December

17, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 87

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

Premier. The Premier is proposing some new conflict of interest legislation,

known as Bill 67. I want to ask him today: Would he consider referring this

legislation to the appropriate Legislation Review Committee for public hearings

before he calls the bill for debate in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to consider

anything, but I understood that the Government House Leader and the Opposition

House Leader were discussing what bills they would wish to proceed with and what

bills they would wish to defer until later. I don't know where that stands on

the list.

MR. ROBERTS: I was just telling the Premier now I haven't

seen him since we talked.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand there was a

conversation between the two House Leaders but I didn't realise there was an

agreement that they do this.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no - he informed me that the Premier

was going to do it tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: I believe the House Leader from the government

side informed our House Leader that this is what you were intending to do in the

very near future. In any event, I ask him to consider that, because I think the

bill needs some careful public scrutiny.

Now, under the present legislation that we have, all

information that members file, is filed with the Auditor General and then is

made public, or it becomes available to the public. Members can see it. The

press can get copies of it, the press can publish it. In other words, the

information filed by MHAs is subject to full public disclosure. Could the

Premier tell the House why, in this legislation, the government has decided in

Bill 67 to make such information privileged? Why would that be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The legislation doesn't quite do what the

hon. member says. Such information as is required to be filed now would not be

privileged. It would be required to be disclosed. It is the additional

information that is not now required to be filed that would in the future

require to be filed that would be privileged. But at least it would be on file.

How much money does the hon. member have in his bank account? That would be

required to be filed. Now that should be privileged. It is not now required to

be filed, and that is the difference, you see.

There are additional disclosure requirements, over and above

the ones that are there now, of more or less a personal nature. In order to

ensure that somebody is acting as a watchdog on all of us, that information is

disclosed to the commissioner. The commissioner has the ability then to

determine whether or not in voting in this House on a bill affecting the Royal

Bank of Canada, members of the House are in a potential conflict of interest in

some piece of legislation.

So, it is the additional information that is not now

required, but would be required by the new bill. Now, generally speaking, that

is it. There may be one piece here or there that may be somewhat different from

that, but that is the principle of the bill. And I should tell the hon. member

that I believe - the Minister of Justice would know, because he developed it -

in that respect, the bill parallels completely the legislation in British

Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and the new legislation that is proposed for the

Federal Parliament. So, it requires all of this additional disclosure, but you

disclose it to a commissioner who would keep it confidential to the commissioner

and would then be in a position to judge whether or not a member would be in

conflict in any particular circumstance.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Can the Premier confirm then, that the

information that will be filed by an MHA, will not necessarily be available to

the public? In fact, the information - the public will get a disclosure

statement from the commissioner and that statement, for example, will not show

the amount or the value of a private interest; it will be a laundered statement,

in other words. Isn't that really the case under this legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of it is to

require total disclosure which is not now required. That is the problem you see,

total disclosure is not now required because there are matters of a personal

nature, like how much money hon. members have in their bank accounts or their

trust accounts or in deposit certificates, instead, what is now required is a

listing of investments. For example, you may have a pension fund account or you

may have shares in a certain corporation but you don't list the number or value

of your investment - you would now have to disclose that to the commissioner.

Now, the commissioner would file statements respecting everybody indicating that

they had shares, as members do now. My recollection is that the commissioner

would have to disclose the things that are now disclosed by members. That is my

understanding of it.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and anything else - I mean -

PREMIER WELLS: And anything else that he felt - well, I

haven't read the detail of it, I confess. I understand the principles that were

agreed upon and adopted by the other provinces and by the Federal Parliament in

this regard.

Section 37(2), The public disclosure statement shall identify -

'shall', it is mandatory -

The public disclosure statement shall identify each public

interest, other than an excluded private interest.

MR. ROBERTS: Each private interest other than an excluded

private interest.

PREMIER WELLS: Each private interest other than an

excluded private interest. Now, to the best of my knowledge, I would tell the

House, the 'excluded private interest' are those that members do not now report.

MR. ROBERTS: And their spouses - they would all have to

report.

PREMIER WELLS: And their spouses, all would have to. So,

we can debate the legislation - I am not sure that you would want to do it in

Question Period, but if you do it, that is the principle that is behind it. I

think the minister tabled in this House, a comparison with the other

jurisdictions that have a similar approach and it pretty well tracks other

jurisdictions, but if there is any particular thing that hon. members would want

changed, I am sure there is no trouble considering that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will recall, my initial question was to ask if he

would refer to a Legislation Review Committee, perhaps now he can see why. There

are a lot of questions that need to be asked and there should be an opportunity

for the public to have some input into this legislation before it is rushed

through the House.

Now, I also want to ask him this - and let me be very blunt

about it; let me ask him, for example: Would he not agree that this proposed

legislation, in fact, would block the Opposition party, or any member of the

House, for that matter, from raising detailed questions about conflict of

interest, such as that that was raised about the Minister of Justice's

$10,000-a-month payment from his former law firm? Wouldn't that prevent that

kind of a question? Because, under the legislation, it says in many references

here that the information is privileged, and wouldn't it then, therefore, be a

breach of privilege of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. The

legislation provides for it. You go to the commission and you say: Look, I

understand such and such a member is getting this kind of a payment. Is that

right, and is he in conflict? And the commissioner has to report to the House

and say, yes, or no, as to whether or not the man is in conflict, but he doesn't

tell the hon. member how much money the individual has in the bank account or

how much the payment is from a particular firm or business interest, if it is

not in conflict, if it does not cause a conflict.

Now, hon. members will recall, over the last two or three

years, people have been suggesting we should have a commissioner so there will

be full disclosure to a commissioner. My initial reaction was to resist that, I

didn't think that was the way to go. I felt the way to go was to put in stronger

prohibitions. Hon. members, some hon. members opposite, some on this side, and

people outside said: You block people from getting involved in politics if you

do that. If you prohibit any kind of dealing with the government, if you have

certain holdings, or holding a seat in the House if you have certain investment

interest, you prevent a large number of people from ever being able to be

involved in public life, so that is not the way to do it - use a commissioner.

Okay, against my better judgement at the time, I was

persuaded by arguments from everybody that the commissioner route rather than

the absolute prohibition route was the way to go. I was persuaded that that was

the right thing to do, and I must say I had that advice from others at an early

stage, from others outside the members of the House of Assembly. I am prepared

to admit, my judgement on it may have been wrong, so rather than absolute

prohibition, as I had been advocating, a commissioner is the way to go.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you do that - if you do not absolutely

prohibit - and you use a commissioner, then if it is to be effective you must

compel all members to disclose everything - and I mean everything - that could

give them a possible conflict of interest.

Now members will say that this is unreasonable, to put

political people in that position where they have to tell the world how much

money they have in the bank account; how much they have invested in pension fund

savings and so on. This is an unreasonable invasion of their privacy. Okay, I

can understand that, but disclose it to the commissioner so that the

commissioner, who is an officer of this House, can say to this House and to all

the world, the member is or is not in conflict by reason of these facts you have

disclosed.

Now it is essential that there be full and total disclosure,

and the reason why there is this excluded private interest is that kind of thing

is what would be excluded; but the commissioner would be required to disclose

publicly all of the things, pretty well - I do not know if there would be any

exception - that members are now required to disclose.

The commissioner would still be required to disclose all that

publicly. It would not be held privileged in any way. He would still be required

to disclose it publicly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the Premier

is correct about that reference to everything being made public. You will see a

lot of references in here to privileged information. It is in Clause 36(5); it

is in Clause 38(4); disclosure of statements made under this

section is

privileged. Advice given by the commissioner through a member under this

section

is privileged. Now the issue is whether or not it should be privileged or

whether or not it should be public information. That is what the whole debate is

all about.

For example, let me ask him this question. I think it is a

worthy question. Would the media, for example, be prevented from accessing the

information, making the information public, as they now do, for example? They

publish every year what every member has in terms of shares or whatever. Would

that information still be available, or would it be that under this legislation,

certain sections under this conflict of interest legislation could be prevented

from being made public because of the laundered way in which this statement will

be made by the commissioner? Could then the press be, for example, called to the

Bar before the House for breaching the privileges of the House? Is that not a

possibility? Why is it being done this way?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

is not very clear, or my ability to explain it cannot be very clear.

There is one of two systems. Either you put in absolute

prohibitions against any dealing whatsoever with the government by any member of

this House. Now, that was my personal preference at the time and that is what I

was recommending. That was the course I felt we should go. We should change our

act to require that. I have been persuaded by comments of hon. members opposite,

comments of hon. members on this side, and comments of people from outside, that

that is not the way to go. If you do that you prevent a lot of people who would

otherwise want to be involved from being involved. The way to go is what they

are proposing to do in Ottawa, what they have done in Ontario, what they have

done in BC, what they have done in Alberta, and require absolute and total

disclosure of everything, way beyond what is required now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. So, we chose as between the two

systems. We are laying before the House a proposal that involves the second

system. Now, let me tell the House, and the minister is hearing what I am saying

so if I am saying anything wrong that is not in the legislation, he has

responsibility to correct me. My understanding is that the commissioner will be

required to disclose, not on request, but will be required to disclose publicly

as he has disclosed now, everything that is now contained in the conflict of

interest statement, plus some more, Mr. Speaker, that is not now required to be

disclosed in the conflict of interest statement. It is no diminution. It is an

expansion of what will be disclosed publicly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, instead of using the absolute prohibition

alternative, what is proposed is to use the full disclosure alternative. Members

are now going to have to disclose how much money their spouses have in their

savings account, how much money they themselves have on deposit in deposit

certificates, how much they have in their pension funds, all of those personal

things, how much money they owe and to whom they owe it. All that will be

required that is not now required to be disclosed. There is going to be broad

based disclosure.

Are hon. members suggesting that, that private, personal,

detailed information should now be made available to the news media for

publication in all the news media of the Province? I doubt that is what they are

suggesting. I do not think it is. I just regret that there was some misreading

of the bill or maybe I have not been explaining it very well in answer to the

questions. You chose one system or the other. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go

back to the other system, absolute prohibition. That is quite acceptable to me.

Nobody who sits in this House should have any dealings whatsoever with the

government. Now that is quite acceptable to me if that is what the House would

prefer, but I am told that rational people elsewhere in the nation, in those

three provinces that I named, and at the federal level, and most people who've

thought about it here, say: look, Premier, you've taken the wrong approach. You

shouldn't have this absolute prohibition. What you require is full disclosure of

absolutely everything and the use of a commissioner.

