December

14, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 35

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to

the life of Tommy Sexton, who died on Monday. Tommy was a well-known and

well-loved member of the arts community, both here in Newfoundland and, indeed,

all across Canada.

Tommy started his acting career at an early age, and had been

involved in groups such as `Cod on a Stick', the `Wonderful Grand Band', and

more recently and nationally, `Codco'.

Tommy Sexton was best known for his ability to make the

characters he played seem like someone we knew, be it Nanny Hynes, Mr. Budgell,

or any of the various characters and people that he portrayed.

He stated in a recent story on his life that he wished people

would have a good laugh to relieve the problems and stress we all face. This

ability, to make us all laugh, will be sadly and sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Members of the House of

Assembly, I ask that you, through your offices, send a letter of condolences to

the Sexton family.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of the Official Opposition very much want to be

associated with the minister's remarks, and join with the minister in asking

Your Honour to write a letter of sympathy to the Sexton family. We propose that

it be a letter expressing our appreciation for Tommy Sexton's life, as well as

our regret at his death.

Tommy Sexton died at a very young age. He was only thirty-six

yesterday when he died, but he achieved the distinction of being one of the most

accomplished and best-known and best-loved comic actors and writers in all of

Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the New Democratic Party, I want to

be associated with the remarks of the minister and the Member for Humber East on

the occasion of the death of Tommy Sexton.

He was a very talented Newfoundlander. His brand of

irreverent humour sometimes caught people off guard, but he did make us laugh at

some very difficult things, and sometimes that is all we can do.

I think we all join in celebrating his life and regretting

his early death.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to inform this hon. House that

Marathon Petroleum Canada Limited has submitted a preliminary proposal to drill

an exploration well to a planned total depth of 5,550 feet on the Port au Port

Peninsula in Western Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Marathon proposes to commence this well in

the spring of 1994, around April 1, and drilling is expected to take about forty

days. The well would be directionally drilled from an onshore location near the

community of De Grau to evaluate geologically an offshore structure underneath

Bay St. George.

As drilling activity would occur in two jurisdictions, the

offshore and onshore areas, authorization will be required from the Province and

from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (CNOPB). A formal

application, together with a detailed description of the planned activity, is

expected early in the new year and will be processed co-operatively by my

department and the CNOPB.

Marathon intends to use a slim hole drilling technique that

has historically been used in mining exploration, but has recently been

successfully adapted to petroleum exploration in the United States and South

America. In assessing the Marathon proposal government officials will ensure

adherence to all safety regulations and environmental standards. A public

briefing session will be held in the area of the Port au Port Peninsula sometime

in the winter, prior to any drilling activity.

A positive result from this well could lead to further

drilling by Marathon in the area, either onshore or offshore.

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is encouraging and

positive to hear this kind of news, particularly about the continuing interest

that there is in oil exploration on the West Coast. I recollect, in 1992, the

minister made other announcements about some exploration activity and similar

proposals, I guess, for exploration, and I believe - the minister isn't

listening - I believe, in June of this year, he gave us a little bit of an

update on what had happened. I say to the minister, if I might have an extra

second or two, that I believe it was in 1992 that you announced similar

proposals for exploration in other parts of the Province and on the West Coast,

and indeed, I think, it was in June of this year, just past, he did give an

update to the House on some of the activities that have been occurring as a

result of some of the permits that his department has provided for.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am wondering if, before the House closes,

the minister might give us a further update, perhaps, before Friday, to give us

an idea of what is happening in some of those other areas he talked about in

June, 1992, which he announced?

In any case, Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the minister's

optimism and hope that there will be some positive results from this site being

test drilled by Marathon, and we look forward to the results.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No. leave.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

galleries thirty Level I students from Musgravetown High School, accompanied

their teachers, Suzette Greening and Gary Oldford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, at a

press conference this morning, announced a new income supplementation program.

We have only had a few hours, of course, to look through the document that was

released, and may I say just in passing, I trust that the government will

provide all members of the House with copies; certainly, our members would like

to have a copy as soon as possible. Now, from a brief look at this, it seems to

be a fairly complex proposal that obviously is going to require careful study in

order to be able to determine the impact it will have on the incomes of

individuals and, indeed, on total personal income for the Province - that is

something that needs to be looked at closely. But one thing is clear, if it is

adopted, this proposal will bring about some pretty major changes in the present

income security system. So, over the next period of time, we will be trying to

explore more thoroughly the details contained in it, and we will have lots of

questions.

May I ask the Premier, initially, a question about existing

programs that will be replaced under this new proposal, existing programs that

might be replaced or otherwise affected by the new proposal. Now, we understand

that it will replace U.I. or social assistance for many people, not for

everybody but for many people. What I would like to ask him is, will it replace

other income support programs such as the federal child tax credit, family

allowances, workers' compensation, for example, a provincial one, the federal

GST rebate to low-income families, housing subsidies to low-income families,

student loans and grants, income from the Canada Pension Plan, will any of these

be replaced by the new proposal or will the income from any of these sources be

included in the calculation of entitlement of benefits under the governments

proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is

long and involved and I don't want to consume the bulk of Question Period with a

detailed answer, but let me say that in general - and there are some variations

because the application of this plan depends in part upon the usage of the tax

structure and the tax administration system in order to ensure that once a

persons income gets to the level where there should be a reduction of the

contribution, it is taken back through the tax system, but it would not affect

the old age security, it would not affect the Canada Pension Plan basically, it

would not affect the Guaranteed Income Supplement; it would not affect anything

anybody was entitled to over sixty-five years of age, so the Guaranteed Income

Supplement, the basic Canada Pension Plan would not be in any manner affected.

I don't know if there would be any impact, I don't think

there would be any impact but I would have to check it to get the details on

somebody, for example, that had a Canada Pension Plan, disability pension by

reason of being disabled from work within receipt of a Canada Pension Plan

pension. I would have to get the answer and find out, but generally speaking it

would not affect old age security, Canada Pension, Guaranteed Income Supplement.

The refundable tax credits: only to the extent that the income went up so high

that it caused a deduction. It would not affect spouse's allowance, it would not

affect veterans disability, war allowances, workers' compensation or family

allowance, it would not affect those basic benefits.

I have arranged to have copies of this information paper

delivered to members today and if you look on page 48 when you get it, you will

see the areas that would be basically affected and it is primarily the

unemployment insurance benefits, social assistance, child tax benefits,

provincial and federal job creation and federal and provincial training. Those

are areas that would be brought together and when you look on page 48, you will

see that roughly speaking it redistributes the $1.5 billion that is presently

distributed in those particular areas.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to pursue that, may I ask

the Premier, because obviously detailed information along the lines of the

questions that I just asked about current sources of income that might be

absorbed or affected in any way or changed by the plan, is pretty essential and

basic information for people to have in order for them to be able to determine

the full impact of this proposal on the individual or on the family incomes, so

just as a follow up to the first question, would the Premier table, maybe over

the next couple of days or as soon as he can put it together, a list in fact, a

clear, separate list of transfer payments to individuals, tax credits and

rebates, pensions, anything he mentioned; perhaps disability associated with the

Old Age Pension Plan, social assistance supplements, grants or anything else

that might be replaced or modified by the new plan. Could he table that basic

information for us over the next few days?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I will have Dr. House prepare a copy

of all of those elements that under this proposal might be affected. Now let me

hasten to add for hon. members, this is a proposal for consideration. It has

gone first to the federal government because it can't, of course, be implemented

without the full participation of the federal government. Once we have an

indication of the federal government's direct response to it, assuming their

response is positive and they would propose to participate with the Province in

it, we would propose some means of a public consultation process. Perhaps

through one of the House committees, through a legislative committee of the

House, may be one means of doing it. Another means of doing it might be like we

did with the Strategic Economic Plan, through the Advisory Council on the

Economy, although I wouldn't foresee going that route. I would think that a

House committee might be a more appropriate way to go. That is something that we

would have to consider at the time.

Let me just make a correction - I mentioned child tax credit,

because it appears on the list on page 48. What I had overlooked is that the

amount that would be proposed to be spent on the child tax credit remains the

same, so there is no direct impact on child tax credit. It would only affect

really those where you see the changes there. The unemployment insurance

benefits, a portion of the social assistance payments. There would still be

social assistance for people with special needs and for special needs of people

who would be in receipt of the income supplementation payments. There would be

an impact on some of the present federal and provincial job creation

expenditures, and the training of course would be increased. This is one of the

values of it. It proposes increases in educational training payments.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to the

Premier tabling the information. Now it is noted when you read through it, and I

heard Dr. House today on CBC radio, pointing out that in fact the new plan

focuses on family rather than individual incomes. I heard Dr. House myself today

say that families on low income, that is those earning $20,000 a year or less,

would be the only ones who may get any significant benefits from the new plan.

That is what he said today on CBC radio.

The authors of the report, on page 31 I think it is, estimate

that as a result of the UI loss, the loss of UI, about 75,000 people would

likely experience some decrease in their incomes. In other words, 75,000 people

will be worse off, shall we say; but I assume that the government has done some

impact studies on this particular proposal, so could the Premier tell the House

how much income, in total, will those 75,000 people lose.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We should put that number 75,000 in

perspective. I am just trying to find out where it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 30.

PREMIER WELLS: Page 30, is it? Okay. Let's put that in

perspective.

Here are the real numbers, Mr. Speaker. Here is what the

summary says: It is possible to get some idea of likely redistributive effects.

On the whole, assuming no behavioral effects, and ignoring the education

supplement - if you just set aside the part of it that is additional education,

because that could go up or down, depending on the way individuals respond -

research for this project indicates that most people, about 345,000 people in

the Province, would see no change in their income. About 155,000 would

experience some increase in the income, and about 75,000 would experience some

decrease in the income. So it is about 13 per cent of the population. That is

men, women and children - everybody in the families involved - would experience,

under this proposal, as it is present structured, some decrease in the income.

Now what has not been done yet is any discussion with the

federal government about how to accommodate that adjustment. It may be a bit

difficult to have it occur abruptly. If this were, say, to come into effect on

April 1 or January 1, 1995, or something like that, what would have to be looked

at is some means of phasing in the downward adjustment. So the real numbers are

about 13 per cent of the population would experience some decrease.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I knew that. I understood that,

and the quotes that he made. I would refer to that in my supplementary. My

question was: How much income, in total, will those 75,000 people lose? That was

the question. Perhaps he can ponder it while I ask him my next supplementary.

