March 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern, the Chair would like to make its ruling related to the point of

privilege raised on March 19 by the Premier. This is done after extensive

research and consultation with several of our federal and provincial

counterparts.

The point of privilege raised by the hon. the Premier on

March 19 related to questions asked by the hon. the Member for Humber East with

respect to the carrying out of a police investigation. The hon. the Member for

Humber East said, and I quote from Hansard, March 19, page 279: "Mr. Speaker,

given a choice between gross incompetence and political interference to stall

the police investigation, the woman has concluded that there has been political

tampering to delay the investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi

qualifies for his severance pay and departs this House and the present Minister

of Justice can run for his seat."

The allegation or charge being made by the hon. the Member

for Humber East falls, in the Chair's opinion, into the category of

unparliamentary language rather than privilege. The hon. the Member for Humber

East has levelled a charge or an allegation of interference in the

administration of justice against another member, albeit in the words of the

complainant in the matter.

As Erskine May points out in the twenty-first edition, page

382: 'A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of

putting them in someone else's mouth.' Also I would like to quote Beauchesne in

the matter with respect to Questions on page 121, paragraph 409,

section 7: "A

question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences,

imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of

it." Also, in the words of Sir Erskine May, on page 380 of the twenty-first

edition: 'Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary

language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is

canvassing the opinions and conduct of his or her opponents in debate.'

In circumstances in which unparliamentary expression has been

used, it is customary for a member to withdraw, and I now invite the hon. the

Member for Humber East to withdraw any allegations or imputation of bad motives

or personal charge against the Premier, Attorneys General or any other member

which may have been perceived in her line of questioning.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am most puzzled by

Your Honour's ruling. As I understand it, Your Honour is saying that the

questions I asked on Thursday, in particular, the phrase Your Honour quoted,

constitute unparliamentary language. I don't understand Your Honour's rationale.

The statement I made, I stand by, and I cannot see how that phrase or the entire

line of questioning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a procedure for this matter that the hon. member is

into now. What the Chair is saying, I will do it. You are not supposed to

question the Speaker in this respect, but what the Chair has said is not that

the process, the topic of questioning was out of order, but that the

expressions, the allegations and charges made by the hon. member were

unparliamentary. Specifically, I quoted Beauchesne, that one is not to make a

charge against another member, and the portions that I used of accusing the

members of political interference, these, and tampering with the system of

justice, is tantamount to unparliamentary expression in the House of Assembly.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps Your Honour

misunderstood. I did not cast aspersions on the Premier or members of this

House, in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member would take her place. I have read the

particular quotation. I shall read it again: "Mr. Speaker, given a choice

between gross incompetence and political interference to stall the police

investigation, the woman has concluded that there has been" -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know when the Speaker is giving a ruling that

there is supposed to be silence.

- "the woman has concluded that there has been political

tampering to delay the investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi

qualifies for his severance pay and departs this House and the present Minister

of Justice can run for his seat."

I also quoted Erskine May, in this regard, which says: 'A

member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them

in someone else's mouth.'

Another way we put this is that a member cannot say

indirectly what a member cannot say directly.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said, which

Your Honour quoted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Your Honour, I chose my words very carefully,

and I am not willing to retract one single word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: What I said did not cast aspersions on any

particular member of this House of Assembly. I put my questions to the Premier,

who is the head of the government and who has to take responsibility for

everything done by his administration, including the Department of Justice,

including the whole Cabinet and including the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I

stand by what I said and I am unwilling to comply with Your Honour's ruling by

retracting one word of what Your Honour quoted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member is not willing to

acquiesce to the request of the Chair in this regard, the hon. member knows what

the procedure is, and the Chair simply asks the hon. member to withdraw any

perception of imputation or allegations within her line of questioning, and if

the hon. member is not prepared to do that, then, of course, the Chair has no

choice but to do what the Chair is supposed to do.

I ask the hon. member again, is the hon. member not going

acquiesce to the request of the Chair?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I believe Your Honour has

misconstrued or misunderstood what I said, which Your Honour just quoted from

Hansard. I stand by what I said.

MR. SIMMS: She is right.

MS. VERGE: As I explained, I was very deliberate about

the words I used, and I will say to Your Honour and to this Assembly again

today, the woman who went to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary nineteen months

ago, with a complaint that the present Member for Naskaupi, then a Cabinet

Minister, sexually assaulted her, now, given a choice between believing that the

police accidentally bungled the investigation, and that there was deliberate

interference, political tampering, has chosen to believe the latter. The

complainant believes now, that there has been improper, deliberate interference

with the RNC investigation and that is the explanation for the fact that after

nineteen months, the Constabulary still has not resolved the investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair understands and the Chair has again explained to

the hon. member, the long-standing rules with respect to our House in that

matter and again I will quote for the hon. member, it is unparliamentary to say

indirectly what one cannot say directly. One cannot say, as Beauchesne's says,

the - well, that is precisely what the Chair is saying, one cannot use another

person to make an allegation. The Chair is not going to entertain any more

explanations unless the Member wants to withdraw that perception.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help what impressions

people form. I believe I have been very clear in what I have said and I stand by

every word of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I am not willing to retract any of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to take a brief recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to make sure, for the hon. Member again, that the

hon. Member understands the ruling of the Chair. The hon. Member has said that

she has not directly made the accusation. The Chair understands that, and the

Chair's ruling is not that the hon. Member has made the accusation herself but

that she has used a third party through which to make the allegations that were

made. I have quoted for the hon. Member that according to our parliamentary

procedures an hon. member is not permitted to say indirectly what she would not

say directly. Again I have quoted the very often used quotation by Sir Erskine

May: a member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of

putting them in somebody elses mouth. So the Chair, as I say, has acknowledged

that, that it was not the hon. Member but that the hon. Member was doing

indirectly what a member is not permitted to do directly. I just simply want to

do that, to make sure that the hon. Member is aware of what the decision is and

if the Member can explain whether or not she made a direct charge against an

hon. member, and if the hon. Member did not make a direct charge against any

hon. member of the House, then that settles the matter.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there are two points, number one,

I am not trying to hide behind a third party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I would say any objective onlooker would agree

that there are two possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is gross

incompetence on the part of the police or, to say it another way, accidental

bungling. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that there has been

deliberate political interference. That there has been conscious stalling.

Now, any number of people could be responsible for improper

deliberate interference. But the Premier, as the head of the Government, has to

answer for that. Now I said that the woman directly involved who made the

complaint of sexual assault herself cannot believe that this is a case of

accidental bungling by the police. She now thinks that there is a deliberate

interference calculated to stall this investigation. I believe any objective

onlooker would say that there are two possibilities, and deliberate interference

is a definite possibility. It is a reasonable conclusion for the woman or anyone

else to draw.

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

The Chair is willing to accept the hon. Member's explanation

in terms of political interference, but the Chair again cannot accept it if it

is against an hon. Member. But if it against the Government as an

administration, then that is quite in order. But the Chair cannot take it as a

charge against a specific hon. Member. So if the hon. Member is saying that she

is charging the administration, well then, the Chair will accept the withdrawal.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in the beginning I

wanted to make two points. The second point I will concentrate on now is that

what I said is that the woman has concluded that there has been political

interference or political tampering.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that.

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, in saying that - and I will

say it directly, as one of the two obvious explanations, I am not pointing a

finger at anyone in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would stop there, that is

fine, the Chair would accept the withdrawal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No withdrawal! No withdrawal!

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not withdrawing one word of

what I said last Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is in an awkward position because

the hon. Member is saying that she is not making an accusation against one hon.

member. That is all the Chair is looking for, because that is what the rules

are. That one cannot make an allegation

against an hon. member or an imputation. If that is what the

hon. Member for Humber East is saying, that is satisfactory to the Chair. But

one minute the hon. Member says that, then she goes on to say that she is not

doing that. So, if the hon. Member would clearly tell me, and tell the House,

that she is not making an allegation or an imputation against an hon. member,

then that satisfies the Chair. So, I ask the hon. Member to indicate whether

that is the case.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be any more

clear. I said on Thursday, and I will say again today -

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want the hon. Member to say what she

said on Thursday. I want the hon. Member to say what she now has to say.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, what I said on Thursday in the

House and outside the House, what I will say to Your Honour now, is that there

are two possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is incompetence. One

is accidental bungling or negligence on the part of the police. The other

possibility is deliberate interference or political tampering. I said on

Thursday, and I will say again, the complainant, the women most directly

involved, by now after nineteen months has come to the conclusion that there has

been political interference. Any objective onlooker, I believe, would have

grounds for having that suspicion. Certainly, I have mentioned the two obvious

possible explanations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in saying there is reason to believe that

there has been political interference, there is not an accusation against any

hon. member of this House in particular. Any one of them could be responsible,

but I was not making an allegation at the Premier personally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is responsible for

everything that he personally does and everything that the Cabinet does and

everything that all the civil servants do and everything that the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary does. Any one of the members of the Government, from

the Premier down, could be at fault, I do not know. I asked the Premier to have

an independent judicial enquiry -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to recess for another brief period.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In view of the explanations given by the hon. the Member for

Humber East, where the member states that in her statement she was not accusing

any one single member, that, I think, meets the requirement that she was not

accusing any one particular member and the Chair will accept that explanation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 21, I attended a celebration

with the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to honour

Canada's 125th Anniversary. This is the first province of Canada to hold the

celebration and, indeed, it is a first for Newfoundland. It was a successful

event, attended by 800 people of a multicultural background, who were adamant in

their desire for a united and strong Canada.

