December

2, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 82

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take the time

of the House before we get to Orders of the Day or to routine business, to pay

tribute to a close friend and former colleague, a former Member of the House of

Assembly. I refer to the late Jim Reid of Heart's Delight, who passed away

yesterday I believe it was, with Lou Gehrig's disease.

Jim Reid was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1972

as the MHA for Trinity-Bay de Verde and, under then Premier Frank Moores, he

became the first ever Minister of Rural Development, alone in this Province, an

achievement of which he was very proud and an accomplishment of which he was

very proud. He left politics in 1975, but was pressured to re-enter political

life in 1979, following which, I think he retired finally in 1989 - he didn't

run in the last election - having been elected four times by the people he

served.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who knew him, would know that one of

his proudest possessions was the Miss Heart's Desire, which was a boat that many

in this House, I think, have spent a night or two aboard while on a fishing trip

with Jim, who, was happiest I think when he was on the water, that is fair to

say.

He was a statuesque, strong-willed individual who raised a

family of five - three boys and two girls, one of whom worked in our offices, as

a matter of fact, for a number of years. He was a firm believer of the work

ethic - that one has to work to survive - and he carried it out, Mr. Speaker,

more than most others, working from dawn until dusk every day.

Jim Reid was a kind man who truly cared about people and the

district that he represented. He could have lived in a mansion, Mr. Speaker, but

he chose not to. He chose to live as a common man, never losing the common

touch. He was a very special individual who provided exemplary service to those

who put their faith in him. His passing is a loss that will be felt by all of us

who knew him and throughout the Province by the many friends he made over the

years, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, on behalf of the Members of

the Legislature, to extend our deepest sympathies to the Reid family.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I did not know Mr. Reid

personally, very well. I had met him but did not have a great deal to do with

him. I had always read newspaper reports of his activities and his contribution

to the Province, his contribution as a member of this House, and whether I share

the political views or not, I respect the effort that members make when they

seek election to this House, the commitment that they make to the people of the

Province, and the additional burden that it places on them in order to meet that

commitment. So I am pleased to join with the Leader of the Opposition in

acknowledging the contribution that Mr. Reid made to this Province, both in his

role as a member of the House and in his role as a member of the Cabinet of the

day. I am pleased to join with the Leader of the Opposition in requesting your

Honour to convey our condolences to the family.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party in this House, I would

like to add my remarks to those of the hon. the Opposition House Leader and the

Premier in recognizing Mr. Reid's contribution to public life and to this House,

and to join in the request that you offer, on behalf of this House, our

condolences to his wife and family on his death.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, joint management of fisheries is

a major goal of this administration. Today, I am pleased to table before the

House the Government's detailed proposal on joint management. This paper

outlines the goals and structure of such a system, and is meant to form the

basis for substantive negotiations with the Federal Government.

Copies of this proposal have already been forwarded to the

Prime Minister, to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and we have

initiated consultations with industry and labour through the Fisheries Advisory

Council.

The fundamental characteristic of joint management is the

integration of federal and provincial responsibility over the harvesting and

processing sectors in the fishing industry. Integration would occur through a

new federal-provincial board with powers granted to it by both levels of

government. Integration will lead to a more efficiently regulated industry. It

will eliminate conflict and contradictions between federal and provincial

policies, enhance the conservation of fisheries resources, and improve the

competitiveness of fisheries enterprises.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has consistently

advocated the creation of a joint fisheries management system for two-and-a-half

years. In fact, this issue was first raised with federal ministers in a meeting

in May, 1989, just weeks after the Government took office. Since that time, we

have made numerous interventions with federal representatives on this issue.

Federal-provincial consultations are an essential first step

to implementing this regime, and will serve to clarify and firmly establish the

principles and approach to be enshrined in the new system. I am also seeking the

support of all hon. members for this proposal.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his

statement prior to the House opening today and would like to say we think it is

about time, since we have been waiting about three years for the Government

position paper, that we finally have it today.

I really expected a proposal from Government that would give

the Province greater flexibility and authority to manage the economic resources

of the fishery and to promote the social and economic development of the

Province. I am a little bit concerned, when I take a first look at, not only the

minister's statement, but the document. Really, it seems that Government is sort

of getting out of governing again. They are trying to give these governing

responsibilities over to sort of another board, Mr. Speaker, such as we have

seen them do with the economy and so on.

These are the first concerns I have when I look at what the

minister has to say, and, of course, we will be looking into the document in

greater detail. As well, I would like to say to the Minister and Government that

I think 80 per cent or more of the communities around the coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador depend on the fishery for their existence, that all government

policies in those communities interrelate with fisheries policies, and if

Government, in any way, does anything to weaken this interrelationship then, I

think, we are going to see a further downturn in the economics of our rural

communities, particularly fishery-dependent communities. I think, as well,

Government would lose the ability to plan and co-ordinate economic policy with

other policy areas. So think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be very careful here

that Government doesn't become less relevant to those coastal communities and to

the people who live in them.

I thank the minister for his statement. We will be having

much more to say over the next few hours.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for

Housing, I am pleased to announce that an innovative housing complex for senior

citizens will be built in Stephenville Crossing. It will be Newfoundland's first

Congregate Housing Complex. Congregate Housing is a cost-effective method of

delivering services to seniors while, at the same time, providing them with

comfortable and affordable housing. When completed the one-storey building will

consists of twenty individual living units as well as common facilities designed

to enable residents to avail of certain community support services - the aim

being to provide residents with the level of care required so that they can

maintain independent lifestyles. One of the two-bedroom units has been specially

designed to accommodate the needs of disabled tenants.

This unique project is being funded by NLHC and its Federal

partner, CMHC. The Bay St. George Senior Citizen's Home is sponsoring the

development and will oversee day-to-day operations once it is completed.

The complex is expected to cost slightly more than $1

million, and is being cost-shared under the Federal/Provincial Private

Non-Profit Housing Program. To offset operating costs, the Federal and

Provincial housing agencies will also cost-share an annual operating subsidy.

The subsidy is to ensure that rental rates are kept in line with the residents'

income. Specifically, the ongoing financial assistance will mean that rental

rates for residents who choose to live at the congregate complex will not exceed

25 per cent of their monthly income.

A permanent full-time coordinator for the Congregate Complex

will be provided and this position will be funded by the Department of Health.

Personal care programs will be tailored for each resident, thereby ensuring that

they are able to live full and active lives. Without this type of arrangement,

those who choose to live at the congregate complex might otherwise be faced with

the prospect of residing in various chronic care facilities to receive the level

of care they require. Institutional care is far more costly to provide and, more

importantly, not the best solution for seniors who only require a minimal amount

of care.

This innovative approach to seniors' housing is the first of

its kind in this Province and I am sure it will prove to be a worthwhile

venture. Senior citizens whose needs cannot be met in other types of government

assisted housing projects will now have a new option available to them.

NLHC is dedicated to supporting such joint initiatives that

are designed to address specific needs. Another unique Federal/Provincial

housing project is currently nearing completion in Corner Brook. This twenty

unit complex has been designed specifically for physically challenged residents

and seniors. It is the only such project in Canada involving a joint effort by

the Provincial and Federal housing agencies and the Canadian Paraplegic

Association.

The Congregate Housing Complex in Stephenville Crossing and

the development being sponsored by the Canadian Paraplegic Association in Corner

Brook are excellent examples of how cooperation and commitment by the housing

agencies and community organizations can result in affordable and comfortable

housing for those in need.

A call for tenders to construct the Congregate Housing

Complex in Stephenville Crossing will be advertised over the coming weeks

and I expect the project to be completed and ready for

occupancy by late 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Opposition we welcome this announcement.

This is a very innovative concept, I think, one that has been used in other

parts of Canada. I recall visiting a similar sort of system in British Columbia,

actually, in Vancouver a number of years ago when I was Minister of Housing, and

it was a concept that we have been looking at every since. But it is certainly a

welcome announcement.

I think this concept will be extremely good for senior

citizens because it not only provides them with housing, it provides them with a

certain measure of care as well. In other words, we are talking about people who

are probably no longer able to maintain an individual home. The alternative

would be to move into some sort of a senior citizen's home where there is a

measure of care. So this is sort of a half way step between an independent home

and living in an institution.

I am sure that there are many people in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, who can benefit from this particular one, and, of course, we welcomed

earlier the announcement of the twenty units in Corner Brook for those who are

physically challenged. That is also an excellent concept, Mr. Speaker. These are

two concepts of where the housing corporations jointly are now designing housing

units for the needs of their clients, and this is long overdue. We have been

moving in that area for some time, and this is certainly a good step forward,

and there are others.

I would encourage the minister and the Housing Corporation to

look as well at the needs for single parents. I think probably the largest

individual need that we have are for single parent families in housing units.

Many times we have requests, as MHAs, to try and help to get people into these

types of units. They do not qualify because the units are too large or the units

are too small. I think it is high time that we had some units specifically

designed for those people who, through no fault of their own, require some

housing assistance from the Government. So we support this initiative, Mr.

Speaker, and we welcome this announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier

related to his press statement this morning because we did not have a chance to

go through the document that was tabled today, but with respect to the joint

management board that the Government is seeking. I would ask the Premier if he

can tell us how broadly did the Government consult in developing this particular

proposal, which I presume has taken the last two and a half years. For example,

did he consult with the Fishermen's Union, and has he received the formal

endorsement of the fishermen's union and others, for example, to these

proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I did not personally consult

with the Fishermens' Union, although I have on a number of occasions discussed

with members of the Fishermens' Union the general principle of joint management.

In detail, I did not personally consult with representatives of the Fishermens'

Union.

