June 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 53

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, I was brought to order

on a couple of occasions by the Chairman of the Committee. At that time, I

accused the Minister of Education of misleading the House. I accused the

Minister of Education of saying that the consultants who did the study for

student assistants in this Province were two independent consultants and I

pointed out to the minister that he misled the House by saying they were

independent consultants. The Minister of Education rose on a point of order to

deny the fact that he said it. Today, from Hansard, Page 1751, I want to read

for Your Honour's attention that Dr. Warren, the Minister of Education, said,

'Mr. Chairman, over the weekend I had a chance to review the report that was

done by the consultants - two independent consultants.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I

contend what I said yesterday that the minister misled the House, that they were

not independent consultants. The minister denied he said it, but now since it is

in Hansard, I wonder if the minister would withdraw it?

MR. WARREN: No, he will not withdraw it, because he knows

it is a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I call on the Member for Torngat Mountains to retract the

statement that he just made. Either from your chair or speaking, an hon. member

is not to say what the hon. member said, so I ask the hon. member to withdraw

it, please.

MR. WARREN: I withdraw, Sir.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West is, himself, misleading

the House. He indicated that the Chairman called him to order on some matter

that he says has to do with a statement about some other member, but that is not

correct. In actual fact, the Member for Burin - Placentia West is simply trying

to hide and cover-up the fact that he used unparliamentary language in this

House and was brought to order three times, I believe, by the Chairman of the

Committee because of his unparliamentary language. That, in fact, was the reason

for the interruptions and it had nothing to do with what he is talking about.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

can squirm and wiggle all he wants about this but the fact of the matter is that

the Minister of Education, as very clearly pointed out in Hansard, said that the

study was done by two independent consultants. The fact of the matter is that

the study was done by two officials of his department who were anything but

independent. Then, of course, when the minister said that yesterday, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West said, 'Now, it is not true that the two consultants

were independent consultants.' That is what the Member for Burin - Placentia

West said. Today, it has been verified in Hansard that, indeed, the minister

said they were two independent consultants. Either they were independent

consultants or they were officials of the minister's department, and if they

were officials of the minister's department, then it is obviously not true that

they were independent consultants. That is what the Member for Burin - Placentia

West said. He was taken to task by the Chair on a number of occasions. As

Hansard, today, has verified, indeed, the minister said they were two

independent consultants.

MR. TOBIN: But he further rose on a point of order to

deny he said it.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have last Friday's

Hansard here, but I said 'two independent consultants', independent from

allocation of student assistants. I went on to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me read the whole statement.

"Over the weekend I had a chance to review the report that was done by the

consultants - two independent consultants." I would like to comment very quickly

and very briefly on a few of the points.

"There is no doubt," - this is the same sentence, without any

interjection - "as a result of that study, that we needed to rationalize the

allocation and the utilization of student assistants. There is no doubt that

those two consultants from the department," - in the same statement! - "well

known specialized persons, there is no doubt -".

Then the hon. member got up and said: "Now that is not true!

That is not true!" In the same statement we said, independent persons from the

department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Now, tell the truth. He is trying to cover up

his unparliamentary language of yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. We will take

one more submission.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the

minister can remember, whether he can think, or whether he can even read. Once

again, when he stood - now he is trying to deceive the House and the Chair. When

he says: in the same statement, the same sentence, no interruption. It is a

completely new paragraph. I will tell the minister and the Chair why it is a new

paragraph. Because when the minister stood up yesterday and said in this House:

"two independent consultants" - full stop! Then he went on: "I would like to

comment very quickly" -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HEARN: No, no interruption at all. Then the minister

was interrupted by the Member for Burin -Placentia West when he tried to tell

the minister the truth. The minister, knowing he was trapped, then started to

take back water and went into a completely new paragraph after he had gone on

completely with his statement on the two independent consultants. The minister

would have deceived the House yesterday if he had not been brought to order by

the Opposition members. Then he tried to back his way out of it in a completely

new and separate paragraph well after he made the original statement.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: First of all it is not a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the President of Treasury Board to take his

place. Hon. members, when we are in a situation, particularly trying to resolve

a matter of this nature, hon. members should avoid interrupting. That just

provides further provocation and hon. members aren't supposed to do that. I have

been giving hon. members time, probably more time to make submissions than I

ought. I ask the President of Treasury Board to clue up his remarks, please.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously not a

point of order. The facts are very simple. The Member for Burin - Placentia West

was brought to order several times by the Chair, yesterday, for using

unparliamentary language and he knows very well what the language was.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: And, Mr. Speaker, if you read Hansard, on page

1751, you will find that the Minister of Education was saying: "There is no

doubt that these two consultants from the department," and that is when -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West, please, to

restrain himself. He has made his submission. If he wants to make another, the

Chair may do so, but the member can't be interfering as the member is making his

case.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member is simply

covering up for his own improper behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education had said, "There is no

doubt that these two consultants from the department, well known specialized

persons," and it was at that point in time that the Member for Burin - Placentia

West interrupted and said, "Now that is not true," and went on to make his

point, Mr. Speaker. It was right after, immediately after the minister was

pointing out that these consultants were from the department, and from the

department we have to assume, Mr. Speaker, it means the Department of Education,

in case the members opposite can't read. Obviously, they can't understand.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order,

what the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Education failed to say

is that when I got up in the debate after I had been called to order, the

Minister of Education rose on a point of order to deny that he had said there

were two independent consultants. Now, Mr. Speaker, Hansard clearly shows there

were two independent consultants. The Minister of Education misled the House, he

misled the people of this Province, and it is time that he withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough. The Chair will take the matter

under advisement and report back a little later in the day.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier and

the Minister of Justice, I will put my questions to the President of Treasury

Board, the Government House Leader.

The questions have to do with the government's proposed

legislation authorizing and regulating the conducting of plebiscites. We have

proposed amendment to the present Elections Act and then we have provisions in

the proposed brand new Elections Act.

One of the proposals would authorize the provincial Cabinet,

the provincial government to hold a plebescite on a question relating to the

Constitution of Canada in conjunction with a plebescite held by the Canadian

government. I would like to ask the minister to explain the purpose of that. Why

would the government want to have two simultaneous plebiscites or referenda, one

Does not the minister see that this might lead to confusion?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. We do not see that it would

lead to confusion. We do not know at what point in the time the federal

government, if they ever do, will go to a referendum; we do not know at which

point we in this Province would want to sample public opinion in the Province,

so that there is a chance that at some point in time if we were to call a

referendum that when it is partly over, there might be another one called by the

fed or vice versa, Mr. Speaker. It is not confusing at all, but I would like to

point out to the Member for Hummer East, that Question Period is for matters of

urgency and that is the very topic that we were debating yesterday and we are

debating again today in the House and there is no urgency in this particular

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will also like to point out to hon. members that

there are some guidelines -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to point out to hon. members that there

are some strict guidelines with respect to questions, and that members ought to

keep their questions in line with the guidelines and I point out to hon. members

Beauchesne's Clause 410 and sub-section 14, I think it is and says: " Question

should not anticipate an Order of the Day, although this does not apply to the

Budget Process", and what this says is that the questions related to the Budget

had been allowed, but other questions anticipating Order of the Day ought not to

be allowed, but I will not disallow the question today, just to bring it to the

attention of hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Hummer East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Your Honour.

With your permission, I propose asking a couple of more

questions on the same subject?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

conducting a referendum or a plebiscite on a constitutional question, why would

the provincial government conceivably want to have its own plebiscite, thereby

putting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the confusing and

expensive exercise of having to deal with two sets of questions, and having to

vote in two separate plebiscites?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is up to its usual

fear mongering and so on. This may, in fact, happen all across Canada. Who

knows? There has been reference in Quebec to a single or two referenda. There

have been references in other provinces, the same thing. This may, in fact,

happen all over Canada.

There is no point anticipating all kinds of horrible and

horrendous problems that may come some time in the future. It is simply trying

to generate some fear in the Province.

We feel that with the likelihood of a federal referendum, or

at least an indication that it might be held at some point in time, with the

possibility that a provincial referendum may be on at the same time, because

there may be no chance to co-ordinate these things across Canada, that we have

to allow for the possibility of such an occurrence. We also have to allow for

the possibility of cancelling one if the other one is on at the same time. That

is also provided for in that same piece of legislation.

We are simply providing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members to my right will note that question period is

half an hour and their colleague from Humber East is asking questions. If they

are not satisfied with all of the questions asked, they can follow on with

supplementaries.

I would ask hon. members to allow the minister to answer the

question asked by the Member for Humber East. If they want to further question

the minister, they may do so after the Member for Humber East is finished.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sun is getting to them, I believe.

As any good government would, we have to plan for the

eventualities that may happen, and that is what we are doing. It is called good

planning.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister may think this is a good government, it is also

a devious government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: This proposed legislation would cast the

Cabinet in the all powerful role of setting all the rules for a provincial

plebiscite. The bill would give Cabinet the extraordinary powers of decreeing

who can participate -

MR. BAKER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we had a couple of hours

yesterday for debate on this, we are going to have a couple of hours today for

debate on this, and I regret that the member is using Question Period to carry

on the same debate that we are going to have this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The President of Treasury Board is accurate. The Chair did

indicate that the question was somewhat out of order, but that the Chair, since

it was the first time that it has brought to the attention of hon. members this

ruling, under the circumstances would allow the hon. member to carry on with a

couple of questions. The Chair will allow the minister to reply, but it will not

allow Question Period to be taken up on this matter.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to ask the question.

