November 27, 1995          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLII  No. 63


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Will the minister tell the House what time on Saturday morning past, Saturday morning of this weekend, his department had a salt truck on the Trans-Canada Highway between Springdale and Grand Falls?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning, as on all mornings when the winter season starts within the department, the foreman is on twenty-four hour duty, so at 4:30 or 5:00 usually the foreman will go out on the Trans-Canada for a drive, as he did on Saturday morning, to first check the roads. When he went out on the roads at 5:00 o'clock the roads were wet so he then proceeded to go to some of the trunk roads and the byroads. There was no frost so at 5:00 o'clock he made his first trip on the road.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister didn't answer my question. I didn't ask him what time the foreman went out scouting. I asked him what time a salt truck was on the Trans-Canada between Springdale and Grand Falls on Saturday morning past?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it takes him about two hours to go to all the roads in the area that he is responsible for, by the time he goes out, drives around, and checks the roads. From the information I got from my staff in Central Newfoundland on the weekend, and talking to them again this morning, I would say he started calling around 7:30. Between 7:00 or 7:30 he started calling the trucks saying he was going to put the trucks out on the roads and do some sanding and salting, so I would assume that it was within minutes after that, twenty-five to thirty minutes.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister still didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what time the supervisor phoned, I asked him what time a salt truck was out on the highway putting salt on the road? Mr. Speaker, as the minister and everyone else here realizes, on Saturday morning at approximately 8:00 o'clock there was a very bad accident on the Trans-Canada Highway near Badger, an accident that resulted in two deaths. Will the minister tell the House whether his department's crew had salted that stretch of the highway before the accident occurred?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in constant touch with my office since that happened on Saturday, because I have told them, any time there are any fatalities on the road to get in touch with me right away. It is not an easy thing for a department official, as the people responsible out there, it is certainly not easy for me, as minister, and it is difficult for everybody, especially the people involved in the accidents.

The truck was out on the road within thirty minutes after it was called by the foreman. What took place on that highway on Saturday - it had been raining all the previous evening, all that night, there were mild temperatures and after the sun came up the temperature dropped and it dropped within a very short period of time according to the whether forecast out there. That individual truck came all the way - that vehicle came all the way from Springdale. It takes an hour or whatever length of time to drive from Springdale to where the accident happened. So it is quite obvious that the road wasn't slippery all the way out. As we know, in Newfoundland the temperature changes so rapidly from time to time, it is unpredictable and it is unmanageable. There was nothing done last Saturday morning any different from any time in the last number of years with the operations of the department out there. They have strict orders to put salt and sand on the road when and wherever necessary as according to the time and what they have done in their survey of the highway. The foreman was out, as he is always, and he did it last Saturday morning.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Is the minister then confirming that his staff were too late on Saturday morning, that they didn't treat the highway near Badger before the accident that resulted in two deaths? Will the minister produce, for the House, a detailed report concerning the actions of his staff and their response to the road conditions near Badger on Saturday morning?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the staff for two reasons; number one, to make sure that the proper procedures were followed and number two, out of concern for the fatalities that happened and in part, with that, out of concern for the staff. It is a judgement call on the part of the foreman. The temperature was - the water on the road was not called for when he had first went out on the highway. The people are taking it pretty hard. He went out and did a complete survey, as he always does, as is his responsibility to do. There was no ice on the road. It was after that period of time, when the sun came up and he was going back ready, I guess, to do the second round, when he got the call that there were slippery spots on the road and as soon as the temperature dropped he went out. It is a judgement call but there was nothing done any different on Saturday morning than at any other time of the year or any other year in the past; it had nothing to do with the staff not doing their job properly. I will give a full detailed statement; I have had it already checked out myself. I am totally satisfied that the department made the decision based on the normal thing that they do within the department's operation right across the Island, depending on the conditions of the weather. We can't control or know when the temperature is going to drop, rise or fall at any given minute, it is impossible on a twenty-four-hour, 365-day basis. They have to make some decisions, they made their decisions. What they saw was normal and that's the way I see it but I will provide what other information the hon. member is asking for.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Would the minister say that the accident which resulted in two fatalities stemmed from a judgement call or a budget cut? Did it have to do with an error in judgement or incompetence on the part of the staff or did it have to do with inadequate staff and resources?

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

MR. EFFORD: I guess, Mr. Speaker, when you have been in the House as long as I have, I think this is my tenth year, now going into my eleventh year, you expect pretty low stuff from members opposite. I think last year, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had seen the lowest from the hon. Member from Mount Pearl, but I think the hon. leader, went a step lower.

There was neither an error in judgement nor was there a decision made because of budget cuts, neither one. The supervisor in charge had a responsibility, which he has done, and he has been working with the department for fifteen years. He has made the same decision over and over again in the past. What happened was a quick change in the temperature, and it happened to be on a turn or curve where there was water running across the road, a section before that and beyond that was not icy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Anywhere in the Province, that's the reason we put the ads on tv and through the radio and the newspaper telling people to adjust their driving according to the conditions of the road, so it had nothing to do with budget cuts. It was a decision that had to be made at the time by the foreman on the highway and I am totally satisfied. Unfortunately, there was an accident; last year we had fourteen fatalities in two months and it is not easy for anybody within the department to deal with it.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: How does the minister respond to complaints from many people, motorists who were on the Trans-Canada Highway in Central Newfoundland this week, and police who were on the scene of the accident, that a lengthy stretch of the Trans - Canada in Central Newfoundland, all the way from Springdale east at least as far as Glenwood, was treacherously icy and had been neglected by the minister's staff. How does the minister respond to those complaints?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that that section of road was treacherous because the temperature changed very quickly. Because of the drop in temperature.

Let me ask her this, as I would ask anybody: How many hundreds of vehicles went over that section of road during that period of time? And there was one accident. Accidents like that cannot be prevented. The salt and sand was put on the road when they saw it necessary to get out there. It happens, and it will happen time and time again this winter. It is impossible to keep a perfect situation driving in November, December, January, February, March and April as you would do in June, July, August, or September. The temperature changes from time to time; many times four seasons in one day. Who can predict it?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding the interprovincial ferry rates.

During the '89 election campaign this government campaigned on a policy that the provincial ferry system should be part of an extension to the road system, and the rates were to be lowered. In fact, this government rolled back the rates after the '89 election. My question is: Has government now abandoned the promise and principle that the provincial ferry system is an extension to the provincial road system, and in particular promises made to the people of Bell Island?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what government is trying to do is provide a service to the people in isolated areas, as an example on Bell Island, Fogo Island, St. Brendan's Island, and all the other areas around the Province where they need a ferry operation. The cost of providing those ferry operations, before we put in the South Coast, was approximately $12 million a year. We were taking in less than 7 per cent of the operational cost in fare structure. What we have done, we tried to put a reasonable, fair structure in place that would complement - we try to provide the services, but complement - the use of other transportation services, for example, the bus service in St. John's, the minimum cost $1.50 per adult. That is what we have brought the ferry operation in line with, $1.50 per adult. They were getting aboard a ferry and going to Bell Island for fifty cents, and under today's costs, under the financial restraints of government, it is absolutely impossible, so from fifty cents to $1.50 per adult is not an unreasonable amount of money to ask an individual.

Remember, when the South Coast ferry service was operated by Marine Atlantic, the minimum charge to get aboard the ferry service was $9; our minimum charge was fifty cents.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer the question, as is usual. I will ask him another question. With the new rates announced, which will become effective December 1, 1995, there will be drastic increases to the Bell Island ferry rates. Walked on, $0.50 cent to $1.50; commuter, which is vehicle and driver, $0.50 to $2.25 one way; car and driver, $1.75 to $4.50. Will the minister confirm that this is the beginning of a full charge user-pay provincial ferry system?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. But I can tell you one thing, I can say to the hon. members opposite, if we didn't have the massive debt that we have to deal with which was incurred by these people opposite, we would provide a free ferry service to Bell Island.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister: Does the minister realize the hardship this drastic increase will impose on the lives of the people living on Bell Island, and understand the negative impact on tourism and jobs? Is your long-term plan - listen to this carefully now, with your other policies in place - to price people off Bell Island through forced resettlement?

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

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. No more is it the long-term plan to force the people off of St. Brendan's, Bell Island, or any place - no more is it to force the people out of St. John's by charging $1.50 to get on a city bus. That is all we are charging, $1.50 to get aboard a ferry to go to Bell Island. One dollar and fifty cents to get aboard a bus, that is what the City of St. John's charges. It is a minimum fare structure, reasonable. A bottle of Coke and a bag of chips is $2. God, you get aboard a ferry for $1.50. It is a day's cost of operating a service. Twelve million dollars a year, less than 10 per cent of the operation cost being returned by a fare structure. No, we are not charging what it would cost if you operated a vehicle. A vehicle today costs $30,000, a vehicle which you can operate for $0.50? If you can get me one, I will take it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. Our Province as part of Canada was signatory to the United Nations convention on rights of the child. Included in this was the principle of first call, which states that the lives and the normal development of children should have first call on society's concerns and capacities and that children should be able to depend on that commitment in good times and bad. With block funding anticipated under the Canada health and social transfers being reduced there is a concern that reduced transfers may result in a lack of the social supports that the families of many children need, in particular the behaviourally disturbed.

The Minister of Finance made reference to the fact that there is enough slack in the Budget to absorb the $60 million. I ask the Minister of Health if he is committed to the principle of first call, and will he ensure that the health of children will be a priority?

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

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

It is true that there will be some reduction in the transfer of funds from Ottawa for health, social services, and education. The reality that translates into will not change our government's priority in terms of what we think the priority should be in either health care or other provincial services, so the effect of the reduction in funding from Ottawa will have no effect upon this government's policy or position with respect to delivering health care services to either children, seniors, and all in between those two parameters or those two ends of the spectrum, if you like. We are committed to delivering quality health care at an affordable price, in an efficient manner, and at the most appropriate point of delivery and within the constraints of the resources we have, and we will continue to have.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next question is regarding mental health. I think it would be more appropriate if the Minister of Social Services could answer. There is a shortage of foster homes, generally, and even fewer therapeutic foster homes available to handle the most difficult behaviourally disturbed children. I ask the minister what her department is doing to address this shortage?

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

MS YOUNG: I thank the hon. member for the question. We are always looking for foster homes for the children who come into the care of our department. It is an ongoing concern, as you can well realize, to get foster homes for some of the more difficult cases we have to deal with, and we are continually looking for proper homes.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: When a behaviourally disturbed child is assigned to a foster home a social worker is assigned to a foster child, another social worker to the foster family, and a third social worker to the natural family. Now, lack of communication among social workers is a cause of hardship for the children and their families, and the turnover rate for social workers assigned to these children is alarming, and causes disruption in dealing with these cases. I ask the minister what her department is doing to address those concerns and to ensure that the child's mental health becomes a priority?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member can certainly appreciate as well the fact that sometimes the child is taken from one community and moved to another location in the Province. So it might be necessary for two social workers to deal with the case but one with the natural family, another one with the foster family - with the foster child and the natural family and then as well there may be, as you say, a need for another social worker with specialities to be able to deal with the child's special needs. So there could indeed be three people, yes.

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

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

Last Tuesday I asked the minister a series of questions about a surimi line that was moving from Terra Nova Fish Plant in Clarenville to Canso, Nova Scotia and the minister stood on Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given on Thursday and pretty well accused me of misleading the House. His answer was, Mr. Speaker, `all equipment still remains in that plant.' I think I understood the hon. member on Monday to say that it was moving out on Monday. All of the equipment still remains in that plant. I ask the minister if he still stands by that answer?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday morning of last week I spoke with the owner of the plant and all of the equipment remained in the plant at that time and as one of the earlier Premiers of this Province said years ago in talking about another issue, I certainly prefer to take my information straight from the horses mouth rather than the other end of him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister find a new source of information. When I stood here, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs pointed his finger at me and accused me of lying and misleading the House. I say to the minister: minister this equipment started moving out last Tuesday, Tuesday morning a tractor trailer load left, another tractor trailer load left on Wednesday morning and the final tractor trailer load left Thursday morning, I say to the minister. So I say to the minister, you should find out a new source of information. Minister, since this equipment is now in Canso, Nova Scotia and eight to ten jobs have been lost, I would like to ask you where the product is going to come from in Nova Scotia? It is my understanding that in order to make surimi the product you must have is silver hake, haddock, cod -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask where this product will come from in Nova Scotia if it is not available here in Newfoundland?

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, the equipment that the hon. gentleman is referring to was indeed equipment associated with the production of surimi back in the mid to late '80s. The raw material used for that surimi product was small cod from the cod trap fishery. In 1992, when the moratorium went on cod, the source of raw material was no longer there. The equipment was dismantled, stored in the corner and has not been used since 1992.

I don't really know where he is coming from with regard to ten jobs being lost because the equipment has not been used since 1992. As far as the equipment being moved out in one tractor trailer load after another, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the owner of the plant indicated to me as late as Thursday, not Tuesday, not Wednesday, not Monday, but Thursday, Mr. Speaker, that the equipment was still in the plant.

If the hon. gentleman is accusing the owner of that plant of lying, then I leave that up to him to answer, but I will still stand by what I said, because the owner of the plant indicated that the equipment was still in the plant as of Thursday of last week. I don't know why you want to accuse the owner of lying - I really don't know - but I will accept his word for it.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services as they relate to the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne.

Mr. Speaker, at the centre, there are four cottages with two units in each cottage. They house about ten residents per cottage when they are full to capacity. The old Whitbourne Youth Centre is one of those cottages, cottage No. 4, which houses units 7 and 8. We believe that due to temporary absence and early release, cottage No. 4 has been closed for quite some time. I would like to ask the minister: Can she confirm that cottage No. 4 is closed, and also confirm that even though it is, the manager/supervisor is still on the payroll?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, you are referring to the centre across the road from the correction centre in Whitbourne, and currently there are no residents in that facility because we have enough accommodations in the new centre, so as of today, there are no residents in the facility across the road from the centre.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have the information but I do. At any given time when cottage No. 4 is closed, or any cottage, the front-line workers, the youth care workers, are laid off or placed back on call while, strange as it may seem, the cottage manager is reassigned to perform other duties across the street. My question to the minister is: Who performs these other duties when cottage No. 4 is open, and isn't this a place where you could make some major savings in your budget?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that we will be looking at all ways in which we can ensure savings in our facility at Whitbourne, and indeed the remand centre here in St. John's, and if there are people who are on our payroll who certainly should not be on our payroll, that will be dealt with as well, because we are into a time of fiscal restraint; however, we have to ensure that we have the correct number of people there to work with the people who come into our care at the centre.

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

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

I ask the minister, when she is reviewing, would she also find out and confirm to the House that there is an administrator at the Youth Care Centre who has been suspended with pay? I would like to ask the minister, can she confirm this now and explain the circumstances that surround the suspension of that person at this time?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the hon. member must be aware that there is such a thing as breaching confidentiality –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The removal of machinery and equipment from municipal assessment rolls resulted in significant losses of revenue for many municipalities. Of course, this is on top of the loss of the 22 per cent cut to the MOGs. Will the minister reconsider the removal of the machinery and equipment from the assessment rolls in municipalities especially in view, of course, of the other fiscal problems that are currently being encountered by the towns, cities and communities?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we backed off on the assessment rolls of machinery and equipment for last year. It was supposed to be introduced on January 1, 1994. We have gone through a full year of postponing, suspending the assessment rolls. It is the government's intention this year to introduce the elimination of machinery and equipment from the assessment rolls beginning in January of 1996.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the removal of this machinery and equipment from the assessment rolls does nothing at all for the provincial Budget, yet it means $40,000 to Mount Pearl, $48,000 to the town of Marystown, $55,000 to Grand Falls - Windsor, and $300,000 in Corner Brook. The minister said last year he went and deferred it. I'm asking him if he would do the municipalities a favour and if he would discuss with his colleagues the possibility of further deferment, and probably putting the change over a two- or three-year program.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Federation of Municipalities have already made that request to me. They made it two Saturdays ago at the Holiday Inn. I made the commitment at that particular point in time that I would re-address the question with my Cabinet colleagues. I still stand on the fact that the government has made a decision to eliminate machinery and equipment from the assessment rolls for 1996, but I did make that commitment to the Federation of Municipalities, and I have not had the time yet to discuss it with my Cabinet colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister commit to assuring the municipalities that he indeed will make a submission to his Cabinet colleagues, that he would do so at a time that will be able to facilitate their preparation of their 1996 municipal budgets - in other words, have a decision to them within the next week or ten days.

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

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't make that commitment. It would be ludicrous or foolish for me to make that commitment. With the numbers of things that we are dealing with on a daily basis right now it is difficult to get an item like that on the agenda, believe it or not. When the time comes, the right time and correct time for me to talk to my Cabinet colleagues about that particular situation, I will do that at the request of the Federation of Municipalities.

I will say to the hon. member that there are reasons why this was introduced and that bill went through the House some two years ago. It was debated in the House, and I don't need to get into that today. But I've made that commitment - and I reiterate, Mr. Speaker - to the Federation of Municipalities and I will do it when the time provides itself. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

 

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

 

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Mineral Act requires that I annually submit a report of all mineral licences and mining leases issued in a particular fiscal year.

Today, I am pleased to table the Report of Mineral Licences and Mining Leases issued for the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Government Services Committee recently met to discuss Bill 28 with the committee and the representatives from the Department of Finance, and we hereby submit Bill 28, "An Act To Revise The Consolidated Law Respecting Credit Unions", to go through its regular proceedings here in the House of Assembly.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 23, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, asked questions regarding the ratio of management employees to non-management employees and operational procedures at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre. Today, I have the information and I will answer those questions.

There are sixteen managers currently employed at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre and the Pleasantville Remand Centre. In comparison, there are 265 non-management employees at the same facilities. Apparently, the hon. member received incorrect information regarding the ratio of management to non-management employees; it is not one to five employees as he had stated, rather, it is one manager to every 16.5 employees.

In regard to questions about staffing requirements and procedures, I must refer the hon. member to the recently announced study being conducted by Dr. Linda Inkpen. The appropriateness of the staffing component in youth corrections is one of the terms of reference in the study and the result should be available next spring.

As I said on Thursday, residents are not sent home on temporary absence to save money; instead, residents reach certain levels of merit and when the levels are appropriate, and based on the recommendations of the individual case management teams, they can be eligible for temporary relief.

The member said, unit five is known as the female unit and asked if meals are housed as a cost-saving exercise. The Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre is actually a co-ed facility and while the unit may regularly house females only, sometimes meals are placed in this unit to avoid using the overflow facility which is a separate building from the main facility.

I am sure the hon. member will agree that it is fiscally responsible to operate one building rather than two, and if one facility can meet the needs of the residents, and in light of the fact that the centre is indeed co-ed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions and concern, and I invite him to visit either the Youth Centre at Whitbourne or the Remand Centre in St. John's at any time that it is convenient for him.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Member for St. John's East Extern put a question to my colleague, the Minister of Environment, re Hibernia layoffs and contributions.

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

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, I believe it was a week ago Thursday, asked me a question concerning heat pumps. I told him I would get as much details as I could and I think I have the final information.

As I indicated earlier, the heat pump contracts would not cost the government anything or Hotel Buildings Limited; they will be assumed by Fortis Corporation. There were three, as I mentioned, I will give the amounts in the projected savings: At Clarenville, the total cost was $183,139; the lease period is for seven years at a monthly payment of $3,524. At Gander, the total amount of improvements to the property including caulking and weather stripping was $166,000, the lease period again is seven years and the monthly payments are $3,189. At Corner Brook, the total amount is $80,800. That is broken down between the cost of the project itself being $30,800, and caulking and weather-stripping at $23,000. There is another amount in there of $27,000 that is related to that, for a total of $80,800. Again, the lease period is seven years; the monthly payments are $1,552. The leases will be finalized upon completion of the projects and are to be assumed by the purchaser.

The work, as I think the hon. member indicated in his question, is ongoing. The allowed for interest rate is 9 per cent but the rate will be locked in concurrent with first draw down. That is the scope of the projects being undertaken. It is anticipated that savings will in each case be in the vicinity of $23,000 to $27,000. So the government will not be the owner. It is anticipated that over the life of the heat pumps they will more than pay for themselves in terms of energy cost to each institution or each building.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the principal order of business for the day will be to deal with the Committee stage on the redistribution bill. I believe there has been an understanding reached -

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

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, for a point of clarification, I would like Your Honour to rule on something for us. In this same debate on Friday we had quite a debate over the rules of procedure under closure that was proposed by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, or notice was given. We anticipate closure will be called today.

There was quite a debate about the fact that members would only be entitled to speak once, once closure was called. We were all concerned, of course, that there are so many clauses, so many amendments being proposed, we understand, from various members, maybe six or seven amendments being proposed. Some of them will change the proposed boundaries of districts. Members, of course, would want to have a right to speak on any change or any amendment, particularly that would affect his or her district, and there may be several amendments that would do that.

