March 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, we would like to extend a cordial

welcome today to sixteen Level III students from Templeton's Collegiate, Gillams

in the district of Bay of Islands. The students are accompanied by their two

teachers, Ms Michelle Genge and Mr. Stephen Pafford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few short questions for

the Minister of Mines and Energy. I ask the minister if he can report to the

House if there is any progress that he is aware of in the search for new

partners for the Hibernia project.

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be having any

report on that at this time.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood the

minister. I asked him if he can tell us if he is aware of any progress in the

search for new partners for Hibernia. Is he aware of it?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all very aware

that the consortium is out doing a vigorous campaign right now around the world

to search for new partners, and I wish them good luck in that. I want to see

that concluded as quickly as possible. I think it is i the interest of everybody

to have a successful partner found as soon as possible. I know they are out

there vigorously doing it but other than that I have nothing further to say at

this time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find out from the

minister, does he know if there is any progress being made? Can I put it that

way? Does he know if there is any progress being made?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are

meetings being held. There have been meetings held over the last few weeks and

there will be more meetings held with potential target companies. Other than

that, that is all I have to say.

Thank you.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Mines and Energy reminds me of

the Minister of Finance, except he is saying a bit more than the Minister of

Finance, but not much. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is the

minister aware whether or not contractors have called a meeting at the Bull Arm

site tomorrow for all the workers and if so, does he know what that meeting

might be about?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I am aware that there is a meeting tomorrow.

I think it is Mr. Kimberlin who is going to be out there tomorrow having some

discussions, but there has been a lot of speculation raised to me that there is

going to be an announcement made at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: No that is not the answer, Mr. Speaker, I

think it is just a discussion.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank-you, Mr. Speaker.

We are just trying to get some information for the

Newfoundland public. I think they are entitled to it. The minister, in fact, has

done this House and the Province a great service by denying that rumour, because

that rumour was floating around for the last day or two, as he knows, and that

is one of the reasons why I asked the question, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me ask him this: Is the minister aware of any plans

to remove materials from the Bull Arm site? Has he heard rumours to that effect

and can he deny those, please, as well? For example, and more specifically, has

he heard that there had been tractor trailers hired in order to take steel away

from that site to bring it back to the mainland, has he heard that rumour and

can he deny that one, please?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I

have heard that rumour and I am not aware of any such thing.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary. It

is a rather slight deviation from the line of questioning to the Minister of

Mines and Energy, but somewhat related, and it is a supplementary to the

Minister of Forestry.

I ask the Minister of Forestry whether he has been monitoring

the financial situation of Olympia and York, who own Gulf Oil, and who recently

pulled out of the Hibernia project, but also owns 82 per cent of Abitibi-Price,

as we all know. I want to ask the minister if the financial trouble plaguing

this particular company, can have any serious implications for Abitibi-Price in

this Province, does he have any concerns about that and can he tell us what they

might be?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as the member would well know,

we would have concerns at any time the owner of a paper mill, or two paper

mills, in this case, in Newfoundland, or a great majority holder, is having the

kind of speculation that is rampant - not only speculation, facts, I guess. This

past month there has been speculation about O and Y; and, of course, they own

Abitibi-Price and, of course, they own Gulf, and there is always the concern

that if that parent company gets in trouble or is in trouble, then it could have

negative effects, obviously, on Abitibi-Price. There is concern in Grand Falls,

itself. I have just come back from attending a forestry seminar, where the

management was represented and the mill unions were represented, and that was

the topic of conversation.

Yes, there is concern, obviously, but I have no reason to

believe, at this point in time, that the company is concerned that whatever the

Reichmanns or O and Y are going through will have a direct effect on the

operations in Newfoundland.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Minister of

Health is aware of the very serious case -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I'll start again. I have a

question for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is aware of a very

serious case involving a fifteen-year old girl -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I will start again. The Minister

of Health is aware of a very serious case involving a fifteen-year old girl from

Grand Falls who is extremely ill, and who, for the past seven weeks, has been on

a waiting list for admission to the Janeway Hospital. Now, I ask the minister:

Why has this child, who has been identified as a very serious case by her

doctor, had to wait so long for admission to the Janeway?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a specific

case in the Department of Health who is waiting to get into the Janeway

Hospital, nor should I be aware. That kind of political interference does not

exist in this present administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: We have made available $840 million to the

Department of Health to run a health care system in this Province. It is being

run by professionals who know what they are doing. All the specific cases are

handled in a proper way where people are treated fairly, depending on the needs

that they have. If the hon. member has some suggestion that something is being

done that is wrong here, I would be quite willing to take the name of the person

and have the matter checked out. But there is no reason why the Minister of

Health, in any government, should know what is happening in a specific case

unless someone has an accusation to make that something being done is illegal,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is very

much aware of this case, and later, I will give him the name of the individual

who brought it to his attention.

Now, this child has been diagnosed as having anorexia

nervosa. I hope I have the correct pronunciation. She has attempted suicide; she

has had other psychological, very traumatic experiences; she has gone from 118

pounds down to 85 pounds - 80 to 85 pounds, six of which she has lost in the

past two weeks. She cannot be adequately treated in Grand Falls. Now, I ask the

minister: Are there more serious cases? Is it believable that there could be

more serious cases than this particular case that I am bringing to his

attention, and that has been brought to his attention before.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what I said

in answer to the first question. I am not aware of any specific case. Unless I

have lost my memory over the last few weeks and months this specific case does

not mean a thing. But, Mr. Speaker, if I were aware of such a specific case I

would not stoop as low as to try make political points out of somebody's

afflictions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister that

the child's doctor has been told by the Janeway that there are only thirteen

beds available on the psychiatric ward and there are twenty-three cases on the

waiting list from St. John's alone. Now God knows how many more cases are

waiting from all around the Province. How long is this child going to have to

wait for proper psychiatric care?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question

because I do not administer this Department by getting involved in all these

cases. We have professionals out there who deal with each individual. I have

absolute confidence in the medical doctors, in the psychiatrists, in the people

who are dealing with these matters, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the people of

this Province that it will be done in the proper way.

If, however, the hon. Member wishes to give me the name of

this individual I will have officials in the Department of Health investigate

the specific case, but I want to reassure the people of this Province that we

are not running a health system whereby we have political interference in saying

this person is going to be treated or this person is not going to be treated. We

have had too much of that in the past both in the health system and in the

justice system, and we are going to have it again if ever we get a Tory

government in power, as the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, Mr.

Speaker. At least for the time being that kind of interference does not exist,

thank goodness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister that

the information I have, and I will check it again, but the information I have is

that the Minister was called by the President of the Newfoundland Psychiatric

Association about this case, and he was told by the Minister - I have a quote

here. Again I will check it for accuracy. Quote, "Ask me for anything, but do

not ask me for money," said the Minister. Now is that the callous response of

the Minister of Health to the tragedy of this young girl and dozens of other

young people who are waiting to get into the Janeway Hospital who need critical

care right now? Is that the type of callous response that the Minister is

getting involved in, in making these kinds of statements?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected, but I

have no knowledge of the President of the Psychiatric Association calling me and

discussing an individual case. I would be extremely surprised if any

professional physician in the world were to call a Minister of the Crown to

discuss a specific case.

There are examples of ministers in Ontario and ministers in

Nova Scotia who had to resign their positions for simply mentioning an

individual who was receiving a certain kind of care. I would consider it to be

improper and inappropriate, and for the life of me I cannot recall having the

discussion that the hon. Member is talking about. But I certainly will go back

through the things that I have done in the last few weeks - because I might be

having a lapse of memory - but I cannot recall discussing a specific case of a

young fifteen year old person in central Newfoundland. One of us has either a

selective memory or is trying to make political points on someone's affliction.

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

MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I will check it out

and we will see what happens, but it is a little bit unbelievable that the

Minister of Health should be above somebody contacting him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - to let him know about their condition in

this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reminded hon. Members on several occasions

about our Standing Orders with respect to asking supplementary questions. In

particular Members know that they ought not to get into

preambles, but ask the

question. I have exercised a great degree of leniency with the hon. the Member,

and I would ask the hon. Member please to get to his question without any

preamble. Hon. members know that Question Period is not for debate, but for

soliciting information and holding the Government accountable.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me get the Minister's opinion on this. Is the Minister

aware that doctors we have spoken to - not only on this case, but on a variety

of different cases - have said that if a patient should die in these types of

circumstances, it is the doctor who is held responsible and not the Government.

Does the Minister have any idea of what he is doing to the morale of the medical

profession in this Province who cannot cope with the life and death situations

that they are being asked to make on a daily basis? Is he aware of that, or is

he above that as well, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, for seventeen years we had a

Government where, the way you got into an old age home was to call up your

member and say: jump the line. For seventeen years, Mr. Speaker, we had a

government where, if you wanted justice, you phoned up your member. For

seventeen years we had a government, Mr. Speaker, where, if you wanted to get a

road done you called your member and said, forget the road here and do that one

because so and so has it.

Now, the news to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today is

this: We have a Government which practices fairness and balance. We do not open

our hospital beds to someone who happens to know or not know the Minister. We

have a group of competent professionals in the health care system who admit

people into hospitals, who prescribe a treatment, Mr. Speaker, based on whether

or not that treatment is needed. Gone forever are the days when you got into a

hospital because you knew the minister or because you had a contact. If this is

what the hon. Member is insisting that we do, I am sorry, we are not going to do

that. I don't believe the people of Newfoundland expect or want us to do that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take that from a

Minister who has jumped every line he could, ahead of poor people in a hospital

waiting line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognized the hon. Member for a question.

MR. TOBIN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. I want to ask the Minister about a public

service competition for the position of Regional Motor Registration Deputy

Registrar located at the Registration Office in Grand Falls, Windsor.

Will the Minister confirm that Mr. Wilson Wiseman was

selected by the Public Service Commission as the top candidate for that

position, and will he also confirm that Mr. Wiseman was informed by the

Department's Director of Human Resources that he had been selected for the job?