The Province has available to it the advice of the Minister's

Advisory Council on the fishery, and that, of course, includes a significant

number of members from the Fishermens' Union as well as people involved in all

aspects of the fishery. I know that there have been discussions between the

Minister and senior executive people in the Department of Fisheries with that

Council from time to time, but I would have to ask the Minister to comment in

any detail on that.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us, then, if

the Fishing Industry Advisory Board has formally supported these proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I

met with the Fishing Industry Advisory Board on Friday past and I have met with

the Fishing Industry Advisory Board on at least two other occasions, when we

have discussed general fisheries matters including joint management, and I have

always gotten strong endorsement on the principle of joint management from the

Fishing Industry Advisory Board. Now, exactly what the level of involvement of

the Fishing Industry Advisory Board has been in the specifics of this proposal,

I would again have to defer to the minister.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could answer

the question. Has the Fishing Industry Advisory Board formally endorsed and

supported these proposals?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Fishing Industry Advisory

Board is made up of all sectors of the Newfoundland fishing industry, the

inshore, offshore, both unions, large boat operators and small boat operators.

There has been ongoing consultation with that group now for quite some time.

On Friday, the Premier and I met with the Advisory Board and

the Premier outlined what was entailed in the management plan that we were going

to present, and there appeared, then, to be a general consensus around the table

that the proposal would be acceptable. Last night my Deputy Minister met with

certain other people within the Advisory Council and a similar consensus was

arrived at.

So, I don't know what more we can do in terms of

consultation. We consulted with the Union and members of the Advisory Council,

we are having ongoing meetings with Mr. Bruce Chapman and members of FANL, and

that is the way the process will work, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: This is nothing short of another scandal, Mr.

Speaker. Do you mean to tell me, the minister tells the House that he waited

until Friday to put these proposals to the Fishing Industry Advisory Board -

Friday past?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. SIMMS: I asked him if there was endorsement for it.

This is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Unbelievable! Similar to what they did with

the Local Preference Policy, at the last minute they called in a bunch of

people.

Let me ask the Premier a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In his

statement this morning, the Premier said the Government proposes that this joint

management board they are talking about would now be given responsibility for

developing policies for the processing sector, the Fisheries Loan Board, and for

granting processing licenses. I would like to ask the Premier: If that is so,

what role would then remain for the provincial Department of Fisheries? Would

there be a need for one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a quite extensive role,

in fact, if we are to protect and promote the fisheries. One of the things we

have to do is develop new markets and new uses of the fishery. This is a major

role. The management of education and training for the fisheries is a major

role. If the Leader of the Opposition would care to look at the statement in

detail he would see numerous other areas listed, as well.

So there is a significant area of responsibility. But we

feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government should assign to this board its

responsibility in terms of management principles for the stocks and the

allocation, and in terms of the principles and rules relating to harvesting, and

we should assign to it the principles, rules and policy development relating to

processing. Now, in that way, you can get it co-ordinated and get the management

of the fishery done in a very co-ordinated and sensible way, perhaps for the

first time since we have been a Province of Canada.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, wouldn't the Premier confirm that

the Government's proposal, as he just described now, really passes over the

management of the fishery from catching to processing to an independent

unaccountable board, independent unaccountable management agency. Isn't that

what this really is, and isn't this really a return to the 1930s when we turned

the management of the fishery over to a Commission of Government? Isn't that

what we are seeing here really? Does he believe that we have the ability to

govern ourselves or does he not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We believe we have the ability to govern

ourselves, but we also acknowledge that we have the responsibility and we have

the good sense to assign to those who can carry out specific duties better than

individuals or politicians or civil servants can. We do not have the arrogance

to assume that only politicians know what should be done or know how to manage

the fisheries. That is probably what has happened to the way the fisheries has

been managed in the past in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It needed a good dose of

common sense that acknowledged the proper way to manage the fishery. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with surrendering.

There would be significant proposals remaining, significant

powers remaining that would be administered by the Department of Fisheries and,

Mr. Speaker, that board, instead of being unaccountable, would be accountable to

the two Ministers of Fisheries. It would have to account to both Ministers of

Fisheries, and it would be set up in that way.

Now, I know the hon. members opposite are having trouble

understanding those principles of sound management, Mr. Speaker. Their

performance of government in the past has demonstrated quite clearly their lack

of understanding of sound principles.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Gave away

what little bit we had, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of

Fisheries. Approximately two weeks ago, the Premier reported in Halifax that

Canada should lead an international police force to police the fishery to stop

European overfishing on the Grand Banks. I would like to ask the Minister of

Fisheries, because I am sure there has been some pretty detailed consultation on

this with the Premier: How would Canada put such a police force together, and

what countries does the minister feel should participate in the proposed

international police force in order for it to be able to enforce catch quotas on

the Grand Banks?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will table for the House

the precise speech that I made in Halifax, and members will see that there was

no reference whatsoever to an international policing patrol. Let me tell hon.

members where that came from.

During a news media scrum afterwards, people were talking

about how the fisheries could better be controlled on the Grand Banks, and one

of them said: Could we use an international police force? And I said: Well, yes,

I suppose that could be used. It may be a very effective means. Would you have

to resort to an international police force? I said: Yes, it may well be a very

effective means. So I acknowledge it was not my brilliant idea. It came out of a

question in a news scrum, Mr. Speaker. That is where it came from.

MR. SIMMS: The question was, how would it work?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you were the one who said yes.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure, since that time two weeks ago, the Premier has had

time to think about it a bit more, and I am wondering if he could inform the

House -

What's the matter with the member over there, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is just back from London, England,

boy.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is upset because they are giving away

the processing end of things, as well, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And so he should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am wondering what authority would the

international force have to police activities on the Grand Banks

in international waters? What authority would they have, and

where would they get the authority is the big question, because we are dealing

internationally here. Where would such a police force get the authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the context of the speech

that I was giving promoted further development of the Law of the Sea, and talked

about the meetings that are coming up in Brazil, where the United Nations should

take a lead role, and perhaps put in place another Law of the Sea Conference to

further develop a basis for such authority. Short of that, the authority could

only come from the consensus of the nations of the world agreeing, by agreement,

to establish this and to provide for the management of the fisheries in those

areas. That is the only place the authority could come from.

No nation acting on its own has the right to legislate

specifically in international waters, although some larger nations have declared

principles and approaches and have had the military power and might to back them

up, and this has occurred in times past. Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, at

international law, such authority can only come from a consensus amongst nations

usually reflected in a treaty, or something like the Law of the Sea Conference

developed out of the UN, as the last one was.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is supposed to have said that Canada should serve

notice to the rest of the world that unless action is taken to control the

overfishing within the next twelve months or so, and I believe he is using the

date of January 1, 1993, that Canada should take its own actions. I would like

to ask the Premier: What unilateral action should or can Canada take under

international law, and what action really is the Premier advocating? Is he

advocating that Canada ignore international law - or what else is he suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that

we ignore international law, but neither should we sit back and impotently do

nothing as pirate nations rape those resources, destroy the resources for

mankind -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - destroy the means of livelihood of a

significant portion of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Neither should

we sit back and do nothing!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a respected nation

in this world, but in terms of foreign overfishing, in terms of what has been

happening, we have been acting like an international wimp, and it is time we got

on our feet and did something!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it will be for the Government

of Canada to decide, and when the time comes we will give them some ideas as to

what they can do. There is an argument that they can act under international law

as it exists at the moment. To manage properly, the coastal state can take steps

towards a sound and sensible management of straddling stocks under the existing

Law of the Sea. That argument is there, but there is also an argument against

it, I quite readily admit.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this is so significant that Canada

should be leading world action and opinion in this matter and stop the rape of

these stocks off our shores.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries. It is now obvious to everyone involved in or who is

watching the commercial salmon fishery in this Province, that major changes will

take place this fall in that particular fishery. I would like to ask the

minister: What is the Government's position with respect to the commercial

salmon fishery? And what, if any, representation has he sought or had from

fishermen around the Province and the Fishermens' Union with respect to

formulating a policy that it took to Ottawa?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Federal

Government is anxious to do something with respect to the conservation of our

salmon stocks. There have been discussions with the Province as to the methods

to be employed to achieve that objective. There has been a suggestion that maybe

there be a mandatory buy-out, for example, of licences of salmon fishermen, and

that they would be compensated based on the best of the number of previous years

earnings.

We have met with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this

and we have also have had meetings with the Union. Our most recent meeting with

the Union took place, I believe it was, on Wednesday or Thursday of last week.

It came to light then that there has not been, in our view, adequate

consultation between the Union and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Subsequent to that meeting, I wrote Mr. Crosbie and suggested to him that there

should be a meeting convened between people in my department, his department,

and, of course, the Fishermen's Union, at which time there would be a free and

frank discussion as to exactly what the Federal Government intends to do, if, in

fact, their mandatory buy-out will include Labrador. We have suggested to them

that certainly Labrador, and maybe White Bay North, would be exempt from any

such buy-out.

But, I guess, in reply to the question, Mr. Speaker, a

meeting is being convened between the three parties, hopefully some time next

week, and then the whole matter will be discussed.

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

Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that

the federal minister has announced that changes will be made this fall? We now

have only about twenty days or so before this fall is over. Furthermore, the

minister just made reference to some sort of compensation. What do he and the

provincial Department of Fisheries consider to be adequate compensation for

those people who would lose their source of livelihood as a result of a buy-out

of the commercial salmon fishery?

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

MR. CARTER: There have been no final discussions yet, or

negotiations, with the Province in terms of what would be a satisfactory formula

for buying out the licences. That is why we want the three parties to sit down

with the Fishermen's Union and the fishermen, and let us try to work out a

satisfactory arrangement, one that will satisfy the fishermen.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: I thank the minister for these clear answers,

Mr. Speaker. The minister, in one of his rambling answers, has indicated that

certainly, a large portion of the Island of Newfoundland will be included in a

commercial ban of the salmon fishery, with the possible exclusion of Labrador

and White Bay North and that area.

Let me ask the minister this: What is the Province's position

on the recreational fishery in the same areas? Has the Province adopted a

position with respect to the angler or the recreational sports fishermen in this

Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, any moratorium or buy-out of

commercial salmon licence, naturally would have to carry with it an undertaking

that the angling, the sports recreation salmon fishery would be on a

hook-and-release basis. Of course that is necessary because you might say: well,

why not put a total ban on the recreational fishery as well? But there are

problems. If that were to happen there would probably even be greater problems

than we are having now in terms of policing and enforcing the regulations. If

the rivers were thrown wide open without any anglers, it would be denied then

the benefit of having x number of people on the rivers, at least keeping an eye

on things. So, hook-and-release appears to be the most practical way to deal

with the recreational fishery.