Because of what is happening in our country, I believe this

hon. House should go on record and show our gratitude by sending a letter of

congratulations to the sponsoring organization, Newfoundland and Labrador

Multicultural and Folk Arts Council.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with my hon. friend from St. John's East

Extern in extending best wishes and congratulations to the multicultural group

who initiated the first celebration of the 125th Anniversary of Canada, on

Saturday past. We enjoyed each other's company at that particular festivity, and

it was, indeed, a pleasure to see our fellow Canadians of very many ethnic and

cultural groups recognize their new country and celebrate with all of us what a

great nation this is. I would gladly join with my friend and issue those

sentiments to the organization.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving into Ministerial Statements,

on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the galleries today, the

Mayor of Burin, His Worship Jerry Appleby, and the Deputy Mayor of Burin and

President of the Federation of Municipalities, Ms. Kathy Dunderdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, on behalf of hon. members, I would

like to welcome to the Speaker's galleries, the 1991 Youth of the Year finalists

in the persons of Mary Ellen Armstrong, the Youth of the Year from Grand Falls -

Windsor -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - Linsey Hollett from Burin Bay Arm;

Michelle MacWhirter from Stephenville; Tonya North from Bay de Verde; Justyna

Nowak from Paradise - St. Thomas; and Gerald Ralph from Grand Falls - Windsor,

along with their guests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, on behalf of hon. members, I would

like to welcome to the galleries, twenty students from the Newfoundland Career

Academy here in St. John's, along with their instructors, Ms. Gloria Dawe and

Linda Janes-Dupass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today, it was my pleasure to announce the name of the

1991 Newfoundland and Labrador Youth of the Year, and for the information of

members, the individual was already welcomed to the House by the hon. the

Speaker. The program is administered by the Youth Services Division of my

department, and the award is granted to publicly recognize the significant and

exceptional contributions that young people between fifteen and twenty-four make

to other individuals, their schools, their communities or their Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Youth of the Year was chosen

from six finalists selected by an independent committee comprised of

representatives of youth-serving organizations and institutions throughout the

Province. These individuals also have been welcomed and introduced to the House

by the hon. the Speaker.

All six finalists, in my opinion, were winners. They are

bright, intelligent, energetic, aggressive people with self-confidence and

talent and they possess all kinds of skills and abilities.

The Youth of the Year is but one of many programs in place in

this department, the main objective of which is to bring into prominence and to

develop the full potential of the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All finalists were granted $2000 scholarships and the Youth

of the Year received an additional $3000 scholarship. The scholarships are to

help defray expenses associated with post-secondary education.

The idea for the Youth of the Year Awards Program came about

in 1985, during the United Nations' International Year of the Youth and it

provides an opportunity for government to publicly recognize these young people

for their unselfish commitment to others. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

these six people exemplify the highest ideals and qualities of citizenship.

This is the first year that scholarships were awarded and the

program will involve more changes into the future. We are having discussions

with the Federation of Municipalities and it is our hope that more

municipalities will become involved in this program to honour and recognize

outstanding young men and women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a short response to the minister's statement and

a thank-you to him in the House, publicly, for inviting the MHAs concerned to

attend the luncheon. I happen to have the opportunity of attending a number of

them, as a matter of fact, I am proud to say, as a number of finalists have come

from my own constituency. I am much too modest to point out to the

minster that the planning, preparation, and organization for this program went

on during the year that I was Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth, back in

1984. So, since I am too modest to mention it, I won't mention it.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to pass along, most importantly,

congratulations on behalf of members of the House of Assembly to the provincial

Youth of the year, Mary Ellen Armstrong, who was a tremendous finalist. Having

said that, of course, it is very important that we recognize the other five

nominees. I happened to sit in at the luncheon today and I heard the summation

made by Mr. Wilson, the Director in the department, and I tell you, it was an

extremely impressive list of achievements put forth by Mr. Wilson on behalf of

each of those six finalists, so they are all to be commended.

I also want to commend the department, if I may, and the

minister. This year, I think, for the first time, the six finalists were each

awarded a $2000 scholarship and the winner got an additional $3000 scholarship.

I think this is the first time that was done and I understand the recommendation

to do that came from members involved, in the youth themselves; they made the

suggestion, rather than spend a lot of money on a big dinner, or whatever, at a

hotel, which might cost you a lot of money, have something like we had today and

take that money and put it into education. I commend whoever was responsible in

the department for undertaking that initiative.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget the contribution made

by the parents of these young people. Most of the parents, I see, are also here

today in the gallery and, no doubt, their teachers and the people they have been

involved with in the community and in their municipalities have also helped them

considerably to get to where they are going. I want to wish them very, very much

success in their future endeavours, whatever they may be, and if you need help

don't forget to call on your members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. members we would also like to welcome to the House, Mr. Terry

Fahey, Chairman of the Local Service District of Bellevue, with his delegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Some time ago, just a few weeks

ago - as a matter of fact, this month, hundreds of residents of the municipality

of Grand Falls - Windsor, particularly those living in the Grand Falls ward,

were in a state of shock when they opened up their property assessments, because

they found that in many, many cases, hose assessments had, n fact, increased by

upwards and above 100 per cent. Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to accept 30 per

cent or 40 per cent over four or five years - six years, I think it was in this

case, that would have been quite reasonable; but people are absolutely unwilling

to accept increases in the area of, or in excess of 100 per cent. In fact, there

were demonstrations, he might be aware, a couple of weeks ago, that made the

National News headlines. So I ask the minister, Would he would take the

opportunity now to provide an explanation to the people of the Grand Falls Ward

primarily, and to this House, for the extraordinary rise in these property

assessments?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has been made

aware of extraordinary increases in the assessed properties of some of the

municipalities, and through the media I, personally, learned of the incidence in

Grand Falls.

Officials of the department have been in consultation with

various councils in this regard, and the assessment department has been asked

for a thorough research as to why the assessments have come out the way they

have in some instances. As the hon. member has pointed out, they are

fluctuating. One neighbour could go up 30 per cent and another could go up 100

per cent. I, personally, have questioned a couple of individuals on this, and

have found that they are following all the normal criteria. I want a broader

sample or analysis of what is happening, and I would be delighted to report back

to the hon. member.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary I want to

ask. It is a bit sensitive, but I must ask, because people out in the community

have asked me to ask the question.

The minister, if he has checked into it as he says, probably

would also be aware that the property assessment increases are having a

disproportionately large effect and impact on those people who live in the Grand

Falls ward, rather than in the Windsor ward. In fact, in the Windsor ward, the

Windsor residents actually had a decrease in their tax rate. Now, he may not be

aware of it, but that is the case. Most of the increases are taking place in the

Grand Falls ward.

Now, as the minister can well imagine, this is a source for

some bitterness or animosity between the residents of the two former

communities, and the question that they have asked me to bring to the House and

to ask the minister, which I do now, is this: Does the minister believe that

amalgamation between the Towns of Grand Falls and Windsor, has any

responsibility for the huge increases that we have talked about?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think amalgamation is any

contributing factor, although it could have been, but not to my knowledge in my

background and experience. I have always wondered about how assessments get to

where they are. A variety of explanations are given. I would rather not dwell on

any of them, but for the life of me, I can't attribute it to amalgamation, and

the anomaly that the hon. member mentions of it being more drastic in Grand

Falls than it is in Windsor, I will certainly have that examined, too. That is

another curve that is thrown at us, and I will certainly be delighted to have it

examined and get back to him.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for his commitment to look into it a bit further. I want to give him one thing

further, if I may, to consider. The town, itself, wouldn't be in the financial

position, as no town in this Province would be, I suppose, to decrease the

property tax on its own and not have anything to fall back on, and the Minister

should be aware that nearly a third of the home owners in the Grand Falls ward,

813 out of the 3,000 householders have filed appeals. They have formed a

committee called The Citizens For Fairer Tax, and they are lobbying to somehow

find some way to bring the increases down to a reasonable level.

My question to the Minister is this: is there anything his

department can do to provide some assistance to the Town to enable them to

undertake this particular initiative? And secondly, can I ask him directly,

would he be prepared to direct his director of assessments - if there is such a

person, I think there is - to meet with the representatives of that committee

for Citizens For Fairer Tax to go out to the Grand Falls - Windsor area to sit

down and have a discussion to try and find ways to adjust this ridiculous

increase in many cases? Would he be prepared to do that?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I think I would, Mr. Speaker. I will not give

a definite yes at this time, but if he would be patient and let us finish our

examination not only of the Grand Falls - Windsor situation but the broader

base, because it is coming in from other newly assessed areas, and I would

certainly undertake - if time permits I would certainly be delighted to have

some person from the administrative side of the department have discussions with

any group that has those kinds of concerns.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier, and in view of

the fact that the Minister of Justice is un-elected and does not have a seat in

this House, I will direct my questions to the acting Minister of Justice if

there is an acting Minister of Justice present.

Would the acting Minister tell the House whether the Premier

now realizes that statements he made last week about details of the RNC

investigation of the Member for Naskaupi were misleading? In any case wouldn't

the acting Minister agree that the Premier should not have attempted to comment

on the details of the case and instead should have confined himself to the issue

of the apparent malfunctioning of the administration of justice?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unless the hon. Member misleads people again in the way she

asks her questions, the hon. the Premier read in the House a chronology that was

given to him of the events surrounding the particular case. Mr. Speaker, it is

simply a chronology of events, and the Premier quite correctly, openly and

honestly read that list to the House. So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong.