AN HON. MEMBER: I know he ran.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. the Minister to take his place, please. I

would ask hon. Members, please, to refrain from making unnecessary and

provocative interjections. Question Period, as I have said, is for soliciting

answers. Members decide the decorum in this House and I would ask for hon.

Members' co-operation. It is the Chair's job to enforce the rules, but it also

requires the co-operation of hon. Members.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that position to which the hon. Member refers

became vacant and after analysis of that position within the Department, it was

decided that rather than fill the position a savings could be affected by

putting a person in there in an acting capacity and saving the other salary

unit, effecting savings to the Government. That is the situation right now. In

order to effect savings for the Government, to economise and have an efficient

operation, there is a person in the position, acting at the present time. The

position was not filled.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my

question. The question quite simply was: will he confirm that Mr. Wiseman was

selected by the Public Service Commission, and was also informed by the Director

of Human Resources? That is the question I want answered. Let me also ask the

Minister in that case, why did Cabinet overturn the Public Service Commission's

selection and the decision of the Department to appoint Mr. Wiseman?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was no decision

to overturn. This was a decision that was made by the Department to effect

savings. It was not a Cabinet decision. There was no overruling. There was no

position to fill because the position is filled on an acting basis, and another

position is frozen, thereby effecting savings. Therefore we do not need any

candidate who competed for that particular position.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why did he advertise the

position? And why doesn't he answer the question as to whether or not the Public

Service Commission had indeed recommended the hiring to your Department of Mr.

Wiseman as the number one candidate? Why doesn't he answer those questions?

Isn't it a fact that the person who has been appointed to the position is a

former campaign worker for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture? Isn't it a

fact that this Minister helped have Cabinet reverse the decision to hire Mr.

Wiseman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to confirm

anything with respect to the public service competition because the position was

not filled on a permanent basis. The Department decided to effect savings to

save money in these tight fiscal times so that we can open more hospital beds!

So that we can give more money to education! Every dollar I can save in my

Department so that we can direct it to the social recipients and health care of

this Province, every dollar which is needlessly spent in the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation, will be saved. So who competed and who came

out on top is totally irrelevant because the position has now been frozen. There

is a person in there acting. The Department is effecting savings. Until such

time as the position needs to be filled on a permanent basis it won't be. And,

Mr. Speaker, there was no decision for the Cabinet to reverse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin

-Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Minister what the

Public Service Commission said and who they recommended as number one in the

position -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Table it! Table it!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I'll table it! There it is right there.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Member for Carbonear answered the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - when he said he was a Tory!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: That is why he did not get the job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I make the same ruling to the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, that he is not supposed to be into debate. I have recognised him

on a supplementary and that is what the Chair wants to hear.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, based on what the Minister just

said about the Government saving money, the Minister said that the Government

did not fill the position because they wanted to save money. Since that person

who was hired in an acting position, and the position will not be filled, was a

person who gives driver examinations, will the Minister now confirm that as a

result of the person filling that position in a temporary capacity, or an acting

capacity, that the people in the Grand Falls - Windsor area served by that

office will now have to wait longer to have their driver's test and examination

given?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated we are effecting

savings by having the examiner's position frozen. If at such time in the future

it is determined that the volume of examinations warrants the unfreezing of that

position and the filling of that position, that action will then be taken at

that appropriate time. Then the public service will be instructed to hold a

competition. I will remind the hon. Member: we tell the Public Service

Commission which positions we want filled and for how long. They do not tell us

which positions to fill. They only hold a competition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the

Premier I would like to ask a question to whoever is speaking for the Minister

of Justice. Despite a number of requests in this House as to information

concerning an investigation by the police into allegations against the former

Minister of the Environment there is yet to be provided an explanation as to why

a complaint that was made in August of 1990 was apparently not investigated for

more than a year. I wonder if the House could be provided with an explanation?

Surely, enough time has passed, since the Premier and the Minister of Justice

were made officially aware of this in the first week in March, to have found the

answer to that question.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for St. John's East obviously must have been

absent from the House because if he would check his Hansard he will discover

that the Premier gave a detailed answer to that question. I cannot recall the

exact date off the top of my head but the explanation was that there was an

investigation done into the complaint that was lodged, that attempts were made

to set up meetings with the individual involved, and eventually the individual

indicated that she had got a lawyer and her lawyer was then going to provide

extra information, then the thing sat for a number of months. Now, that is my

recollection of the Premier's answer. In his answer he gave quite a detailed

list, giving dates and so on concerning what happened during that period, so,

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman to go back and read Hansard.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, not only have I read Hansard, I

was present in the House when the Premier gave the explanation. They were in

response to questions by me but the explanation was not a full explanation and

did not involve the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: The question, Mr. Speaker, is when will a

full explanation be given based on the real facts and not the facts that the

Premier has been assuming are the facts, but based on an investigation by his

Department, or by the Government, or by somebody in whom the public might have

confidence as to what really happened? Can the Minister say that his Government

will give a full explanation of this matter immediately, and if not give a full

explanation itself, provide some independent person to provide that explanation

because it appears, Mr. Speaker, that neither the Government nor the Minister of

Justice may be independent in this matter.

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

Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will attempt to ignore the slur at the end that was totally

inappropriate. What is happening in this case I will go over again for the

Member, slowly, because he has a poor memory. Right now there is a police

investigation ongoing. The Premier has answered questions in the House

concerning the events that have happened to date based on what he has been told

by the RNC, or that came up from the RNC. The Premier himself does not

personally investigate every case that comes before the RNC, so he can only rely

on information that he receives from the system. When the current investigation

is complete then, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we can comment on it. A police

investigation is ongoing and I do not know what the hon. Member is hoping to

accomplish by trying to get answers to things that are currently under police

investigation. I refuse to even discuss it any further.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in the House on Friday, March

20, the Premier said that he was aware that the original complaint was of

another matter, the full complaint, and that he undertook to find out whether or

not the full and proper investigation was done. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the

Government is prepared to insist in this House that they have already given a

full explanation can they not acknowledge at least that the public needs to have

more satisfaction than what has been given to this House, and that in fact an

investigation into a complaint that was made was carried out properly, was

carried out promptly, and because it was a complaint against a Minister of the

Crown that the public must have confidence in the administration of justice. Can

the Minister assure the House that that will be done?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from his question

that the Member is simply grandstanding at this point in time. A police

investigation is ongoing. The House has received assurances that what knowledge

we have of the investigation to this point in time that can be stated publicly

has been stated, that when the investigation is completed it will be handled in

the proper way by the people who should be handling the situation. Everything

will be done properly, but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot prejudge a police

investigation. We cannot prejudge what recommendations may come from that police

investigation, and we cannot even comment on what recommendations we think

should come from that police investigation.

What the hon. Member is asking me to do, himself being a

lawyer, is totally outrageous.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

Today down in Conne River there is an agreement being signed

between the Innu people of Conne River and the Federal Government concerning

direct funding. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House Leader. Some time

ago the President of the Innu Nation, representing the Innu of Davis Inlet and

Sheshatshit, suggested that they would prefer to have direct funding from the

Federal Government. I would like to ask the Minister: has the Province made a

request to the Federal Government agreeing that they would go along and agree

with the Innu Nation that direct funding should come from the Federal

Government?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that

situation differs from the hon. Member, and maybe we better get that straight.

My understanding was that the request was that the Innu Nation deal directly

with Ottawa and not deal with the Province. Therefore, they are not coming

through the Province and requesting that we do anything. So my understanding is

that that is the statement that was made by the representative of the Innu

Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on that today. I

will check into the situation and perhaps provide the hon. Member with a more

complete answer or attitude or opinion a little later, but I would not want to

comment on that today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

My question to the Minister is if the Innu Nation requests

that they want direct funding from the Federal Government instead of going

through the provincial bureaucracy, does the Minister agree and would this

Government co-operate with the Innu Nation in having this direct funding become

a reality? That is my question to the Minister.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is something obviously we

would be willing to discuss with the Innu Nation, our attitude towards it, and I

am not prepared to say at this point in time what it would be. However, Mr.

Speaker, what we have attempted to do in the last two years is to try to speed

up the process of land claims settlement, and our objective is to try to get

that process settled as quickly as possible.

I say in all sincerity to the hon. gentleman, maybe this

situation is very closely tied to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the queries from the hon. Leader of the

Opposition yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: This is Notices of Motion.

MR. HOGAN: Oh, I am sorry. I thought it was Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Could I have the protection of the Chair, Mr.

Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't need the protection of the

Chair, Bill.

MR. HOGAN: I need protection, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the query from my hon. colleague from the

District of Grand Falls - Windsor, I would like to respond to his queries

yesterday regarding assessment in the municipality of Grand Falls - Windsor.

Prior to the 1992 re-assessment, the Town of Grand Falls

assessed values were established using July 1985 as the base year. These values

were adjusted to base year January 1, 1991 which reflects a five and a half year

increase in values. The Windsor portion of the municipality prior to

re-assessment was assessed using January 1989 as the base year. This was also

adjusted to 1991 figures. Thus, with the amalgamation of Grand Falls and Windsor

there was a three and a half year spread at that time between the base values in

both municipalities.

With the amalgamation of Grand Falls and Windsor, the new

town in 1991 used a split mil rate. The Windsor portion was charged at eleven

mils based on 1989 values, while the Grand Falls area was charged with eight

point nine mils based on the 1985 values. With the 1992 re-assessment, all

properties were adjusted to the new base year of 1991 and the municipality

established a mil rate for 1992 at eight point nine mils.

This new mil rate reflects a two point one mil reduction for

property owners living in the Windsor area and no reduction in the mil rate for

property owners who resided in the Grand Falls

section of the municipality.