Now this, we believe, is a sensible system. Now we can

continue to debate it in Question Period or on second reading of the bill when

it comes up, either one, and it doesn't much matter to me, but I believe I've

stated everything correctly.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, okay.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a final comment on this

issue for the moment at least. I don't know who persuaded the Premier to change

his mind. If it was his Minister of Justice I would say he's in a very dicey

position to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It wasn't, it was done before.

MR. SIMMS: Done before. Okay. I'll go back to my original

question. There are questions that can be raised here. I understand in some

jurisdictions in fact the information filed with the commissioner is not in fact

privileged information but confidential. Now what the difference is, I don't

know, or if there is a difference, or if there's a reason for the difference. I

don't know., Maybe the Premier can tell me that. In any event, I guess what we

file now is supposed to be confidential to a certain extent.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, it isn't.

MR. SIMMS: Well. In any event, I want to ask the Premier

once again. Because of the fact that there are questions that need to be raised,

whether or not he wouldn't consider referring this legislation to the committee

for scrutiny, for public input, and passage some time in the New Year? There's

no reason to rush it through two or three days before Christmas, no urgency for

that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with the first of his

questions. The difference between confidential and privileged. If hon. members

are forced by law, in order to take their seats in the House, to disclose to the

commissioner their holdings, their monies in their bank account, and the kind

and nature of their holdings, if it were not privileged then somebody who had an

action, or took an action, for whatever reason, against an hon. member in

respect to something and wanted to prove the hon. member's net worth or

something, could compel the commissioner to go to court and he would be a

competent and compellable witness to give evidence as to this information.

In order to prevent it from being compulsorily disclosed in

court at somebody else's action, maybe, against the interest of the member at

the time, that's the difference. It's privileged. It's protected against that

kind of compulsory disclosure in a court action. Confidential doesn't give it

that kind of protection. That's the meaning and significance of the use of the

word "privileged." It's a term of art in the law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second question, which was also the

first question. I'll say again, I don't know what the House Leaders have - but I

have no quarrel with it being done, none whatsoever. If this is what the House

Leaders work out, in terms of the orderly conduct of the business of the House,

I don't quarrel with it. I have no hesitation.

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

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

question as well to the Premier, carrying forward from yesterday. In response to

my question about the Premier's intervention into the dispute between Memorial

University and the Auditor General, the Premier said that both parties had, I

think he said, registered a complaint with the government, or complained to

government.

It concerned me yesterday and it concerns me again today that

the Auditor General, an officer of this House, would single out one member of

the House who is not, again, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to

intervene in the matter. I want to ask the Premier: when was he contacted by the

Auditor General? Did she initiate the contact, or was the action indeed

initiated by the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't contacted by the

Auditor General, and I haven't contacted the Auditor General, and I haven't

spoken to the Auditor General. I saw a letter that the Auditor General wrote...

to somebody. I don't know who. And sent - I got a copy of the letter. I also got

a copy of a letter that the president of the University wrote to the Minister of

Education, I believe, complaining about the circumstances.

So we had the two circumstances. I don't know to whom the

Auditor General directed her letter. It may have been to the Minister of

Education or it may have been to the Minister of Justice. I don't really know,

but I'll get the letter and find out to whom the letter was directed. In any

event I was provided with a copy of a letter from the Auditor General

complaining about her inability to audit the University.

I was provided with a copy of a letter from the president of

the University to the Minister of Education complaining about the request of the

Auditor General. I also responded to a request by the president of the

University to meet with the president of the University and the Comptroller. I

met with the president of the University and the Comptroller, and I believe the

Minister of Education was present, and I'm not sure - the Minister of Justice

was present as well. So the three of us met with the president of the University

in addition, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to

remind the Premier that yesterday - and I refer to Hansard, page 3185 - that he

said: "The President of the University and the Auditor General both complained

to me...." Complained to me. Complained to the government. That's what he said

yesterday. Complained to me, specifically, it's in Hansard.

I don't know if the Premier can answer this, because

obviously he appears confused on the issue. I'm wondering -

MS. VERGE: He appears uncomfortable on the issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Very confused on the issue, I say to the

Member for Carbonear who in his court jester manner laughs again. What did the

Auditor General ask the government to do, I guess, or the Premier to do? What

did she ask them to do? Did she herself propose a course of action to the

Premier and the government? Or indeed did she only accept an invitation from the

Premier to meet with him and the president of the University? Is that really

what happened?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education

just tells me that there was no request to do anything. She advised us of the

circumstance -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. She advised us of the circumstance

- I saw a letter from the Auditor General and I'll get it and table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it!

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. It's no problem to do that. She

advised the Minister of Education of the circumstances, and the president of the

University advised and requested a meeting, and we attended the meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what members are

so (Inaudible). I wouldn't hesitate to do it all over again. It's the right and

responsible thing for the Premier to do. The Premier would be failing in his

duty, and, Mr. Speaker, members opposite would be saying: what's the Premier

doing sitting idly by and ignoring these complaints? Why hasn't the Premier done

something? Mr. Speaker, they can't have their cake and eat it too.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, yes, what a tangled web we

weave, and how uncomfortable the Premier looks on this one.

The Auditor General is an officer of this House of Assembly,

I remind the Premier - she tabled a report here a couple of weeks ago drawing

this matter to the attention of her master, the House of Assembly. Not the

Premier. That's the real issue here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier: why did he not inform the

president of the University and the Auditor General that he had no right to

intervene? The Premier has no right to intervene in this matter. We have a

Public Accounts Committee which tabled a special report here a week or so ago.

Why didn't the Premier do that and stay out of this matter? Because as I said

yesterday, he's setting a very dangerous precedent by intervening in this

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House again.

We have reported in detail to the House everything that happened. Because we

recognize the position of the Auditor General as an officer of the House. We

reported to the House the position when it arose. We reported to the House what

we proposed to do in the meeting. We told the House what we proposed to do

before we were going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that prevents the Premier from

intervening to try and correct this problem, and there is every responsibility

on the Premier to do so.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question: Why did the former

government intervene and appoint Peat, Marwick in March of 1989? Why did they

not let the Auditor General audit Memorial? Why? What were they trying to cover

up, Mr. Speaker? What was it they were trying to hide? Why did they appoint

Peat, Marwick?

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. The truth bothers them

greatly. Here is the reality. The University Act specifically provides -

specifically - the University shall be audited by the Auditor General or a firm

of chartered accountants to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Now why did the hon. members not let the Auditor General

audit the University then when he wanted to? Why? I will tell you why - because

they acted sensibly and responsibly. They recognized that the University is an

independent institution that should not be under arms of government, but at the

same time must be required to account because they spend public dollars - a

sensible, responsible decision.

So what did they do? They stopped the Auditor General from

auditing and appointed Peat, Marwick to do it. I support them in their decision.

It was a sensible thing to do because it achieves the two objectives that are

desirable.

First, it requires the University to account to the House of

Assembly for the expenditure of the funds, though an auditor - a respected

auditor to be appointed.

Secondly, it comes closer to preserving the independence of

the University from government by not having the Auditor General do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the new Auditor

General's Act we recognized the situation and we made it all-encompassing. We

said, ultimately the Auditor General had to have ultimate jurisdiction over

every agency that was funded by government where the majority of the members of

the board of management was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

That caught the University. It caught the University up in

the definition of being an agency of the government, and in a sense that is

regrettable because no university wants to be seen to be an agency of the

government; but the broad sweeping definition that was employed caught the

University as well.

We recognized that it would because we recognize that the

University should be responsible to account to this House. So what the

legislation - the new Auditor General's Act - provides is: The Auditor General

has the right - and this is the first time, I believe, it was that specific. We

put the specific provision in there - not trying to cover anything up. We gave

the Auditor General the right to supervise the audit done by Peat, Marwick

appointed by the hon. members opposite, which is a right the Auditor General did

not have before.

The Auditor General had the right to get the books of

account, to get the audit and so on, and satisfy herself that the audit was

properly done. Furthermore, if the Auditor General was of the opinion that it

was not adequately and properly done, the Auditor General has the right to move

in and do the audit; but first the Auditor General has to be satisfied that the

auditors appointed by the former government did not do an adequate job.

Now that is the way the legislation is drafted. Read it. That

is what is there. Read it. We expanded the authority of the Auditor General to

make sure that it was accounted for, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, he has gone on that long, I am

not sure what I asked. It was a very simple question.

Now the Premier talked about independence of the University.

The real question here is the independence of the Auditor General, I say to the

Premier. That is what I have been about the last two days. Is the Auditor

General, an officer of this Legislature, being independent and removed from the

administration? That is the question, and the Premier has intervened in that

matter and he should not have done it.

I want to ask the Premier - if he has not already done so; if

he has not already had the meeting - will he now do the proper thing and inform

the University President and the Auditor General that he acted improperly in

setting up the meeting and that he must now call off the meeting and let this

House of Assembly, this Legislature, dictate the actions and support the Auditor

General in auditing the books of Memorial University of Newfoundland - $130

million expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers, that is what the Premier should

be doing, is supporting the Auditor General in auditing the books of the

University, Mr.Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation - the

Memorial University Act - specifically provides the University shall be audited

by the Auditor General, or, a firm of auditors to be appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It was the members opposite who excluded the

Auditor General, not this government. They passed an Order in Council and I will

get it and table it, in March of 1989, a month or so before they were turfed out

of office, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the letter from the Auditor

General. The letter from the Auditor General is directed to the Minister of

Education, not to this House: I am writing regarding the audit of Memorial

University. On May, et cetera, I met with the president. She details her efforts

to get it and the refusal of Dr. May: I expressed my concern to Dr. May, over

this matter.

Section 17 of the Auditor General's Act requires an agency of the

Crown to provide me with access to its records and various other information.

She is absolutely right, it does too.

Section 20 of the act also provides me with authority to

station my employee; she is right, but first she has to get by

section 14, which

is in her opinion, the audit that was done by the auditor appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the former government, was unsatisfactory. If

she is of that opinion, she has every right to go in there and audit and the

University cannot refuse her and we will do everything within our power to

empower her to do so. All she has to do is tell this House, the audit done by

the auditors appointed by the former government is unsatisfactory. When she does

that she will have whatever force government can bring to bear, brought to bear

to cause her to audit the University.

She goes on to explain exactly what she did and the refusal.