Obviously, under closure, the impression that we had on Friday was that members would only be able to speak once, and therefore, to one clause or one amendment. I refer Your Honour to our own Standing Order 50 which deals with closure. It reads in part, once closure in invoked: "no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than 20 minutes in any such adjourned debate; or if in the Committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title...." That reads to me - and I ask Your Honour to clarify and confirm - that no member shall thereafter speak more than once on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title.

It follows from the very nature of committees that the purpose of the Committee is that we have clause-by-clause examination of each section of a bill, and each clause, each preamble, each title requires a vote. They are all separate votes. So, I'm submitting that in fact it could be argued - probably it may in fact be the case - that closure in fact would have to be invoked on each clause, since they are each a separate vote. But clearly by the wording of this section each member, once closure is invoked, can only speak once on each section, subtitle, clause, or whatever.

I'm submitting that under closure in Committee each member does have the right to speak on any amendment, on any clause, and any section. Obviously, in accordance with that same Standing Order, the debate will close at 1:00 a.m. It cannot go beyond 1:00 a.m. But between now and then each member will have an opportunity to speak on each clause, which is entirely, Mr. Speaker, in my view, in keeping with the whole spirit of the Committee, which is that each member would have an opportunity to examine in detail each clause of that particular bill.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order.

First of all, that is a hypothetical question and I suggest it would be contrary to principle for the Chair to rule on a hypothetical question. If the situation arises in real life, then if some member wishes to raise a point of order Your Honour should deal with it, in my submission, and deal with it in accordance with the appropriate rules of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, secondly - I do not care if we get leave or not, I say to the hon. gentleman from Mount Pearl. I was about to suggest to the House that there had been an understanding - now, the hon. gentleman may not wish to be part of that understanding, and if so I respect his right, but he must acknowledge that he will have frustrated the will of perhaps some others.

What I was going to suggest was, when the point of order now before you is disposed of, Sir, my understanding is that there is an understanding with the gentleman from St. John's East, and with the House Leader for the Opposition with respect to a procedure which would accommodate the situation without the need to invoke a closure proceeding. Now, if the gentleman from Mount Pearl wishes to withhold his consent, I acknowledge he has the right to do it and sobeit. Now, Your Honour, I will refrain from further comment. If this arises in an actual case I will speak to it and I will make a submission to the effect that on the plain words of Standing Order 50 as it is written the hon. gentleman's submission is without substance and without merit, but I will reserve on that until we come to the point where we have a real case, because I hope that common sense and reason will prevail, and with the arrangement worked out among the three groups in the House, or the two groups and my friend from St. John's East who, in this context at least is a group -

AN HON. MEMBER: Groupie.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? A groupie - that we can then go ahead and have a debate that accommodates the legitimate needs of members on both sides of the House, Sir.

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

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the words of the Government House Leader and I also advise him, of course, that you cannot work out an agreement between groups of the House. It requires unanimous consent, as he has said. It requires agreement from all members.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that this is not a hypothetical question. I am bringing up a point of order based on the discussion that was held in this debate, which the minister has just called, so this is not a hypothetical question at all. We are now into a debate with notice of closure invoked, and I am asking Your Honour to deal with this issue before we proceed further.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, as I understand it Notice of Motion has been given but the closure motion has not been called, the debate has not been called in committee today, and it would be dealing with a hypothetical situation if the motion has not been called. The motion has not been called in committee, as I understand it, and therefore should the circumstance arise in committee then, of course, the hon. member can raise the question at that point.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before my friend raised his point, it is my understanding that there is a consensus, and I am about to outline what I understand to be the consensus, which will require unanimous consent, in my understanding of the rules. If there is such unanimous consent then we can proceed on that basis. If there is not, then we will have to proceed on the only other basis available to us.

The consultations to which I referred behind the Chair, as it were, have produced an arrangement which I understand to be this, and in accordance with what has been our practice I shall state it and then if my friend from Grand Bank feels I have erred - it will not be deliberately erring on my part, but if I have erred - he would correct me, and equally my friend from St. John's East. I have spoken with both of them this morning, of course.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we will go into committee, of course. Members will be able to speak as often as they can catch the Chairman's eye - more than once, more than twice, as often as they can catch the Chairman's eye. Secondly, no member may speak at any one time for more than ten minutes. Thirdly, the debate will conclude at 10:00 p.m., and we will not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. - the debate will conclude at 10:00 p.m. - or earlier if all who wish to speak have spoken, but if at any time before that there is still somebody who wishes to speak then we will go ahead and carry on at 10:00 p.m., at which time all the questions necessary to dispose of any matters at committee stage, and to deal with the final committee stage consideration of the bill, will be dealt with.

Now if that is acceptable to the House, and in my view it should be, as one member of the House, but only one member, then we are prepared to proceed on that basis, and in that case as soon as we move into substantive business I would call the order for committee stage; and secondly we will not have to ask the House to deal with the motion to invoke Standing Order 50 which my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so kindly moved on Friday morning, at my request. But Your Honour, that is my suggestion. I believe that meets the legitimate needs of the government and I believe it meets the legitimate concerns of members on both sides who wish to participate in this debate and this will give us an opportunity to do so, sir.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader has stated the offer correctly. I have full understanding of what is involved here with a ten minute maximum debating time. Members can speak as many times as they so desire if the Chair recognizes them and the deadline for conclusion will be 10:00 p.m. and we concur.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would just record my agreement to that, Your Honour, that is the understanding on which I was coming here this afternoon, that that would be agreed unanimously.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what we have been asked to do this afternoon is to make an agreement which gives us the rights that I believe we have in this House in accordance with the rules. Government is using the closure rule and a closure motion to try to control this House, to restrict members from speaking on the most important debate perhaps that we could ever have in this House, which is the structure of this Assembly.

The Premier may find it amusing, Mr. Speaker, but I assure him the people of this Province, who feel very strongly about democracy in our parliament, do not find it very amusing at all. The Premier may - if he finds it amusing I suggest, he find some other place to keep himself.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a mockery, it is a travesty of justice of the rules of this House, it is an abuse of the rules and the rights and the privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker. We are being asked now in order to find an agreement that is acceptable that allows members the right that I believe they have, which is to speak as often as they want in committee stage on a very important piece of legislation. We have been bamboozled by the Government House Leader in accepting some sort of an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINDSOR: I am just about to conclude and to advise you of that, Your Honour, of your tolerance for thirty seconds.

As I say, I think that this is a gross travesty of justice and I think it is a disgrace to the House of Assembly and the whole procedure, Mr. Speaker, but out of respect for my colleagues I will concur with their agreement.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. gentlemen for their understanding and gracious acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, there are two preliminary matters. I wonder first of all, if we could simply call for leave to introduce Motions 5 and 6, that is leave to introduce two bills. I don't know if either is ready for distribution yet but if you can call them, sir, we can move them ahead - five and six.

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

MR. ROBERTS: May I, in accordance with the relevant statutory requirement, declare that I have an interest in matters dealt with by Bill No. 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have had absolutely nothing to do with it at any stage through the process but in a previous existence I represented, in a professional capacity, a group which is involved in the matters put forth but I have had - and the interest is not new, I have declared it here many times over the last couple of years. I shall take no part obviously in the debate or decision with respect to the bill. Your Honour, I would move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, please which is committee stage on the redistribution bill.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 31, Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I made some comments in Committee on Friday on the Bill and have some further comments today, particularly with the procedure and the overall thrust of what is happening. I have certainly gone on record as disagreeing with a token effort of a four seat reduction which will save us probably $400,000 and spend another $400,000 on the committee. This government gave the impression way back that they would make significant changes that would enable this House of Assembly to be restructured in line with the population of our Province and in line with the fiscal times in which we live today.

We are living in very trying times, as I am sure the Minister of Finance is very much aware, and to come back to forty-eight seats in the House is only a token effort for us to bear our part of the burden of reducing costs to government. Government is too big, it is a bloated bureaucracy. We have been hearing in the media that there are 1500 vehicles within government, and we have been hearing about increased numbers of expenditures. We have not decreased the public service in total expenditures at all. We have been adding on temporary staff when looking at salaries. We have not been reducing expenditures. Our expenditures have been rising in this Province in a time of fiscal restraint.

We should make more than a symbolic effort. We should eliminate at least twelve seats in this Province and we would still have an average of about fourteen hundred thousand people per district in this Province. Now, that is not too much to expect when there are districts out there now with many, many, more people than that. This government, this House, is not prepared to bite the bullet when they are asking frontline workers in health care, in education, and everywhere else, and in municipalities, but they are not willing to do it here themselves. Protect your own turf. That is what we are doing. That is the thrust of government.

Back in the fall of 1992, in a Ministerial Statement, this government expressed its intention to appoint an independent commission to look at the redistribution of seats in this Province. That was December 4, 1992. This particular committee consisted of five people, a chairperson appointed by the Chief Justice of this Province, and on August 27, 1993 they released a proposal that divided this Province into forty districts. They went around and had a series of forty public hearings to listen to what the people in the Province had to say. The people in the Province went to those public hearings and passed their comments. They were well attended as indicated in the submission, but at the thirty second meeting, after spending $250,000, the Minister of Justice went out to Clarenville and said to the committee, after a working order, a forty proposal, it wasn't a report but a proposal, telling him that the mandate should not be forty - and they were given forty to forty-six but they chose forty, he said, it should start at forty-six and work back, take a higher number on that scale.

The commission, with eight public meetings still left for the Province, were given a different direction and a different mandate. Now, this committee went out around the Province and again came back with a forty-four seat proposal again, and this forty-four seat proposal came back, it was on February 25, '94, and on this forty-four seat proposal, they went around and held public hearings around the Province again, much less the numbers of hearings the second time around, but you had it open to the public to hear what the public had to say.

They came back and they presented to this House, a report and that report that was tabled in this House, included forty-four seats in the Province. Still, government wasn't happy with forty-four seats, it would impact too heavily upon many members' districts, I think, seven out of eight members would be negatively affected from that side of the House, one from this side of the House. They interfered with the process and didn't bring that to the House of Assembly here for discussion and for the House of Assembly to approve or make amendments here in the House.

Instead, what happened was, the Minister of Justice went out and took a lawyer in his department, who is subject to him in his department, to draft up a proposal with different scenarios and they asked - they wanted to brief us on it, brief our caucus on what is happening, brief the Liberal caucus on what's happening. We should not have interfered at all in that process, it was a judge - Judge Mahoney was duly appointed by the Chief Justice, the minister went out and obtained, or went judge-shopping, got another judge, not appointed by the Chief Justice, appointed here, by the ministry, to go out and do a report that is contrary to the legislation we have here, that indicates a report to the House should be filed by an appointee, a chairperson appointed by the Chief Justice.

They violated that, they manipulated the process in electoral boundaries, and I feel very strongly that we should accept what the Judge who was duly appointed, an independent judge, mentioned; and in my district, it would have been a huger district geographically but, I would have accepted and tolerated it, it would have been a huge district, taking in most of St. Mary's and into Ferryland, almost all that's there now would be spread out geographically with fifty-some communities.

If you look at the number of communities with all the town councils and recreation commissions and all the committees you have to deal with, it would be a tremendous amount of work; fire departments, et cetera; but, I believe strongly, we shouldn't interfere with that process, it should be an arm's length, independent process that should come back here and be adopted in the House of Assembly. But we are not dealing with that report now; we are dealing with a manipulated report, a report that was given and briefed to caucuses before the judge came back with the report, with the scenarios, different things, what they wanted and they struck the boundaries and gave references that were contrary. They were contrary to what the general intent was in the beginning and I don't think that's proper.

If you look across this country, Newfoundland is as hard-hit a province as any in this country and if you look at electoral reform across this country, you will see that only Saskatchewan has a 5 per cent variation from the quotient in Saskatchewan, and he did make an allowance for two northern ridings and the fifty-six southern ridings had to fall within that, but all other provinces, from British Columbia with no deviation from the quotient at all, we have other provinces that went up to 60 per cent deviation and I will just make reference to a few provinces, just to touch on a few things that are happening in other provinces.

Let us take New Brunswick, for example. The average district voter population was 9411, there is now going to be an alteration. They have a 25 per cent deviation from the quotient. We reduced ours to ten. In Manitoba, for example, in certain areas they made distinctions. They have districts that deviate a reasonable degree from the quotient up to 25 per cent or more in some cases in Manitoba.

If you look at Alberta, for example, Alberta has districts that vary - I am looking at a few districts here, 45.9 per cent, 48.6 per cent in certain instances. The average district population in Alberta is 30,788 people, a province that's much wealthier than our Province, I believe the wealthiest province in Canada in terms of resources and their debt and their ability to control that debt, and here we have to function with only 40-some per cent of the people in a district that a wealthy province like Alberta has to do. I think we should be willing to bear a fair share of the cuts by elected members here in the Province and not asking front-line workers all around.

I mean, a cut of twelve would save us in the vicinity of $1.5 million this year and next year and forever. The ability of the Province to finance that, $1.5 million, would escalate at a going rate of another $100,000 to finance that each year. Take that for one year, $100,000 in ten years, we would have it over double again. We would be up to $2.5 million, $3 million debt because of not making the appropriate cuts here in the House of Assembly. That goes on forever as long as we have a debt, unless we eliminate the debt completely. Then it only becomes a one-time or a short-term cost. It is going to be a cost forever.

I think we have to look at a little common sense, a little bit of restraint, as members here in this House. We shouldn't expect people around the Province to do something that we aren't prepared to do. We haven't been prepared to take our fair share of the cuts here in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) need to get some clarification. My understanding is, I think, that most of the amendments are probably going to take place in the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Most of the amendments are actually - so we need to pass along until we get to the schedule of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Okay. But if members are speaking now to propose amendments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

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

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, now, I am not going to finish up in ten minutes, but I understood - you know, I have an amendment that I wish to make and (inaudible) as I go along, so I am going to speak for ten minutes, but I don't think I will get to the amendment stage of this before I speak.

MR. ROBERTS: Are you going to lay out the introduction, then the next time you are recognized -

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

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the districts.

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

MR. GILBERT: So it could be 12:00 a.m. Alright, I will sit down and let the Government House Leader speak.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, as a suggestion, we have in the bill seven clauses and then we have the schedule. I understand the amendments will be in the schedule. Somebody may have amendments to the clauses themselves. I think it is simply a matter of how we, as a Committee, wish to approach it. The most logical way would simply be to start at 1 and carry - I assume you've called clause 1, Your Honour. Clause 1 -

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

MR. ROBERTS: We could simply move through 1 through 7 in the usual way and then deal with the schedule. Or if the Committee prefers - and I'm in the hands of the Chair and the Committee - there is no reason that I can think of why we can't start with the schedule. I mean, we have to deal with them all before we can report. I have no problem, if that is the wish of the Committee, to suggest that Your Honour let clause 1 stand for the moment and call the schedule. Then the clerks can advise you whether that is appropriate - but in my judgement it is, and then members could get up and then have their ten and ten.

I understand my friend, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir figures he will need more than ten minutes. That is fine. All he has to do is get recognized more than once, and that shouldn't be difficult. He is a big, tall man and easy to see. So we could move on. I mean, I know there are amendments to the schedules, and let's deal with them. That will leave us then whatever time is left to deal with 1 through 7 before we conclude for the evening. If that is acceptable, let's do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it is my understanding that we could revert and do it backwards. We have a tendency for doing that sort of thing. We will start with the schedule and then go back to the clauses afterwards.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if that is going to be more awkward or less awkward than another procedure. It seems to me that I don't think we are going to vote on any of the amendments, in any event, until the end of the day, whenever that comes. Would it not be appropriate for members when they are speaking to essentially give notice of their amendments and put them before the House so that the Chair then has the amendments there, and when we get to the point of voting, I don't think there is going to be any debate on the specific amendments at the time of the vote, then all the amendments can be put one after the other and the vote can take it. So if the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has an amendment he can give notice of it while he is speaking, and then at some point it can be produced for the Table and not formally moved, in fact, until later on this evening when it is time for a vote that it is accepted as having been moved and seconded at that time, and we don't have to start this artificial thing of talking about a schedule and then someone maybe reverting to clause one or two or three. I think it seems to be artificial to do it that way. The real intent here seems to be that everybody gets their motions on the Table, and then, at some point in the evening, we will be voting on them all. I would suggest that as a procedure, if it is acceptable to the Table, as a way of operating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was just looking for some direction because, in my understanding, there could be quite a number of amendments and we just wanted to make sure that it was all straight and that -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). Well, I am easy. If you want to do it the other way, fine, deal with clause 1, and I would say to my friend, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, he can either speak now and begin his presentation or wait until we get to the schedule, as he prefers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the Government House Leader didn't listen to what I said. What I suggested was that we operate on clause 1, which we normally do, where members can talk about any aspect of the bill altogether, and if the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir wants to, in his speech, give notice of an amendment, lay it on the Table, and it will be formally moved at the time of the vote later on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I think we should follow the pattern as proposed by the Member for St. John's East. I think it makes a lot of sense. Members can give notice of their amendment and then we will deal with it when we get to the schedules.

There is just one thing I would like clarified. When we get to the districts, I guess all we are going to do is read the name of the district; we are not going to read the whole description.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Good heavens, no.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Right; so we just call the name of the district and then a member will stand and make the appropriate amendment, if one is proposed, pertaining to a respective district, as I understand it. I think that is the way we should proceed. I don't see it as being any being any big problem or delay. I think we will move through it fairly quickly.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Far be it from me, in this hour of good feelings, to say anything other than that I concur.

There is one point with respect to the schedule I can advise members about now. As I said at second reading, the names in many cases, and I tabled a list of them, have been changed from those suggested by Judge Noel, and my list gives, if you wish, Judge Noel's name and the name in the bill so members can compare.

It has been pointed out to me, by people who read the schedules with perspicacity and application, that there are errors in the schedule in that - take, for example, Judge Noel suggested a constituency to be called Avalon Centre; that now appears, I believe, as Harbour Main - Whitbourne in the bill. There are, in the detailed text to the schedules, in the metes and bounds descriptions of the constituencies, references to Avalon Centre. I am told by the law clerks that those are editorial errors, assuming the Committee passes the name of Harbour Main - Whitbourne, and that the law clerks will pick these up when they prepare the bill for final publication as an act, so members need not be concerned about that. I notice those, as I said, with perspicacity, some of them have approached me and said so, so that is not a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The suggestion by the hon. the Member for St. John's East is a good one, and I guess that is the one we will follow in that hon. members will table their amendments and introduce them at the appropriate time when we get to the particular district that is under discussion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the spirited welcome by the Minister of Education and Training.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't speak in second reading of this bill, and I didn't for a very specific reason. I felt that I might be influenced by some of the personal concerns that I have about this, because the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, under this redistribution, is going to disappear, the district that I happen to represent at this time. So, if I spoke and expressed some views that were somewhat controversial, people would say I was speaking out of my personal concern. I didn't want to do that and I want to point out that I recognize government actually has to, every ten years, draft up a redistribution of seats, and that is not going to please everybody. Out of the three versions I saw, there was one that would have pleased me, the forty-six seat version. That gave three seats to the South Coast; however, the one that government finally had the wisdom to present has raised a lot of concerns, not only with me, but with some of the people in my district, so I am going to try to narrow it down to the concerns that were expressed by the people of my district.

When I appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission, one of the things I pointed out was, you have been given instructions to treat the South Coast in a different way, the same way you would the Coast of Labrador, and I say to you, whatever you do be sure to put the communities of Burgeo, Ramea, and Grey River in the same grouping because historically and traditionally this has been the way. The Ramea town council on March 2, 1994 took the opportunity to write the Electoral Boundaries Commission before I appeared, and I am going to table this letter in the House later on today. I think the letter from the Ramea town council sort of sums up the main thrust I am going to be talking about here today. The second paragraph of that letter says: Historically, traditionally, geographically, Ramea has always been tied to the town of Burgeo and the area to the west. We have the same concerns and issues, and both communities are dependent upon each other. Every government service is combined in the two communities. For example, the Ramea-Burgeo-Grey River ferry service, the Western Integrated School Board, the Western Memorial Hospital Corporation, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Fisheries, the RCMP, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs are all in the western region.

Then they say: With the present transportation system, it would be much cheaper for one government member to cover the area than for two. If you split Ramea and Burgeo you will double the cost for each district visit. One member would have to travel 146 kilometres over the Trans-Canada to see his constituents in Burgeo and the other member who is representing the eastern district would have to fly to Stephenville, then drive to Burgeo, and get a ferry to go to Ramea and Grey River. What they are saying is that it would seem to be much easier and much more sensible to have the communities of Ramea and Grey River into the proposed district we have here now under the forty-eight configuration, the district of Burgeo - LaPoile.

This letter was written to the Electoral Boundaries Commission and as I said, I think this is the one that should be adhered to, and somehow or other, in the Noel Report this didn't happen. On May 19 I took the opportunity to write the Premier and I pointed out the directions that were given under the Electoral Boundaries Act of 1992, that the communities of interest, the residents of those communities in the Province that are not connected by road, including those communities along the Coast of Labrador and the Southwest Coast of the Island portion of the Province should be taken into consideration and given special consideration.