This, of course, combined with the five and a half year spread in assessed

values created a large tax increase within the Grand Falls

section of the new

municipality. All properties in the municipality have been assessed at fair

market value based on 1991 values as determined by an in-depth sales analysis on

all property transactions within the municipality.

During the twenty-one day appeal period in the municipality

of Grand Falls - Windsor, there were three assessors assigned to the town office

every working day to answer any inquiries by property owners, for which the town

and municipalities were very grateful, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past years, the assessment division has been faced

with a six year re-assessment cycle. Due to the large numbers of new

municipalities requesting initial assessments in recent years, plus the

maintaining of the existing assessment rolls, the division has been unable to

shorten this cycle. At present the assessment division is in the process of

installing a computer assisted mass appraisal system, and once all conversion is

completed, which is estimated to take from three to four years, it will be

possible to reduce the re-assessment cycle from its current six year spread to

three years, or even lower if necessary.

If my hon. friends across the way cannot understand that, I

will reduce it to baby talk on the next answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I thank the Minister for what seems like an

extract from one of the books over there - the departmental manuals or

something. I knew all of that information. My question was, will he send his

Director of Assessments out to meet with the committee? That was my question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I though the question was for an

explanation of the vast differences and changes in the increased assessment.

That was one.

The second -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I will start again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOGAN: The question that was asked of me yesterday

was of the vast differences in the assessments that were made this year in the

new municipality of Grand Falls - Windsor, and I thought I explained that in

that.

The second part of the question was: would we send someone

out there? We have had, in fact, somebody out there now for two to three weeks -

three assessors working in the council office at the request of the council.

The third part of the question, which the hon. Member just

reminded me of - if he wants someone else sent out there, I will do that for him

too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition just

got up on a point of clarification, and the Minister responded accordingly.

Petitions

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

Capes.

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

I have a petition from the residents of Mall Bay, and from

looking at the signatures, I would say, all of the residents of Mall Bay, to the

hon. House, requesting upgrading and paving of a stretch of road leading from

the main road through St. Mary's Bay to the community of Mall Bay.

Over the last month or so, since we have had some mild

weather, the road to Mall Bay has become practically impassable. During one

period last week, the school buses could not travel, the school children could

not get to school in St. Mary's; the ambulance could not travel over the road,

the mail could not be delivered. On top of that, the community, itself has no

post office, the mail is rural delivery and there are no stores in this small

community of Mall Bay, presently, so anything at all that the people need, from

school, to church, to medical assistance, to the post office, to the average

need from the general store, the people have to travel over the four-mile

stretch to the main highway.

The road, itself is a relatively solid road, ordinarily, it

is over dry barrens so it is not through bog land; however, where we had a fair

amount of snow in that area during the winter and a quick thaw a week or so ago,

as the snow banks melted on the side, the drains were all blocked, of course,

and all the water ran back onto the road, causing the road to become extremely

soft. Since then, we have had a colder period of weather and the road has dried

up somewhat. It is still extremely rough, but as the frost starts going out of

the road in the next few weeks, as it does every spring, that road will once

again become practically impassable or impassable.

For the last three years, we have requested from the

Department of Highways, that this be our priority for road work in the district.

It is not a great hardship on either the local unit or the department,

generally, to maintain the road, because right now it is the only piece of road

in St. Mary's - The Capes that is not paved, with the exception of the piece

that is under construction or being paved, actually, between North Harbour and

Branch, the road across the country, but every community in the district of St.

Mary's - The Capes, except Mall Bay, now has a paved road to it, and for the

past three years, no capital funding at all has gone into the district.

Now, the minister, in his response, might say, That is true,

but you can't complain because in the previous x number of years you did very

well, and I would say to the minister, that is so. However, I would also say to

him that, preceding the coming of the Tories to St. Mary's - The Capes in 1971,

in a district where the near end is only about forty miles from the capital city

of St. John's and going the other way, up the Southern Shore route, perhaps

about eighty miles from St. John's, it was not until 1971, following the coming

of the Tories into power, that one inch of pavement was laid in St. Mary's - The

Capes. So don't give me this: You know, you got a lot - that doesn't make any

difference. And I am not pointing any fingers, all I am saying is that for the

past three years, not one cent has been spent on capital funding in St. Mary's -

The Capes.

Maybe, in the allocations, it was determined that that road

was not a priority compared to others in the Province, but somewhere along the

line, it has to fit into the scene. Certainly, somewhere along the line, the

district has to fit into the capital funding scheme of the new administration.

So, what we are asking now, is that in the present Budget that is coming up, and

in the minister's present allocation, that he consider for funding - not only

consider but have on his list of projects for this year, the upgrading and

paving of the main road through River Head in St. Mary's Bay down to Mall Bay, a

solid community where people work hard; they fish and they work in the fish

plant. They ask very little from government, in fact, the only thing they ask

for is to have their road upgraded and paved.

So I present this petition and a covering letter to the

minister on behalf of the residents, and request that the minister, in his

planning, consider this to be one of his priorities for the capital works

program for this coming year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I would like

to speak in support of the petition presented by my colleague for St. Mary's -

The Capes regarding the condition of the road in Mall Bay.

I am familiar with the area, know where Mall Bay is, and have

great respect for the men and women who live in that community. I feel they are

deserving of having road improvements made. It is unfortunate that for three

years this government has not seen fit to spend one cent of the Provincial

budget in the St. Mary's - The Capes district, almost as bad as in Burin -

Placentia West district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not one cent in St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that I believe there is a fair amount of pork barrelling

going on as it relates to the allocation of provincial funding. I believe this

minister has the potential to be an expert in pork barrelling. We saw today a

prime example of what happens to someone they do not want to get a job. The

interference in that department today, the interference by the Minister of

Agriculture, is no different from the interference by the Member for Port de

Grave when he was Minister of Social Services. There is no difference. It was

political interference in both cases. He gave up his seat for the Premier, he

will survive. The Member for Port de Grave didn't, and he got kicked out of

Cabinet. There is no difference in what is happening in terms of the pork

barrelling that is going on in this government.

I hope the government will look very seriously at the need

for road improvements in this Province, and do it in an extremely fair and

balanced way in terms of the allocation of funding. It is extremely important

that the government look upon the needs of all the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Included in that would be the people of Mall Bay. It is alright -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of -

MR. MATTHEWS: The Maw Mouth, call him. Say it, say it.

Say: What's wrong with Old Maw Mouth?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Mall Bay,

not Maw Mouth, so I would ask the member to be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great need for road improvements in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I join with my colleague for St.

Mary's - The Capes, and, as the official spokesman for transportation in our

caucus, ask the minister if he will give every consideration in the upcoming

Budget, to looking after the needs of the people of this Province who need road

improvements, including the petition so ably presented by my colleague.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West,

the transportation critic, should be so quick to criticise the Minister of

Finance with respect to his concern for Mall Bay. In fact, the Minister of

Finance advises me that the first time Mall Bay actually had its name read on

the radio in Newfoundland and Labrador was by the Minister of Finance back in

1968, when he was advocating road repairs for that particular community - way

back in 1968. Now, unfortunately, he advises me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: - that at that time - yes, that's the Minister

of Finance - yes, he was still a Conservative at that particular time. That was

before he had -

AN HON. MEMBER: What? No! (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Yes, before he had seen the light.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GOVER: So he has been pressing this issue since that

particular time way back in 1968, as a Conservative. Of course, I am sure the

hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes when he was a member and a minister,

advocated the need of that particular community, and I guess their

administration must have found that the need for Mall Bay was not as great as

the need in other areas, considering the road had not been done under their

administration.

But as the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West indicated,

the principles of this administration are fairness and balance, and it really

makes no difference whether the district is represented by a Conservative, a

Liberal, a New Democrat or any other party, the roads in that particular

district will receive the same treatment regardless of the stripe of the member

they send to the House of Assembly.

I can assure the hon. member that every consideration will be

given to this particular

section of road, as to its need in relation to the

needs of the other roads in the rest of the Province. Every consideration will

be given to it, and we will know those conclusions shortly. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Shall we revert to Petitions? The Chair called and nobody

stood. The Chair cannot wait, obviously.

Petitions.

The Chair has called for petitions.

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 106 people of Great

Harbour Deep, I present this petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think maybe the hon. member may have - I ask the hon.

member to take his place, please. The hon. member presented a petition to the

Clerk this morning for his approval of the petition, because the petition is not

according to the format required by the House. I say to hon. members that the

petition is not according to the format designed by the House, that it petitions

the government as opposed to petitioning the House of Assembly, and the subject

matter relates to inadequacy of bursaries for students in certain communities. I

ask whether the hon. member has leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I think Your Honour is saying it is not

according to Hoyle, it is according to Noel. If that is correct, then that is

fine with us.

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

Bay has approval, and we will not take that time out.

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

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, 'We, the undersigned, humbly

petition the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase

the provincial bursary for high school students forced to live in communities

other than their own communities on the present $235 a month to $400. We feel

that the current amount is inadequate for even the board of these students,

excluding other expenses such as transportation to and from isolated areas, and

telephone bills which are excessive, due to loneliness of very young students,

sometimes as young as fourteen years of age.'

I support this petition, Mr. Speaker, because Grades IX, X

and XI students, through no fault of their own, have to move away from Harbour

Deep to attend high school because there is no high school in Great Harbour

Deep. This is a great cost to their fathers and mothers, and it is very

difficult for students to get back and forth home. So I support them in asking

for an increase in the bursary to these students. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

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

I stand in support of the petition so ably presented by the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. People who live in areas where they are not

accessible to certain things such as schools, go through tremendous trauma.

Young children - even though you might say they are not young when you are

talking about high school, they are still young children. And when they have to

leave their homes to go away and board, then it has a tremendous amount, I

suppose, of concern that goes along with it. They, themselves do not like going

away from home. The parents are concerned about their future, wondering about

their kids and how they are going to do away from the home environment.