PREMIER WELLS: The Economic Recovery Commission has all

of the details from which these numbers are derived. I do not have it, off the

top of my head, but I can undertake to get it.

Now I do not know how much they might lose, but anything that

redistributes the total amount available, and provides more for the more needy,

is going to have some loss for those who are getting a larger amount now. That

is inevitable. What the precise dollars are, I do not know.

I could say this, mathematically: It would be precisely the

same amount as those who have greater need would be getting. Whatever one goes

down the other would go up, because these projections are done in such a way as

to be able to finance it within the existing amounts paid out. So those earning

more would lose; those earning less would gain.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to

getting the information from the Premier.

As he said, and as the report states, 155,000 people may

experience some increase in the income. Now the basic minimum income under the

plan, say for a family of four, would be about $9,000 a year - $3,000 per adult

and $1,500 per child. That, I suppose, is well below the poverty line, and

probably no better than people do now on social assistance and other income

supplements. So the only way they are really going to be able to experience

increase in their incomes, under this program, is if they can find some

additional employment, and there is an incentive there for them to do that, as I

understood the Premier's media statements, at least.

So the question is: How does the government propose to create

the jobs, enough jobs, so that those 155,000 people who are supposed to do

better on this program will be able to eke out some kind of a subsistence living

under the new plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition

that if I said it once, without exaggeration, I have probably said it at least

100 times in this House in the last few years. The government does not create

jobs. What the government does is create an economic climate.

The former government never created jobs they created the

illusion of jobs but governments responsibility is to create an economic climate

that induces private investment to cause job opportunities to be created by the

private sector investment. This is one part of the overall, other parts of it

are tax reductions, we talked about that, another part of it is improving the

regulatory climates so as to diminish the regulatory burden, to speed up the

environmental assessment process and to improve the labour relations climate.

This is one more part of it, to improve the income security system so as to

delete from that the disincentives for working and put in place instead

incentives for working and out of this, we hope, jobs will be created. It is a

restructuring of the economy. Now this is far better than it has ever been done

before in this Province. Far better for the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: For the first time we are coming to grips

with some of the fundamental structural problems of our economy. The decade that

ended in 1989 saw the only jobs created were jobs in government financed fishery

sector and jobs in government itself. There was no improvement in ten years in

the economy. We want to change that. We want to restore and increase a vibrant

economy in this Province and this is one factor in it. This alone will not

generate employment nor is it intended to. It is intended to cause to be created

the circumstance that it is not a disincentive to seeking employment but is

rather an incentive to furthering education and seeking employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, one of the truest statements I

ever heard the Premier make a moment ago was when he said, this government does

not create jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, they

sure know how to eliminate jobs. The Premier very carefully forgets his campaign

fuss of 1989, job creation and bringing home every mothers son and all of those

other kinds of quotes that were on the go.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter -

PREMIER WELLS: Is there another question?

MR. SIMMS: Yes there is another question, I know he

smarts when he gets questions about job creation because their record is so

lousy. I will ask him again - I heard him on the radio and I heard Dr. House on

the radio say: the people will be offered an incentive and the incentive will be

to go out and find work and get work. The claims that have been made depend on

some of those people being able to keep their jobs, there aren't enough jobs to

go around. Does the Premier intend to table any kind of job plan associated with

this plan at all so that those thousands of people he now says must go out and

try to find work to supplement their income, will have an opportunity to do so?

Where is the job plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me correct some of the misstatements

the hon. member made. At the outset, I did not say this government does not

create jobs. I said no government creates jobs. I pointed out the difference

between this government and the former government - the difference is we did not

lie about it. We told the people the truth. You just fabricated the illusion of

jobs - that is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: You sprung from one mess to the other and

created nothing but financial irresponsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I got there attention?

Now let me answer the question directly again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I woke them up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The Member for Labrador West is really

awake.

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize again, this is not intended to be a

job creation or job generation program. It is one part of the overall proposal

set forth in the Strategic Economic Plan. It happens to derive from action items

18 - 19 and was a specific focus. There wasn't much point putting effort into

reducing our tax burden, re-arranging our regulatory structure so as to diminish

that burden, in revising our environmental assessment process, in trying to

improve the labour relations process, doing everything we could to try and

attract investment and job creating opportunities in this Province, if we

maintained in place an income security proposal that acted as a disincentive. So

this is one part only!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: For the first time in fifteen years at

least, a government is doing something in a sensible, planned, orderly way to

revitalize the economy of this Province. The hon. members opposite just can't

understand it. They never could.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I noted

with interest - I would have to get Hansard to hear what he said - but I believe

he said: we didn't lie about that. I think that is what he said. I wonder what

about garbage, denominational education, Hydro, the public service collective

agreement, and all those (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, we will let the public be the judge of

all that in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: They judged six or seven months ago. They will

have another opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier this final

supplementary today on this topic. Can he confirm that in fact people will now

have to work for twenty weeks before they can qualify for unemployment

insurance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me again clarify. Indeed,

the public of this Province have spoken, not will speak. They have spoken.

They've expressed their views quite clearly, you can see it, obviously, on this

side of the House. They've approved of the approach. Just in the last month

they've expressed that approval again. They stated their view of the position of

the hon. members opposite, and they are four whole points above the inflation

rate, which is 2 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I've forgotten the question. What was the

question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) well below the unemployment

rate (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, well below the unemployment rate.

Way, way below the unemployment rate.

MR. SIMMS: So are you!

PREMIER WELLS: He could only wish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: He could only wish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, eighty-five.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I don't believe it but that is what is

said. Now, I don't believe it. I really don't believe it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, I say to the hon. members opposite, I

don't believe it. I don't think the numbers could be that high. I think this is

the one time in twenty when the thing is out of whack. Because I don't believe

it could be that high. I think the next time it comes out it will show perhaps

something more reasonable like about 65 per cent or 60 per cent or 70 per cent.

Something along those lines, Mr. Speaker.

I believe there was a question in the midst of all those

comments he was making. The question was: will it require twenty weeks to

qualify? The unemployment insurance system will basically remain in effect as

the fundamental unemployment insurance system. As an insurance scheme, not a

social security scheme, which it has developed into as a result of not having an

adequate alternative in place. So that in the ordinary course any person who

lost his or her job due to a closure or a failure of a business, or a reduction

in a business, would still be entitled to unemployment insurance and not the

income supplementation as such.

The minimum qualifying time the Province doesn't determine.

We would expect that it would be something like the norm in most other parts of

the country and it would well be twenty weeks. So I would expect it would be.

That would be for the federal government to decide because we don't control the

unemployment insurance system. I have to say my expectation is it would be

pretty similar to what it is in other parts of the country, and that is probably

twenty weeks or whatever.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier as well on the income supplement plan. I want to ask the Premier

whether or not the figures given out on page 47 of the report are correct that

there will be approximately 60,000 people taken from the present U.I. program

and an elimination of $688 million or approximately, on the average, $11,000 per

recipient taken from the system, taking away from U.I. recipients. Is that a

correct figure as part of the government's plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, that is a misstatement of the reality.

The hon. member, I believe, has not stated it accurately. What it says is, the

same people who are affected would probably get much of the same $688 million,

but through a different means, so it wouldn't be taken away from those 60,000

people. Many of them would be getting such payments under the income

supplementation instead of in the form of Unemployment Insurance payments. It

changes the form of it, and what it does, is really it redistributes the amount

of income security that is paid out so that those at the lower end of the scale

get more, and some of those at the higher end of the scale, at least, would get

less.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is going to be interesting to see how low you have to go

to get more, but from the same page, it shows that two plant workers who now

earn a combination of work and U.I., $22,000, about half the average income,

will go down to $16,000 total family income or a drop of $6,400 annual income

under the Premier's plan. Now, I ask the Premier, why are you attacking these

people and reducing them from an income now which is already $6,000 below the

Stats Canada poverty line going down to $12,000 below the poverty line? Why are

you attacking this group of people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If you look then at the next one, the

bottom one on the same schedule, it shows where one fisherperson, working ten

weeks at the moment, ends up with $16,000 as the total family income. This shows

the ones that would be affected.

MR. HARRIS: Down by $800.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it shows it down by $800. It shows

where one plant worker who works for twenty-six weeks and at the moment only

gets $15,468 would go up to $23,000. So it provides for an incentive, an

increase. Now, the individual who is affected - it doesn't displace totally the

social security system. If there were a basis for a housing allowance, a basis

for support on the basis of heating allowance or housing allowance, all of that

could be paid extra, so persons would still be qualified. The incentive here is

to try to cause people to focus on earning income as much as they can, wherever

there is an opportunity; if there isn't any, there will still be a similar level

of support, but if there is, to earn it and not only to earn it, not to be

penalized by going out and earning it. So there is an incentive to try to earn

it, and not be penalized, but to get an additional bonus for going out and

earning it and this is what the system is intended to do.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier and his government were so interested in

providing incentives, why did he not, since 1989, allow incentives for social

assistance recipients, letting them earn income over and above their social

assistance for a period of time and collect taxes on that, as well? Why did he

not do that, all except for a $100 a month or something minuscule like that? Why

did he not put an incentive system in there in the last five years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: This is part of our development. The steps

to develop this were put in place more than two years ago. The instruction to

start this work was given, the approach was affirmed in the Strategic Economic

Plan; we couldn't do everything at once. Now, I would remind hon. members, we

are making a lot of significant improvements in the society and economy of this

Province. Look at what is under way. Look at what we are doing in terms of

improving the education system; look at what we are doing in terms of improving

health care administration in the Province; look at what we are doing in terms

of improving economic performance in the Province, look at everything; look at

what we are doing in terms of privatization to give the private sector a boost.

Look at all of the things that we are doing for the benefit of this Province. It

is time a government had the courage to show some leadership!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I was thinking that the members

opposite were trying to drown me out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It won't be long now!