Then I also pointed out that under the instructions given to Commissioner Noel, the commissioner may recommend the creation of one district, or two districts, if the commissioner is of the opinion that the two districts should enable more reasonable transportation access, located in whole or in part of that portion of the Southwest Coast of the Island of Newfoundland from Petites to Rencontre East, and so on. But the more reasonable transportation access is the one I want to stress here.

Now, what happened was that Commissioner Noel chose to ignore the recommendation of the MC which set him up and he took the occasion - and the Coast of Labrador he took into consideration - he didn't take in the variance because in the Southern Labrador seat it is minus 53 per cent less than the variance. On the South Coast they cut out a seat and they drew a line according to the population variance and without any consultation, Ramea and Grey River ended up in the district that is now going to be referred to as Fortune -Hermitage Bays.

In the letter that I wrote to the Premier I also included, not only the letter from Ramea which I have already referred to, but I included the letters from the local service district of Grey River which said essentially the same as the Ramea letter did and a letter from the town council of Burgeo which said essentially the same thing. So by those three letters in the district that I now represent, the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, that is in excess of 50 per cent of the people who live in that district, who live in those three communities. So I feel that there is a legitimate reason to have these two communities of Ramea and Grey River added to the District of Burgeo - LaPoile.

Now, when we talk about those areas - and we are into a situation right now where we are talking about the concerns of the people who live in the communities of Ramea and Grey River and the fact that they want to be and have been traditionally and historically in the same district as Burgeo - I feel right now that this is the only sensible way to handle that. Now, I know that what they are saying about it is it doesn't - if you are going to talk about the strict rules that were put in place, the variance, if you are going to include Ramea and Grey River in the Burgeo - LaPoile district based on the 1991 census, there are going to be 679 people over the variance established by Commissioner Noel. Now, this, in itself is - I don't think it is significant in this particular case because if you are to - well, this is based on the 1991 census. Now, since that time, I have checked with the community of Ramea, checked with the town clerk and I asked him and he tells me that the population of Ramea has decreased by approximately 150 people - 150-164; 164 he gave me but he said 150 would be safer. The Burgeo town manager tells me between 200-240 people have left Burgeo. So I would assume that in the other areas of that western district from Rose Blanche to Port aux Basques, we would have the same sort of decrease. So when we are talking about a 1991 census in saying that it is 600 people over the 1991 census, in actual fact, I say to this House that those figures are now ghosts, they have gone. So, in other words, the 1996 census will say that this district, with the communities of Grey River and Ramea added to it, will meet the variance that was set up in the Noel recommendation.

I don't see that - because of the fact that the line was drawn, it just doesn't make sense to me, as a member who has represented that district since 1985, that with the division and cutting out one district, we have now two districts on the South Coast. The western district which is going to be Burgeo - LaPoile is an easy district to manage when you take into consideration the fact that the member, whoever he is, can fly to Stephenville, take his car, he can drive to Port aux Basques and he can drive to the Burgeo end and by adding Ramea, Grey River, there is a regular ferry service that he can go to Ramea and back in a day and he can go Grey River and back in a day. So it is much simpler and much more economically feasible to operate that district this way than the proposed way.

What they have done now by taking the District of Fortune - Hermitage Bays -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple of minutes to finish up.

MR. GILBERT: Well, I will finish up in a couple of minutes at this point. What I am saying is, the member who represents that Fortune - Hermitage district will have to leave here, go to Gander, drive to Bay d'Espoir and then out to Harbour Breton and Hermitage, come back, drive to Gander, get on a plane, go to Stephenville, get a car, go down to Burgeo have nothing to do in Burgeo, get a ferry go to Ramea, go to Grey River come back and do it again, so it just doesn't make sense the way this line is drawn now even though the population variance in the 1991 census says there are 600 people over. I say that these people are now ghosts because they have moved out.

Right now, if you were to take a census out there today, it will fit the variance that's there. So, at this point, I am going to give notice, that I will, at the appropriate time, present an amendment which will change the boundaries of the District of Burgeo - LaPoile and the District of Fortune - Hermitage. And what this amendment will do is, it will take the communities of Ramea and Grey River and include it in the District of Burgeo - LaPoile and it will take the two communities of Ramea and Grey River out of the Fortune and Hermitage Bays district.

I am moving an amendment on this district and my colleague, the present Member for Fortune - Hermitage has agreed to be the seconder for this amendment. I am prepared now to submit this to the Chair for its examination, so I will do this at this time and I will conclude at the time that the schedule is called.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in the House of Assembly on Thursday, I asked the government to make change to its electoral boundary distribution legislation to permit the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in a single district known as Grand Falls - Windsor. I think, Mr. Chairman, that dividing the town so soon after amalgamation is a bad idea. I believe there is a great danger in dividing the newly amalgamated Town of Grand Falls - Windsor as the legislation proposes.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of positives with the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor. Grand Falls - Windsor is one of the best places in the country to live; in fact, a couple of years ago it was listed as one of the top ten towns in the country, and since Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live, Grand Falls - Windsor is one of the best towns in the world to live.

There are many other positives about Grand Falls - Windsor. The amalgamation has brought people together and it is a shame that the new House of Assembly Act will divide the town. Legislation covering the setting of electoral boundaries in other provinces recognizes the importance of keeping towns together, because the people have common issues and interests and prefer to speak through one voice.

Mr. Chairman, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor has become recognized over the years as the host of one of the major events in this Province and in this country. The Salmon Festival is a huge tourist draw. It can draw anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people during that weekend of the festival and, Mr. Chairman, Grand Falls - Windsor is also a service centre for all of Central Newfoundland and if we want to look at, say from the Baie Verte Peninsula to the South Coast, to Lewisporte. Mr. Chairman, the future looks good for the town and for the town's major employer, Abititbi-Price. As the new newsprint industry abounds, we must ensure we take care of our forestry resources by doing more in the way of silviculture at Wooddale and at other places.

Mr. Chairman, the government's legislation, as proposed, will place part of the town in the proposed district of Grand Falls - Buchans, part in the district of Windsor - Springdale, and about ten houses or so from Grenfell Heights, part of the current District of Grand Falls, would be placed in Exploits district. According to the 1991 census figures, the population of Grand Falls - Windsor was 14,693. This is approximately 1,300 people above the 10 per cent variance, an amount that would be more than acceptable in many other provinces.

It is my intent today, and I give notice now, that I will be putting forth a motion to amend the schedule to Bill No. 31, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act, to change the boundaries of the districts of Grand Falls - Buchans and Exploits to include the following changes in the boundary description:

For the district of Grand Falls - Buchans, a line running east along the said parallel of 49o North Latitude to its intersection with the Meridian of 55o33' West Longitude; thence running along the western boundary of the district to Exploits, south along the said Meridian of 55o33' West Longitude to the intersection with the centre line of the Trans-Canada Highway.

The change for the district of Exploits:

A line running in a general north-easterly direction along the centre line of the Trans-Canada Highway to the intersection with the Meridian of 55o33' West Longitude; and running north along the said Meridian of 55o33' West Longitude to its intersection with the parallel of 49o North Latitude.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Table already has a schedule for the boundary description as it pertains to Grand Falls - Buchans and to Exploits.

My reason for putting forth this amendment was to accommodate the ten or so houses at the lower end of Grenfell Heights which is now in the District of Exploits. Since this impacts fractionally on part of the District of Exploits it is my understanding that the hon. Member for Exploits already supports this minor adjustment. For those who may have been sitting in the House during the mid-1980s, they may recall that Mr. Simms, former Member for the District of Grand Falls, presented a petition on behalf of those ten or so families at the lower end of Grenfell Heights, and that was accepted. Furthermore, I think that Mr. Justice Noel intended that these ten or eleven homes would be included in the District of Grand Falls. This does not affect the 10 per cent variance of the provincial average. It is in the vicinity of thirty people or so who live in that area.

I want to serve notice now that I will be moving an amendment to change the said boundaries as described herein and of which the Table has a copy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words at this stage of the debate as well. The citizens of Central Newfoundland, northeast coast, Green Bay area, are, to put it mildly, somewhat confused as to just what is going on. Certainly, leading up to today, in conversations I've had with the hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans, conversations the Member for Grand Falls has had with him, and indications from the hon. the Government House Leader, it appeared that there would be a significant amendment concerning the seats of Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans.

My colleague, the Member for Grand Falls, gave notice of an amendment there a few moments ago with regard to a handful of houses on the border between the Districts of Grand Falls and Exploits and that doesn't appear to be a major problem. But the Member for Windsor - Buchans had indicated to people in this House, and to the Government House Leader, that he was planning a substantial rearrangement of the borders comprising the Districts of Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans, as laid out by Judge Noel.

Subsequently to all this I had a conversation briefly in the corridor with the Member for Windsor - Buchans a few moments ago, and he indicates to me now that he has since reassessed his position with regard to the District of Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans, and is not going to go with the change. So as far as I understand now, unless the Member for Windsor - Buchans stands and indicates otherwise, the report brought in by Judge Noel as it affects Windsor - Springdale and Grand Falls - Buchans will stand, and that the shifting of the borders within that population envelope of some twenty odd thousand people will not change except for the minor amendment being proposed by my colleague from Grand Falls.

Mr. Chairman, what has gone on here in regard to this, I think, is indicative of the embarrassment that the Liberal Party feels with regard to this mess that it has created regarding electoral boundaries, and in Central Newfoundland for the Liberal Party it is nothing short of an embarrassing mess. The Town of Grand Falls - Windsor was recently amalgamated at a considerable cost of money, and in terms of grief and agony involved in the public debate that went on over some time, but amalgamated they are, and there was much hue and cry from the council in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor and the citizens generally that the town now amalgamated was again going to be split along the borderline of the railway tracks that had long separated the two communities. Well, if the Member for Windsor - Buchans does not bring forward the amendment that he said he was going to bring forward, then I guess the railway tracks are again the border between Windsor and Grand Falls.

Mr. Chairman, the petitions I have presented in this House have been from the people of Green Bay who do not want their district to be split, so it is academic to the people of Green Bay whether Green Bay adds Badger, Buchans, a small piece of Windsor or the majority of Windsor, to Green Bay. That, to them, is academic. We could add a chunk of Mars as far as the people in Green Bay are concerned. They are concerned with the fact that their district is being divvied up in this border realignment, and they do not want to have some of the citizens of Green Bay on the Baie Verte side of the border and some of the citizens of Green Bay on the Windsor - Springdale side of the border. So, all I can say is that out of this exercise has come considerable confusion for the people in the central Newfoundland area, and obviously in terms of the Liberal Party some considerable damage to its reputation that it would so ardently foster the amalgamation of Grand Falls and Windsor into one town called Grand Falls - Windsor, and then through the electoral process, in which it had its fingers directly in the pie on an ongoing basis, somehow not having sufficient manipulatory ability with regard to those fingers, to actually work it so that the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor became one electoral seat in that process.

Mr. Chairman, the current population of Grand Falls - Windsor is approximately 1,800 to 2,000 people above the magic number as designated by the government and given to Judge Noel to work things out. The previous final report of the independent commission recognized this and asked that this House make an exception to make Grand Falls - Windsor one seat, as it asked the House to make an exception to have an additional seat in Labrador. The House somehow had no problem accommodating that particular request, but it refused to accommodate the request of making Grand Falls - Windsor one whole seat.

Mr. Chairman, when Judge Mahoney had his first mandate and produced a forty seat House, he had Grand Falls - Windsor as one seat, he had Green Bay - Buchans as one seat, and there was no need for people in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be added to Green Bay - Buchans. Because he had plus or minus 25 per cent he had the flexibility to behave within certain mathematical considerations, but those were wide enough to take into account community of interest. Unfortunately, given the plus or minus 10 per cent and a forty-eight seat House, community of interest goes out the window except on the Labrador Peninsula, Mr. Chairman. That is what has happened here and that is the embarrassing mess that this Liberal Party has created in Central Newfoundland. So it has been on again off again, on again off again for quite some time and now the Member for Windsor - Buchans is not bringing forward his amendment.

So, as I understand it now, at the end of the day this House will be voting on the district of Windsor - Springdale which involves the northern communities in Green Bay being put in with Bay Verte District, Springdale, South Brook to Brighton and the greater part of the former town of Windsor being one district. The rest of the former town of Windsor, all of the former town of Grand Falls, Badger and Buchans being put together to form a new seat called Grand Falls - Buchans. That was what Judge Noel recommended which was different then what the government official briefed us on before Christmas. So there has been considerable confusion, all of which could have been taken care of, Mr. Chairman, had the government accepted Judge Mahoney's recommendation that an exception to the rule be made and Grand Falls - Windsor town be made, Grand Falls - Windsor seat even though it was 2,000 people over the limit.

So here we are, Mr. Chairman, early in last week we thought there was going to be a major change in the boundaries inside the town of Grand Falls - Windsor. The public knew it, the Government House Leader knew it and today nobody knows it and we can only hope, Mr. Chairman, that there will not be any more gyrations out of Central Newfoundland with regard to the boundaries until such time as this matter is settled. Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, this is a genuine mess which has come about because the government was not content to accept the report of an independent commission. It involved itself in an ongoing manipulation process and as a result we have the mess we see before us today.

In my case, a coastal seat mixed with part of a large interior town, limited community of interest, certainly widespread geography but, as for myself, should I seek renomination in Windsor - Springdale come the next election, which I expect I will, Mr. Chairman, then obviously I have to get to know a large number of people in what is the former town of Windsor. I welcome the opportunity. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that I have sufficient time to go door to door in the former town of Windsor because one has to wonder if this particular government, in its rush to get this particular bill through the House, may not be planning a quick trip to the electoral route and going to the people this spring before bringing down a budget. One has to wonder if there will be anything left of this government if they finally got to bring down a real budget which may well be the case, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to have the opportunity just to arise for a few moments again to reiterate what I have said before, forty-eight seats in a time of restraint is not nearly good enough. Forty-eight seats means nothing. Forty-eight seats does not mean anything to the front line workers that have been picked off since 1991; nurses, nursing assistants, janitors, secretaries. The cuts should start here as an example and spread through the administration to show them that we mean business. You never ask anybody else to do what you don't do yourself.

We seen back two years ago that there was a proposal in for forty seats and then the scrambling started. Bay of Islands was knocked out, the seat was and the Premier had to go look at it. We see Bellevue, that disappeared. Drastic changes to Eagle River because finally they had to come across the straits and there were others across this Province. That was not good enough. They were as busy as one-armed nailers for a few days and there was interference by the ministry. You cannot kill the messenger but the messenger was the Minister of Justice who went to Clarenville on behalf of the ministry we were told, and they go it up, up to forty-four but that wasn't good enough either. So then they were talking about forty-six and now, there are forty-eight. After $400,000 going down the toilet, wasted, we are back talking about - and the numbers will go through, you have the numbers to shove forty-eight seats through to save a minimum amount of money and that is not good enough for the people of this Province, not good enough. But then again, interference by this Premier is not a new matter.

Let me go back, Mr. Chairman, to quite a number of years ago. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, when they were saying goodbye to J.R. and there was a leadership on the go, a leadership of the Liberals where the present Minister of Justice was running against Tom Burgess, a Mr. Vince Spencer and a Mr. Rod Moores, but during that weekend, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) weekend.

MR. CAREEN: I was having a better weekend, I was working somewhere else I must say, but during that weekend, the present Premier, a Corner Brook lawyer who had quit the Liberals as Labour Minister in 1968, after a dispute with Mr. Smallwood, on that Tuesday, prior to this convention, that neither Mr. Burgess or Mr. Shea should be accepted into the caucus of the Liberal Party. He was interfering back then, and they were expecting some time that afternoon, a motion would be brought forward to oust Mr. Burgess and Hugh Shea from the Liberal Party.

Informed sources said that a meeting was then on the way between the Liberal delegates from Labrador West and Mr. Clyde Wells to discuss strategy, but then it goes on, and this is supposed to be in conjunction with the leadership and a farewell to J. R. Not J. R. Ewing I must say, the other J. R., J. R. Smallwood, but anyway, that day for an interview by Mr. Smallwood concerning Mr. Wells, Mr. Smallwood said: Mr. Wells shows very little hesitation in advising Liberals what they should do. During the election he offered his advice repeatedly to the Liberals of this Province. His advice to them was that they should all vote Tory. If the Liberals had listened to him then, there would not be any Liberals in the House of Assembly today. There would be forty-two Tories, added Mr. Smallwood, Liberals did not take his advice last October and I doubt that they will do so now. That was at the leadership for the Justice Minister. The present Justice Minister had run for leadership against Burgess, Spencer and Rod Moores, a number of years ago, but the former Premier, Mr. Smallwood, had known whom he was dealing with; he was known at the time but he was being interfered with then because he was on his way out.

Now we see, other, high interference coming from the Premier now, Chairman of the Board to just forty-eight seats but his seat is protected. Either he is running again and probably there will be a snap election, probably that educational referendum is gathering a bit of dust and some time this spring, before Budget, a snap election will be called and blaming Ottawa; that's a proper thing in Newfoundland, to blame Ottawa at times, blame Canada.

Well, that's what we see here, gearing up for an election. A possibility but the other shame is that in a time of restraint an example is not being set by this House. I will find a job somewhere, it makes no difference, I, as an individual, I will find a job and it won't be any political patronage job either. I will find something between here and Vancouver like a lot of my other Island countrymen had to find. As the CBC reporter had coined, and a good term it is, and a sad one, Newfoundlanders in exile.

Anyway, these forty-eight seats, the Commission had heard thirty two-hearings. Then it was interfered with. After all of that it was up to forty-four. Then it was asked to interfere again, and the judge at that time, Judge Mahoney, refused to have anything else to do with it. Then they found the civil servant and then they found the judge.

It is amazing that the people of this Province are not yelling and screaming about what is going on in this area. Probably they are fed up. Probably they know, or think they know, that questioning will not be listened to, questions will not be answered. But they should remember that their outcry about Hydro, of which this government wasted anywhere from $6 million to $10 million, was stopped by public opinion. They should remember, Mr. Chairman, that public opinion - no matter who the government, they respond to numbers.

We saw what happened to Klein and his health cuts when they started to march out in Alberta. They weren't long changing their minds. It is not too late here today. We are beyond the eleventh hour, but the best causes sometimes are the lost causes. It is something to fight for, it is something to demand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: `Old blubber' is at it again. More blubber. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a few licks in, that if there is a fight on you should participate. If there are cuts being demanded of the people the representatives should be cut too. Not by four seats but cut her by twelve. Wasting $400,000 and not doing anything about it, and a minimal saving, is a dirty rotten shame. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the course of debate on this particular piece of legislation I've risen twice from my seat to speak to the legislation, and I will just take a few moments to further reiterate some of my thoughts for the record, and for those who wish to hear it, and for those who I guess do not wish to hear it.

I supported an independent boundary commission being put in place - I supported that privately, I support it publicly -, and that the results coming from the boundary commission be implemented without delay. Independently, without looking at it a second, third, fourth or fifth time. The other thing I supported that was not within the Commission's mandate was a greater degree of variance in terms of the population and the quotient, that it be given to those districts which are wholly or mostly residing in rural Newfoundland.

The reality is that most members who represent rural districts in this Province today have a far greater workload than members who represent urban districts in the Province. There are many reasons for that. It has always been that way, and as long as there are rural and urban districts in this Province it will always be that way. Just the nature of coastline, the amount of geography from point A to point B that members have to travel in rural Newfoundland, provides serious limitations in the way in which they can represent their district, as compared to my district which is, parts of it, rural, but all within a half hour to forty-five minute drive. I can get to any place within half an hour, to the furthest point within half an hour. Most rural members cannot.

My colleague for Baie Verte - White Bay is a great example. Twenty-one different communities, twenty-one different town councils, twenty-one different Kinsmen clubs, twenty-one different Lions clubs. The amount of work that is generated from his district as compared to mine, there is no comparison. My district is a busy one, but I live in it each and every day. I do not have to move outside my district when the House of Assembly is open, and do most of my business by phone. I can still conduct that, and get it done personally. Members from rural Newfoundland cannot. I think that is where the government failed ultimately in the boundary commission, that they did not give the commissioners the latitude, a greater variance that would see, I guess, more reality reflected in the types of districts, and take into consideration the workload that rural representatives have to face.

Having said all that, it is obvious at the end of the day, and that day being today, that we will end up with a forty-eight seat proposal, and I would like to give notice now that I will be putting forth an amendment to the District of Kilbride, based mostly upon the boundary line, how it was drawn by the commissioners.

In the western portion of my district, where the district begins, Judge Noel drew a boundary line. He did not take into consideration, in my view, where he was drawing the line. He took into consideration just wholly numbers and the quotient that was given to him, and it is very confusing the way the line was drawn for residents in the District of Kilbride and then, on the other side of the boundary line, residents in the District of Ferryland. I will be making a proposal that will see that line become a lot straighter. As we exist now there is a bridge in Kilbride called Ryans River Bridge that, on the west of the bridge, people who are there reside in Ferryland; on the east side of the bridge, people east of that and further east, live in Kilbride, and that is exactly what my amendment will deal with, a more common sense boundary line on the west end of the district.