The private sector auditors have refused to make available, she says. The

authority to audit Memorial University is derived from the Auditor General's Act

which was enacted. Now she quotes

section 17, but she does not quote

section 14,

sub-section (1) unfortunately. She goes on in the final paragraph of the letter,

Mr. Speaker: My purpose in writing you at this time is to inform you of the

situation. Well, why in Heaven's name was she going to inform the minister of

the situation if she did not expect him to do something about it?

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course: and express my extreme concern

over the actions of the officials of Memorial University. I would also like to

indicate that I have retained legal counsel in an effort to resolve this matter.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see a legal dispute in

the courts between the Auditor General and the University and if members will

refer to my Ministerial statement of two or three days ago, it said precisely

that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Can I now answer the question, just asked:

Is the Premier going to table that letter? Yes, Mr. Speaker, here it is, it is

tabled. We only have one copy of it, so I would appreciate you taking a copy and

giving it back to me.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, at this stage let me tell the

House what we propose on this side to ask the House to address today. I would

say to my hon. friend the House Leader on the other side, that I have not had a

chance to speak to any of my colleagues since he and I met late this morning.

So, the issues that were pending ad referendum, are still ad referendum until he

and I can meet perhaps behind the Chair in a moment or two, Sir.

I would first ask your honour to call Bill 70 which is the

Ticket Act, the

Summary Proceedings, Liquor Control, Motorized Snow Vehicles

Amendment Act, it is Order 39, my hon. friend adjourned the debate on that, so

he will presumably want to take up the debate and carry on with the burden of

his remarks. Then we shall go, assuming we get through that at some point, Mr.

Speaker, to Bill 74 which is the Elections Act, the Jury Act and the old

Election Act, that is Order 40. Then we shall go to Bill 17 and a half, as we

call it on this side, which is Bill No. 64, Order 36:

An Act To Amend The Public

Sector Restraint Act 1992. When we have done that, we will at some point sooner

or later, today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, whenever, at some point we will

have done it, I shall then ask the House to go into committee and my proposal,

Mr. Speaker, is that we deal with the matters standing at committee stage in the

order they are listed on the order paper and to that end may I move at this

point, Mr. Speaker, the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that

the Government House Leader and I will meet shortly to talk but there is a

matter that he has just raised by moving the motion not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

My understanding is and I had hoped that we could have had a chance to speak to

the Speaker or the Clerk about -

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw your motion.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no I do not mind withdrawing the motion,

as long as I get back on the floor before 5:00 p.m. that is no problem.

Mr. Speaker, by leave then, if I may have leave of the House

I will withdraw the motion until the hon. gentleman and I have had a chance to

attend on you and we will bring it back, that is fine, I mean I have no problem

with that. I just asked leave of the House if anybody wants to object, he or she

has the right to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: So we are not putting the motion now? So I

understand that the hon. member has withdrawn the motion, okay. The Bill was

Bill 70 it was adjourned.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend adjourned the debate on it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I had a

few words on this Bill, I think it was Tuesday evening I believe if my memory

serves me correctly, after the day we had yesterday it is hard to remember what

day it is but it was Tuesday evening just before we adjourned around 7:00 p.m.

that I had a few words on Bill 70, I think I basically said all I wanted to say

on it then. It seems to be a pretty straightforward piece of legislation to

expand the ticketing system for violations of provincial statutes to include

offenses against the Liquor Control Act, Motorized Snow Vehicle and All-Terrain

Vehicles Act. So I think I have said pretty well as much as I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, so I will sit down.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in a

second reading stage on this legislation which is going to amend the

Summary

Proceedings Act, Liquor Control Act and Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain

Vehicle Act. All of these Acts, Mr. Speaker, are being changed to accommodate

the enforcement of legislation which is a topic, Mr. Speaker, of great interest

to me. It was also of great interest to me when we were dealing with the Child

Welfare Act immediately proceeding this Act, the other evening in the House,

unfortunately I did not have a chance to speak about the Child Welfare Act

amendments, although I had been, one of those members who had been urging upon

the House the passage of such legislation and to bringing it forward.

The amendment to the

Summary Proceedings Act of course is

also something that is done in the Child Welfare Act amendments, Bill 68. In

talking about enforcement of legislation it is of course very important that

legislation we have on the books be enforceable. That of course was the problem

with the Child Welfare Act, the old

Section 49 now

Section 38 of the Act. Going

back many, many years, Mr. Speaker, the government and the previous government

were well aware that that piece of legislation, for example, was not

enforceable, and that

Section 49 of the Child Welfare Act, now

Section 38, had

never, ever been enforced. At no time was there any successful prosecution under

Section 49 of the former Child Welfare Act and

Section 38 of the current one.

It came as a great shock to discover that and that was

something that was well known in circles in the Department of Justice for many

years, and certainly within the Child Welfare Division for many years. In fact

some of the more shocking revelations, the most modern scandals having to do

with people in high places being involved in sexual assaults of minors came to

the attention of the public as a result, I believe, in the first instance of the

arrest of Dr. Stephen Collins and him being charged with offenses against minors

while employed in a position of authority in a hospital in the Province of

Newfoundland, it transpired that this information of what had happened to him

was known. What he had been engaged in with minors was known to officials in the

employ of the hospital system. The administrator of the hospital I am told, Mr.

Speaker, in fact brought Dr. Collins to Port aux Basques to be transported out

of the Province, while in place was

Section 49 of the Child Welfare Act

requiring someone who had knowledge of the information involving the abuse of a

child to report that.

When that came to the attention of the public it was a great

shock but the difficulty at that point in time was that the

Summary Proceedings

Act, which is also being amended by the legislation before us, the

Summary

Proceedings Act required that a charge to be laid against such an individual for

failing to report child welfare abuse had to be made within one year of the

knowledge of the action that took place. And that one year period of course had

expired when it came to the attention of the public and the courts.

So, we see, Mr. Speaker, the importance of having legislation

that is enforceable and we see by looking at Bill 70, that when the Justice

Department or government decide they want to have a more efficient system of

bringing in methods of charging people, bringing them to court, giving tickets,

collecting fines, they can do it very quickly. This piece of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, I would estimate was probably put together in a matter of a few days by

some clever people in the Legislative Council sitting down and figuring out how

to do it. Purely technical, Mr. Speaker, the technical amendments to the

Summary

Proceedings Act, Liquor Control Act, Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-terrain

Vehicles Act, just as the amendment to the Child Welfare Act, Bill 68, which was

debated for about an hour in the House the other day was a purely technical

amendment to the Child Welfare Act, one that could have been done in a couple of

days, if that, by a competent member of the Legislative Council. He might have

to do a little bit of research, talk to a few people, spend a couple of hours in

the Legislative Library examining the statutes in other provinces, and presto,

in forty-eight hours we have an amendment to the Child Welfare Act to cure an

evil that was well known in this Province for many years.

It was well known at the time of the Hughes Commission, which

started in 1989. It was well known at the time of the conviction of Dr. Stephen

Collins, which happened some several years before that. It was well known by

officials of the Justice Department long ago that there was a defect in that

legislation.

So instead of fixing that legislation in forty-eight hours,

which is all the time it would take to put together a half-decent draft of an

amendment that would make enforceable such legislation, instead of that we had

to wait the three and a half years that this government has been in office.

Perhaps we can say we had to wait another several years that the previous

government was in office when officials of the Justice Department knew that

there was a defect in the legislation and that it needed to be fixed.

We can come here on very short notice and fix up the

Summary

Proceedings Act, fix up the Liquor Control Act and fix up the Motorized Snow

Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act - to do what? To make it more efficient to

collect money. That's what we're doing. That's what we're being asked to do here

today. To make it more efficient for the Province to collect money through fines

and parking tickets. I'm not against that. But that can be done on very short

notice with a technical amendment to the Act; yet we had to wait three years for

this government to bring in an amendment to the Child Welfare Act, Bill 68,

which was debated - although only for a very short time - in the House a couple

of days ago.

So I say that we have a problem here, that the priorities of

this government seem to be all wrong. They can act quickly when it comes to

fixing up the parking violations system, when there's problems in making sure

that we are more efficient in collecting parking tickets or collecting fines

from people who are charged with illegal possession of liquor. We can do that in

a matter of days. In fact, we had the Bill printed up a couple of days ago,

debated in the House today, it'll probably be passed by Christmas. That's how

fast these things can be done when there's a political will on the part of the

government to fix up some technical defects in legislation that can ensure

adequate and efficient prosecution of offenses. That can be done.

So why when it's something as important as the Child Welfare

Act, an obvious wrong and crime against young children being allowed to be

perpetrated by officials knowing - officials, professionals, neighbours,

individuals - knowing that a child is being abused, sexually, physically, or

otherwise, having a requirement on paper at least to report such crimes, but

being able to relax in the satisfaction of knowing that: number one, not one

single person has ever been prosecuted for violating the failure to report, and

number two, that even if they did you could probably hire some clever lawyer to

get you off because the legislation was unenforceable?

Now that evil was allowed to continue in this Province by

this government for in excess of three years. At the time that the Hughes

enquiry started, in April of 1989, it was announced by the former Minister of

Justice, the Member for Humber East. At that time it was well known within the

Justice Department - not necessarily by the minister, I don't know what the

minister's knowledge was - but I do know that it was known inside the Justice

Department that

Section 49 of the Child Welfare Act was there. They knew also

that there had never been anybody prosecuted for it.

The Dr. Stephen Collins case was already well known

throughout the Province. It was well known that individuals in high

administrative places in the Public Service of this Province were aware of what

had been going on long before Dr. Stephen Collins was charged and prosecuted for

child abuse. They did not carry out their obligations under the Child Welfare

Act, and no effort was made to enforce that legislation or to see whether it was

enforceable, until we had this legislation brought into the House last week,

printed up on a day's notice. Nobody even knew what the amendments were, Mr.

Speaker. I had phone calls Monday of this week asking what the amendments to the

Child Welfare Act were; well, I said I didn't know, I had no idea. They had

given notice in the House to bring them in but they hadn't given us a copy of

them. We didn't get a copy until Tuesday, and by 6:30 on Tuesday, it had

received second reading - with one speaker from the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the government is trying to

hide - whether they don't want to have debates on these issues because it will

give too much knowledge of either their incompetence - and I will give them a

choice - either their incompetence in being able to put together a simple,

technical amendment to the Child Welfare Act in three-and-a-half years, either

incompetence in not being able to do that, Mr. Speaker, or their lack of

concern; take your pick. The government can have it either way, either they are

incompetent in not being able to put together a simple amendment to a piece of

legislation in three-and-a-half years or they don't care - one or the other, Mr.

Speaker.