MR. CAREEN: Oh, I hear the Member for Eagle River! The

Premier was with him when he ordered a large pizza and the waitress asked if he

wanted it cut it four or eight pieces. The Member for Eagle River said he wanted

it cut in four because he couldn't eat eight pieces. That's him!

The Premier mentioned earlier, 1989, and I am going back to

1989 with this question. On the eve of the election that year, at the Laval

rally, a Liberal rally, he mentioned that what was happening in Long Harbour was

going to be a priority with a government that he formed, and that he would be

thinking about setting up a commission which would give priority to Long

Harbour. Sir, I say to the Premier, a promise made is a debt unpaid, and what is

his government planning to do about Long Harbour, that is still caught on a hook

after four-and-a-half years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the commission about which I

spoke is the Economic Recovery Commission, and they focused on improving the

economic life in dealing with the structural economic problems created by the

former government over seventeen years of gross mismanagement. They focused on

trying to develop fundamental approaches to deal with these problems and this is

what we have done. What the Economic Recovery Commission has done here is a

classic example of the tremendous effort they have made and one of these years,

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province will recognize their debt of gratitude

to the Economic Recovery Commission and the tremendous performance they have

shown.

Mr. Speaker, specifically with respect to Long Harbour - the

government has done everything within its power to try to cause economic

activity to replace that which was closed at Long Harbour. There haven't been

many alternatives. One that was proposed, the members opposite don't even want

to consider. They want us to change the laws to prohibit anybody from even

mentioning it - the waste disposal. They want to change that. That was for Long

Harbour. The members opposite said, the devil with Long Harbour, don't ever even

allow anybody to propose consideration of it. Change the laws to prevent anybody

from even considering it, no matter what the circumstances are. That is not our

approach. Our approach is to leave the existing laws in place. The laws are

quite adequate to protect our environment and not cause us any harm.

Mr. Speaker, government is doing everything it can for Long

Harbour, the same as it is doing everything it can for Buchans, for Bonavista,

for Baie Verte, and any place else that is affected by economic slow-down, but

we can't give Long Harbour priority over Argentia, or Baie Verte, or Bonavista,

or anywhere else. They are all part of this Province and they are all equal

taxpayers in the Province, and we are trying to change the fundamental economic

structure so as to cause a greater level of economic activity to take place, and

Long Harbour will benefit, as well as others.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Members are unusually boisterous here this

afternoon, and I am thinking that the Minister of Education didn't hear Your

Honour a moment ago. He may have been intending to rise and present the Saunders

Report on Public Libraries.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Petitions

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

Extern.

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

Today, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 256 people

from the communities of Baie Verte, Burlington, and Nippers Harbour. The prayer

of the petition reads:

`WHEREAS the importation of garbage for final disposal in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is an indignity to our people and should

not be seen as future growth industry for this Province; and

WHEREAS the final disposal of garbage in any quantity or form

is destructive and hazardous to our biophysical environment and, with the

exception of our established regional obligation, should not be undertaken on

behalf of any jurisdiction other than our own; and

WHEREAS the garbage import industry is considered to be

detrimental to all other forms of industrial and economic development, including

and especially our tourism industry; and

WHEREAS the adoption of waste trade industry would signal the

destruction of all that we hold dear about our Province; and

WHEREAS the overwhelming majority of people of Newfoundland

and Labrador are opposed, in principle, to such industrial initiatives, your

petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be

necessary to enact or amend legislation to say no to industrial schemes which

have, as their objective, the importation of waste for final disposal in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Mr. Speaker, I made a visit to Baie Verte a few weeks ago to

obtain firsthand knowledge with respect to the situation there. Let me tell you,

Mr. Speaker, it is an environmental disaster in that area. The mine site, 900

acres, is a total mess. There is garbage strewn all over the place out there,

equipment rusting - falling apart, tires, wheels all over the place, large holes

in the ground filling up with water and dust from the large piles of tailings,

blowing in with the wind, over Baie Verte. Mr. Speaker, it is a total mess and

it has to be dealt with.

While in the area, I had meetings with the town council. The

town council said the jobs created by bringing this new industry into Baie Verte

was secondary, and they had a genuine concern with respect to the clean-up of

that area, and I believe those people.

The town of Baie Verte is very beautiful, with a lot of

infrastructure. When I left Baie Verte I actually was wondering how I could

clear my own conscience to recommend that that project go ahead, because I

really felt bad for the area - the need for jobs in Baie Verte - but my

conscience wouldn't allow me to do it, and I cannot support that project.

At Baie Verte we held a public meeting of approximately sixty

people. At that meeting, they presented me with this petition. I was given, with

the petition, some 268 letters to be handed over to the Premier, the Minister of

Environment and Lands, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the MHA for the area,

and the Leader of the Opposition, and I passed them to the Clerk a moment ago.

Back to the situation at Baie Verte: there is a river flowing

through that site, with asbestos flowing into the harbour, and I believe this

area has to be cleaned up, even though the project which was proposed to help

clean up that situation hopefully will be rejected.

I believe that maybe with the co-operation of the provincial

government we might have access to some federal dollars with respect to the

Green Plan that is being proposed by the new federal government. I would like

for members of this House to keep the Baie Verte situation in the limelight, and

to do our very best to help the Town of Baie Verte clean up that site out there.

I am wondering when a decision will be made on that project,

and I am wondering also: Is government planning a new industry within the

Province to create jobs with respect to the importation of garbage?

I ask that question for a specific reason, because I refer to

a statement the Premier made on Tuesday, November 30, 1993, in this House, and I

refer to Hansard: "The big problem with trying to get the U.S. economy going is

they can't get California going, and California has always led the recovery in

the U.S. economy. They can't get California going because the California

Legislature, acting in response to groups like SNAGG and others, so locked up

and tied down California that you can't do virtually anything there." I am

wondering, is this is a part of the new Strategic Economic Plan that we are

going to have an industry bringing garbage into the Province.

The Premier went on further to say: "... you can't get

California going economically because they have so brought in prejudicial

regulations and laws that really prevent being able to get an economic impetus

moving in California ..."

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering now, is that at the back of the

minds of the government opposite, that they are planning to create an industry,

and is that why they won't bring in legislation to deal with places like Long

Harbour and Labrador, Schefferville, and Baie Verte.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, I wish to support the

petition and encourage the minister and the government opposite to bring in

legislation to ban the importation of garbage into Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak in support of the petition presented by

the Member for St. John's East Extern. It is another in a series of petitions

that show, I think, the overwhelming concern of the people of this Province

about having our environment, our industrial sites, our people being made

victims of an attempt by certain multinational or transnational interests in

general in turning this into a place for what the Premier likes to call

environmental industries. I think he was down in New York, Boston and Washington

last week and he was talking about Newfoundland as a wonderful place for

environmental industries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, politicians often talk in codes. I notice

there are a lot of students up in the gallery here today and they might be very

interested in knowing some of the codes that politicians sometimes use when they

say one thing but they are really talking about something else. I want to say

that, to me, the term - now, the Minister of Environment and Lands is very

interested in this - that environmental industries, in the context of this

particular issue, means garbage disposal, industrial waste management, taking

garbage or industrial garbage from one place and bringing it to another. So a

company that does that, they have all the buzzwords, they try to come up with

words to describe their activities that sound good.

So, a garbage disposal company - first of all they were into

garbage disposal, then they came into waste management, and now they have taken

to calling themselves environmental industries. So `environmental industries' is

just a code name for: What are we going to do with all this waste? What are we

going to do with these industrial products that we can't get rid of? Where are

we going to find a place that will take them because we don't want them

ourselves?

Now, I hope the Minister of Environment and Lands is going to

respond to this because we are talking about Baie Verte, which they suggested,

once again, putting it into context, saying: `Well, we are only going to be

bringing asbestos to Newfoundland and putting it back in the ground from whence

other asbestos came.' When you find out what the project really is all about,

the guidelines that they are talking about say, `a minimum of 1 per cent

asbestos, and the other 99 per cent, well, we don't know what that is.' It is

like the socks they used to sell at one time; you could buy a pair of socks, 100

per cent wool, and you could buy a cheaper one that said it was 99 per cent

unknown fibre. That is what is being proposed for Baie Verte - we are going to

have a garbage dump of 99 per cent unknowns and 1 per cent asbestos.

I think we have to put our collective foot down, Mr. Speaker,

and say in this Province that we are not going to be a repository for the

industrialized world's garbage, whether it be in the form of asbestos, whether

it be in the form of unknown products, toxic substances, or whatever. Because

once you let the door open there will be an awful lot of people pushing their

way in to continue to use this Province as a haven for garbage that no one else

will take.

I think we have to put a stop to it and we have to put a stop

to it now. It requires some simple change in the legislation that will send a

clear message that, yes, while this Province may well be open for business, we

are not opening our doors to these so-called environmental industries to come

here and to spoil our natural environment, and take advantage of the weak

economic position some of our single-industry towns find themselves in. Because

that is where these people prey - p-r-e-y, not p-r-a-y, as some of our church

leaders encourage us to do - where they prey on weak economies and prey on

communities, particularly, that have lost a single industry, such as the Baie

Verte mine. I want to say I fully support the petition and encourage all hon.

members to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the rule for the hon. the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay is that speakers must be from each side of the House.

You can't have three members speak from the same side of the House, except by

leave, but there is no speaker on the government side.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: We have no problem with allowing the hon.

gentleman to speak; it affects his district. I would hope he will not go more

than the five minutes allowed by the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, fine.

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

MR. SHELLEY: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought it would be proper that I get up at this time. I

guess I was a little bit slow off the mark with the hon. the Member for St.

John's East - but I would like to make a couple of comments on this, especially

since it is my district. Over the last three to four months I have gone through

a pretty gruelling process of listening to people in my district - a process of

what I call consultation. During the summer months, I had the chance to go

around and have constituency offices in most of the communities. A lot of people

came in to speak to me, one on one, about some of their concerns with this

project. Also, we had a task force which went out and held a public meeting in

the community of Baie Verte for anybody on the peninsula to come and have their

say and let us hear their views and concerns. I also had a collect number that

they could call and share their views with me. Lastly, the most recent thing, I

had a questionnaire distributed to all 2,600 homes in the district. Now those

questionnaires are still coming in, although quite a number have come in

already. After listening to all the views and all the concerns, I had to come

out and oppose this project, as I have done recently in the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, it

took a long time for me to come to that decision, because I had to listen to

people who are closest to the project, the people who worked at that particular

mine site and people in the area who are going to be most affected by it. I know

it is the thing for the Province - some people talked about precedent-setting,

but I was talking about the district, itself, and the people closest to it.

