electoral district, I can say that what is finally proposed now is not the way that the majority of people in the outlying areas of the district would want it. The people of the Codroy Valley, I think, normally would want to be included with the Port aux Basques area as a part of a district, some would say. There are others there who would say that they want to be part of the agricultural area that the hon. member is representing in the Jeffrey's and McKay's area. There are those in Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River and whatnot who would like to be associated with a South Coast district, and not necessarily tied into the Port aux Basques area. There is a variety of views out there as to where the line should be drawn. With no convergence of views, I guess, drawing the line down to include Burgeo as a part of the district of LaPoile will certainly leave a situation that does not make everyone happy.

In looking through the various Hansards from the past, we can see that in this process not everyone is happy. Almost every case here that I have looked at with members from the past when this issue went through, there was a lack of agreement and there was no concurrence on the fact that the boundary lines were put in the right places in each and every case. It was a case where members representing the constituents they serve end up in some cases with anomalies, end up in some cases where communities of interest are dissected, either by a line through a given community or community of interest within a town or city. These things, the drawing of electoral maps, certainly are not always conducive to the communities' best interest, but they have to keep in mind the strength of the voting power which is ultimately the requisite interest of the voters of the Province.

With that one exception, Mr. Speaker, the concept of rural Newfoundland as an entity being seen as an area that just has the strength of the voting power and not the strength of a region or of a large population, certainly rural Newfoundland has to be considered at some point in the future. Maybe it will take an amendment to the way we do this in having an element of the regional vote. I don't know if that is a possibility - maybe it will be, maybe it won't. But in the past, if we looked at things about the structure of Canadian government and the Senate being a balance to the voting power in Canada, possibly we would hope evolving to a point where the Senate will hold an equal number of seats for given provinces. That may never happen but it almost did at one time. If Charlottetown had gone through we would have had a very good proximity of an equal voting power on a regional basis to offset the voting power of the given electors in a district as required by population in the main House.

This Province, I guess, ultimately, to appeal to the electors in rural Newfoundland, to appeal to the electors in the Avalon area and in Labrador, then the government has to make accommodations to keep those issues in mind. The accommodation has almost always been there with the making sure that there was an appointment to the Cabinet from Labrador in all cases. Geographical representation in the Cabinet may very well be the ultimate reflection of the concern for regions in the overall way that the Province is governed. That is another balancing possibility outside of the voting power, and the establishment of government at the prerogative of a Premier, he can then choose the given districts to put into the Cabinet and that could very well offset the voting power of an area like St. John's.

These are things that we have to take into account. I certainly want to re-emphasize that the Opposition has not proven its case, that there is no case here of gerrymandering. There is a case, ultimately, of application of the principles of the bill, application of the numbers as put forward by the commission, and a variation made by Mr. Justice Noel given the awkward recommendations that the commission had made, and therefore we have the forty-eight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I was at one awhile ago and it was very good, actually.

The other thing is that in LaPoile soon we think that things are so bad for the Tories that they may even be wanting to be Liberals from now on, from what we can tell out there, that the Tories are leaving the Tory Party, and decided that the only way they can do anything in LaPoile is by getting involved in Liberal Party politics. So we look forward to their involvement, and I suppose don't care for the fact that they have abandoned their own side, but certainly we feel that this is the way of things to come in weighing the electoral opportunity and chances of the members of the Opposition. This is what I am told is the situation out there at this time.

Anyway, to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we will not be supporting the amendment. We will be supporting the bill as proposed by the government, and look forward to the changes that will be made to the electoral map. The variation from fifty-two to forty-eight is not a large variation, but then again all of the members cannot then stand and say: Well, members in this Province have so much to do, and then say, well, we should have more to do to go along with the fact that they find it very difficult doing all of the things that they do, including the attending of various functions, the handling of the necessary appeals, and doing the things that the people in this Province end up doing.

I am very pleased, and I should also mention the most recent issue of TIME Magazine recognized as a part of the Canadian landscape a community in my district. The centrefold picture in TIME Magazine is the community of Rose Blanche, a very good community in my district, and those who look in this month's TIME Magazine, it is certainly noteworthy, on the section on Canada, that the district of LaPoile currently would be seen as the most picturesque, and an idyllic community to be noted in the TIME Magazine issue, and certainly worthy of note. I note that it is very often paid tribute to by local painters and photographers. I know Lane Photographic down at Hotel Newfoundland usually have many pictures of Rose Blanche as a part of their overall collection and portfolio, and certainly this idyllic part of the Province is a place that looks forward to the future, and very eager. I was there at a firemen's ball on the past weekend and was very pleased to be with the people there and to offer my support to their efforts to have their community diversified in moving into various food processing and other things in the future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be seated and allow a member of the Opposition to speak further on the issue.

Thank you.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few words in support of the amendment brought forward by the Member for Grand Bank, an amendment which essentially asks this House to accept the recommendations of the independent Mahoney Commission and thereby reject the diversion of electoral boundaries brought forward by the government, rubber-stamped by Judge Noel.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather funny, you know; the gentleman who spoke before me, the Member for LaPoile, mentioned that he spoke at a firemen's ball on the weekend, and no doubt he was very upbeat in what he had to say. I spoke at a firemen's ball this weekend, too, and there was very little good news I had to bring them. Obviously, the government has not seen fit to fund a fire truck for the town of Springdale in recent years. I had to get there and tell them that their council is going to be suffering through considerable budget cuts as a result of the cuts to the municipal grants. It is probably in the order of $50,000. That particular community is going to have to cope with that sort of thing, which is a really significant cut in its revenues given its limited tax base. And here we were at the same time in this Assembly debating a bill which would essentially bring about a token cut in the representatives from the districts representing the people of the Province.

This amendment that the Member for Grand Bank has brought in is basically as a result of the rigging of the electoral process brought about by the government, and our desire to go back to the proper process that was instituted in this House some time ago.

In the fall '92 mini-Budget the Wells Government announced the resolve to reduce the cost of governing the Province and in the future will be asking the House to direct the redistribution commission to make recommendations for a House of Assembly consisting of the most appropriate number of districts between forty and forty-six. So back in '92, Mr. Speaker, before the '93 Election, this government made a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce the number of seats in the Assembly to something between forty and forty-six. Mr. Speaker, they did bring in an act, in '92 as well, to give effect to that and in the spring of '93 they appointed a commission. In due course the Commission went on the road. In August '93 that Commission, chaired by Judge Mahoney, basically released a proposal that was placed in the newspapers in the Province indicating that they intended to take the governments mandate quite literally, especially the part in the political part of the mandate which indicated the desire to save money and that they were therefore going with the low end of the parameters given them. They would be recommending to the people of the Province, for their comment, a forty seat House of Assembly.