If they cared about the effectiveness of the child welfare

legislation, they would have brought the amendment in three years ago, when it

was known that this was a problem, and would have also benefitted in bringing in

legislation of this nature, legislation such as Bill 70 and Bill 68, in bringing

in legislation about the requirements of the law, that there be some extended

debate on it, that there be sufficient debate and public discussion about these

issues, that the public gets an opportunity to understand exactly what their

obligations are when it comes to reporting incidents of child abuse.

The reporting of a crime, Mr. Speaker, I mean, many people

think you are obliged to report a crime; well, you are not. You can stand around

and watch somebody commit a crime; you can watch somebody steal from a store,

and you have no obligation to report that under law. Morally, you may have, but

there is no obligation to report such a crime unless the law says so, and Bill

68 -

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill?

MR. HARRIS: Bill 68.

This bill requires that such a reporting be done and that you

have three years to prosecute. There is a

Summary Proceedings Act in Bill 70,

for example, which we are on right now, that is being amended to permit a

different form of prosecution to take place for provincial ticket offenses,

Liquor Control Act offenses and offenses under The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act under Bill 70. Bill 68 amends The

Summary Proceedings

Act, amends The Child Welfare Act, but both bills deal with the enforcement of

laws and the enforcement of legislation - both of them, Mr. Speaker.

In their different ways they deal with the enforcement of

legislation and how can we separate the two, I say to the Member for Port de

Grave, who is looking for an opportunity to interrupt my speech. The Child

Welfare Act, which we amended and which passed second reading the other day,

requires the reporting of an offence. That is unusual, but it is done because it

is important to do so. And it is important that when legislation such as that is

passed that there be sufficient opportunity to debate the legislation and to

make sure that individuals who are affected by it, such as in this case, health

care professionals, teachers, school principals, social workers, clergypersons,

rabbi, operators and employers of day care centres, all of these people, are

required to bring this to the attention of a social worker and initially to the

police, so it is very useful legislation.

I didn't hear anybody raise the question of what happens if

an individual speaks to a clergyperson in the confidence of the confessional, or

whatever the equivalent is in other religions, and advises the clergyperson that

that individual has engaged in certain abusive practices with a child, whether

that is going to relieve a priest or the confessor of the right to keep the

secrets. No one raised that in our debate. I don't know how the legislation

intends to deal with that. I guess that is being left to the courts, although

our own Evidence Act might have something to say about it.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is before us now, which is

going to make more efficient the collecting of tickets, that is legislation that

I think we can support. But I say to hon. members that if this fairly complex

piece of legislation - and in looking at it I see that in it, a great deal of

technical changes are being made to a whole series of acts: the enforcement of

The Highway Traffic Act, the various municipal acts of the City of St. John's,

Corner Brook, Mount Pearl and other municipalities, The Memorial University Act,

The Works, Services and Transportation Act, The Dangerous Goods Transportation

Act, The Motor Carrier Act, The Liquor Control Act. All of these acts are being

amended in a fairly complex, technical amendment that has been put before this

House, having been drafted, I would suspect, in the matter of a few days, when

the government saw it was important to do this.

Why did we not have an amendment to The Child Welfare Act

three years ago, or more, when it was being made obvious that an amendment was

needed to be able to prosecute individuals who had failed to report that child

abuse was occurring which they were aware of.

MR. HODDER: What bill is this?

MR. HARRIS: The bill that we are debating right now is

Bill 70. Bill 68 was the very short debate we had the other day -

MR. HODDER: I heard, yes.

MR. HARRIS: - when the government decided it didn't want

to have anybody speak, other than the one speaker from the Opposition; and the

minister, of course, in contravention of the long-standing and almost unanimous

traditions of the House, failed to allow any other debate to take place after he

had risen -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful!

MR. HARRIS: - in what the Member for Port au Port says

was a shameful display, and I couldn't agree more, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some of the time of this House on

Bill 70 to make some of the remarks that I would have made on Bill 68. I do want

to get these remarks on the record, for it is an example, and perhaps it is just

as well, at this stage, that we are discussing these two bills together, because

when you contrast the one with the other - Bill 70 providing amendments to a

whole series of acts to ensure that the prosecution of these acts, the ticket

offenses under The Liquor Control Act, under The Highway Traffic Act, under The

Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act, these prosecutions occur

in an efficient manner so that not too much time of the courts is taken up and

that people do not have certain kinds of technical defenses that they would

otherwise have - I think it is a good thing we cleaned that up.

Mr. Speaker, why did we have to wait three-and-a-half years

for this government to bring in other amendments, such as to The Child Welfare

Act, on a much more important issue, having to do with the protection of

children in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks and, in conclusion, I would

say that I support, in principle, the legislation here under Bill 70. Not only

did I support, in principle, Bill 68, the legislation of The Child Welfare Act,

I had urged the government on numerous occasions to bring in such an amendment

and I was desirous of speaking to it when it came before the House at second

reading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their rapt attention to

my remarks, and I will end my remarks on that point.

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

speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard what the hon. gentleman has said, and all I can

say is I don't find his arguments persuasive. So, I simply move that the bill

now be read -

MR. HARRIS: I supported it.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. HARRIS: I said, I supported it.

MR. ROBERTS: In that case, I still don't find it

supportive. I wonder what I have done wrong, that the hon. gentleman is

supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Summary Proceedings

Act, The Liquor Control Act And The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain

Vehicles Act," read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 70).

Could we call the next bill, which is Bill 74, Sir? I am not

sure of the order, I had it written down, but it is The Elections Act amendment,

Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) for the Speaker to

a) call it, and

b) recognise

it.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Election Act, The Jury Act, 1991, And The Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 74).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me first of all say that while it may be fair to say that

some of the legislation that has come into the House this session has not been

widely heralded to the hon. members before it came in here, that this one, hon.

gentlemen will agree, will not come as any surprise. I can say that with no

hesitation and with the knowledge there can be no possible contradiction.

Because I met with two or three members of the Opposition, including my friend

for Kilbride and one or two of his colleagues, and I met subsequently with my

friend -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - my friend from St. John's East when he

returned from a private venture which I hope continues to bring him much

happiness. At that meeting I told him what would be in this bill.

The bill amends three separate bits of legislation and they

are all spelled out in the title to the bill. The first is The Election Act,

which is part of the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1990, and that is the

Election Act that is still in force. It is essentially the act that has been in

force in this Province for at least the twenty-five years that I have been

actively involved in the electoral process. It may even be older than that. But

that is the bill under which, for example, this House of Assembly was elected,

the law under which I was elected in the by-election down in Naskaupi, and my

friend for Ferryland was elected in the by-election in Ferryland district in

June.

The second is The Jury Act, 1991, which is a new piece of

legislation that was adopted, obviously, in 1991. I will in due course come to

the connection. The third is The Elections Act, 1991, which is a separate

statute from The Election Act, part of the RSNs.

The Elections - plural - Act, 1991 is the statute that was

adopted by this House in 1991 that has in it the reforms on which the House, as

I understood it, unanimously agreed. I believe there was a committee chaired by

my friend from Eagle River that held some hearings, and in due course they came

back and made a report, there were some changes made and we carried on. The

House, in my understanding, adopted the bill without any dissenting voice.

Mr. Mitchell, the new Chief Electoral Officer, initially

under my ministerial direction - and I use the 'ministerial' because I have

little to do with this type of activity - but now more and more on his own.

Given the resolution adopted by the House earlier in the week, at the Premier's

motion, Mr. Mitchell, the Chief Electoral Officer, is hard at work working out

the implementation of the new Elections Act, and it is as a consequence of what

we have learned as we came to bring the new Elections Act into play that we

bring this bill before the House and ask the House to adopt it at second reading

and it due course to make it into law.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all address the reason why the

Jury Act is in here. The Jury Act is in here because the new procedure we want

to adopt, that has been enshrined in the Jury Act adopted by the House, that new

procedure uses the voters list as the basis from which are drawn the panels of

jurors. Now, that is a new procedure. Hitherto there was another list, a jurors

list from which jurors were drawn. Of course I speak of jurors in criminal

trials and I suppose it would be jurors in a civil trial. Our rules of court

allow them but they are certainly the exception rather than the rule. It is

possible. I am not sure when the last civil jury trial was held here, a year or

two ago, in fact, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, the Jury Act uses the Election Act list, the

voters list, and that is the connection between the two. I will see if I

understand it sufficiently to outline it. The last enumeration was done in 1988

and that is the basis for the voters list on which the 1989 election was

conducted and on which all the subsequent by-elections were conducted. The

voters list is good for five years so I could say to hon. gentlemen this one is

good until November 1993. It was adopted formally by the Cabinet in November

1988. If members want I can get a copy of the Order in Council or a reference to

it, but it became law for these purposes in November 1988 and it is good for any

election held within five years, in fact any election called within five years

of that date. So, if we have an election anytime before next November, eleven

months from now, that voters list is a good one. Will we have an election before

then? Only the Premier knows. Not even my friend for Baie Verte - White Bay who

is temporary acting Premier knows. Although he is in the Premier's Chair, and

welcome he is, only the Premier knows because the Constitution reserves that

right to the Premier of the Province. That is point one.

Point two, is that the voters list is badly out of date. Hon.

gentlemen opposite, I know, work with it the same as we do. In Ferryland

district about 20 per cent of the people who voted last June were sworn in. In

Naskaupi it was about 40 per cent. Now, that reflects two things. It reflects

the fact that new voters come on the list all the time. Some leave the Province

or die but younger people grow up, become of age, become eighteen, and go on. In

fact anybody who was thirteen or fourteen years of age in 1988 is today eighteen

years of age and eligible to vote, so these new voters must be sworn. There is a

procedure but nonetheless they must be sworn.

Secondly, and this is particularly true in my district, you

have a lot of people coming and going. There may not be quite as much movement

in Ferryland but we are a very mobile Province for whatever reason, economic,

social, whatever the factors we are a very mobile people. I would think, Mr.

Speaker, that if we were to have a general election today on the present list

the officials would have to swear in at least 20 per cent of the people who

voted. Now, the total vote is 300,000 people in an normal election, that is the

size of the vote we get, so you have 60,000 or 70,000 people to be sworn in. If

you take fifty-two districts that is 1400 people a district. If you take forty

polling booths in the average district, I suppose around the Province, that is

forty people in each polling booth. That is a very big administrative job. Even

it were not a requirement of the law that we do a new voters' list we should be

doing one simply because the old list is outdated. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we use

a permanent voters list in this Province and to my knowledge always have. I

remember in Ottawa in the federal elections, as we saw in the referendum, every

time they have an election they have to take a new voters' list. They did one

for the referendum last Fall. That was an election with everything except

candidates and they took a full voters' list. That is what drives the cost so

high in a federal election. It also means you have to have a much longer period.