That is the list that was given from the RNC, and that is exactly what happened

as far as we are concerned.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the acting Minister of Justice, the acting

many things in this Administration, that I did not mislead anybody. The

Premier's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member who is on a supplementary to get on

with the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, will the acting

Minister now deal with the real issue I raised last Thursday, namely, the

administration of justice in this Province? Will the Minister tell us whether

the Government will have a judicial inquiry into the response, or more

accurately the lack of response, of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to the

complaint by a woman 19 months ago that the Member for Naskaupi, then a Cabinet

Minister, sexually assaulted her? Will the Government have a judicial inquiry?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again I think the hon. Member has

her facts incorrect. I would say to the hon. Member that the matter is now under

investigation. When that investigation is complete whatever steps that need to

be taken will be taken by the people concerned.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the acting Minister now see that his Government hurt the

criminal justice system in this Province by disbanding the ombudsman's office

and failing to establish in its place any independent agency with the role of

dealing with complaints about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the hon. Member's

main concern. I would suggest to her that whether or not the ombudsman was in

existence the same circumstance would apply as applies today - that there is a

police investigation under way. Until that police investigation is completed,

nothing will be done, until we see the results of that particular police

investigation. We, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, do not believe that the

Director of Public Prosecutions is simply another civil servant to be ordered

around.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister, the same as

the Premier, is just using diversionary tactics. I ask the acting Minister: in

view of this latest evidence that the administration of justice is not

functioning properly, doesn't the acting Minister think it is inexcusable or, to

use one of the Premier's favourite words, unconscionable, that the Government

still has not released to the public the recommendation of the Hughes Inquiry

Report dealing with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the relationship

between the police and the Department of Justice? Will the acting Minister tell

us: when will the Government release the Hughes Commission report?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Hughes Commission has taken

quite a bit of time to finish its work. The report is now being considered and

the announcement has already been made that it will be made public. It will be

made public in due course -

MS. VERGE: You've had it for ten months!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Hughes Commission took quite

some time to complete its work. The report is now being examined and will be

released to the public once the examination is complete. That has been made

quite clear in this House and to the people of the Province, that the results of

the Hughes Commission will be released to the public when the examination is

completed.

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

East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in case the acting Minister did

not realize, the Hughes Commission finished its work a year ago and gave its

report to the Government ten months ago. Now I ask the Minister, why is the

Government covering up the report and who is examining the report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is not now that the coverup is

occurring.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that's right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the results of the Hughes

Commission will be released to the public shortly. I understand that the new

Minister of Justice is in the process of having a look at it himself and he

already has announced publicly, to the press, that very shortly the results will

be released to the public. I would like to once again stress that

whereas

Members opposite like to interpret these things as coverup, I know that there

used to be coverups but there are none any more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Social Services. The Department of Social Services statistics, up to last

October, showed an increase of 25 per cent over the previous year in the number

of youths in open and secure custody in the Province. Would the Minister tell us

the reason for this alarming increase in the number of youths being brought

before the courts? It's not normal. Could the Minister comment on that please?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, our numbers, caseloads are up

in every category, every division of the Department. It is not unique to the

youth component. It is very alarming, to say the least, to see increases like

this, but it is also very difficult to pinpoint what the reasons are. We are in

difficult economic times, as we all know, and we can only guess that those times

and the difficulties that youths find themselves in lead to this increase in

figures. We are attempting, of course, to do the research necessary to get at

the root of the problem. But it is very difficult to pinpoint why we have the

increases we do in this division and other divisions of my Department that show

increases in the caseload right across the board.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out

that these people are being incarcerated. I would ask the Minister if this is a

pattern, if there is a pattern to these kinds of incidents that are taking

place, and is there any evidence that this tragedy is related to increased

family breakup and stress in families? Would the Minister admit that the problem

is exacerbated by the fact that there is inadequate funding by his Department

and also staff shortages?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not related to

inadequate support services and staff. Although I have to say that in times when

we have an increase in our caseload of some 30 per cent since a year ago, that

that puts extra demands on staff. We are responding as best we can given the

resources available to us. Our field people in particular are overworked, and

that is a fact, because when you add a 30 per cent increase in caseload it

certainly is going to lead to extra work and a greater effort on the part of our

staff. They have been responding well given the increase in caseload.

It is a situation, Mr. Speaker, I might add, that is not

going to diminish. We can see, with the difficult economic times that we have

and no improvement on the horizon, that the demands on our staff are going to be

ever increasing. I do not attribute the problem to that. The problem is one that

is deep-rooted and one that we continue to monitor and research and attempt to

deal with. Certainly we have an increase in that particular component, as the

hon. Member suggests, and we are doing all we can to deal with it, both on a

correction basis and, of course, trying to get at the root of the problem itself

and address the problem from that end. So, it is a very difficult situation, Mr.

Speaker, that we are constantly monitoring.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the judges, the lawyers, and

social workers are saying that they have lost the war. Would the Minister admit,

if it is up by 25 per cent - and that is a figure that is several months old,

things have worsened since that. One person suggested as high as 200 per cent in

the last few months. Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister will agree -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is on a supplementary, his

third. Could he get to the question please?

MR. HODDER: Wouldn't the Minister agree, Mr. Speaker,

that he should increase the number of people who handle these young people? Mr.

Speaker, is law and custody the only resource that the Department has to deal

with this problem, and does the Department have no capacity whatsoever to help

youths and their families through counselling and other professional services?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly, of course,

providing the necessary support services that these youths require. They receive

help from various specialties, medical specialties, psychiatrists, psychologists

and workers in my own Department who are involved in this particular division.

So, the support is there, Mr. Speaker, and that support has great demands upon

it.

We find from time to time that the numbers of psychiatrists

and psychologists that are available are not as we would like to see them, and

that creates difficulty because we have difficulties in this Province in the

health care area and the social area in attracting the numbers of specialists

that are needed to support our health and social programs.

Mr. Speaker, as to the caseload itself, it is difficult to

say why it is increasing as it has been increasing over the last few months. I

can only say that we are constantly working with this problem and attempting to

deal with it.

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

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

Minister of Health. A year or so ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health

initiated talks -

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Would the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs please keep quiet when I am asking a question? Every time I stand to ask

a question he is talking, Mr. Speaker.

Now, to begin again, I have a question for the Minister of

Health. A year or so ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health initiated talks

with respect to the consolidation of the St. John's hospital service. Are these

discussions continuing and what can he report on them today?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member quite

rightly points out, last year we decided around Budget time that we would

amalgamate some services in the St. John's area. The ones which spring to mind

are the obstetrics divisions. At this time we have the capability of doing about

4,000 deliveries in the City. Either hospital, either St. Clare's or the Grace,

could provide the services for all the St. John's area. We have been working on

that over the past number of months, and hopefully before much longer we should

have that service together. Already some of the services have come together, but

the delay up until now has been in bringing the obstetrics together. It is sort

of a domino effect, once that one goes in place then the others will follow, Mr.

Speaker. We should have it all in place within - I do not want to say a specific

time frame, but in the not too distant future we should have it all in place.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, when the exercise started, I

believe the Minister said that the province was considering about ten options.

Could he tell us what the options are now specifically narrowed down to? What

are the hang ups and what options are holding the whole thing up now?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. Member

is confusing two issues. There were nine options -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Okay, it is the option thing. Just after the

people of this Province opened their eyes and elected a Liberal Government, we

were presented with a study which had been put in place by the previous

administration which was asked to determine how to deal with health care

delivery, acute care delivery in this City. This group came forward with nine

options. The St. John's Hospital Council sponsored the study. They came forward

with nine options. The one that was recommended, the preferred option was option

seven which would have seen a cost of $250 million in 1988, last quarter dollars

plus interest. I would suggest that todays dollars, Mr. Speaker, including

interest probably would be close in the order of $500 million or $600 million.

Government felt that we could not accept this option. It was not a reasonable

option, so we asked the St. John's Hospital Council to go back to the drawing

board and study what came to be called option ten which would have seen an extra

100 beds added to the general hospital, and an extra 85 or 90 beds added to St.

Clare's and eventually we would end up with two adult acute care hospitals in

this city. That option is still being studied by the St. John's Hospital

Council. At the same time they asked for permission to review option seven to

see if they could tone it down to more realistic figures.

So that is ongoing, Mr. Speaker, and I understand we were

supposed to have a report from the St. John's Hospital Council sometime last

fall. They have asked for several extensions, and now I understand it is going

to be July before they have their recommendation into whether we should go with

option ten or option seven. But we still maintained the right, Mr. Speaker, to

deal with the situation in the most cost effective way we can as a Government.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, has the Government considered the

potential effect of consolidating hospital space and services and what effect

that will have on specialty services given the fact that one of the big problems

that we have always had here in Newfoundland in attracting and keeping

specialists is that they always have the problem of operating room space, which

is vital for a doctor if he is going to practice his specialty on a full-time

basis. Can the Government guarantee then that should this consolidation take

place that there will be no reduction in facilities such as operating rooms

required for the practice of specialty services?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has gone ahead

of himself to quite a certain extent. We have not yet made a decision to

consolidate these hospitals to any great extent. Mr. Speaker, common sense would

suggest that an amalgamated system would be much more efficient and would pick

up enough savings that we could indeed put in extra operating rooms and extra

intensive care units and what have you. That is the common sense approach to it.

However, this Government recognises that we are not experts

in all things. That is why we have asked for an experts' study into whether or

not there would be additional savings, into whether or not there would be a

possibility of delivering a better health care system. This is all about

delivering a better health care system to the people of St. John's and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are not satisfied to make a

rash judgement on that, and that is why it takes some time for us to study all

the pros and cons of having more consolidations in St. John's.