In November of '93 the minister for Naskaupi, the Government House Leader, came before the Commission in the midst of its public hearings and indicated that the Commission's mandate had been flawed from the government's point of view and that the seats should not be reduced below forty-four. Mr. Speaker, the minister's indication of government policy, of government preference, was eventually brought before this Assembly and this Assembly duly authorized an amendment to the Commission's mandate. The Commission eventually, after going on the road with the new mandate, came back with a recommendation of forty-four seats, but that is not all that the Commission came back with, Mr. Speaker, a recommendation for forty-four seats.

To the point raised time and time again by the Member for Eagle River, Mr. Speaker, he is fixated on the notion that Labrador must have four seats. I say to the Member for Eagle River, if he really wants Labrador to have four seats he can organize that not by participating in this corrupt process that the government has laid on to give us forty-eight seats, he can accept the recommendations of the Mahoney Commission which give a forty-four seat recommendation and then tack on additional representation that the House should create an extra seat to have four in Labrador, make some minor adjustments to a couple of other seats on the Island of Newfoundland to accommodate certain communities of interest, one in the Humber Valley area and the other regarding the town of Grand Falls - Windsor.

The town of Grand Falls - Windsor, Mr. Speaker, is in a situation where there are about 2,000 voters above the allotment allowed for any given district. The judge who made the report for the independent commission made a recommendation in addition to his forty-four seats, that Labrador be given an additional seat. So I guess we are talking forty-five. The judge also indicated that in a number of cases, relating to community of interest on the Island of Newfoundland, the population quotient could or should be exceeded and asked that the House of Assembly consider these two things. The position of our party is that the judge's report should be accepted. I am sure we would have no problem if the government were to bring in the recommendations of Judge Mahoney that there be very little, if any, objection to four seats in Labrador providing all of his recommendations were taken into account and that includes some adjustments to allow Grand Falls - Windsor to be one seat, an adjustment with regard to the town of Peterview and its location in the District of Exploits, and that change as it would affect the District of Lewisporte. These are the sorts of minor changes, minor alterations, to a forty-four seat plan recommended by the Mahoney Commission. Minor alterations required from the judge's point of view because of the straitjacket of a mandate given it by this particular government.

The Member for LaPoile indicated earlier that this was not an instance of gerrymandering. Years ago the redrawing of district boundaries used to be nothing short of blatant, but the modern day Liberal is somewhat slick and somewhat more sophisticated. They don't want to be seen to be out redrawing district boundaries to particularly suit the Liberal party. If you read the mandate of the Electoral Boundaries Commission it doesn't read: Draw a district border to include town X, to exclude town Y. That sort of thing is not written in there, but the numerical constraints and the legalese associated with the mandate of the Boundaries Commission, and the mathematics associated with the Boundaries Commission, leaves the Commission with very little choice in how it can draw up the electoral map. The mandate is so restrictive that it is tantamount to taking the one and drawing seats on the map yourself, which is exactly what they did in the case of Judge Noel's report.

He was given a mandate so tight that he had extremely little choice but to come back with exactly what the government wanted, with one notable exception. Somewhere in the back room talk, in the unofficial conversations that occurred somewhere in the realm of this government, the situation in Central Newfoundland went askew. Somehow Judge Noel didn't get the message with regard to the Grand Falls - Windsor seat and the Green Bay - Buchans seat.

Mr. Speaker, before Christmas we availed of an offer from the government to accept a briefing from a government official of the Department of Justice on the government's version of a forty-eight seat Assembly. That forty-eight seat Assembly would create a Green Bay - Buchans seat and would create a Grand Falls - Windsor seat. Under the original forty seat proposal and the forty-four seat final proposal of the Mahoney Commission, Green Bay was left intact, Badger, Buchans, Millertown, Buchan's Junction, were added to Green Bay in both cases. Because of the variation allowed in the first mandate of the Mahoney Commission, plus or minus 25 per cent, the population of Green Bay - Buchans in the forty seat proposal, and the population of Green Bay - Buchans in the forty-four seat proposal, were identical. There was sufficient flexibility allowed for this to happen.

When we got into Central Newfoundland in a forty-eight seat proposal with a highly restricted mandate somehow the wires got crossed, the message didn't get through, and Judge Noel came up with a shocker for everybody, a shocker especially for the Member for Windsor - Buchans. He came up with two seats called Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans. What happened there was that in order to make the accommodations to a forty-eight seat House the northern part of Green Bay had to go regardless under the government's tight numerical restrictions. Somehow, in the government's pre-ordained, pre-arranged plan, most of Grand Falls - Windsor was left as a single seat. Two thousand people in the former town of Windsor were assigned to Green Bay - Buchans to make the numbers work right.

Somehow the message didn't get through to Judge Noel, the wires were crossed or someone was slack in fulfilling the gerrymandering mandate within the system, and somehow Judge Noel expressed enough independence in his rather restricted role that he actually changed some of the boundaries within the envelope that is containing Green Bay - Buchans and Grand Falls - Windsor and came up with two different seats, Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans. Grand Falls - Buchans contains all of the former Town of Windsor less maybe 1,000 voters. Windsor - Springdale contains what is left of Green Bay and most, 4,000 or 5,000 people in the former Town of Windsor, and this has caused considerable consternation in Central Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, because the government has only recently amalgamated that particular area and the amalgamation was done after some soul-searching, some anguish, considerable public debate and with an incentive, let us say, of several millions of taxpayers dollars. Certain infrastructure programs were promised the newly amalgamated Town of Grand Falls - Windsor to bring the joint infrastructure up to a certain standard, so considerable lengths were gone through to obtain the amalgamation of Grand Falls - Windsor and then the judge, appointed under a tightly restricted mandate, somehow got the message wrong and in the end split Grand Falls - Windsor in his forty-eight seat proposal in a major, major way.

As I said, Windsor - Springdale contains the rest of Green Bay that does not go to Baie Verte seat but it contains most of the former Town of Windsor, and the original plan for the Central Newfoundland distribution was to put Badger in Buchans and a small part, 2,000 people in Windsor together to make a seat called Green Bay - Buchans leaving the bulk, the majority of the Town of Grand Falls -Windsor as one electoral seat. That puts the Member for Windsor - Buchans in a rather awkward spot and he has been speaking to members on this side about proposing an amendment.