It does not change the numbers of people significantly. It is within the quotient as proposed by the government. The Minister of Justice is familiar with it. David Jones, the individual who was charged with the responsibility of dealing with putting together the numbers, has seen it and dealt with it. The cartographer in Crown Lands has dealt with, and the descriptions have been tabled with the Clerk in terms of what they would look like, and when the opportunity arises to get into the amendment portion I will be saying more on it at that time.

Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to rise today to make a few more comments pertaining to this particular issue. Of course, we have said quite a bit here in the House so far but I would like to make a few more points.

As my colleague just mentioned a few times, and I have said it since the beginning of this debate, and before the debate and during commission stages, the difference in urban and rural communities is something that should have been factored in more through this whole discussion, and the commission should have had more latitude to consider those points.

As for my district now, which specifically I will speak of, is going from a total of twenty-two communities, and now with this proposal of forty-eight seats I will end up with thirty-two communities, but not just thirty-two communities but also spread in such a way with effect to the linkage of transportation. What I mean by that is that to drive down the Baie Verte Peninsula now, the twenty-one communities are on the peninsula, all serviced by that main highway that goes down the peninsula. The adding of the ten seats from the Green Bay area will mean that I will have to then travel the Trans-Canada Highway and then go down another stretch of highway toward Springdale to take in the communities of Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove, Langdon's Cove, Nickey's Nose Cove, Rattling Brook, Silverdale, King's Point, Beachside, Little Bay, St. Patricks, and Little Bay Islands.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make mention today in this particular part of the debate that the name which my district would now have under the new proposal would just be called Baie Verte right now. Of course, right now it is referred to as Baie Verte - White Bay District because it referred to the twenty-one communities on the peninsula and also Great Harbour Deep, which I will lose now because that was on the other side of White Bay. So I had one community on the other side of White Bay in my district, and it was called Baie Verte - White Bay, and now I am picking up ten new communities in the Green Bay area, but it will now be referred to as just Baie Verte, and some of the people in that district, as my colleague from Green Bay mentioned on petitions before, will have some problem already that they will be moving from the Green Bay district over to the Baie - Verte White Bay district.

Although it might be minor to many people, Mr. Speaker, those people are concerned, are worried, or are wondering, I guess, you could say as to why the name of just Baie Verte which has no relation to them whatsoever. The twenty-one communities on the Baie Verte Peninsula, fair enough, that part is called Baie Verte and now the district referred to as Baie Verte, but meanwhile I have ten communities from the Green Bay side, the Springdale area which will be part of the district of Baie Verte, and nothing more than Baie Verte, so it is something I would like to mention here today.

Since the beginning of this debate, and I will continue to raise it as an issue with the people in my area, is that if it really was a fair assessment and was done to go to forty-eight seats, because if we were really going to make some change, if the government of the day was really serious about making a reduction and cutting the fat at the top - they did start on the right path by saying there would be a reduction in the House of Assembly, but the real truth is that the people of this Province do not believe it is a significant cut, and the word significant is the most prominent word to use here, Mr. Chairman. A significant cut, fifty-two seats in this House of Assembly down to forty-eight, after two years, after a commission, after $400,000 spent on a commission, no, it is not significant.

Mr. Chairman, I still hold true that the initial commission, the independent commission of forty-four seats, or in fact back to the very early stages when the mandate was forty seats, was the one that should have been accepted, adopted, voted on, and supported by the members of this House of Assembly. That was a more drastic move but it certainly was a more significant move. All members of this House of Assembly would have seen the effects of that. We can see now with the upheaval on the government side, of just going from fifty-two to forty-eight, I can imagine what it would be if we did have to go to forty-four seats, Mr. Chairman.

We would have all taken the blow, all of us together, and accepted the real responsibility and showing real cutting of fat by going from fifty-two to forty-four seats, or indeed to forty seats. The process is what has been tainted, the interference of politics in this, not the real cutting of the fat, not a significant cutting of the fat, but in fact political tinkering to make sure that appeases many people. Of course, Mr. Chairman, what happened here was that the process was tainted and people were left out of the process.

Mr. Chairman, as to the name of my particular district as I speak in this part of the debate I would like to make reference to the fact that the ten communities now being picked up from the Green Bay side in my riding should have some kind of recognition that they are indeed not on the Baie Verte Peninsula, not in a bay called Baie Verte, have nothing to do with Baie Verte, the town of Baie Verte and the Peninsula of Baie Verte, they are cut off really by the Trans-Canada, and there is no symbolism when talking about the ten communities which I will pick up now in the Green Bay area or to do with the Springdale area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern I though I would mention here today, and I will continue to criticize the two major factors here, that there was an insignificant reduction in the number of seats and also that there was political interference and tinkering by the government of the day in this process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: I would like to make a few further points of clarification with regard to the situation in Central Newfoundland. I had an opportunity after I spoke last to confer with Mr. David Jones the solicitor who had the population numbers. The Member for Windsor - Buchans has indicated he is not going to go with an amendment to make a major change in Central Newfoundland to change the current Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans seats to Green Bay - Buchans and Grand Falls - Windsor. The bottom-line on it all, Mr. Chairman, is that the Green Bay - Buchans seat would have taken 2000 Windsor people and the Grand Falls - Windsor seat would have taken roughly 3200 Windsor people.

Under the current scenario that Judge Noel recommended, and I presume we are going with it because the Member for Windsor - Buchans has not brought forward his amendment, the Windsor - Springdale seat will contain the southern part of the existing district of Green Bay and will include roughly 4,500 people from the former Town of Windsor.

The Grand Falls - Buchans seat will obviously include the former Town of Grand Falls, the Badger to Buchans area, and will include nearly 700 Windsor people. So, Mr. Chairman, no matter how you cut it, the former Town of Windsor is being cut in the electoral changes being proposed by this Liberal district, and as I stated earlier, as it goes now, the report that we are currently debating in the House, which I presume will be unamended, will see, approximately 4,500 people from the former Town of Windsor included with the southern part of Green Bay district to form a seat called Windsor - Springdale, and the remaining approximate 700 people in Windsor will be added to the Grand Falls - Buchans seat to form the other seat in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Chairman, this confusion I lay squarely at the doorstep of the Liberal Party. This didn't need to happen. Grand Falls - Windsor could have been one, distinct seat; this government backed away a little bit on a recommendation from a judge to make an exception to his plus or minus 10 per cent rule. The government didn't see fit to do it so no matter how you cut it, Mr. Chairman, the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor and the former Town of Windsor are going to be cut in this boundary change.

Thank you.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am simply going to sum up my views of this bill by saying that, in the lead up to the announcements by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board about $60 million worth of rollbacks, cuts, downloading and other dire measures, we should be here debating a bill that would give effect to the initial Mahoney Commission proposal for a forty district map. Mr. Chairman, instead, what we have, is a measure which reduces by one-third only, the initial proposal of the Mahoney Commission.

Members opposite have suggested that the savings from reducing the Legislature by four seats would be approximately $500,000. In that case, the savings from a reduction of twelve seats would be three times that amount, would be approximately $1.5 million. And, Mr. Chairman, the spending on the Legislature, which is derived through a number of variables, only one of which is the number of members, the spending should be in proportion to total government spending, to the outlay for vital public services, and should be in proportion to the provincial economy.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier tell us that we have a serious fiscal problem. In my view, they have exaggerated the seriousness of the fiscal situation; they are saying that, `come hell or high water', they are going to extract $60 million-worth of cuts or additional revenue in the remaining quarter of the year, yet, they are not doing what was available to them to reduce the cost of operating the House of Assembly. So, Mr. Chairman, this measure is seriously flawed on two counts.

It is flawed in terms of fiscal policy, it represents a double standard, a higher standard for the politicians, a lower standard for the people who are depending on government-funded health and education services, and the process by which the districts were derived, is tainted. It's plain, old-fashioned gerrymandering. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the House of Assembly; we are here discussing the details of the bill in Committee under a gag order, after the government had given notice of a closure motion and we were threatened with debate, on Committee stage of the bill, being cut off this evening.

Mr. Chairman, this issue will not die. Members opposite may hope that by rushing it through the House of Assembly, by using closure twice already, that they may dispense with it quickly, they may expect that voters will forget by the time of the next election, but let me assure all members that the people of this Province will remember this measure come next election. People will realize that the same standard was not applied to determining funding for health and education as was used for the House of Assembly. People will realize that the boundaries were not drawn through an objective, impartial process. They will be reminded of the fact that this proposal, this bill, is contrary to the proposal of the duly authorized Commission, with the Commission's work having cost the taxpayers of the Province $400,000.

This represents an obscene waste of public money - four hundred thousand dollars for a commission whose work the government totally ignored, an opportunity to save approximately $1 million a year which the government shoved aside at the exact same time as they are proceeding to find $60 million in a four-month period. Sixty million dollars annualized, of course, is $180 million.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill in the strongest possible way, on the basis of bad fiscal policy and on the basis of corrupt process.

Thank you, Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have some specific comments on specifics of the act, but first of all, let me outline, since we are talking in general about all of the clauses of the act, what I believe to be the - what we are dealing here today with is the end product of a process that started off under then-existing legislation to be an objective way of having the electoral boundaries be considered by an objective commission chaired by someone appointed not by the government but appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland.

The then-existing act provided that every ten years an electoral boundaries commission would be appointed to be chaired by a judge, a justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, who was to be appointed by the Chief Justice - not by the Premier, not even by the Legislature, certainly not by the Government House Leader, but appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and three other commissioners. The idea was, that would give some impartial view of the creation and changes to boundaries, and the changes that were to be made in those boundaries would be devoid of political motive.

In the appointment of people to the Commission it was clear that the people on the Commission, including the person appointed by the Chief Justice, did have a political history. The Chair himself, appointed by the Chief Justice, was a Liberal member of this House, but has been a Supreme Court Justice for many, many years. Of course, once someone is appointed a Supreme Court Justice, he or she is required to leave their political stripes behind them and act in a totally non-partisan way.

The other three commissioners had a political history - all were candidates for this House of Assembly. Two were sitting members of this House of Assembly for a number of years representing three different political parties, including the New Democratic Party. That was the way the Commission was set up and my understanding is that the Commission, in its operations, was determined to be and was exhorted by the Chair to be non-political and that if political motivations were to enter into it that the Chair would not longer continue as Chair of that Commission.

So they went about their business and heard submissions across this Province. There were some changes, amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Act brought in by the government back in 1992 - assented to December 23, 1992 - to suggest that there should be between forty and forty-six proposed one-member districts with certain special provisions for Labrador and where special geographic considerations abound. That was the amendment that was brought in, with some fanfare by the Premier, to indicate that government was taking seriously the desire to reduce the cost of government. One of the costs of government was the cost of operating the democratic procedure of this House, the cost of the House of Assembly and a proposed reduction of from six to twelve members, and lo and behold, the commission was taking their legislation seriously. They were taking it seriously. They looked at the legislation and said we must obey the law. We must do what the law tells us. They also had a mandate to listen to submissions. They went around the Province and they heard submissions. They listened to what the Premier had to say in the House and no doubt they read Hansard and the exhortation of the Premier to go to forty, if necessary, as long as you can provide adequate representation in the House, and they gave every indication of doing so.

When this word got back to the political people on the other side of the House - the backbenchers, the frontbenchers - it looked like this Commission was going to follow the legislation, take the Premier at his word, listen to the public and come back with forty seats. So something had to be done. The Government House Leader went off to Clarenville and made a presentation to the Commission. Then he came back to the House and proposed new legislation to make sure the Commission was not going to do what the old legislation said and they came back with forty-four seats. Was there something wrong with that? Did they not follow the law the second time? No, they followed the law. They followed their mandate and they brought back a report totally within the mandate of the legislation governing their existence, but once again it was politically unacceptable to members opposite, politically unacceptable to Liberal members in the back bench and on the front bench. If the government wasn't going to satisfy the back bench maybe there wouldn't have been a front bench for very long, so there had to be new changes. So what happened to this impartial legislatively mandated commission in its report at a cost of over $400,000? It got thrown in the wastepaper basket - thrown away, despite all of the exhortations of the government about saving money, how we had to cut down expenses of government. They threw a $400,000 report in the wastebasket.

MR. CAREEN: The toilet.

MR. HARRIS: In the toilet, the Member for Placentia says. They flushed it down the drain, wasted it. They probably didn't even recycle it, Mr. Chairman. I would say there are copies of that report out in Robin Hood Bay. I bet you they didn't even recycle it. I would say there are piles of them out in Robin Hood Bay not even recycled, right down the toilet, right to the dump.

MR. CAREEN: It went through the shredder first.

MR. HARRIS: They had a shredder; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: When they hired all those portable shredding machines for Hydro, to get rid of all the Hydro dirt and evidence, they probably had hordes of them `hove' in the back of that, and I don't know what happens to that.

In any event, they may well have taken 400,000 one-dollar bills and tossed them into the shredder, because that's what they did with this report. They decided that they must re-construe the rules a little bit, and then they went looking for a judge or someone else to carry out a new mandate. Now, as I said in this House before, I have a lot of respect for Justice Nathaniel Noel, as a man and as a judge, but I think he was being used by this government, and the one report that was thrown in the garbage was replaced by another report, and I guess if they didn't like that one they probably would have had a third one. I guess they probably said: Well, I guess we will just keep on getting reports until we find something that we can live with, or that they can find enough people on the other side to live with. So they decided - there are people over there who are bursting at the traces trying to leap out of their seats, and trying to restrain themselves and be restrained by other members over there, but enough of them seem to accept it to keep the pot from boiling over completely. It hasn't boiled over completely yet - not yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: What pot?

MR. HARRIS: The lid has been kept on, I say to the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: What pot?

MR. HARRIS: The bubbling cauldron of dissent amongst members opposite. The lid has been kept on for another little while, not for long. When the Premier announces he is going for another term, then she will boil over. She will go then. The top will go right off her when the Premier says he is looking for another term. Then she's gone. As soon as the Premier says: I think maybe term number three might be in order, up she comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will get to my district now in a minute, I say to the Member for St. John's South, or the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I will get to St. John's East - the former St. John's East, if this government gets its way. They haven't been happy with the fact -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will resume my comments when I get to speak again.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I want to make this afternoon. It is too bad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wasn't in her seat, because really I wanted to make a few remarks that she should hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is never there.

MR. EFFORD: She is never there. Someone should go get her, because she should hear the few remarks that I have to make.

I have been sitting and listening to the comments from the members opposite about the boundary changes. Not a lot have anything new day after day after day. Repetition, I guess, is what you are really hearing from members opposite on a daily basis. But on Friday past, the Member for Ferryland made some comments in the House of Assembly to the Premier - good comments back and forth, nothing wrong with it. His opinion was that he agreed with the boundary changes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. EFFORD: You did, agreed that there should be boundary changes, agreed totally.

MR. SULLIVAN: What do you mean? From fifty-two?

MR. EFFORD: From fifty-two down, there should be boundary changes.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) said forty.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes - or less.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and the Member for Ferryland agreed - yes, or less, whatever, but he agreed with substantial changes in the boundary reform, no doubt about that, and I sat and listened. I said: Well, this guy - they understand what they are talking about. They have a different point of view from the government, which they are entitled to; it is their point of view. I think he and the Premier were talking back and forth.

I listened to the hon. member opposite. I assume it was their total understanding that they all agreed. Because when you put an argument forward you usually try to speak as the caucus and as your party agrees on the changes that should be made. I said: This guy is doing a good job, he knows where his position is, he knows the position of his party, having just run in the recent leadership.

After the House of Assembly on Friday morning I said: If this is the party position it is a fair argument. I can't say they are right or wrong, they are entitled to their opinion. I said, I must check into it and see what the position of the party is, and what the position of the Leader of that party opposite is. Because you would think it would be one and the same. A logical assumption that they are all speaking with the one mouth over there, the one idea. It is a position of a party that we would like the seats reduced from fifty-two to forty or forty-two or whatever. He just ran for the leadership of the party so it is quite obvious, he understands the party position. I respect him for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: They should be in it together. If they are going to convince the people of this Province that they should be the government in power and they can do all things right, they should have their act together. I have no doubt that is what they were talking about, that they know exactly where they are going.

So, I made it my business after the House closed on Friday and after I had done my normal work and met a few students from my district and got back. Over lunch-hour, I asked one of my assistants: Could you get me the position of the Leader of the Opposition on what she would like to see the districts reduced to? Because I would expect it would forty-two, forty, somewhere around the same area. I mean, you are speaking for their party. Lo and behold, they brought it in to me. What do you think, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader's position is?

MR. DECKER: Forty seats, I would think, obviously.

MR. EFFORD: Forty? Anybody? Forty-two? Forty-four?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six.

MR. EFFORD: Thirty-six. Let me tell you: Fifty-two. She does not want to see any reduction in the number of seats. The reason why -this is an individual who is leading a party that wants to replace this government to give the people of the Province of Newfoundland more confidence and a better group of people to govern this financially devastated Province in which we live.

MR. DECKER: The government-in-waiting.

MR. EFFORD: The government-in-waiting. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that it is better to have fifty-two MHAs paid moderately than it is to have forty members highly paid. That is her logic. The hon. Leader of the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. EFFORD: -in - let me tell you the date. Submission to the 1993 Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador by Lynn Verge, MHA Humber East, Corner Brook, October 13, 1993. Now, here is the Leader who wants fifty-two seats for all the great reasons that it is better to have fifty-two low-paid than forty highly-paid, and here is the Member for Ferryland opposite, the second leader-in-waiting, saying that we should have it reduced from fifty-two down to forty or forty-two.

You talk about a party waiting to be the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to give back the Province to the people, a party who messed it up so devastatingly for seventeen years and put it almost in financial ruin. Thank God for the wisdom of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank God, they have a government which is making the decisions based on logical reasons for their best interests and they've got their act together and it will pass with one voice, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now has his feathers ruffled today by the Leader of the Opposition. That's what is wrong with the minister. He is shaken up now. She has exposed the minister today for what's really happening with his department and winter snow-clearing services; that's what's happening. The minister is a little raw, sore today, but I want to say this to the minister, that whether what the minister is quoting is accurate or not, but at that point in time, the Member for Humber East was not the Leader of the Opposition, I say to the minister; she was just the MHA for the District of Humber East, she was not the Leader of the Opposition, the Provincial Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. The thing is, I mean, I want to refer the minister to a release here where the position of the Leader of the Opposition is strictly that we should have accepted the independent commission's report without tampering, spent money to go around the Province, brought in a report and government should have accepted it. Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt about that, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can try and twist that all he likes, the same way he tries to twist and convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that everything is safe on the highways, there is no reduction in service, there are salters and sanders everywhere, the same as he tries to twist and turn things that way and of course now, the evidence again is becoming very compelling about the facts of life -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The facts of life, I say to the minister. The evidence is now very compelling I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The facts of life are coming home to roost at the minister's feet again, but, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few remarks on Bill 31, I have already spoken on two occasions but there are just a couple of comments I want to make as it pertains to my own local area, being the Burin Peninsula, and I want to go on record as reiterating that once again.

I think that the Burin Peninsula region could have been accommodated in two seats, two electoral seats, it could have been divided equally. The portion of the Burin Peninsula, the Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage could have certainly been accommodated in Burin - Placentia West, and part of Burin - Placentia West could have been accommodated in the District of Grand Bank or even the initial recommendation, I say to the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Humber Valley, even the initial consideration that the Burin Peninsula side of Fortune - Hermitage be included in the District of Grand Bank was most acceptable to the people from Grand Le Pierre, Terrenceville and St. Bernard's and Bay L'Argent, was most acceptable to them. Having said that, it is not acceptable to them now to be included in the District of Bellevue; that's not acceptable to them, they don't want that and would have much preferred to be aligned either with Burin - Placentia West or Grand Bank district and I think, when we look at -

I support a reduction in seats, I do support that, it was manageable to make that Burin Peninsula region into two seats, it was manageable -

MR. WOODFORD: Fifty-two to forty-eight is only a bluff.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a bluff, I agree with the Member for Humber Valley but having said that, I want to reiterate again, that in my submission, in my appearance before the commission, I made it quite clear that there is one thing that I didn't want to see and that I was afraid might happen in the future, if the reduction of seats was to a certain level, that then members would be requesting additional staff and in the final analysis, perhaps the burden on taxpayers would be even greater or increased, outside of what the cost is now, Mr. Chairman. I made that quite clear and it was a concern of mine but having said that, I would have preferred that that Burin Peninsula region would have been accommodated in two seats rather than see a Fortune - Hermitage portion of the Burin Peninsula seat now being aligned with Bellevue. I don't think they have any affinity to Bellevue whatsoever, it doesn't make any sense geographically or otherwise and, Mr. Chairman, the reduction of four seats is insignificant, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and he knows full-well.

He sat at the Cabinet table, he was part of the ministry that sent the Minister of Justice to Clarenville and then he goes there and he talks about financial mismanagement. The minister should be reading the editorials in the paper and the financial analysis over the last week or so on his government's performance, I say to him, independent analysis on the government's performance and reduction in debt, Mr. Chairman. The reduction in debt that the minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Complimenting the minister? Mr. Chairman, it must have been in the comic section of the paper, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, we do, I say to the minister, we accept good news but my worst fear is that the minister is going to be the recipient of a lot of bad news this winter. That is my worst fear, I say to the minister. Once again this winter the minister is going to be the cause of much bad news. It started again within the last few days, and the minister can't slough that off too lightly. I say to him you shouldn't slough it off lightly. It is a serious situation out and about this Province with the highway safety, or lack thereof, I say to the minister. It is pretty serious.