That is a departure from the way things were done in this

Province for seventeen years, and I am proud to be a part of the Government

which is taking that reasonable, rational approach to delivering health care.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Environment and Lands, who is also responsible for Wildlife. Is the

Minister aware that during the past few days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognised the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains and I

have not recognised anybody else.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister responsible for Wildlife. Could the Minister advise if her Department

has been made aware of a number of rabid foxes that have been found in the

Hopedale - Postville area?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not quite sure

if he said had we been made aware or did we know how many. If he could just

repeat the question, I'm sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both!

MS. COWAN: Both? I have not been briefed on it, but as

you may be aware I was in Vancouver last week at the Ministers' meetings on

environment. I will certainly look into the matter for you as soon as the

Question Period is over.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say to

the Minister, if she is responsible for Wildlife, she should make sure that she

is kept abreast of what is going on in her Department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the

Minister. I would ask the Minister: would she consider doing what the former

Minister of Environment and Lands did a couple of years ago, when there were a

number of foxes found in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which had

been in contact, or had rabies, and subsequently the Government of the day

instituted a bounty? Would the Minister consider now instituting a bounty on

foxes that could be harvested and that are also dangerous because they could be

carrying rabies?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to

commit myself to any particular form of action until I was familiar with all the

details surrounding the case that he brings to our attention.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of weeks

ago the hon. Minister responsible for Mines indicated that there was a window of

opportunity available for the re-opening of the Hope Brook gold mine. I asked

the hon. Minister a few days ago if there was anything new to report and he

indicated that there was not. I ask the Minister now: is that window of

opportunity closing and are we any closer to re-opening that mine and saving the

300 jobs of the miners whose UI runs out next week?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I agree with

the Member that the window of opportunity is closing. The company that is

negotiating to buy the Hope Brook mine, if they finalize the agreement, want to

be able to open this summer. There is not much more time left if they would

expect to get people in the field this Spring and have it routinely operating

this Summer. So I would like to see that agreement finalized in short order. I

know there has been a lot of progress made, quite a lot of progress made, but

there are still a couple of outstanding issues and I would hope that in the next

few days they get resolved.

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

Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do believe at the

time that the mine closed that the governing party in this House indicated to

the workers there that if the mine could not be re-opened some remedial action,

by way of training, would be undertaken after or during the period that these

people were on unemployment insurance. The UI is about to run out next month. If

the window of opportunity closes does the Government have any plans for these

300 workers who will be without a source of income?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to speculate

on that at this time. I am hoping that there will be a positive resolution of

this and that 240 people will be back to work within the next few weeks.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question too for the Minister responsible for

Environment and Lands who, in her department, administers Wildlife. Last year in

this House a petition containing thousands of names was presented calling on the

Government to implement Sunday hunting. Has the Minister given any consideration

to having a hunt on Sundays this year?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am reviewing the whole

area of Sunday hunting.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,

1988" carried. (Bill No. 13).

On Motion, Bill No. 13 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973" carried. (Bill No. 9).

On motion, Bill No. 9 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Motions 6 through 10 inclusive.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 6 through 10, with the agreement of

the House.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and

Brokers Act". (Bill No. 11).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Public Service

Commission Act, 1973". (Bill No. 7).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Farm Products

Corporation Act, 1963". (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland Association

of Social Workers". (Bill No. 12).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry (Collective

Bargaining) Act, 1971". (Bill No. 8).

MR. BAKER: Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. House

that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance: "I, The

Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit supplementary

estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year

ending March 31, 1992 by way of further supplementary supply, and in accordance

with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates

to the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:________________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message,

together with the amount, be referred to the Committee on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, the sum of

$4,300,000."

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and

beginning the debate on Bill 6, I would like to rule on a couple of points that

were raised in Committee.

First, the point raised by the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West: I reviewed the transcript of Hansard and conclude, of course,

that the comments made by the hon. the Member for Pleasantville were said in

jest, were of a humorous nature, and certainly do not constitute any point of

order.

Secondly, the point raised by the hon. the Member for St.

John's South: He raised an interesting question, I think, one that brings into

play the conduct of members and visitors in the gallery, in particular, visitors

in the Speaker's gallery. While, from time to time, of course, members may have

quick exchanges with visitors there and express greetings if it is done very

quickly and very discreetly, then it may be permissible, but clearly, the Chair

has ruled in the past that it is not in order for members to engage in any

lengthy discussions or exchanges, or any prolonged conversations with visitors

in the gallery. I ask that if there is, in the future, any need for a discussion

with visitors to the gallery, that it be done outside the Chamber. Remember that

there is a code of conduct that must be followed by visitors, as well as

members, and I ask all hon. members to adhere to that conduct.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 6 refers to a loan that we wish to make

and, as stated in the bill, we hope to make from the Consolidated Revenue Fund

the sum of $4.3 million. This is a loan that we plan to make to Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper to assist them in the modernization of their mill. Members may

remember that the modernization program of $220 million has been ongoing for

some time and that the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland agreed to make

available to the company an amount of money, the lesser of 20 per cent, or $33

million, that during the course of events, a ten-year unsecured loan was made to

help finance the balance of what was needed and then another grant came forward,

which meant that the total amount wasn't required.

Now, what is required is an amount of $4,331,400. Mr.

Chairman, I could answer further questions on this. What is proposed is that the

loan is at a preferred rate. It is calculated in a fairly complicated way, but

bonds which, of today, are 8.5 per cent. We cut that in two and we make it 4.25

and then 1.25 is added to make it 5.5, so the effective rate of interest, then,

is 5.5 per cent. Now, government's cost of borrowing is 9.8, at the moment, and

if we lend it at 5.5 it will cost the government 4.3 per cent. The idea is that

government picks up the interest for the first five years and Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper carries the interest for the next five years. Anyway, Mr. Chairman,

this is the proposal, and if there are further questions we will be glad to

answer them.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chair, I rise to ask some questions about

this bill. As the Member for Humber East, I represent the district in which the

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill is located. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

operates one of the largest and most important industries in the Province,

employing people, not only in Corner Brook where the mill is located, but people

throughout Western and Central Newfoundland. I would like the minister to

confirm what I believe to be the case, which is that the low-interest loan

provided for in this supplementary supply bill flows out of the agreement signed

between the Peckford administration and Kruger for Kruger's takeover of the

Corner Brook mill back around the end of 1984. I wonder if the minister would

confirm that this low- interest loan is required by that takeover agreement

signed by the Peckford administration with Kruger.

Next, to put this low-interest loan into perspective, I

wonder if the minister would table for all members and for the public, a

summary

of the provincial government's assistance, both in the form of outright grants

and subsidized loans, since Kruger took over the operation of the Corner Brook

mill.

The modernization program that has been carried out by Kruger

as the minister implied has cost quite a bit more than the company obligated

itself to do in the take-over agreement. The fact that Kruger has spent more on

modernizing the Corner Brook mill and improved it in a more significant way that

originally indicated, of course,has been a very positive development. The Corner

Brook mill was built in the early 1920s and in today's newsprint industry, the

Corner Brook mill has to compete against mills that were built much more

recently and that have more modern equipment and systems. If the Corner Brook

mill and all the jobs associated with its operation are to be maintained into

our future for the benefit of the present generation and future generations,

then it is imperative that the necessary investment be made to improve and

modernize the mill. It is necessary that the Corner Brook mill have appropriate

alterations and get new equipment to stay competitive.

So, with those two questions, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat;

just to help the minister, the two questions are: Is the low-interest loan

provided for in this supplementary supply bill, indeed, part of the provincial

government's obligation contained in the take-over agreement signed by the

Peckford administration with Kruger, back around the end of 1984? And, number

two, Will the minister table a

summary of all the provincial government's

contributions to Kruger and/or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, since Kruger took

over the Corner Brook mill from Bowater?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will undertake to get the information that you require - I

don't have it before me at the moment, all the grants and loans and so on that

were available, because I don't really know the answer to that question myself.

Now, as to the requirement, whether this fitted in with the original agreement,

there is a technicality here. Actually, there was a term in which a time limit

applied, for this loan to be activated, and, inadvertently, I think, on behalf

of Kruger, they let it slip, and we looked at it and said: well, even though

technically the agreement has slipped, has lapsed, we will still give them the

term because of the importance of it. So, technically, the answer to your

question is, no, but in spirit, it is yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Generous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the question?

A bill, "

An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The

Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes Relating To The

Public Service", (Bill 6).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has

adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give

effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to

sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill No. 6).

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

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 Torngat Mountains.

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

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I did take the opportunity

to review this Bill, and my concern naturally is on page 126 and 127. I

apologize that maybe I do not fully understand the technical terms that are

expressed in this particular Bill, but I think there is a question that needs to

be asked, a very serious question. The Premier came into power in 1989 -

AN HON. MEMBER: By fluke.

MR. WARREN: By fluke, I guess, by fluke, but at the same

time on an issue of fairness and balance. The hon. House Leader spoke on Friday

and every second word was 'it is a great Liberal Bill'. Time and time again the

hon. House Leader said 'a great Liberal Bill'.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are long overdue with such a Bill as

this, and I want to express my concern coming from the largest geographical

district in our Province with the smallest number of voters.

Looking at the

section in this where it says $3 per head.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take -

AN HON. MEMBER: The minimum.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minimum, that is what I

am getting at. Let's take the districts of Conception Bay South and Torngat

Mountains. You're talking about something in the ratio of roughly 2 to 10

voters-wise, 2 to 10.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, and I am sure the

House Leader when he closes debate on this particular Bill, would like to

explain to this House how it is fair for the Member of Harbour Main and the

Member for Torngat Mountains to contest an election on an equal, level playing

field. Now I may be missing something, but I do not see how a candidate in Eagle

River and a candidate in Conception Bay South can be given an equal playing

field to start off with. With this Bill.