The minimum federal period is fifty-six days and I think half of that or more

goes simply to taking up the voters' list.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we accordingly want to take up a new

voters' list. In fact there was provision this year in the estimates of my

department to enable us to do so but we have not done it. We have not done it

because we were waiting for the new chief electoral officer to come into place

because he will carry out the enumeration and we wanted to have him in place to

do it. So, we put it off until he got in place, it was late September I think

before Mr. Mitchell was appointed, it was in the motion that was in the House,

that was the end of September as I recall it, and by that time and by the time

we got preparations under way, we are into the Winter weather and the feeling

was that we should wait until the weather is a little more clement. So, there

will be a voters list taken up some time in February, March, April, whenever the

chief electoral officer decides to do it. That's his decision and we will be

asking the House in due course to provide enough money in the 1993-94 estimates

to cover the cost of taking up an enumeration, it is about $750,000.

Point three, the franchise under the new Elections Act is

different than the franchise under the old Elections Act. There are some very

substantial differences. The new one I think is an improvement because it widens

the list of those eligible to vote. So, that led us to the position where we

would have to look possibly at two enumerations - double the cost but not double

the fun. We would end up doing one under the old Act and one under the new Act.

Now, why not simply proclaim the new Act? The answer is, the new Act is going to

require a great deal of administrative machinery, we are just not ready to

proclaim it yet. We just have not got all the machinery in place. I will come

back to that.

So, the provisions of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, would allow us,

if the House adopts it, would allow the chief electoral officer who has just

been unanimously approved by every member of the House, the whole House, to

conduct an enumeration using the new franchise, the franchise of the 1991 Act,

and using the machinery of the 1990 Act, the only machinery that is in place,

the same machinery that has been in place for - I can tell twenty-five years of

my own knowledge, my friend from Twillingate could speak of thirty years because

it is thirty years since he first entered this House as a member, will allow

that to be done and will allow the list to be regarded as the permanent voters

list under the new Elections Act, the 1991 Act. That is really no more

complicated than that.

There are one or two other things that we do. There are some

minor consequential amendments that ought to have been picked up, I would have

said in the earlier, in the 1991 Act for whatever reason, but were not. For

example, we are removing the requirement that the list of electors must be

posted on utility poles. There is a different way to do it, that is in Clause 3.

We are confirming that if we produce a list by mechanical or electronic means,

in this age of the computer, that that is as good as a printed original list. I

mean these are just minor technical matters, but they have an importance. There

is an amendment that allows us to continue to use forms that have the references

to the RSN 1970 on it as if they were printed under the 1990 Act. I mean not

terribly important but we would not want somebody going to court in the middle

of an election and getting an order from a judge who says: I can only look at

the law and apply it and the law says these forms should say RSN 1990, they say

RSN 1970, put off your election until you get the printers to do the new forms.

Foolishness, but occasionally these things do happen and we

have to deal with them.

The other thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, and this is again a

point I had raised with my friend from Kilbride, is we are asking the House to

give us authority to proclaim the Act by parts. The Elections Act 1991 by parts

and the reason for that is spelled out in here: the new Act has a new scheme to

governing all of election finances, all election financing. It governs

contributions, requires disclosure, puts limits on them. It governs expenditure,

it requires disclosure, puts limits on it. It requires extensive reporting

mechanisms. It also allows tax credits for contributions to registered parties

and there will be at least three registered parties in this Province because the

definition of registered parties was drawn quite deliberately to ensure that all

the three parties that are widely represented in the Province can qualify and it

is not difficult for any new party to come in. I forget, you have to run

what?... fourteen candidates in a general election. There is a definition in the

Act. It is rather easy to attain and if a group could not attain it, they should

not be a registered party, in our judgement, but it is not difficult to become a

registered party in this Province.

The financial requirements apply at two levels. They apply to

the Province wide parties. The Liberal Association of Newfoundland and Labrador

and I assume it is the Progressive Conservative Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, my membership card seems to have gotten lost in the mail, and the NDP,

I think they have a separate association but anyway the Newfoundland and

Labrador NDP Party by whatever name it goes.

They also apply the requirements at the district association

level, and I think as we began to get into it, and this is what I was hearing

from our party people, and my friend, the Leader of the Opposition I think was

hearing the same thing from his district party people and I suspect the Leader

of the NDP, the Member for St. John's East, was hearing it from their district

party people as well, is that, it would be relatively easy to apply it at the

Province-wide level, but much more difficult to apply it at the district

association level, and we talked to Mr. Mitchell and he acknowledges this, he

agrees and indeed we feel there would be a need for an extensive training

program and all these things to be done. So the purpose of putting this in here

is to allow us to bring in the bill by parts or by sections and that is found in

clause 7 of the bill and you will note, Mr. Speaker, the specific reference to

the district association, and if you track it back to the original act, that is

what

section 339, sub-section (2) does, that is the tax credit and the

requirement.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the bill, it is a fairly technical

matter but it is of some importance in a matter that is fairly close to home,

because there is a reasonably good chance there will be an election I would

think within the next couple of weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. ROBERTS: Couple weeks?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. ROBERTS: We will give them Christmas off, a couple

days, maybe.

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about two months.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend who is currently occupying the

Premier's chair, I do not know how that is going to look in Hansard, my friend

who is currently occupying the Premier's chair at 3:20 p.m. on the afternoon of

December 17th, says he is currently thinking of a couple of months. Now

historians can make what they want of that at Hansard. My friend from Baie Verte

- White Bay, who is currently occupying the Premier's chair is thinking of a

couple of months. I have no idea what the other occupant of that chair is

thinking; he keeps that very much to himself as he has every right to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Anyway, there will be an election, where it

is only

an act of christian charity, the spirit of christian goodwill that we

have not put hon. gentlemen opposite, we do not want them to be on the

unemployment list until after Christmas because they do not get stamps in their

present business and if Don Mazankowski has his way, they will not get them

ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will we get a package?

MR. ROBERTS: Get a package? Mr. Speaker, I say to my

friend for Kilbride, I understand he has his package all arranged and my friend

for Port au Port as well. I know about the package because until I came back in

this House, I was a beneficiary of the package, my own, my very own moratorium

package. My friend for Port au Port has announced he will not be seeking

re-election, my friend for Kilbride has announced he will not be seeking

re-election, they will be getting their own moratorium package in due course.

The Minister of Finance will personally deliver the cheque, it may be wrapped

around a rock. The Minister of Finance will personally deliver the cheque and it

will not even be wrapped around a rock.

But now, Mr. Speaker, that is what the bill seeks to achieve,

we do intend to proceed with all speed to proclaim the new act and bring it into

play; the chief electoral officer has quite specific directions from the

Cabinet, the necessary financial arrangements have been made and I must say Mr.

Mitchell has seized on his duties. I want to record a debt of gratitude to Mrs.

Collins, who took over when Mr. Whelan left unexpectedly, I think it is fair to

say. Mrs. Isabelle Collins became the acting chief electoral officer and she

carried on and performed superbly and the government and the House in my view,

owe her a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Mitchell has seized hold of his new duties, there is a

blizzard of memoranda coming across my desk, he is getting into it; my friend,

the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls, would know Mr.

Mitchell from a previous incarnation and he is an absolutely superb official who

is going to do a very thorough professional job with this.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the bill be read a second time, I

have spoken with my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, whom I assume has spoken

with his colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. May I move now that the House

not rise at five o'clock this afternoon and I will later be moving a motion that

the House not rise - well let me move them both now. Well let us dispose of that

motion first, then I will have another motion, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion that the House not

rise at five.

All those in favour, 'aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would move further that the

House not rise at ten, and let me say we have no intention at this time of going

beyond ten, but we shall have to see how she lays, as the songs says. I move

that the House not rise at ten, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion that the House not

rise at ten, all those in favour, 'aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a

second time and other hon. gentlemen speak.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know my colleague, the Member for Kilbride has some points

to make in this debate and I believe but I am not sure, but I suspect the Member

for St. John's East has. I have to leave the House shortly so I wanted to just

make a few comments.

I would like to take the opportunity, if I might, to make a

comment with respect to the appointment by the House of the chief electoral

officer, which was done I believe yesterday. I've been off -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tuesday.

MR. SIMMS: Tuesday, was it? I've been off ill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday was a productive work day.

MR. SIMMS: The last government day, I guess. Yesterday

was nobody's day, as I understand the newscast.

Mr. Speaker, I've been ill for a couple of days so I didn't

have an opportunity to be here and to participate. I would have liked to. The

Minister of Justice and the Premier both know of my support for the appointment

of Mr. Mitchell in that position. The Premier did consult with me some time ago

and told me he was considering Mr. Mitchell's name as the chief electoral

officer. My recollection of Mr. Mitchell's work habits as a former assistant

deputy minister, I believe, at Public Works when I remember him -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Deputy one time.

MS. VERGE: Deputy of Public Works.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Was it Public Works?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Then deputy minister, I guess. Anyway, I know

he was also assistant clerk of the Cabinet, if I remember, for social policy,

and dealt quite frequently with social policy Cabinet ministers way back when.

Back in the 'eighties sometime.

In any event, the point I make is that he is not only a very

competent individual but he is, as the Minister of Justice just described him, a

very thorough individual. I can assure you, and members of the House - not that

they need assurance, I suppose, because they obviously have approved the

resolution anyway - but I feel pretty confident that everything that has to be

done will be done thoroughly, properly. If there's any criticism of Mr. Mitchell

it might be that he follows the book a little bit too much, some people would

have said in the past. But I feel confident he'll do a great job and I just

wanted to take the opportunity under this debate, even though it's not

absolutely pertinent, to pass along those comments for the record.

With respect to this particular piece of legislation I have

no great difficulties with what's being attempted here by the government, what

the government would like to do with the legislation. In fact I don't intend to

even debate it in detail. The changes to the Jury Act and the amendments to

provide for the new electors list to be taken, we support. We don't have any

difficulties with it. There are other matters that we will want to raise with

respect to the reforms of the Elections Act - plural, as the Minister of Justice

called it. The legislation that was dealt with by the Committee chaired by the

Member for Eagle River, I believe it was. Under this particular Bill there are

other matters that I know members on this side would wish to raise and want to

raise. Perhaps members over there want to raise as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) special ballot.