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

MR. WINSOR: Perhaps he can clarify this, Mr. Speaker. Is

it the Province's position, the one that you have put forth to Ottawa now, that

hook-and-release will be the position adopted by the Province for the

recreational sports fisherman in this Province? Is that the Province's position?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still ongoing

on this matter as I said at the outset. We are having meetings I hope, this week

with the union and the Federal Government, at which time we will be discussing

all aspects of their proposal to deal with this problem. That will be one of the

suggestions put forward by us, in fact, we have already said it, that if we are

going to put a ban on the commercial fishery, then it must follow that certain

measures must be taken by the recreational fishery and the-hook-and release

approach appears to be the best one.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Because the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs has introduced the so-called rating sheets, and

because the minister has already confirmed that those rating sheets will

determine whether a municipality gets any capital funding for water and sewer or

road paving contracts for 1992, would the minister tell the House how many

points a municipality would have to get in order to even get on the so-called

priority list for 1992 capital funding?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to say what

minimum number of points would be required at this point, because first of all,

Government has to decide the amount of dollars available for capital works for

the forthcoming year, and then of course the priorities would be established as

far as all the communities are concerned and the cut-off point would be fixed at

that time and we will know what the minimum number of points, as the hon. member

puts it, will be established when we know the amount of dollars available.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Under the

first component, Mr. Speaker, of the municipal operating grants, namely the

Equalization Component. Could the minister tell the House how the department

arrived at the figure of approximately $48,000, that is the provincial average,

that is the average they use to determine the percentage of the deficiency that

the department would have to pay to municipalities? Could he tell us how he

arrived at that, approximately $48,000 average?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that

question under advisement. At the time, when the consultants were working on the

grants program, the four components of equalization and local revenue incentive,

the households and the roads components, those four components were dealt with

by the consultants and eventually of course we brought in the new grants

program, so I will have to check on how the $48,000 figure was arrived at, Mr.

Speaker. I could guess at the answer, it is probably done by way of average

appraisal in the Province, but I will get the answer and report to the House.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

Premier and the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, time

and time again, have referred to the so-called 'pool of monies' used to finance

the four components under the municipal operating grant. Could the minister tell

the House how much is in that so-called pool, and why they left the roads

component sector of municipal grants to suffer the most in small municipalities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: A good question, Mr. Speaker. I was going to

answer it actually a little later in the agenda, just before Orders of the Day I

believe it would have been answered, but, Mr. Speaker, the roads component is

the final component of the four, and in fact when the calculations are done, the

equalization component is done first and then the local revenue incentive

component, then the households and finally the roads component. Now what has

actually happened as far as the 1991 allocation is concerned is some $1,850,000

on the plus side will be going out to communities now that we have done the

calculations, and on the negative side there will be a recovery of some

$550,000. So in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have a gain by the communities of some

$1,281,000 in the overall grants program this year. The roads component itself

is slightly down, but that is only because the first two components of

equalization and local revenue incentive, which are the two most important ones,

and the reason the grants were changed in the first place, those two components

are up dramatically.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is surely aware by now that there is

a very serious problem developing in health care, especially as it pertains to

Labrador and the recruitment of physicians. A case in point is the Melville

Hospital where there is a shortage of eight physicians as of October. Could the

minister confirm if that is accurate, that there is a shortage of eight

physicians at the Melville Hospital?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether there

are eight positions empty today or not, but it does not come as any great

surprise. There has been a severe problem with recruitment in Labrador and the

Northern Peninsula, I suppose, every since Sir Wilfred Grenfell was in that

area. It is a problem that we have been trying to deal with. We have come up

with very imaginative programs within the department. We introduced a bursary

program just a few months ago where we will give native Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians a bursary of $12,500 on condition they go back, but I have to admit

to the hon. member that there is a problem with recruiting doctors through rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is a problem which the whole nation has to

contend with, getting physicians to serve in our rural areas.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the minister

that there is, indeed, a shortage of eight physicians at the Melville Hospital.

Can the Minister of Health tell us what incentive his

department is going to offer to physicians to relocate to Labrador specifically?

I know there is a problem in rural areas of the Province generally, but to

Labrador specifically where the problem seems to be horrendous in that area.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the first answer to

the question, I am taking the risk of accepting the hon. member's word for it

that there is a vacancy of eight, there might indeed be a vacancy of eight. But

last week this is the hon. member who told the House that the Janeway had a

million dollar deficit, and when I looked at it closer it was only $200,000. So

I will check this out. There could well, indeed, be eight positions vacant

there, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible) earlier answer, and obviously he had his

supplementary ready before and he had to come with it.

We are trying our best to recruit for rural Newfoundland.

Over the last few months we announced an excellent program whereby we will give

$12,500 to students of Newfoundland and Labrador who will go back to rural areas

and serve. The hospital boards have recruiting programs where they go all over

the world and try to recruit. Since I have become minister, we have put a major

drive on with our own university where every year we have an opportunity for

administrators and board chairpersons to come into St. John's and meet with

students in the hospital.

We are doing all the things that other Provinces are doing,

and I would say publicly today, Mr. Speaker, if we could find a suitable eight

or ten doctors anywhere in the world - I have to say suitable because they have

to meet certain requirements, certain licences - I can assure there will be no

need to worry about getting the transportation to Labrador, we will be quite

willing to do everything in Government's power to make sure that we get doctors

there.

The unfortunate thing is that for some reason people do not

want to go to Labrador or to the Northern peninsula where I live. I believe the

people who refuse to go there are the losers. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker,

these things are facts of life that we have to deal with, and we are trying our

utmost to deal with them. Hopefully, if the facts are right, and I have to take

everything the hon. member tells me with a grain of salt, because he made a fool

of himself with the Janeway question a couple of weeks ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: We will see, Mr. Speaker, by the end of the

fiscal year who has made a fool of himself. The hon. member said it was a

$200,000 deficit and the Janeway came back and said it was $500,000, so

obviously the minister has made a fool of himself as well.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. The minister

said a moment ago his Government is doing exactly what every other province in

Canada is doing in the way of incentives but let me tell you he is not. Quebec

and Ontario, specifically, make incentives available to their physicians in the

northern parts of those provinces. Since the minister has admitted that there is

a very serious problem in recruiting physicians in the Labrador portion of the

Province would Government be willing to offer an increase in fees over and above

the current MCP billing for any physician working in Labrador?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, he is the only person in

Newfoundland who is hoping that the Janeway will have a deficit, that is quite

obvious, he wants to make a self-fulfilling prophecy. In Quebec doctors who

serve in rural areas get 115 per cent of the Medicare fee and doctors in urban

areas get 85 per cent. This is an experiment which they tried, but in the last

correspondence we had with Quebec they were considering doing away with it

because it is not working. That particular program would not work in

Newfoundland and Labrador because the area which the hon. member is talking

about, and in most rural areas of the Province, we have doctors who are on

salary and not on fee-for-service, so that is a program which we looked at. I

believe the best program of all is the one we have, where we take

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and find a way to get them into university. We

pay their bursaries, we pay their expenses on condition that they go back and

serve in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

That was an experiment which worked in other parts of the

nation and in other parts of North America, and I believe it is a good one.

There are a whole list of other things that are done. Some hospital boards give

free housing, some hospital boards enter into a special deal with the physician

where they guarantee him some time off to take study leave. There are a whole

lot of imaginative schemes in place, Mr. Speaker, and Government tends to be

open and receptive to any suggestion which hospital boards will make.

Notwithstanding that it is a fact of life that in this nation we have an over

supply of doctors in the urban areas and an under supply of doctors in the rural

areas. For seventeen years the previous administration wrestled with it and

could not solve the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. minister that I think he has

answered the question, but secondly Question Period is over.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics Lien

Act."

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

a bill, entitled, "An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Act, The Bills

Of Sale Act, The Conditional Sales Act, and The Registration Of Deeds Act, in

relation to the offshore area.

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

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Province has released its proposal for joint

management which provides for the integration of federal and provincial

responsibility over the harvesting and processing sectors in the fishing

industry through a new federal/provincial board; and

WHEREAS integration will lead to a more efficiently regulated

industry and will eliminate conflict and contradictions between federal and

provincial policies, enhance the conservation of fisheries resources and improve

the competitiveness of fisheries enterprises; and

WHEREAS the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has

tabled a proposal for fisheries reform which does not seek to integrate federal

and provincial management responsibilities, and places the decision-making power

over the Newfoundland fishery in the hands of an Atlantic-wide agency where the

Province's influence would be diluted;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse

and support the joint management proposal released on December 2, 1991 by the

hon. the Premier and the hon. the Minister of Fisheries; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House formally oppose the

federal proposal for fisheries management.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to

Standing Order 50, that debate or further consideration of a Second Reading of

Bill 50, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities

And Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region," standing in

the name of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and any

amendments to that motion for Second Reading of Bill No. 50 shall not be further

adjourned, and that further consideration of any amendments relating to Second

Reading of Bill No. 50 shall not be further postponed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in my absence last week the

Premier was asked a question concerning the municipal operating grants and I

would like to table an answer to that question.

The original figures for municipal operating grants provided

to municipalities in December, 1990 for inclusion in the 1990-1991 budgets of

the municipalities were based on estimated statistics prepared by the consulting

firm that was engaged by the Department to help devise the new grant system.

Since that time, revised figures have been prepared by the department based on

and verified by audited financial statements and other financial documents.

When these new statistics were prepared in preparation of the

revised grants for 1991, the end result was that an extra amount will be paid to

a number of municipalities totalling approximately $1,850,000, while, at the

same time, the Department will have to recover from the remainder of the

municipalities a total of approximately $550,000. The net result will be

additional grants in the area of $1,300,000 for the calendar year, 1991.