The Government House Leader has made it quite clear in a conversation here in this House earlier today, that the Member for Windsor - Buchans will, in all likelihood, be bringing in an amendment to this Assembly to put right, from the government's point of view, what somehow, Judge Noel got wrong. The wires that were crossed in passing the gerrymandering message to Judge Noel somehow have now to be uncrossed and I gather the Member for Windsor - Buchans is going to bring forth an amendment to change Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans back to Green Bay - Buchans and Grand Falls - Windsor and, Mr. Speaker, we can expect when we get into detailed analysis of this bill in the Committee stage, that the Member for Windsor - Buchans will probably bring forth an amendment in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, he is doing so because he has been a long-term member of the House of Assembly from that area, and he is utterly and totally embarrassed that this government should, if they are going to rig something that they should drop the ball and rig it so terribly, so inadequately, so we have a situation where the rigging job worked for the most part in most seats in the Province but for some reason, for some reason, Mr. Speaker, there must be a God and He did stick His finger in the pie and decided that He would upset the Liberals applecart with regard to Central Newfoundland, and His upsetting of the applecart in Central Newfoundland as I say, has caused considerable embarrassment to the Liberal Party in general, in Central Newfoundland, and specific embarrassment to the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor - Buchans can only bring about the original forty-eight-seat plan which does not make Grand Falls - Windsor one whole seat. The Grand Falls - Windsor seat under the government preference, is still only going to be about 80 per cent of that particular town. Two thousand people in that seat will have to go with Green Bay and Buchans in order to make a viable electoral district under the rules, so what I guess the Member for Windsor - Buchans is trying to accomplish in bringing forth his amendment is, not half-a-loaf but I suppose he is saying that three-quarters of a loaf is better than none.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the people of Grand Falls - Windsor and this House of Assembly can have the whole loaf. All they need do is bring in the Mahoney Commission, forty-four seats, throw in the extra seat from Labrador to keep the man from Eagle River happy and make some minor adjustments to the 10 per cent rule in the case of Reidville, Cormack, Howley and in the case of Lewisporte, Exploits district for the Town of Peterview and in the case of Grand Falls -Windsor, you will have a compact, urban area, 2,000 people over the population quotient, no great scandal, Mr. Speaker, all it is, is at variance with the Premier's stated principle of one person, one vote.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when this government came to office first, the stated principle of this administration was not one person one vote, the stated principle was fairness and balance. Now fairness and balance have nothing to do with what this government is going to do to these seats in Central Newfoundland. Fairness and balance has nothing to do with splitting the District of Green Bay which has been intact since 1928, Mr. Speaker, and I guess, that is the price Green Bay pays having voted Liberal all this century until they elected Brian Peckford in '72, now they have to pay a price under the hands of these extreme right wing, callous Liberals by having that seat cut in two, and, Mr. Speaker, that fairness and balance does not do any good for a community of interest that has existed since the early part of this century, and fairness and balance, does not do any good for Central Newfoundland if you are tightly restricted to the plus or minus 10 per cent.

In my district, the communities of King's Point, Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove, Little Bay and Beachside, and Little Bay Islands go with Baie Verte district. When I went to work with Brian Peckford in the fall of 1974, Green Bay district under a forty-two-seat House contained the eastern side of the Baie Verte Peninsula, and it was a rural seat and it was not easy to service, Mr. Speaker, because you had what is normally now Green Bay and then you had to deal with the eastern side of the Baie Verte Peninsula which meant driving out the Trans-Canada to the Baie Verte Highway, driving up the Baie Verte Highway turning off to deal with Smith's Harbour, Nippers Harbour, Middle Arm, Burlington these kinds of places. It was a very difficult district to service, Mr. Speaker, because of the distances involved.

Now, what they have done, they have reversed the tables from the forty-two-seat House that was in existence prior to the '74 election and now they have the Member for Baie Verte coming down off his peninsula, driving along the Trans-Canada to the Springdale turnoff, and then having to go out and service the communities in the northern part of Green Bay. That minor alteration of 1,500, 2,000 people is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, except that, somehow, we are now worshipping a ten-per-cent principle when a few years ago we were worshipping a fairness-and-balance principle and like I say, in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor right now, I have no doubt that the Member for Windsor - Buchans will try and change the situation back so that we do have a Green Bay - Buchans seat, which would include roughly 2,000 people in Windsor with the bulk of the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor going into one seat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking as a sitting member who has a current interest in the outcome of that, all I can say with regard to that proposed move on the part of the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the government has a majority in this House. If the government wishes to bring in an amendment to change the boundaries with regard to Green Bay - Buchans and make another seat which composes probably three-quarters of the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, then the government has every right and it has the numbers so to do. It hasn't been shy about bringing in a gerrymandered forty-eight-seat Assembly, and I don't see why the government should be shy in tinkering with the numbers again, in that regard.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult, out of respect for the people of Grand Falls - Windsor who dearly want their community to remain whole or as whole as possible, it would be very difficult for me to vote against such amendment if the Member for Windsor - Buchans brought it in. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to speak in favour of it because the amendment which the Member for Windsor - Buchans speaks of, does nothing to redress the prayer of the petition of 1,500 of my constituents who want to see Green Bay district left whole. I would hope that if the government is intending to have some flexibility and do some amending in the committee stage of this bill that they would leave the district of Green Bay intact, and if it means taking on an extra 1,500 I don't mind doing that because I presented 1,500 names in this Assembly from people who want the district of Green Bay to be left intact. They don't care what the government adds to Green Bay. They just want Green Bay left intact.

The people of Grand Falls - Windsor want their town left intact as one seat, so the question is: Will the Member for Windsor - Buchans bring forth an amendment as recommended by Judge Mahoney in his final report, which indicated that the House of Assembly make a variance from the 10 per cent rule and allow Grand Falls - Windsor as one electoral district to have a population 2,000 in excess of the magic number. The magic number is just a number pulled out of a hat, a hat that now the government wears as a principle, one person one vote, without any recourse to common sense except, of course, in the Labrador Peninsula. Somehow the one person one vote mandate does not apply to the Labrador Peninsula. We can have an extreme variation from the numbers quotient. I understand why; it is because of the cultural and geographic differences that are involved there. Judge Mahoney recognized it. When bringing in a three seat Labrador Peninsula he indicated we should squeeze in an extra seat because of those very factors. If the government is willing to accept a three seat Labrador then I think the government should be willing to accept an intact Green Bay plus some other territory - I don't care - and the government should be willing to accept Grand Falls - Windsor as one single electoral district.