MS. VERGE: The question is: Why is the government trying,

through legislation, to give the Cabinet the extraordinary power of setting all

the rules and regulations for a plebiscite, putting the Cabinet in a position of

rigging the plebiscite, decreeing who can participate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Decreeing, by Cabinet regulation, Cabinet

meeting in secret, being partisan, who can participate in a plebiscite, who can

contribute, how much can be contributed, and how much participation there can be

by political parties, unions, professional organizations and other groups and

individuals. Why is the government setting up the Cabinet to have this

extraordinary rigging power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member

is this: That events are happening and will happen, presumably over the next

number of months, in such an environment that things may have to be done

quickly. Therefore, Cabinet that is elected to govern this Province must govern,

and we are allowing for that eventuality, Mr. Speaker. It is good planning to

make sure that both the old Elections Act and the new one, if we do get it

through this House, have a proper allowance for referenda and allow for the

possibilities that may result from such a referendum or referenda. So it is

simply good planning, Mr. Speaker.

When we come to that eventuality, members will know, the

people of the Province will know, and everybody will know whether government is

using or misusing its powers. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province will be

the ultimate judge as to whether government is misusing its powers.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a new

question on a completely different topic to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador,

particularly the residents of Central Newfoundland and women in every corner of

the Province, are reeling from the news that the government is not going to

reappoint Sheila McKinnon-Drover as President of the Central Newfoundland

Community College. Mr. Speaker, people are upset because Ms. Drover has done

such an outstanding job administering post-secondary education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - because of the praise she has earned in

carrying out adult basic education programs and other programs and because of

the extremely positive role model she served for women in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mun Batstone, a defeated Liberal candidate,

now an employee of the Department of Education, said that when the Wells

Government came to office they wouldn't be long getting rid of Sheila

McKinnon-Drover. Mun Batstone said that, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: Hasn't the government used

petty, vindictive, partisan politics to get rid of an excellent post-secondary

education administrator, and isn't it true that the government really doesn't

believe in having strong, competent women in leadership positions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, all of the presidents of the

colleges and institutes were -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair just called for order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, all of the presidents of the

colleges and institutes were appointed in 1987 for a five-year term. When we

made some changes last year, we extended their contracts to the fall of 1992,

and all terms would run from September through to December of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, well before the termination of these

contracts, the government put in place a review process. We had an independent

consultant firm from outside the department, from outside the Province, in fact

- we wanted to do it in a very sophisticated way - assess all four presidents.

They came back with their reports.

I prefer not to talk about individuals here. Mr. Speaker, I

don't want to talk about individual presidents. I would rather answer the

question from a general perspective. We had a report back from the consultants,

Cabinet took its decisions, we have communicated these decisions to all four

persons, and these discussions are now ongoing. It is my understanding that one

of them has accepted another position, but I don't think it is appropriate for

me, in the House, to discuss the results of that review publicly. I have

discussed it face to face with the presidents, each of them, in my office, Mr.

Speaker.

I would like to make one further comment, Mr. Speaker. I

think the commitment of this government to the women of this Province, its

gender equity, comes through loud and clear in our actions in the last year or

so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. I am

wondering if the minister could inform the House if there have been any changes

in the make-up of the Social Assistance Appeals Board?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker. The make-up of the Social

Assistance Appeals Board and, indeed, the present structure, is presently under

review, but there have been no changes.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the minister. The Premier indicated a number of days ago that Cabinet was going

to have a look at the public inquiry into allegations of irregularities

associated with the public service competition, a report by Mr. Justice Steele.

I am wondering if the minister can inform the House if Cabinet has had a look at

Mr. Justice Steele's report or if they have made a further review of the report,

what it has meant to Cabinet and if there will be further actions taken?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this

report has legal implications involved and it is presently under review by

Justice. No action has been taken as yet but that review is taking place.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a final

supplementary for the minister. As the minister is aware, on Page 68 of the

report, Justice Steele says that Ambrose Stoyles had knowledge of the intended

questions prior to his interview for the facilities operation manager position.

And further, on Page 101, he said whatever the characterization of the

wrongdoing by Mr. Stoyles, it is evident that his intent was to circumvent the

merit principle and to really give himself an unfair advantage in the FOM

competition so that he would be recommended for a position. In light of these

findings of Mr. Justice Steele, does the Minister of Social Services think it

appropriate that Mr. Stoyles remain as Chairperson of the Social Assistance

Appeals Board?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer I

just gave a moment ago, that all of the questions as he has read them out

pertaining to Mr. Stoyles and other aspects of the report are presently under

review by Justice and by my own officials, but particularly the Justice

Department. That review is ongoing and we will report and make decisions after

we have received the results of the review.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. There is currently a grave problem with septic waste in St. John's and

the environs. Until recently, it was dumped on the landfill in Robin Hood Bay;

however, that right was taken away when the dump was closed. There is a facility

at Foxtrap which accepts this type of waste at a very high cost. It will now

cost the homeowners approximately sixty-five cents per gallon, which has

increased its cost from $125 to anywhere between $450 and $500, and a great

number of people do not have the money to pay for that cost. Will this

government, because of its responsibility and because the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is responsible for waste, subsidize the cost to

the homeowners?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't really know

how to handle that question. It sort of smells, I think. The facts don't seem to

be in line with certain other information that I am privileged to and I will

take it under advisement.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry the minister had to deal with it

in a jovial way because it is not a joke. It is out there, it exists and

everyone there except the minister knows about it. Does the minister now realize

that we are probably headed for an environmental crisis as it pertains to this?

The fact is, the people cannot afford the service and have to dispose of the

effluent wherever possible, usually in the woods, where the drainage often ends

up in our rivers and streams.

I want to say to the minister, seeing he said it is smelly,

that, yes, it is being taken and dumped by five gallon buckets. People have to

get rid of it and there is nowhere else to get rid of it. The people don't have

the money to pay. A lot of Newfoundlanders have been laid-off and they don't

have the money. I ask the minister, because of the problem, will he help those

people?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the

information being put forth by the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern is

correct, the right to detail, the price per gallon and the price for whatever

else he is trying to say. I said I would take the facts of his question under

advisement and report back to him in the House accordingly.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the facility is in there.

Everyone knows what the charge is, and what I am saying is that the facility is

not getting any effluent because no one can afford to bring it in there.

Now, I was going to ask the next question of the Minister of

Health, but I will ask it of the same minister. because now, this is an

environmental and a health hazard - it could be a health hazard. I ask the

minister, what is his department, which is responsible, going to do about it?

The facility is in there. There is nothing going in there. That is as plain as

the nose on your face. What is the minister going to do about it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: For the third time, Mr. Speaker, I tell the

House to tell the hon. member that I will take his question under advisement and

I will get back to him with the specifics of what assistance and what procedures

and what policies the department will undertake to deal with the problem he is

presenting, if in fact it is as he is presenting it, and I doubt that very much,

because he never got anything straight in his life yet.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The questioning between the Member for St. John's East Extern

and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now finished and we are

on to the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have a question for the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the minister announced that he

is going to do a review of the agricultural zone in the general Northeast Avalon

area. He announced it outside the House, which I don't understand, but that is

his privilege. I just wanted to ask the minister: Is this report going to be

done by an independent consultant or is it going to be done by his department?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Ah, Mr. Speaker, finally, at the end of

Question Period, a sensible question, finally, a question that merits an answer.

The reason I announced it outside the House is simply because the media came to

me and asked a question. This has been an ongoing issue. A member of the media

asked me a question outside of the House, and I indicated that I am getting into

the latter stages of considering, as a matter of fact, a recommendation to

government that we do a review of the agricultural zone, including the Goulds,

Kilbride, Brookfield Road, and the Northeast Avalon, the old zone.

I might say that at this point in time - and I have been very

careful when I have been dealing with the media - that that decision has not

been made, as such. At this point in time the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture and I, as minister, will be recommending to government that we do

such a review.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

minister, when he makes his recommendation to Cabinet, put a time limit on this

review, so that it will not be a put-off and just delay the committee that has

been established in the Goulds to have this zone looked after? Will the minister

put a time limit to, say, a couple of months to have a look at this, rather than

use it as a put-off for six or eight months or a year?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we will be considering all

aspects of the review. Obviously, once it is commissioned, we will want to have

it done as quickly as possible so we can deal with the terrible problems in the

land freeze, most problems as a result of the way the previous administration

administered the land freeze.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary. Was there not a review done of this area, especially Kilbride and

the Goulds, only two-and-a-half years ago?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: The minister sits down and gets so smug

with himself for making snide remarks, Mr. Speaker, that he doesn't listen to

the rest of the questions. Is it not true that this area was reviewed,

especially Kilbride and the Goulds, only two-and a half years ago?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: There might have been certain aspects, Mr.

Speaker. I am not aware of a comprehensive review done since five or six years

ago. It is not my knowledge that there was a full-fledged - and if there was, it

obviously did not address the kinds of problems that we are having to deal with

on a daily basis in the zone now. So it did not address the problems, and we are

going to do that now. We are going to try to take care of the mistakes made by

the past administration over their seventeen years of dealing with the zone, and

abusing the zone, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

minister responsible for Forestry and Agriculture. Last year, on May 7, 1991,

the minister announced the insect control program for 1991-1992. It is now a

month later, approximately, June 8 or June 9, and we have not heard anything.

Could the minister inform the House if he has received the report from Forestry

Canada on which they based the analysis last year? Has his department done an

analysis of the major forest pest forecast for the 1992-1993 season? If so, will

there be a spray program instituted this year?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, we have done all the things mentioned,

dealt with Forestry Canada, and I might tell the hon. member that we are

undertaking a spray program. We will spray 10,000 hectares in the Codroy Valley,

basically, for spruce budworm, and we will be using Bt. I might indicate to them

also that the spray program has been planned, contracts have been called,

tenders have been received, and we are ready to do the spray program. It will

operate out of St. George's.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be able to

make available to the House, the analysis and, I suppose, the surveys that were

done after last year's reports, with regard to the Northern Peninsula and other

areas of the Province regarding the spruce budworm and the hemlock looper.

Could he make that available to the House now, and tell the

House and make available to the House the analysis he used to base his spray

program this year, especially pertaining to the Codroy Valley area. What about

the Northern Peninsula and the other areas that were affected last year and not

sprayed?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon.

member is asking for. I can make available to the House the results of any

studies done as a result of our spray program, but there was no spraying done of

any consequence in the Codroy Valley last year. Our spray program last year was

for the hemlock looper on the Northern Peninsula, as he knows.