This type of adjustment to operating grants, incidentally, is

no different from the previous method employed by the Department in adjusting

the old tax incentive grants based on audited financial statements. The

additional grants for $1,850,000 have already been processed by the Department

and efforts will be taken soon to effect recovery of the amount of $550,000 from

the other municipalities by deductions from their first quarterly grants for

In this latter case, in the event that recovery of an amount

from a certain municipality would cause undue hardship for that council, the

Department has funds available to provide special financial assistance to the

municipality to help alleviate the hardship.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which

notice has been given. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the hon. the Member

for St. John's East asked me to table in the House some figures relative to the

lobster trap bank that we have around the Province. He wanted to know the number

of lobster pots still around. I have the figures here and I find that at the

present time there are 6,805 lobster pots in storage. These pots cost a total of

$37.43 each. They are being sold for seven dollars each, so it is not a big

money-maker. In fact, it is almost as bad as Sprung. In 1978, Mr. Speaker, there

were approximately 21,000 pots constructed. Some were sold - in fact, most of

them were sold. (Inaudible) we have 6,805. So I table this for the hon.

gentleman's information, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition from approximately 221 Pentecostal constituents of mine who are members

of the Pentecostal congregation at Springdale. Having spent the last month as a

reluctant guest of the Minister of Health at the Burn Unit of the Health

Sciences I am indeed pleased to be able to keep my commitment to deliver this

petition before our Christmas recess. Now the prayer of the petition is as

follows.

The congregation of the Pentecostal Church in Springdale

believe very strongly in the right of parents to provide for their children an

education which is scripturally and morally based. This belief has been

demonstrated in the past through voluntary services of congregation members and

through a high level of financial support for local Pentecostal school systems.

With the commission of enquiry into the delivery of education in this Province,

the issue of denominational education has once again been brought to the

forefront. In the debate some have suggested that the denominational system be

abolished. We, however, regard the denominational system of schooling as a

sacred trust which has a firm basis in history, in law, and most especially in

scripture. It is because of this that we, the undersigned, wish to express our

strong support of the denominational system of education as it presently exists

in Newfoundland. We beg the political leaders of our Province to represent our

wishes in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, when the commission of enquiry was established

the Pentecostal citizens of Green Bay took this consultation process very

seriously, and I was asked to attend Pentecostal home and school association

meetings on the north and south shores of my district. Both the meeting in

Springdale and the one in Robert's Arm were packed to the rafters. In the case

of Pentecostals, their denominational system was given constitutional protection

already afforded other churches only during the latter years of the Peckford PC

administration. Therefore this is a newly acquired and therefore much cherished

constitutional right.

While the intensity of commitment to denominational education

varies from denomination to denomination, Pentecostals, it can be said,

generally choose to take considerable interest in the education of their

children. You can tell this when you enter a Pentecostal school. You quickly

find evidence of Pentecostal theology and morals, not only in religion class but

also in math class, in the corridors, in the staff room and in the gymnasium.

Pentecostal schooling is more than the three Rs, it is part of a way of life.

I also happened to serve on the Public Accounts Committee of

the House of Assembly. Some months ago we questioned denominational

representatives under oath. Those representatives testified that in their

opinion the dollar savings in the elimination of the denominational education

system have been greatly exaggerated and that much interdenominational

cooperation already exists.

Speaking for the Pentecostal Education Council, Pastor Earl

Batstone gave evidence that Pentecostals are keenly interested in a quality

academic education for their children, but only where numbers allow such

quality. For instance, small schools in Point Leamington and Seal Cove - White

Bay were closed due to low enrollments. Of the 12,000 Pentecostal students in

this Province only 6,000 are in full-fledged Pentecostal school systems.

Pastor Batstone pointed out that in addition to their

citizens tax burden Pentecostal parents make substantial extra financial

contributions to their school system. Over a ten year period Pentecostals in the

Springdale area contributed $1.5 million to the capital cost of their school

system. The Deer Lake congregation contributed $700,000 to the first phase of

their school system. The Port de Grave Pentecostals built their school system

outright from their own funds. On average, I am told, Pentecostals contribute 31

per cent of the capital cost of new schools over and above the usual government

grant.

The Pentecostal system also cooperates with other systems.

Sop's Arm and Pacquet are co-operative ventures, as is the provision of

educational psychologists and speech pathologists in Central Newfoundland, where

possible, co-operative busing is in effect. In short, Mr. Speaker, the

Pentecostal congregations are committed to a quality education system in their

particular christian education context where and when the numbers warrant. They

participate in co-operative ventures with other systems and in most cases they

put their money where their hearts and their mouths are in support of their

system.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition, I have signed it and I

ask that it be tabled and referred to the department to which it relates. Thank

you very much.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand with

pleasure to support the petition so ably presented by my colleague the Member

for Green Bay, whom I understand let himself out of hospital early, so that he

could come here to present the petition, which shows the support he has for his

constituents.

The Pentecostal Assemblies throughout the Province are very

high on the system of education we have in this Province, but perhaps none of

them to a greater extent than the Pentecostals in the Springdale area. A few

years ago they opened a new school/church complex in Springdale and I had the

pleasure of officiating actually at that ceremony, and to see the hard work and

dedication that the people put into the complex and to education generally in

that area and in the Province actually in total, is certainly enough to make one

sit up and take notice.

Over the years, the education system in the Province of

Newfoundland has developed, mainly because of the influences of the different

denominations, and what a lot of people forget when they get caught up in

arguments about whether or not our system is the one we should have or whether

we would be better off with a public system, they forget sometimes the history

of the development of education in the Province and the part played by the

different denominations. When there was nobody else, they went out and

volunteered in many cases to go around the Province and teach, to construct

schools, most of the original buildings put up in this Province were done so

with the assistance and the funding of people who supported the different

churches.

The level of dedication in the system is without compare

anywhere else in the country, and I guess that is why in some of the provinces

we see today a number of them leaning towards the system of education we have in

the Province, rather than away from it, as some people in this Province seem to

be headed. However, I wonder if the true facts were laid on the table concerning

the financial involvement and the financial costs of the system of education we

have, when people really saw how little perhaps it costs in light of the true

value, then perhaps we would have different views on our system of education. I

strongly support the petition as presented by my colleague and I congratulate

the people who took the initiative to send the petition to this hon. House.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us who

know education in this Province, the Government included, acknowledge the

tremendous contribution of the churches to education over the years. Most of us

are aware of the history and development of this system and we know that the

churches, and more recently the Pentecostal Church, made tremendous

contributions to education in a variety of ways, not just funding.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say though, that there are

special pressures being exerted on the system today, in the 1990s. We have

demands for more and better education for more people. We have declining

enrolments and an increasing number of small schools, in fact the projections

are that by the year 2000, we will have 100,000 students in the schools in this

Province and we had 162,000 just twenty years ago, so we have declining

enrolments and that means many small schools, and the third thing that is

happening, Mr. Speaker, is that we are in a period of fiscal restraint and I

think there are tremendous pressures on the educational system to ensure that we

get the best quality we can with the limited dollars we have. That is why this

Government set up a Royal Commission. We want to ask the public of the Province

what kind of restructuring of the system is necessary? The question is not

whether this system should be kept or abolished. The question, as far as this

Government is concerned, is how can the system be restructured to meet the new

demands of the 21st century? We are looking forward to the report of the Royal

Commission and I assure you we will give these recommendations every

consideration.

The Member for St. John's East Extern and I agree on many

things. One thing we really agree on is that the time has come to look at

interdenominational sharing in all parts of this Province so that we can provide

the best quality education for the students in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 22, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not an adjourned debate. This is the

first time it has been up for second reading.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Elections, Controverted Elections and Election Financing." (Bill No. 55)

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to confess at the outset to a slight tinge of pride,

sinning a little bit by perhaps having an excessive amount of pride in the

action we are taking today in introducing this particular piece of legislation,

pride not for myself from my personal point of view, although my commitment to

it has been strong for a very long period of time, but pride that as Leader of

the Liberal Party I can stand here and introduce a proposal that has its roots

in liberalism and has come from the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: On numerous occasions in the past such

legislation has been promised. The former Government promised, I believe, after

every election, that they were going to reform the Election Act and make it

fairer, control political financing and so on but they never did so, largely

because they did not want to give up the sense of additional security or

preferred position that they had as the governing party, so there was no

commitment to the principle that they were espousing at the time. Mr. Speaker,

that is part of the reason for my sin of having a little excess pride today. The

Liberal Party stated its position clearly during the election campaign and we

are here today to honour that commitment. I would like just to, if I might, take

a moment or two to read exactly what the commitment was. Members opposite are

frequently given to standing in this House and quoting from the Liberal Party

Manifesto of the last election campaign. Let me quote from it today, Mr.

Speaker. The commitment was: if we are to preserve parliamentary democracy in

this Province there must be reform in four major areas. First, there must be

reform in the process of the election of members to the House of Assembly and in

particular the financing of those elections. At the present time there are no

limits on either the contributions to political parties and candidates, or on

the expenditures by candidates and parties. A Liberal Government will within two

years of taking office introduce legislation to place limits on expenditures by

individual candidates and parties during general elections and by-elections with

penalties adequate to deter breaches. Secondly, place limits on the amount that

may be donated by any one source and require disclosure of donations over a

specified amount. Thirdly, provide for tax credits similar to the federal tax

credit for donations to political parties; fourth, provide for a minimum of

thirty days notice for a general election, and require by-elections to be called

and held within sixty days of a vacancy occurring.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was the commitment that we made, and I

have to confess at the same time that I express the sense of pride that

technically, in terms of introducing it or laying it before the House, we

short-changed the Province by just about six months. We should have had it in

six months ago. In fact, it was largely ready six months ago, but we had a

fairly busy session and there were so many other things, that this did not get

the immediate priority. We knew we would be able to introduce it this fall, so

we took the extra few months to do that, and gave priority to greater needs at

the time.