One of the major concerns, the most common concern that I

received through telephone calls, through letters and so on, was the monitoring

process. I have to say to this House today that that particular issue was the

one that most concerned me from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, it has

been stated in some of the local media, in the very early stages of this issue,

that I was concerned - that was my own personal view, that I was concerned with

the monitoring process, not so much as to how, the monitoring process was taking

place, but by whom? Right now, in the proposal - if anybody has read the

proposal, I am sure the minister has - there are three people, supposedly, on

this monitoring system, one being from the company. Now, from watching the mine

site in Baie Verte for the last few years, I can honestly say - and I am sure a

lot of people will agree in the Baie Verte area - the monitoring that we do put

in place does not serve a very good purpose. Now, I tell you that when the task

force visited Baie Verte and went through the mine site, I think, to say the

least, they were astounded by the mess that was left there by the former

companies.

I would like to invite - while I am standing today - I know

the minister has been out but I will now extend an invitation to the Premier of

this Province and any of the Cabinet ministers - as a matter of fact, to all the

Cabinet ministers, to come and visit the site. We hear about it in the media, we

see pictures, but you cannot get an appreciation for the disaster at that Baie

Verte mine site unless you visit it. I think the minister will agree with me,

after seeing firsthand, there are no letters or words to describe what is out

there. We are talking about a river of asbestos that is flowing there right as

we speak. When you go down by the dockside, as the minister has seen, you can

see asbestos actually flowing into the bay, in handfuls. When you go around the

site, itself, there are mounds of garbage, I mean, Robin Hood Bay looks small

next to it. We are talking about garbage that has been left there for twenty-odd

years, piled up, with no care for where they were throwing the garbage. That is

there, as the minister knows. There are also two large pits which are steadily

filling with water from precipitation - snow, rainfall and what have you, and

turning into lakes of asbestos. Now, without being an expert in science or

biology, we can tell that in due time those pits will overflow and as the

environmental cycle goes, the water will have to flow into the bay. Now, it is a

very serious situation there in Baie Verte, and what I want to say today

especially, is, I want the minister and the government to remember that although

I oppose this project on the basis of the monitoring, I can tell you that the

book is not closed on this particular issue.

The truth is, that the truth of the Baie Verte mine and the

environmental disaster that is out there, is now coming to the forefront, and I

plead, urge, whatever word I can use, to this government, to make sure that the

Baie Verte mine site is not left alone and, `out of sight out of mind' as it has

been for so many years; because I am sure that there is not a bigger

environmental disaster on this Island, as there is now as it sits in Baie Verte.

So, if this project - whatever happens in this decision in Cabinet soon -

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

MR. SHELLEY: I will just conclude by saying to you: don't

forget that we do have an environmental disaster on the Baie Verte Peninsula.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf of

189 students from the Deer Lake Pentecostal School. They say, Mr. Speaker, in

the prayer of their petition, that they feel it is wrong for government to

decide to wipe out their denominational school system. This particular problem

and fear of the Pentecostal people in Deer Lake, especially, and not only in

Deer Lake, I would say, but around the Province by a lot of other groups, as

well, have been expressed more so, Mr. Speaker, especially in the past couple of

weeks, ever since the minister presented their plan for `Adjusting the Course'

to the church leaders in the Province.

I have had quite a few calls concerning this particular

problem. Just last week, I went out on Thursday and met with the student

assembly at the Deer Lake Pentecostal School and let them ask questions of me. I

wasn't there to tell them anything new, to tell them what government was going

to do or what I was going to do, I let them ask questions of me. They were very,

very constructive questions, very much responsible, from all grades in that

particular assembly, and showed in a very responsible and constructive way how

young people today can ask questions and look after their own concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I also told them that my position today is the

same as it was before last spring's election and that was, that I was not going

to stand for the taking away of a constitutional right for any group in the

Province, whether it be a religious denomination or any other person or persons

or organization in this Province that has that right. I gave it in writing last

spring before the election when they asked me, and I say it today after the

election. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, government is trying to do

through the back door what they cannot, and don't have the guts to do through

the front door.

If they are going to do away with the denominational system,

be up front, bring in legislation and let's do it; if not, if the minister and

the administration want to make some really hard core decisions pertaining to

education in the Province and eliminate the church groups in doing so, then go

another route. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the people in my area, the

Pentecostal people in my area, have shown through consensus how they would share

services, and they do not mind sharing services. They paid for their own school

in Deer Lake, they paid over $800,000 of their own money into their own school;

they made an agreement last fall with the Integrated system to come in and share

their new school that the department and the school board had recommended for

the Sops Arm - Pollards Point area. They were going to close the school in

Jackson's Arm, close out the one in Pollards Point, and the Pentecostal people

came to an agreement to close out the one in Sops Arm and bring it all into one

school in the Sops Arm - Pollards Point area. They were going to do it by

agreement and consensus, and out of necessity. They recognized it and they were

willing to participate and make some changes, so that says a lot for that

particular organization.

I have another example in Deer Lake, that of the Xavier

school, the R.C. people, and the integrated system coming together and sharing

services and integrating both schools. The R.C. school, Xavier, takes students

from Grades VII to IX, I think, now, and the other integrated school takes all

the other students. And, out of necessity and out of the intent to share

services, the whole district now, including outlying areas like Pasadena, have

come together and done exactly what government is asking them to do in this

particular report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that all the ills and woes,

and concerns, of under-achievement in the education field in this Province

should be blamed on the denominational system. If, for instance, the whole

package were put on the table, instead of just government putting on the table,

Adjusting the Course , if, for instance, any plan changes to curriculum

were put on the table, if, for instance, any other changes in the school system

were put on the table in the same type of package, I think the people of this

Province would have an easier time making up their minds.

I say to the minister today it is not the time for

intransigence, it is not the time to bully -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: May I have a couple of seconds, Mr.

Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. WOODFORD: I say it is not the time for strong-arm

tactics, it is not the time to bully, and it is certainly not the time for

government to straighten its back and be inflexible, but to be flexible and try

to come to a consensual agreement with the leaders of the church groups in the

Province today. If and when they meet on January 4th, the minister, through his

efforts and the efforts of the people who work in his department, and the church

leaders, I think they can come to a consensual agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of my colleague for Humber Valley, who

introduced the petition on behalf of those school children. I believe in and

support the system that I went through, and I don't like to see back-door

methods put in place to take that away. I was reading, and I have here Term 17

of the Terms of Union, which should stay in place to support the text of the

prayer that the children have put forward.

We have taken the position that government should not act

unilaterally to change any of the constitutional rights that certain religions

have in relation to the denominational schools. We have been consistent in what

we have said. We said that we would respect all existing constitutional rights

and would not try to change them without the consent of the people who hold

those rights.

I support people and their rights. We have a respect for

constitutional rights and the right of choice, but that does not mean there are

no options for administrative and cost improvements to our systems. We are all

interested in improvements. The Royal Commission, itself, made excellent

proposals which could be implemented without taking away existing constitutional

rights. In addition, there are opportunities for denominational schools to work

out sharing and co-operative arrangements within constitutionally-protected

jurisdictions. That is what I am for and I am for the text that was put in the

prayer earlier for those children, because it is always the children - they are

the ones who have to be protected, and what they want, and I don't want to see a

system where one kid to another, one parent to another, one teacher to another,

couldn't at least say `Merry Christmas' without denoting a religious

connotation, because we know the system has gone so far in the United States

where a minority can challenge and get their way, contrary to what the majority

say. I would not want to see our little Island, or our Province, beleaguered

with more problems than we already have.

I do not want to insult the man, but I just have to say it

because it is the thing that was put on his plate and the thing that he had to

do himself and deliver, but it is our present Minister of Education. He is not

believed across the Province because of what happened in health. Sir, I am not

saying that to deliberately insult you. I am just saying to you: That is the way

it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not doing anything deliberate, or

undercutting anybody.

What I am saying, Sir, is that there are people who do not

have the confidence that you are standing in their corner. Now if you would come

out and show them you are standing in their corner, probably you would, but

right at this moment, Sir, I want to be on record as supporting my friend from

Humber Valley, and the others, who are caught on a hook in this Province by

constitutional rights that were theirs long before there was a Department of

Education in this Province. Long before they were put in schools, into the

system, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to learn and further themselves.

I support the prayer, and I support the classes of people,

and I support their rights.

I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up today and

speak to this petition which was so ably presented by the Member for Humber

Valley. I have not seen the petition, so I only have to take it as hearsay for

the time being, but I will see it in due course.

The member says that the students in the Deer Lake

Pentecostal High School are asking government not to write off the

denominational education system. The hon. member can go back to the people in

Deer Lake and tell them that government accepts that recommendation, and that

government has no intention of writing off the denominational education system.

Mr. Speaker, members opposite, for whatever reason I do not

know, it is beyond me to understand it, or some members - I should not say all

members - some members opposite are trying to pretend that government is talking

about a public system of education. Nothing could be further from the truth. The

document is quite clear. What we are talking about is an interdenominational

system of education.

When I say `some' members opposite feel that way, I say that

because I am not sure where the Opposition stands on this issue. I am not sure

what their position is. I do know that at a public meeting last night, in this

city, the Leader of the Opposition got up and said publicly, to a group of 500

or 600 people, that his party supports the status quo. His party does not want

any reforms, does not want any changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. DECKER: However, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount,

on the other hand -

MR. SIMMS: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister knows he cannot

mislead the House. He cannot tell lies; he cannot tell untruths, but he has just

uttered a massive untruth. There was no suggestion last night that we did not

support reforms to the system. That is untrue, and I ask the hon. minister to

withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the

hon. member and say that what the hon. Member for Grand Falls is saying is not

entirely correct. He did, in effect, denounce his own Opposition critic in

saying that he was the only one over there who did not.