MR. SIMMS: The special ballot. I think my friend for

Kilbride certainly wants to have a few words about that issue. I just want to

talk about the last issue that the Minister of Justice referred to, about

delaying proclamation of the aspects of that new Elections Act which was passed

in the House in the spring that applied to the district associations.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm for the House that I had

some discussions with both the Premier and the Minister of Justice in the past

and did indicate to them, on behalf of our Party, that a lot of our district

association people, having looked at the legislation, do have a number of

concerns with respect to being in a position and to finding people - volunteers

- who would be ready to take on the responsibilities that are going to be heaped

upon them or would have been heaped upon them, under the legislation that we

passed in the Spring of the year.

There are a lot of responsibilities to be applied to

volunteers under that legislation and we felt - and we had feedback from our own

district associations - we felt that there was going to be a lot of unnecessary

responsibility heaped upon them, without having the opportunity to learn more

about the legislation because it is very complex, complicated, with a lot of

financial restrictions and responsibilities there that you are going to ask

volunteers to undertake. We felt that was a bit heavy and a bit too much without

having some proper training.

In fact, we talked to the previous Chief Electoral Officer,

who had indicated to us that it was his intention that he would like to do some

planning - he would like to have some sessions held, maybe, throughout the

Province for the people who would be involved with the various political

parties, to sit down with them and explain what is in the legislation, what

their responsibilities would be under the legislation and so on, some training

sessions, which I believe the Minister of Justice has indicated Mr. Mitchell has

also said should be done.

So it is really for that reason that that aspect of the

legislation that heaps a lot of financial responsibility on volunteers should be

perhaps delayed and not implemented prior to the next provincial election.

In terms of fund-raising and so on, I am not sure - I have

not had a chance to go through it in any detail. Perhaps the minister can

comment on it when he closes the debate. I would assume it also applies to the

fund-raising efforts of district associations and that they will not be able to

use the tax credit thing; they would not be able to do that at the district

level.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well that is the only point I was going to

make. I would assume and presume, and maybe the minister can confirm it when he

stands, for the record, that if a member - if the Member for Carbonear has a

contributor who wants to make a contribution to his election campaign,

presumably he can go through his provincial party and the party can take the

contribution, issue the tax credit and then give the money out to -

MR. ROBERTS: As long as they take the responsibility for

reporting and receiving it, the party could do that.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, okay, but he would still have to report

it as a - the party would have to report it as a -

MR. ROBERTS: A donation to the party.

MR. SIMMS: - a donation to the party, and the member

would have to report it in his annual statement at the end of the year as a

donation he received.

MR. ROBERTS: But it is separate. It would not apply to

members (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: This legislation - but under the present

legislation members have to submit a financial statement at the end of every

election - right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Only expenses, not donations.

MR. SIMMS: Only expenditures, so they would not have to

report their income.

AN HON. MEMBER: The party would do that.

MR. SIMMS: The party would have to report it but the

individual would not.

Nevertheless the point is, of course, that members can still

do it if they have contributors and there is not a big concern with respect to

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm for the House that we

do not have any real difficulty with these specific amendments - these changes.

We support them. We agree with them; but there are some other issues, such as a

special ballot that I know the Member for Kilbride will speak to on our behalf

and with which we still have some difficulties. It is under the old legislation.

Therefore, I guess, it is pertinent to raise it now under these proposed

amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to be brief, as I usually am, on this piece of

legislation and raise a couple of points.

The first point I wish to raise in this matter, and I guess

it is more for the present Government House Leader's attention than anyone else

in the House. He referred to the original passing of The Elections Act in this

House, which went through fairly smoothly after some small debate.

I suggest to the hon. the Government House Leader that the

main reason for that is the exact reason why we have requested, over the last

week or so, to have other legislation put before the Legislation Review

Committees.

This legislation, or that legislation at the time, went

before the Privileges and Elections Committee. I had the privilege of serving on

that committee with our Chairperson, the Member for Eagle River, the Member for

Carbonear, the Member for Port au Port, and the Member for Pleasantville.

Mr. Speaker, that is the place to get your misunderstandings

ironed out - is the way I would put it - and it is the place to try to improve a

bill, rather than come into this House of Assembly a week before Christmas and

try to iron out problems that you, one side or the other, might have with the

legislation that is being presented.

If all of this legislation, and particularly the important

legislation, were put to the Legislation Review Committees, in time - give them

some time to work on it - I think that we would not have nearly as many

yesterdays with what happened in this House yesterday, as we would ordinarily

have.

Part of the reason for what happened in this House yesterday

- and what did happen was nothing for any of us to be proud of - but part of the

reason for that is a lack of co-operation. Partly, the blame may be on both

sides. But there was no lack of co-operation here before the new Government

House Leader took over.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible) that is not nice.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is not nice. I agree wholeheartedly

with the Member for Placentia, that it is not nice. It should never have

happened among a bunch of so-called intelligent leaders of our Legislature. But

it is happening. Why is it happening? It is happening because of the present

Government House Leader. There is no other reason.

The Government House Leader brings in bills like Bill 74,

which is a fairly innocuous bill, I suppose. This bill here would not go to the

committee now because it had been dealt with. Mr. Speaker, other bills that we

have on our agenda here are very important bills, important to members on both

sides. One of the reasons why I enjoyed the Legislation Review Committees and

enjoyed serving on them - and I also enjoyed the Estimates Committees when they

were brought into this House of Assembly by a former administration - especially

when I was a backbencher, and now that I am an Opposition member.

Those committees gave me a chance to get in and learn about

the bill and get some detail on the bill so that when it came to this House of

Assembly I wasn't just forced to read over some legal jargon as presented in a

bill and try to deal with it in that manner. I could hear what other people

thought about the bill, when it goes to committees, and I could form opinions

from a broad variety of views on a certain bill, which is the way that we all

should try to do in this House of Assembly.

One of this reasons why this bill - why the original

Elections Act, 1991 - went through the House fairly smoothly was because we

worked out some of the problems while we were in committee. I recommend that the

hon. the Government House Leader speak to the chairpeople of the committees, the

people on his side who work on these committees. I am sure if he asked these

people, they would agree with me that it would be better to put these acts to

the Legislation Review Committees. It would save the taxpayers' money in the

long run because there wouldn't be so much trouble getting it through the House

of Assembly.

So I just make the recommendation to the Government House

Leader, that he give more consideration than he has done, to having all

important legislation automatically go the Legislation Review Committees -

automatically. If you want to restrict travelling, do it. I can see, if you

don't have money for people to travel around the Province, you should restrict

travel, but at least allow the committees to do their work. They can certainly

make phone calls -they are going to be making phone calls anyway. They can

accept presentations from people by mail. They can plan their work.

Another criticism I have of this act is that it is an example

of poor planning on behalf of the Government House Leader and the government

generally to have passed a bill in the last session of the House of Assembly and

we are back amending it already. The planning that the Government House Leader

and the government have put into these bills they are bringing before the House

of Assembly certainly doesn't inspire anyone's confidence.

When the Government House Leader was introducing his bill, he

mentioned that 20 per cent of the people in Ferryland and some 40 per cent of

the people in his own district were not on the voters list. I find that strange

for Ferryland, but it was so, obviously. I wouldn't expect the district of

Ferryland to have a very transient population.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That could very well be. Probably most of

them were from the Goulds area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Young people coming on, yes, but I

wouldn't expect that would be 20 per cent of the whole district - it is

possible. I can see it in the hon. member's district because we do have a lot of

movement around, and there is the base in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Unless you

do a monthly list up there you would never keep it up to date. But I do find the

20 per cent figure strange. In the St. John's area - in my district, in

particular - no matter how often you do the list, quite a few people will have

to be sworn in because they are always buying and selling houses, and moving

into apartments. So it is very difficult to get a really up-to-date list in the

urban areas. The hon. the Government House Leader also suggested why it took so

long for a federal election to be called, fifty-eight days or whatever it is.

Most of that time is taken to prepare new lists and one of the reasons for

having to prepare these lists in the federal process is that if you are in an

urban poll - and all of my district is considered to be in an urban poll - in a

federal election if you are not on the list you don't vote. If you do not get on

the list by a given deadline, usually a week or so before the election, and you

happen to be missed, you do not get to vote, Mr. Speaker, which I always found

to be very unfortunate. Because we should be bending over backwards to allow

people to vote. This is the federal one, now, not ours.

We made every effort in committee, and most of it was passed

in this House of Assembly, to make it as easy as possible for anyone who fits

the criteria to be able to vote. That is the way I believe legislation should be

written, so that it is made as easy as possible with the least possible amount

of restrictions on anyone who wants to vote. Voters' list or not you should be

allowed to be sworn in as long as you can prove you live in the district on that

day, or within a reasonable time.

The hon. the Government House Leader also suggested that the

new act increases the number of those who can vote. I do not believe it

increases over the old act. I think we have restricted it somewhat because it is

no longer permissible for a British subject to be allowed to vote, one must be a

Canadian citizen now, under the new act. The new act doesn't increase the number

too much but that point was not worth holding up the bill from getting to

legislation. I said when we debated this in the beginning and I still believe it

- it is being emphasized now - that they are once again putting their hands in

the pockets of the taxpayers and it could be perceived as looking after

themselves. I said it in second reading, but people who have more wisdom that I

do, people who are wiser than I am, have convinced me that this will make it

easier and fairer for a greater number of people to run. Mr. Speaker, even

though I do not see that and I do not agree with it I will have to yield to

those with greater wisdom.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Strange times. We are getting too close

to Christmas, probably, Mr. Speaker, for those things to happen. I still believe

they have their hands in the taxpayers' pockets again and it will be an added

expense for taxpayers. I am a firm believer in free enterprise and individual

initiative, and if I want to run in an election I will go and do the job it

takes. I will raise the money it takes and I will spend what I raise. If I

cannot raise a great amount of money then I don't spend a great lot of money.

That is the way I went for four elections. I know, in my district it is a bit

easier but there are districts in the Province where that philosophy might not

prevail because it is more difficult to raise money. I do yield to those who

have more wisdom than I do and accept that part of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the main point I would like to talk about here

today and that I would like the Government House Leader to address when he gets

up is this: When our committee finished its reporting and presented its report

to the House of Assembly, and the legislation was presented in the House of

Assembly, there was a

section on special ballot that was not included in the new

legislation, yet we did make a deal. We had a reasonable House Leader at the

time and we did make a deal to give the committee a new mandate to find some

practical way to bring in a special ballot and include it in our new Elections

Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this would be included in our

amendment because this special ballot - we have eliminated the special poll. We

have included a proxy vote. A proxy vote is good for those who wish it, but it

takes away people's privacy in voting, in my mind, and that was always my big

objection to it. It does not hurt to have it there for those who wish it.