But, Mr. Speaker, we intend to have the legislation through

the House and ready to operate in adequate time to allow the election officials

to properly prepare for the next general election which, give or take a few

months one way or the other, might be about a year-and-a-half or so from now,

which would be four years after the great event when we were elected in April of

MR. MATTHEWS: You won't be waiting that long.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I would say! I would say there is a

lot of posturing going on over there right now!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Any group of people that has dropped below

the single member for the NDP, the whole of them together dropped below the NDP,

should not be saying too much about not waiting very long. I would be hesitant

to be talking that way if I were the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't dropped (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I would think that nobody has dropped

fifty points, not even the hon. members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, that is not correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) forty-nine.

PREMIER WELLS: Not correct. It was eighty-two to

sixty-one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-three.

PREMIER WELLS: Eighty-two to sixty-one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-three.

PREMIER WELLS: The eighty-two was of the decided vote.

Sixty-one is the decided vote.

MR. BAKER: Eighty-two to fifty-five and back up to

sixty-one.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I am sorry. I apologise for misleading

the House. The President of Treasury Board reminds me that it was eighty-two

down to fifty-five, and then back up to sixty-one after the election of the new

leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That's right. I had forgotten that. That

was of the decided vote. I believe Mr. Bush was ninety per cent or something

after the Gulf War, and that was unrealistic. Well, I have to confess to the

House, Mr. Speaker, that eighty-two was utterly unrealistic. I mean, it was an

inordinate event, an unusual thing at the time, that caused things to be

distorted. So eighty-two was never ever real. Sixty-one is more realistic, I

believe. Not bad. It is more appropriate, so I will not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, I promised the Leader of the

Opposition that I would try to clue this up in half an hour. If I keep getting

diverted like this to deal with the hon. members' interjections, it may take me

somewhat more than half an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I do, in all seriousness, confess to a degree of

pride in being able to introduce this legislation today. Some of our rules,

under the existing Elections Act, were antiquated, to say the least, and needed

a considerable degree of reform. In many respects, there were no rules with

respect to certain political activity that ought to have been regulated. The

raising of funds by political parties, and expenditures during election

campaigns ought to have been regulated in order to ensure fairness and balance -

we get back to that phrase again - so that the governing party is not in a

preferred position to get benefits from perhaps a greater level of contribution

and so on, so that it would be fair to all parties contesting elections. That

was really the commitment of the Liberal Party, to ensure for fairness, not to

take advantage of the opportunity while it was in power to preserve a privileged

position for itself. Instead, we put the interest of the people of this Province

first and foremost as we are inclined to do all of the time, Mr. Speaker.

We made our commitment, and we have now delivered, but I want

to also advise the House that this piece of legislation did not just happen. It

wasn't pulled off the shelf from where the former government had it. It did not

exist before, we had to create it, and I want to give proper recognition to

those who contributed to the creation that is here today. Because I must also

confess, while I express great pride, as Leader of the Liberal Party, to the

commitment that I made to the electorate during the last election, I also have

to confess that others contributed far more than I did on a personal basis to

developing the detail that we are dealing with here today.

First, Mr. Speaker, we consulted with the political

committee, if you will, of some members from the Liberal side of the House, and

some members from the Liberal Party, to develop and hone the Liberal commitment,

to define the Liberal commitment to providing for a fair and proper election

process for this Province. That committee developed the principles, and

identified the principles that ought to guide us in the management of political

activity. Then, when those principles were identified, we put in place a

committee of senior public servants. It was that committee of senior public

servants, Mr. Speaker, that took the ideas and principles that were the policy

of the Liberal Party, and developed them into this statute that we are dealing

with today.

I want to acknowledge the contribution made by a number of

people, not the least of which was the former Chief Electoral Officer, who had

very significant input into this proposal and its detailed operation and was

able to bring to bear information that he had gathered from a variety of other

jurisdictions as to how best to achieve the objective. So he made a significant

contribution, and I want to acknowledge that. There were a couple of senior

officials from the Department of Justice who participated on this committee, and

they, too, made a significant contribution. The Deputy Clerk of the Executive

Council was personally involved, and he, also, made a very significant

contribution. The Chief of Staff of my office was also personally involved, and

he made a terrific contribution. So that group of senior officials took those

ideas and principles that were the dedicated position of the Liberal Party, and

converted them, Mr. Speaker, into the provisions that you see here today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to just go over briefly what is

involved in this statute that we see before us. It really replaces a couple of

existing statutes which will be repealed when this legislation comes into force.

The existing Elections Act would be repealed, and the Controverted Elections Act

would be replaced; this provides for controverted elections, as well.

Just to run over briefly, Mr. Speaker, what is, if you will,

the guts of this proposal, it really contains the following: It provides for the

appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer by the House of Assembly, not by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but the appointment is to be by way of

resolution on the floor of this House, and the Chief Electoral Officer is to be

answerable to this House, through your Honour, as Speaker of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I have to say, also, Mr. Speaker, that

while this is not yet the law, and the office of Chief Electoral Officer is now

vacant, we intend to fill that by the same process. So the Government will be

bringing forward a resolution to the House of Assembly to consider the nominee

to be appointed by the House. Even though we don't have to do it - we could

still act under the existing Elections Act and appoint the Chief Electoral

Officer, we would intend not to fill that vacancy in that manner. Even though

the Act may not be in force at the time that we fill the vacancy, we would

intend to proceed by that manner. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we intend to

shortly bring a resolution before the House to fill the vacancy so that the

discussion will take place here.

We think that is a significant change, Mr. Speaker, not alone

from the fact of having the House appoint him, but from the appearance of it. It

puts it beyond question, and it is not a purely political appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) full House or by (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, it would be a resolution to be debated

in open, public debate in the full House. We intend to bring forward, very

shortly, that resolution, Mr. Speaker.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the new statute would provide for the

appointment of returning officers by the Chief Electoral Officer, and that they

would be required to reside in the electoral district they represent.

The qualifications of electors would be being Canadian

citizens eighteen years of age or over and ordinarily resident in the Province.

We are proposing that there be thirty days notice. Now,

thirty is probably about the right time. Twenty-one is too short. I think

everybody agrees that twenty-one is unfair and gives the governing party an

unfair advantage. Because the past practice in this Province has been that you

hold it very secret and you suddenly spring unexpectedly on the others an

election. This is unfair. With twenty-one days to organize and get ready the

governing party can be at a distinct advantage, keep the information to itself,

and then suddenly spring an election. So we feel that it should be increased to

be a minimum of twenty-eight to thirty days, at least. We are proposing thirty

days in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, that, then, provides a week or so to get

organized and get nominations in place, and then provide for pretty well a full

two to three weeks of good, solid campaigning, which we think is fairer to all

concerned. It is fairer to the electorate and it is fairer to all of the

political parties and the individuals who will be interested in seeking election

to the House. It also provides for a permanent list of electors that will be

constantly updated so that an election could be held at any time.

The legislation would require that if somebody were

affiliated with a political party, that would be disclosed on the ballot paper.

The party affiliation would be disclosed. And the leader of the political party

would have to confirm that the person claiming to be part of that party is,

indeed, the representative of that party in the election campaign. We think this

makes sense, we think it is consistent with what happens, anyway, in the

day-to-day conduct of an election campaign.

The new Act would also provide for voting by proxy, which is

a change. It will be very strictly regulated but it will provide for voting by

proxy, as well.

We are also suggesting that in any district where the

difference is less than ten, there be an automatic recount, that the electoral

officer require the recount so as not to cause the person for whose benefit the

recount should be held to incur the cost; that it would be a recount required by

the returning officer for that particular district. We think that is fair to all

parties.

We are also suggesting that one Supreme Court judge is quite

adequate to conduct a recount. It is an anomaly of our law, at the moment, that

we have two Supreme Court judges to conduct a recount of a small district in the

Province, but one district court judge used to be able to conduct a recount in a

federal riding, which didn't make much sense, so we are changing that.

The identification requirements for electors for polling day

registration or their voting would be prohibited. At the moment, you can just

walk into a polling booth and swear: I am residing in such-and-such a district,

and vote. Well, you should be required to produce more than that. Something by

way of identification as to who you are and where you live and so on should be

provided.

In the general provisions, we are also going to make

specific, special provisions for plebiscites and referendums, so that they would

be covered by the election procedures, as well. If, for example, in the

constitutional debate, we decide, at the time, that it is necessary or

beneficial to have a referendum - if there is not going to be a national

referendum - if we decide that the level of approval within the Province is

uncertain, then I would suggest that we would provide for a referendum. This

legislation would make provision for the conduct of that, in accordance with

election procedures and election financing.

Then, this is the major part of the legislation. It is a real

departure. What I have just gone over now is sort of a refinement and an

updating of our basic election rules and procedures to bring them into something

approaching the 21st century, if it is not right into it, because our procedures

were somewhat antiquated. But the most significant thing, I believe, in this

piece of legislation, is what we have done to provide for the disposition of

funds and the collection and disposition and management of funds by political

parties and district associations.

The new legislation would specifically provide for the

administration and enforcement of financing regulations to be the responsibility

of the Chief Electoral Officer. That officer will have a role to supervise the

financial management of parties and make sure that political parties and

candidates do not breach these financing regulations. And the parties would be

required, under the proposed Act, to report regularly to the Chief Electoral

Officer once each year, Mr. Speaker.

It provides for the registration and deregistration of

political parties and district associations. It also provides for the

registration of non-affiliated candidates, so that a person who did not want to

be associated or affiliated with a political party would not be, in any manner,

prevented from participating in the electoral process. That person would still

have to abide by the basic rules that applied to the candidates for the

particular parties, but there would be no other limitation on the ability to

run.

It also would provide, Mr. Speaker, for registration as a

requirement before a party, a district association or a non-affiliated candidate

could accept contributions. It would make it illegal to accept contributions for

political activity without being registered as a provincial party or district

association or a party candidate or a non-affiliated candidate.

It goes further, Mr. Speaker, and puts, then, limits on

contributions to registered parties, district associations or non-affiliated

candidates. In any calendar year, an individual may not contribute more than

$2,500, or a corporation or trade union cannot contribute more that $10,000 to

any political party, and, Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer will have the

means of policing and strictly enforcing those limitations. That would be the

limit on the basic annual contribution, and then, in any year in which a general

election were held, a similar contribution could be made for the election,

itself.