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

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order, surely those kinds of

comments cannot be accepted in the Parliament. They are not accurate. They are

untrue, and it is a totally different comment from what the Minister of

Education made. The Minister of Education said that I got up at a public meeting

last night and said that we did not support reforms in education, and that is

not true. In fact, I said that we did support reforms in education. So the

minister should be aware of it, and he should not say it.

I can tell him this: That we do not support taking away the

constitutional rights of the denominations in this Province. We do not support

that. But the minister supports that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is

an abuse by the Leader of the Opposition of the whole point of order matter. At

best this is an example of a dispute between members as to what may or may not

have occurred outside the House. The hon. Minister of Education is making a

statement as to what he believes happened. The Leader of the Opposition

apparently has a different recollection. I say to the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) he was there!

MR. ROBERTS: - that he has - he may have been there, Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't, but the fact remains that his standing in this House and

saying he did not say something last night does not prove he did not say that

thing last night at all.

MR. TOBIN: This is not a court of law.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, no, this is not a court of law,

this is a court of Parliament, the highest court in the land. Let me say to hon.

members opposite that what they say in the House and what they say outside have

got to be consistent. I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to say in the

House what he did say outside, but not on a point of order, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I've probably heard enough at this point. The difficulty for

the Chair is that what is being proposed as a point of order is what the hon.

Leader of the Opposition said -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) came from that side you

can't listen to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I've heard from both sides. I have not ruled on the point of

order.

Points of order relate only to matters that arise in the

House. The House cannot say what the member said or didn't say outside the House

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair can't rule on what a minister or member said

outside the House and whether or not it is consistent with what he said inside

the House. I'm not in a position to judge whether or not what the Minister of

Education said is correct or incorrect, and it may well be that the Leader of

the Opposition is equally firm in his view and may indeed be correct. It is

beyond my purview and is not a point of order because it is not something that

occurred within the House or the committees of the House that are subject to

record here.

I allow the Minister of Education to continue for what time

remains.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I'm making

is the Opposition is trying to make political hay out of this. We are concerned

with reforming education in this Province within. We are trying to reform

education so that our children can have a better crack at learning. Hon. members

should know that the wealth of the future is not what lies in the iron ore mines

up in Labrador City, the wealth is not the fish in the sea. The wealth of the

future, Mr. Speaker, is what is between the ears of our children and we have to

reform the education system to make sure that they get the best advantage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for the answer to the petition has expired.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we were going to call the

electoral boundaries act first but I gather members would prefer to address the

MR. SIMMS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Sorry. If the Leader of the Opposition could

contain his ill temper....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. the Government House

Leader as to what the Orders of the Day will be.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was going to

say, what I was trying to say, is that we had originally planned to call the

electoral boundaries bill. We will now ask instead that you call Order No. 8.

May I say we will not ask the House to sit after 5:00 p.m., but I will say that

members ought not to make any plans for the supper hour on Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: That is not a threat, that is just simply a

statement. Those of us who want to attend to the public business will be here on

Thursday to deal with the public business. If hon. gentlemen opposite do not

want to be here that is their concern, not ours.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you would first call Bill No.

52, which is Order No. 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 8.

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

Election Act and The Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is a

relatively straightforward piece of legislation that seeks to amend both the old

and the new elections act, if I may say so.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend for Burin - Placentia

West. I find his comments so interesting that I want to hear them, which is why

when he speaks -

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I understand what the hon. gentleman

was doing. I must say that I find his comments so interesting. What is it....

`The quality of mercy is not strain'd,

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.'

The hon. gentleman's comments are much like that.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the bill. The bill

addresses, in respect of the two acts, one problem that arises, or can arise and

has arisen in fact, in two separate contexts, and that is the question, Sir, of

the award of costs in respect of legal proceedings arising from elections and

election act matters.

Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the parties who sought costs, and

were awarded them, were awarded costs only against the adversaries in the

scheme, which would normally be - in fact, which are always - the defeated

candidates or those who seek, under the Elections Act, to set aside the outcome

of an election.

I find the comments from my friends on this side every bit as

interesting, and more important, than those of gentlemen opposite, so I have to

stop and listen to them as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are more irritating.

MR. ROBERTS: No, they are not more irritating. They are

far more entertaining, I would say. Now, let me carry on.

There are two separate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from Menihek has some

trouble. Perhaps he needs to see a doctor. If so, I could recommend one to him.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the point. There are two

separate situations where costs can be awarded. These are two types of

proceedings that come up. The first is a recount.

In the case of the Torngat recount, the presiding judge, Mr.

Justice Halley of the Supreme Court, after hearing argument from counsel,

decided to award party and party and solicitor\client costs against the Chief

Electoral Officer.

It is not for me to quarrel with Judge Halley's decision. He

heard counsel. He made his decision and, in my opinion, his decision was

certainly within the parameters of the power given to him, or any judge doing a

recount, by the legislation. Therefore we made no appeal against it, but we do

feel that a judge ought not to have that power, so one of the amendments to this

act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? Let me finish the sentence and

then I will... One of the amendments to this act would prevent, or take away,

the power now vested in the judge conducting a recount to award costs.

The reason is very simple. The recount is done for the

benefit of the parties and, in fact, it is so much for the benefit of the

parties that the new act - the act adopted by the House a couple of years ago,

which is partially in effect, which will be totally in effect as soon as we can

put the administrative machinery into place - provides for an automatic recount

if the margin of victory is ten votes or less. So if the Torngat situation had

come forward this time, if the result in Torngat had been under the new act,

there would have been an automatic recount. That is one reason.

The second is that the amounts are very substantial. The

government has paid tax costs in the amount of $24,427.81 for the Torngat

recount. That was to the lawyers who represented my friend from Torngat, and the

two unsuccessful candidates, the lady who represented the NDP, and the lady who

represented the PC party.

The lawyers, I would suggest, got a windfall out of this. I

have done these recounts several times, acting for candidates - sometimes

successfully, sometimes unsuccessful candidates. No lawyer doing this, I venture

to say, expects to be paid. It is something one does for one's party.

I would venture to say that the lawyer for the NDP, in fact,

in my recollection, said either to one of the other lawyers or to the court,

that he or she - and I forget who it was; it does not matter - did not expect to

be paid; was overwhelmed when the result of the judge's decision was that he or

she was paid whatever the taxed costs were. I do not know what they were, but

whatever they were they either were or will be paid shortly. In fact, the lady

representing the NDP at the recount, I believe, has been on the phone to my

officials looking for her money, and we will certainly get her a cheque - a

former partner of my friend from St. John's East, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to him `rightly so' and I agree.

Anybody who is a partner of the hon. gentleman from St. John's East needs all

the help that he or she can get.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first thing this bill would do is take

away the power of a judge to make an award of costs in respect of a recount.

The second point this bill would make is to change the power

with respect to the award of costs in a controverted election proceeding. Now my

friend from Placentia has learned a great deal I suspect about the controverted

election proceeding process. He may or may not have a happy outcome. I have no

doubt there will be a by-election, his leader is going before as did John the

Baptist in laying the ground by saying there will be no appeal but that is not

for me to say. The judges, Mr. Justice Orsborn and Mr. Justice Green of the

trial division, wrote a very learned and a very comprehensive decision that made

absolute mince meat of the arguments put out by the counsel representing my

friend from Placentia, who found in fact that the election ought to be set

aside, a position that was supported by the counsel for the NDP candidate as

well as the counsel for the Liberal candidate and so, subject to the judge's

decision there will be another election.

Now my friend from Placentia has a number of days within

which he can ask his counsel to appear before the court and the court will then

deal with whatever comes forward so we will wait and see; but, Mr. Speaker, both

or all three parties in that one, I am not sure, have, I am told, asked that the

court order that the Chief Electoral Officer or the returning officer pay tax

costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's East, says the

point is reserved. I understand simply that the judges have said in their

decision which I read yesterday, that parties may speak to costs but I

understand parties have said they will seek costs; now I don't know, I am not

there and I am not instructing counsel. The information that comes to me comes

through the Chief Electoral Officer. My hon. friend was there, I hope he was

there in his capacity as a lawyer but, if so, no doubt he was seeking costs as

well, the widow's pence, as it were, the widow's mite.

This bill will restrict the power of the judges to make an

award against either the Chief Electoral Officer or against the returning

officer to very special situations; and I will give a paraphrase; they are found

section 2 and

section 4 set them out in legal form: It will be possible

henceforth to make an award of costs against electoral officials only if they

have failed to comply with the Election Act in a manner that is unreasonable, or

that indicates a lack of good faith on their part or an intention to affect the

result of an election.

In other words, costs will not be awarded against officials

where they have merely made an innocent mistake, something which will inevitably

happen from time to time, and I suggest and I think my friend from Placentia

would concur, that the mistake which it appears, which it appears, based on what

we now know, which it appears was made in the election held on the 3rd of May,

in the District of Placentia, was an innocent one. The deputy returning officers

in those two booths - was it number eight and number nine?.... well, there were

two booths where people were allowed to vote, it appears without having been

sworn in - did not attempt to break the Election Act, in fact, my guess is they

would be horrified or are horrified to realize that they did in fact break the

Election Act if they allowed a person to vote who is neither sworn nor affirmed,

nor on the list.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say to my hon. friend from Grand

Bank: sure, we know Bill Matthews and Ed Roberts, they live down here on Point

Verde or wherever it is; we know they haven't voted, they are not on the list,

the list is kind of old we will let them vote anyway, but the judges found that

that is a violation of the act, and so, what flows will flow, but my friend from

Grand Bank and I, I think are saying the same thing, we are of one mind in that

this was an innocent mistake. Now the Elections Act is an extraordinarily

technical document; the procedures are very complicated, the judges gave quite a

good description of why we have these kinds of procedures in this Province and

elsewhere throughout the country, but in any event, the point remains these are

innocent mistakes and we are not, in our view, we are not of a mind or our

position is, that the courts ought not to be able to make an award against the

Chief Electoral Officer or against the returning officers in those situations.