I look forward to the Member for Windsor - Buchans bringing in his amendment. As I said, I really could not vote against such an amendment because I know how dearly the people of Grand Falls - Windsor, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, want to be intact. I suppose many of them may be willing to accept three-quarters of a loaf rather than a full loaf. They say half a loaf is better than none. Three-quarters of a loaf may be better than some, but it is not what they want in its entirety.

What we have here is a government that is showing a certain degree of flexibility, but they don't dare vary significantly from their 10 per cent rule because it is the rule that they used to manipulate the electoral boundaries by basically putting the commissioner in a mathematical straightjacket.

Mr. Speaker, we shall see what will be the final outcome of this process. I sent a household mailer around to my district some months ago on my petition campaign in this Assembly, and on the front cover I had the title of it: Alvin Hewlett, MHA, Speaking Out On: Green Bay - Buchans? Windsor - Springdale?! At that time it seemed unclear as to what the government would do, and even today it seems unclear. The official position put forward is the Noel report, but there has been some indication that it may well be Green Bay - Buchans again. Sobeit! But the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador will have to answer to the citizens of Green Bay if they don't leave Green Bay intact, and they will have to answer, at least to some extent, to the citizens of Grand Falls - Windsor if they don't leave that seat intact. Half a loaf is better than none; three quarters of a loaf is better than some, but why can't the people of Grand Falls - Windsor have a full loaf? Only because some individuals have chosen a plus or minus 10 per cent variation as some sort of sacred thing that now supersedes the previous sacred thing called fairness and balance.

I am sure this is a matter of considerable grief, agony and embarrassment to the Member for Windsor - Buchans, and I do wish he would stand in this House and tell his constituents and the people of Central Newfoundland how anguished he is over the outcome of this botched process with regard to electoral boundaries, as it affects the central - northeast region of our Province, Mr. Speaker. So let him bring his amendment forward. The government has a majority in this Assembly and just as sure as they are going to shoot down the amendment of the member for Grand Bank, they can pass the amendment of the Member for Grand Falls.

As I said, the reason I can't speak favourably to that amendment, is that the people in my district who have petitioned this Assembly for redress of their grievance are going to be ignored. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the member should or should not bring the amendment in. All I am saying is that if he does bring in such an amendment, I will not vote against it out of respect for the people of Grand Falls who want their community to be as intact as possible. As I said, I cannot speak in favour of it, but I will not vote against it. If I spoke in favour of it, it would be a slap in the face, it would be an insult to the 1500 people from Green Bay whose names I have presented week after week in this Assembly to have their grievances redressed, that Green Bay district, a district on the electoral map since 1928, at least be left intact as one distinct unit. Add to it what you will, add to it parts of Windsor, add to it parts of Mars, I don't care, but leave Green Bay intact and, if you have the nerve, leave Grand Falls intact as one seat.

Mr. Speaker, this government is doing all this based on some sort of principle and it is amazing how shifting their principles are. One man, one vote; it used to be fairness and balance. Some years ago now, the Premier turfed out the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation because he transgressed certain behavioral rules with regard to Cabinet Ministers. More recently, he didn't turf out the Minister of Fisheries for a similar breach of the rules of conduct of a minister.

The Premier came before this Assembly with church leaders in the gallery and said: I will not change the Constitution as it relates to educational rights in Newfoundland and Labrador, ladies and gentlemen. We wouldn't do such a thing. Of course, he said that on the eve of an election call, and as soon as the election was over, after going through a posture of negotiations, he immediately decided that he would break the word given to the church leaders. A way to disguise the broken word, of course, was to have a public referendum in the Province where public sentiment, public opinion, had been well established through extensive and sophisticated polling over the last ten years, where 55 per cent of Newfoundlanders favoured a non-denominational school system, and lo and behold, 55 per cent of Newfoundlanders, not surprisingly, voted yes.

That is the sort of principle that guides this administration, Mr. Speaker. So is it any wonder that fairness and balance as expressed in a mandate to Judge Mahoney with a plus or minus 25 per cent variation, to take into account the differences in urban and rural Newfoundland, to take into account the differences with regard to community interests, is it any wonder that that particular principle has now been replaced with the 10 per cent principle. Next week, Mr. Speaker, it will be another principle.

The Bible tells you, Mr. Speaker: Don't build your house on sand, build your house on rock. Well, the principle underbelly of the Liberal Party is shifting sand, and I do hope that the people of the Province, in due course, when they get a chance to mark their X, will shift where they should go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the wee hours of the evening to support my colleague from Grand Bank and the amendment he has put forward. I spoke earlier today, Mr. Speaker, on the main motion, and I would like to speak to this particular amendment.

I guess what we should keep in mind is where this whole saga started and what has progressed since, Mr. Speaker. It started back in 1992 in a mini-Budget put forward in this House, when the Wells government announced: As a further demonstration of our resolve to reducing the cost of governing the Province in the future we will be asking the House to direct the redistribution commission to be appointed this coming March to make recommendations for the House of Assembly consisting of the most appropriate number of districts between forty and forty-six.

Mr. Speaker, from that day on things have changed and they have continued to change. There are two main points that I've already mentioned and I think are the main points. First of all, we all realize the constraints upon governments in this Province and in this country, and all over in every province of this country. There are fiscal constraints. Therefore the government, when we first heard this, in 1992 we really believed - I did, like many other members in this House and many other people in this Province, that this government would lead the way in constraint, and it would do that in a way such that it would be showing leadership and reducing at the top right here in the House of Assembly. It was going to show the way and lead by example by reducing at the top, cutting the fat at the top.

That was the intention of government. That is what the people of this Province believed would happen. So when first of all when of course this was announced the initial mandate - and then the story begins. The initial mandate of the Mahoney Commission in 1992 was to have an independent - and that is a key word in this discussion - commission travel this Province and to try to decide how we could best reduce the number of seats in this Legislature in order to trim the fat from government so that we could run this Province more efficiently. That was the whole idea, that was the concept that was put forward.

If it had been left at that with what was recommended by an independent commission you would not have anybody here standing tonight opposing this particular move. There would be nobody debating this tonight. We would be home now, we wouldn't be debating this. But the point being that since that day since that idea was put forward there has been nothing but a complete and dishonest approach to interfering with how we are finally going to come up with the number of seats left in this Legislature to represent this Province.