One of the other problems besides this, which is probably the

main one, is the ability of parents to fund their children to be able to stay

away from the home in other areas. Years ago when you could go somewhere and get

board for a couple of dollars a day, you would get your room and meals, that has

changed considerably. A lot of people in this day and age, number one, do not

want to take in boarders, and number two, will usually do it only if it is

monetarily worth their doing it, and it is hard to blame them for doing that.

With the cost of books, tuition, travelling, telephone calls, and what have you,

it is an expensive proposition to send your child away from home. Consequently,

I do not think we have tried to increase the bursaries over the years, and

certainly I do not think we have kept up at all with the escalating costs

associated with such travel and having to leave home to go to school.

However, there is another side to that, in this day and age

in most parts of the Province thank God we have good transportation and

communication systems, and most people who years ago had to do such travelling

to go to high schools or even to travel to write exams, etc., all that has been

eliminated by our more modern and upgraded modes and means of transportation, so

there is a flow back and forth from the small community to the centralized

school, etc. There are still some areas where that is impossible and maybe this

is the type of situation that should be looked at in relation to the distance

education programs which have been and are being developed.

I understand the program that was started a couple of years

ago in math, then physics, has caught on tremendously well. The success rate has

been fabulous. The children who have taken the courses have done better than the

average child in regular schools across the Province and that says a lot for the

people in the Department of Education. I also understand, however, that perhaps

the Minister and his Department may not be putting enough money into that to

keep up with the demands and the expansion because of the different years that

are now involved. I suggest to the Minister, in light of the coming Budget, and

in light of places such as Round Harbour, Harbour Deep, and other areas that are

involved for the children - along the Labrador Coast is another example where

the children have to travel to go away to school, perhaps with our modern day

technology and a few extra dollars we can address the needs of these children

right in their own community where they are under the watchful eyes of their

parents. The costs that are associated here will not be a concern and the

provision of education to the children will be there for them as it should be

anywhere in the Province.

I certainly support the petition, Mr. Speaker. Anyway at all

we can assist in furthering the education of our children, I think we should

look at. I agree with the Members's statement and I know the Minister is going

to say that if we have a future in the Province then the best investment we can

make is in our children.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay for his presentation and thank the hon. Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes for his very appropriate comments on that petition.

In the last decade or so we have done a great deal to promote

greater equality of educational opportunity in this Province. We have bigger

schools for a variety of reasons and we have achieved a great deal but there are

still some students, Mr. Speaker, who do not have equal opportunity and we must

find every way possible to help these students. In fact there are going to be

small schools in this Province for a long time, small and necessary schools.

Perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago we had as many as 1200 schools and we now

have 515 or 520 but there are going to be a number of areas where we cannot

centralize schools, we cannot provide bus transportation, so we must look at

other means.

I compliment the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on his

comments on distance education. It has tremendous potential to help students who

want to remain in their community and who must remain in small schools. I am

looking forward to expanding that in the future. I cannot comment on any

expansion this year, or when it will come, but we must expand that program. Now,

having said that, Mr. Speaker, there are some students who will still need

bursaries. I think the number this year is about eighty-three. If I recall

correctly, and perhaps the President of Treasury Board can - the Minister of

Finance is gone, but I know in our first year here, Mr. Speaker, we increased

the amount from $175 a month to $225. I think in 1987 it was put to $1750.00 a

year for ten months. That is not a large figure and that was the figure when I

became the Minister. The first year I remember distinctly arguing for a major

increase, a 30 per cent increase, in that bursary. It went to $22.50, if I

recall. Then the next year we added another ten dollars, a year or so ago we

added another ten dollars. Not enough, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, but we did make a

genuine effort to increase.

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and we will do

everything possible to respond to that request. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

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

Elections, Controverted Elections and Election Financing." (Bill No. 1)

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: It is nice to have an opportunity to

continue, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about a piece of legislation that is

now before this hon. House. For some reason our hon. friends opposite haven't

participated in this debate. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and this hon.

House, that this is a very, very good piece of legislation, well documented,

well written and well put together, even though we have had some presentations

at Committee level that some people wanted to add to and/or delete. But, by and

large, this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is a landmark. Now, it may not be

seen as a landmark by some people.

AN HON. MEMBER: But it is.

MR. MURPHY: But it is. Of course it is. It may not be

seen to be a landmark because of, I suppose, the old practices that went on

years ago, what was done at elections and things that were accepted that can no

longer be accepted. The public of this Province and/or any other province would

surely not tolerate some of the things that were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, we will talk about that now shortly.

Mr. Speaker, if I might refer the hon. members to the proxy

area of the legislation. I think this is an exceptionally good idea. It gives

the individual -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. MURPHY:

Section 86, page 37, I say to the hon.

Member.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be distracted.

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. Member for Fogo - he

needs to be reminded - I know he is a rooky. I understand this is the hon.

Member's first term, as it is this hon. Member's first term.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he is lost.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I just want to remind the hon. Member

that your colleagues had seventeen consecutive years to bring in this type of

legislation but did not have, as your former, former leader said, the political

courage. Okay? So, the best thing for the hon. Member to do is sit in his place

and say nothing or leave the House, one or the other. All right?

The proxy section, Mr. Speaker, obviously gives those who,

through no fault of their own cannot be present, an opportunity to participate

in an election and vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of what

political party they are affiliated with. I think this is a refreshing part of

the electoral process in 1992 and it shows that this caring Government has

delved into this kind of thing and brought forward this type of legislation.

I refer hon. members to

section 105. I think this is a

section that needed to be inserted. Over the years it has been my experience,

Mr. Speaker, that there have been many occasions when one would sometimes

question, in a polling station, the right of persons.

Section 105 deals with

that. The thing I like in here, Mr. Speaker, is, for the first time ever anybody

who is not on a voter's list, still have to swear and they also have to provide

appropriate identification. What it is worth, I would say, to the hon. member is

this. It means that you can be sure that those who vote in that election have a

right to vote. We all know they have a responsibility to vote. That is the

democracy we all belong to, but they have a right to vote, and I have been

informed - I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I have been informed - that this may

or may not have been abused over the years. It may have been abused.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I will tell you what. Let me suggest

this to the hon. Member. Not only would I be elected, but I would be elected by

a much greater margin.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Or probably three. I am

going to deal with that, I am going to talk about that, if the Member will only

hold his patience. Somebody told me that the land is on the shore and there are

a lot of seals to be seen, and one thing and another. I am surprised that the

hon. Member is in his place. I figured he would be out today looking for a

licence to kill his seal. He would be looking for a licence to kill his seal. He

would have a pier head jump on a punt, with his kit bag over his back, looking

for somewhere to build his bunk. However, I will leave the hon. Member to his

own way to solve the problem.

Now I am not disagreeing with him. I think there is a lot of

merit in what the hon. Member said. Putting it in place is where I might

disagree with him. It is very difficult to get everybody to get a seal.

Now there are hon. members on this side who are totally

competent and capable - all hon. members on this side are totally competent and

capable - but I would be very leery about some of my colleagues on this side

jumping on an ice floe and trying to get that seal that the hon. Member

suggests. With a background in occupational health and safety, I want to tell

the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern that there is nothing in this Act

that protects him. There is nothing in any act that protects him but I, somehow

or another, have great problems with the Member for Pleasantville jumping on the

ice floes trying to capture a seal.

MR. NOEL: Is that right?

MR. MURPHY: He may very well capture the seal, and he may

very well have the seal and have it prepared. Now he might have some difficulty

getting ashore with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is insulting the great Province of

Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: That is right.

MR. MURPHY: I am not insulting anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes you are. You are making fun of

(inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I am not making fun of anybody. I just

want the hon. Member to know, as I said, that his idea had merit. His idea had

merit, but the problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I said no such thing, and the hon. Member

should be reminded that Newfoundlanders are probably - not probably - are the

most skilled fisherpersons in Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: I should hope so.

MR. MURPHY: In Atlantic Canada, in Canada, if not the

world - including the Member for Pleasantville. That is right - including the

hon. Member for Pleasantville. Before I was sidetracked, and that is what the

hon. Member is in the House for - trying to sidetrack all the time.

There is a whole

section here, and I refer hon. members who

are interested to

Section 138 on Counting, Reporting and Security of Votes. We

all remember, and the hon. Member for Humber West, and the hon. Member for St.

Barbe and that area, remember the days when there was nothing obviously defined

that a returning officer who had all kinds of election experiences decided to

put a match - like they do in the papacy - put a match to the ballots after the

decision has been made. So that could not happen any more.

Just a small interjection of what that caused at that

particular time, it was a tremendous embarrassment to everybody, and this piece

of legislation looks after entirely the securing and counting of ballots.

Again there are other areas throughout this piece of

legislation that take away the questions that have never been answered before,

that take place on election day. When you go through the type of election that I

went through, you do not need these kinds of problems during election day.

There is another one here I like, Mr. Speaker, on recounts.

Now this piece of legislation defines it takes the cost away from those

candidates who have elections that are very, very close and, "a judge shall,

within two days after the recount or a final addition, certify the result to the

returning officer." Subsection two, 'In the case of votes, the seat is vacant

and the provisions of the Act,' and

section three, "An election held under," and

it goes on, "The costs of the recount or final additions are at the discretion

of the judge." So if some hon. member should be in a close election, by the way

this particular legislation also decides on when a recount should take place. So

there is no need of an application of cost and what have you. So that is

certainly another step in the right direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well I know who is on my side, Mr. Speaker. I

know who is on my side, but little did I realize how much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let there be light.

MR. MURPHY: Let there be light.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I did not realize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I am glad to see the hon. member. I miss his

melodious voice. It is nice to see he is here in the House with us today, and I

am sure that hon. member is very interested in this piece of legislation. I

think he spoke, actually.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Was the hon. member in Grand Falls yesterday?

Well it just goes to show you that the hon. member is also doing business

outside the city. He was in Grand Falls yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: And so you should be. Well, that is business.