Any information the hon. member wishes will be made available

to him, personally, or tabled in the House if he so desires.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I want to make it quite clear, on my final

supplementary, that it was the first time since 1977 that there was no spray

program; but there was no mention then of the Codroy Valley.

I ask again for the minister to make available to the House,

Forestry Canada's analysis last year, and his department's analysis pertaining

to that report, as soon as possible.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: There is no problem, but the hon. member

knows - as I understand it, the advice given to the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, and the results of any spray programs, is available to anyone who

wants to ask Forestry Canada for it. All he has to do is call Forestry Canada

and they will provide him with the results of any studies. Our analysis is

available, I suppose.

The reason, I suppose, I haven't bothered to go into any

detail on this, I remember my fifteen years in Opposition, asking questions

about spray programs and not getting answers, so I presume that it was business

as usual. I have been providing all of the information that has been required by

the hon. member, by the press, and by anyone else, on the spray programs. I will

certainly provide the information for which the hon. member asked today.

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

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

My question is also to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. Some time ago, the Mokami Regional Development Association made a

request for a number of thousand cords of wood. I understand that the minister

has advised the Mokami Development Association that the wood has been allotted

to another company. Could the minister tell us to what other company that wood

was allotted?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: As usual, the hon. member doesn't have the

facts. He is absolutely and totally wrong and his question, at this point,

requires no further answer.

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

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

Would the minister confirm that this particular wood that was

refused the Mokami Development Association has been allotted to a company led by

the Woodward Company in Goose Bay?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No. As usual the member has his facts mixed

up. He doesn't know what he is talking about. That is, indeed, not a fact. There

has been no permit issued to anybody in Labrador to harvest the birch that he

refers to, that the Mokami (inaudible) - or wood.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: But it is birch, you see. That is where the

hon. Opposition House Leader doesn't know what he is talking about either. It is

birch. They want to cut a large amount of birch, and no permit has been issued

to anybody to harvest that wood at this point in time.

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

There is time for a short supplementary.

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

I have a short question for the minister. Would the minister

confirm that in the last three days, his department has withdrawn the

commitment, and now has decided to take this allotment and divide it between the

Woodwards and the Mokami Development Association?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I watch all the time when the

hon. Opposition House Leader and the assistant Opposition House Leader coach the

hon. member in asking a question. Why can't I ask for some help in answering the

question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: They coach him all the time. That hon. member

is coached by the three piglets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Again, the final supplementary the hon.

member asked was the same as the others. He didn't know what he was talking

about. He had wrong information, or no information. He is fishing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have followed the line of answers given by the minister to

the line of questioning. It is an appropriate time to tell hon. members that

Question Period has expired.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act." (Bill No.

39).

On motion, Bill No. 39 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the motion the Chair would

like to rule on the point of order that was raised before Question Period. The

Chair has had some time to reflect on the point of order, and the Chair's ruling

is that it was not a point of order, but a difference between two hon.

gentlemen.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. (1). Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I am pleased to have

an opportunity to participate in this detailed discussion of Bill (1), "An Act

Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing." I

understand the House committee that was struck to examine this proposed

legislation in detail and to hold public hearings on it has done quite a

thorough job. Since then, however, the government has proposed certain

amendments to the bill.

Now it is my understanding, Chairperson, that some of the

amendments deal with the holding of a plebiscite in the Province. It is these

amendments to the bill that I would like to concentrate on now. The same

provisions are contained in another bill which would amend the present Elections

Act. I would like to comment on that at the outset.

As I said earlier in Question Period, whatever else anyone

might say about the Wells administration, it is a devious government. What you

see is not what you get. So you have to be suspicious of everything they say

they are going to do, and you have to look critically at everything that they

purport to do. Now, Chairperson, the Premier, in addition to promising real

change, in addition to saying that if elected he would expand the economy and

bring home mothers' sons to work here at home; in addition to promising to build

a university campus in central Newfoundland, promised election financing reform

legislation.

Now, Chairperson, the Premier is setting himself up to go

into the next election saying: I fulfilled my promise, I brought in - even had

passed election financing reform legislation, it is just that it is not

proclaimed, in effect. Now he would not volunteer that information, but what he

and the government are doing is amending the present Elections Act to put in the

provisions that they want for the holding of provincial plebiscites, all those

extraordinary powers for the Cabinet so they will have right away what they want

for the Constitution and what they want for the governing of the next general

election.

In the meantime, they are having us go through the motions of

passing the new elections financing reform act, this Bill (1) that we are now

considering, which also, if the proposed amendments are adopted and with a

Liberal majority here, there is not much doubt of that, which also would have

the provisions dealing with the holding of a provincial plebiscite, so we have

to question the government's motives here. If they intend to have the New

Elections Act, the reform act, Bill (1), in effect immediately, why would they

want to amend the present Elections Act? The only answer I can think of,

Chairperson, is that they do not intend to proclaim in force the new act for the

next general election.

Now the Liberals have been raising money right, left and

centre, they have been bulldozing and brow-beating people, raising money.

Presumably, they have amassed a small fortune by now and they have no intention,

I would suggest, of subjecting themselves to the spending limitations or the

disclosure requirements of this bill for the next election. They are just going

through the motions of passing this election financing reform act now; the

Premier will be able to say very properly and correctly that he fulfilled his

promise, he passed election financing reform legislation.

Of course, it won't be in force, but technically he passed

it; it is just that he did not have the Cabinet proclaim it in force. In the

meantime, the old act will govern; the old act which the government is now

proposing to amend by adding the plebiscite provisions. Now that gets me into

these amazing plebiscite provisions. These provisions would empower the

provincial government to have a plebiscite, which is another word for

referendum, on a question relating to the Constitution of Canada in conjunction

a referendum on a constitutional question.

Now why would the government want to set itself up to

duplicate or piggyback, why would the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

want to have a provincial constitutional plebiscite at the same time the federal

government is having a national plebiscite? Surely, that would be confusing;

surely, having two plebiscite questions before the people at the same time,

having two campaigns raging at the same time, would baffle people. Now, perhaps

that is what the provincial government has in mind. Perhaps one scenario

foreseen by the Premier is a federal referendum on a question which doesn't suit

his purposes. Perhaps he thinks to counteract that possibility he should have

the power to simultaneously conduct his own plebiscite, thereby being able to

style a question more favourable to his cause, to his objective and, in the

process, thwarting the federal referendum. Surely this is a provision which

would enable the provincial government to frustrate a provincial constitutional

referendum.

Now, cost is a question. I see the Province, under these

proposals, under these legislative provisions, setting itself up to piggyback on

a federal referendum by holding a provincial plebiscite under the Canada

Elections Act. Now, perhaps one of the government speakers can explain what that

is about. It may have to do with an attempt to minimize provincial spending. If

so, even though the whole thing in my view is flawed, minimizing spending is to

be desired. But perhaps there would be a duplication and unnecessary expense.

Mr. Chairperson, the really objectionable part of these

plebiscite provisions are the enabling clauses which would give to the Cabinet

the power to make all the rules and regulations governing the holding of a

provincial plebiscite. Now, the Cabinet is a partisan group which meets

secretly, which meets in private, which can meet at a moment's notice. This

proposed legislation would delegate to the partisan Cabinet the ability to

essentially rig a plebiscite, the authority to decree who can participate, how

much participants may contribute, in what manner they may make contributions,

how much may be contributed by political parties, by interest groups, by unions,

by other organizations and by individuals.

Now, Chairperson, the government has elaborately gone through

an exercise of formulating a progressive election financing reform act. There

has been much ado about this. Yet, they are trying to sneak in, through a

last-minute amendment, anti-democratic provisions which would give the Cabinet,

the partisan Cabinet, the power to set spending limits, to decide who may

contribute, and to set disclosure requirements or to waive them.

So we are faced with two very conflicting approaches: The

show of an open and democratic and progressive approach to general elections;

and, opposite to that, the sneaky last-minute authoritarian, dictatorial,

partisan enabling provisions for a constitutional plebescite.

Now, Chairperson, the Canadian Constitution is of vital

importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. People are sick and tired of the

marathon debate. But nevertheless, the Constitution is the fundamental law. The

Constitution apportions powers and responsibilities between the orders of

government. The Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms. Any referendum on

the Constitution of Canada will be of critical importance to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MS. VERGE: Any constitutional plebiscite will have just

as much significance, arguably much greater significance, for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians than a general election.

If the current constitutional debate is not resolved in a

satisfactory way to the partners of Canadian Confederation, we may not have a

Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador may not continue to enjoy the benefits of a

Canadian Confederation.

So, Chairperson, it is extremely important that any

referendum on the Canadian Constitution for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be

conducted in a way that is fair, in a way that is democratic, in a way that

adheres to all the principles of justice that we have come to expect from our

Canadian parliamentary democratic system. We have all been engaged in an

exercise of trying to improve the law regulating general elections, but we

really have not given proper attention or conducted even a cursory examination

of the provisions governing a provincial constitutional plebiscite.

Now another provision is quite alarming. There is a provision

which would give the Cabinet the power to call off a provincial constitutional

plebiscite at any time. This would authorize the Cabinet - the partisan Cabinet

meeting in secret - to halt a provincial constitutional referendum at any time,

at the eleventh hour even.

Now, Chairperson, this raises the spectre of Meech Lake.

Members of the House of Assembly and the citizens of the Province were

manipulated by the Premier of this Province, the current Premier, the Premier

who will likely still be in that office when any constitutional plebiscite is

carried out. That Premier preached democracy, talked about the need to involve

the people in the constitutional reform process, went coast to coast condemning

the process at which the Meech Lake Accord was arrived at, faulting it because

it was secret and exclusive, because it was a deal done by eleven men in a back

room. Our Premier said from coast to coast that that wasn't acceptable, that

given the overriding importance of the Constitution all the people had to have a

chance to have a say. Now he had not even talked about the Constitution when he

campaigned for election in the Winter and Spring of 1989, but once he got into

the Premier's office he launched his anti-Meech Lake crusade. He did it in an

autocratic fashion, completely opposite to the approach he was espousing in his

public speaking performances. Unlike other first leaders he did not strike any

kind of a task force or committee, but he took a very strong stand nonetheless.