A little while ago my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes made mention of something that I thought should have been given more consideration in the whole process by the commissions, by the government, by all of us. That is, the difference in rural Newfoundland as opposed to urban Newfoundland. Time after time my own colleagues, and I'm sure colleagues who have urban districts on the other side of the House have agreed too, that there is a difference, and a significant difference. The significant difference being the simple geography, the number of communities, and the number of groups we have to deal with.

My colleague for Kilbride keeps reminding me that when he has to leave here and he has enquiries he can go to his district, drive around in twenty minutes, meet the groups he has to meet with. When serious issues come to the front such as the MOG decisions last week on municipalities my colleague for Kilbride went and spoke to one council.

In contrast to that, when I found out the news on the issue of the MOGs I had to go to my district and had phone calls from seventeen different councils and deal with all those. We have to go out and deal with four or five different development associations. We have to go out and talk to six or seven different fire departments. In contrast to an urban colleague of ours, on the government side or on this side of the House, who knows and who has admitted time and time again that there is a significant difference. When this commission started to make those arrangements and changes I think that should have been a very serious consideration of the difference and contrast between urban and rural Newfoundland.

A second thing. Before I even get to my district I have to drive for six and a half hours. Then, once I get to my district, just to touch base, just to drop in and go to each community - I go into each community - it takes me nine hours of driving. I know the Speaker, for example, also has to do the same thing in his district. St. Mary's - The Capes, Bonavista South, Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Hear, hear. So all over this Province, Mr. Speaker, the rural MHAs in this House know exactly what I am talking about. It is not a fabrication, I didn't make it up, it is not something that we try to pretend that happens in rural Newfoundland, it is fact. Rural Newfoundland is different.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for LaPoile talked about gerrymandering, and the question: `Why are you complaining now, are you going to have too much work?' Mr. Speaker, that is not the whole point of this debate. The whole point of this debate is, if there were going to be a reduction in the number of MHAs in this House of Assembly, and if it were going to be done independently, and there were going to be a significant change - now, that is the key word in this debate, a significant change - that it would not be from fifty-two to forty-eight. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is a schemozzle, a farce.

It is a farce to have us sit here and debate this until ten o'clock tonight, last night and probably again on Thursday, and God knows, into next week. We should not be debating it because it should have been settled by the independent, Mahoney Commission at forty-four seats, which, if it had stayed at that point, we would have all accepted it, both sides of the House. Not just government members because they are following suit, but both sides of the House would have agreed that there was no political interference, there was no tinkering and we would have all accepted whatever was coming to us.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, with this most recent change to forty-eight seats, I pick up an extra eleven communities from my colleague, the Member for Green Bay, from his district. I have no problem taking on those eleven extra communities, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to do it and I will do the best job that I can to serve those communities, but that is not the point; the point being that there was political interference from the word `go' on this change. When we found out that it would back with forty-four seats what happened? The right hand of the Premier, the Minister of Justice, decides to make his first appearance at the commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is when we see the types of things like interference at that level with the commission's reports but also, it makes you wonder how much interference happens behind the doors of the government caucus room in back here. I wonder how much interference there was once those doors were shut and what really came out behind closed doors? Mr. Speaker, it was obvious because, when you go from forty to forty-four, spend $400,000 of taxpayers' money, then come back - there was mention of forty-six seats for a little while and then, lo and behold, two years later, three years later, $400,000 later, what happens? We have now gone from fifty-two to forty-eight.

So, Mr. Speaker, the two main points are: the `significant change', as I have already mentioned, from fifty-two to forty-eight, is not significant, it is a token change. It is what happened with the Premier of this Province and this government saying: `We are going reduce the number of seats' in that mini-Budget in 1992. He had everybody excited again like when he was going to bring home all the sons and daughters - and we know what happened there, that was reversed and it has gone to the other extreme, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sent them away.

MR. SHELLEY: Sent them away. Mr. Speaker, the same thing happened here. This is another indication, another example of a government that is twisted. `We are going to reduce the number of seats, we are going to do the job, we are going to cut the fat at the top.' The Premier jumps up with his mini-Budget: `We are going to take care of this and we are going to cut a significant number of the members of the House of Assembly; that is what the public wants, that is what we will give them,' but what happened, Mr. Speaker, what really happened, from day one. And then we will follow the sequence of events since 1992.

First of all, in the mini-Budget of 1992, it was announced that there would be a commission set up, an independent commission that would travel the Province and would do the job for us. They were going to do it for this government and the government said: `We won't interfere, it will be done by an independent group and they will bring back the recommendations.' Even before they brought back the recommendations, you could hear the trembling going on on the other side already. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the vibrations were so heavy that the Minister of Justice himself decided to run out to Clarenville - before these people even brought back their recommendations - to intimidate them, sit in front of the commission; and this was November 9, 1993. The headline reads: `Some disagree over the number of districts', and of course, in the face of the Minister of Justice here.

`The Provincial Government agrees the number of seats in the House of Assembly should be reduced, but not as low as the forty proposed' - that was contained in a presentation on Monday night by the Justice Minister at an Electoral District Boundary Commission in Clarenville. `...Justice John Mahoney of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal as chairman of the commission which was established by the House of Assembly earlier this year, with a request to divide the Province into between forty and forty-six seats.'

`Mr. Roberts, the Justice Minister said the Electoral Boundaries Act does not set out with sufficient clarity or precision the principles which must govern the redistribution and the process.' Mr. Speaker, right away we have the Justice Minister go out and interfere at that point. Now, Mr. Speaker, what do you think happened then? What happened then was, the Justice Minister came back in, sat down all the government members in the caucus room, closed the door, made sure it was airtight, and then the rumbling started. They said: My god, forty seats! What is going to happen to all of us? Then they thought, forty-four seats - and lo and behold, forty-six seats. So here we are, three years later, $400,000 and two commissions later, and now they say we are going from fifty-two to forty-eight.