The special ballot provision, and the special poll that we

have in our act now, was always very convenient for large groups of people who

are outside of their district and wish to vote. Particularly students at

post-secondary institutions had a chance to go to - in St. John's in particular

- maybe Memorial University or wherever the special poll was set up, and they

could vote for their member in their district, if they wished. Or, if they had

an apartment and an address in St. John's they could go and vote for that

district in which they lived.

I thought that was fairly reasonable. It could work for

post-secondary students. It could work for sites such as Hibernia. You could put

a special poll on the Hibernia site and people who were out there working on the

day of the election could vote for the people back in their own districts, which

I thought to be fair.

Mr. Speaker, I know that was an expensive operation to

administer. It was terribly expensive and hard to control. So what we did on the

committee was put our heads together and try to come up with a different system

that would be less expensive and still provide the opportunity for most people

who are outside of their district on election day to be able to vote.

We came up with the special ballot, which is used in New

Brunswick and is used, I believe, in Saskatchewan and is used in one other

province - I cannot remember it now. That was more or less a blank ballot that

the polling station - every polling station in every district could have it. If

you went to a polling station and asked to vote - if you were in Corner Brook

and asked to vote for the district of St. John's East Extern, they could give

you a blank ballot with a list of the candidates for that district and you could

go and vote. That would be one way.

The other way would be that you could write in for this

special ballot, because you were away, and the special ballot would come to you

with a certain amount of envelopes. You would put your vote and double up the

envelopes and send them back in.

Mr. Speaker, that seemed to be a reasonable way to solve the

problem of eliminating the special polls, and the only reason they were

eliminated was because they were expensive. I do not know that is a legitimate

reason to eliminate them but that is the reason why they were. They were hard to

administer and hard to control, so that might have been another reason.

The special ballot would have looked after all of that and I

would request the Government House Leader, when he does conclude the debate,

that he make mention of when we might expect to see this special ballot

provision being included in the new act; and is it possible that we could amend

this act, now Bill No. 74, before it is passed, and have the special ballot

included in the upcoming election which will take place within the next day or

the next six months? I expect there is only one person who knows when it will

take place but it would be good to have that special ballot provision in this

amendment.

The report has gone in since September, the report of the

committee, the second report of the committee. The government has had time to

review this and see if we cannot make the proper provisions.

I know the new electoral officer who we just appointed a

couple of days ago would be a very competent person to try to do the proper

administration for this special ballot. It would be an ideal time for him to

look into this, if we had it passed now, so that as many people as possible

could vote.

Mr. Speaker, I guess these are the main reasons, but once

again I would like to point out to the Government House Leader that the reason

this bill is passing this House - not this one in particular, but the Elections

Act that passed last session - passed the House without too much controversy,

and other bills. I served on a committee with the Member for St. John's South -

some labour legislation - it could have been very controversial in this House of

Assembly, that went through fairly well. There might be a minority report here

and there presented at the wrong time but those things will happen. Still, the

frustrations are gone out of it and the members who are involved in the

committee do have a much better understanding of the legislation that they're

dealing with. At least they can inform their own caucuses of what the

legislation is and what the intention of the committee is in their

recommendations.

So I ask the Government House Leader to take special note of

the legislative review committee process. When we come back in January or so, if

he has any legislation that he wants to put through, give it a bit of time. Give

it to the chairpeople of the committee over the Christmas recess. We can have a

look at it. We can spend a few days.... I don't mind working during Christmas if

necessary. We can have a look at some of this legislation and make

recommendations. We don't want to delay the legislation. That's not the intent

of the committees, to delay it. If you want to give us time limits to look at it

I wouldn't even mind that, as long as we have the chance to look at it ourselves

and get a better understanding of it, and to allow the public, the general

populace of our Province, who might have an interest in some of this legislation

- all of it affects them.

There aren't very many of them who have an interest in it, I

know that, but there are some who do have interests in certain pieces of

legislation. To allow them the opportunity to have a look at it and review it

before it becomes law. Because when you make it into law it's extremely

difficult to change it. That's what creates frustrations in people who never

heard what was passing through the House of Assembly until a certain regulation

planks down on their back and they'll say: what's this all about?

That argument can be taken away from most if our legislative

review committees do operate properly. Do the proper advertising, let people

know that the legislation is in existence, and with the help of the media in our

Province we can get the word out that we're considering certain legislation, and

it is available for public comment.

The way we're doing it over the past week or so in this House

of Assembly, as we have seen already on two bills - one committee I sat in on

was legislation dealing with the Law Society, who came in here one night and

said they didn't have enough time to do a proper job of reviewing it. That's

very acceptable to me. Because the bill was only printed up a little while ago.

The committee of the day - and a good committee I thought, several people

filling in, and I was only filling in, but never had a vote on the committee -

but the committee of the day said: yes, let's delay it until - the world won't

come to an end if we delay it till the spring session. It was recommended by the

committee and agreed to by the government.

Then we have our police commission act that was dropped off

on the Table of the House here one day and expected to be debated the next day.

Then the Government House Leader and the Premier, both of them at the time,

suggested that nobody wanted to have a comment on this new police commission

act. Nobody wanted a say in that. We've heard from everyone who wanted a say on

it. As luck happened, the day they put it on the House of Assembly there was

some lawyer came down here from Toronto - I don't even know what his name is

now, I just happened to read today in the paper - who was giving a presentation

to someone on similar legislation somewhere else, I believe. He made a

presentation to the Human Rights Association or somebody, anyway. As luck

happened the media got to interview him. He raised some concerns.

Then we have our political commentator in the newspaper, our

political science expert, Mr. Boswell, and he had a few comments on it. Then the

government did decide to let the committee have a meeting. Everyone who came

before the committee, every single presentation before the committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Two or three days ago, I don't know when

it was. One night we sat till 7:00 p.m. and then they continued. The committee

never had the gumption that the hon. Member for Port de Grave had, the committee

that sat that night. I commend him for sitting in on the first committee and

asking for a deferral of legislation because it wasn't properly understood.

Unfortunately he wasn't allowed to sit on the committee the

next night. There was the Member for Carbonear. The Member for Carbonear was the

fellow who went on the next time. I don't know who else was on it that night.

I'm not sure, anyway. But they toed the government line. Ed Roberts whipped them

in place and they were afraid to open their mouths, even though everyone who

made the request - I think four or five presentations that night - every single

one of them said there was not enough time to do a proper job.

The Police Association, who certainly are directly affected

by this new legislation, and certainly we should at least give them enough time.

I find it passing strange that the law society can come in here, Mr. Speaker,

the old buddy system, the old boys system, can come in here and make a request

for postponement of legislation and the government agrees to it. I do not know

why, I mean it may have something to do with the fact that the Government House

Leader and the Premier happen to be members of the law society. That could

possibly be, but the old boys association can come in here and ask for delay in

legislation and the committee took a bold step in recommending it but the

government -

MS. VERGE: I am not part of the old boys club.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - the old boys club and the Bar of the

Newfoundland Law Society -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - which the two opposite are members of,

Mr. Speaker, they come in here and ask for a delay in legislation and rightfully

so. I do not disagree with it, rightfully so. They asked for a delay because the

government was trying to bulldoze it through the House of Assembly again and

they got it. The committee took a bold step and recommended that they get the

delay and the government agreed to it because it was the Law Society and the

Premier's a member and the Government House Leader is a member, Mr. Speaker. But

the police association, the rank and file people who do the street work, who do

the day to day work in our legal system, Mr. Speaker, they come in here, yes the

police association to keep it within the same system, the police association

come in here with the very same request, exact same concerns, Mr. Speaker, and

they are not even listened to.

Then we have in a group, like the Human Rights Association,

who we are all supposed to look up to and respect in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

they come and plead with the government to delay it. They point out, each of

those people who made presentations at the time, pointed out the flaws that are

in the legislation. Important differences of opinion if not necessarily complete

flaws but the two groups have very major differences of opinion.

Again if that had to go to a committee and the committee had

proper time to get the hearings, to have their hearings and have these

presentations made from the interested groups, Mr. Speaker, the committee could

have worked out those frustrations and the committee could have made

recommendations to government. If government accepts them or not, the committee

has nothing to do with that. They cannot control that, government has other

reasons to bulldoze legislation through. Well, they are going to do it anyway

but at least the public had the opportunity to make the presentation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one big advantage of that is when

legislation is put in place and it is not working, at least someone can come in

and say: now, we recommended this in the beginning and you did not do it, so for

Pete's sake lets do it now, so we can get the legislation - lets get the

legislation working so that it will benefit those people who refer to the

legislation.

So, I ask the Government House Leader to take note of the

relative ease that the Elections Act went through, compared to the Acts that he

is trying to bulldoze through the House of Assembly now, particularly the Law

Society Act and the Police Commissioners Act and had they gone to committee's

they too would have gone through this House, I would expect, maybe with a

minority report but at least people would be more aware of what is happening and

the general populous would have had a chance to give us their ideas of

improvements to the legislation because supposedly we are here to pass the best

legislation possible. Although that is probably a very debatable statement to

make. That is almost as debatable to make as a statement which was made here

yesterday, that we are supposed to be the most intelligent people. Mr. Speaker,

even I disagree with that one because we are definitely not the most intelligent

people that are in this Province. There are much more in my district, much more

intelligent people than I am, Mr. Speaker. I just happen to be the most

electable on a certain day, at a certain time, Mr. Speaker, and that is just

like a roll of the dice, as was mentioned in politics a little while ago, Mr.

Speaker, and the next time around, or the next day, or the day before, that

might never have happened but we are certainly not the most intelligent in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend to the Government House Leader to

use the legislative review committee system because it works. It is a good

reform. It is one of the things that this government did that I agree with

wholeheartedly. I know they are not going to jump with joy because I agree with

it or not but it was a good reform. It is too bad we did not have it when we

were there, we had some of it, we did not have it all, we had estimates

committees to do the Budget which was a beginning and that worked pretty good. I

enjoyed that, that was a good reform too. We had special committee's, like the

Flag Committee and other committees at the time but we did not have the

legislative review committees and had we done it, I would expect and used it

properly, we might still be on that side of the House and not on this side of

the House, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

say a few words on this bill. Having chaired the committee that looked at the

bill in the first place, and certainly also the committee looked extensively at

the issue of special ballots during the summer recess, and I just want to note

for the minister responsible, and to supplement what the Member for Kilbride

said respecting the special ballots.

We, as a committee felt strongly that the special ballot

would be a good addition to the elections act, bearing in mind that the proxy

vote and a proxy ballot has not been a very good success at the federal level.

As a matter of fact, the Reform Commission on Electoral Reform has recommended

that the proxy ballot be abolished federally, and I would just like to ask the

minister responsible if he would address that as I am sure he will because I

believe that the proxy vote at the provincial level will be very chaotic.

It may not be at the present time at the federal level

because we only have seven seats, and in many cases the students in particular,

even if they are attending university or college, they may very well be within

the federal riding where they would ordinarily vote, so it would not present

such a problem. But by looking at the provincial situation, and we have some

forty seats outside of the capital, I can see where the proxy ballot will be

very, very cumbersome, very awkward and not the least, Mr. Speaker, does not

allow for the confidentiality of the vote that should be paramount wherever

possible in our democratic system.

Certainly, we thought that the idea of a special ballot where

people could write in the name of the candidate and respective district, put

that in a separate envelope and have it delivered to the chief electoral office

would have been a very good amendment to the act, and certainly would have

ensured confidentiality of the vote, and it would also I think, do what should

be done for the students of the Province in particular, to allow them to vote in

the areas of their home riding at little or no cost to the taxpayer.

I would compliment the minister on the bringing in of

different sections of the act over the next twelve months or so, because I

believe that all hon. members and their respective political organizations would

find it unbelievably overwhelming to be confronted with this massive piece of

legislation and the demands that it has upon district associations and political

parties generally, to be legally documented, their officers at the district

association level to be formally organized, and annual reports being submitted

which would have to be done by an auditor, who, in many cases may or may not be

available to the district associations in many of our ridings, and also the idea

of having a chief financial officer.

Every district association having a chief financial officer

is something that our volunteer organizations now at the district level do not

feel comfortable about taking on these responsibilities, and I think to bring in

different sections of this act, as the minister has indicated, is a very prudent

measure and I would ask the minister, through the House, to the chief electoral

officer, Mr. Speaker, that while all the sections of the act may not be

proclaimed on January 1, it is incumbent upon the chief electoral office to see

that training courses are brought in immediately and extensively, and apart from

the act itself I believe that the chief electoral office must bring in training

community in this Province, because there are some things that you cannot

legislate. There are some things that you can only educate.

I believe that the area of the disabled community and their

Province - be it as a party worker, a candidate or a member of the election

organization that may come under the chief electoral office - all of these

things must be taken into consideration. We're just coming off the year of the

disabled, a national and international year, where great attention has been

given.

Certainly there are strides being made in this legislation

and it was accepted in second reading last session, where the templates that

would accompany the ballots would be done in Braille, or the templates would be

available so that the people of that aspect of the disabled community would be

able to exercise their right without having to give that right over to somebody

who could see. They would be given an opportunity to read their candidates in

Braille. I believe this would be a very beneficial addition to the democratic

process in this Province.

As a matter of fact I think it should be noted that this

particular Act is one of the most progressive to come in Canadian politics. It

is certainly something that we will be able to go about this Province and tell

the people that we have been conscious of the changing political environment and

the accountability that is absolutely essential from our politicians, as well as

from our district associations, and all of our political organizations, be it at

a provincial or district level.

I won't belabour the debate but I do want to ask the minister

prominent part of the training procedures that will accompany the chief

electoral officer as he goes about implementing the full contents of this Act.

Also, that the chief electoral officer I would hope will be able to respond to

this House on an appropriate time on the aspect of the special ballot, and to

give the House an accounting of why or why not the special ballot cannot be

introduced. So that hon. members will be able to confront that issue as we did

as a committee and certainly as the committee unanimously recommended it.

We didn't do it lightly. We did thorough research on the

issue. While we can't provide the House with a full understanding of how the

aspect has worked its way in the system on a practical level, that's what I

understand the chief electoral office may be looking at now. Trying to get a

greater documentation on how this issue has been dealt with, or the affects of

this issue has been dealt with, in some recent elections in this country. Maybe

also to see if the federal chief electoral officer will bring in this aspect of

electoral reform as recommended by the Royal Commission on electoral reform.

I think these are two important issues. Bearing them not

being participating or being prominent in this particular amendment today to

this Act, I believe that the overall Act is one that we can be proud of, and one

that will bring greater accountability to the political process in this

Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak on

Bill 74, the proposed amendments to the Election Act. I've listened with

interest to some of the comments, particularly of the Member for Kilbride on

this. I do say that I concur with a lot of them, particularly on the use of

legislative committees.

I was concerned by the statement of the Minister of Justice

when he introduced the Bill. I guess I'll get back to it a little later when he

takes his chair, so I can talk about the position that the Member for Kilbride

has reiterated with respect to the rules of operation of legislative committees.

The operation of this committee was one in which there was widespread

consultation and a lot of proposals for the changing of the rules. Now, the

Minister of Justice said that he thought there was unanimous agreement on the

legislation in this House. Well, that of course is not true. There was

widespread consultation but there were strong objections taken to certain

segments of this legislation. In fact this legislation was passed on the

understanding and on the basis, passed last Spring, on the basis that there

would be amendments brought in in the Fall to resolve some of the difficulties

that people had. Now, that is a practice that the Minister of Justice seems to

want to follow in all legislation. This is my legislation, I will pass it

through the House and sometime down the road, if it does not work, we will amend

it, we will fix it up. That is the kind of approach he suggests that should be

taken in this House, Mr. Speaker. Well, the more proper approach is to use the

committee process to go through all the public education and consultation

efforts that can be made and then come in with amendments. Then have the matter

debated and when we have the legislation ready it is ready.

The very situation he is trying to avoid was brought up to

the committee when the committee met. It was brought before the House, the

objection to the detailed requirements, particularly on district associations

was know at the time the committee met because people said it to the committee.

It was brought to the attention of the committee by the Accountants Association.

It was brought to the attention of the committee by the various political

parties. It was brought to the attention of the House by a number of speakers

including this hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties we are facing today are ones

that could and should have been corrected when the legislation was going through

the House and not do what we are doing now. I have no difficulty with making

sure that we get enumeration done. I want to have an enumeration done so that

when the election is called in January, February, or the following January or

February, whenever the government intends to call an election, we can have an

enumeration done so that a proper election can be held and that individuals who

are suppose to be on the voters' list manage to get on the voters' list.

But I have a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, when we are being asked

to give the Cabinet the unlimited power to proclaim whatever

section of the act

they like, whatever part of the act they like, without any indication from the

government how they are going to use that power. Are we going to have certain

segments, the financial segments proclaimed without notice? Are they going to go

out and organize all the fund raising or are they going to get their brown bags

full of money? Are they going to be dragged in behind the scenes and the next

day proclaim the act so that nobody else can raise money without it being

disclosed? Is that the plan? I see a big smile across the face of the minister

for 'ITT.'

AN HON. MEMBER: You are too suspicious.

MR. HARRIS: He says I am too suspicious. This is the

government that authorized and made famous the brown paper bag delivery of money

to be made available to the Premier, and he accuses me of being suspicious while

he sits there with his cheshire cat smile on his face. He suggests that I am

being suspicious while he sits over there and smiles with a smile of recognition

when I talk about plans that the Liberal Party may have to introduce this

legislation and proclaim it after they have done their dirty work, after they

have shovelled all the money into the back rooms, Mr. Speaker. Then they will

proclaim the act and say: oh, well, we have done our dirty work now and all the

rest of you have to abide by the rules. Let us hear from government what their

plans are. Never mind the smile of recognition when I make these plans public to

the House of Assembly.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is giving his $10,000 a month to the

party.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if the Minister of Justice is giving

his $10,000 a month to the party well that is certainly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Well, that is interesting news.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it still Williams Harris?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know. There is something in the

paper today, I think. I am told that they were very angry at The Evening

Telegram because they didn't get the ad in sooner, but it was in today, I

believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was quite a settlement.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I am glad to hear that the Minster of

Justice is no longer getting $10,000 a month. He must be a lot happier today,

probably because he has gotten the whole $125,000.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The bank rate went down this morning, so

they were there dinner time.

MR. HARRIS: I guess the partners of Halley, Hunt visited

the bank and borrowed a substantial sum of money, and now they are going to look

after the member for Naskaupi. And that is the proper thing, it is a good way of

doing it. It clears the decks.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the point that I rose to speak on. I

was concerned here that what we are being asked to do - and I have no problem

with what we are being told up front, Mr. Speaker - what we are being told up

front is we don't want to have unreasonable administrative impositions placed on

the district associations around the Province who don't have the capability of

dealing with them. Now, that is not new, Mr. Speaker. That was known to the

committee back in February, March and April, and it was known to the House when

the matter was raised here. It was suggested that these were unwieldy,

unnecessary and overbearing regulations.

So that seems to be the excuse and the rationale, Mr.

Speaker. But what power are we being asked to give the Cabinet? Because the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can now proclaim any

section of the act that it

wants without coming into this House and having the matter debated in the open

air, or the closed air anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stuffy air.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the closed air, but at least be open to

the public forum.

So I would want some statement from the minister on what the

plans are with respect to proclamation. The hon. minister wasn't quite listening

when I expressed some of the concerns, that when we give the Minister of Justice

and his colleagues the power to proclaim various sections of the act as they

choose, willy-nilly, they can -

MR. MURPHY: Your starting to get fat, boy. Your wife must

be some cook.

MR. HARRIS: I don't know what the member for St. John's

South knows about who cooks and who doesn't cook.

MR. MURPHY: I have been cooking all my life.

MR. HARRIS: All right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying she is not a good cook?

MR. MURPHY: Are you saying your wife is not a good cook?

Are you inferring that you wife is not a good cook?

MR. ROBERTS: You are only doing it to try to distract

him.

MR. HARRIS: And it is working, I say to the Minister of

Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: That is more than the hon. gentleman is.

MR. HARRIS: What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is

not the cooking in my household. I am concerned about the cooking that is going

to go on in the back rooms of the Liberal Party. That is the cooking I am

concerned about. Now that they are going to give themselves the power to

proclaim this legislation and various parts of it whenever they like, what kind

of little activities are going to go on in the back rooms before they proclaim

the financial responsibility side of it? How many brown paper bags are going to

be changing hands, Mr. Speaker, before the legislation is proclaimed that

prevents other p