I am willing to let the hon. House Leader respond if it is

okay with you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is by leave and I

am just responding. The hon. Member is raising a point that obviously is of

concern, and that is the districts that are large in area, small in population,

the difficulty of travel, all that kind of thing. It is an important issue. I

think it is an issue the Committee is also dealing with and will give a report

during the Committee stage in the House. But he is right, it is a very important

issue.

I do not know if there is any way to bring total equality if

you compare district by district. I think allowance has to be made in this case

for a greater expenditure limit because of the method of travel and all this

kind of thing. But whatever is done surely would be fair between the candidates

in Torngat Mountains. The Liberal, PC and NDP candidates in Torngat Mountains

would have the same conditions attached to them as everywhere else. All three

would have the same conditions attached to them even though there might be some

difference in spending amounts between districts.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to

continue. In

Section 312 actually, and we continue on. Take for example - and I

will just give you an example in my district alone now. As of the last census

there was something like 1,565 voters. Multiply that by three, you will get less

than your $8,000 minimum. But you are allowed to go up to your $8,000. So that

is fine and dandy.

But take the Member for Carbonear, which probably has 3,000

voters or probably 4,000. So you multiply that by three, you are up to $12,000

or $13,000. Eight thousand dollars, so you multiply that, you are up to your

maximum of $20,000. So you are up to your maximum of $20,000

whereas I can only

go to $8,000 because of the population or the number of voters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

leave.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the

Member for Torngat Mountains that the candidate himself in his travel expenses

and so on would not be included in that limit. Which means that the total

expenditure - candidate's travel and all that kind of thing - would be covered

outside that limit. So still, you know, there are allowances made for that

situation.

MR. WARREN: Yes, I have no problem with that. That is

understandable. But, Mr. Speaker, you have the same kind of expenses whether you

have 100 people or 2,000 people in a hall. You have the same expenses if you are

going to go knocking on ten doors or if you are going to knock on twenty doors,

because the only difference is you are going to wear out your shoes quicker.

That is the only difference.

So what I am saying is that you cannot have equality in the

districts if you are going to use these kinds of figures. If you are going to

use these kinds of figures you are going to discriminate. Unfortunately not only

in my district. Eagle River district is going to be in the same situation. I

would say probably the Strait of Belle Isle district. It might probably be the

third smallest, but I do not know for sure now. But there are some smaller

districts.

Take Naskaupi district. There are only 3,200 voters in

Naskaupi district and you are again going to be down in this bracket. So, Mr.

Speaker, unless there is going to be a level playing field, it is going to

discourage - I tell you what it is not going to do, Mr. Speaker, it is not going

to discourage me from running again, I know it is not going to do that - but,

Mr. Speaker, it is going to discourage good candidates, it is going to

discourage good people, good men and women, from contesting a district with a

small population. This is why I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on this

particular clause.

I believe that the Minister, before he closes, has to look at

this and at least explain it to us a little more clearly. Unfortunately, I am

not reading it, perhaps, the way it should be read, but there is definitely a

little bit of imbalance in this particular

section of this particular Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say with respect to

this piece of legislation, other than, in a district where there are two or

three official languages, in a district such as Torngat where there are three

official languages - it is okay for me because I have spent the last twenty-five

or twenty-seven years working in this area. But, Mr. Speaker, for new candidates

coming into this particular area, I think the Government should look at some

other kind of clause, whether you are going to call it extraordinary expenses or

not. I think the language barrier, in areas of our Province where there are

consideration. I think we have to do everything in our power to make sure that

they are accommodated as well as the rest of the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let

someone else make a few comments.

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, just to take up where the previous

speaker left off, he has a concern about the differences between districts with

small populations and districts with large populations. One thing to keep in

mind in that regard is that the personal expenses of the candidate are not

included in the limits. So, if you have extra expenses to travel around your

district and board and lodging and that sort of thing, they would not be

confined to the $20,000 spending limit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are different

kinds of expenses in different districts. If you look at an urban district like

St. John's, in order to run advertisements to get to your own constituents you

have to buy the whole media market in the St. John's area,

whereas in some

smaller communities you can communicate more cheaply with your particular

constituents.

MR. WARREN: Not necessarily.

MR. NOEL: Not necessarily, but these are just some other

MR. WARREN: Ask Mel Woodward how much he spent up there

in 1982?

MR. NOEL: Well, there are all sorts of ways to spend

money if you choose to do so.

MR. PARSONS: I believe there is too much money being

(inaudible).

MR. NOEL: That is a pretty relevant point, in my view,

from the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

I just wanted to say that in commencing. Also, of course, in

addition to the $20,000 limit on an individual candidate or an individual

district association, the party can also spend up to that amount. So, it can put

extra money into districts where they have more difficulty with in that sort of

way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of this new Elections

Act. I think it is something that is badly needed in the Province, and it has

been needed for some time. As previous speakers have said, it is something that

had been promised by the previous administration practically during the whole

course of their term and was never brought in, conveniently enough, because as

we all know, the existing system gives preferential opportunities to the

governing party, and the reform that is being proposed here would minimize a lot

of this preference and it would also control the role of money in politics in

our Province, and I think that is something that we have to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We are going to deal with food prices in the

course of the sitting of this Legislature too, I hope. It is interesting, I had

a trip out to Deer Lake on Saturday last and I had an opportunity to acquire

more insights into the food industry in this Province and to learn about the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - dire straits of some of these farmers in our

Province who operate under marketing boards. Some of them, it seems, can only

afford to own four farms. I understand there is one farmer out in the Deer Lake

area who owns two poultry farms, two dairy farms, drives an airplane and whose

son drives an airplane, whose wife drives a Cadillac, and he drives a four-wheel

drive himself. It is very interesting the kind of information I am beginning to

accumulate about the agricultural industry in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: I do not want to interfere too much, Mr.

Speaker, in case I might raise the level of debate above a level that can be

comprehended by the members on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying: I think

we have to do all that we can to limit the influence of money in politics in

this Province. The bill before us does a fair amount in that direction, I

believe, but we have to do more and we should not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - see this Bill as the end of electoral reform

in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: What is the mouthpiece for marketing boards

saying over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: One wonders why the PCs are against trying to

lower food prices in our Province these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they are selling the food

somewhere.

MR. NOEL: They probably have some close relationships

with some people involved in that industry, I suppose, but the mouthpiece from

Kilbride should remember that he has far more constituents who are consumers

than he has who are farmers or people employed in the agricultural industry, and

he should realize that his responsibility is to represent the interests of all

of his constituents. But of course we know the attitude of the Member for

Kilbride about his constituents because in the Meech Lake debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you are not going to bring that up

now.

MR. NOEL: - he came into this House and he said he did

polls of his constituents and talked to his constituents and was convinced that

some 70 per cent of his constituents were against the Meech Lake Accord, but he

was going to come into this House and vote for it anyway. So we know just what

he thinks about the views of his constituents. Eighty-nine per cent were against

the Meech Lake Accord. So people who are judging whether they should vote for

him in the next election should realize that if they elect him they cannot count

on him promoting their thoughts in the years to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I was speaking to some former iron working

friends of the hon. Member for Harbour Main during the weekend too. A great

place Deer Lake proved to be for the accumulation of information. I might say

that the particular gentleman I was speaking to was a fine man. He is working

out on the Bull Arm site now and he is one of the real salt of the earth type

Newfoundlanders. He was telling me how his views have evolved over the years.

Told me what a strong supporter he used to be of the PC Party in this Province.

But he happens to live in Premier Wells' district, he does not live in Coxes

Cove but he lives in the Premier's district. He is now a committed Liberal, a

committed Clyde Wells supporter, and intends to do everything that he can in the

future to ensure the PCs are never returned to power again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: I must say, it is really helpful in making

speeches like this to have some coaching from the other side to remind us of

some of the information that we pick up as we go about this Province.

Getting back to the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. NOEL: Getting back to the Bill respecting elections,

I think it does a good job of controlling the raising and expenditure of funds

in elections and by political parties and political candidates. But one thing it

fails to deal with is the problem of controlling the role of money in nominating

meetings and in leadership conventions. Now I do not criticise the Bill for not

dealing with that, because it is a very difficult area to deal with. There are

very few jurisdictions in the country which have done so to any extent, as far

as I know. I believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognised the hon. Member for Pleasantville

and I would like for the other Members to restrain themselves and let the hon.

Member speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I believe Ontario has some legislation

controlling the role of money in leadership campaigns. But it is easy to have

money controlling expenditures when you do not have anybody who wants to run for

your leadership. Unfortunately, we cannot anticipate that is always going to be

the situation of all parties in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: I see the hon. House Leader is being seduced by

his confreres into the misbehaviour that is taking place in this House today.

After railing against it some minutes ago.

MR. TOBIN: I thought you were in trouble in your district

(Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much. Glad to have that vote of

confidence from the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Grand Bank tried to get

rid of him by supporting the motion that Harris brought in.

MR. NOEL: Did he really? Is that right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I believe that after this

Bill passes we have to look more intently at ways to control the role of money

in nomination meetings and leadership campaigns. Because what you do by

controlling the role of money in the way that we are doing it in this Bill might

well be that you merely move its influence back another level. There is not much

point in controlling how much people can spend in election campaigns if there is

no control over how much they can spend to get the nomination, because people

who want to buy politicians can do it at that earlier stage still. Now, I

realize it is very difficult to deal with that kind of problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is very difficult to

deal with this problem but all of us should do all we can to look at possible

solutions over the next few years so that the next Government of the Province

can take this electoral reform further during its term. Another thing, I think,

we have to look at is what money is permitted to be spent for. It is difficult

to control how much money people can spend on politics. You can control it at

one level but then it will be brought a step back and a step back beyond that.