The people of this Province are asking what happened to the process and, Mr. Speaker, there is only one answer, that there was political interference, there was political tampering. I did not say, like the Member for LaPoile said that there was so much gerrymandering - and there was probably some of that too, Mr. Speaker. There were alignments made so that different members of this House - and as government was making their decisions there may have been some gerrymandering. But more important to me is that this process was tainted and inflicted upon by this government and that it was not independent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even before becoming elected, I always thought that we have had - and it was always before the public eye that we have too many members in the House of Assembly here. The general populous of Newfoundland believed - they believed then and they still believe now, that we should reduce the number of MHAs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about rural Newfoundland, what I hold very dear as a rural MHA is that I can go to my district at least three times a year, maybe up to five times a year. I take the time to tour the district and go into the smaller communities of Purbeck's Cove, Tilt Cove and Round Harbour and all of these places, Mr. Speaker, that just have a few people. Like I said before, maybe they will be towns that will not exist in one, two or three years from now. Maybe they will not exist but they do right now and I represent them in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is good that an MHA, any member here - be it urban or be it rural - can go to their district, can go into somebody's kitchen in Harbour Round, in Tilt Cove or wherever it may be and talk to those people on a one-on-one basis. I think that is something that many members in this district - including the Minster of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I am sure he enjoys it too, Mr. Speaker, to be able to go to his district every now and then, not to talk on the phone, not to get a secretary to call back, not for them to hear you on the radio, television or see your face in the paper, but to be able to sit down one-on-one with you and talk about concerns. Mr. Speaker, what I think that does is very important. What I think it does is it keeps us in touch with the real people in this Province. Too often we get in here, into our little `ball', like the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes said earlier, we get into our little cocoon in this House of Assembly and we almost forget what it is really like out in rural Newfoundland.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to continue - no matter if your district does grow from the changes that we see here before us tonight, but if it grows and we have more constituents per district, we will have to work twice as hard and get out there as often as we can so we touch base with the people that elected us, not through artificial means, not through technology, as with the phone, television or radio but to actually get out in the district.

Mr. Speaker, how many constituents talk about the typical MHA or the typical MP that you see every four years? Every four years a helicopter lands and a bright, shiny brochure is passed to you when you answer the door, and you don't see your member after that.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of those situations, and I think that most people in this House - I can't say everyone - but I think most hon. members in this House cherish the time when they can go out into the district and actually sit down and talk to people one-on-one, face to face. I know that we like to do that. That is why, when we are making these decisions on electoral boundaries, we have to seriously consider the impact it has with the rural communities which do not have the opportunity to speak to their members.

Another point with rural Newfoundland is this: the accessibility of an MHA as urban compared to rural. Mr. Speaker, all the members I have talked to, anyway, the urban MHAs - so let us dub them as urban MHAs or rural MHAs. The urban MHAs do not get the calls that we get as rural MHAs for the simple reason that people from the St. John's districts and the Kilbride district, in this area, can drive here to the Confederation Building to get things taken care of. It is a matter of a phone call away when their MHA can drive there in ten minutes and talk to them. Because a lot of times, as we know, the member wants to speak to you personally. So they can jump in their car, drive to a house, drive to a fire hall, drive to a council office, and sit down and talk to them.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to do that, too. That is why, as a rural MHA, we have to be as accessible as possible to the people we serve. I believe that is why we are here - and as I said earlier, not for four years to go by, when the constituents who elect us out in the districts of Baie Verte - White Bay or Bonavista South or out in the far reaches of this Province, or up in Eagle River or Naskaupi or any of those districts, they don't want to see their member come every four years with the shiny brochure. They want their member to be accessible to them, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is very difficult, as you know and as many members in this House know.

For me, for example, to do the tour that I just did before the House of Assembly opened - and I do it four or five times a year; I travel to each and every community. And every community allows me to have a schoolroom, a fire hall, anything at all, just for an office for two or three hours so people can drop in to see me. And lo and behold, guaranteed, as happened a couple of months ago, some little girl would run up and say: `Dad wants you to run over to the House, he has to speak to you about something and he can't make it here'; or `he doesn't like to talk to you on the phone.' I get that all the time, and I know a lot of the members here get it - where some skipper calls you up and says: `I can't make it out today,' it is stormy, or he is not feeling well, `would you mind coming over and discussing something very private with me?'

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is great to be able to do that. That is what I think being a member is all about. But it is more important than ever, and I think it is more important for ministers, too, even moreso than MHAs, that we don't lose sight of the real world out there. Because that is what happens too often. We get in here in this House of Assembly, we close the doors, and there are media around, we go up to our offices and we forget what it was like on the wharf down in Purbeck's Cove or down in Fleur de Lys. We forget what it was like and we are too long removed from it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage not just MHAs but the ministers to take that time every now and then. I know it is busy, we are all busy, everybody is busy. But you still take that time to keep in touch with rural Newfoundland. That is why I think that when electoral boundary changes were put in place the Commission and the government had very heavy weight put on the difference between rural and urban Newfoundland.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I don't think is in the House right now, but you can't help repeat, because it is certainly an example of when the political interference started. Imagine the executive assistant for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation showing up at a hearing, Mr. Roland Butler, Executive Assistant to Works, Services and Transportation Minister, John -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I won't say that.

- said, `While the Port de Grave district is very compact, there are at least seventy-five to a hundred enquiries going on at any one time. That may be all right for a district represented by a Cabinet Minister, since he would have an executive assistant to deal with the great portion of the constituency work.' That is what he told the commission, Mr. Speaker. Now, I wonder who was he speaking for, and I asked the minister that earlier today. Was he really echoing the words of his minister, or was that his personal opinion? Mr. Speaker, I would say, and I would guess, and I would ask the minister to stand some time during this debate and tell me if it is in fact so - was his executive assistant, when he spoke at that commission, echoing his remarks? Was it the minister's idea? Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it was.

That is why we started with this whole process of, yes, the right concept is there, reduce the number of seats, show the people of the Province that if we have to tighten our belts, then we should be the ones to do it first. The concept is perfect, Mr. Speaker. There is not a member in this House of Assembly who would disagree with that, and especially this past two or three weeks when we see more belt-tightening than ever, with municipalities, with education cuts, with health care cuts and so on. It is fine to say everyone else must do that, Mr. Speaker.

This government had a golden, golden opportunity to really show that they were serious about trimming the fat. They had a great opportunity to stand up in this House of Assembly and say, `Yes, we have asked this Province, we have asked the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to tighten their belts.'

MR. EFFORD: Who cares?