So, Mr. Speaker, it provides for adequate funding. It does

not really unfairly inhibit the parties or limit their ability to raise funds to

carry on their normal political activity, but it puts it under strict

regulation.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that you cannot

avoid the consequences of the Act by getting individuals or corporations to

contribute goods or services or anything else in lieu of it, because if you do,

then the value of those goods and services would be calculated and taken into

account in terms of application of the limits. Regulation of fund raising

activities such as suppers, dances, garden parties and so on, will also be

provided, because you do not want to be able to subvert the process by any means

whatsoever.

There will also be strict accounting procedures. Political

parties and their district associations and all of the individuals and campaign

managers, and so on, would be required to issue receipts for all contributions

in excess of $100, and all contributions in excess of $100 would be required to

be by way of cheque or bank draft or something that leaves a written,

independent record of the contribution. The old days of contributing the dollars

in terms of cash to political parties is gone forever, Mr. Speaker, or will be

gone forever when this legislation goes through. So it would require the issuing

of receipts for any sum in excess of $100 and a prohibition against accepting

any amount in excess of $100 in the form of cash.

It would also provide, Mr. Speaker, that advertising by

registered parties and district associations and non-affiliated candidates,

could only occur during the twenty-eight or thirty days before the eve of the

election. There would be no public advertising during the day before the

election or on election day, but the limitation would be twenty-eight or thirty

days before - I think it includes the eve of the election. I would have to check

the detail, I believe we take it right to the day before the election. There is

no advertising on election day. It does allow for right up to the day before the

election for such advertising, but it also prohibits such advertising starting

before twenty-eight or thirty days before polling day, so it controls it.

It provides for the appointment of auditors and so on to

audit the accounts of political parties and their district associations, to

provide for the annual filing of audited statements before 1 April with the

chief electoral officers. These must include statements of assets, liabilities,

income and expenses from the previous year. Within six months of any election

similar statements are required with respect to that election. It is going to

regulate it, control it, and put it beyond question that the running of

political parties in this Province is above board and honest. We also suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that there be limits on election expenses of registered parties for

a general election in the amount of $2.00 per registered elector and in

by-elections to $3.00. I am sorry. We have done it slightly differently. We have

provided for $3.00 per elector but we have provided for limits of $20,000 per

district in the case of a general election and $30,000 in the case of a

by-election. Everybody knows that in the case of a by-election you have to mount

sort of a general campaign in addition to the specific so that the limit, while

still a maximum of $3.00 per elector, it cannot exceed $30,000. The same limits

apply in the same way to registered district associations and non-affiliated

candidates. Mr. Speaker, we also intend to provide for adjustment of these

dollar limits on the basis of the consumer price index so that once the

legislation is put in place it is not necessary to go back and revisit it every

three or four years to make a major adjustment due to the effects of inflation.

We are providing for an adjustment to reflect inflation operating on the

assumption that the figures we have put forward now are ones that are

acceptable.

I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that we intend today to address

the question of the principle of this legislation, but we intend also to refer

the specifics that are contained within it to the committee on elections and

privileges to conduct a fairly thorough assessment of it. It may well be that we

may be convinced that the limits might be cut back to $2.90 instead of $3.00 per

electorate or maybe increased to $3.10 per electorate instead of $3.00. In any

event, Mr. Speaker, we think those numbers we are suggesting are reasonable

numbers. We are also proposing, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what we are doing

here, to protect the overall public interest we are limiting funds that

political parties and political candidates, independent of parties, can raise.

We are putting strict limits on what they can do and that we believe is in the

public interest.

We believe therefore that the public should also take some

responsibility to ensure that serious candidates have an adequate level of

funding available to them, and for that reason we are proposing that a portion

of the election expenses be provided out of public funds. So, wherever any

district association candidate, or non-affiliated candidate receives at least 15

per cent of the popular vote, or they are elected by acclamation, one third of

the maximum amount, if you take the number of electors and multiply by $3.00,

one third of that maximum amount or the actual expenses, whichever is the

lesser. If, for example, a candidate is elected by acclamation and they only

spend $1000, well then the party is not going to get one third of $30,000 if

that was the limit for the district. It is only going to get the $1000 actually

expended, so it is the lesser of the amount actually expended or one third of

the maximum. We think this is a fair price for the public generally to pay to

ensure that all parties can be fairly represented.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things of which we are

somewhat proud because this ensure that opposition parties as well get a fair

basic allotment of funds available to enable them to contest elections and not

just governing parties which would generally speaking find it easier to raise

funds.

MR. SIMMS: Who is that payable to, will that be to the

associations (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: No, each electoral district, the district

association that runs it, is what is being proposed. Mr. Speaker, during the

committee there may be better procedures, and any procedures to better control

it I am sure would be welcomed by the network of officials that developed these

ideas, but the idea is the district association must run the campaign. The idea

also is to keep the individual political candidate out of the finances as much

as it can possibly be done, because we think that is important to let the

district association of the party that the candidate represents do it, or the

financial agent for a non-affiliated candidate, to give them the primary

responsibility and keep the individual candidate, as much as possible, out of

the raising of funds or any involvement with the management of funds. We think

that this is a positive as well. Mr. Speaker, we are also providing for a strict

definition of offenses, and very severe penalties for breaches of those

statutory provisions.

The second aspect, in terms of a measure of public

responsibility, as the quid pro quo for the kinds of restrictions we will be now

placing on the raising of funds by political parties, we are also suggesting

that Newfoundland follow the practice under the federal statute, under the New

Brunswick statute, under the Ontario and other statutes, and provide for tax

credits of 75 per cent on amounts of $100 or less; seventy-five dollars plus 50

per cent of contributions between $100 and $550; and $300 plus one-third of

amounts exceeding $550 but in no case can the tax credit exceed $500. So there

is an absolute limit of $500 on the tax credit.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, this will also facilitate the fair

funding by a broader base of contributors so that political parties are less

dependent on big unions or big corporations for their funding, and that

individuals will contribute to the political process, and so that political

parties will feel a greater sense of commitment to individuals rather than to

major financiers like major unions and major corporations and so on. We think,

Mr. Speaker, that this is important and that this is a fair public price to be

paid for having that kind of independence of major contributors. We think it is

important to the overall political process - not just important to the Liberal

party - we think it is important to the total democratic process, to put these

kinds of changes in place.

The other thing we have provided, Mr. Speaker, is that there

will be an advisory committee comprised of the chief electoral officer and two

representatives of each registered political party that fielded candidates in

twenty-six districts in the most recent general election. I see some members

counting their fingers in the House to see - but I think all three parties today

represented in the House fielded candidates in more than twenty-six. So in that

kind of a situation, even though there was only one member in the House of

Assembly from one particular party, under these rules that particular party

would be entitled to also have an equal representation-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by-election.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member is quite right. That was a

by-election. In the previous general election is what this says. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, we would have to give some thought

to that, I suppose.

The principle is that where you are dealing with a serious

political party that makes - well they fielded; it did not matter who they

elected, it just says fielded; whether they elected any or not does not matter,

so that party would be entitled to two representatives along with the Liberal

party that fielded candidates in every district and won as many as we did, with

a sense of fairness and balance we are providing for that kind of equal

representation. It might be called, Mr. Speaker, the 'electoral senate' with

equal representation from each of the parties. But the idea, Mr. Speaker, is

that that committee would advise the House and members generally on election

matters - would bring forward matters to be dealt with in the House.

The final point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the

objective of this legislation is really to not only ensure that there is fair

treatment for the political process, without regard to whether the party is in

opposition, or in Government, or sort of more or less on a fringe with only one

member in the House of Assembly, that there has to be fair opportunity for all

credible political parties in the Province to have access to the electoral

process without any undue pressures. That is a commitment, Mr. Speaker, that the

Liberal party made during the election campaign, and a commitment that we are

happy today to honour when we present this legislation.

But the primary benefit is the restoration of public

confidence in the electoral process. For one reason or other, some of it based

on good reason, some of it based on unfair aspersions that are from time to time

cast by one group on another. For one reason or another, the general public does

not have a high level of confidence in the fairness of the electoral process, or

I may say in the honesty of the electoral process. Well, part of the objective

of this is to restore that level of confidence that has been lost in recent

years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - because we think, Mr. Speaker, that this

is the proper thing to do in terms of providing for future parliamentary

government in this Province.

Finally, before I sit down, I should confess also that these

ideas are not solely from the Head of Liberals or the Liberal party. I have to

be honest enough to confess that some of it has been copied from other

jurisdictions. Much of it is copied from the federal jurisdiction because we

felt that not only should we not waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, we

should act with a level of confidence that what we were proposing had a good

chance of being successful. So we looked around at the Federal act, at the

Ontario statute, at the New Brunswick statute, and we took what we considered to

be the best from it and rejected that which we felt would not work. For example,

one of the things that we rejected, but in fact was considered: New Brunswick

has a system whereby the provincial treasury pays an annual amount to each party

in order to provide its basic core funding, and provides these kinds of

restrictions and limitations. We felt, Mr. Speaker, that that was too big a jump

to be going to at this stage, particularly in the circumstances in which

Government finds itself in today. So we did not include that even though New

Brunswick does, in fact, have that and has similar kinds of restrictions to

those which we have put in here. We have put, for the most part, pretty well all

the restrictions in, but we did not go so far as to provide for annual funding

although we considered the proposal and it was rejected. I do not know whether

it will come up during discussions in the committee stage or not, but I have to

tell the House that we decided not to go with that kind of a proposal. For the

most part, many of these proposals are tried and true, but there is some

innovation in them.

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that if this bill receives the

approval of the House, and the committee has the good sense to leave it

substantially in the form in which it has been presented by the Cabinet - I hope

they will, substantially in the same form - I think that Newfoundland will be

the leader in the nation in terms of the quality of its election law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is something that the

entire House, all sides of the House, could take a great degree of pride in

because I cannot think of any area where we can take more pride in leading the

nation than in fair and balanced electoral processing.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the House to give the bill early

passage, early approval in principle, and ask the committee to do their work

fairly diligently and quickly so that we can bring this legislation into effect

fairly soon, and have it come into effect in time to allow the election office

officials to prepare for the next general election which, as I say, give or take

a few months one way or the other is a year and a half or so down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that the Premier is here today to introduce this

reform, and that his members listened attentively. They do not seem to do that

when the Premier is not around. So for that reason

I am delighted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: This is the way they behave, Mr. Premier,

when you're not here.