But I am sure that the hon. member, the only sitting member for the NDP party,

is very, very enthusiastic about this piece of legislation because what this

legislation does is it gives his party an equal footing, and, Mr. Speaker, we

all know that his party certainly needs an equal footing. There may be one small

problem for the NDP, they must disclose where their money and where their

funding comes from.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will never do it.

MR. MURPHY: Now, you know, when you think about that you

may find that some of the work - the rank and file people in this Province who

pay union dues, Mr. Speaker, will find that some of their union dues are going

in a direction that they did not know, but this piece of legislation will clear

that up.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will correct it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Well it should, and if it does not I

refer hon. members to

section 192 where a person is guilty of an offence. So I

would suggest that all those people who run, have campaign organizations and

receive funding and/or monies from wherever will have to ensure that the funding

and money is receipted, duly noted, and audited. Now that may present some

problems to some hon. members who are affiliated with some parties. They may not

want to disclose where cars come from, they may not want to disclose where

gasoline comes from.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where what comes from? Cars?

MR. MURPHY: Cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why cars?

MR. MURPHY: Well, it has been suggested that these are

the types of things that have been left out and no longer does this legislation

give the room for that to be left out. It is contribution in services and/or in

coin. So some parties and some candidates - What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Some parties and some candidates maybe, even

though on the surface this legislation looks good to them, they may find that it

is cumbersome. They may find that it is not easy to explain where certain groups

of people who may need to go to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

and receive certification documents to become recognized through another piece

of legislation in this House that certain parties might find that contributions

from that end of the world will have to be audited and will have to be shown.

So, even though this piece of legislation should be

attractive to the NDP party, it may be somewhat of an embarrassment to the NDP

party if they do not do what every other large party has done historically over

the years.

Now that brings me, Mr. Speaker, up to an area of financing.

Election Finances,

section 265, it talks about the district association....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: NDP? I am afraid that I would be chastised by

the Chair if I responded to the hon. Member's question. So I will have to hide -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is over my head. The hon. Member for

St. John's East is dead right, it is over my head. As a matter of fact the hon.

Member was not here yesterday, and I remember distinctly the other day he asked

me - it wasn't dealing with this. But just as a point to answer him, he said:

was this hon. Member afraid of the NDP Party? I want to openly admit that this

Member is terrified of the NDP Party. I refer the hon. Member to an

article in

The Globe and Mail of a few weeks ago where it talked about the NDP Party and

their billion dollar move last year in Ontario and the impact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Pardon? Yes. The public is terrified, Canada

is terrified. Subsequently, that move - and the hon. Member knows this - they

are sliding. The Tories were bragging about the slide that the NDP was taking in

the polls. So everybody has to pay very serious attention to election finances.

Now for the first time ever this Government has the courage.

We will issue receipts. I want to say this to all hon. Members, both in the

House and out of the House, we will have to issue receipts for political

contributions. Now these contributions of course, Mr. Speaker, for the first

time ever will be tax free contributions. There will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Where do the NDP get their money? Well, I

have no idea where the NDP gets their money. Perhaps the hon. Member will stand

in his place and tell us where the NDP gets their funding. It will be very

interesting to find out where they do get their funding. Extremely interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, the Party may not have any money, but

that is not the word about the hon. Member. The word on the street is the hon.

Member is loaded. He is loaded. The reason being, the other statement is that

the hon. Member, as we used to say when we went to St. Bon's, still has his Holy

Communion money. Now that is not suggesting that the hon. Member is thrifty or

tight or anything of that nature, but the hon. Member is loaded. I do not mean

that in a derogatory way but in a monetary sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he have more money than John Efford?

MR. MURPHY: No. There is no question. I want to inform

the hon. Member for Carbonear, there is no question. The hon. Member for Port de

Grave is supposed to have a few dollars. But he would never come close to the

Member for St. John's East, Mr. Speaker, not even close. I would suggest to the

hon. Member that the Member for St. John's East pays more income tax than the

hon. Member receives.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt that.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I have only been suggesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only difference is (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now there is the second, now, the second

runner-up. Now, here is the second runner-up, Mr. Speaker. We know who is first.

The undisputed winner is the Member for St. John's East. Absolutely. I mean, the

hon. Member for St. John's East could contribute the maximum amount to every

Member in this hon. House and would not even miss it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I do not know. The hon. Member would

have to answer that himself. I have no idea if he has a lot of property, or he

does not have a lot of property. People say that the hon. Member has houses and

houses. People say that he has property. Well that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) most of the people are

tenants.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Somebody said that the only reason the

hon. Member got elected in St. John's East, was that 90 per cent of his vote

were tenants. Now that could be or could not be.

But however, Mr. Speaker, I think what we have before us in

Bill 1 is a piece of legislation that will forever in time give all hon.

Members, regardless of political stripe, regardless if they have a political

party to want to affiliate with, whether they are on their own or whatever, they

all have the opportunity to have fairness and balance associated with their run

to the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of time and effort went into the

preparation of this document, and I don't know, in three years, if we have seen

a piece of legislation as large or as comprehensive as this piece of

legislation. A lot of time and effort have gone into it and I want to

congratulate the Table, not only in Committee, but in preparation. There have

been people at the Table who have put a lot of time into this document. There

have been all kinds of people who put time and effort into this document. And

there have been some abrasive members in this House, who have tried to tear down

this document, who, in between planting and picking, found a way to this House,

to try to disrupt and discourage and torment and tantalize.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: If he is, he is getting paid for it, but I

remind the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I am working on that, too. I am working

on the healthy community situation; we will change that very shortly. There will

be no retainers, I can assure the hon. member. His time is nigh, because, Mr.

Speaker, like this piece of legislation, the hon. member needs to know - there

is an old saying: 'What goes around, comes around,' and when you stand in this

House, when you are elected, you stand in this House with the protection of this

House, Mr. Speaker, and you take shots, you take cheap shots and you take

political shots at hon. members opposite, who, have worked just as long and just

as hard to try to come in here to represent their districts, and without one

ounce, not one piece of proof, only an accusation, and try to make brownie

points - trust me, and I know the hon. member for St. John's East Extern knows

where I am coming from, because he is a Christian gentleman. I have nothing but

the most respect for him and I know he agrees, what goes around comes around and

the day is not far away, Mr. Speaker, when this hon. House will see those who

have tried to take political advantage of situations in the last couple of days,

will pay the piper. And trust me, Mr. Speaker, just as surely as we are all

sitting and standing here - just wait and see; the hon. member may smirk and

laugh, but when the smirk is on the other side of his face, he won't be so

great.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and don't be so foolish!

MR. MURPHY: Oh, don't be so foolish! He will find out who

is foolish. He did the same thing with another hon. member, but that will be

cleaned and cleared up very soon, so the hon. member should find his way up over

Shea Heights tonight -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a threat, Tom?

MR. MURPHY: No, it is not a threat, it is a promise. It's

a promise, no threat. I wouldn't threaten the hon. member, I wouldn't want him

staying awake for twenty-four consecutive hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: He looks bad enough now.

MR. MURPHY: That's right. I wouldn't want to do anything

to his appearance - he needs all the help and sleep he can get.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me say in

conclusion, that this is a landmark piece of legislation that will go down in

the history of this House as being one of the best pieces of legislation

associated with elections, not only in Newfoundland, but across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I would like to have a few words on this elections act, but

before I do so, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to address

something that the hon. the Member for St. John's South said. I know perhaps it

was said in a jovial manner, and we need a joke every now and then, but there

are things out there that some of us joke about that are not funny, and I know

the hon. the Member for Port de Grave will agree.

He mentioned the seals. Seals have always been a traditional

food for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I want to remind the hon. gentleman

that if the hon. the Member for Pleasantville wanted to go today to get a seal

license - and he can bowl, so he can throw a rock on the ice and perhaps kill

the seal - it would cost him twenty-five dollars to get that license. He can

only go in the boat if there is a bonafide fisherman with him.

Now, what I am talking about is very simple. Do you think

that people out there, who are in need of this food, should have to pay

twenty-five dollars to get a license to go out and kill the seals that are

really close to our shores, that are part of our history, part of our tradition?

What I am saying is there is a need out there, and no matter the need, it just

can't be accommodated. That is all I am saying and I will repeat that over and

over.

MR. MURPHY: I am only talking about seals, boy.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and I am sure the hon. the Member for

Pleasantville is as nimble on his feet as the hon. the Member for St. John's

South. Now, I don't know what that is saying about the poor Member for

Pleasantville.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say a few words. I think there was

certainly a need for a new elections act. I think there were a lot of

discrepancies and I think there are still some discrepancies here, but I

suppose, through committees and whatever, some of these discrepancies can be

ironed out.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for very long, it is

only going to be for a few minutes. I was surprised because of the initiative

taken by government in this new elections act, which will govern all elections

and electoral districts, whatever, that there wasn't some provision - I was

surprised and really disappointed, Mr. Speaker - that a committee be struck to

determine if the number of members in the House really addresses the need.

Mr. Speaker, in 1949 we had thirty-six members, I believe,

and in 1992 we have fifty-two. Now, Mr. Speaker, if some government, looking at

it from a political point of view, wanted to create another district then I

think there should have been a committee appointed, struck from the House, to

oversee this provision. Now, Mr. Speaker, I could certainly entertain a change

to have a lesser number. I am not sure that we need fifty-two members from this

Province. I am not sure at all. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no way if, tomorrow,

this government or the governments in the future wanted to, that they could not

increase that number.

Mr. Speaker, it is done again on most occasions - and perhaps

the party that I am a part of is just as much at fault as anyone else. I think

there should be a committee of this House struck, perhaps even with some outside

intervention, to make sure that at least we do not go any further, at least

fifty-two would be the status quo for not only the immediate future but for

many, many years to come. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend strongly that

this committee would look into and debate whether or not it is necessary to

burden the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with the cost of running this

Assembly with the present fifty-two members.

Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be some provision. I hope the

House Leader is listening to what I have to say, to the recommendation that a

committee be struck, and that it would be advantageous for this House to remain

stable and the numbers not go beyond the realm of sanity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to have only a few words on this bill, as well,

along with my colleague and, someone told me, my cousin from St. John's East

Extern.

A lot of things have been said about the bill, itself

already, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the fact that it is a new and major initiative

of this government. It is something that has been talked about, not just by the

previous government, but by governments prior to them. It takes a while for a

bill to come together, but I think all hon. members will be pleased with the new

legislation regardless of where it started from or who initiated it. I think it

has been talked about for years and years and it is good to see it has finally

reached the floor of the House of Assembly,

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of areas of the bill that I

would like to touch on. One in particular is candidate endorsements. Far too

often, and in the last election, I found myself trapped in a situation where

people were not quite sure who the candidate was. I knew that I was the

candidate for my party. I believe my friends in the NDP ran a Tim Walsh because

they could not find a Jim Walsh. I do not know if there is any truth to that but

some hon. members on the other side mentioned that to me. There was an

independent candidate as well, Mr. Speaker, who ran at the time who had been a

prior member of the House of Assembly. He ran as an independent and I found it a

little difficult because his literature and mine were very much alike and the

impression was left that he was the candidate of my party, and there was no such

thing as an official endorsement so that people would know the difference.

Now, there was no trouble knowing who the PC candidate was.

That was a chap by the name of Merle Vokey, although I have seen documentation

lately that said otherwise, but I believe it was a Merle Vokey, an honourable

gentleman and a pleasure to run against, not necessarily a pleasure to have

defeated in the election, but he ran a very good and clean campaign. I think it

is very important that endorsements by the parties you are representing will be

a part of it, and I think that is something that is not just innovative but

something that we should have in the Bill and I am glad to see it is there.

In terms of the parties endorsement a registered party may

with respect to an election give its endorsement to only one candidate in each

electoral district. Where a candidate has been given the endorsement of a

registered party that also means that the candidate has the opportunity of

having that endorsement on the ballot itself so that we can stand behind not

only the campaign in the election we are running but also stand behind the

history and the deeds that our parties have put forward. I can say, Mr. Speaker,

without any degree of question that I am looking forward to having the name of

my party behind my name in the next election, so I think those endorsements are

very important. The fact that a candidate will stand up and declare that he

represents a party regardless of what party it is, I think, is important as

well.

There are a number of areas in there also, Mr. Speaker, in

terms of the rights of the candidate, and I think, although in previous

elections most of the rights were similar to what they are here, but it defines

very clearly for all of those, in

Section 101, that a candidate may personally

undertake the duties that his or her scrutineer, if appointed, might have

undertaken, or the candidate may assist his or her scrutineer in the performance

of those duties and may be present at a place at which his or her scrutineer is

authorized to attend. I think it spells it out very clearly because in the last

election a number of candidates I know were having problems as to whether or not

they were permitted to enter polling stations, and whether or not they could

spend time in the polling stations, and whether they could even represent

themselves at the end of the day for the count of the vote. In some particular

polling stations where things may not have been exactly the way they should

have, or in areas where throughout the day the candidate, or his people, may

have been concerned about some of the activities that took place. I think it is

important that the candidate himself may have the opportunity to enter that

polling station and be there and act as his own scrutineer so that he can get a

better understanding.

Again I reflect on my own election. In one particular polling

station during the recount - and it was actually the very first poll that we

counted, my opponent had sixty-odd votes and I had seventy-eight and there was

some question as to whether or not the votes had been counted right and whether

there had been some irregularities that day, to find that after counting the

vote they had my numbers reversed. Instead of having actually seventy-eight

votes I had eighty-seven votes, and instead of winning the election by

twenty-seven votes it actually went up to thirty-seven so those kind of things

can happen in the run of a day. We were aware right from the time the polls

opened, within two hours, that there were apparent problems in that polling

station, and sure enough we found that the numbers we had acquired at the end of

the day were not exactly what they should have been. We had every right to have

concern because there were ten votes there that we had missed. One of the other

aspects of this Bill that other speakers have mentioned that is also important

is the fact that the automatic recount is there and that a candidate and those

who have endorsed him within his party, and those who have worked for him during

the - well, twenty-one days at that time, now an expanded mandate - will know

that they do not have to be concerned that if the vote was ten or less whether

or not there will be a recount or whether or not their candidate has to force

the issue. It will now be automatic.

Some people might wonder why ten votes, I guess, was a number

that the Committee selected, or appears in the Bill. Mr. Speaker, historically

we know of no election that has been overturned where there were more than ten

votes acquired by the winning candidate. Rarely has it occurred where there have

been less than ten. My hon. friend in St. John's South actually doubled his vote

in his recount. He went up by 100 per cent, albeit, he went from a one vote to a

two vote victory. But victory is sweet even at the count of two.

But those kinds of recounts will become automatic. I think

that becomes important too, so that you do not have to wonder about should I or

should I not do it, or pressure from people outside. Again, the number ten being

selected mostly because of the fact that no one has lost an election on a

recount with ten or more votes.

Something new and something a little different also that

appears in this particular piece of legislation is the proxy vote. When a person

produces to an election officer a proxy certificate entitling him or her to vote

on behalf on another elector, under

Section 86, at the polling station, that

person may vote for the elector in the same manner as the elector could vote.

Now under

Section 86 they are allowed to do that for one person. So we will not

see someone at the polling station with nine or ten proxies in their pocket so

that they can vote for a group. They will be there to represent either someone

in their family who, on that particular day, through illness or, as the Act

says, a fisherman who, pray God, will be on the water trying to derive a

livelihood for him and his family, that they may not be there. They tend to go

out early in the morning and they come back late at night. Sometimes they

actually miss a vote because of that.

Well, the spouse now or some member of their family can

represent them at the polling station. That would allow that vote to count. The

irony of it is, as I said, that that proxy vote becomes very important. I think

the other thing to understand too is that that vote is simply there for one

person.

One of the areas that I think is extremely important in this

legislation is the expenses that politicians and candidates have to go through.

One of the areas that has caused great concern is the election expenses itself.

More particularly, the amount of funds that candidates and their representatives

have to spend in terms of advertising and being able to promote themselves

during a particular election. I was absolutely amazed in the last election that

our companies -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Oh, a nominal amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three thousand dollars?

MR. WALSH: Less than $3,000, I believe, somewhere in that

area, to win my seat. Less than that. I did not really need it. I suppose if I

had spent more I probably would have gotten more votes. But I spent the required

amount and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: No, no, didn't need any more money than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) votes?

MR. WALSH: Oh, only twenty-seven, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's not bad. I would have called

it close (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Well, basically my heart went out to my

opponents and I did not want the victory to be that large. I felt that it would

be better to win it by a marginal vote than to devastate anyone's feelings or

ego, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Oh yes. But next time I will probably spend an

additional $100. Mr. Speaker, in terms of rates of advertising, I saw rates in

the last election that my people were telling me about in terms of monies that

were being spent. Two weeks before that we had purchased advertising with a

particular media at a rate that was virtually less than half of what candidates

had to spend all of a sudden because there was an election. Not only that, prior

to the election all candidates know that if they wish advertising, it is cash up

front. So not only were they paying cash in advance, they were also being

penalized simply because they were supposedly one time candidates or one time

rate payers so they were paying the highest possible rate that the medias: radio

stations, television stations, and newspapers could take from them. That in

itself, Mr. Speaker, cost, at no great benefit to anyone because we were not

creating jobs by it, but thousands and thousands of dollars more than it should.

Well I am pleased in particular with

section 303, the rates

for advertising, and that charges and fees for a registered party or registered

district association or a person acting on their behalf will not have to pay

rates higher now than those that were posted by that particular media for

twenty-one days prior to the election call so that the rate cards that existed

twenty-one days prior to the writ being issued will now not have to pay any

greater amount than someone who had been in business.

One of the other strange, and I guess different things that

we ran into in our election was there were some people who wanted to donate

space to us. By that I mean someone who had committed themselves to advertising

in the newspaper for fifty-two weeks of the year were more than willing to

donate to us their space. We found that when we inquired as to whether or not we

could lift out that corporations ad and drop our ad in we found that no, that

was not acceptable unless we paid the higher rate. That, Mr. Speaker, was a

gouging of the system.

We found the same thing when we talked to other advertisers

who were willing to donate radio time to us. They had committed themselves to

fifty-two weeks of advertising with so many commercials a day, and they were

willing to donate their time in particular to my own campaign only to find out

it was not acceptable. They could not do it. I had to pay the much higher

amount. The same thing happened in TV and in other medias.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that these rates and those

kinds of actions cannot be taken by a company or a media. I am not saying this

in order to zero in and to attack the media. Those were the rates, and that is

the way they worked under those rates forever and a day because there really was

not any guidance, there was not a direction being set for them that says: here

is what you should be doing. Here is the direction you should be taking. No, you

cannot bleed that much more money out. You could at least control some of the

costs.

Under this Act where the amount of money that can be spent by

each candidate is limited, it becomes very important that all of those who are

seeking public office, that all of those seeking public office will know that

not only are they controlled in terms of the monies they are allowed to spend,

but that they are working from a level playing field; that individuals out there

cannot gouge their campaigns for thousands and thousands of dollars that are not

required to be paid.

We all know that elections become a real boom for the media

because it is the best method for reaching the population of the Province or the

population of a district. The

section that we have now put into the legislation

to offset that, I think, is something that is going to be welcomed by all

candidates. It also allows an opportunity for people either seeking nominations,

or for minority groups, to again be working from a level playing field - that

the rates for them are no different than the rates for people who have been

around for years and years and years. So I am pleased with that one in

particular.