MR. SHELLEY: That is exactly the attitude of the government in general, Mr. Speaker, just echoed across the House. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - I think it is a quote for the whole government, Mr. Speaker. He should represent the government, he is a minister. He said, "Who cares!" That is just typical of the government, is it not, Mr. Speaker? He had to send his own executive assistant on October 7 to echo his thoughts because he didn't want it to seem like it was interference. He didn't want to make it look like it was interference, so he sent his executive assistant to say it for him. His executive assistant said, Mr. Speaker, `There are concerns and issues that have to be addressed. To make boundary changes just for the sake of reducing the number of districts or dividing the area to have equal numbers of people is not acceptable. The concerns of people living in those districts is what really counts.' That is what he said.

I would like to ask the minister, when he gets his chance - I am sure he is going to, he usually gets up to say something, even though it is not very important and he just goes on and on - but when he gets his chance, I wonder if the minister will get up and tell us if that was his messenger that he sent to the commission, and when did the political interference really, really start, Mr. Speaker.

This government has the golden opportunity now to say, without political interference, without tinkering, without the Opposition even having the chance to say, you tinkered with the whole process, stand up and say, `We accept the independent Mahoney Commission report, which cost the taxpayers of this Province $400,000, and we will make a significant change,' not a token farce as this is, because that is all it is. Imagine now, we just went through four years, $400,000, a schemozzle, and then the Premier, after this debate closes next week, is going to stand up and say, `We have made a great change to this Province. We have trimmed the fat, Mr. Speaker. Guess what we did? We went from fifty-two to forty-eight seats.' Whoop de do! Fifty-two to forty-eight! It is not even worth the time, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

What you should have had is the guts and the gall to go through with what was said in the first place, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier of this Province was going to lead the way. `We are going to ask everybody to tighten their belts, and we will do it first, and we will do something significant. We won't tinker around with fifty-two to forty-eight.' What a load of bunk! There is nothing to it. Then you are going to go out next week and in the next election - I can see it now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Boy, when we asked you to cut those MOGs, when we asked you to close hospital beds, when we ask you to cut education, when we ask you to do all that, we stood by you, didn't we? Look what we did. We cut our members in the House of Assembly from fifty-two to forty-eight. What a great feat that was, Mr. Speaker!

I can see the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation going around bragging now, in his shiny brochure, saying: Look what a good job we did, boys. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, take heed. We asked you to tighten your belts. You lost your hospitals and your schools, but look what we did. We cut the number of members from fifty-two to forty-eight. Now, wasn't that significant? You know what the people of this Province are going to do in a year from now? The shine is coming off this government, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. This is just another example of the blatant mishandling and incompetence of the government, total incompetence, time after time again.

Two weeks before, the minister gets up on MOGs and says we are going to cut MOGs in rural Newfoundland. Then the minister gets up and says: Maybe people will have to cut their cable television in order to pay higher taxes. Then he says: We are going to have to cut the number of schools, and then we are going to have a referendum that costs $3 million. Then the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets up. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - he will probably invite us all to his boardroom to explain this later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I tell the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to go back to his boardroom. And this time when people come in, at least let them stay for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. Like the Member for Placentia says, he is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

The minister and all the other ministers, the government, and the back-benchers will have to answer to this sooner or later. They are not jumping up and down saying what a great thing we are doing. I haven't seen any of the members out in the media talking about a great thing they are doing here in this House of Assembly this week, about the great changes they are going to have. I haven't heard any of the ministers out on Open Line or the Premier getting up talking. I haven't heard the Premier jump up and down and shout. I haven't heard the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation or the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation get up and talk about what a great thing they are doing here.

When has anybody heard this government, any of them, get up and say what a great thing they are doing? Because you know why? Because they are ashamed of what really happened here. They are ashamed of what happened to this process. It started out so great. I agree, I was impressed, I thought the Premier did have the guts to do it. But you know, when I heard comments from the Premier today when my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank was speaking, when I heard the Premier talk today back to the Member for Grand Bank, I believe that the Premier of this Province wanted to go to forty - he said it - maybe forty-four seats.

What happened? The doors of the caucus room closed and up she went. That is what happened. The doors of the Liberal caucus room closed and up she went. The Premier got all red-faced again as he usually does and he had another revolt on his hands, just like he had with the Hydro. That is what happened. The reality and the truth is coming out, and it is going to come slowly but surely. As we near one year, a year-and-a-half from another election, it is all going to come out. The shine is coming off and the people of this Province are seeing this government for what they really are: misleading, mishandling and incompetent. That is what we see.

All the big promises to bring home everybody, to create jobs, and then, of course, this one, to cut the MHAs. I will show you, said the Premier, we are going to significantly cut the members of the House of Assembly. We will show you how to cut the fat. They went from forty to forty-four, forty-six, forty-eight. I would say, the way it was going if we had one more week of this Commission we would be gone to fifty-five seats now.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, sixty-five.

MR. SHELLEY: It was steadily going up, Mr. Speaker. If we had given them another (inaudible) - I agree with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, sixty-five. Guaranteed sixty-five. If we had given two more weeks, if we had gone to Christmas, we would have had another commission, we would have had another judge - of course, appointed by the Minister of Justice - and we would be gone up to sixty seats. That would have given all of his ex-Cabinet ministers and all the fellows who failed in the last election another chance to come in the door with sixty seats.

Mr. Speaker, there are two straightforward points to all of this, that this government was on the right track when they first announced that in the mini-Budget of 1992. They were on the right track in the beginning, in 1992, and I believed them, like many people in this Province believed them, that they were going to reduce the number of MHAs significantly to show to the people of the Province, who were going to have to tighten their belts for everything else - to show them that the government was going to lead the way.

So the two points are these: From fifty-two to forty-eight is not significant, it is only token. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It should never have come before this House. Secondly, what did come before the House was political tampering by the government of this Province with respect to how these boundaries finally ended up, and it all happened just a few feet away in that back room, in the caucus room, when things started to unravel. And this government had to get it under control, they had to settle everybody down and calm everybody down like they did in the Hydro debate. The Premier used to say, `Okay, I will hold back so far', but was he holding back far enough? That is the question we have to ask.

We have to wonder what the Member for Windsor - Buchans right now, and some other members over there, really thought of it. I cannot see any members of the government side very proud about it. The truth is, they bungled it. The truth is, they had a golden opportunity to really show the Province that they were going to lead the way. They had the opportunity; they let it slip through their fingers, and it was all due to political interference by a government that has lost control of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, not just this but on many occasions we have seen this government, at the last minute, hit panic buttons, as they did with the MOG grants, as they did with the Cabot Institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SHELLEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, I will have another chance to stand and make points on the final amendment.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the amendment that we have before the House right now raises a very interesting question: What exactly was wrong with Judge Mahoney? Was he not Liberal enough? Did he not obey the law? Did he not follow the law? Even when the government changed it, did he not follow the second law? What was wrong with Judge Mahoney? Was he honest? Was he too honest? Did he listen to the people with whom he spent thirteen months, along with his committee? Did he listen to the people? Yes, he did. Did he come up with a report that was keeping with the law? Yes, he did. So what was wrong with Judge Mahoney?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing wrong with Judge Mahoney.