MR. SIMMS: That is the way they usually are, I say to the

Premier, that is the way they usually are when he is not here. I do not know why

they are doing it now except perhaps to show - something. I do not know what.

Just a question. There are a lot of questions. First of all,

I commend the Premier and the Government for introducing this initiative. I have

to say, regrettably, that our administration, the one in which I was a part, did

not get as far with our electoral reform as I would have hoped they might have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, it was hardly an issue over which I

would resign. But I can tell the hon. minister that I would have preferred that

something had proceeded at that time. But it did not, and so I regret that. But

that is history, that is water under the bridge, so I commend the Government for

the initiative they have introduced here today. I think we all recognize, with

the cynicism that exists out there in the public these days towards politicians

and politics in general, any initiative, any reform such as this, would have to

be more than welcome. Certainly by all of us who sit in an elected capacity in a

Legislature.

Now I am not quite certain - I have a number of general

comments that I want to make on the Premier's remarks, and then I have some

specific points that I want to make with respect to some specific parts of the

legislation.

First of all, I am not sure how the process will work, unless

we do it by agreement or understanding. Because my understanding of what our

House Leader tells me is that the intention is that we would have a debate today

on second reading - approval in principle, the three Parties - and then,

presumably it will be sent out to the Election and Privileges Committee, chaired

by the Member for Eagle River, who incidentally announced - he must be grasping

for press -I heard on the CBC headline news this morning from Goose Bay that the

Member for Eagle River had been appointed chairman of the committee to analyze

the election legislation. He had been appointed, as far I knew, a couple of

years ago, to the best of my knowledge of the Committee. But anyway. I do not

know who sent the release out. Anyway, that is irrelevant. It is a very minor

point.

So if the committee then brings back its recommendations to

the Legislature, to the House, presumably it will be in the new session of the

House - February, whenever the new session of the House convenes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I mean, the committee will not have had

time to deal with the matter, let's face it. Presumably the Premier wants the

committee to hear the views of the public and particularly in this particular

bill. So it will not come back till next spring sometime when the House reopens

for the new session. So there is a technicality?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not necessarily.

MR. SIMMS: Not necessarily. Well, I am asking now. I am

trying to find out what the procedure is. Because otherwise we need some kind of

an agreement.

PREMIER WELLS: What the House Leader is saying is that

this present session can continue another sitting in January or February or

March, and have a new session subsequent to that.

MR. SIMMS: Right. But when will the committee deal with

it?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the meantime.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, over January or February or whatever.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) the next month or two

(Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. In any event, if the House is prorogued

and the new session occurs, then obviously the bill would have to be

re-introduced. That is the only point I am trying to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) formality.

MR. SIMMS: Well, except then you open it up for second

reading debate again and -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) reasonable Members on both

sides of the House that should be no problem.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot speak for

everybody on this side of the House. If this legislation opens up a major debate

and controversy I do not know what might occur next spring. I am just making the

point because we should be aware of it. Because I would not want to see us go

through a second reading debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Now, a few other things that the Premier

mentioned in his remarks. He talked about a free vote. I am sorry, he did not

talk about a free vote, he talked about a resolution being introduced into the

Legislature to endorse the new CEO, Chief Electoral Officer, who presumably will

be a Government nominee, naturally. One would expect nothing less.

MR. MATTHEWS: You would not think so.

MR. SIMMS: The question I would like him to answer, and I

do not know when he is going to answer all these questions but they will come up

in due course, is, whether or not that motion will be by a free vote. Would that

be a free vote? I mean if he is going to talk about a reform and everything

else, and we are going to bring in a resolution to endorse a candidate for the

position of say, just for argument's sake, what is his name, the fellow who ran

in Mount Pearl ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon Seabright.

MR. SIMMS: Say if Gordon Seabright, a former magistrate

who had some credentials in this area, just for argument's sake, was brought

into the Legislature and proposed by the Government as the nominee for the Chief

Electoral Officer, will there be a free vote among - is that the Premier's

reform, is he talking about a free vote among all Members of the House on that

particular resolution?

PREMIER WELLS: I have not given it any thought.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, well I will throw it out to the Premier

as a suggestion, because I think he said he intends to do it rather quickly,

presumably before the House adjourns for Christmas. I had the impression

distinctly that he was moving that quickly, I do not know, maybe I misread him

but that is what I thought he was saying. The other thing is of course that,

while I endorse that approach and have no real difficulty with it, the thought

crossed my mind, if it were somebody with whom some members in the House, for

example, had some harsh criticism or some tough questions to ask about the

individual and so on, with the powers in this new legislation, given to the

Chief Electoral Officer, the CEO, I mean there are members who might very well

be concerned about future discrimination shall we say. I mean, you know, it is

the thought -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) you have to think it out.

MR. SIMMS: You have to think it out, it is a thought and

I say to members opposite, there is an extremely large amount of power given to

the new Chief Electoral Officer in this bill. Perhaps they have not read it, but

I mean you should read the bill, so I just throw that out. There might be some

concerns there and there may be another way to do it, I do not know.

He also mentioned the reform of extending the time period of

a general election to thirty days, I think it is the bill says, and he said

maybe twenty-eight, whatever the committee recommends. I think that is a good

reform, I have no difficulty with that whatsoever but, I say to the Premier, I

wonder if he had given any thought about going one step further. I wonder if he

had thought about going one step further, just a thought, if it had been

discussed, because this is reform and the Premier is very proud of this

initiative and so he should be, but I wonder if we are going to extend it to

thirty days or twenty-eight days for an election, I wonder would he go one step

further and suggest, or think about perhaps for real reform, setting a date for

an election, like every four and a half years or four years or five years or

whatever it might be.

AN HON. MEMBER: United States (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: You would have to change the whole

constitution of the Province. I guess I would be prepared to consider that in

the context of the change of the structure of Government in the Province but not

maintain the structure of Government and do it in the Election Act, that would

be most inappropriate.

MR. SIMMS: Most inappropriate.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, but basically in overall

constitutional reform, yes, I would be quite prepared to consider it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you do that?

MR. SIMMS: In other words, it will not be looked at, I do

not suppose, but -

PREMIER WELLS: Well, it cannot work with our present

constitutional structure.

MR. SIMMS: It cannot?

PREMIER WELLS: No, it cannot.

MR. SIMMS: It cannot.

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. SIMMS: We could not say that we would have an

election in this Province on the first Tuesday of September every four years, or

whatever?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) a couple of minutes, why. It

is fairly simple. We maintain and operate under the British Parliamentary

tradition of the responsibility of the Cabinet to the House.

MR. SIMMS: Right.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, when the Cabinet or the Government

loses the confidence of the majority of the House, it must resign and an

election is called, so if you

schedule election for a rigid fixed time, you lose

the sense of Parliamentary responsibility. No longer can a Government be

defeated, so a Government that no longer enjoys the confidence of the House

cannot be defeated, it can go to the fixed term, so that cannot work in our

present system. Now if we want to alter the Parliamentary System and provide for

fixed election, fixed term, I would be most willing to consider that. But all I

am saying is you cannot mix apples and turnips, they are that different. You

have to make the greater adjustment.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is true. Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot

mix apples and turnips, you cannot mix apples and oranges, but, the fact of the

matter is, he has said that we could do it if we wanted to do it.

PREMIER WELLS: If you want to change the Constitution,

yes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Okay. So I am asking him if he had

considered that. That was my question.

PREMIER WELLS: Not in this context.

MR. SIMMS: Did he consider it? Give it any thought at

all? Is it worthy of any consideration? Is it worthy of thought?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, but not in the context of amending

the existing Election Act. We have to continue for the provision of the

parliamentary system as it is at the moment.

MR. SIMMS: So you would not want to see it changed.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I would not mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I would be quite prepared to discuss it.

But I think we ought to have it consistent with the rest of the provinces of

Canada. We have a reasonably consistent system.

MR. SIMMS: I think for a real reform and stepping forward

and all those kinds of things, and making the major changes, you know. This is

what he wants to be remembered for. That is why I am throwing it all out.

PREMIER WELLS: It may happen.

MR. SIMMS: There are probably some ideas you have not

even thought about. Now, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the legislation is one

that we can all support. The principle being to reform the electoral process. I

think we all recognize that for some time now that has been needed in this

Province, as I guess it has in other jurisdictions. In fact our Party as a Party

initiated some rather innovative ideas with respect to our recent leadership

process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, despite the fact that I was the only

candidate. But that was irrelevant. The rules were set down before candidates

had announced. In that process for the first time for any political party in

this Province, by the way - and that is something that we were proud of,

something that we were very proud of - for the first time in the political

process in this Province a political Party set down some stringent rules and

guidelines. All the things that - or many of the things that we talk about in

this legislation, where the candidate had to report the value of goods and

services given to him, had to give regular reports to the electoral officer in

charge of the leadership process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The NDP are down there saying - I do not know

who is pointing to who. Talking about the leadership process that we had in our

Party where we initiated -

MR. HARRIS: We had it before you guys.

MR. SIMMS: You did?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, congratulations. Mr. Speaker, I am

not aware of their process. I do not know if anybody in the Province is. But

nevertheless -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the Member for Gander is. Nevertheless, we

did bring in some very strict guidelines. It required us during the leadership

process to report to our chief electoral officer on a regular basis with written

reports. It required us to show the donations, it required us to identify those

who donated. It required us to identify all of our expenditures. These reports

were available to the general public. Anybody who wanted to go into our chief

electoral officer, or our Party's office, and pay fifty cents or something like

that, a nominal fee, they were allowed to look at it.

So I am not sure if the NDP had all of that. Because I do not

remember ever seeing any kind of suggestions where a lot of their donations may

have come from. I do not remember ever seeing any of that. But that is available

under our Party's guidelines and rules, Mr. Speaker.