One way, I think, we can effectively control politics so that people will have

the opportunity to make the most objective assessments they can is to decrease

the extent to which advertising and brainwashing techniques are used in

political campaigns.

I do not know how much we benefit by having television

commercials, very slickly produced television commercials, very expensive

television commercials to promote the election of political candidates, to

brainwash people into voting one way or the other, to give an advantage to

people who have the most money to spend on that kind of campaigning. I think we

should perhaps give some consideration to the possibility of controlling the

kind of advertising that would be permitted in a campaign. Why do we not

consider telling people that if you are going to use television spots all you

can do is speak into the camera and make your case? Give the substance of the

case for your election and let people make their judgement on that basis rather

than on the basis of some fancy film production, commercial productions. I think

we should look at that.

I think we should make sure that various media - I know from

my experience there are some media in this Province who charge more for

political candidates than they charge for other advertisers, and we should look

at the possibility of ensuring that they charge their minimum rates for

political purposes in order to ensure that everybody, even people who are not

well financed, have an opportunity to get their message across. There are lots

of things we can do to improve even on this Bill but it is going to be very

difficult to reach agreement on it. As we have seen with this Bill that has been

well thought out, the Conservatives have complained that they were not enough

involved in the genesis of this Bill, in the development of the principles in

it, but as I believe the Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House when he

was last speaking the Conservatives have been working on a bill of this nature

for the past ten years, at least ten years. While trying to put off the

implementation of it they ensured that some work was done on it by themselves

and I presume by Government employees.

So they had their opportunity for input into the Bill and I

would say that all of the reforms they may have thought about, that there was a

consensus about adopting or probably included in this Bill, in addition to the

extra reform that the Liberal Party has brought into it, so I do not think that

the Bill represents just the thoughts of one party or one set of bureaucrats,

but I believe that some of the more enlightened aspects of it do.

I believe the fact that we will now have thirty days to

prepare for elections is a great advantage for the nongovernment parties over

the existing situation. We all saw how the previous administration took

advantage of whipping up the populous for a short time before calling snap

elections, in order to, they thought, serve their own interests best, in order

to ensure their re-election, but we saw what happened as a result of that. They

demoralized their own party and they allowed themselves to disintegrate to the

state where they lost an election last time, mostly because of the attractive

alternative the Liberal Party had to offer, but also because of their own

mishandling of how and when to call elections.

So we have that thirty day provision, we have the provision

to ensure that there will be control over how much money is raised and spent; we

have the provision that allows for tax deductions for financial contributions

and for the reimbursement of political expenses. I am somewhat apprehensive

about that provision, because I do not know to what extent the public want to

contribute to the cost of politics in this Province. We have to realize that if

you spent $20,000 in each district, in fifty districts in this Province you are

talking about, what is that, about $2 million or something? and the parties -

AN HON. MEMBER: $1 million.

MR. NOEL: - $1 million, and the parties can spend an

equivalent amount, so you are talking about $2 million there, and then you have

three parties, who may spend $1 million each, so you have three parties who can

spend a million dollars and then you are talking about reimbursing the parties

out of public funds, so you are talking about a lot of public funds going into

political parties, and you are talking about the amount of money that the public

purse will have to forgo because of the tax contributions that are being

provided for, so I think that we should also start looking at other ways to aid

political parties in raising their own money independently, and as we all know,

that is very difficult to do today.

We see so many charitable organizations with whom we have to

compete for the raising of funds, through the sale of turkey dinners and that

sort of thing, but we also see that political parties are deprived of the

opportunity to use games of chance and things of that nature to raise political

funds, and I do not know why we should have that provision. I do not see why we

cannot allow political parties to run card games and even to have flea markets.

Now you say, you are subject to the Retail Sales Act, and one of the things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I know they are allowed to have free flea

markets but you are subject to the retail sales tax and you have to gear up for

that, and that is one of the problems with this piece of legislation, that it is

going to create an awful lot more work for political activists in the Province,

an awful lot more responsibility and potential legal liability, where, one of

the things that could happen as a result of this would be you know to

bureaucratize the political process in the Province, so that you might get a

couple of parties who would become well financed and develop their own

bureaucracy and their own sources of fund raising, who would be very hard for an

ordinary person to challenge, or a non-affiliated candidate in particular to

challenge and then there is another disadvantage for non-affiliated candidates

in this Act. The Act provides for the expenditure by individual candidates of a

maximum of $20,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: But political parties are also allowed to spend

the same equivalent within districts, so that if you have a nonaffiliated

candidate, his total limit - that person's total limit - would be the $20,000

whereas a candidate for a party would have a lot more going for him. The Act has

tried to deal with that kind of situation in relation to by-elections by

allowing for a larger expenditure in by-elections. You will be able to spend

$30,000. So the Act apparently understands that it is more expensive for an

individual candidate in an individual campaign in an individual district. If it

accepts that principle then we should look at the reasonableness of increasing

the amount a nonaffiliated candidate would be allowed to spend in a district in

general elections.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to be on the committee that is holding

hearings on this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Oh, it is a tremendous committee, I must say -

a very interested and interesting group of people who are hearing some very

interesting presentations.

The first one we had was from the Chartered Accountants

Association of the Province who are concerned about the provision in the Act for

auditing to be done by non-certified accountants. I guess they have a real case

to be made there, but there are many people who are concerned about the cost of

auditing and the cost of accounting provided for in this Act.

The Act provides that the chief electoral officer will

subsidize the individual district associations to the extent of $300 for this

purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: The member raises an interesting point. That is

going to be an extra cost of politics in this Province.

While it provides for a subsidy from the chief electoral

officer to the extent of $300, I have yet to come across anybody who really

believes we are going to get an audit done for that amount of money. Most people

believe the kind of audit that will have to be done will cost more in the area

of $1,200 or $1,500. That is a substantial expense for most district

associations in this Province.

The accountants also raise a point about controlling

expenditures in leadership campaigns and nomination campaigns. They went on with

a fairly detailed presentation to the committee, which we are trying to deal

with now. I think we all have to realize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I say to the Member for Torngat that if he has

concerns about the Bill, he should recommend some changes; because I think there

is general agreement that there are going to have to be some minor changes to

this Bill before it meets the approval of the House. A number of the things -

and this is testimony to the effectiveness of our legislation review process - a

number of things are coming to light that are going to have to be dealt with

before the Bill, I think, will be acceptable to a majority of the members. So

everybody who has a view on this matter should make a point of seeing that it is

brought to our attention.

We had a presentation from the Federation of Students, and

they are concerned with the provision in the Bill for proxy votes. This is

something which the members of our committee also have a concern with. We agree

with the effort to try and do away with special polls because they are costly,

and because as the previous chief electoral officer indicated to the committee,

they are the most open to abuse in our whole electoral process. So what the

committee has started focusing on, I believe is the possibility of using

mail-in-ballots or write-in-ballots that would be available in all the polls

throughout the Province on election day. This seems to be a way to maintain the

confidentiality of the ballot, but also to ensure that everybody who is not

living in their place of residence at the time of the vote will have the

opportunity to vote where they wish. I think that is something the committee is

likely to recommend.

We have also had presentation from the Federation of Labour

who raised the problem of third party financing. That is obviously a serious

problem that we have to deal with, and is going to be even more of a problem in

campaigns to come if it is not dealt with properly. It is a very difficult one

to deal with because you do not want to control opportunities for free speech in

the Province. You do not want to stop anybody from making any points they wish

to make during an election campaign, but you cannot have third parties -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We will deal with marketing boards in an

appropriate fashion I am sure before very long. Once people realize that

marketing boards and subsidies to agriculture are costing this Province $219

million a year every year - $219 million - I am sure the people of this Province

are going to want to deal with marketing boards in a more effective way than

they have been dealt with to date. But the Member should deal with what is at

hand before we turn our hand to marketing boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I do not have any farmers in my district that I

know of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. NOEL: I would be quite happy to continue if I might

have leave, Mr. Speaker, to continue with my presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for

Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a lot of agricultural jobs in my district, I guess, a

number of agricultural jobs, but we could have more if we bring the cost of

living in this Province down to the extent it can be brought down. By reducing

food prices we would have a lot more jobs in this Province, and food prices can

be brought down if the mouthpiece for marketing boards would stop defending them

and start defending the interests of all of his constituents, stop defending the

rich farmers in this Province, stop defending the cost-plus system of food

pricing we have in this Province and look at this problem objectively.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We are going to do a far more effective job on

all the marketing boards. We are not going to be limited to the milk marketing

board that seemed to have captured the interests of some potential politician

some years ago.

Now another point that has been raised before our committee

on this Elections Act is the possibility of having Government provide funds for

political parties between election campaigns so that political parties can

operate effectively. This has been done in some provinces, I believe - in New

Brunswick I think it has been done - where government provides a certain amount

of money to each party on the basis of its share of the vote in the previous

election to ensure that the parties that are not in office can keep functioning

and provide the maximum possible opposition to the party in power. I believe

this suggestion was raised by the Member for St. John's East during the debate

last week. But I have a concern about that, too. I don't know to what extent the

people of the Province want to subsidize political parties, want to see their

tax monies go to political parties which would be free to use it as they see

fit, which may use it in ways that are not in keeping with the wishes of the

electorate. But that is another issue we will have to deal with in the course of

this debate.