MR. HARRIS: Nothing wrong; hon. members over side say there is nothing wrong with Judge Mahoney. What was wrong with his report?

MR. EFFORD: Nothing.

MR. HARRIS: Nothing; nothing wrong with his report. So, what do we have? We have a report of a judge appointed by the government under legislation that produces a report there is nothing wrong with, says the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - nothing wrong with the list of recommendations that he made.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you read what the judge said? It was a waste of time and money - Mahoney.

MR. HARRIS: That is probably what he said afterwards, when they did not follow the recommendations.

There is nothing wrong with the report, says the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, nothing wrong with Judge Mahoney. But halfway through the report, the government decided they weren't satisfied that Judge Mahoney was listening to the recommendations being made by the people he talked to, was in fact listening to the Premier when he gave his speech about cutting 20 per cent of the MHAs and saving a bagful of money. The Ralph Klein of Newfoundland was the Premier when he was going to cut 20 per cent right out of the Legislature - looking for political points, I would say to hon. members.

Judge Mahoney listened to him, listened to the people out in the districts who talked to him, listened to all that, and he was threatening to come back with a report that went along with all of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) now, `Jack'. Don't wake up `Ed'.

MR. HARRIS: I know the Government House Leader is trying to have a little nap before 10:00 p.m. But I want to know what the problem is with Judge Mahoney. He is following the law, he has followed the Premier's efforts to get political points out of this, and he listened to the people who made submissions to him. Then he was forced to listen to the submission of the Government House Leader when he went up to Clarenville to make his submission. So what did they do? They then came in and brought in new legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I am usually heard in silence, I say to the Government House Leader. What I want to ask is what exactly was wrong with a judge who followed the law, who followed what the Premier said, and came back with a report that made very sensible recommendations - forty-four boundaries, exactly within the mandate. He made recommendation with respect to Labrador, and made recommendations about the amendment to the act to make sure that the Member for Eagle River still has a seat. Also, he made a recommendation that I think was a very sensible one with respect to the town of Grand Falls - Windsor, a town that was created by this government after many years of discussion, many years of dithering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: - many years of efforts by community leaders in both towns to bring those towns together. This government promoted it, this government sought it out, and in fact in what was an unpopular amalgamation scheme elsewhere. The Member for Windsor - Buchans takes credit for bringing it together, and I am prepared to give him credit. He did it as a member of that government over there, brought Windsor - Buchans together. And Mr. Justice Mahoney followed the recommendations, I am sure, of the Member for Windsor - Buchans to ensure that Grand Falls - Windsor would be able to be a single seat - sensible recommendations. It might even have gotten them back up to near forty-eight if they had followed them all. But no, there was something wrong with Judge Mahoney. He followed the law, he followed the mandate, he listened to the people, he listened to the Premier, made sensible recommendations, but there was something wrong. He wasn't prepared to be a stalking-horse for the Liberal caucus!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: He wasn't prepared to have `Danny' at his ear. He wasn't prepared to have the people over there have themselves looked after. So they had to go and talk to the Government House Leader and ask: Well, how are we going to fix this now? We will make up a set of rules and get someone else to do it. I have a lot of respect for Judge Noel, but unfortunately, I think Judge Noel was used by this government to carry out a new boundary redistribution, because they were not prepared to accept what had been done by Judge Mahoney.

The whole effort, Mr. Speaker, the waste of money, the waste of time. How many social assistance recipients did they claw back money from to pay for the Mahoney Commission report that they threw in the garbage? They threw it in the garbage! A waste of money. They claw back the money from social service recipients and use it to pay for a commission's report that they then throw in the garbage because it doesn't suit their political purposes. It doesn't suit their political purposes so they throw it in the garbage and start again.

The amendment before the House is a reasoned amendment. I was a little bit surprised when I heard where the amendment came from, but having read it, I see it as a very reasoned amendment, and not only that, a very reasonable amendment. Because what it does is it restores the Mahoney Commission report and forces this government to vote against the very report that they commissioned, for which they passed laws providing a mandate, for which they got a report within that mandate and got sensible, reasonable recommendations. And now when this amendment is voted on, to a man and a woman on the other side they will get up and stand in their places and they will vote against the $400,000 report that they commissioned that was supposed to and did carry out a mandate of this Legislature.

They are going to vote against it to a man and to a woman, I say to the Member for Carbonear, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I say to the hon. member that he will get up and vote to keep this report in the garbage at a cost of $400,000 to the people of Newfoundland, and he is going out and telling people across the Province to turn off the lights in their communities. And the government are prepared to throw this in the garbage because it does not suit their political purposes. That is the only thing wrong with the Mahoney Commission report. Members opposite are prepared to throw it in the garbage and make waste of money because it does not suit their political purposes.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: For once I have to agree with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - given the hour, I think it is probably an appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I take it the motion to adjourn the debate carried, Mr. Speaker. One thing about my friend, the Member for St. John's East is, he has an uncanny ability to persuade the House to adjourn the debate. Ten minutes from him and we are all ready to go home any time anywhere.

Your Honour, tomorrow is Private Members' Day and we will be dealing with -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate the helpful interjections of my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I wish he would read the script I give him a little more effectively than he does, but I realize he does the best he can with the very limited resources at his disposal.

Your Honour, tomorrow we will be dealing with the motion put forward by the gentleman from Green Bay which I understand has been improved somewhat by having been slept on. We will deal with that and then we will be back here on Thursday. The good news is we will be back at this Electoral Boundaries bill discussion and we will see where that gets us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Who? Why? Bingo. Bingo will be on on Thursday when we start. Under the B -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman asked for - I have to say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, when Hansard picks up only one side of these things it makes both of us look even more idiotic than we normally are, and that is saying a great deal.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't mind if I drag (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I believe my friend from Ferryland when he says he does not mind if he drags, as long as he drags us down with him. The trouble is we could not possibly go as low as he goes.

Your Honour, I would move that the House adjourn until tomorrow Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.