Another part of the legislation that I think we should be

pleased with is the fact that there are adjustments and formulas in there to

one, ensure that no more funds than have been allocated are being spent. Other

members have touched on the amounts in question that are allowed to be spent,

both in general elections and in by-elections, but those numbers - we know now

that they are maximums. That makes it a lot fairer, and it also makes it a lot

easier for again people who have a desire to be in politics but are afraid of

the cost.

There are some people sitting in this hon. House who, in

their own district, spent $30,000 or $35,000. Their campaigns were that high -

yes - and it is very difficult for someone who may spend $30,000 - $35,000 to

win a seat. For someone who is running against them to have maybe $5,000 or

$10,000 to operate from, it becomes extremely difficult. Money becomes the focal

point of whether one can win or lose. So the limits have now been set. You

cannot exceed them, and should someone wish to exceed them, there are penalties

there that would make one think twice as to whether or not they should or

whether or not they would exceed the limits that have been put forward. I am

pleased to see those limits, because expenses can creep up on you during an

election. There are a lot of times when even campaign managers will pass down

responsibilities, and people who are responsible for your funds transfer

responsibilities to other people within the campaign. Some people tend not to be

conscious of the budgets with which they have to work. Now not only do they have

to be conscious of the amount of funds being spent, but they had also better be

very aware of the problems that they will enter into, and also the fines and

other things that may be dropped on them if they are not within the limits as

set forward.

There is a concern that I have in part of the legislation

that says that if there is a concern about the time limits - the time limit in

terms of if more money was spent than should have been spent, or whether or not

a person is aware of irregularities that took place - that an application shall

be made within two months after the day on which the polling day was held for

the election to which the application relates. Two months afterwards for someone

to, I suppose, question that particular election could in itself cause a lot of

problems. I am not sure if that is the outside date or not, because if something

should happen within three months, should it then be brought before the chief

returning officer or not? I think we are facing a situation where after two

months, needless to say, after a general election, one can be absolutely sure

that the House has been called together. One can be quite confident that a

Cabinet has been formed, and that the Government members have taken their places

and the direction has been set for that particular term of office for that

Government. Likewise in Opposition, duties of the Opposition have been spelled

out, that people have been appointed as shadow ministers, people have been

appointed as opposition critics and are currently then very active in their

roles. Well, within two months they could very easily find themselves either in

court, or if they have not followed the guidelines of the Act, up to that point

in time, they could very well find themselves being turfed out of the House and

that is under

Section 231. Some of the areas where questions could be asked, is,

when an applicant questions the return of an election upon an allegation of a

corrupt practice or an illegal practice and rightfully so, in those cases one

should ask questions, or whether or not specifically, allegations are made that

a payment of money may have been made outside the confines of the budgets that

have been laid, or where a member, whose application or his return and his

disclosure of funds spent are outside the parameters and have not been included.

I am not quite sure when the audit is finished whether or

not, someone who may have gone over budget, which can happen, that this

particular Bill does not allow for even a variance. If $20,000 is the amount

that is allowed to be spent per district, what happens if the provincial party

goes above what they are allowed to spend or through no fault of the candidate,

those who are managing his campaign, because anyone in this House or anyone who

has been involved in election campaigns knows that any candidate who hangs

around his headquarters during an election has an excellent chance of losing,

so, you have a candidate who is out, going door to door and attending meetings

and meeting with the municipal officials and town officials, that his future is

left in the hands of those who are managing his campaign, but the onus and the

problems of any discrepancies that may occur, if I am interpreting the Bill

correctly, falls on the head of the candidate, who is the individual who

probably spends the least amount of time managing the funds that one, are coming

in and two, are going out.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that during an election campaign,

people working for their particular candidate can be a little more enthusiastic

than they should be, can find themselves doubling up on certain expenditures and

if that happens on a $20,000 campaign, if there are ten different groups out

there and each of them has even a $4,000 budget apiece, if those ten groups were

to go over budget by as little as $400 each, you would find that there was

$24,000 spent on the campaign.

For us to believe that there are not going to be bills left

over after a campaign, are only kidding ourselves, and by the time an audit is

finished and by the time that is submitted, the chief electoral officer, the

majority, no not the majority, all of those who would have been declared elected

on election night would have now taken their seats in the House of Assembly, so

that is an area that - I am not sure if it should be looked at, but I think it

is an area not in terms of changing the Act, but I think it is a

section of the

Act that all those who wish to participate in public life should be very aware

of because the onus is on the person elected, and that is something you have to

be very careful of, and so I stress that, the Act is new, the Act changes

dramatically a lot of the old rules which we are so used to. The rules under

which we have been operating for - I guess since, 1949, I am groping but I think

since 1949, and we are about to make major changes as to how elections are run,

and I believe the onus is probably even so far as on this House of Assembly, to

send, when appointed, our chief returning officer across the Province. Make them

available to either recognised parties, so that they can hold seminars in

various parts. Regardless of which party he meets with on one night, he should

meet with the other group on another evening to make sure that everybody fully

understands this Act, simply because it is new.

One would think that going into our fourth year as a

Government that chances are sometime in the next eighteen months there would be

an election. I think the onus is on this Legislature to make sure that not

simply do we educate a half a dozen or so, or not that we take it upon ourselves

that the candidates or the Members of the House of Assembly are familiar with

it, but that every district association which have registered themselves with

the chief returning officer should have an opportunity. They should land in

Stephenville. The chief returning officer and his people should land in

Stephenville and meet with people from that portion of the island. From LaPoile,

Port au Port, Stephenville, St. George's. Meet with those district associations

so that they fully understand. Then, move across the Province.

Now yes, we are talking about an expense, and yes, we are

looking to incur costs. But I think also that the onus is on this House to

ensure that as many as possible are fully aware of the implications of this Act.

If there is anything I would ask this hon. House to do it is to ensure that

collectively Members on both sides do everything they can to make sure that

those people out there who are carrying our party banners - regardless of which

party it is - or those who are keenly interested in elections, should make sure

that the general public, to the greatest extent, is aware of this Act. Because

the repercussions on anyone who wishes to offer themselves are tremendous.

Second to that, the repercussions on the people who are elected are also

significant.

So I conclude my remarks today by saying that an important

piece of legislation, one that I believe will govern us probably for the next,

maybe, ten, twenty elections. It has taken us since 1949 until now to see major

changes in the Elections Act, and I tend to think that we could be well into

2040 before someone takes a decision to take a look at it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't expect to be seeking nomination

then?

MR. WALSH: No, I am going to retire I think around 2020.

I do not see any need to spend more time in public life than....

AN HON. MEMBER: You will have a pension by then.

MR. WALSH: No, in actual fact I should say to the hon.

Member who said to me that I will probably have my pension then, that what it

has cost me in payments that I would normally make to my RRSPs, this pension is

not going to help out at all, I can assure you of that. So it is costing me far

more than I will gain from the pensions.

But again, Mr. Speaker, in closing I will simply say that the

Bill is important. It is an important new Act. But I emphasize again that the

onus is not simply on the Members of this House to be familiar with it. The onus

is going to be on the new chief returning officer who I believe will be approved

by this House of Assembly. The onus is on that particular group to make sure

that over the next twelve to eighteen months, whatever it is to the next

election, to visit as many areas of this Province as possible so that all those

who are involved in elections will have full and thorough knowledge of this so

that they do not find themselves within a month or two months after an election

having either: one, charges pressed against them because of contravention of the

Act; or two, being brought to task because of irregularities that may have come

about simply because of their knowledge of the history as opposed to the current

Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that all of

us should be familiar with it and all of us should recommend that the new chief

returning officer tours the Province so that as many people as possible in

Newfoundland can be familiar with this Bill.

Thank you.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have one quick word on this particular Bill. I

was around in the days, as an employee of the former administration, when some

of the rough drafting of this final product -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. HEWLETT: Oh yes, you will find the rough drafts in

the files. Don't worry.

I would like to pick up on a point that the Member for Mount

Scio -Bell Island just made. That is the administration of elections at the

local level, at the district association level, at the campaign headquarters

level, is done by volunteers. I agree with him wholeheartedly, and I think this

House should seriously consider his remarks in that regard in that volunteers

are going to have extra responsibilities put upon them, and there should be an

educational program to ensure that the new Act is complied with and people do

not accidentally get themselves into trouble.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure again to rise and make a few comments in the

debate on this very significant piece of legislation that is before the House of

Assembly at this time.

Certainly I am delighted that the hon. Member for Green Bay

did interject for a few seconds, because it reminded me of a couple of things

that I otherwise might have forgotten to say about where this came from, how

important it is, how long it has been around, and what kind of an initiative it

is and so on. I am sure that he will get wind of my comments at some future

time.

Certainly it has been interesting from the point of view that

- before I deal with three or four items in the actual legislation, in the Act

itself, in the Bill itself, that I would like to refer to, there has been a

small bit of politics played with this piece of legislation so far. I would like

to just go on record as re-affirming and making sure that it is clear that this

is, without apology to anybody, a Liberal initiative; and that the group on the

other side - the members opposite - have, on a number of occasions, either by

raising sort of silly little questions about who drafted this kind of stuff to

try to suggest there was something wrong with who drafted it and how it got

drafted, or to make suggestions like the hon. Member did today before he left

the legislature on other business, which I am sure occupies his time a lot, to

suggest that this drafting was done and started a long time ago. I guess it was.

That shows why it is such an important initiative for this group and this

Government to bring forward.