I would say to the minister, the minister has made a major decision the last couple of months and I just hope, I say to the minister, that as a result of his decisions and the action he is taking with some of those snow machines that we are not back here day after day having to take the minister to task.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Chairman. Now, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, it is not stepping low. It is asking -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition today asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation very legitimate, logical, reasonable questions that needed to be asked, that had to be asked.

MR. EFFORD: But she made an insinuation of incompetence or was it cutbacks? (Inaudible) -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is -

MR. EFFORD: But she is saying that that foreman out there was incompetent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. EFFORD: That is what she said.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, she didn't say it. She asked the question.

MR. EFFORD: No she did (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: She asked the question. Mr. Chairman. You can't blame the Leader of the Opposition for asking a question.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister. She is entitled to ask a question on a very serious matter, on loss of life in this Province, Mr. Chairman. She is entitled to ask a question. See, the minister should relax a bit.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, now, the minister shouldn't get like that. I want to go on record once again as I support the principle of the legislation, I support a reduction in the number of seats in this House.

MR. HODDER: Down to forty!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Waterford - Kenmount shouts out, "Down to forty." Mr. Chairman, I support a reduction. I support the recommendations of the independent Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Forty-four, I say to the minister. The Premier asked me a very serious question -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) independent Commission, but I said it should not have been tampered in Clarenville and they should have let the forty ride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? I said an independent commission. I would have preferred forty, I'm saying, but I will accept an independent commission.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was recognized. I must say, I thought I was recognized by the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't accept forty-four.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - the reduction doesn't go far enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair was of the impression that you were recognized as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm disappointed it is forty-four but I have to accept an independent one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We shouldn't have tampered with the process, Mr. Chairman, we should have accepted the Commission's report. The Premier asked me some questions the last day I was here in debate about the size of the Cabinet and the size of the House which I responded to as best I could. I don't think the size of the Cabinet could be reduced too much more within reason, looking at the workload of the ministers. I think most ministers have a heavy workload. I say that quite sincerely, as I said then.

The Member for Eagle River got hot under the collar the other day when his Leader asked me the question about the four seats in Labrador. He got really hot under the collar, but I answered him, and truthfully. I do not support four seats in Labrador. I do not, I say. I cannot say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier doesn't!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier doesn't either. The Premier said it!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Impartial judge, now. No, I can't support four seats in Labrador, Mr. Chairman. When I look at the population base of this Province I cannot support four seats in Labrador. I have to be honest. There is no point in me trying to hide behind it or bamboozle the member. I'm up front with him. Look at the population base down there; look at the number of people down there. You would have four people from this House of Assembly representing that number of people, and then you expect - no, you can't.

Let's be fair about it. If the Premier believes in Sudbury that a citizen is a citizen is a citizen, how can.... We are contradictory here, I say to the Member for Eagle River. What we are doing is we are being contradictory in this House. Where are your principles? What side is it? It depends on what day you get up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not too flippant, I say to the Member for Eagle River. I am probably to honest for the member but I am not to flippant.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I do understand. I understand very well. Don't tell me I don't understand I have represented a rural district in this Province now for fourteen years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave, I have leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: He got leave. We gave you leave all along.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister does not give me leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: He can come back in ten minutes time, probably less then that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, according to the agreement of this House he can come back at any time.

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, what contradictory really means over here. Friday morning, the Member for Ferryland, forty seats; this afternoon the Member for Grand Bank, forty-six seats; then it goes back to the Member for Ferryland, forty-two or forty-four.

Now, let's go right to the leader. Let's talk about consistency, let's talk about being contradictory. Let's go back to the leader who took on this government and said that they should be the governing power, that we should be kicked out of office today. So we got from forty to forty-two to forty-four to forty-six back to forty-two. Mr. Chairman, you talk about a Chinese option? My gracious, what a group of people to auction off -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is a Chinese auction by the way?

MR. EFFORD: Go down there on Water Street boy for the Christmas auction to raise the foundation - but now we are from forty-two to forty-four to forty-six back to forty-two. Let's go all the way to the next seat over, talk about the three front seats, goodness knows what the back seats over there are going to say. The leader says fifty-two. Let me read it again and I only read one reason before. The present Leader of the Opposition, is she the leader or is she not the leader?... `It is my contention that it is preferable to have proportionally more elected and accountable MHAs on the public payroll then all elected political support staff. It is also my belief that it is better to have fifty-two MHAs paid moderately well then it is to have forty members paid highly.' Now we are gone from forty to forty-two to forty-six back to forty-two, up to fifty-two. Now let me tell you the reasons why. That was one reason, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't make a fool of yourself over there.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, we always make fools of ourselves when we tell the truth. That is the one thing that we can be sure of out of the member leaning on his elbow down there trying to keep himself awake.

Listen to another reason: if the number of districts is reduced evenly by population it may be assumed that the citizens relative influence will not change but will taxpayers clout relative to bureaucrats diminish and will disparities of power be reduced? Two types of disparities come to mind, one by geography region and the other by gender. Reducing the number of districts in the St. John's area has a great impact on the political power of the capital region as it would on the residents of the west coast. It is my contention that the further people are away from the capital, less influence over government they have and more important their elected representation is. In elections there is the power of the incumbent's right to use a political science phrase. The House of Assembly now has forty-nine male incumbents and only three females.

She is saying, the Leader of the Opposition is saying, if you reduce the number of seats down from fifty-two to the Chinese option debate that they have going over there to forty-two, forty-four or forty-six, there will be less opportunities for females to get elected. Now how you draw that conclusion I don't know. Some of the math she used down there a few months ago on television out there when she done the math and she got it all mixed up in front of the people of the Province - because if somebody wants to run in the district of Port de Grave, male or female, if there is a district out there, it is up to whoever wants to run, equal opportunity for those who so chooses to run. What has it got to do, whether it is forty seats, fifty seats or seventy-five if a female individual wants to run or a male, so what? We don't have any less opportunities because there are forty seats any less than a male. It is the same opportunities. If there are forty there, forty male, forty female or whatever.

But there is the reason put forth by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, two reasons, number one, financially, that we should have fifty-two low paid rather than forty moderately paid. The second reason she gave is that there would be less opportunity for the female gender to get elected because we had less number of seats. Therefore, the conclusion that she drew at the end of the evening was that we should have fifty-two ridings in this Province; we should not change. Yet, her own Opposition House Leader, and the MHA for Ferryland, who is leader second in waiting -

AN HON. MEMBER: The second runner-up.

MR. EFFORD: The second runner-up, says we should have a reduced number of seats, and I say to the people of this Province, you do not have your act together. It is about time you get it together, if you are going to tell the people of this Province that you are a government in waiting.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to be able to get up here again. I have said, and I have said it repeatedly, forty or less, as long as they keep on cutting, as long as we do not have to listen and suffer the suffocating conversations of the Member for Port de Grave.

Now let me make a prediction for the next provincial election, what you are going to see happen out in the new District of Port de Grave. The present member will be held at bay in Bay Roberts. There will be a great need in Bareneed, need of a new member. He will be very grave in Port de Grave. In Blow Me Down he will be blown down. He will be shipped out in Ship Cove. He will get the knock at the Dock. He will be tilted in Tilton. He will get the upper cut in Upper Island Cove, and a tyrant will be dealt properly in Bryants Cove.

They are waiting for you. I am sick and tired of telling the Member for Port de Grave that they are waiting. They are waiting ever since he made disparaging remarks some six years ago - five-and-a-half years ago - about the people in Upper Island Cove and Spaniard's Bay and Bishop's Cove about what happened under the membership when a former member -

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that here in the House.

MR. CAREEN: He said it here in the House, and they are waiting.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was only last year.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, but he had said it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't remind him, now.

MR. CAREEN: Oh, he is waiting. No wonder he is poisoned. He is showing his true face. He is poisoned with the heat that is being put on him and he is worried, and he should be worried because of the questions that were asked him today. Then he took the martyr's outlook. He took the persecuted outlook, why me? Who else was she going to ask the questions today? Who else was the Leader of the Opposition going to ask the questions to, the Minister of Health about the highways, or the Minister of Unemployment and Labour? I cannot say the Minister of Employment and Labour, and you cannot go to the Minister of Justice, now that's an oxymoron, so who is she going to go to except to the Monster of Works, Services and Transportation? Let him do his job properly, cuts backs, cut backs in that department and it is not safe to walk or drive on our highways, and he up trying to make light of what is going on here. I am guilty of making light of it because I could not let him get away with it. Forty seats, just forty seats, Mr. Chairman, is enough for what is going on in this Province. People are leaving rural areas, urbanization and resettlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lorena Bobbitt showed more compassion.

MR. CAREEN: Well, that is what I said last week; Lorena Bobbitt showed more compassion than this government in cutting. She used a sharp knife but this crowd use a dull axe. They have no compassion, they have no mercy, and they are all so comfortable inflicting pain on the people of this Province. It is not coming to them, it is not happening to those, and the ministry that the Minister of Justice interfered with, when originally it was for forty seats. You know, I can see them all now squealing like a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs. Howling like a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs when it was going to affect their own seats. When the heat is on they do not like the cat calling from the opposition. They like to get it over with. They have their own people muzzled.

Mr. Chairman, he was talking about the present Leader of the Opposition and her presentation in 1993, but he did not even show to the boundaries hearing in 1993. He was hiding. He had a proxy come in for him. He had someone else to speak for him. He had his e.a., he had someone else to come in to speak for him. Now he is part of the tribe that is putting the muzzle on the rest of the troops over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No! There are more guts in a caplin, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: John, didn't you go to the Commission?

MR. CAREEN: No, he had someone else do it for him. At that time he was fighting Mr. Cashin in the papers so he gave himself up a point or two. But now he is going to have to campaign with Mr. Cashin in Labrador. That is one. I am going to be down in Labrador with a video camera, because that is going to be one for posterity, Mr. Chairman. When they apologize and kiss and make up and jowl to jowl and cheek to cheek. They are going to be kissing cousins. I tell you, it will probably be obscene. It might be under the listing of pornographic when they get together and bury hatchets and all this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes. Well, that is it. You will have the Member for Eagle River in the same picture. That will be something. The three of them in a frame, Mr. Chairman. When what they are trying to do is trying to frame themselves at the expense of the people of this Province, and forty seats, as I said earlier, should be good enough.

Anyway, I will be back later, Mr. Chairman, maybe.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to use this opportunity to deal with a couple of points raised by the members opposite, in particular the Member for Ferryland. He was quite vocal last Friday, I guess, or last Thursday, about the situation in Labrador and how he advocates that there should not be four seats in Labrador because a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

I have no problem with him saying whatever he wants to say. But obviously the situation in Labrador is such that if you had the formula - forty seats for the Province - and you then distributed the population equally, you would have a maximum of 18,370 voters, or a minimum of 15,030 voters in each of the districts, to take the logic and apply it exactly as the Member for Ferryland says. Which would mean, with the present geographic dispersion in Labrador, and the population dispersion - I mean in the geography of Labrador - it would mean that you would have to put a seat in place which would be from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain, which is 1,500 miles of coastline, and 1,400 miles, of course, would not be able to be reached unless you flew into the communities, so he would be prepared to have one district on the Coast of Labrador made up of all the communities from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain, 1,500 kilometres, and also that district would have to include Churchill Falls, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Northwest River, and Sheshatshiu. That would have to be the composition of that district.

So if the wanna-be leader, the Member for Ferryland, thinks that he is going to be able to go out with any kind of an ounce of credibility, and be able to say to the people of this Province that there should be not four seats in Labrador - and obviously there cannot be three seats in Labrador, under his logic. If there were forty seats in the Province, the minimum would be 15,030 and the maximum would be 18,370 with forty seats, which means that if you have 30,000 people, the most that you can get is two seats. Now I know that Calvert calculus has been around for awhile, but you cannot get around that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a part.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Two and a part. So, it is not four, now it is not three, now it is two and a part. Take then, you are going to have Labrador City - Wabush, and you will take the Northern Peninsula and cut it off, probably, up around Rocky Harbour somewhere. Then you would have a seat that a member would have to serve from Rocky Harbour on the Northern Peninsula to Labrador City - Wabush, in the western part of Labrador.

Make no wonder the polls have him down to the bottom of the polling that was ever done. Make no wonder the people of this Province have switched, jumped and flipped over in the last few months. It is no wonder that the people of this Province have lost all confidence in the Tory Party and the present leader. There is no way that anybody with an ounce of credibility can go out around this Province and say that. The people know the difference.

When there were public hearings in this Province and there was a Commission set up by the government which had a former colleague, a Member for Humber West on there, Ray Baird, a very good man, a very sincere individual; I am sure he did his job well. Then you had a former member, or still present member as far as I know, of the New Democratic Party, Miss Inglis, who has also done an excellent job; and you had a person who did not have a party preference or did not indicate that, from North West River, Ms Beatrice Watts, and along with John Nolan, they went out, Mr. Chairman, and they had public hearings and the people in this Province told them that there should be four seats in Labrador.

The people told them - on the forty-seat model, they told them there should be four seats in Labrador; when they went out and did the forty-four seats model, they still came back and people still told them, throughout this Province, not only in Labrador but on the Northern Peninsula and in presentations made here in St. John's, people told them that there should be four seats in Labrador. So I suggest to the members opposite, that the people out there are again, way ahead of you in your thinking, and this is why you are not getting the people saying that you are a credible Opposition or a government-in-waiting, because again, you are way behind.

People are understanding, people know the situation in Labrador, people know that you can't have a seat in Labrador taking in 1,500 kilometres. They know that you can't have a seat taking in Labrador City, Wabush and the Northern Peninsula; people are not stupid. People know that this is a reasonable thing to ask for, they know the geographic and cultural and linguistic distinctiveness in Labrador and how the North Coast is different from the South Coast, how the western area is different from Goose Bay and all of those things. Mr. Chairman, they know that and obviously, the people of the Province are not going to turn the government over to somebody who doesn't know what he is doing. And the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just pointed out again that you have the Leader of the Opposition saying there should be fifty-two seats, you have the House Leader who says forty-four seats, you have the Deputy House Leader who says forty seats; I mean -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the Deputy House Leader is always three out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He is always three out. Yes, that's right, he is always at least three out; he would have loved to have had those three down in Eagle River if he -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) surprised `Danny', if one of them says forty-four and the other forty, he would have the extra four if you (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. I suppose he would have been over and he would have had his Calvert calculus applied and he would have certainly given Labrador two seats under his formula, Labrador is two seats -

MR. ROBERTS: Two.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Two, yes, two seats because his formula said a citizen is a citizen is a citizen and the minimum seat in Labrador would have been 15,030 or a maximum of 18,370. And I know, I was in Labrador City this weekend and I can tell you that the people in Labrador City are incensed and really upset that the P. C. Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and the present administration of that Party over there is not going to support four seats for Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition rose in her place last week, she spoke for twenty minutes, and she did not on any occasion, even after the sincere questioning from myself - I asked her what her position was - she did not take the opportunity, in her full twenty minutes, to say that she supported four seats for Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, it is not lost, I can tell you, after being down to Labrador this weekend, in Western Labrador and saying that I am going to be going back there campaigning in the next election and I am going to go campaign because it was this government that kept the seat in that district. It was only because of this government, the actions of this Premier and this government that we still have the seat in Labrador West, that we still have the seat in Torngat Mountains, in Lake Melville and obviously, the new seat in Cartwright, L'Anse-au-Clair. We are going to be able to go back there and say that with pride because our party did not speak with three voices. Our party spoke with the one voice through legislation saying that there should be four seats in Labrador.

So we are looking forward to the next campaign, even with all the things that the Conservative Party would have going against them, Mr. Chairman, even with the leadership that they got, even with the other people over there who are trying to undermine the leader, even with all the disarray that they have over there, even with all the platitudes that they have over there, even with all of that, they are not going to be able to go down and say that they stood up for Labrador, that they stood up and were counted and asked for four seats for Labrador because it was the right thing to do, even though two commissions went out and went all over this Province and came back and unanimously recommended - two of them went out and unanimously recommended that there be four seats for Labrador. But no, that can't be. That doesn't fit the agenda.

Mr. Chairman, then you talk about gender and how they should have -the Leader of the Opposition wants the fifty-two seats, then she wants twenty-six females and twenty-six male. I wonder if the House Leader supports that, too. Because what we have done and what we have seen now is all ready and good when the Member for Humber East wasn't in the leader's chair. It was all ready and good for her to advocate that there should be twenty-six\twenty-six, like her cousin from St. John's East was advocating but, Mr. Chairman, now that she is the Leader of the Opposition, now that she is over there and she signs on the dotted line for the candidates, what is the record? We saw a by-election being held in Grand Falls, and was there a candidate of the female persuasion? No, no and then when they said okay, the Leader of the Opposition obviously gave into that. She advocated the gender, female (inaudible), persuasion.

With all the persuasion that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could muster, she couldn't get the ideologues in her caucus who were deadly against this position to move. Then, just a few months after that, we said: Okay, well, over here we will ask for another by-election. See if she is going to get the ideologues, the dinosaurs in the Tory Party that want to hold on to all those traditions of the male dominance in politics, she said she is going to - we will give her another chance.

But, lo and behold, did we see a female candidate then in the by-election in Gander? No. So here we are, Mr. Chairman, wondering, or at least the members opposite are wondering, why the Leader of the Opposition is speaking with a forked tongue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.


 

November 27, 1995         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLII  No. 63A


[Continuation of Sitting]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave? I thought there was some leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You want leave to finish?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I thought you had taken leave -

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, no.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - of your senses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member for Eagle River on leave?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I wanted to conclude by -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Are you speaking, Chris?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there is a procedure in this House or not, so you will probably have to direct me, whereby we could have a vote of thanks, because I believe that the people of this Province and this House should move a vote of thanks to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. DECKER: Because the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation identified a clear inconsistency in the position of the Opposition. It was one of the best speeches I have heard in this debate so far, one of the most enlightening speeches. I don't know if there is any procedure, but if there is I would like to take advantage of it to offer a vote of thanks to my friend and colleague for exposing the inconsistency. The fun that he had when he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I am totally confused. I don't know if the official position of the Tory Party is that there would be forty seats or fifty-seats, or forty-four seats, or forty-two seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or forty-six.

MR. DECKER: Or forty-six. Now -

AN HON. MEMBER: All those in favour stand up.

MR. DECKER: That is probably a way we can do this. You deal with that.

Now, before this debate is over I want to know where the Tories are coming from. When the minister was making his speech and showing the inconsistencies, I began to wonder where I heard that before. Then I started to go back, where did I hear this before, of people putting forward an alternate position for the people of the Province but nobody knew what the position was? I went back just a few weeks to the education referendum.

I remember the day in this House when the hon. Leader of the Opposition got up and accused the government of not going far enough. Get out there and bring in the education reforms. Do what you have to do, yes, yes, yes, solid behind the government. Then I hardly knew what hit me until a few days later I had CBC Radio on, the Morning Show, which I listen to every morning of my life, and here was the Leader of the Opposition saying: No, no, no, no, we are not going to support the Liberals no matter what they bring forward.

Then, of course, you know what happened from there on. There were three weeks of, `yes, no, yes, no, yes, no'. Then we come in this House on the day the vote was going to be put. So we watched them now for the official position of the Tory Party, those who would be Premier, she who would be Premier, he who would be the Government House Leader, and he would be the first runner-up in the government; what would be their position? So, once again they get up. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition gets up and she spends an hour, I believe it was she spoke, tearing the guts out of our position, speaking totally against it. Well, I said, this is it; I am going to lose the bet I have on with my colleague, the House Leader here. I am going to lose my bet. It looks like she is going to vote against our resolution. She speaks for one solid hour against it, and when the vote was put what did she do? Aye, she votes for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: So, Mr. Chairman, I am coming to the conclusion that what we are seeing on that side of the House is not a desire to be government. It is not a desire to analyze legislation and put forward the other side. It is simply, as my friend says, it is either comic relief or it is an instinct to be against anything that government puts forward. If the House Leader gets up today and says: I think we are going to take the Tory position and go with forty seats, immediately twenty-five or thirty of them will be up saying: No, we want fifty. Okay, the House Leader says, we are going to have fifty. No, we want thirty-five. Totally inconsistent!

The only way I can describe it, and I don't know the source of this, I'm sure the House Leader would tell me, is the guy who got up on his horse and rode off in four different directions.

MR. ROBERTS: That is Stephen Leacock.

MR. DECKER: Stephen Leacock.

MR. ROBERTS: At once!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, that would be great. Oh, all at the one time. He got up and rode off in four different directions. Stephen Leacock, my colleague explains to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: How does he do that?