We also had presentations from people on behalf of the

disabled in our society. Civic #4, an organization in my district, led one group

of disabled people who are particularly concerned, to ensure that in any

televising of the proceedings of this House, and if we ever get around to

bringing in the television coverage that our Committee looked into last year -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Humber Valley Liberal

Association agree with your stand on marketing boards?

MR. NOEL: I do not know about the Humber Valley Liberal

Association but I know that a lot of my friends out in the Deer Lake area with

whom I was talking over the weekend, indicate a great deal of support for what I

am talking about. That might well be because they live close to a lot of these

producers, a lot of these very successful businessmen who would have us believe

that they are poor farmers, a lot of these businessmen who are not even subject

to the labour standards in our Province that other businesses are subjected to.

People in the agricultural industry are not required to pay overtime rates to

their employees,

whereas other businesses in the Province are.

So, people who are close to the industry know a great deal

about what is wrong with the industry and the way it operates. I am sure we will

have an opportunity to expose this scandal of unnecessarily high food prices in

this Province in the weeks to come in this House.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Liberal Party of Newfoundland

agree with your stand?

MR. NOEL: The Liberal Party of Newfoundland, I am sure,

is in favour of ensuring that our people have access to the best food prices

available in this Province. I am sure the Liberal Party is committed to that,

unlike the Conservative Party. We have the Member for Humber Valley, who last

week - I mean, this is the kind of inane criticism you get of people -

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

I remind the hon. member that he is straying from the topic

at hand here and ask him to get back to the debate.

MR. NOEL: I didn't mean to stray, Mr. Speaker, but when

you are talking about the financing of politics in this Province you can't help

thinking about marketing boards at the same time, for some reason. You can't

help thinking about marketing boards at the same time.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What about the Liberal District

Association in Kilbride, do they agree with your stand?

MR. NOEL: If the member would like to ask me a question,

perhaps I could answer it directly, with the Speaker's approval?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Liberal district in Kilbride

agree with your stand against marketing boards?

MR. NOEL: The soon-to-be Liberal District of Kilbride

will be agreeing, I am quite sure. They will be quite happy to campaign against

all of the farmers who will be part of the Conservative member's campaign in the

district.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) tried that the last time

(inaudible).

MR. NOEL: But, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the kind of

nonsense you hear from proponents of marketing boards, such as the Member for

Humber Valley, that we are going to lose thousands of jobs, thousands of jobs

are at risk if we do anything about marketing boards - well, according to

Statistics Canada, there are only 1,100 people employed in farming in this

Province, so I would like to know why he is concerned about thousands of jobs.

He talks about the wasteful dumping of goods that may ensue, but he should be

more concerned about the wasteful deprivation of nutritional food to the people

of our Province, because supply is being controlled, prices are being

unnecessarily inflated, and food is not being made available to people who need

it. But that is the kind of debate we will get into when our resolution to that

effect comes before the House, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to return to the presenters before our Committee

on the Elections bill. Another presenter was the Canadian Paraplegic Association

which raised the question of barrier-free access to voting booths. That is

obviously something that is not easy to provide for in some communities in the

Province. We don't have facilities available for holding elections, Mr. Speaker,

that are barrier free, but we have to do what we can in that regard, and I am

sure the Committee will be making some recommendations.

They also made representation on behalf of potential disabled

candidates who require extra help with their expenses in the campaign, who have

extra expenses in an election campaign and who, thus, should not be limited to

the campaign expenditures that would apply to other people. So that is something

that we should look at and that members of this House should give some attention

to before we conclude dealing with this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just say that I am

very happy to endorse and support the bill in question. I think it will do a

great deal to improve the operation of politics in our Province. I would

encourage anybody who has any additional ideas to present them to our

Legislation Committee and I would encourage all members to think of ways that we

can improve political life in this Province and make it more fair and more

equitable in the years to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I wonder if the hon. the Member for

Pleasantville could name some of the people whom he was talking to, say out in

Deer Lake, who were against the farmers in the Humber Valley area? I wonder

could he give some of the names of those who are against them, as he said

earlier, for the record?

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

MR. NOEL: I never came across anybody who was against

farmers, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the misconceptions that the Opposition

has here. It seems like they are afraid to look at this issue. They are afraid

to see if we can find ways to reduce food prices in this Province. Anybody who

talks about that they condemn as being against farmers, they condemn as trying

to do away with jobs in the Province. Well, we are not trying to do away with

jobs in the Province. We are trying to create jobs in the Province by lowering

the cost of living and making us more competitive in this Province. So, nobody

is against farmers. What people are trying to do is lower food prices.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good Liberal bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good Liberal bill!

MR. RAMSAY: So this is why you are boycotting it, is it?

You speak on it occasionally, but very, very occasionally, or less than

occasionally.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, "An Act Respecting Elections,

Controverted Elections And Election Financing," is, of course, as was brought

forward by the President of Treasury Board, a bill that was a Liberal

initiative, brought out in the election campaign the last time. The hon. members

of the Opposition seem to feel that it is not worthy of speaking about. They

operated under the guise of an elections act in the past that allowed them to

deal with it in such a way that the Premier could delay the calling of the

elections. Brian Peckford was a tool user. He used the elections act in the past

as the ultimate tool for election manipulation. He was always speaking highly of

operating in such a manner that would allow the public to be given the right to

choose the people whom they wanted to act on their behalf in the House of

Assembly, but he very often was able - I think you can hoist the representation

for six months and effectively prevent representation of a given district for

crass political purposes.

It is not what he did, I suppose, that I disagreed with at

that time, it was the fact that the law of the land allowed that kind of

situation to happen. It allowed an effective manipulation of the process. Now,

since this government has taken power, we have had to wait very short periods of

time for by-elections, whether or not those by-elections were to be to the

advantage of the governing party. As hon. members opposite know, some of those

by-elections constituted the election of an hon. member from the Opposition

side, some of them constituted the election of an hon. member from the governing

side.

So, effectively, democracy has played its

part in the whole

process, and by virtue of calling the election at the given time, it allowed all

of us to let the chips fall where they may, so to speak.

Some of the variety of matters that are spoken of in the

bill, one, of course, has to do with the financing of elections. The whole

institution of politics, the institute of government, is often called to task in

the media and, with regard to the public image that politicians hold, is very

low on the public opinion scale, exceeded only by lawyers, I think, who are also

near the bottom of the scale. The profession held in the highest esteem is

pharmacist. So, we have one pharmacist on this side of the House, anyway, who

possibly, with regard to the low esteem in which politicians are held, can make

up for some of that low esteem through the fact of his being a pharmacist. But,

in general, the kinds of negatives, I suppose, that are associated with

politicians could be as a result of the kind of manipulation that was effected

in the past, by the previous government.

Now, we have decided to do something about it, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very large document we have here. It is a document which addresses the

problems associated with election financing, putting spending limits in there

for the individual contributor, so that no candidate, regardless of his party in

the future, will be able to be bought by an interest group, a union, or a

business person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: These candidates will get there through their

grass roots -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier was bought! (Inaudible)!

MR. RAMSAY: - participation with the public in their

given district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the way of the

future. That is the way that this government has decided they want to have this

party run the Province while we are in government, and hopefully, these will be

changed some time in the future to effect the new realities of financing, but

not -

The general focus and thrust of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is

one that will allow the public of this Province to feel that no hon. member

elected to this House will be able to be bought by special interest groups

throughout the Province.

Now, there are some other features of this bill. One, of

course, is election financing. The other feature is the method of voting, the

method by which individuals who are unable to vote because of the location they

are in, has been changed somewhat. This, at times in the past, has been a sore

point for members of all political stripes who had to deal with a situation

where complaints would come. Of course, there were thoughts of manipulation. But

at the time it was decided, I guess, by all concerned, that it was just a poor

act, a poor piece of legislation, that allowed these situations to come forward

as they were.

Now, possibly, the solution that has been offered here is not

the best possible solution. Hopefully the hon. the Member for Kilbride and other

members of his Committee can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: You're happy with it as it stands - well, if

there is a complaint, that they would bring this forward in their report, but if

they are content that this is the best possible method, then this is the best

possible way to go.

Now, another key point. I noted in reading the London Sunday

Times, a British newspaper, the other day, that they allow for mail-in ballots,

as well in their elections, mail in or proxy voting and there is an

advertisement placed in all newspapers at the time of this election going on

over there, that allows them this situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the difference between mail in

and proxy?

MR. RAMSAY: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the difference between mail in

and proxy?

MR. RAMSAY: Well in this particular case, they have not -

well they use the same form for both. In Britain, right now, under this current

election, although it is two separate issues but it is dealt with on the same

application.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) proxy.

MR. RAMSAY: Well I understand the meaning of the word

proxy. The hon. Member is -

AN HON. MEMBER: You know the difference?

MR. RAMSAY: Oh I understand that fully, the hon. Member

need not lecture me on the meaning of the word proxy.

The other point in the Bill of course, is a dressing down of

some of the problems associated with it over the years and also placing in there

the new realities I guess of the situation as we see it with regards to the

contesting of elections today. Now, there are a number of points and I will just

go through the Bill.

Of course, the first part, part one, deals with the election

itself, the explanations of the various parts of the Act. Then the organization

that will of course run the Province's elections, the chief electoral officer

and the variety of people that he would have to hire throughout the Province to

put off the election at that time, and the various things that constituted

breach of the situation during the election. As well then we get into the

preparation of the voters list, this of course being very important because as

in the past, with regards to provincial elections I understand, the voters list

was prepared and if you were not on the voters list you could stand and swear

that you were such and such a person from such and such an area. This of course,

as I understand it, has been now changed to make sure that you have to be on a

voters list, you have to have the proper identification as opposed to just being

able to swear.

Now this could possibly change some of the future election

results if some of those individuals, who in the past were in favour I suppose,

of dealing with the process in such a way so that they can contest a close

election by virtue of the amount of illegal or alleged illegal activity that

took place, they would make sure, rumour has it, that there were enough votes

that were questionable in a close case, to make sure that they could contest a

given election, and this has been in Newfoundland political history, spoken

about in the back rooms but not always acknowledged I suppose in places like

here in the House of Assembly.

Now to be able to rid the system of this kind of thing, will

only do good to bring up the level of understanding and, I suppose, the overall

level of support for politics of an institution. Now the rules of residency of

course are expounded on then and we go through then the various parts, the

duties and the responsibilities and the activities that will have to be

undertaken by the various people throughout the whole process, and then we get

into an area as far as the preparation of the poll -

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is quite a lengthy Act and it

does allow hon. Members to go into some considerable detail in the evaluation of

it, and just seeing how good a job the Liberal group that helped put this thing

together have done, and the overall future benefit that it will show for the

Province. I do not doubt that within the three to four elections time when

another party from another time in the future may possibly form a new

government, they may make their blue or orange spin on this, but currently it is

a red document and it deserves to be read in its entirety by all hon. Members,

in order to see just how much hard work has gone into this, to make sure that no

stone was left unturned in putting forward

an Act that will stand the test of

the courts,

an Act that will stand the test of any contest in a future election

that may be a close election. The Act will have to stand for these people and as

well to put in place, I suppose, a regime of the Act that would allow elections

to go off without any great degree of fear that the loopholes that exist in the

given Act would prevent the contest from being held fairly - would prevent the

contest from being contested in a fair manner, and to and in the best interest

of the voters and the electors in a given district.

From there you move on through the Act. As far as the

physically disabled are noticed in there, the point is noted that the physically

disabled do have the right to access, and that this has to be made and/or

accommodated if the only available and suitable location is unable to account

for the physically disabled. This in turn would certainly see to it that the

chief electoral officer is responsible to the people of the Province to ensure

that these physically disabled individuals are accommodated through the voting

process.

Another point has to do with the counting, reporting and

security of votes. We often remember the ballot burnings of the past - the dark

days of the past elections where certain hon. Members whose future ended up

being in the civil service were involved in contests, and this of course does

not rest its soul on only one side of the House. It is matters like this that

have really brought forward the kind of security and the kind of counting and

reporting that is required to assure the public of the integrity of the process.

Every day when we speak about the democratic process, we hear

of other countries; we hear of voting irregularities in other not so democratic

countries and places and jurisdictions. The last thing in the Province's future

that is required; that is needed; that is wanted in any way, shape or form, is

any ill to fall on the democratic process. It is through the security measures

that are enhanced and elaborated on in some detail in Division E of the Bill,

Counting, Reporting and Security of the Votes, that will make sure and ascertain

for the benefit of all of the people of the Province, that their Government is

elected through a process that has, as a cornerstone, the integrity of this kind

of piece of legislation that has a certain element of solidity to it; that is a

stable piece of legislation that would allow hon. Members and the people of the

Province to feel that yes, this was done correctly. There was no playing with

the process through political means. The politics was accomplished on the

battlefield of the election itself, and not through the manipulation of

legislation as it sometimes has in the past.

From there - and you notice in this part - the security

deposits, the recount provisions, the rejected ballot provisions, what

constitutes that - and in the past a lot of problems associated with any recount

concern the

definitions of what constituted a rejected ballot and what

constituted an allowance was, of course, a matter to be decided by courts and

precedence of the courts. Now we have created, within the confines of the

legislation, some guidelines that can be used in the future to better guide the

justices of the court in how they should proceed and approach the matter.

As well, I might note that in the past I think it required

two judges to be appointed - two or three - and now the number has effectively

been lowered so that a single judge, I think, can look after this.

Now, Preservation of Order at Elections. Of course, the

preservation of this order has always been a part of the Elections Act and it

has just been updated to allow for the provisions that the future will hold and

the current situation as it now stands.

The election offenses have been much better defined and

certain component parts have been eliminated in order to allow the situations

that arise to be dealt with in a more expedient manner, and also to give some

gravity to the situation in so far as the advertising of candidates by

uninterested parties, other than the fact that certain parties are voters and

electors in a given district. No longer will a person who is wearing a Bill

Ramsay badge walking through the shopping mall on the day prior to the election,

face the possibility of being prosecuted for doing so, just because he happens

to have had one handed to him through the election campaign.

MR. TOBIN: You won't need many badges next election.

MR. RAMSAY: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West

may very well need a lot more than badges the next election, I would think.

The other is the miscellaneous section. Insofar as what is an

allowance required for employees of all of the employers in the Province; the

amount of time that is required for employers to give to their employees; a

matter as far as the oaths that have to be taken by deputy returning officers;

and the fees that are required insofar as the situation regarding fees.

Then we get into the idea of plebiscites, that is also noted

in there. Then controverted elections, as to what constitutes a controverted

election. Now there is a mouthful, Mr. Speaker. The constitution of a

controverted election is elaborated on quite substantially in here. The

consolidation of the various acts that constituted the former situation have now

been brought together in a single act which can be acted upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, it is a good picture, isn't it? Now, Mr.

Speaker, other things of course as to what is allowed on the part of the police

in question, if they have to search and enter. The chief electoral officer can

of course inspect the books of account of all political parties. It is an

opening of the process to make all people involved in the political process

accountable to the public. In general, it is part of our commitment to make the

overall political process fully accountable to the people of the Province

through the publishing of lists of donators of a high amount, higher than a

specific dollar figure, and also through the opening of the brown bag issue to a

point where brown bags may not be used in the future without the fact that the

brown bag will have to be receipted. In the future all of the brown bagging in

the past will have to be receipted.

Who will benefit? All hon. Members will benefit, all the

people of the Province will benefit. Effectively, anyone who is involved with

the political process will benefit from receipting of all contributions. Should

any hon. Member take any amount of money through the running of an election

campaign, any hon. Member who does that and does not account for it, deserves

the full weight and measure of the law to bear down on their shoulders. Deserves

to be banished from the political process and deserves to be dealt with in the

full and effective manner that the law can deal with him through the provisions

of this piece of legislation.

This is the way to improve the political process. It is a way

that we can effectively deal with the low esteem with which the political arena

has been held by the public, and hopefully part of the puzzle that will help

bring the level of politics back up to the level that it should be amongst those

who are at the -

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

For the last five or ten minutes there have been a lot of

private conversations going on in the Chamber. I am having difficulty hearing

the hon. Member for LaPoile. I suggest that if hon. Members want to conduct

their meetings that they go outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: But anyway, I do not intend to judge

MR. RAMSAY: I could probably get into some good

quotations if I could get going.

MR. NOEL: Pastor Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Well I am not religiously inclined I suppose,

Mr. Speaker. I am a good Christian man, but I am not religiously inclined to

preach to others here in the House insofar as the deity of all as mentioned up

there: Quaerite Prime Regnum Dei meaning the Kingdom of God. I will not get into

deity at all. I will leave that for another day, no pun intended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God.

MR. RAMSAY: Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God.

Also in the Act, Mr. Speaker, we note, getting down to the

last part of it, the repealing of the existing Act as it stands now and the

consequential amendments are also noted in this document. I have done whatever I

could to develop a case for dealing with the piece of legislation in and of its

entirety as written, because often times hon. members of the Opposition who

regularly stray from the matter at hand, regularly get themselves away from the

topic that they are discussing, fail to use the simple tool of a bit of

preparation in looking at something like this and using it to their advantage in

delivering their remarks here in the House.

Now the upcoming election - I will not use the terminology

used by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for fear of

possible future consequences and the fact that it will be published. But the

thing about elections, Mr. Speaker, if we think of the election process, it

should be a process open to all, it should be a process whereby a person,

regardless of their ability or their social status, or what have you, whatever a

community dictates as where a person stands should have the ample and same

opportunity as any other. Someone who can come in and garner all kinds of

financial support should not be able to exceed the efforts of those who cannot

gain that same financial support.

This being the reason for the limits, Mr. Speaker, limits

which are long overdue, consideration of the amounts of monies that have put

political parties in the past and individuals to the point of bankruptcy through

the fighting of election campaigns. Now, Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at

the election expense statements of certain hon. members who in contesting the

last election spent huge sums of money, Mr. Speaker, and if only the requirement

and the onus was on certain hon. members who contested various party positions,

be it the position of leader or the variety of different positions that were

contested over the years, if those expense reports that were possibly made up

for the party had to be published we would be fearful to recognize the amounts

that were spent. I speak of party contests in the past, possibly on both sides

of the House, although I would think there was a bigger and more expensive

contest for the party in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: At the Radisson.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes. It was a huge expense at the time and

something that the public of the Province might like to know where those huge

sums of money were coming from, where those monies that were being spent were

originating from, and if there was any kind of tie that could be demonstrated

between any of those monies and past support of those business people, interest

groups, or whatever. I speak specifically with regards to the hon. Members

opposite but in general to the kind of damage that that kind of activity does to

the political process. It is that kind of albatross that we all wear, Mr.

Speaker, because of that situation where politicians in general are certainly

wearing the yoke of the past about their neck they will certainly suffer and we

as an institution now are suffering and being at times, I suppose, having the

moral authority to do what has to be done questioned because of the ill repute

that the political process has been brought into many times throughout the last

number of years. Certain statements by elected politicians as well as this kind

of process has done much harm to an institution and it is through the kind of

legislation brought forward like this that we can work to