In fact, ever since the early seventies, when the previous

group were in charge of the administration of Government in the Province, they

had an opportunity, and even spoke out loud from time to time about the need for

significant electoral reform within the Province. But on balance, every single

time they looked at it, for their own self-preservation, and no other motive

that anybody can actually pin down with any degree of certainty, they decided,

each time when they looked at it - there are drafts around - I am sure there are

drafts around twenty-five years old, but each time as soon as they drafted it

they came to one conclusion - that the legislation as it is gives a decided

distinct advantage to the party in power. Their objective was not the objective

that is being presented in this legislation now, to have a fair, open, clean,

clear, electoral system that gives the people of the Province a choice in a

proper electoral setting. Their choice each time was to look at it on balance

and say: we know that fundamentally some of these things are wrong. We

understand that. There should be changes, but if we change - if we make the

change - then the other crowd over there in Opposition, who happened to be

Liberals at the time, sure they will have a better chance of actually competing

on a fair basis with us. Therefore, we do not want that, because we want to stay

in and we don't care if they ever get back in, and we don't want the people to

have a fair chance or a fair choice or anything else. We want to stack the cards

in our favour, which was certainly possible under the existing Act. They could

use the briefest possible time lines, sneak in sudden snap elections, allow

practically no time for nominations, have no control over funding and financing,

do all kinds of strange and wonderful things that always, because of the element

of surprise and so on, worked in the favour of the party in power.

Every now and then there would be a little sort of twinge or

pang of conscience. Somebody would look at it, maybe even someone who was

affiliated with the Progressive Conservative government at the time, and they

would say: you know, we should go back to our draft because there are some

things here that are not fair. There are some things here that are just not

right. There are some things here that are absolutely wrong. There are some

things here that should be corrected.

But I am sure that in their own caucus meetings that would

come up for a little while, and maybe the hon. Member for Green Bay is right. I

am sure he is right. That there were times when he sat as an advisor in the

Premier's office, to the former Premier Peckford, that he may have even been

involved in conversations where they might have sat down someday, probably with

a cigar paid for by the people of the Province, probably with a cucumber hanging

out of their hip pocket, and saying: you know, that Election Act, you know,

there's something wrong with that, that should be fixed. That's not fair to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not fair to the electorate. There are

really things in there that are fundamentally wrong. Then they would sit back

again probably late on a Friday afternoon with their legs up on a desk or

something, chatting away. They would say: now boys, we know its wrong but, you

know, we want to get back in here. The best chance we have of getting back in is

leaving it just like it is, warts and all.

So they can talk about drafts and so on, and I am sure that

they existed. They probably existed ever since 1971 or 1972, because I am sure

there are some fair-minded people who just happened to be Conservative who also

just happened to get elected to the House of Assembly. I do not know how it

happens, because the fair-minded people that I know of have always been Liberal

in persuasion. Or at least even when they have had other persuasions in their

life previously, they have seen the light and become Liberal. So there is no

question of that.

But on balance every time the other group would come to the

conclusion that: no, we will leave in place

an act respecting elections that

gives favour to the governing party. That the idea of fairness for the

electorate so that they would make an educated, intelligent, unbiased,

unpressured decision as to who they want to put into office to run the affairs

of the Province, that that was not the consideration. The consideration was:

let's leave the thing as it is so that we can do things on as short a notice as

possible, catch the other crowd with their trousers down as often as possible,

keep them at a disadvantage, and try to win another election before their crowd

even wakes up and knows what they are entitled to under the Act.

So we recognise that as much as somebody certainly probably

discussed it, on balance fairness did not rule the day at all with the previous

administration. This group, having looked at it for a couple of years, and

having talked about it in the previous election as an issue, that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador actually deserved better. That the people of this

Province in dealing with elections, their democratic right to choose who is in

here making laws, rules and regulations on their behalf, they deserve better

than to have a piece of legislation in place that allows them to be manipulated.

There are a number of changes in this Act, significant, while

they may have been drafted before, this time drafted by a group of committed

Liberals, committed to the idea that these fundamental changes would be put in

place. No question about it. That these changes would be brought forward. The

whole notion, the whole genesis of it would be that a commitment to fairness and

balance for the electorate would show itself through the initial discussions and

would come through all of the drafting stages, and would show up as a Bill that

would actually govern the way that future elections in the Province will be

conducted.

We are convinced on balance, while there are some things in

here, as other Members have pointed out in their addresses to this Legislature,

that still need some scrutiny and attention. Because there are some things that

put some pressure on volunteer representatives in local riding associations and

so on. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Green Bay. There are other

things that are going to be significant changes that will take a period of time

for people to get used to the new structure and the new way that things are

going.

But the driving force behind it is the notion that there has

to be an electoral system put in place that respects the integrity and the right

of the electors to go to the polls without being manipulated and to be able to

openly and freely express their choice as to who they want representing them in

the House of Assembly in a Legislature. There are a number of things I would

like to look at for a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, if I could. Probably first

and foremost is the notion of changing the amount of time required for actual

notice of an election, because everybody knows in the past that with the

twenty-one day notice, that twenty-one days, when taken to advantage by a

governing party, becomes much less than that for anybody that does not know when

the call is going to occur and then has to scramble and try to get candidates in

place. Then the next thing you know you only end up with five, six, seven, or

eight days to actually have candidates going around the district trying to

contact constituents, trying to contact the residents of the area to try and

present to them reasons why they should vote for one candidate or the other, one

party of the other, and so on.

By moving to a more reasonable time of twenty-eight days

there is a significant move to show the people that there is going to be respect

shown for the point of view that they should be given - not the parties or not

the candidates, but the people should be given adequate time to see these

candidates on display so that they can arrange to see them either at the door,

in rallies, at meetings, in debates, or whatever might have to occur in that

period of time. It had occurred in previous elections that it was almost

impossible sometimes for even interest groups and so on in a constituency, in a

riding, to even find a way to get the candidates together because other than the

party in power, of course, that had total control over calling it, and maybe

even had their nominations in place months and years before, and those kind of

things which could still happen, I suppose, depending on how well you plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1985 the Government changed

(inaudible) three weeks and gone to four weeks.

MR. GRIMES: There is no question that if people had that

time to have access to the candidates so that they could make a fair assessment

as to which candidate in an individual riding was offering the best leadership

that would reflect the views of the constituents, and which party was offering

the best platform, and those kind of things, if they could be actually

considered and thought about in a reasoned and rational way, probably the

experience in 1985 when everybody in this House - and people on the other side

never got such a fright in their lives as to what happened in 1985, that with

all the controls and manipulation they had to their advantage with the current

act they recognized in every poll, they told them, that had this thing gone

another few days you people were sunk. The only thing that saved you was the

fact that you rushed this thing in, squeezed it in, jammed it in, gave the

minimum time lines, and just barely got in under the wire, absolutely finished

there was no doubt about it. With those kind of things it was clear that when

you are committed, as this particular party is, and this Government is, to a

fairer system, a fair electoral system, even a change such as that which

guarantees that even with the notice of twenty-eight days that there is going to

be two and a half or three weeks where the electorate in a district are going to

know who the candidates are, they are going to have a chance to confront them on

issues, they are going to have a chance to meet them at the doorstep, they are

going to have a chance to question them, and they are going to have a chance in

a reasoned fashion to make a real determination as to who they think is the best

candidate and the best party to represent them following that election.

The other item which may be minor by way of comparison from

many other things is the whole notion that in this Province as elsewhere a

number of factors seem to have something to do with how people vote. The person

is certainly one of them, although I suppose all of us in here would be too

modest to suggest that the people in our district thought we were the best

people, but the person himself has something to do with it. The leader of the

party has something to do with it. People make their decision as to who they

would like to be Premier of the day and those kind of things. The burning issues

of the day certainly have something to do with it, but there are still a certain

portion of people who vote because they are committed to a certain party

affiliation.

There have been times in the past with the kinds of things

where there were names involved. Even in a by-election just recently, two people

with the same family name. That there needs to be some time - for people for

which the party affiliation is one of their major considerations -, there needs

to be a way to indicate the official party affiliation of the people who are

involved in the electorate. The opportunity of course would be there for that to

occur so that people will know that if that is important for them. They will go

in and look at a list of names. Even if they were not that interested in the

people running, or the issues of the day, or the leaders, if they are interested

in voting for the party then they need to have a way so that they know where

that is clearly designated. Even small changes like that are a great help to

people who want to make that one of their major considerations in elections and

how they vote, and their determination for what is going to happen at the end of

the day, and what will be the decision making group for the next three or four

years following.

You notice there has always been in the past a lot of

concern, a lot of effort put into organizing people who are outside of their

normal district but would like to vote in the district of their home origin. We

have all kinds of special polls that we currently have available under the

existing legislation. The focus of attention lots of times occurs at our

institutions, such as the University, the community colleges and so on, where a

lot of effort goes into making sure that these young people are given the

opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choice back in the district where

they ordinarily live.

Everybody on the opposite side knows, for example, how very

pleased again back in 1985 the current Leader of the Opposition was that

somebody had done a good organizational campaign for them at the campus. The

Leader of the Opposition retired for the evening having gone on the public

airwaves of central Newfoundland, ready to concede defeat.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not so! Not so! He called the NDP candidate

(Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it like it is!

MR. GRIMES: And indicating, and everybody in the public

being aware, that the counts known to that point in time indicated that the

Member there had gone down to defeat. The news in the morning was that: oh,

there had been a great change overnight, because the special poll from the

University had been late coming in.

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: There had been a good job done by the

organizers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point

of order being that I enjoyed for the most part the hon. gentleman's speech, but

I mean he cannot get away with fabricating the truth. What he is saying now is

not the truth. That indeed that night the now Leader of the Opposition knew

before he went to bed that the result was in from the University and that he had

defeated the NDP candidate, Mr. Blackmore. He had called Mr. Blackmore before he

gave a speech to his workers who thought he had won. Mr. Blackmore ignored the

advice that he had lost the election, went in front of his people and told them

he had won, knowing full well he had lost. Now, that is the truth of the matter.

So I wanted to go on record as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, but it is a truthful story!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

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

To that point of order. There is clearly no point of order.

The hon. Member is using the point of order, I guess, to clarify an issue.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds good enough

to me. So just to continue the publicly accepted and known version of what

occurred in the district of Grand Falls in 1985 versus a private version that

Members opposite might like to spread around because it makes them feel better.

I am talking about the news media in central Newfoundland,

the members of the general public in central Newfoundland, all of whom were

foll