MR. DECKER: The hon. member who is the expert asks me how they can do it! You do it every day. You do it ten times a day. You get on your horse and you ride off in four different directions and you try to say: We are going to be the government.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to call that motion right now, Sir, but I'm hoping that you might enlighten me over the next few days and tell me if there is a procedure that the House would give a vote of thanks to my colleague the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation who exposed the Opposition for what it really is. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I rose earlier I made some general comments about how we got where we are in terms of this bill. I haven't yet begun to talk about the details of the bill itself. How we got here was because there wasn't enough people on that side of the House to support the work of the Commission which carried out its mandate in accordance with the act and legislation, even after they changed it the first time and the second time. They still weren't satisfied so they got another go at it till they found something that enough of them would accept without revolting to be able to get it through the House.

I wanted to talk about a couple of specifics that have been done in terms of what is happening to the St. John's seats. What have they done to the St. John's seats? First of all, the Mahoney Commission made some changes and I wasn't happy with all of them. They made some changes to the districts. They added some here and they chopped some there. They took away a goodly portion of St. John's East and put it in St. John's South. I think it might have helped us win St. John's South in the next election if that had been the eventual end of the district. Then the commission report of Judge Noel took that section of St. John's East and kept it in St. John's East, made some other changes, took another goodly chunk of St. John's East, and put it in St. John's Centre. I guess the result of that will probably help us win St. John's Centre as well as St. John's East.

What did the government do then? It wasn't happy with that, I say to the Member for Eagle River and they decided well, we cannot have that. We can't have this district sitting in the middle of St. John's that we have never been able to win, not since Joey won Confederation. We couldn't win St. John's East, not once. Not once could we win St. John's East, so, what will we do? We have won in every other seat in the country except for one, at least once.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not Eagle River.

MR. HARRIS: No, the Liberal Party won Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: The Liberal Party won Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is what I am saying. The Liberals were never able to win St. John's East, not once since Confederation. Every other seat, maybe East Extern, I don't know. They never won East Extern either, did they? No wonder they changed the name of that one as well, now they are calling that Cape St. Francis, they will name it after a point of land, now there will be no people, no people live in Cape St. Francis, one fellow I think lives there year-round, he has an old CN caboose changed into a house, so they are going to call St. John's East Extern, Cape St. Francis and what will they do with St. John's? We have to get rid of St. John's East because we have never been able to win it, and they said: well, we will name that after a hill and a pond, and we will call some other district St. John's East in the hope that maybe, we will win it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: In the hopes that maybe, we will win it. Now, what is the excuse for all of that? Well, the excuse is, well we don't like the name Columbus Drive, so what we will do is, we will really confuse everybody for no reason at all, we will change the name of St. John's West, St. John's East, St. John's Centre and there is no District of Columbus Drive, we will call that St. John's West. We won't name it after the area, I mean, St. John's West was where it was and there is another district to the west of St. John's West, we won't call that something else, we won't call it say, Cowan Heights which is where it is, Topsail Road and Cowan Heights, we won't call it that; we won't call it Beaconsfield or some other name, some fancy name that is indicative of the area where it is.

I mean, Beaconsfield might be a good name for this kind of catchment area for Beaconfield's schools, you know, it is a catchment area for that; it is a well-known piece of property over in the west end, Beaconsfield. It was before it was taken over by the Archbishop, I think it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Little Estate.

MR. HARRIS: The Little, yes, one of the former Prime Ministers, ancient, ancient name, an historic name. The former Prime Minister of Newfoundland had an estate called Beaconsfield.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Philip Francis, actually he was from PEI but he was Prime Minister of Newfoundland for a period of time. But anyway, that district could be called Beaconsfield. It could be called Cowan Heights and Topsail Road, it could be called something descriptive of the area you know, in keeping with the way that other districts have been named, Waterford - Kenmount for example showing the boundaries, one end to the other, Kilbride obviously is descriptive of the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is just the Waterford from now on.

MR. HARRIS: Waterford - Kenmount is now just going to be Waterford. Well, that could be descriptive of something, I won't say what; it could be descriptive of the river and the river is a long river so the Waterford River I suppose, could cover it off a lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waterford Valley, it is called.

MR. HARRIS: Waterford Valley. Well you know, that is sort of reflective of the area and one would expect that if you have a new district you would think you would name it after the area where the new district is going to be, but no, no, no, we can't do that now because that makes too much sense, so they could have asked for people to suggest a name for the new district. They didn't like Columbus Drive, that is named after a road and Columbus really did not have anything to do with it. So they could have called it Beaconsfield or Cowan Heights or something like that, but no, no. Maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can get up and tell us why they didn't find a new name for the new district. Why did they change the name of four districts in order to accommodate this one thing; and they came up with a new name for St. John's East. St. John's East has been, for the most part, the area east of Parade Street. Prince of Wales Street and Barter's Hill was at one time the boundary between St. John's East and St. John's West. They are after moving a little bit further east as time went on, but not much further. It is still Atlantic Place on the south, east through Quidi Vidi and Pleasantville. Most of Pleasantville is actually in St. John's East, despite the name Pleasantville. Pleasantville districts takes in a little tiny part of Pleasantville and most of the area behind that.

They could have named the new district - you know, I am going to have an amendment a little later on. Maybe it will get some support from members of the House. It depends on how many of them are over there, I suppose, when the time comes for the vote. There may be some people over here who will support it, you never know.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Quidi Vidi would be called St. John's East and Centre would be called -

MR. HARRIS: So, what did they do? Instead of calling the new district Cowan Heights or Beaconsfield or some historic name reflective of the geography or the culture of the area, they said: Well, we will call that St. John's West. Now, I don't know why. Someone said that the current member for St. John's West actually lives -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, is that it?

MR. EFFORD: He will now. He will now.

MR. HARRIS: Someone said that the current member for St. John's West actually lives in this new district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, exactly.

MR. HARRIS: That is what I heard. The current member for St. John's West actually lives in this district that Justice Nathanial Noel, called Columbus Drive. So he thought he would drag St. John's West with him over to Cowan Heights. He doesn't have to change his signs, all his literature is the same, all his fridge magnets are still good, they have St. John's West on them. He won't have to get new ones. All his signs; he has already got them printed up, I would say: Dr. Rex Gibbons, St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Just a few quick remarks, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important that I should make these remarks, but before I do I just want to make mention of the member for St. John's East. Friday morning the hon. member stood on a point of privilege here in this House of Assembly saying that his privileges were being revoked because I had introduced closure on Bill 31. During that time there were eighty-seven young students from my district up there. Afterwards, we went into the collective bargaining room, as I normally do with students coming in from the district, and they asked a few questions. They were sincere about the fact that a member's privileges were being taken away from him, and they asked questions.

It is too bad they were not here in the House this afternoon to hear the hon. member's speech. The only thing I could do is get the Hansard and send it out. Then they would understand why we introduce closure in this House, because of the waste of taxpayers' money and the time of the hon. House of Assembly when we could be doing other things. Speeches like was just given is an absolute abuse of time in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I felt I had been a little too hard on the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I have read over this article, the speech that she made - presentation, not a speech - the presentation she made in 1993, and I thought I should think out logically as she would in making this presentation, and I did come to a couple of logical conclusions to her reasoning as to why she made a couple of statements.

All I am going to do is just take a couple of minutes and, in her defence, give the logical reasons why she made these decisions. Here is what she said: Reducing the number of districts in St. John's area may not have as great an impact on the political power of the citizens of the capital region as it would on the residents of the West Coast - by which she means residents further away from St. John's. It is my contention that the further people are away from the capital, the less influence over government they have and the more important their elected representation is.

Okay, let's take it to its logical conclusion. If I understand correctly what she is saying, the closer to the capital the less representation you would need; the further you would move out, the more representation. Okay, we are living in the region of St. John's, about 130,000 to 150,000 people, one member, because you are right next door to capital hill, right next door to Confederation Building. Now let's go out to Conception Bay North and the Trinity and Whitbourne area. That is a region outside of St. John's, a few miles away but not that far away - not that far. So take it to her next logical conclusion, let's say you would need two members for all that region out there. So one in St. John's, two in the Conception Bay North, Trinity Shore, Whitbourne region. Go on beyond that, and the further you would move away, down in Bonavista, that area, you may go up to three, or possibly four, because you still have Clarenville, now, and access to St. John's is pretty good. Then, when you get further out in Central Newfoundland you would probably have four or five for the whole central region, for part of the West Coast.

If you go on with the logical conclusion that she was thinking at that particular time, I would suspect the further you got away - down in Labrador, instead of having four MHAs down there I suspect you would have seven or eight, at least, if you draw her conclusion to logical thinking that the Leader of the Opposition made.

So if you draw the distance from the capital city - now I don't know what you would do when you get up around Big Brook; you would probably have an MHA for Big Brook in itself. There are five families up there, I think, or five people living up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, Big Brook, right up on the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

MR. DECKER: A long ways away.

MR. EFFORD: A ways away.

Then I said, that's not real. She really didn't mean any of that. But then she said, look at the cost. She said, right now it costs $1.6 million, and if you reduce the number of seats you would have highly paid MHAs, but the more MHAs you could have and give them less pay, you would have better representation to the people. Okay, I said, well in my little bit of mathematics that I have, we have about 550,000 in the Province, and if you divide 550,000 into $1.6 million you would average out what? Two fifty or two seventy-five per person?

MR. DECKER: About $2 per person.

MR. EFFORD: So, the final conclusion I came to on what the hon. member was saying is, if you gave every citizen of this Province $2.75 you would not need MHAs because they would be all (inaudible) their own representation.

Mr. Chairman, with that logical conclusion I have to give the Leader of the Opposition a vote of confidence.

MR. DECKER: And full marks.

MR. EFFORD: And full marks for the presentation she made, and the logistics behind her thinking in 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

MR. HARRIS: After the comments of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admonishing me for wasting the time of the House when we could be talking about something important, I was looking forward to a rather erudite and incisive piece of debate from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation but I don't think we got that, Mr. Chairman, I think we got a bit of a flight of fancy by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I go back to my point about what are they doing with the St. John's seats and the naming of the seats? So what do we do? We take a new seat that was called Columbus Drive and they did not like the name so let's change it to something sensible for the area, whatever it is. No, we can't do that; we are going to call that St. John's West. Now what do we do with St. John's West? Will we call that after something in the area of St. John's West? Perhaps we will find a geographical centre or something sensible for the centre of town, for the west end of the centre of town. No, no we won't call it that; we will change the name of St. John's West to St. John's Centre. Well gee then we have a real problem. What do we do with St. John's Centre? Well we will call St. John's Centre, St. John's East. So now everybody is confused. We won't just have one new name we got four new names.

Then what do we do with St. John's East? There is no name for St. John's East now. What will we do with that? What will we do with the people who lived in St. John's East since Confederation, always belonged to St. John's East both federally and provincially for the last fifty years, nearly? Well for the last fifty years, almost fifty years since Confederation but for the last 150 years before that. Since 1832 they have lived in the St. John's East provincial district. For the last 150 years, what do we do with them? Oh, well we will change them now. We will not let them continue to be living in St. John's East. We will change this, we will call that after a hill and a pond. Well the pond part of it, Quidi Vidi, is also the name of a village but we are going to change that now and have a new name for St. John's East but what is the reasoning? What is the rationale? I have not heard that. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was going to give us the rationale but he has not yet. I have not heard anybody give a rationale other then it suits the current Member for St. John's West. Now maybe he will get up and give us a rationale, an explanation as to why they need to change four districts in St. John's, to change the names of them. If it is not for political confusion, political mischief and in the hopes that maybe fifty years after Confederation they will be able to say they finally won St. John's East.

St. John's East used to be a Liberal seat back in 1832. In 1832 it was a Liberal seat and it was a Liberal seat for many years but since Confederation it has not been a Liberal seat. It has been a Tory seat and it has been an NDP seat. So now we will change the name of another seat and call that St. John's East in the hopes that maybe we can actually win St. John's East once. Now St. John's Centre has a good member, an active member, a good constituency man, active in speaking up in this House to the needs of his constituents. He is sometimes against government policies, sometimes to try and urge them on. He currently represents the district of St. John's Centre but they are going to call that St. John's East now so if he runs for re-election he won't be running in St. John's Centre. If he wants to represent the same constituents he now has to run in St. John's East. There is no logic to that, Mr. Chairman, except confusion, members opposite want to confuse the voters of St. John's East and cause political mischief. They were confused, in 1989 they got confused. In 1986 they made a very wise decision when for the first time they elected Gene Long. In 1989 they got confused and they elected Shannie Duff. She stayed with them for a year. They took note and then in the by-election they elected the current member, and then they did it again.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I don't know about that, I say to the member for St. John's South.

What is going on here? Can members opposite get up and explain to me why they are taking away the name of St. John's East, giving it another name, and changing St. John's East, Center, West and Columbus Drive, changing them all, every single one of them? What Judge Nathanial Noel redefined as St. John's East, they are going to call Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi. What Judge Noel called St. John's Centre is being called St. John's East. What Judge Noel called St. John's West is being called St. John's Centre. What Judge Noel called Columbus Drive is being called St. John's West. I don't know why they didn't change St. John's South. They could have called that something else. They could have come up with a name for that. They could have called it Cape Spear. They could have done what they did to the member for St. John's East Extern, named it after the most extreme part of the district, call it Cape Spear, the member for Cape Spear. Nobody lives out there either except a few red foxes. They even took the lighthouse keepers out of there. They won't let them live there anymore.

If they wanted to be consistent, they would call the member for John's South the member for Cape Spear, not Tors Cove. I know some people want to call it Tors Cove, but I wouldn't suggest that on them. The member for Cape Spear, to be consistent. The district of St. John's East Extern, another seat never won since Confederation, not once, so we will change the name of that one too. We will punish the people, we will take away their name, we will call it Cape St. Francis. None of it makes any sense, Mr. Chairman.

Now, I will admit it is not the most serious point, it is not the most important point.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Do you want a break? Are you suggesting a break for supper? The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is prepared to second a motion for a break for an hour.

I will have an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to try and fix that and rename what is in the bill as St. John's West. I don't like Columbus Drive particularly either, but rename it Cowan Heights. If somebody doesn't like that, call it Beaconsfield or something like that.

MR. MURPHY: I don't think that is significant.

MR. HARRIS: Beaconsfield is significant I say to the member for St. John's South, Beaconsfield is significant. It goes back to the days of a former Prime Minister of Newfoundland, Philip Little and Lord Morris. That was their residence. It is a very historic area with historical connections to former Prime Ministers of this Province when it was a country, very historic.

MR. ROBERTS: You know, there is still a Lord Morris.

MR. HARRIS: Lord Morris of (inaudible), is it?

MR. ROBERTS: He was travelling overseas with the Prime Minister and the next we heard (inaudible) House of Lords (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He couldn't come back to this (inaudible). He couldn't see how people could live here.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will have an amendment later on which I now give notice of, in fact, I can give a copy to the Table officers - to amend the schedule to change these various districts to call them what they were, except for St. John's West - call that Cowan Heights - and to call the rest of them what they were in Mr. Justice Noel's report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendments for Clause 2?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot amend my own bill, but the gentleman from Hermitage wishes to move an amendment. Perhaps my friend from the Strait of Belle Isle will do it.

MR. DECKER: On behalf of my friend from Fortune - Hermitage, I move that section 2 of the schedule be amended by deleting the words, `Fortune and Hermitage Bays' and replacing them with the words, `Fortune Bay, Cape la Hune'.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment at clause 2. I just wanted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I want to speak to that because, if we are dealing with clause 2, my amendment also changes a series of names. There is a question, I say to the Government House Leader, as to whether that is done at clause 2 or in the schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, if this amendment just amends clause 2 that is fine, but I want to say to the Government House Leader that if we are going to do these amendments at clause 2 well we can do them at clause 2, but my amendment was phrased in terms of amending the schedule with consequential amendments to the appropriate description of the districts and to clause 2 of the bill. So if we are going to pass clause 2, we cannot pass clause 2 -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Alright, but it has to be done at clause 2 then, obviously.

On motion, amendment to clause 2 carried.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Clause 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: An amendment which, if it is in order to move it now I will move it now. The Table officer has a copy of it. It amends the schedule, and with consequential amendments to clause 2 of the bill.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think my learned friend will agree that clause 2 of the bill is the substantive clause that creates districts and names them, so my suggestion would be that he might wish to put his amendment here. The schedule is simply the boundaries of individual districts, so if he wants to rename a group of districts, as I understand is his suggestion, then he should put it to the Committee and the Committee will deal with that. Then, the schedule falls in from that, in fact, in my understanding.

MR. HARRIS: I will read out the amendment and give the Table a written copy of it.

To amend clause 2 of the act as follows: By deleting the words `St. John's West' and replacing them with the words `Cowan Heights'; by deleting the words, `St. John's Centre' and replacing them with the words, `St. John's West'; by deleting the words, `St. John's East' and replacing them with the words `St. John's Centre'; and by deleting the words `Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi' and replacing them with the words, `St. John's East'.

That is the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I would like to move (inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't recognized the hon. member because there hasn't been an intervening speaker, unless he has the leave of the House to speak.

MR. HARRIS: I can't speak again without an intervening speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I'm proposing to move an amendment to this legislation. The amendment deals totally, completely, with my own district in a sense, solving a problem that I see that is unacceptable to me, anyway, and unacceptable to everyone I've ever spoken to in Newfoundland about this particular make-up of the districts as the result of the new enumeration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Right now, I remind the hon. member, we are on clause 2 of the bill which is the changing of the names of the district.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but he is talking about changing the schedule.

MR. FLIGHT: What I'm proposing certainly creates a district that is different from the one created by the report and the legislation.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. My hon. friend, the gentleman for Windsor - Buchans, has shown me the amendment he purports to move. It would have the effect of creating districts different than those set out here, and would also - and I don't know how much of it he has read - I think it is fair to say it is not cast in legal language. It would also create districts which varied by more than 10 per cent from the norm. Accordingly it may not be accepted by the Committee, I would suspect. It seems to me this is probably as appropriate a place as one can get, if Your Honour were prepared to accept it to be in order, we could deal with it. Then the Committee could make our judgement, and we will move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to see a copy of the amendment. In the meantime the hon. member could speak on it while we are having a look at it.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I doubt very much if I need to take the whole ten minutes allocated to me under the rules.

The fact of the matter is we have been talking about historical districts that have been historical over the years in this Province. To the extent that I can understand, and the one person in the House who can correct me is the hon. House Leader on the government side, is that prior to 1928 Buchans, if there was a Buchans, because it wasn't discovered until 1927, so there would have been a very small population, but Buchans, Millertown, Badger I think, were part of the Grand Falls district. Historically those places have been together, and Windsor of course historically was with Grand Falls as a founding community. It is difficult to determine which came first, the town of Grand Falls or the town of Windsor. Windsor was part of the founding community as a result of the establishment of the mill on the Exploits River.

Since the time we started to talk about enumeration the people of Central Newfoundland, Grand Falls, particularly Windsor, took it for granted that Grand Falls - Windsor would be a district. That you couldn't conceive of drawing lines that would separate the town of Grand Falls - Windsor in an electoral district.

Mr. Chairman, the district of Buchans - Windsor, created in 1975, have elected me five times. They defeated me once and they elected a Premier of this Province once. To the person, if the name of the game is to stand up in this House of Assembly and reflect the wishes of the constituency to do what they would have you do then, Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken to a person in my district in three years who agreed with splitting Grand Falls - Windsor away from Grand Falls during this enumeration. They would have accepted any compromise; they would have accepted exceeding the 10 per cent allowable count. They would have accepted anything but socially, economically, municipally, any way you want to look at it, politically; it makes sense to create the district of Grand Falls -Windsor. It makes all the more sense when one remembers, Mr. Chairman, that over the years there was a great gap allowed to develop between the two towns, Grand Falls and Windsor. Again the gap was economic, it was social and it was political.

This government had the courage, Mr. Chairman - commencing in 1989, there was a promise made all during the years that I was the Member for Windsor - Buchans, a promise made because the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the now Premier, recognized the legitimacy of creating the town of Grand Falls - Windsor and amalgamating Grand Falls - Windsor. When we were elected as a government we kept that promise, we amalgamated Grand Falls - Windsor. There are a lot of people, Mr. Chairman, who believe that there is still division in the town. We do everything we can to try to bring the two towns together, to do away with things that separate as opposed to bonds. Most people believe that it would be in the better interest of unity, be in the better interest of the long term unity again both economically, socially, physically and politically if the town of Grand Falls and the town of Windsor were combined as one provincial district and that is the amendment that I intend to bring in.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, a little earlier, moved an amendment that makes eminent sense obviously. We should know if we don't, Mr. Chairman, that one of the things that the Commission must have wanted to accomplish was to make it easier and simpler for a member to represent his district. The argument made by the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir made a lot of sense and I would suspect be supported on the South Coast and I would expect be supported by all the members who presently represent the South Coast. I expect, Mr. Chairman, that he made the amendment knowing full well that his district was, for all intents and purposes, gone and gobbled up by the two adjacent districts. So, Mr. Chairman, he made a great argument and I would like to point out as well, I intend to support the amendment made by the hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

Mr. Chairman, I would like now - I suspect I am running out of time - I would like now to move the amendment. I would like to move the amendment that I am proposing. I would like to move that this bill be amended to allow for the creation of a district outlined by the boundaries of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor and known as the district of Grand Falls - Windsor. If the population of this district exceeds the allowable limits then the portion of the population that exceeds the allowable limits be allocated to the adjacent district of Exploits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I can read it again if the hon. member did not understand it. I will read it again, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would allow, would direct or permit the creation of a district outlined by the boundaries of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor. In other words, the town of Grand Falls - Windsor would be a district. The town of Grand Falls is a district now as a result of gerrymandering in 1975. It only exists as a political district for one reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty years behind!