My point is that we as a Party have already moved in that

direction and we recognize the need for electoral reform, be it internally -

with respect to a Party's leadership race - or be it with respect to a

Provincial general election. As I said, I think it is badly needed because of

the cynicism that does exist out there in our Province today, not only in our

Province but in our jurisdiction, where people have a tremendous mistrust of

politicians and politics in general. That is a sad commentary I guess on our

society, in the sense that we have not been able to overcome that. All of us as

elected Members have to do everything we can in our power to do just that, and

this is a step in that direction. These are the kinds of things that have to be

done I think in order to give the people some reason to believe once again in

the process, in the system, and in their elected representatives. But I am

afraid we have a long way to go yet. But this is a good move in that direction.

Now I do not intend to speak at length today because it is

after all a debate on the bill in principle. There are some points that I do

want to make. A number of concerns, I guess. Indeed, I would like to comment on

some of the sections in the bill, asking questions perhaps, and add some

comments, in the hope that the Legislative Committee will listen to them and

review them thoroughly, and I am sure they will.

One of the things I want to point out right at the outset

early in my remarks is that it is my intention to move, at the appropriate time,

an amendment, unless the committee does so, to

section 265 (1)(e): an amendment

to the definition of contribution. That is the

section I think that I would like

to see amended so that it would include monies or salaries paid to the leader of

any political party from private sources - if that is an acceptable practice.

This would be money paid for a salary or whatever to induce that person to seek

or become leader of a party. If that was an acceptable practice, then there

should be some provision made where that is disclosed publicly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it there already?

MR. SIMMS: Well it is not there, Mr. Speaker, because the

problem is all you have is disclosure of the party itself making some

contribution. I am talking about a specific contribution made to any leader of

any political party to induce them to seek the leadership of their party for

favours later on. That is the perception that might exist. Now the Premier

should not get too touchy about it. I am not just talking about his situation or

anything else, I am talking about anybody's situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I do not believe that it is. We have had

lawyers look at it, and we are advised that it is not clear enough, so we will

be proposing some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are playing games (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Why are we playing games? Because we raised

something that is as sensitive as that? I thought the Premier and the Government

wanted to talk about reform. As soon as you mention a reform they get very

sensitive and touchy about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am not playing games. I am making a

legitimate argument for an amendment to a

section in the legislation that I do

not think is fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I do not think it is. If the member

opposite wants to think it is, that is fine, but I do not know why he would be

afraid of clarifying it even greater.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I was not suggesting that. Well, we have

some legal advice that suggests it is not there, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items

that I would like to draw to the attention of Your Honour, and to the committee,

in fact, that will be reviewing this bill.

Section 269, for example, deals with

the powers and duties of the Chief Electoral Officer, and that shows, if you

read through that section, that a considerable amount of discretion is given to

the Chief Electoral Officer. All through the

section you see the use of

subjective language for the most part.

Subsection (2) of 269 allows the CEO, for example, to conduct

examinations, investigations of financial records of the parties, of the local

district associations, of the candidates, and provides the CEO conduct audits

where he or she considers it necessary. Pretty broad powers for the CEO,

particularly, Mr. Speaker, if you are giving even more powers to the CEO, and

you will find that in all kinds of other parts of the legislation as you go

through it. I think, frankly, and I hope the committee will look at the use of

the language, I understand that a lot of this was mirrored on the federal

legislation and other jurisdictions, but I think the use of such subjective

language, as you see all throughout the legislation, creates the potential for

abuses of such wide discretion as has been given to the CEO in this particular

case.

Mr. Speaker, there are other items in here, of course, that

create some problems. You will note also, by the way, that I have not made

reference to the first two parts of the legislation. I think the Premier went

through those fairly thoroughly in his introductory remarks, and for the most

part they basically cover procedural aspects of an election from preparing the

voters lists to the proceedings at the polls, and the counting of the votes, and

all those kinds of items, and as well election offenses and controverted

elections, all those kinds of things are described. So Parts I and II, in my

estimation, at least, appear to fairly consolidate the current legislation that

does exist around the Province, and does not really seem to create a lot of

controversy -not that I have seen thus far. You have to remember, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a bill that contains 337 sections, and there are 135 pages to the

bill, so the committee has a lot of work to do to be able to go through this

particular piece of legislation thoroughly. But as a general comment, as I said,

the first two parts are not the parts that I have concerns with. Nor do I have

major concerns with Parts IV and V. The most significant change of course, as

the Premier pointed out, to Bill 55, is the addition of

Part III on election

finances.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk a little more about the

kinds of things a CEO could do - could do - and that is the reason why I would

like to see some of the language changed. If you used the words 'acting

reasonably' or using the word itself 'reasonably', maybe that would help to

ensure that the CEO's actions in the future are not unfair, or could not be

unduly onerous, or could not be discriminatory in any way, because it gives the

CEO very broad powers, in my view. I am only a lay person, and I-

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) we want to make sure that he

has the power, or she has the power to enforce (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I understand that, and I do not disagree with

the principle of making sure that the CEO has the ability to do what is foreseen

in the legislation. My concern is, Mr. Speaker, that it may go a little too far,

and that it may give too much discretionary power to this individual. The CEO

for example, could be required to have some sort of independent committee, or

the advice of some sort of independent committee, before ordering an audit, or

before exercising the other broad discretionary powers that you find in the

legislation. Maybe there could be some requirement that the CEO confer with some

other outside persons - something written into the legislation - because while

it is most unlikely, I agree, I think the potential does exist for some abuse,

not necessarily by the CEO but maybe by the political party, particularly the

party that is controlling the Legislature at the time. I think there is

potential there for abuse, at the time of the appointment of the CEO.

I do not think any political party would want a situation

where there could be harassment. I do not think any political party would want

to see that by the continuous auditing, for example, of opposition parties, if

the Premier gets my drift. My drift is, if the CEO has the powers that are

contained in the legislation now with the words as they are, then there may be

some concern that the governing party might use some undue influence to ensure,

because of the way the wording is of the powers of the CEO-

PREMIER WELLS: The CEO could just as easily harass the

Government party.

MR. SIMMS: Well, it is not very likely, because the CEO

is the nominee of the Government. Let us not forget it.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well it is.

PREMIER WELLS: Government can change.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I agree with you - probably a year and a

half from now, I suspect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: No, well we will see. I say to the Premier, he

is the one who should not hold his breath. Mr. Speaker, he reminds me of the

former Premier. He reminds me of the former, former Premier as a matter of fact,

in the dying days of that administration when members of the Government,

including myself, were gloating day after day, laughing and making all kinds of

fun at the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the Premier

remembers it better than anybody else, and it is very reminiscent of those days,

what we see here in the last six or eight months.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I see. I see. Well, as long as the Premier

keeps saying that, because that is precisely what the former Premier used to

say, and it is precisely what his former ministers used to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, I just said. I just said I was one of

them. The Minister of Forestry should wake up. He would have heard what I had to

say.

Mr. Speaker,

section 270 of the legislation also illustrates,

once again, the broad powers, that I am trying to zero in on, given to the Chief

Electoral Officer. Under

section 271, the CEO can enter a premises to inspect

books, papers, and records. All I am suggesting is that some wording should be

introduced that says reasonable time should be defined - some words to define

reasonable time because under subsection 2, the CEO can obtain a warrant to

enter and search the premises and copy documents. Members opposite may not be

aware of all of that.

PREMIER WELLS: But obtaining a warrant means going to

court.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is either

ignoring, or not paying any attention to, is the fact that the CEO has been

given police powers. That is what he has been given - he would agree with that -

powerful police powers, there is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. As I said

earlier, and what I am trying to say throughout my comments is that, given the

extent of these powers, because they are so broad - and this is just another

example of it in

section 271 - there has to be some kind of a check on the CEO's

discretion.

PREMIER WELLS: I agree.

MR. SIMMS: And that is my point, but it isn't there now.

PREMIER WELLS: It is there in subsection 2 that requires

him to obtain a warrant from a provincial court judge.

MR. SIMMS: No. You might say it is also there under the

section that deals with an advisory committee, as well, but that is not strong

enough. I don't think that is enough.

There are a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, that are being

imposed, in this legislation, upon the local district associations. And that is

where we have to realize this legislation will have the most effect, on the

local district associations. While I agree we need reforms, and while I agree

there has to be some control over what is occurring, let's not bring in

legislation that is going to discourage people from participating at the grass

roots level in the democratic process. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our

faces, by bringing in these major, major powers. Because that is what you see

throughout the legislation.

Section 274 (2)(

c) is another issue altogether. That

section

purports to limit the registration of political parties, and prevents the

creation of new political parties unless the parties nominate candidates in

thirteen districts, I think it is, or provide a list of 1,000 persons who will

vote for that party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are eligible to vote.

MR. SIMMS: Eligible to vote, yes. But you have to provide

a list of 1,000 persons, right?

If there are smaller parties that might want to spring up in

the future, and may not be able to get registered, for example, maybe the number

should be cut down. That is all I am asking. Where did the number 1,000 come

from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Only twenty people in a district.

MR. SIMMS: Where did the number 1,000 come from, though?

Is it an arbitrary number?

PREMIER WELLS: You are talking about a political party,

and if you are going to recognize it and give it standing as a political party

in the Province, it has to be of some provincial substance. Frankly, I think

1,000 is relatively small. Maybe it should be more than that. I mean, dealing

with giving it standing as a party of substance in the Province and giving it

certain rights and entitlement, you have to have something of substance, not

just something that any one individual can bang together with a group of other

friends for a lark on a weekend. You have to have something of substance. I

think it is a very low standard now.

MR. SIMMS: But where did the number come from? Does the

Premier know where the number came from?

PREMIER WELLS: No, but I will find out.

MR. SIMMS: I just wondered where it came from. Is it an

arbitrary number, or just some number that is picked out of the air?

PREMIER WELLS: We considered the issue, and felt that it

was a relatively low standard.

MR. SIMMS: You know, I thought maybe 500 would be a

figure, as well, that might be just as reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what they are worried abo