Now if the returning officer does something wrong in the sense of deliberately

trying to affect the outcome of the election, that is a different matter, he or

she will stand the penalty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are also some very technical

provisions which are found in

section 5 of the bill. I have dealt with sections

1, 2, 3, and

Section 5 is the outgrowth of the fact that we have had to

proclaim the Election Act, the new Election Act, in pieces, and these amendments

are necessary to enable us to do as has been done to bring in the election

financing provisions, which was done with the support of all three parties, all

three of the registered parties in this Province, the NDP, the PC and the

Liberal, and also to enable us to make sure that if there is a by-election in

Placentia - there may or may not be. I am not attempting to pre-judge the result

of the court proceeding, but at this stage one should assume there is a

possibility. If there is a by-election in Placentia it could be carried out

under the new act and with the appropriate financing provision in place. The

House should note, Mr. Speaker, that

section 5 of the bill is deemed to have

come into effect on September 30, 1993. The other provisions of the bill,

relating to costs, will be deemed to come into effect if and when they get Royal

Assent.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. If there is a by-election in Placentia

the government will pay - yes, I say to my friend, the government will pay the

proper costs of the by-election, namely the returning officers, the enumeration

and whatever else.

MR. SHELLEY: Posters?

MR. ROBERTS: Posters - my hon. friend from Baie Verte -

White Bay should go back to his petitions. He was doing better there than he is

doing in this debate.

We will pay the amounts that are properly to be paid under

the new act which do include a reimbursement of expenses for a successful

candidate or for one who gets 15 per cent of the total vote cast, that candidate

qualifies for reimbursement. The limits will also be in effect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I think if a candidate gets 15 per cent of

the vote cast he or she will be able to claim reimbursement of 50 per cent of

his or her expenses, up to the limits. If you spend less than the limit you only

get 50 per cent of what you spend. The by-election in Placentia, Mr. Speaker,

will be the first election in this Province to be fought under the new reformed

rules. Contributions will be public, receiptable for tax credit, and

expenditures will be disclosed and limited. So the new regime will be in effect

and these amendments, I am told by the officials, are necessary to do that. You

will note we are amending the new act to incorporate the

definitions of the old

act and that enables us to use the new act and apply it to an election which

will still be conducted under the old act.

Now let me say one other word about that in case I haven't

confused people sufficiently. Two parts of the old act are still in force; part

one, which is the general group of sections that deal with elections and part

two which is the controverted election

section or series of provisions. As my

friend from Placentia has learned perhaps to his joy, perhaps to his cost, these

are still very much in effect. They have simply been reproduced in the new act

anyway. The other part will stay in effect until two things happen, the

administrative machinery is up and running for the new act. Hon. gentlemen

opposite know as much as I do about that because the CEO is running all these

things through the advisory committee that has been set up under the act. I

understand that is working very well, the parties are pleased, the CEO is

pleased and things seem to be moving along quite nicely.

Secondly, we have a policy issue that has not been discussed

and certainly not been decided. A couple of years ago a special committee,

headed by my friend for Eagle River - I am sorry not special, the Standing

Committee on Privileges and Elections, dealt with this question of how we

provide a means to vote so those people who cannot take advantage of either the

advanced poll or the regular polls on voting day - the act provides for proxy

ballots, I think, and the special committee suggested a mail in, a special

ballot. In fact the Chief Electoral Officer, if memory serves me, is to be in

Ottawa this week to speak with the Canada Elections officials. They used a mail

in ballot in the last federal election and we want to take advantage of their

experience to see what they can tell us. In due course, he will be back to the

House, I assume, with some recommendations. The government has never made a

substantive response to the committee led by the hon. gentleman from Eagle

River.

MR. A. SNOW: It does not work, you should change it.

MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from Menihek says that it does

not work, he may be right. All I am saying is that we have not come to a

judgement as yet. We have this problem on this side, we want to get all the

evidence before we come to a judgement but the Chief Electoral Officer is

looking into this, I know that he has discussed it with the advisory committee,

there are no members of the House on the advisory committee by law -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's good.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it is good, I say to my friend from

Grand Bank. Either he or I should be worried, Mr. Speaker, we are agreeing on

several issues in here. There is something wrong somewhere.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the bill will incorporate into the

new act which is in effect, that part which is in effect, certain of the

definitions of the old act so the by-election in Placentia will be carried out

in accordance with the financing provisions of part three.

Mr. Speaker, with that said I move second reading of the

bill.

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. minister there are parts in this I have

no sweat with but there are other parts I do just in case anybody gets caught on

a hook like I do, this side or the other side. It does not make any difference

to me as long as someone is getting caught on a hook not of their making. He

mentioned Placentia and I am glad that he mentioned the two returning officers.

MR. ROBERTS: DROs.

MR. CAREEN: The DROs are good people. They are honest, I

would bet my life on it. But they were caught in a situation - and I ask the

Minister of Justice because there is little that can be done about it now, you

never cry over spilt milk but sometimes you cry over the jug. In Placentia, like

any other district in this Province, a Reader's Direst version was done

of the Election Act and put in every kit but someone overstepped their bounds

and in that kit they put a piece about identification, which was ambiguous. I do

not have a copy of it here today but during the arguments of the Supreme Court -

my friend for St. John's East was there, my counsel and the other candidate's

counsel, it was not admissible, that piece about identification, because the

Election Act itself was being debated. Identification, where it said people

could be vouched for, and these two very experienced ladies in running federal,

provincial, and municipal elections, literally took what was before them,

because there were eighty-four people who were not on the list and had to be

added. Between the two of them they swore in twenty-nine and fifty-five they

believed did not have to be sworn in. That is the hook and that happened to me

and it could happen to somebody else some time or other. I believe it is only

babes who cry.

AN HON. MEMBER: It happened to all three candidates.

MR. CAREEN: What they are saying is that there are

fifty-five. Courts cannot ask people how they vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: I know, but it happened. I am just trying to

make it clear that whoever is on the hook, that is where I come from, whoever is

on the hook. This bill should reflect in the future that a special nod should be

given to someone who is on the hook and that payments they are asking for, court

bills, should be borne by the body responsible and we have to answer to the

House of Assembly. It is no good throwing your body on the mercy of the court if

they are restricted in what they do.

I believe in the judicial system and I believe in certain

cases, in lots of cases, they should be left alone to their own good judgement

because if we do not believe in that tenet of our system we are letting all

other things out as well. The minister said it was a straightforward bill and

parts of it are straightforward and others are just straightforward if you are

independently wealthy, but for us poor Joes who have trouble, and we are in the

majority, that could not afford it would not be able to bring it forward. I ask

that those be protected under the laws of this Province and the Election Act and

the amendments that are being talked about here today. Without any further ado I

just confine my remarks to what I said earlier, that our system in protecting

the other guy, that anybody caught on a hook should always be able to get the

chance to prove it, to show it, and those costs should be borne by our society.

While it is not right to do here, like in a boxing ring the

person defeated by the champ always get a chance to go back at the champ, and I

would like no other choice but to have a go at the same candidate I had on May

3. God bless and thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm rising to speak

on parts of this bill. I have to say that before I open my mouth because I want

to let hon. members know that a review of

section 21 of

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Act, that legislation prevents, and says that: "A member shall

not make or participate in making a decision in his or her capacity as a member

where the member knows or ought reasonably to know that in the making of the

decision there is the opportunity to further, directly or indirectly, a private

interest of the member or the member's family."

The reason I quote that is because I believe that

participating in making a decision is also speaking to a piece of legislation

one way or the other, not just not voting, so I won't refer in my remarks to any

part of the bill that is under clause 4 -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

section 5, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: No,

section 4, I believe. Clause 4 of the

bill, which deals with costs of an application under the controverted elections.

That I won't speak to, because there is an ongoing case before the courts right

now still having to do with the Placentia by-election, in which I participated

as legal counsel for the NDP candidate, Lena Hickey. I made arguments in court,

the same arguments, or to similar effect, as that made by counsel for the

defeated candidate, Bill Hogan, which arguments resulted in the decision to set

aside the election unless evidence can be shown that these fifty-five people

whose oaths were not included in the ballot box were in fact sworn in, or

sufficient numbers of them were sworn in, to meet the twenty-one difference

between the winner and the second-place candidate.

So I won't speak to that because in the ongoing case there

may be opportunities for applications to be made with respect to cost, and those

applications may be with respect to costs against the Chief Electoral Officer or

indirectly the Crown. So I won't speak to that because that may have an indirect

or direct benefit to me personally.

I will talk about the previous section. It has to do with

another application, the Torngat Mountains application, which was taken as part

of a recount. I would say that what the Minister of Justice has said is correct.

I took

part in that decision as well, although I didn't argue the matter in

court. The matter is past and over with and this legislation has no effect on

it, although for some curious reason it is stated to come into force on

September 30, 1993.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, it is only

section 5 (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Only

section 5? Okay. I stand corrected by

the minister on that.

I think that the amendment is proper. I think most lawyers

who get asked to do this kind of work in a recount in particular do so without

the expectation of being paid, or at least they find themselves surprised if

they are paid. That is probably true in this case as well on behalf of all

counsel who were there. The opportunity arose for counsel to make application

and the judge, in this unusual case - and it was an unusual case, because the

reason that the - there may have been a recount anyway - but the reason in this

case that the recount was called was because the Chief Electoral Officer in fact

declared the person elected who has -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) the returning officer

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The returning officer. But I think there was

a press release issued by the Chief Electoral Officer as well stating that the

person who had received -

MR. ROBERTS: A press release is not a declaration

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The press release stated that the person

elected was the person who in fact received fewer votes prior to the recount. So

in those unusual circumstances, and I think it is not something that is going to

happen very often, if ever again, the court awarded costs against the Chief

Electoral Officer.

I think it is probably fair to say and suggest that the

recount situation, which is essentially recounting the ballots, and not a lot of

legal arguments, although clever lawyers can always argue something about

whether a particular mark is or is not one thing or another, and sometimes these

can -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) pretty well overcome all that

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They can go on for a lengthy period of time.

I think it is fair that each party or each individual represented at a recount

should bear their own costs. I can't comment on the other aspect of it. I would

ask the minister if he could in his closing remarks advise as to what he thinks

the legal effect is of changing a repealed act.

Section 1 of the act here

repeals a

section of a repealed act and substitutes another

section for it.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I refer the minister to the new act, and

that is the elections act, 1991. In that act, by virtue of the particular

section which I will quote to him now in a second....