MR. FLIGHT: Exactly. For twenty years. Mr. Chairman, for twenty years it was Windsor - Buchans, and Grand Falls sat there as one town, a political district, created as a result of the worst kind of gerrymandering.

Now, I have heard the word `gerrymandering', and anybody who represents a seat in this House that was created as a result of gerrymandering should keep quiet, because there were a lot of seats created as a result of gerrymandering in 1975.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: That doesn't make it right.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, no, that is right. The hon. the Member for Ferryland says it doesn't make it right. Of course, it doesn't make it right, and that is what I am trying to do with my amendment. My amendment makes sense from any perspective. There is no argument in the world that can argue against the logic of that amendment. I haven't found a person in Newfoundland, I haven't found a person in Central Newfoundland, who would argue with the logic of the amendment that I am proposing here. Whether it is allowed we will see, of course. The Committee will decide whether or not the amendment is acceptable.

The amendment calls for the creation of a district outlined by the boundaries of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor. The existing town of Grand Falls - Windsor has a municipal boundary, and this amendment calls for a district that would be created purely by the boundaries of that town, Grand Falls - Windsor. Now, again, there is a problem with the population - I recognize that. It is over the 10 per cent quotient allowable. So, if the population of this district exceeds the allowable limits, then the portion of the population that exceeds the allowable limits would be allocated to the adjacent District of Exploits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, I have, by not very much, but maybe it would. I am standing here on behalf of my constituents on what has been said to me in the past three years relative to this enumeration.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of this amendment, if it is accepted by the House of Assembly, by this Committee, the communities of Crooked Lake, Badger, Buchan's Junction, Millertown, Red Indian Lake, Buchans, Springdale, South Brook, Robert's Arm, Pilley's Island, Triton, Brighton, Port Anson, Miles Cove, Lushes Bight, Beaumont and Sheppardville would comprise or form the District of Green Bay - Buchans, and the hon. member for the presently existing Green Bay wouldn't be required to represent any portion of the present town of Windsor.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my amendment is accepted. It is made in the spirit of doing what, in my opinion, is right by the people of that great District of Windsor - Buchans and by the great District of Grand Falls - Windsor. I believe an accommodation - and I might point out for the sake of the hon. House Leader, that if this amendment is accepted, then I would provide to the Committee the legal boundaries that would be required to put in place the amendment.

As I said, it would be my hope... Really, all I've done here is outline the spirit of an amendment, the reason that I have provided the amendment. All that is done is the spirit of the amendment and the reasons for the amendment, and I have tried to point out some of the logic. If the Committee were to find a way to accommodate and pass this amendment then, Mr. Chairman, we will be doing what is in the better interest of the people of Grand Falls - Windsor and for the rest of the great District of Windsor - Buchans and Grand Falls. Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my friend, the Member for Grand Falls will have an opportunity to speak, of course. My friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans has made an eloquent and, I know, a heartfelt (inaudible) in the Committee in putting forward what he proposes and why he proposes it. But I must say, in my judgement, this amendment is directly contrary to one of the basic principles of this act, so I shall have to ask that the Committee turn it down.

Essentially, what the hon. gentleman says is that the people of the town, the municipality of Grand Falls and Windsor wish to be one district and I have no quarrel with that feeling. I accept it as being a genuine one but the problem is, Mr. Chairman, if we were to accept that as our basic principle we would presumably have one member for St. John's, one member for Corner Brook and one member for anywhere else. Mr. Chairman, the only rational way to do this is to not look at artificial municipal boundaries but to look at the people, the voters, and we have chosen throughout to work with the census figures which are all residents, not simply those who are on the voters list at any given time.

Now, let me just look at what would happen. Say we have three districts in the proposed forty-eight, one in Exploits, which roughly speaking is Bishop's Falls down to Botwood and out through the Bay of Exploits, the second is Grand Falls - Buchans and the third is Windsor - Springdale. Members will remember that the quotient - that term we use, the arithmetical mean - is 12,181 and that means - using the 10 per cent rule that is fundamental to the bill as it was passed at second reading - a seat can be as small as 10,963 or as large as 13,339. There is an exception for the South West Coast, one could go 25 per cent below the quotient in the case of the South West Coast. Exploits now is 11,964, Grand Falls - Buchans is 12,739 and Windsor - Springdale is 12,784. I understand there are approximately 14,500 people in the municipality known as Grand Falls - Windsor.

So to do as the hon. gentleman requests and have one seat, Grand Falls - Windsor entirely within one boundary, you would be well beyond the norm. You would be, in round numbers, about 1,200 out. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, that would have the dreaded ripple effect we have seen so often in this, in that, to remove 4,500 people from Windsor - Springdale would bring it down to 8,200 people, well below the norm. That is what happens, the moment you get into this -

MR. FLIGHT: No, no. You are not considering for putting Buchans with Badger and Millertown (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman brings in an amendment, I heard him out, and the two districts together, Grand Falls - Buchans and Windsor - Springdale have 25,600 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The new seats are called Grand Falls - Buchans and Windsor - Springdale and taken together they have about 25,600 people. If you have 14,501, Mr. Chairman, you have fewer than the 10 per cent quotient in the other. I have not worked the arithmetic but that is what must be. So what the hon. gentleman is asking, in effect, is that we, by granting his request, go against the principle in at least one - and I would suggest in two adjoining seats - and with all the goodwill in the world, we cannot accommodate him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Change the act and bring in a 25 per cent quotient.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Ferryland is correct in the sense that if the act allowed a twenty-five - but then we will go back to square one and start again.

MR. SULLIVAN: It did have to be changed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, it certainly did have it until we (inaudible) but we have settled that. If we want to go over the argument again, fine, but we have settled that point. The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that the request put forward, the suggestion put forward by my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans cannot be accommodated within the principles of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, change it.

MR. ROBERTS: Hon. members opposite say, change it. We have settled that at second reading and we are now down to the detailed implementation of the principles of the bill. My hon. friend and I have walked many roads together and we have many more to walk, but with respect, and with regret, I must say to the Committee, we shall have to ask the House to -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Ferryland keeps interrupting and I will have to say again, with respect and with regret I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment because it is contrary to the principle upon which this bill is founded.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was taken by surprise with the amendment that the Member for Windsor - Buchans was proposing. I might say, we had some communications back and forth over the past few days. I was going to support the hon. member's amendment, but I have some difficulty with it. It my understanding that perhaps the Judge Mahoney Commission report put forward for Grand Falls - Windsor, that special consideration be given to those districts because of geography, as was done in the case of Labrador. Geography in these is an important consideration for Labrador and I have no argument with that, and I have no argument with the four seats for Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, the commission also noted, and it said: notwithstanding the population of resulting districts, that the Legislature consider amending the act to permit all of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor be placed in a single district. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the rule can be put aside in the case of Labrador to create districts with slightly smaller populations than the rule allows, then it can also be put aside in the case of Grand Falls - Windsor to create a district with a slightly larger population than the rule allows.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Assembly has the power to define a single district for Grand Falls - Windsor.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are saying Grand Falls - Windsor is just like the Coast of Labrador.

MR. MACKEY: No, you are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that special consideration be given to a case as put forward by the commission, the same consideration that was given to Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation to allow the town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in three districts - now, I have put forward an amendment and it will be decided on later. But dividing the newly amalgamated towns of Grand Falls and Windsor, I think, is a bad idea. In provinces throughout the country, legislation recognizes the importance of keeping towns together in terms of representation.

Now, I know it has been put forward that St. John's could be considered as one town, but no, I am not as naive as to think that, but the case where the variation is slightly above the 10 per cent, is why I was asking that consideration be given to having the town of Grand Falls - Windsor to be one district. However, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I will not be proposing an amendment as such, as I thought that part of it might have been coming forward today but I will be speaking later on my own amendment. Thank you.

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have another amendment to clause 2, and the Committee, having rejected the sensible changes of name for St. John's districts that would keep the names for the current districts they way they are, and have a new name for the new district, that having been rejected, I still have a minor amendment and I think hon. members on both sides might find it acceptable.

The name that has been proposed in the bill is Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi, and my amendment would change it from Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi to Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, with a hyphen instead of the ampersand or `and' sign or whatever it is. It makes a bit more sense, Mr. Chairman, otherwise we are talking about two potentially geographical features, Signal Hill being a hill and Quidi Vidi being a lake but also a village -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, we will vote for it.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, so the wording of the amendment would be to amend clause 2 of the bill by deleting the words `Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi' and inserting the words `Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi', with consequential amendments to the appropriate descriptions in the schedule; that is my amendment.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Kilbride. I understand he has a -

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

I rise to propose an amendment but before I do, I would like to say that I spoke with the Minister of Justice on this earlier and the amendment being proposed, the numbers have been calculated by David Jones at the Department of Justice and what I am about to read has been done by the division of Crown Lands.

The amendment does not affect, in any way, shape or form, the government's quotient; it still lies well within the numbers as proposed by the government. But on the beginning of my boundary, on the west of the boundary in the Goulds, under the commission, proposed by Judge Noel, basically, what the commission did was, they drew a boundary line from one hill to a river, then to another hill and, in so doing, what essentially they did, is that they drew up a very uneven boundary line, that cross-cuts between several, more than several, probably eight or nine different streets and areas on the west end, and left what essentially is a very confusing boundary line in that end of the district.

Now, when I spoke with Mr. David Jones on it, I proposed another way that could be done that would make it more clear, more distinct, without impacting negatively on the numbers, or what the government has put forward -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What street do you live on?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: So it doesn't impact, but what it does is it gives a clear, distinct boundary line as exists right now between the districts of Ferryland and Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you want me to read it into the record?

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is already tabled. The clerks have it. I just want to read this portion of it. I have to, for the record:

`Basically, the population as proposed by Judge Noel, in the District of Ferryland, is now 12,660. Under my proposal, it would reduce by 101 people, for a population of 12,559. And on the other end my district would bump up by 101 people. I don't know if you want me to do any more.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down. It just makes more common sense for the constituents living in the district.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: A natural boundary.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a natural boundary, yes.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I indicated earlier today, that I had - and put in an amendment, that I was to propose, seconded by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage at this time. Just to say a few words on it, because the majority of the people in the present District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, are opposed to the boundaries that were put forward by the Noel Commission. And my amendment - I wrote the Premier, as I said, in May of this year and sent formal letters from the towns of Ramea, Burgeo and Grey River complaining about this boundary change, and pointed out that even though the variance of 10 per cent was out, if you take the 25 per cent variance that they give for less, if you put the 25 per cent variance in that they have given for the South Coast, there is lots of room in that if you are going plus or minus on it. Now, the other thing is that the people in the Bay d'Espoir end of that district cannot see the sense why Ramea and Grey River are still left in that district, causing the duplication of service.

I have already put in the amendments. I don't have to read them. I understand that they were acceptable - or should I read them? It will change the boundaries of the District of Burgeo - LaPoile and the now District of Cape la Hune - Fortune.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Yes.

Anyhow, with that Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is in order and you do not want me to read it, I move that we vote on it.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I assume the amendment is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the amendment is in order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have not done the analysis on that one, but what the hon. gentleman has to show is that in accordance with the rubric that I suggested to the House on Friday when we were in committee on this bill that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, remember Judge Noel's commission allowed him to go 25 per cent below the norm there. Now, I don't have the numbers. My understanding is that my hon. friend proposes to move the communities of Grey River and Ramea from the Fortune Bay and Cape la Hune district, which is where Judge Noel placed them, into the Burgeo and LaPoile seat, which is where my hon. friend's amendment would put them.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people are in that district?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but what I would say is we can accept the amendment if my friend can bring it within - including that 25 per cent rule because that is the area, in respect of which Judge Noel was given the 25 per cent. I think we all acknowledge that the physical geography is such that to get physically from - if you leave Bay d'Espoir, you have four communities that have no road link. You have François, McCallum, then you have Grey River and you have Ramea. All have ferry connections and I am not sure I know to where the ferry connections run.

MR. GILBERT: The Burgeo ferry connects to Ramea and Grey River and then at the eastern end, the Cape la Hune district now, the ferry comes from (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: So François and McCallum would go in to the community of Hermitage by ferry, the communities of Ramea and Grey River would go to Burgeo and that is their link to the highroad system. So what I will say, I have not done the numbers, but if my friend can bring it within the rubric, whatever the 25 per cent underneath figure is, then he is okay. We would also have to show that it does not bring Burgeo and LaPoile, the western seat, over the 10 per cent because that is the ripple effect once again. That is what I say to my friend and perhaps he could lay them out to the Committee and we will take it on that basis.

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

MR. GILBERT: What it does, as I pointed out earlier, is, if you take the 25 per cent variance for less, well, it does not fit that because it goes over the 10 per cent by 600 votes based on the 1991 census. What I am saying is that the figures I have presented here are actually not the figures - the 1991 census are not the figures anymore because I have figures from the town of Burgeo which says the town of Burgeo has decreased by 200 and Ramea has been reduced by 150. So it is 600 over the variance and this is what I am saying. But there is a convenience, and the demands of the people of that district wanted it that way; that is why I present this amendment.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to be clear, I am not actually speaking in favour or opposing, just a question pertaining to whether it falls within the 25 per cent. I feel we should have numbers here, if somebody probably could go get them and deal with another amendment. Because we are looking at Fortune - Hermitage being now with 11,623. So if we are going to move Ramea - is Ramea currently, I understand, in that 11,623?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: And we are going to move a couple of thousand plus another (inaudible) out. That could drop that down into the 8,000s, which the quotient being twelve, it would deviate then around 30 per cent, which will be outside the scope. The Minister of Justice indicated that we must be within the 10 per cent, except in that area. So I feel we should take some time to go back and get the exact figures, because how can we deal with something if we don't have specifics? We have to go -

MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir mentioned that we have the current figures but not the 1991 census and we are basing this on 1991 in all instances and we have to stick to the same standards - we cannot have more modern figures or older figures. So I am indicating that until we get those specifics here, to know that he is within the plus or minus 25 per cent, it is kind of difficult to deal with.

MR. GILBERT: I have those figures, Mr. Chairman. The population of LaPoile district, proposed by Judge Noel, is 12,613. Now, if you are going to add the population of Ramea, it is another 1,224 and that is based on the 1991 census which drives it to 13,837. The population of Grey River is 181 which drives the population to 14,018. Now, if the 25 per cent is plus or minus on the South Coast - they say it is minus but, I mean, if you are going to give that variance on the South Coast of a 25 per cent plus or minus vote - it will fit into the 25 per cent plus because if you put 25 per cent plus on to the base vote, it will bring it up to 15,076. It will fit within this 25 per cent plus. But if you are going to take the 10 per cent vote, based on the 1991 census, the district will be over by 679 people but if it is the 25 - what I am saying is that you have a variance in Labrador, the same variance was given on the Labrador with 25 per cent up and down and yet, in one of the seats there I know there is 70 per cent, another is 53 per cent minus. So they have accepted, they have gone outside the norm in Labrador. And what I am saying is, this will fit into the twenty-five plus or minus, if you take the 25 per cent plus to the base number that Judge Noel put in, this district will now fit in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fit into what?

MR. GILBERT: Fit into the variance that they gave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where - in LaPoile?

MR. GILBERT: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: It won't drive it above the 25 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Surely, you are allowed 10 per cent.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but you are allowed 25 per cent down. What I am saying is you are allowed 25 per cent down -

AN HON. MEMBER: But you are only allowed ten up.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, well, if that is the case, it is 679 votes over the 10 per cent at this time, and what it will do to the Ramea - to Cape la Hune - Fortune Bay by taking it out, is, it will put them within the 10 per cent. They are within the 10 per cent, there will be 10,200 in that and they will be within the 10 per cent option, the other district.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The quotient is 12,151 -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 181.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, 181?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I am sorry; 12,181, if we take 25 per cent of that, that is roughly 3,000 and we will say around forty-five point some, we will call it forty-five to the nearest whole, so that is 3,045, that will be 15,226. So we are looking at 15,226 that would be the 25 per cent tolerance range.

I thought the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir said it is around 15,500?

MR. GILBERT: 15,200 (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, 15,226 - it is very close. I thought you said 15,500 or 15,560 or something, I could be wrong. But if it is above 15,226, it is over 25 per cent from the quotient and we have to amend the Electoral Boundaries Act with the 10 per cent tolerance if we are going to fit that into that scheme. So, if we do not have corrected figures now, I mean we can't just fly on a hypothetical situation here, we have to have a factual one and other members did a fair amount of research to get the numbers and the changes and worked in line with Mr. Jones or the Minister of Justice, so I think we need that there.

Now, on the other side, I am not so sure if Fortune - Hermitage Bay that is listed in a proposal of 11,623 is going to lose the equivalent amount. We are down in the low 8,000s, and 8,000 from the quotient of 12,821, I am saying, is 33 per cent, approximately, below the quotient -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, no, no, (inaudible) 14,500 and that is why we are off track.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, how do we get over 15,000 if we are only moving 14,500?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) is 1,224 in the community of Ramea and 181 in the community of Grey River - were those the 1991 census numbers?

MR. GILBERT: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, how would the minister get over 15,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am sorry, the former minister -just delete the word former.

MR. GILBERT: If you take LaPoile district (inaudible) LaPoile district and put 25 per cent to that it will get it up to the 15,500 but if you take the quotient, which is ten -

MR. SULLIVAN: The quotient is 12,181.

MR. GILBERT: It is 12,181, that will be 300 and -

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure the mandate from Judge Noel - maybe the minister could just indicate if the mandate is going to include Port aux Basques area, which is more central rather than the dispersed area on the South Coast. Was the intent to cover the whole area within the twenty-five?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Judge Noel's allowed to go 25 per cent below but not more than 10 per cent above.

MR. HEWLETT: For where? For all the seats?

MR. SULLIVAN: - and this does not fall within it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. Okay, 25 per cent, so according to that, I think, I say to the Minister of Justice that this is falling outside the scope of the recommendation and outside the 10 per cent. And there is a way to do it, the same as the Member for Windsor - Buchans - I guess there is a way to accommodate any of that, and that is a tolerance that deviates more than 10 per cent from the quotient. That has to be an amendment to the act, which is back where we were earlier. That is the only other avenue by which to do it, if we are going to follow the same procedures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Representing the bulk of that district that will now be created in Burgeo and LaPoile, the situation, as I see it, is just clearly a matter of numbers even though, with all due respect to the people of Ramea and the people of Grey River who want to be included with this district, it is just the way that Judge Noel has drawn the boundaries. It does not fit within the equation to put them in there because you end up, as the hon. Member for Burgeo Bay d'Espoir said, 679 people over. Then you end up also with, if you try to put Burgeo and Ramea and Grey River as a group within Fortune - Cape la Hune, then that situation would be over as well, isn't it? So the situation is such now that not only would you have a district with a given population that would be in excess of the norm that would be allowed; you would also have the difficult geography and everything, as well as the high population that exceeds the 10 per cent allowable factor over, so it is just a matter of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I don't know if that would resolve it, either.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to admit that I got confused with all these people talking numbers and quotients and dividends, and everything else. There are other principles, I say to members of the Committee, and if the reality is - and perhaps I misunderstand it, but it seems to me we are not talking here necessarily about the people of Ramea and Grey River, and where they want to be; it is a question of: How can they be served by a member? That is really the question we are talking about, representation in this House. If the member who represents the people of Hermitage - Cape la Hune, which it is now called, how does that member get to visit his or her constituents? If he is travelling by road he goes down the highway from Bishop's Falls and visits his district; now, how does he see the rest of them? Well, he has to drive out the West Coast. He has to drive to Stephenville and down the Burgeo highway, and then take a ferry boat from Burgeo to Ramea to visit his constituents. It is like adding ten or twelve hours to a transportation link to get there, or else not visit his constituents at all.

It seems to me, that consideration is equally as valuable as whatever instructions the Cabinet may have given Judge Noel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a ruling whether an amendment proposed - and to be difficult with it is not the purpose - I just want to know if it is within procedure whether that amendment, to do what is advocated here, is in order. If not, the debate on it is useless. I think we should get a ruling on whether an amendment is in order and meets that 10 per cent above or the 25 per cent tolerance, not only in the LaPoile area, in the proposed area, but also the effect it is going to have on the new Fortune Bay district. Then we can proceed and debate it once we determine that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: All we have to do is get the census and sit down and look at the communities. It will take two or three minutes if someone has the census.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a little bit of confusion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will recess.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, meets all the requirements under our Standing Orders as an amendment. The amendment is ruled in order but it is not for the Chair to determine whether it meets the 10 per cent or 25 per cent guidelines.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the break was a bit useful because it allowed an opportunity to consider the legislation under which we are operating, because that is the operative thing here and not Roberts rubrics of Friday past, but the operative thing for the House and this Committee is the legislation which governs the circumstances, and the Chair has ruled it in order.

I am looking at chapter 57 of the legislation passed in 1993, the amendments, and those amendments allow for boundaries which are in excess of the 10 per cent, either up or down, I say to the Government House Leader, which differs from the rather narrower instructions that were given to Justice Noel by the Cabinet. What governs here is not what Cabinet asked Judge Noel to do, what governs here is what the legislation allows.

The legislation says that the amended section 15 of the act allows the division of the Province into districts using a 10 per cent more or less above a quotient, but then it goes on to say, notwithstanding these provisions, districts with a population departing from the quotient by 25 per cent more or less are possible, where it is warranted by special geographical consideration, including the community of interest of the residents, that are not connected by road, particular those communities along the Coast of Labrador and the Southwest Coast, or the accessibility of a region or its size or shape.

Now, the concern I have here, Mr. Chairman, is that -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: And the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be able to tell us how long it would take to get from Hermitage to Grey River. Without the ferry going you have to drive back up to Central Newfoundland on that highway, the Harbour Breton Highway.

MR. EFFORD: A great highway.

MR. HARRIS: I am not saying it is not a great highway, but it is a long highway, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Then you have to drive from Botwood, or nearby Botwood over as far as Stephenville and take the Burgeo road.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Near Bishop's Falls. It is closer to Bishop's Falls. I don't travel there as often as the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage will tell you all about it, I say to the Member for Exploits, all about driving up the road and back down again to see people on the other side of the bay. What is going to happen now is that whoever is representing Hermitage will also have to drive back up that road to Bishop's Falls there and then drive over to hit the Burgeo highway, drive down the Burgeo highway and take a ferry to Grey River, Ramea, and that makes no sense.

I don't care who represents the district, whether it is Liberal or Tory, NDP, or the Reform Party, it does not make sense. It is not right for those people to be represented by a member who has to do that and it is not right for any hon. member of this House to have to represent people with that kind of accessibility problem. Now, we don't all have helicopters. Maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a helicopter at his disposal whenever he wants one, that may be, but to expect a member of this House to travel his or her district and do an adequate job of representing the people, and being accessible to them in person, as well as by phone, fax, or internet, or whatever else you have, is a very important consideration.

Now, I know that other members on the other side, and perhaps on this side, feel constrained by the Roberts rubrics of last Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: Robert's rubrics. The Government House Leader called them rubrics - the rubrics that he read out last Friday about what amendments were acceptable and not. I don't think we have to be awfully concerned about that. I know hon. members opposite are concerned themselves, because their own districts and their own changes they might have wanted might have violated them. But this is the one example that has been brought to this House, and I have sympathy for what the Member for Windsor - Buchans says, and it is from an historical and cultural point of view. I agree with him that Grand Falls should be one district, but that is for other reasons, for political reasons, for cultural reasons, for reasons of amalgamating those two towns, and I support it for those reasons.

This is the one example that has been brought to this House where the issue really is of accessibility of a member to his or her constituents and vice versa. It is a geographical consideration. The act specifically in section 15(3) refers to the accessibility of a region or its shape as being a factor to be taken into consideration to allow the 25 per cent up or down. How that affects LaPoile and how that affects Hermitage would also come into view there in determining the viability of a particular seat. I urge members to give that consideration.

I don't think these rules that are there - there are more important issues than the magical number. That is why I was a little frustrated in hearing people talk about - whether they were talking about census figures or actual figures, or whether so many people moved out of Burgeo or into Ramea or out of Ramea into somewhere else. These are all arbitrary. The 1991 census is arbitrary anyway. We are not living in 1991. The 1991 census is not the 1995 census, and it won't be the census and it won't be the actual figures when the vote comes. The number of voters per census district changes anyway because some areas may have more younger people or more older people. So it is kind of an arbitrary figure.

I say to hon. members, when we are using arbitrary figures, if there is a reason to deviate from those arbitrary figures, one such as this, then we shouldn't bother ourselves overly with the specific details of this rule. It is only a rule for convenience. It is a rule for convenience so that the districts are relatively equal. Special considerations are made for Labrador for obvious reasons that some members support and some don't. This is a case here where it is very clear to me that the people of Grey River and Ramea ought to be included in the same district as Burgeo, and if it can be done within the act, then I'm for it. I don't think the arbitrary application and exactitude of application of those particular instructions to Judge Nat Noel should prevent common sense and good government and proper representation from applying in this circumstance.

I support what the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is trying to do, to keep, to establish the integrity of a district and the accessibility of the member to the district, and the accessibility of the residents, of the constituents, to the member.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to speak again to the substance of the amendment because I have addressed that issue. But my learned friend, the Member for St. John's East is being mischievous, to put the matter gently, when he says that the Electoral Boundaries Act is the determining legislation. I won't say he knows better, but I will say he ought to know better, and if he doesn't know better he ought to go to his first-year law school professors and ask for his money back.

The Electoral Boundaries Act sets out the instructions given by the House of Assembly to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, in this case, the Commission headed by Mr. Justice Mahoney. That commission brought in its report which complied fully with the mandate given to the Commission by the House of Assembly. The report was tabled here. That is not, in itself, determinative how the seats are to be. That is a matter for the House to decide. The bill now before the House actually creates the seats. We are not bound by the legislation; we are bound by our sense of what is proper and appropriate and the right way to go.

Mr. Chairman, the instructions given by the government to Judge Noel are the instructions given by the government, not by the House. They were in an Order in Council which was tabled here roughly contemporaneously, made public. Judge Noel made his report, which has been tabled in the House. The bill before the House is based squarely and totally upon Judge Noel's report. He, too, met his mandate fully and effectively. We did not vary anything except that we have changed some names. We just changed the name of a district that the hon. gentleman for St. John's East may or may not have a closer acquaintance with in days yet to come.

I don't want the Committee to be misled or to be confused or to be led astray in any way by the suggestion that somehow the Electoral Boundaries Act, which really does nothing more than create the Commission, that that act somehow tells us what to do. We here can decide what we are to do. When I spoke on Friday I outlined the parameters that had been agreed upon by the Cabinet as the parameters within which we were prepared to accept amendments. I will leave it at that. The government's position is very clear on that, and it is for those who wish to persuade us to make amendments, it is for those who make that case, to, in fact, make the case. Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to raise a particular point. I spoke back in 1993, actually, and indicated that I think the designing of districts should be done in a way that would facilitate access by the member to be able to best serve the district. That is why I felt a 25 per cent leeway would be an acceptable thing, and I am on record having said that.

I also said that at the time, I said in the House, too - I think the Minister of Justice might remember we had a little exchange - that 25 per cent could be interpreted -

MR. ROBERTS: You and me having an exchange? I don't remember.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was all one way. You received it and I gave it.

MR. ROBERTS: In that case, I (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. It is usually the other way around. He complained when he was speaking about me interrupting him, so I will use the same argument now, and I kept quiet. It was tough but I did it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN: I indicated - I guess a little closer than the minister got, but anyway, we will leave that one aside.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I won twice, 1993 and 1992.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I have won eight of those.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am still working on it.

Actually, the point I would like to make, and the member - no, I won't ask him how many times he won in St. John's, I don't think I should; I don't want it on the record. He indicated that Burgeo and LaPoile - during the break, I think, if I'm accurate - that Ramea has 1,224 according to the census, I think, and Grey River has 181, which would be 1,405. That would put the new district at 14,018 voters, which means, I guess, if you look at it from the quotient, it is 15 per cent above the quotient. That would be 15 per cent above.

I thought the Government House Leader indicated before he left the House that the intent is to allow 10 per cent above the quotient, but 25 per cent below where the difficulty of geography would be such that you would need less people. Now, I know the Chairman made certainly an appropriate ruling on what was in the powers to rule on, that it was properly worded and in order, and he did not pass judgement. He indicated that to the House, that he did not pass judgement on whether we are applying the deviation from the quotient, and it was not the Chairman's job to do so, I think, to that effect, and I accept that, but I do think it is the Government House Leader's job, or the job of the Minister of Justice, to tell us if that 15 per cent is within the accepted guidelines of the powers that were given to the commissioner there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, but somebody has to interpret it. You may get different interpretations, or if I want to propose one on Grand Falls - Windsor, that all the town of Grand Falls - Windsor be in the one district, that would deviate 20 per cent, less than 25. Now, would that be acceptable? Would, in larger urban areas which are very close geographically, would 20 per cent be acceptable and 15 per cent in a geographical one, in Burgeo and La Poile?

I think what I am saying has merit to it and I want this clarified because I am not at ease with what the Government House Leader said before we broke for the Chairman's ruling. He indicated that he intends to go 10 per cent above but 25 per cent under.

MR. ROBERTS: Go per Judge Noel's instructions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, exactly. I am asking if government is now accepting a 15 per cent above, but in this case it will be 15 per cent above?

MR. ROBERTS: Judge Noel's instructions speak for themselves and our Government will be abiding with Judge Noel's instructions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so just to conclude, and I will throw this out before I sit down. There are 12,613 people proposed in the new district of Burgeo - LaPoile. We are proposing that Ramea with 1224 and Grey River with 181 would move in, making it $14,018 which would be 15 per cent above the 12,613. That would be 15 per cent above that quotient, or above 12,613. The quotient being, I think, 12,181 which is even below that again.

I say to the minister that is going to put us 15 per cent above the quotient for the new district of Burgeo - LaPoile in the new district. Is that acceptable according to the instructions that were laid out, and are we are going to operate on that premise? If we are I say to the minister other proposals that go over the ten will be have to be entertained also. I just wanted to make that clear and get the Government House Leader's response. I am not complaining about it. In fact I do not see a problem. If it can better serve and make it easier for another member to serve their district I do not have a problem.

I think we should have flexibility in here. I spoke for it from day one. I said from the very beginning we should have flexibility. I am not muzzled to say what I am supposed to say. We are allowed to have an opinion. I have had that opinion way back since 1993 when it first came up and I still have that opinion, and I think it deserves an answer. If that is accepted we have to be ready to accept, I say to the minister, other scenarios that may be above the 10, so with that I will sit down, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few words on the amendment that is going through now. If you look at the South Coast of the Province, I think, the act says 25 per cent variance is alright, plus or minus is in order, however, as a person who represents a rural area the proposed district would be a very difficult district and it would be more difficult than probably any other district that is in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be just as difficult in my opinion, and probably more difficult than any district that is represented within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including Labrador.

This is the situation that you have along the South Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: They put four seats in Labrador and there should only be two up here.

MR. LANGDON: Just one second now, I've only a few minutes to outline the case. If you were to look at the eastern part of the district you are talking about Rencontre East. You have to take a ferry to get to Rencontre East. You drive down the Bay d'Espoir highway, and you can access the whole Bay d'Espoir and the Connaigre Peninsula by driving down the highway. You can also access the communities of McCallum and François by taking the Gaultois - Hermitage ferry and go up the coast.

The other two communities that are up on the west part of the coast, they can't be accessed that way. You have to drive back down the highway, drive to Bishop Falls, or fly to Stephenville and take a rented car and drive down to Burgeo, take the ferry in Burgeo, and then go east to Ramea and Grey River, because these two ferries operate from the Burgeo base. It is very difficult.

I see that scenario on the South Coast different than any other amendment that has been given to, for example, in all due respect, to the person for Windsor - Buchans. It is in a different situation altogether. You have isolation along the South Coast, it is completely difficult to get into there, and it makes a lot of sense, if it is possible to do what the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is asking.

I'm not sure if the House will accept this amendment, if possible not even to do it. But I'm telling you, it is a very difficult situation, it is a very difficult district, and under its present structure, regardless of who represents it, it is going to be very difficult to do it. It is about twice as bad or three times as bad as what I already have now, because you have the situation where you have Rencontre East isolated, McCallum is isolated, François is isolated, Grey River is isolated and Ramea is isolated. These are all isolated communities comparable to the isolation along the southern Labrador coast, which is the same situation.

I can see Judge Noel giving the leeway for the South Coast the same as he would for Labrador because it is different than anywhere else along the coast. The Connaigre Peninsula and Bay d'Espoir are not in the same category as isolated communities. I just thought I would give that idea. For many of the people here - I guess they already know - but as a person who travels extensively in the particular area and who knows the area quite well, then it is going to be a heck of a district to be able to manage. Hopefully we can make some changes to accommodate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Chairman, call division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division.

Division

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Flight, Mr. Carter, Dr. Kitchen, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Tulk, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Mr. Penney, Mr. Dumaresque, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Vey, Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. A Snow, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Manning, Mr. Shelley, Mr. E. Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Careen, Mr. Mackey.

Mr. Chairman, `ayes', eight; `nays' thirty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, seconded by the Member for Kilbride, to the schedule to Bill 31, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act." To change the boundaries of the district of Grand Falls - Buchans and Exploits to include the following changes in boundary description. Mr. Chairman, the table has a copy of the schedule for the boundary descriptions as it pertains to the change in the district of Grand Falls, Buchans and Exploits. So I don't think it is necessary for me to read those, I read them earlier today.

Mr. Chairman, the description I have outlined in my amendment attempts to include the ten or so houses on the lower end of Grenfell Heights extension which are now included in the district of Grand Falls.

Mr. Chairman, I have the understanding from the Member for Exploits that he does not have a problem with this amendment although the boundary description in the schedule puts these few homes in Exploits district, so it is my understanding that he will be supporting this amendment.

As I said earlier today, Mr. Simms, the former Member for Grand Falls brought to this House in the mid-1980s, a petition from the residents in that area, that this section of Grenfell Heights be included in the Grand Falls district, and furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that Mr. Justice Noel had fully intended that -

MR. GILBERT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, on a point of order.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, I was going to wait until I got the Hansard tomorrow and see what exactly happened there in that voting in which we were just involved, because it seems to me, that the first vote that I heard was: all in favour, `aye' and then `nay', and I heard you as Chairman say it was carried; then I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Just a minute now, the gentleman can speak afterwards.

Then, after the motion was carried then, the Chairman seemed to be somewhat confused and he looked around and then all of a sudden, he called it again, and there was a resounding then - all those in favour, and there was `aye' and then the `nays' and he said the `nays' have it and then, the Member for Grand Bank jumped on Division and I decided to support him and they supported the Division at that time we called for Division.

Now, I feel, on my point of order, I was going to wait until tomorrow when I saw Hansard because it will certainly be recorded in Hansard what actually happened here, and if there was a situation that, you know, the Chairman called it `carried' the first time, and then there was a second voice vote that he said was not carried I think we have some problems here that have to be addressed, and the fact of the Division - the fact there was a Division after this, I think the Division was out of order and for that reason, I won't say any more this evening but when I get Hansard tomorrow and see what exactly happened, I will be rising again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must, with respect, say to my friend from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir that in my view there is no point of order. What happened as I recollect was this and we will see what Hansard records.

Your Honour called the voice vote, which is a normal way to proceed in Committee. Your Honour heard voices say `aye', Your Honour heard voices `nay', Your Honour, I think said: carried, meaning that the ayes had it but whatever Your Honour said is recorded, sobeit.

A number of members, they happen to sit across the House but it doesn't matter, they have the right to do it. A number of members rose and said Division which is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at the first time.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, whatever is said, there was a division held. Let me simply leap over the intervening thing because we don't - there was a division held. The division being held, Mr. Chairman, in my understanding is the formal, final vote of the Committee on that matter, and that disposes of that issue. I mean a voice vote is only a gathering of the voices. A division, each of us present in the House stood in his or her place, cast a vote, the Clerks recorded it, the Clerks gave a report, Your Honour declared the amendment defeated and with respect, that is the end of that in my understand of the rules of this House, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the Chair will take it under advisement but a division vote is the true vote.

I will take it under advisement; we will go ahead with the proceedings.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To continue to outline my amendment, basically what it was asking was that the ten or so houses on the lower end of Grenfell Heights extension, which are now included in the District of Grand Falls, be placed back in.

It was my understanding that Mr. Justice Noel had fully intended this section continue under the District of Grand Falls. He was not attempting to divide the town of 14,693 into three districts. Furthermore, I think the cartographer took the old boundary that existed at one time and went according to that description. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to again remove these few families from the district of Grand Falls. Effecting this change does not affect the 10 per cent variance for the provincial average. Something in the vicinity of thirty people or so live in this area. However, since my request to consider the whole town of Grand Falls - Windsor as a single district was not favourably received, I ask that hon. members support the amendment to make this minor change to the district of Grand Falls - Buchans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. With this particular amendment, having discussed it with the hon. Member for Grand Falls, I think history will show that at points in time those half a dozen or ten houses or so and the residents therein have been in both the District of Grand Falls at one point and in the District of Exploits at another. The most traditional though is for that gathering to be part of the District of Grand Falls. In terms of the town boundaries it is well within the 10 per cent for both of the ridings that are concerned, does nothing to violate the spirit of the act, and I would encourage members on this side to support the hon. member in his amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, `nay'.

I declare the amendment carried.

Getting back to the point of order raised by the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, we will take a recess to consider the ruling.

MR. ROBERTS: Before you go, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am not aware that any other member has proposed to offer amendments. If that is in fact a correct understanding then when Your Honour returns, depending on whatever ruling you may deal with, that will bring the discussion in Committee to a close. I will then deal with the vote on the Committee stage as a whole. That is subject, of course, to whatever Your Honour rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will take a short recess.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I refer hon. members to page 385 of Erskine-May. Division is resorted to when on the question being put at the conclusion of debate the declaration by the Chair of the result of the collection of the voices is challenged.

What we had here is that the Chair at the conclusion of the debate called for the vote. When the vote was called for the Chair - of course, I was in the Chair - and the tapes - there was a hesitation in terms of trying to determine whether it was aye or nay, but the Chair did say "carried." Immediately afterwards there were hon. members to my right - of course, the tape doesn't say this, but I was in the Chair when hon. members stood for division, and then the Chair called, after division was called, for the vote again, but the division was called before the second vote was called, so the whole thing is in order.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think we are at the point now, unless any other member wishes to speak, which in my view would probably precipitate an immediate by-election, if I judge the temper of the House correctly; would you be good enough, please, Sir, to put the question necessary to carry the bill through the committee stage.

On motion, schedule as amended carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 31)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments.

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

MR. ROBERTS: That completes the business of the Committee. I wonder if we could rise the Committee, report substantial progress, and perhaps deal with the amendments in accordance with our usual procedure, through first and second reading now, and we will then adjourn for the evening unless they want to give the... Does the House want to give the bill third reading tonight, or do you want it to stand?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It is to stand, then; that is our arrangement.

I move that the Committee rise and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, has passed Bill No. 31 with amendments, and asks leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment perhaps I could say a word or two about the matters we will ask the House to address in the next couple of days. There are four bills standing on the Order Paper in my name which I hope will have relatively wide support in the House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I realize I say to my friend for Grand Bank that is an obstacle in itself. It is like the lawyer who stood in the Court of Appeal one day and said, My Lords, My Lady, I appear in an appeal against the judgement of Mr. Justice Matthews but I must say to the court I have other reasons in favour of my appeal as well. Now, think that one through.

These are Orders No. 26, 27, 28, and 29 on today's Order Paper, and the proposal will be, assuming each of these bills is given second reading, that they be referred to the relevant standing committee, the Standing Order 84 of the standing committee which is the legal one, entered by my friend the gentleman for Trinity North, and there they can be looked at in more detail and witnesses can be heard if witnesses wish to come forward. All four, while they are important in their own right, are matters that have particular relevance to particular groups within our Province.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will ask the House to begin, when we get to Orders of the Day, with Order No. 26, that is Bill 36, "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities." If we get through that we will then deal with the other three in order, and if we do not get through them all tomorrow we will go on with them again on Thursday. I do not anticipate we will ask the House to sit Thursday evening, but I hope we will be able to give all four bills second reading by some point on Thursday afternoon. That is a hope and we will see how it is.

I say to my friend for Grand Bank that Christmas is only - well, we have four weeks left and we have a very large Order Paper to do.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are thirty-three shopping days left.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend that I do not need thirty-three days to buy his present and I hope he does not need thirty-three days to buy mine.

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, and Her Excellency, I understand will be in the House at 3:45 tomorrow afternoon. We will be accordingly moving the adjournment of the House at about 3:40 because His Excellency will then be invited to address the House of Assembly. I am not sure if we have ever had a Governor General address the House before. It will certainly be a momentous occasion in its own right. The House will not meet after His Excellency address us as I understand we are having a cup of tea, or perhaps a cup of coffee, as his guests after that.

On Wednesday we will be debating the motion which stands in the name of my friend for Gander. We will be hearing his maiden speech to the House. It is one calling on the Government of Canada to give us a fairer share of defence expenditures in Canada.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (inaudible) Governor General will entertain questions (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend that he should feel free to try, and the good news is that the statutes of attainder for treason have been repealed so he is not in grave danger.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wonder how he feels about the statements of the minister there on Caplin.

MR. ROBERTS: I will leave it to my friend for Grand Bank to see if he can wiggle into that one. He is pretty good at wiggling out of things around here I have noticed.

Your Honour, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday at 2 p.m.

Thank you, Sir.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday at 2 p.m.