As the Meech Lake ratification deadline approached he

initiated a motion in this Assembly rescinding the earlier approval of the Meech

Lake Accord given by the previous General Assembly. Then, in the last days - and

I am sure all members remember this very clearly - the Premier said there was

not enough time to have a referendum., Now he gave everyone the impression that

he really wanted to have a provincial plebiscite on the Meech Lake Accord. He

talked about referendum, or plebiscite, many times.

Now that is not the only instance in which the Premier has

tantalized people with the possibility of a referendum. He also talked about it

in the context of the government's crude and autocratic municipal amalgamation

campaign. Now the Premier has never ever done it, but he likes to mislead people

by suggesting that he may give them the final say through a referendum. That

device has succeeded in appeasing people. The Premier has appeased people twice.

The Premier appeased people during the anti-Meech Lake campaign by saying they

really should be able to vote through a plebiscite; he managed to appease people

who were upset with municipal amalgamation proposals by saying that perhaps he

would have a plebiscite. Now I do not know if it is going to work a third time,

Chairperson, but you have to watch him.

Now the Premier, after returning from the lengthy First

Ministers meeting in Ottawa in early June of 1990, came home and closeted

himself with his advisors for a few hours, probably consulted his mentor, Pierre

Elliot Trudeau, and then told people that much as he would like to have a

plebiscite there wasn't time. Now, I happen to know that the Premier was advised

by officials of the government that there was enough time. But he fooled people.

He said instead of having a plebiscite he would allow a free vote in the House

of Assembly. Then he had a special arrangement with the Opposition to suspend

the normal rules of the House, and he suggested that all the members go back to

their ridings and consult the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. So the Premier sent

his dutiful members home to their districts. The Member for Humber West went

home with his steno pad and he walked all around Broadway asking people: how do

you want me to vote on Meech Lake, yes or no? Tick, tick, tick. Then we came

back to the House of Assembly and we entered into the famous debate on the Meech

Lake Accord. Each member had a half hour to speak. There was national television

coverage. The Premier of the Province, ever lacking in confidence of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians ourselves, issued an invitation to other First

Ministers to come and address us. He doesn't seem to think that we

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the necessary intelligence or wisdom to

decide on our own constitutional future. Deep down, he basically suffers from

the old Newfoundland inferiority complex. He thinks he, himself, has risen above

it all and knows what is best for all of us, all the little people, but he

defers to people from other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. So he

invited other First Ministers to come and address our Legislature and three of

the Premiers and the Prime Minister did just that.

The debate proceeded and, alas, two of the Premier's members

had the audacity to say outright in their speeches that they were going to vote

for the Meech Lake Accord, they were going to vote opposite to what the Premier

wanted. Now, one of them, the Member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir, of course, at the

time was Jean Chretien's campaign manager in the upcoming federal Liberal

leadership. Although Jean Chretien didn't have the guts to say out loud and

publicly that he wanted the Meech Lake Accord to be ratified, privately he and

his people were scurrying around doing the best they could to shore up the Meech

Lake Accord.

The debate proceeded. Some of the Liberal members took

definite stands. The Member for Humber West, with his steno pad, added up the

ticks and he said that he would vote against it. But there were other members

who showed a more thoughtful approach. I remember the Minister of Mines and

Energy indicated that he agonized over that decision. When he spoke he wasn't in

a position to indicate his final position. He was still considering and

listening to debate and discussion. The Member for Port de Grave didn't indicate

how he was going to vote. The Member for Waterford-Kenmount, the present

Minister of Social Services, was keeping an open mind.

Lo and behold, Chairperson, when we got to the last day of

the debate, that fateful Friday, the morning began with a definite indication

from one of the Cabinet Ministers that if we, on the opposite side of the House,

held in our support of the Meech Lake Accord, he would deliver enough of the

Liberals so that it would pass by a narrow majority. Well, just after that,

Chairperson, watching the people opposite, it became very clear that the Premier

and his henchmen were putting on the pressure. There were huddles opposite and

suddenly a special caucus meeting was called for the lunch break and, when we

came back in the afternoon, the boom was lowered. The Premier called off the

vote. After fifty members had spoken in the debate, after people all over Canada

had watched the debate on television, after four other Canadian First Ministers

had come and addressed us, the Premier called off the vote.

Do you know why, Chairperson? It had nothing to do with a

missed phone call or poor manners on behalf of the federal minister. It had

nothing to do with Manitoba. It had to do with the real possibility that Clyde

Wells might not have gotten his way. That is all it was about.

So here we have, in this Legislation, a proposed measure

which would set up the provincial Cabinet to rig a provincial plebiscite on a

constitutional issue, to have it coincide with a federal constitutional

plebiscite, thereby attempting to confuse, frustrate and thwart, setting up the

Cabinet to make all the rules and regulations governing the holding of a

provincial plebiscite, limiting who may participate, how much may be

contributed, by whom contributions might be made and, then, giving the Cabinet

the power to call it all off at the last minute.

Mr. Chair, this is extremely worrisome. It is very, very

bothersome, and it brings me back to what I said when I began to speak. With

this Wells' administration, what you see is not what you get. The Premier

presents himself to the cameras as being reasonable, sincere, thoughtful and

moderate. But what do we have behind the scenes? An autocrat who is getting more

and more out of control. An autocrat who needs to be checked. It would be a

grave mistake for this House of Assembly to give this autocratic Premier the

kind of sweeping powers that are laid out in these proposed amendments to Bill

1, the new Elections Act.

Now the same objectionable plebiscite provisions are set out

in another bill which would amend the present Elections Act, and as I indicated,

it is my suspicion that the reason we see two bills with the plebiscite

provisions is that the government is not really intending to have the new

Elections Act in force for the next general election. They are just going

through the motions. Once again, what you see is not what you get. You see a

progressive, democratic, election financing act being passed; you will not get

that legislation in force and operating for the next election.

What you will get is the old Elections Act with the addition

of provisions that would allow an autocratic premier and his Cabinet, meeting in

secret, to rig a provincial referendum on a constitutional issue, to have a

provincial referendum overlap with a federal constitutional referendum, to

frustrate any federal referendum that might give a result opposite to what the

Premier wants. Provisions that give the autocratic Premier even more autocratic

power to set all the rules for a referendum, and then to allow him to pull

another Meech Lake and call off the vote at the last minute.

Chairperson, we cannot accept this. This is ridiculous. It is

anti-democratic. We will do whatever we can to see that these plebiscite

provisions are not passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognise the hon. minister, I

want to welcome to the public galleries today twenty-seven Grade V students from

W E Cormack School in Stephenville. They are accompanied by their teachers,

Stephen Penney, Jeffrey Cook, Norma Chapman, Dianne Morris, Rosemary House,

Beverly Durnford, and Don Dalton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say that it

is with some hesitation and reluctance that I rise in Committee to make a few

comments about the Elections Act. But I believe there is no doubt that the

previous speaker, the hon. Member for Humber East, disappointed all of us on

this side so greatly in her remarks and the tone and the tenor that she

approached. Because we do want to point out that we allowed the hon. member

leave of the House to continue beyond her allotted time, because we really felt,

at the beginning, that she had a serious point to make and that she wanted to

bring to the consideration of all hon. members a couple of issues that we should

consider before we pass the Bill.

Instead, it turned out to be some kind of a personal tirade

about the Premier. Some kind of convoluted, mixed-up type of personal version as

to what transpired in a proposed referendum relating to Meech Lake a couple of

years ago. A version that certainly the light of any objective view of history -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) of the House of Assembly -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. member yet. The hon. the Member

for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) responsibility to keep fourteen

members in the House of Assembly. I notice they are coming in now and the

colleague, the minister who was speaking. Unfortunately there are only nine of

them here to listen to him. I think whoever the whip over there is should make

sure they have a quorum in the House at all times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. member knows that if there

is not a quorum present at any point in time that he can bring that to the

attention of the Chairperson, and he will act accordingly.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, not to

belabour the point, but to register clearly that anyone who would look in any

kind of a fashion other than being totally subjective as to what transpired a

couple of years ago would come to a completely different conclusion than the

hon. member presented to this House as if it was fact. It is so disappointing to

see someone who indicated at the beginning of the day in Question Period that

she had serious concerns and that maybe it is shared. I haven't heard of any of

it being shared by any of the other hon. members opposite. Maybe it is just a

personal view about some kind of devious power being given to the Cabinet and

the government of the day to put in place a confusing referendum if one is

needed.

I have never heard such a pile of nonsense - to be clear

about it, Mr. Chairman - in the three years that I have been here in this

Legislature. It was far and away the most idiotic reference to anything that I

have heard to suggest. We understand clearly that the government here is putting

in place by amendment and so on an enabling provision so that if a referendum is

called for it can be properly structured under the current Elections Act, and it

is already provided for in the new act that we are debating and will pass. But

in any event, whichever act is in place should a referendum be called for

federally or in the Province provincially within the next few months in relation

to the ongoing constitutional debate, that there has to be a provision to allow

for it to happen, and by bringing in an amendment to allow for the smooth

transition and the proper management of such a referendum, to have such a

completely off-the-wall attack, and such a completely mixed up, convoluted,

misrepresented version of what happened leading up to Meech Lake in June a

couple of years ago can't go without comment in this House.

So we did think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member was

serious and had some points to raise, but it is obvious to us, and we are very

disappointed, that she lowered herself once again down to taking advantage of an

opportunity in this House to personally attack one of the other members, albeit

the Premier who doesn't mind being attacked and has broad shoulders and can fend

for himself anytime and would welcome an opportunity to debate the hon. member

opposite or anyone else on that matter, what happened in Meech Lake, this

amendment and what it is intended to do, why it is necessary and so on.

So it is very cowardly to say the least, Mr. Chairman, for

the hon. member to abuse the privilege of the extended time given graciously by

hon. members on this side to launch into such a low, demeaning attack that

served no purpose, contributed nothing in a positive vein to the debate, and

certainly totally misrepresented for the public of Newfoundland the serious and

proper intent of an amendment to provide for the proper conducting of a

referendum in our Province should it become necessary in the short term.

She even went as far as to show again that even though the

hon. member, Mr. Chairman, had ten years of experience in government in the

Cabinet, a lack of some understanding of what happens, because she talked about

secretive Cabinet meetings. Well certainly all hon. members here would

understand that the Cabinet, no matter which particular party is in government

and in power, is not going to hold their Cabinet meetings down the middle of

Water Street or out in the mall parking lot and invite people to come and listen

in on every word. Cabinet by its very nature is secret. She knows that. She

spent ten years in it.

Now it is obvious, and I think members in debate with that

particular member at other times have indicated that they weren't sure she fully

understood her role or that she was particularly good at it. We are not here to

cast aspersions or throw stones, but it was such a bitter disappointment for all

of us on this side to see the hon. member launch into such a demeaning attack

and to downplay any serious motivation she might have had in terms of addressing

the Elections Act, Bill 1, or the amendment that is being proposed to allow for

the proper conduct of a referendum.

So I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that any further speeches from

that side would deal with serious issues that they may have remaining relating

to this bill and that we can get on with passage of the Elections Act as is

necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to get up, I was going to let

this pass so that we can get out of here, but listening to the garbage that the

hon. minister got on with, I feel as if I will have to continue and I will

continue from where I left off yesterday, trying to convince the government that

we should, in this act, as we are going through it now, try to provide some

special provision or try to provide a provision for a special ballot within this

act before we pass it in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, the special ballot or the proxy vote that is

now included in the new act, everyone in this House agrees it is not

appropriate. The Government House Leader said he thinks there is a better

method, our committee that reviewed this are aware that there is a better

method. The Task Force that reviewed election reform for the federal government

has suggested that proxy vote is not an appropriate vote so, Mr. Chairman, with

all that evidence I do not understand why the government won't, in this

legislation, include a provision for a special ballot.

The suggestion that was made by the Member for Eagle River

yesterday, could be a way to do it, or the amendment that I wish to read now,

Mr. Chairman, for other hon. members to see. I showed it to the Government House

Leader, I do not know if anyone else saw it. I am going to read a proposed

amendment that I will move at the appropriate time for this bill, and it will

relate at the time to Section (86) of the bill and will delete what is in

(86) and will be substituted by the following. The reason I do this, Mr. Chairman, is

because we are supposed to be doing election reform to try to make it as easy as

possible for people to vote. We are trying to encourage people to vote rather

than discourage them.

If we have a special ballot it will make it easier for anyone

I would say if they are invalid, if they cannot get to the polling station, if

they are away from their home district on election day, a special ballot would

be a mechanism for them to be able to vote.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to read into the record this

amendment and when the time comes to move it I will not have to read it in there

again. There are going to be seven sections and the first will be (86) 1: An

elector who is otherwise qualified under this part to vote but who will be away

from his or her home electoral district on the day fixed for polling at that

election, may register or apply for a special ballot at any office including a

temporary office of the returning officer or the deputy returning officer or

Justice of the Peace in the Province. Now, Mr. Chairman, the copy I gave the

Government House Leader had another designation which I would like to remove and

will have it removed on the one that I present.

Sub-Section (2): A person making application under Section

(1), shall provide a signature, present identification as prescribed by the

chief electoral officer, provide his or her address in their home electoral

district and sign a declaration that he or she will vote only once in the

election. Mr. Chairman, that does not sound unreasonable to me; it is fairly

straightforward.

Sub-Section (3) of this amendment could read: The election

official who registers each applicant under Section (1), shall certify on the

application form for registration and the special ballot that the prescribed

identification was presented and that the special ballot was given to the

elector and record the number of the certificate envelope.

Sub-Section (4) could read: The completed application under

section (1) shall be forwarded by mail or facsimile. I understand the Government

House Leader might have some trouble with facsimile. I do not see the problem

with it but if necessary, if that would make it more acceptable, I certainly

would not object to removing facsimile if that is necessary, but I think if we

checked even with the Department of Justice now, facsimiles are becoming more

acceptable as legal documents for different transactions and probably would not

matter.

Anyway,

Section 4 would read: Completed application under

Section (1) shall be forwarded by mail or facsimile by the election official who

registered the elector, to the returning officer in the home electoral district.

So if you go somewhere; if I happen to be working in

Stephenville, and I went to see the electoral returning officer for that

district, and I picked up a special ballot sometime before the election, the

electoral officer in Stephenville would fax back or mail back to the district of

Kilbride that I have applied for and received a special ballot, which is not

overly burdensome.

Section 5: The application forwarded under subsection

(4) shall be received by the returning officer in the home electoral district of the

elector at least four days before polling day.

So you have to do this at least four days, or the electoral

officer has to receive the information at least four days, and that is why a

facsimile would probably be more convenient, or you might need a week or so

before the election to be doing this.

Subsection (6): On receipt of the completed and certified

application, the returning officer in the elector's home district shall enter

the name of the elector on the voters' list for the appropriate polling

division, note that the voter has received a special ballot, and the number of

the certificate envelope.

Subsection (7) would read: A person who satisfies the

requirements of this section, and receives a special ballot, shall be

responsible for the delivery of the ballot to the returning officer in the

elector's home electoral district on or before voting day.

So if I was in Stephenville, and I was voting in that area,

and I did vote and passed it back in, the electoral officer, the person who gets

that ballot, has to get it back to my district by election day, which might or

might not be - I suppose the special polls that are done around the Province now

are not necessarily counted on election day. Well they are probably counted, but

they are not received back in the district. You get things for weeks after.

Section 8 of that would read: Where there are several voters

in one location who must vote by special ballot, including but not restricted to

inmates in penitentiaries, full-time students, which is the main group that I am

trying to target by allowing them to have easier access to vote in their

district. If they happen to be full-time students in post-secondary institutions

and living away from home, this special ballot would be very important for them.

(

C) Persons in hospitals or other institutions.

(

D) Workers at a temporary work site, which could be Bull

Arm, Hibernia, any of those large construction sites where people are working

away from home - if there are any of them open during the next election - if any

of them still are surviving.

(E) - which I am going to cross out - It says: Canadian

Forces personnel, but I think that more relates to a federal election than it

would ours.

The Chief Electoral Officer may make provisions as he or she

sees appropriate, for those electors who vote by special ballot at the polling

station designated for that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, that is a fairly simple amendment. It is fairly

easy to follow. It is not overly burdensome on government or the electoral

system. I guess I can pass this in now, and when the time comes I will move the

appropriate amendment to the

section of the act, of Bill 1. Then we can just

vote on it when the time comes.

I would like to see that amendment placed in this bill so

that we can have a provision so that people who are away from home on voting day

can have reasonable access to the polling station.

If the government will not agree to that, and the government

still wishes that the committee review this again, I would like to see retained

in this new election reform act, this special poll provision that is in our

existing act. When the special ballot has been reviewed by the committee once

again, and other recommendations made, this special poll could be removed at

that time and we could put the special ballot in there.

I will keep the other amendment to

Section 86 on hand in case

government does decide to vote down the amendment that I made when we come to

Section 86. Hopefully, they will not do that, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to

see that provision placed in this bill. I see on the last

section of Bill 1 that

government will have the opportunity to proclaim this act at their pleasure. I

wonder, and maybe the Government House Leader will comment on this for just a

couple of minutes, I wonder what will happen if there is no report made by our

committee on this special ballot and sometime in late September before the House

does get a chance to open we need a referendum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just another couple of minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If by late September or early October

before the House is open we need a referendum in this House we do not have any

provisions in our act today. So government will have to, in September, in order

to get their referendum information, or amendment to this act in place they will

have to proclaim this act. We will have it proclaimed with a proxy vote in it.

We will have it proclaimed before the committee gets a chance to report back to

the House and have the special ballot provisions put in, and we will not have a

special poll provision in, so if we have a referendum and there are students who

are outside their districts, if there are students who are not living at home at

the time and they want to vote I do not know if that makes any difference with

the voter's list and the referendum. It does not matter one way or the other, I

guess. Mr. Speaker, we will have then proclaimed this act without any special

ballot provision and without any special polling stations provision. I just want

to bring that to the hon. minister's attention and hopefully we will be able to

put this special ballot provision in there, or at least have the special poll

provision left in there.

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

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

I just want to have a few words on Bill 1,

an Act Respecting

Elections. The Member for Humber East and the Member for Kilbride have talked

about the need for a special ballot or special polls as we referred to them

before where people in post-secondary institutions, particularly in the city and

other major centres of the Province were able to vote during election time. We

have no difficulty with referring that to committee to come back early Fall to

deal with it but there has to be a provision for those people. The matter of a

plebiscite is another one we have some concerns with, as we have expressed

earlier today. I want to take a few moments to talk about the implications this

will have on district associations. I suppose most members in the House have

district associations and this act has very serious implications for district

associations in the Province. I do not know how members opposite feel but I have

some big concerns about it. I have a very good district association made up of

excellent people who are dedicated to the cause and give up a lot of their time,

but I am wondering how difficult it will become to get people to seek office in

district associations once this act is enforced. We are putting an awful lot of

responsibility on volunteers and supporters of all parties who come forward to

serve on district associations, whether it be Liberal, NDP, or Conservative.

They come of their own free time willingly to serve on those district

associations.

Now, I think personally, having one of the better district

association in the Province, that we are going to have trouble getting people to

take on this responsibility that this act will impose upon them. The

accountability is one big factor, having official financial agents that are

going to have to provide statements that will have to be audited. If you have a

function in your district after this act becomes law, I think it is in excess of

a $2500 gross that has to be reported, so this is going to have a lot of

implications for volunteers out and about the Province, but more so when it

comes to running the actual election, the district association that will in

essence be running the election for candidates. What we have to remember is that

not all of us have the same setup.

In my own district, my district association is very, very

involved in my election campaign. My district association treasurer has been the

treasurer of my election campaign. But in other cases they are two separate

entities all together. Some district associations are not involved in election

campaigns. Some members appoint their own election teams, as we know. Their

district association works with them throughout their term, have annual

meetings, elect them every year, but once the election is called, in some

districts members have election or re-election teams that are completely

separate from the district association.

So this draws into question here, what this is really all

about. I am a bit worried. My biggest concern about the bill, really, is what

impact it is going to have on district associations out and about the Province.

I think we are going to see people who will be very reluctant to get involved.

It is a tremendous responsibility. They are accountable. They have to authorize

expenditures of the campaign for the candidate and for other election expenses.

They have to account for everything given to them practically, receipt

everything that comes into the campaign, and authorize everything that is spent

on the campaign. Really you are going to need someone with a financial

background to be able to do it.

I mean, I look at my own treasurer whom I feel is a competent

individual, but I don't think my treasurer is going to be willing to take on the

responsibilities of this Election Act.

MR. HODDER: It would have to be a member of the Chartered

Accountants Association to audit it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, exactly. It has to be audited. What I

am saying is, I doubt very much if my district association will be willing to

take on the responsibilities that this act will force on them. I doubt that very

much. I say to the Chairman of the Committee, the Member for Eagle River, that I

don't know if, in your committee and if, in the presentations and submissions

made to your committee, this particular concern was highlighted. I am sure most

of the members opposite have district associations or some remnants of district

associations.

I would be interested in hearing members opposite explain or

speak as to how they think their district associations will find this. My own, I

know, would probably be able to carry it off, but with great difficulty,

particularly the actual running of the election campaign.

I was a campaign manager for the federal election in 1984 in

Burin - St. George's and we had to have an official agent who ran the whole

financial end of that campaign. It so happened that it was a good friend of mine

who agreed to be the official agent. But I can tell you it was one nightmare. It

was a nightmare controlling - you know, when you look at a riding the size of

Burin - St. George's, all along that south coast, we had some people in Port aux

Basques where we really had difficulty controlling what they were spending or

what they were spending the few dollars on. So it is a big responsibility that

we are getting into here and I don't know if, really, we should be putting this

onus on district associations, I say to members opposite. I am sure some of them

must have the same concerns.

So these are the kinds of things that we need to come to

grips with. It is one thing to talk election reform, which we all support. I

support it and members here support it. It is one thing to support election

reform, but we may be getting into something here that will cause severe

problems for members who are sitting here now. Just remember that if there is

anything remiss after the election is finished, it is going to come back on the

member who is elected or the candidates. That is who is going to take the brunt

of this.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The financial officer is the one who will

go to jail.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, in the federal one it is the

financial officer and the candidate who could end up in jail. So you have to be

very, very careful what you do here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would have your buddy (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, if your best friend is your official

agent, but it could be your worst enemy as the official agent and then you

wouldn't want to end up in prison with him.

Of course, in this situation, where you are talking

provincial, being the member, of course, you have some sort of say or control

over who your official agent will be. But it is a concern that I have and I am

interesting in hearing how members opposite feel it is going to work with their

own district associations. I can see some very serious problems here. We may be

biting off a bit more than we can chew here.

I don't know if some member of the committee would want to

talk about it but I am sure when all members here reflect upon who is on our own

district associations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: That's not the point. The Minister of

Forestry makes those quips - he doesn't listen, and he doesn't know what we are

talking about. He is so ill-informed, misinformed. It is unbelievable! Do you

know what the Minister of Forestry is doing for me now? He is confirming my

worst fear, that most members who are sitting here in this Legislature today,

and some who are not sitting here, are not familiar with this.

MR. FLIGHT: Don't kid yourself.

MR. MATTHEWS: I'm not kidding myself. I know what I am

talking about. Most members are not familiar with this bill, I say to the

Minister of Forestry. They don't know the implications of this bill. I am not

being derogatory. I am not saying it to be disrespectful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of them don't know the old bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am saying it - that's right. Most of them

don't know the old Act.

MR. FLIGHT: We'll make sure they do before (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, but my point is that there are some

serious implications here for the running of election campaigns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't educate him. A little education is

a dangerous thing. I wouldn't want (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that's true. But I think this is so

important to all of us that we had better know what is in here. We had better

know what we are going to pass here. It's too late once it is done, to say: My

God, we didn't pass that? Because, you know, that's what is going to happen to a

lot of members - they are going to get in the middle of the next election

campaign, if they are operating under this new Elections Act, and they are going

to say: My God, we didn't pass that! Don't tell me that is what we have to do!

Don't tell me! That's what is going to happen.

So members had better familiarize themselves with it. There

are a lot of implications here. And for people - it's fine, we are the members,

but for people out in our areas of the Province, and our district associations

that are going to have to take on some of these responsibilities and be so

accountable, then I think we had better be sure we are doing the right thing

here - not that I don't support reform.

MR. FLIGHT: Carried.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not carried, I say to the

Minister of Forestry. Now, the Minister of Forestry, if you asked him ten

questions on this Act here now, I bet you he wouldn't be able to answer two of

them.

MR. FLIGHT: Try me!

MR. MATTHEWS: He wouldn't be able to answer two questions

on this Act. So I just wanted to highlight that district association concern

that I have. There are other concerns with it, but that one particularly.

Because, when you are out and about the Province, as I am every weekend, into my

district, and most times when the House is closed, and I spend a lot of time

with members of my district association - and I really wonder what this is going

to mean to them. How many of them will be around once they become familiar with

how they are going to have to co-operate once this Act comes into force, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I understand where

the Opposition House Leader is coming from. I, on two occasions, went through

elections as an official agent under the federal Act. I understand the

difficulties that were in that particular Act, so I know what he is talking

about.

I believe that one of the first things that is going to have

to be done if this Act passes is that we are going to have to provide expertise

from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer to go around the Province and to

have workshops in all parts of the Province to familiarize district association

over, in detail, exactly what has to be done. At that point in time, we will get

the feedback. I am worried, as the hon. member is, that there may be some

difficulties that will become more and more obvious as we go through the

process.

I would support an education process as quickly as possible

to see if we can determine where these difficulties lie. If the difficulty is

with the fact that members will find they cannot get individuals to take on

these responsibilities, then that will have to be made known to the House as

soon as possible. So we would still like to have this Elections Act, knowing

full well that there may be problems that arise. When you go from the

theoretical to the practical, you may run into things that are going to

necessitate changes.

I just want to say that I understand the difficulties that

may be run into, but I believe we have to do everything in our power to try to

inform the district association members, and then see what the feedback is, see

what comes back from that, to actually go out and train them.

When I went through the process with the federal Elections

Act, they sent somebody down here. The official agents and campaign managers and

so on met from three political parties with these officials and went through, in

some detail, exactly what had to be done. The proper forms and the proper

procedures that we had to go through were laid out in great detail. There is a

book that you go through, and it is like following step one, step two, step

three, and it is all laid out in a book. The directions are fairly easy to

follow. It is not overly confusing. I have gone through them twice. I am fairly

easily confused at times, but I could handle the directions. I used to find it

extremely difficult to handle directions in children's toys and putting things

together, when I get things for my son for Christmas and try to put them

together, and I could never follow those directions, but I could follow the

directions provided by Elections Canada to fulfil the function of official

agent.

So it is possible to develop process so that it is a

step-following process. I hope that is what we will do when we get our new

Elections Act. That is why I believe it is going to take many months before we

are ready to proclaim the Act, once it is passed, because I believe we have to

go through the process and try to develop all these procedures before we dare

proclaim it. That is why the old Elections Act will be operating for a while.

I am hoping that sometime this fall we can get through the

information procedure and be able to proclaim the Act, but we have to hold it

until we are sure the system is going to work. If the system is not going to

work, then we are going to have to retool it and go through the process again,

perhaps, in the Legislature in the fall. But we need to have a go at it first,

and that is why we would like to have this bill passed this session.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with this same

issue. My friend for Grand Bank has raised an issue that concerns me greatly.

Let me be very clear, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation - not

that I am against the principle of the bill, and I think we do need election

reform, but because of this very thing that my friend has brought up, and the

President of Treasury Board, I think, has just acknowledged that he can see some

difficulty with it.

What we have here is not what it seems. We are bringing

forward a piece of legislation that I think we all believe was an Election Act

with a

section dealing with elections financing. That is not what we have here.

What we have here is

an Act dealing with political financing, with a

section on

elections, because the financing deals with more than the election process,

which I believe should be our concern.

I agree it needs to be cleaned up. It needs to be nailed down

more tightly. I don't have any problem with the provisions of the Act that

called for disclosure and all of that. I have some problems with it from a

political point of view, but from a logical point of view, being

straightforward, honest, legal, open, forthright, all of those good adjectives,

I don't have a problem with it. I think it is an extremely good effort to come

up with that piece of legislation.

It's weakness is it has gone too far. It now demands not only

that the election process be opened up for public scrutiny, but the political

process be opened up for public scrutiny. You are now saying to me and every one

of us here in this House that everything my district association does must be

public knowledge, any fund-raising that we do to raise funds to go to annual

conventions, to send delegates to conferences, national conferences in Ottawa,

to do charitable things in the district.

My district association has often made contributions in the

district obviously for political purposes, yes, partly; partly because we

believe it is a good thing to do, but partly, yes, so that the profile of our

district association and our party - and I as a candidate in the district - our

profile is kept at a high level within the district.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, to this House that that is not

the business of an Elections Act or an Elections Financing Act. I have never -

and I speak only for myself, I know there are many cases where elections are

financed through the district association. In my seventeen years that has not

been the case. I have a district association, I believe, probably as strong and

as active as any district association in the Province, but when it comes to

elections, it is my election. I run to be nominated as the candidate for the PC

Party in Mount Pearl and once I win that nomination and the right to represent

myself as a PC candidate I then run my election. I have my own election team, my

own fund-raisers, my own financial chairman, my own campaign manager, who

invariably also includes all the members of my executive, but not necessarily

so. The president of my district association is not automatically my campaign

manager. In fact, he probably will not be.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Elections Act will not interfere with

that.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. I am simply trying to say

that these are two separate entities. The district association and the election

mechanism are two different entities, and I will go so far as to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I believe, on close examination, this piece of legislation may be

considered unconstitutional, because I believe it interferes with the freedom of

expression and the freedom of political association. I think we have gone too

far in that regard. We should be here ensuring that the election process is

fair, just, and honest and that there is no opportunity to buy votes, that

nobody can contribute so much to a political candidate that he or she does now

no longer have freedom of expression in the House. I believe that is our concern

with an Election Act and I agree with that. But what my district association may

do during a four-year term to raise funds for their own purposes to carry on

their own business is nobody's business but that of my district association and

I believe that district association has the right of free association under the

constitution. So I would submit that this legislation is unconstitutional.

Now, if the district association raises funds during an

election or between elections and contributes those to my election campaign,

then that should be scrutinized and maybe there should be limits as to how much

money a district association can contribute to a campaign; sobeit, and let it be

made clear that if it is $5000 from a district association that the district

association must account for where it got that $5000 if they choose to

contribute to my campaign that amount of money.

I think it is clearly a breach of the freedom of association

afforded by the constitution to say that anything my association does now must

be public knowledge, to say that my association must now have an auditor and

must provided audited books. That is what this Act says. If I have a dance at

the Reid Centre next week and earn $700, I have to disclose that. I have to

report that to the Auditor General within two weeks, I believe. Why? What has

that to do with elections? - absolutely nothing. If that $700 next fall is

donated to my campaign, let me account for that, and so I should.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have no business in the books of

district associations. I think it is unconstitutional and for that reason, Mr.

Chairman, I will not be supporting this particular piece of legislation. I ask

the President of Treasury Board to think about that. I suggest we should defer

this legislation and send that aspect of it, together with, I think, the proxy

vote that needs further study, send it back to the Committee and let us ask some

constitutional experts - there seem to be all kinds of them across Canada today

- whether or not this particular provision is an infringement on the

constitutional rights of political parties to associate.

The other aspect, Mr. Chairman, is let us consider where

funding comes from for an election campaign. In many cases, certainly in my own,

I believe the bulk of the funding that is made available to me to run campaigns

is made available to me personally as a PC candidate, but I raise the funds

because those people want to support me as a candidate. I would say the majority

of the funds that are contributed to my campaign are campaigned by personal

friends and associates that wish to support me personally. A lesser percentage

will come from those who wish to support the PC party and the ideals for which

we stand. I suggest that is probably true of every candidate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. member need not worry about it. I

will be here long after his name is forgotten. Do not worry about it.

So I am suggesting that the funds that come into a political

campaign come into a member's campaign. If he has a surplus, then fine. Let it

stay within the party, or within a campaign organization for the next campaign.

What about if he has a deficit? Who pays for it? That is a

good question. Who is liable? Are we saying in this that the candidate now is

not liable for any over expenditure of funds, or for any funds expended in

excess of the amounts collected? Who is responsible for the deficit now? Is it

the party?

AN HON. MEMBER: The chief financial officer.

MR. WINDSOR: Chief financial officer? I doubt it. I have

not looked at that carefully in legislation. If that is the case we will never

find a chief financial officer, I submit to you. Who is going to volunteer for a

job that could get them liable for $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000? Well it will

not be $20,000 because they are limited to $20,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is the only one who can authorize it.

MR. WINDSOR: He is the only one who can authorize it, but

who is ultimately responsible? If that individual is responsible, I do not know

how that individual can be expected to do that job on a voluntary basis.

If the candidate is responsible, yet the candidate has no

control, it now has to be this association that deals with it and makes all the

decisions, why should we, as candidates, be liable for that expenditure?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We are thinking about it. Who is liable? If

we are saying that the candidate is no longer liable, then I am delighted. I

would love to go into a campaign knowing that I cannot come out of there owing

any money. I am still trying to pay off the last one.

It would be nice to know. Is the party now going to be

liable? I doubt it. I do not think that we can put in legislation that makes a

party liable. We cannot tell the party: You must accept that. I do not think we

can. Maybe we can. I do not know. I will bow to the lawyers in that regard, but

I do not believe we can.

My real concern here is that we are now, by legislation,

saying that district associations are automatically campaign associations. I

submit to you that they are two distinctly different functions and that we have

a right to keep them separate; and that I have a right, as a member, as a

candidate in Mount Pearl or anywhere else, to have a district association, and

that association has a right to operate under the terms of the constitution -

under the rights given us in the constitution - of freedom of expression and

political association. We have a right to run our affairs as we see fit. Only

when it becomes involved in the election process - and I would submit we are far

better off, and it is far less complicated, far less work for the chief

electoral officer, to deal only with the elections. This is what he is.

We are now taking the chief electoral officer and moving him

from being an electoral officer to being a political auditor general. He now has

complete control over every political association in this Province. What right

does this Legislature have to give anybody control over political associations

in this Province, under the constitution?

I would submit that we should look at this very carefully. I

would submit that we should send this back to the committee and ask them to seek

professional advice on it. I am not qualified. I think there are constitutional

lawyers. The Department of Justice can advise us and whatever, but I think we

should look at this carefully and ensure that the constitutional rights of

political associations are not compromised.

Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): The hon. the Member for Eagle

River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to take a few minutes to comment on a couple of

things that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl outlined. The hon. member points out

some legitimate opinions, but there are a couple of things I would like to put

in perspective for hon. members. It is not accurate, I would say, to indicate

that the Elections Act is forcing disclosure of district association activities.

MR. WINDSOR: It certainly is.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No it is not. Let me explain as best I

can. The hon. member does not have to accept it. The only difference we have in

this act compared with the federal act when it comes to the fund raising

activities of the party or the candidate, is that this Province has taken the

step, the further step. At the federal level, in Newfoundland and Labrador for

instance, there is only one person who can issue an income tax receipt for fund

raising purposes if you want to make a donation to the party.

What this legislation does is, take that step one point

further and gives the fund raising activities to the local level, so it will

enable the local district association through the chief financial officer that

they appoint, the ability to go out and collect funds and issue income tax

receipts. Now, by virtue of giving that authority to the district associations,

through their chief financial officer, the government now has to find

accountability for that process, so therein lies the reason for the auditing.

Now the auditing will mean nothing more than the fact that

there are x number of dollars coming into a district association, and that if in

fact the dollars over $100 per individual contribution is made, then the

district association, through its chief financial officer, will have to disclose

who made that particular contribution for income tax purposes. If it is under

$100, it does not have to be; so what the district association will be expected

to provide is an accounting to the chief electoral officer, that indeed they

collected $800 through the income tax process, and whether they are to be

disclosed will only be implemented if in fact the individual donations are over

$100.

Now, the activities of the district association outside of

that will not have to be disclosed. The chief electoral officer is not demanding

that the district association report whether they made $700 or $1,000 from a

fund-raising activity, they do not have to report that. They do not have to

report the balance in their account; they do not have to report on what they

have spent their money, whether it is going to conventions or anything of that

nature. The only thing is, the income tax, so we can get the accountability to

the public for the use of that income tax receipt, so that is the only thing

that is being asked for under the auditing process of the district associations.

I also want to point out to the hon. member, that there is in

no way any interference with the district association activities. They are not

being told by this act or directed in any way by this act on what they can spend

their money on, they can go out and have a fund-raising activity. The only

connection between the fund-raising activity and the district associations and

disclosure, is whether in fact the district associations had a fund-raising

activity and if it was over fifty dollars, if there was over a fifty dollar

charge for the ticket and in fact income tax receipts were issued for that

particular donation, then certainly that would show up as a regular part of the

revenue to the district association by use of the tax credit system, but whether

there was $5,000 made or $10,000 made by the district association on that

particular activity, that does not have to be disclosed to the chief electoral

office and then, whether they go to the convention and spend $10,000 on that, it

does not have to be disclosed to the chief electoral office. What they have to

disclose, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to hon. members, that there has to be two

accounts set up; two bank accounts set up by a district association, through the

chief financial officer.

One account is the operating account of the district

association and the other account will have to be either - certainly they can do

it before the election or when the election is called, but there has to be an

election account set up. Because the accounting and the auditing of the election

is apart and has to be apart, separate, from the accounting of the operation of

the general district association. I know that is a bit cumbersome but indeed

that is what is necessary in order to be able to get a clearer accounting of the

expenses and revenues that come into an election campaign.

Again, as the hon. member points out, if the district

association wanted to transfer all of its funds to the election account it can

certainly do that. But again, it would have to be documented and accounted for

as a part of the expenses of, or the income that would come in, and then be

under the expense guideline of the overall campaign limit of $20,000 per

individual district campaign, or three times the number of voters to a maximum

of $20,000, and a minimum of $9,000.

The other thing that might be pointed out here, Mr. Chairman,

is the expense side of things. Transportation inside the district does not have

to be included as an expense. That is something that is going to be exempt.

Because obviously in many of our ridings the transportation cost may take up

$20,000 or your limit before you even get into your advertising or your workers

or any of these other expenses that you would ordinarily incur.

So I do not believe that it is an appropriate and fair

criticism of the Act that it is not fair, just and honest. It is fair, just and

honest. It is attempting to put in place for the first time an appropriate

structure where we can see exactly what money is coming in to a district

association for the election campaign, if in fact they decide to go through the

election campaign fund. Certainly there is nothing to keep the district

association from using the money they collect by the tax receipt for general

operating purposes. That means going to a leadership convention or supporting a

particular charity in the community. They do not have to disclose that to the

public, that Mount Pearl PC association makes a donation to the community group

in Mount Pearl. They do not have to inform the chief electoral officer of that.

So I believe that what we are asking for is a reasonable declaration.

Also, the other thing that was being talked about today by

the Member for Humber East is a little bit different from what we saw in the

Committee from hon. members opposite. Because what the Member for Humber East

was asking for in the amendment, or criticism of the amendment under the

plebiscite/referendum aspect of it, is that contributions should be limited,

that expenses should be open-ended, and that there should be unlimited spending

by any number of third parties or anybody else.

I find that certainly outside of the general thrust of the

Elections Act, federally and provincially, and wherever in parliamentary

democracies. One of the prime reasons for this was the last federal election

campaign, and the interference of the business community, and particularly the

tremendous amount of funding that was channelled into the pro-free trade debate

at the time. That has led to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform insisting

that there should be stronger measures to impose limits on third party

advertising and to see that there is some kind of -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I just wanted to say on that

particular aspect, Mr. Chairman, that there is a real need, and this is why the

government proposed that, as many hon. members might know from the past couple

of weeks debate in the federal House of Commons, there was a tremendous uproar

in the House of Commons because the federal government brought in legislation

and Mr. Andre insisted that there would be absolutely no spending caps, there

would be no accounting of the money that would be spent in the referendum, and

many people quite legitimately thought that was wrong. It has been recognised as

being wrong in a general election, so why shouldn't it be costed and certainly

be limited for a referendum campaign? There is no reason whatsoever why we

should hand over an issue so important as the Constitution of the country or a

free trade debate or some other to a particular vested interest group which may

have access to untold amounts of money.

So I think that what is outlined here in

Section 173 is quite

reasonable, quite appropriate and not unprecedented by any means. It is showing

up in all provincial and federal election guidelines. Indeed, the recent Royal

Commission recommended that there even be stricter guidelines established on

this particular aspect.

So I would conclude, for the time being, I think, on this

note, picking up on what the Member for Grand Bank says, that there are some

aspects of this Act that, as I said yesterday, hon. members should be very well

aware of. There are a number of technical - you may call them procedural -

bureaucratic things that have to be done. If they are not done by the time that

the official writ and the end of nomination day and so forth are done, then some

people could find themselves very embarrassed that they may not be recognised as

a legitimate candidate, or they may be recognised as an unaffiliated candidate,

because their district association has not formally approved a chief financial

officer.

It is not the kind of thing to slough off because, quite

rightly, the hon. gentleman says, there is a lot of change in this. There is a

lot of restructuring on which hon. members, and certainly, the political

parties, would be well-advised to get great advice and be well-informed.

That doesn't make it an unpalatable piece of legislation.

Simply because we have to make real change and implement stronger and more

elaborate rules doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I would echo the concern

of the hon. members opposite, and certainly members here, that we should well

versed on what is in the bill. Because it has specific procedures that have to

be followed, and certainly have great implications for the overall election

process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take a

few moments. My friend from Humber Valley wishes to speak and I know he will

make a good contribution. I just want to answer a couple of points that the hon.

the member for Eagle River just made.

First of all, under

Section 275(3)(i), it requires that: "an

audited statement of the assets and liabilities of the district association as

of a date not earlier than 90 days prior to the date of its application for

registration...." In other words, you have to have a statement of assets and

liabilities from past when you register, when you first start off. So all assets

and liabilities have to be there.

Under

Section 305(1): "... district association shall, on or

before April 1 in each year, file with the Chief Electoral Officer financial

statements, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles, of assets and liabilities and of income and expenses for the

previous year...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: In other words, everything has to be

disclosed, all assets, liabilities, all income, all expenditures, filed on an

annual basis with the Chief Electoral Officer. So when the hon. the member for

Eagle River stands and say: you can have a function and not disclose it, he is

totally wrong. If he were to look at

Section 288(1), called fund-raising. "In

this section, 'fund-raising function' includes suppers, dances, garden parties

and other functions held for the purpose of..." fund-raising.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. If you do that then you have to

disclose all of that, all of the income, to the Chief Electoral Officer. So how

could the hon. member stand there a moment ago and say you can have function and

not disclose it? You disclose it there, and you disclose it in your annual

statement of income and expenses.

So that is why I say, Mr. Chairman - I am not going back over

everything I just said. But I believe that this is a serious infringement on the

freedoms of district associations and political parties.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I just want to ask a pointed question, Mr.

Chairman. My understanding from this, all along, to tell you the truth, was that

the chief financial officer would be appointed after an election is called. Now,

under

Section 305, that was my understanding. But it is not so. That chief

financial officer stays in place. So that is always. So what my colleagues from

Mount Pearl and Grand Bank are saying is absolutely true.

Section 305(1) says

that all assets and liabilities, financial statements, "... in accordance with

generally accepted accounting principles, of assets and liabilities and of

income and expenses for the previous year of the registered party or registered

district association for which he or she acts, together with the auditor's

report as required by subsection 304(6)."

So this to stay in place for - I have a job to get someone to

stay in place, to keep a financial officer. How many members opposite can keep a

financial officer in for three weeks during a campaign? You've got a job for

someone. I am not being critical in the sense of this whole Act. As far as I am

concerned I agree with my colleagues, it is a good Act. But I don't think there

is a member opposite who can argue with me that it is very hard to keep someone

in place for twenty-one days during a campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty days now.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, now, under this one. It is going to

be a minimum of twenty-eight days. But let's face it, let's call a spade a

spade. I find it very hard. It is alright now for incumbents who probably have a

district association, and probably have a campaign team, like, for instance,

myself. I am after running two campaigns, so it is only natural that I would

have a history, we'll say, and an affiliation with a certain group of people to

help run my campaign. But can you imagine, in districts in this Province where

we have no association? - that is all members opposite, the Liberal Party, the

NDP and the PC Party, trying to get someone in place, the PCs, for instance, in

St. Barbe, to try to get someone in place to stay there for four years.

Let's be realistic. I don't think there is one member

opposite who can say he is going to get that commitment, every year, and take

the responsibility. The responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is something that should

certainly be taken into consideration. The offenses that are going to be

committed pertain - and they are broken down. It is not across the board, it is

broken down. The offenses: exceeding expense limits, $1,000 just on expense

limits. Then it goes on to: false statement, false receipt; it could be up to

$5,000 or three months in jail.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, who wants to take on that responsibility?

MR. WOODFORD: Now, Mr. Chairman, who, in the name of God,

in this Province today, are we going to get to take on this kind of task? Five

thousand dollars or three months in jail.

MR. DOYLE: Just to be your financial officer in a

campaign? You have to be kidding.

MR. WOODFORD: Not only that, Mr. Chairman, it goes on to

the offenses: Destruction of records; non-compliance with the time limit - just

look at that one.

MR. DOYLE: Who wants that responsibility?

MR. WOODFORD: If we have an association, a chief

financial officer in place, who doesn't report after the six-month deadline, it

is fifty dollars a day. That's alright. Say, for instance, I won the election,

and the Member for Waterford - Kenmount won the election. We are on top of it.

We will make sure. But what about in a district where the candidate lost?

MR. MATTHEWS: There's only one person who can win.

MR. WOODFORD: Only one person can win, and I don't have

to tell members opposite how fast everything fades once you lose. There is

nothing as 'ex-' as an ex-politician.

MR. WINDSOR: Faster than a sunset.

MR. WOODFORD: I tell you, you have a job to garner, that

kind of interest during a campaign. Surely to God, after the campaign is over

you have a lot more trouble. That, I think, is going to cause us - and when I

say "us" I say all members of this House, and people who are about to become

candidates. They are not here. They don't have the luxury that we have, to sit

in this House and be handed a copy of this bill, and after all this time we

still find problems with it. They don't have that luxury.

We have. Any of us who are running again have that luxury,

and at least we can go out and try to do our part with regard to explaining to

our own associations.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to have real

problems in getting a chief financial officer to stay in place for the campaign.

He has to submit it six months afterwards, even where a district association

applies for membership and gets registered. If it happens four months after

those offenses, those penalties can't kick in. I am not saying this to be

critical in the sense of a critic, but I am putting up a flag. I think the flag

should be raised now, because some of us, Mr. Chairman, will be back here, and

members who are not here now will be back probably within the next year,

probably atoning for some of the sins that we commit today. I think that now is

the time for everybody to look at this in a constructive sense.

There is one other thing. I say there is a goodly number of

members in this House now this evening who didn't take this report and go

through it in earnest. The members of the Committee did an excellent job and I

commend them for it, and anybody else who is out there speaking on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the districts where there is

no district association?

MR. WOODFORD: Well that is the other problem. I mean, I

am talking about us here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Some of us don't believe in district

associations, Mr. Chairman. What about in areas, for instance, where the Liberal

Party hasn't won a seat for years, in areas where the PC Party hasn't won a seat

for years. The one that comes to mind, Mr. Chairman, is probably the Straits. We

haven't won a seat for years. Now, try to get an association down in the Strait

of Belle Isle to take on this responsibility. No way - there is no way in the

world.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is just a word of caution. I think we

should look at two things, the responsibility of the associations between

elections, the responsibility of the associations and the chief financial

officer during an election, and the responsibility of the associations and the

financial officers after the election, and look at the penalties. I am in

agreement with the accountability part of this, no problem. I think we should

submit everything right down to five cents or ten cents. I firmly believe that.

But I think we have to have another look. I ask the President of Treasury Board,

along with his colleagues, to make sure that we have an opportunity to make this

quite clear.

If we, as sitting members and as legislators, don't

understand this Act, let's face it, how in the name of God can we expect people

who are as far away from politics - I suppose, don't even know the House is open

during your four-year term - expect them to sit down for thirty days and absorb

the contents of

an Act such as this and be responsible for it. At the same time

we are asking an individual, a private individual in our constituency, to take

the responsibility of paying a fine of $5,000 or $50 a day, or $1,000 or

whichever. I think it is incumbent on us, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that

doesn't happen. I think, before we pass this particular piece of legislation, or

if we do happen to pass it this evening, we should make sure before it is

proclaimed -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Could I have just a minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.