Section 338 repeals the

1990 act. Now, it may be that that

part is not in force.

MR. ROBERTS: That

section has been proclaimed because

there are still parts of the 1990 act, which I would call the old act,

(inaudible), there are still parts (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That being the case then there is not a

current problem with it. I do say, though, to anybody who has attempted to try

to figure out what the elections act is during the last two and half years has

had great difficulty. The Chief Electoral Officer very kindly during the

election did a compilation of the various bits and pieces and did a

consolidation that was available and useful during the election period. I guess

he is going to have to do another one and issue updates from time to time as

various bits and pieces come into force. That question occurred to me in

reviewing the legislation here.

While I am speaking about the Elections Act I will say that I

was concerned, and expressed my concern publicly, ultimately, about the failure

to bring the Chief Electoral Officer under the aegis of this House, which I

understood was to have been done last March prior to the election. It in fact

was put off by the government with no real explanation ever having been given. I

don't know if any real explanation has ever been given other than: we decided to

wait. Perhaps the minister in speaking to this can deal with that.

Because it did give rise to some certain perceived conflicts

of interest. They may be regarded as hypothetical conflicts of interest but I

know that, for a long period of time, the Chief Electoral Officer was reporting

on a day to day basis to the Minister of Justice; at the same time, under the

act, was supposed to be responsible to this House, was also the commissioner of

members' interest and was passing judgement on the activities of Cabinet

ministers, including that of the Minister of Justice, was making exemptions

under the act, or making determinations under the act, that relate to his

activity.

Now I have, and I have said this on a number of occasions but

I want to, while I'm saying it again, I want to add that I have absolutely no

lack of confidence in the individual, Mr. Wayne Mitchell, who acts as Chief

Electoral Officer and commissioner of members' interest. It is because of that

that I was concerned about him being put in a situation where he could be

perceived to be in a conflict of interest by the fact that a particular

section

of the act,

section 3 I believe it is, had not been proclaimed by the

Government.

I have not really received a proper explanation for that, and

perhaps the minister, in concluding remarks on the bill, would provide us with

an explanation as to why it took so long to proclaim that particular part of the

legislation. The House had agreed, and all parties in the House had agreed, to

Mr. Mitchell as having been appointed to the position of Chief Electoral

Officer. He was, under the act, to report to the House, and it took some ten

months or more - perhaps eleven months - for that to take place. So perhaps the

minister can explain that in his concluding remarks on this bill at second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I thank members

opposite for their contribution, and I will make just a couple of comments in

response. Let me first of all deal with the point raised by my friend from St.

John's East - my hon. and learned friend, to be precise.

As of January 1, the Chief Electoral Officer will report

administratively to the Internal Economy Commission and, through it to the House

of Assembly. The Premier made a statement about that a week or two ago -

whenever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, to the House of Assembly the Speaker

is the embodiment of the House of Assembly, but at the end of the day the

Speaker - as chair after chair have said - only voices the wishes, has no voice

other than the House.

MR. HARRIS: Answers to the House through the Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: The House, through the Speaker, alright, but

the Internal Economy Commission is the body that will exercise the control.

Mr. Speaker, there was no more mysterious course of events

than the one I am about to relate. When we prepared the estimates, printed

estimates were brought into the House last March, whenever, before the general

election, the Chief Electoral Officer's vote will be found in the House of

Assembly Head, but about the middle of March, when it became obvious that we

would be having a general election in the very near future - now if the hon.

gentleman does not want the answer, I will not bother.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. One of the hon. gentleman's

colleagues was speaking to him. I did not know the hon. gentleman was not

listening.

About the middle of March it became obvious that there was

going to be a general election sooner rather than later, so in consultation with

the Chief Electoral Officer the Cabinet adopted an order that changed things

back so that administratively the control remained with my officials and with

me. Now the CEO was quite happy with that. I accepted responsibility. The

Cabinet passed the necessary order, and that was that. There was no more mystery

to it than that.

The Chief Electoral Officer had a great deal on his plate and

I think it should be said here, and I suspect I speak for every member of the

House, and indeed every candidate in the election, that Mr. Mitchell and his

crew - the men and women who work with him, his associates - did an absolutely

magnificent job in running an election in late winter, or early spring - it was

late winter in the north when I was campaigning - and using a very old and very

inadequate voters' list. They did an absolutely superb job, and I think the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador owe them a vote of confidence and a vote of

gratitude.

That is the explanation. It is no more mysterious than that.

My hon. friend can make political hay over perceptions if he wishes. I can only

say that I disagree with him, but the fact remains we have solved the problem by

implementing the policy which we had adopted in the first instance.

The only point I need to make in response to my friend from

Placentia is that I have no knowledge of what was in any kit distributed by an

election official or by the CEO himself. If I know the CEO - and I think I know

the gentleman fairly well; we worked closely together for a year and a bit now -

he made every effort to ensure that any literature he distributed was complete

and accurate and easy to comprehend. I cannot say anything more than that. In

any event, literature does not supersede the act, and experienced election

officials, I would assume, will realize that the only way one can vote in this

Province is either to be on the list or to be sworn or affirmed. There is no

other way that one is eligible to vote, and that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. My friend from St. John's East says

that everybody else got it right. I accept the mistake was innocent. There were

no police investigations. There were no charges laid - just an innocent mistake,

difficult to understand, but nonetheless an innocent mistake and we accept it as

such; but let it be recorded - and the judges in the controverted election

petition, Judge Green and Judge Orsborn, did a magnificent dissertation on why

it is appropriate and necessary - and I think anybody who has read the decision

will concur - that in addition to being qualified to vote, one must be entitled

to vote, and the only way one can be entitled to vote is either to be on the

list or to take an oath or affirmation in accordance with the act. Now, I can

assure the House that assuming there is to be a by-election in Placentia, there

will be a new enumeration. I have been in touch with the CEO and -

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be an enumeration?

MR. ROBERTS: There will be an enumeration. We would have

done it last year for the general election except that it just was not possible

within the time frame, and the act has been amended to allow us to do an

enumeration in simply one district, so there will be an enumeration in the

District of Placentia on the assumption there will be a by-election and I think

it is a safe assumption from what I gather from press comments that there will

be a by-election.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well my friend from Grand Falls is having

trouble being misinterpreted. All I will say is what will count will be when a

certificate reaches the Speaker. If there is no certificate, there will be no

by-election, but there will be an enumeration; I think we will do that, the only

question will be the timing; we may wait until the certificate has actually

reached the Speaker or not.

I think that disposes of the points -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The enumeration takes, I think, thirty days.

In fact I had a note here from the CEO that he anticipates that it will take

thirty days; I may be wrong on that but I think that is what he said. Anyway, it

will be done fairly quickly. The new members should remember too, in case they

have forgotten, the new by-election will be the first instance of the fact this

government has given up a power that governments had traditionally taken and

used for partisan purposes namely, the timing of the by-election; the

by-election will be held within ninety days of the certificate reaching the

Chair. It will be called within sixty days, it will be held within thirty days

of the call.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Sixty days of the certificate reaching the

Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, no, called within sixty days and the

voting must be within thirty days of the call, so it must be held within ninety

days in total, but the call must be made in sixty days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ninety days or the call

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Clerk I think confirms that I have in

fact got it right. So anyway, this is the first instance of the - the fact this

government don't want to play games with by-elections. The Premier had an

experience in Windsor - Buchans, which I think soured him, yes, a very happy

electoral experience but the government of the day deliberately tried to prevent

the people from Windsor - Buchans from voicing their views as to who was to

speak for them in the House, at any rate, there is no harm done. If the

gentleman from Placentia does not succeed in discharging the burden imposed upon

him by the court, then there will be a by-election that will be called within

the prescribed time period.

I thank the members for their attention and move second

reading.

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

Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No. 52), read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough please

to call Bill No. 48, which is Order No. 7, which is the Electoral Boundaries

bill.

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

Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 48).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members Opposite are kind

enough to call this the Ed Roberts act; I don't know whether they mean that as

praise although I somehow doubt it, but I will say that together with a number

of other members of the Cabinet, I have spent a great deal of time on this

matter because we believe it is of utmost importance and that is why we are here

in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, the present Electoral Boundaries Act was adopted

originally in 1973. I suspect I am the only member of the House - am I the only

one left who was here in '73?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman was in kindergarten and

so was I, the difference was, I graduated.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say my friend from Kilbride is

the only one on the other side who may someday be able to stand and say: am I

the only one who was here in '93, but it is interesting that out of the

fifty-two members of the House, fifty-one have come and gone since 1973. I am

not sure what it means but it is certainly interesting.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) to '75.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Windsor - Buchans came into

the House in '75, the gentleman from Mount Pearl came to the House in '75, my

friend from Terra Nova came into the House in '75 and the three on this side

have had interrupted service, the gentleman from Mount Pearl has had continuous

service, and I have to tell you, and he would be the first to agree, he shows

the signs of it. It just goes to show how time passes when one is having fun,

Mr. Speaker.

In any event, the act was initially adopted in 1973. There

have been two redistributions conducted under it: the one under which the 1975

election was held, and the one under which the 1985 and 1989 and subsequent

elections were held. The third redistribution process began last May or June

when Your Honour named the members of the Commission. It was conducted under the

original act with some amendments that were adopted by the House in December of

1992. I will come back to those amendments in a moment or two.

The House will recall that the Commission is made up of five

members. Mr. Justice Mahoney, himself a former member of the House, sitting for

the then dual District of Harbour Main, is the Chair, and he is appointed by the

Chief Justice of Newfoundland, Chief Justice Goodridge. So Judge Mahoney chairs

the Commission. Interestingly enough, he was originally asked to chair the

federal commission, but since he has taken on this one Mr. Justice Marshall of

the Court of Appeal, no stranger to this House, no stranger to many of us, has

been appointed to chair that commission.

The other members are Ray Baird, Dorothy Inglis, John Nolan

and Beatrice Watts. Two of them have sat in the House. Mr Baird sat for the

Humber West District from 1979, 1982 and 1985, and resigned in 1989 when the

present Member for Humber West was fist elected. Mr. Nolan sat in 1966 and came

close on a couple of occasions after that. He was re-elected in 1975 and sat in

the House as the first Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) district (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, he represented St. John's South. It

was a very different district than my friend represents. It included Petty

Harbour, the Goulds and Kilbride in those days. The House was only forty-two

back in 1966. I remember it well. Because that is when I came into the House. So

did the hon. member's father.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Commission produced its draft report in

August. I think it was August 27, from memory. Let me say a word or two about

the draft report. The process set out in the act does not envisage the draft

report but all three of the commissions - the one by Mr. Justice Higgins in the

first instance, the one by Mr. Justice Bartlett in the mid-eighties, and the one

now by Mr. Justice Mahoney - have adopted this process in my view very wisely.

What the Commission does is produce a draft report, puts it

in the newspapers, sends it out around the Province, and then holds a series of

hearings. Any who wish to be heard come forward and are heard. The Commission

then produces its final report, which is the only one referred to in the act.

That report then comes forward to the House of Assembly and is tabled. The

matter rests there until and unless legislation is brought forward.

When my colleagues and I saw the report and had a chance to

look at it and assess it and discuss it, we came to two conclusions. The first

is, and I want this to be heard very clearly and without any question of doubt,

the first is the Commission chaired by Judge Mahoney have done their job

superbly, squarely and fairly. The report that they prepared was in accordance

with the legislative directions. That was the first conclusion that we came to.

The Commission have done their job superbly and they have done it fairly and

squarely within the directions of this Legislature. Secondly, we came to the

conclusion that the legislative directions were wrong and were imprecise. That

is what brings us back here today.

The Premier and I spoke for the government in the debate on

second reading of the bill in December 1992. Other members spoke, but I don't

think any other member of the Ministry spoke. The two of us spoke. I won't go

through our speeches. I will say to hon. members that having re-read them

recently the principles that are in this new bill were set out very clearly and

with precision in those speeches. The principal position - that is,

p-r-i-n-c-i-p-a-l, the principal principle is one person, one vote. Both the

Premier and I said then and I say again now that the principle upon which

redistribution should be carried out is that the vote of any Labradorian or any

Newfoundlander should be worth no more and no less than the vote of any other

Newfoundlander or any other Labradorian. There are some exceptions to that which

I will deal with but, as a principle, that is it, and if one lives in Corner

Brook, or Burgeo, or Gander, or St. John's, or Happy Valley-Goose Bay, or

Western Labrador, a vote is a vote, is a vote. We speak here in this House for

women and for men, for people, for electors, not for acres, and not for miles,

or kilometres.

The act, as I said, did not set that out clearly; therefore,

we brought in this bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two changes, one growing

out of the changes made last December and the other growing out of a

section

which has not been amended since 1973. Last December, we asked the House, and

the House agreed, to provide that the report could recommend between forty and

forty-six seats in the House. We did not foresee, and for this we acknowledge

the responsibility and accept whatever censure may follow, that the commission

would start at forty and work up if necessary. They did not work up. They

started at forty and they ended at forty.

The new bill, in

section 1, which will amend

section 13 - in

fact, it will replace

section 13 of the act in its entirety, directs the

commission very clearly to begin at forty-six, to divide the House into

forty-six one-member districts. It will then take off one, representing the

Northern Labrador seat, which I will call Torngat for the sake of convenience,

and arrive at a quotient; members will be interested to know that the quotient

will be 12,548. That is simply a matter of subtracting Torngat and dividing

forty-five into the resulting number, subtracting Torngat from the population of

the Province in the last census. That provision, Mr. Speaker, reflects the

principle, and this House determines the number of seats. We will determine, as

a House, when the time comes, whether the commission's report should be adopted,

but it is this House that sets the number of seats, not a commission. We have,

however, in subsection (3) of

section 13, given the commission a power, should

they deem it necessary - to more easily apply the rules contained in

section 15,

we give them the power to recommend a smaller House of forty-four, forty-two, or

forty. We want them to start at forty-six, we direct them to start at forty-six,

but if they say we can't do it within the rules, or to put it more easily, to

use the verb we use, more easily within the rules, we can go down to forty-four,

forty-two, or even forty.

Mr. Speaker, the other change in this bill is a complete

revision of

section 15. I won't attempt to compare it to the old one, except to

tell members that the old one has been set aside and a new one put in place in

its entirety. I will go through this briefly to outline the principles in it,

because these are the principles which govern the exercise by the commission of

their discretion in dividing the Province into the proposed number of seats.

First, and very clearly: they shall give primacy to the principle that the vote

of every elector shall have a weight equal to that of every other elector, one

person, one vote. There it is, as clearly as the drafters could put it in. Then

we go on, acknowledging that this is not a mathematical exercise, we give them

the right to go plus or minus 10 per cent. Now, using the quotient that I used

that would allow seats which would range from a low of 11,293 people to 13,803

people - that is the 10 per cent plus or minus figure, using a quotient of

12,548.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman's seat would have to be

13,803 - that is the maximum, with the exceptions I will come to. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we looked long and hard at what number we should have; 25 per cent was

the one in the original legislation but it produced - the commission had every

right to do it - it produced seats in the suggested redistribution which ranged

very widely, too far a range. Hon. members may or may not agree, but in our

judgement, the range was far too large. You have to take a number somewhere.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman for Burin - Placentia

West - I haven't done the numbers for his area, but there is one exception which

may also address a concern he has raised.

In any event, we looked at 10 per cent. Most provinces have

25 per cent but Manitoba has now gone to 10 per cent and Saskatchewan has gone

to 5 per cent. The new bill in Saskatchewan, which is now law, is 5 per cent,

except for two northern seats which are in the far northern part of

Saskatchewan. Then we go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the `one

person, one vote' and the plus or minus 10 per cent tolerance rules, there are

two situations where the commission, if they conclude that the departure is

warranted by special geographic considerations, may go to the 25 per cent rule

and that allows quite a wide range of seats - again, using the same quotient

figure, ranges from 9,411 to 15,685 - quite a wide range of seats, a wide range

of population.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. And the two factors are, number one,

the community of interest in two specific areas of the Province; communities

along the Coast of Labrador, where there are no roads and communities along the

Southwest Coast of the Island, where there are no roads.

MR. TOBIN: South or Southwest?

MR. ROBERTS: I say Southwest Coast where there are no

roads. There are no communities left on the South Coast without roads, are

there? Not on the Burin Peninsula?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Where?

MR. TOBIN: South East Bight.

MR. ROBERTS: South East Bight. How big is the community?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Forty-five, fifty-five - well, it will be

something they can take into account and that is designed to address the single

community that is isolated, i.e. no roads. Harbour Deep, for example, on the

Northern Peninsula, South East Bight, that my hon. friend speaks of. There may

be others around the Province, although none spring to mine.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well - no, we would say Southwest Coast but

d'Espoir there are a number of communities that have no roads and will not have

one in the foreseeable future. Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and the Southwest Coast -

now, I have always understood - I don't know if it is a matter of judicial

interpretation or legal ruling, Cape la Hune is the dividing point between the

South Coast and the Southwest Coast. I don't know if my friend would agree, but

that is what I have always taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Jack Cheeseman taught me that first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I don't think so, but if the hon.

gentleman wants to -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Fortune - Hermitage (inaudible)

district would stay basically the same, which would give both of us somewhere in

excess of 14,000.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the commission - given the

factor. Now, I would say, the other kind of situation we had in mind of using

Harbour East, these two communities were part of the new Fortune - Hermitage

district that they proposed, even though to get there one had to go by road up

to Bishop's - I agree with my hon. friend, it made no sense at all. So we are

the provision.

The other exception, Mr. Speaker, is the one that the House

earlier accepted, which we again would put forward and support, and that is the

area that we call Torngat but is Northern Labrador, we described it, that lies

generally north of Lake Melville - and that is fitting and due recognition of

the fact that in those areas a majority of the people are aboriginal. There are

about 75 per cent or 80 per cent - I don't see my friend from Torngat in the

House at the moment - but about 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the people there

are aboriginal, and we think that is an exception that we would commend to the

House.

The other point in

section 15, Mr. Speaker, is - members may

wonder why these are in here; strange things happen - in

section 15(1) we spoke

of electors, but there is no record of a number of electors. The voters list is

hardly an accurate record of the number of electors. We all know how inaccurate

even a new voters list can be. The only specific data that we have is census. So

subsection (5) says simply that: For the purpose of

section 15, for preparing

the report, "the commission shall assume that the proportion of electors to the

general population is constant throughout the province."

I am told by the economic geographers that, in fact, it is

not constant, that in some areas there is a much higher proportion of older

people than in other areas. But the commission - there is no other way to go at

it realistically, except to say that Fogo district and Kilbride district will be

taken to have the same proportion of electors to population. The commission, in

giving primacy to the `one person, one vote' principle, one elector, one vote,

will obviously look only at census figures, and I suggest there is no other way

to do that. So that is what we have brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, two other minor changes, which are minor: the

first is a change in the reporting date. It is now the end of this year. The

commission has asked us - I have had a letter from Judge Mahoney, asking to be

extended to the end of June. We have done that. They must now report not later

than July 1, 1994. I cannot give members an assurance there will be no general

election before then, but I think one can accept that there is unlikely to be,

and -

MR. SHELLEY: There should be.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Baie Verte - White Bay says

there should be, but there won't be, because we enjoy having him in the House,

and he won't be here after the election.

Secondly, I say, Mr, Speaker, I heard the same comments a

year ago from the gentleman from (inaudible), and other people. The same comment

exactly. The only difference was, my friend for Menihek than sat exactly where

my friend for Baie Verte - White Bay sat, but now my friend for Menihek has come

up in the world. My friend for Menihek has moved forward and been lowered, not

elevated, because the front bench in this House is lower than the back bench,

and my colleagues on the back bench would agree with that enthusiastically.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that leaves, finally,

section 4 of the new

bill. This was put in at the request of the commission. It simply makes less

onerous the requirements of the publication - I don't have the present ones

here, but these, I'm told, by commission counsel are reasonable, as opposed to

the present ones which have proven to be onerous, difficult and expensive.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the bill is a clear

statement of principles which we believe makes proper allocations for the

necessary deviations from the principle. I put it forward then with confidence

and would ask that the House endorse it. I move second reading.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker