April 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 19

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it's with very great pleasure

that I inform the House that the government have reaffirmed our support for

Allied Military pilot training at CFB Goose Bay, and that preparatory work will

begin immediately toward renegotiation of the Multinational Memorandum of

Understanding on Goose Bay. The Allied air forces at Goose Bay currently train

under this agreement which expires in 1996.

In January the Cabinet Committee at Goose Bay which I chaired

was in Labrador and we met with interested individuals and organizations to

discuss the continuance of military training activities. The Detachment

Commanders of the foreign forces who train at Goose Bay - the German air force,

the Royal Netherlands air force, and the Royal Air Force from Great Britain -

subsequently came to St. John's and met at the Premier's invitation with the

full Cabinet.

Based on these discussions, the government have strongly

reaffirmed our support of Allied Military flight training activities at CFB

Goose Bay. We do so because of the importance of the Base and because we are

convinced that activities are being carried out with due regard for the

environment and aboriginal concerns.

To place the importance of CFB Goose Bay in its proper

context, it must be said that without Allied Military flight training the future

of the base would be in jeopardy. In turn, the economic basis of the Town of

Happy Valley - Goose Bay would be threatened and its future would be tenuous. I

doubt that there's a family in Happy Valley - Goose Bay which does not to some

degree depend on economic activity that is dependent in turn upon the Allied

presence. The government are committed to assisting and supporting this

presence.

CFB Goose Bay injects $60 million annually into the local

economy. It's a significant industry by any standards. It's the major employer

in the Lake Melville region and the mainstay of business activity in the Happy

Valley - Goose Bay area. In total, the Base employs over 600 permanent civilian

personnel and about 400 additional civilian employees on a seasonal basis. It is

estimated that wages and salaries, which exceed $40 million annually, represent

one-half of all the personal income in the Goose Bay area. The Base also

stimulates considerable employment and economic activity in a range of other

industries throughout Labrador and throughout the Province as a whole.

In over forty years of low-level military pilot training,

few, if any negative environmental impacts have been identified. We are

confident that the federal government and the Allies are committed to lessening

any future chance of negative impact. It's not generally known that the

Department of National Defence spends approximately $1 million annually to

monitor and to mitigate the impact of military flight activities on the

environment. This is a significant commitment and the Province will continue to

work closely with the Department of National Defence in the design,

implementation and refinement of effective environmental monitoring and

mitigation programs. The government will work will DND and other federal

agencies to ensure that the continuing federal environment review of this

activity is completed quickly and with accuracy. We shall also continue to work

closely with the Town of Happy Valley - Goose Bay and with other proponent

groups who wish to participate in the FEARO hearings scheduled for later this

year or early next year.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Aboriginal issues

let me say simply that I am confident, and my colleagues share this confidence,

the Department of National Defence, which is responsible for operating CFB Goose

Bay, has done and will continue to do everything within its ability to address

proper and legitimate Aboriginal concerns.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First I want to thank the minister for sending over a copy of

his statement prior to his releasing it here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that this administration

has reaffirmed its support. It would seem that maybe by the act of their stating

that they had to reaffirm it that they had some doubts about whether or not this

should be. Of course, we all recognize in this Province that this is basically a

federal initiative, and this is one of the few federal initiatives, or the only

one that I am aware of, that this government has not attacked; but I am pleased

to see that they are supporting this because there had been some reference to

the hon. Member for Naskaupi being referred to as the scud missile from St.

John's.

If they were so concerned about the economic activity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, a lot of the Liberals are going

to be hit by friendly fire here around the City of St. John's too.

Mr. Speaker, if they were so concerned about the economic

activity in central Labrador they would have made announcements in their Budget

Speech with regard to the design and construction of a health care facility,

namely a regional hospital, to serve the people of Labrador which, by the way,

would provide more employment than the armed forces bases or the military

training centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

While they mouth services and platitudes for their commitment

to the rights and aspirations of the Aboriginals in Labrador, and their concern

for them, they do absolutely nothing when it comes to sitting at the table and

negotiating a land claims deal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Statement of the Minister of Justice and the

consultation process that the Cabinet committee undertook to travel to Labrador

and meet with interested individuals and organizations, there was one

organization that was left out, and they were the people who were perhaps the

most concerned and most interested in the effects of the military flight

training and in particular the low level flying. Mr. Speaker, the flimsy excuse

that was given was that they were not paying their electrical bills based on a

protest of the takeover of their historic land base to produce electricity at

Churchill Falls. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is immoral to continue to ignore the

rights and concerns of the Innu whose way of life, cultural identity, and their

confidence as a people has been so negatively affected as to threaten their

future, their health and in some cases their very lives.

Mr. Speaker, the government of this Province together with

heads in the sand on this issue. It must be faced, it must be dealt with. They

must go to Labrador and speak to the Innu, and not ignore them based on some

flimsy excuse.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government has indicated its support for the

development of regional, co-ordinated, comprehensive continuing care programs

and home care support programs that would include the standardized placement of

individuals requiring such services. Our view is that this can be achieved best

by merging existing continuing and home care support services with public health

services and bringing both under the jurisdiction of a single community health

board in each region.

I am pleased to announce today that government has decided to

proceed with the establishment of two regional community health boards, one for

the St. John's region and the other for the Central Newfoundland region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: We have been and are consulting widely to

identify potential board members. In the coming weeks we will be appointing the

boards for St. John's and for Central Newfoundland. There will be a period of

transition from the existing structure to the proposed new structure, with the

objective of having the boards formally take over their responsibilities on July

1, 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I should make clear that these boards are not

the regional hospital boards that we will also be setting up, following the

extensive consultations that are in progress as a result of the Dobbin report.

The boards to which I refer today are regional community health care boards.

The St. John's Regional Community Health Board will be

established by merging the St. John's and District Health Unit, the St. John's

Home Care Program and the St. John's Drug Dependency Services.

The Central Newfoundland Regional Community Health Board will

result from merging the Central Newfoundland Health Unit, the Gander and

District Continuing Care Program and the Central Newfoundland Drug Dependency

Services.

The new regional community health boards will provide a

comprehensive range of community health services including health promotion,

health protection, single point of entry, continuing care, drug dependency and

mental health services. The new boards will provide for public input into the

identification of needs, the establishment of priorities and the management of

the day to day delivery of community health services within the region. The

program and the delivery of service will become the direct responsibility of the

boards. The Department of Health will provide policy direction, funding and

monitoring, as is now the case with hospital and nursing home boards.

Discussions are under way to establish similar boards for the

other regions of the Province and I look forward to making announcements with

respect to these areas just as soon as the final decisions are made.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these initiatives will strengthen

our community health services so that the people of our Province are provided

the best possible health care compatible with the resources available.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to have a few words in response to the

minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker, I think the key word in this again is that

government has indicated its support. Now, this government has indicated its

support for a number of measures over the past four years, but they really

haven't delivered the support, so you have to read every document this

government publishes or tables in this House. You read it very carefully,

because one wonders again just how much support this government will give to

those newly-established boards. I say to the Minister of Health, if he would

listen for a moment, that since he has established those two boards now, I am

wondering, how much financial support is he going to provide those two boards

now? And I am wondering, a bit later on, if he has the figures, if perhaps he

would give them to the House, because, as I said, it is just an indication of

support, and I guess these boards will need real support, financially and

otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the former

Minister of Health, in an Estimates Committee of the House, last year, said that

the first board to be established in the Province would be the Western Board,

and that is on record for members to read. Now, he said the first board would be

the Western Board, that was supposed to be established he said or would be

established last fall, but there is no reference here to the Western Board.

Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, if, indeed, this new

concept that the minister is announcing, and these new boards, do enable better

delivery and better services for the people out and about the Province who so

badly need them, then I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the concept

and supporting the establishment of the boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have none whatsoever in doing that,

because if there is one thing that concerns me, as much as, or perhaps more than

anything else, it is the delivery of health care in our Province to the people

who so badly need it. I run into it on a daily basis as a member for the people

that I represent, and I am sure all other members do, too.

So if, by this provision, these boards can co-ordinate and

provide for more efficient services that are outlined by the minister here,

then, Mr. Speaker, as I said, my sincerest hope and sincerest wish is that it

really will work. The minister also referred to the Dobbin Report. He said they

are not the regional hospital boards, which we clearly understand. I would say

there is probably some confusion out and about and probably even among some

members, if they haven't followed the legislation and followed the government's

agenda. There may be some confusion about it, but we know they are not the

regional hospital boards, which is another point of contention in some areas of

the Province, the Burin Peninsula being one. I am sure the minister is aware

that the health care professionals, the existing regional health care board and

the people of the Burin Peninsula, are very, very concerned about what is

happening to that region as a result of the Dobbin Report and the proposed

larger board covering a larger area. So there are very, very serious concerns

about that. But, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I just hope that the minister's

concept works for the benefit of the people of Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the

development of these boards has been recognized by this member and by others in

the House as being a positive step. Hopefully, at the co-ordination of this home

care service, home support services and continuing care will be better improved

by the structure that is involved. But my concern, Mr. Speaker, is what support

is going to be provided when, on the one hand, the government is setting up

these boards and, on the other hand, in the Budget for this year, the Estimates

indicate that support for home support services, for example, under social

assistance, is decreased by $4.4 million over the figure spent last year.

So we see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of window dressing going on, on

behalf of this government, but when it comes to the substance, they are cutting

out the financial underpinnings of the kind of service that is needed. So, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps these boards will be able to identify the real problem and, by

co-ordinating the effort, will be able to understand and, hopefully, help the

public understand how much is needed in this area, and convince the public and

show the public that this government here, while setting up these new

structures, has really undermined their effectiveness by taking money away from

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome a delegation from the Council of

Milltown, in the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, represented by the

following: Mr. Jerry Kearley, Mayor of Milltown; the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Douglas

Sutton, and the Town Manager, Mr. Gerry Glover. They are also accompanied by Mr.

Clyde Sutton, who is the president of the senior citizens of that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

question for the Minister of Health.

I am sure the minister is aware that the people of Grand Bank

and surrounding communities - those people who are serviced by the health care

clinic at Grand Bank - are very, very concerned and upset at the prospect of

having their clinic hours reduced. I think from twenty-four hours to twelve is

the plan.

This morning - I do not know if the minister knew or not -

but there were two doctors, Drs. Beckley and Rockel, and representatives of the

Town Council making public statements. The doctors particularly are concerned

that after eight o'clock in the evening there will be no one on duty at the

clinic except janitors, or a janitor, and we all know the implications of this.

Is there anything the minister can say to alleviate the

concern of the people serviced by that clinic? Is there, in fact, going to be,

after eight o'clock in the evening, just a janitor on duty, and then the janitor

will have to call a physician if needed? Is that what we are going to see in the

Grand Bank area?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hospital boards are being notified, or have been

notified. Some have, I think, and that particular item was mentioned in the

Budget Speech, I think, but the hospital boards are being notified of their

amount in their budgets and when they get their amount in the budgets, if they

wish, certain things can be altered if they can find the money in some other

way.

I know that is not much comfort if they are short of funds,

but that

part is not written in stone. Maybe we can get an alternate proposal

from the board if they have any ways of providing alternate savings.

The long-term concept here is that when the new facility is

added, the concept is that eventually the Grand Bank old hospital will be closed

and the clinic merged with the nursing home that is nearby, and that nursing

home will have staff on all the time. At that point the clinic does not really

need to be open except when the doctors are there, but there will be medical

people on staff; but that will not take place for awhile yet so I think then, in

the long run, that will be in place. What you are concerned about is the short

run and there may be some flexibility if the board can find ways of handling it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The administrator of the board was on this morning saying

that they have a $330,000 shortfall. They got their figures, I think, earlier

this week, so that does not sound very encouraging for the people who are

serviced by the clinic about which we are talking.

The minister is quite correct with the proposal to attach to

Blue Crest, but it is going to take a minimum of two years - that is if things

go well - so the concern is: What happens in the two year period if indeed it

materializes if there is only a janitor on duty after 8:00 p.m.?

I am wondering if the minister would give serious

consideration to looking at this specific item. I am wondering: Is there any way

that he can have a look through funding of his department to see if there might

be some fiscal measures that he can offer - alternatives to the board? The board

is going to have a nightmare trying to come up with money to keep operating if

they are $330,000 short from the outset. Is there any hope that the minister can

offer them at all?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I think there is no hope - very little hope.

I know the board has trouble with funds, but I might point out that the Minister

of Finance here is even more seriously strapped for funds and we all have to do

what we have to do.

There are doctors, I believe, in Grand Bank, and if that is

the case and people get sick, they probably should go and consult the doctor. It

is not as if it were a place where there were no doctors nearby, or anything of

that nature.

I do not want to argue against the case because it would be

nice to keep the whole thing open if you could, but sometimes you have to cut

the cloth according to the amount of money available, and this is one such case.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister

must be aware that's what operating in Grand Bank outside of the clinic are

private practices and they shut down at 5:00 p.m. The real concern, I say to the

minister, is if an emergency case arrives at the Grand Bank clinic with no

doctor on duty - I would like to ask the minister: what is going to happen if an

emergency situation, a patient, arrives at that clinic with only the janitor

there? A case that needs stabilization, a patient who needs to be stabilized

before being transported on to the Burin regional hospital. How does the

minister answer that concern? What does he do to relieve the concerns of the

people?

We all know the tragic results - and I heard two doctors on

this morning from the area who are predicting dire consequences if this matter

is not corrected, I say to the minister. You know what's going to happen if a

patient arrives who needs to be stabilized. The janitor has to call the doctor.

It's going to take time for the doctor to get there, and we just hope the doctor

doesn't find the tragic situation when he gets there. So what is the minister

going to do to help out that situation? That's the question.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of this

Province where there are no doctors resident in the community. There is a

hospital nearby, a very good hospital in Salt Pond, that offers many services.

It is not like some other parts of the Province where the hospitals are more

distant. We would like to provide a hospital open twenty-four hours a day in

every community of the Province. Perhaps some people would like that. But we

can't do that. We have to cut the cloth according to the garment and we have to

make sure that people are - the policy is that people are within an hour's drive

of primary health care services, and that in the region there are the usual

specialties, and in the Province somewhere there's tertiary care. That's our

problem. We can't do what we can't afford. I believe that the Burin Peninsula,

by comparison with other areas, is well-served by the medical - and not only

that, but it will be even better served in the future.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell the minister, Mr. Speaker, and the

government that they're going to have a hard job convincing the people of the

Burin Peninsula that, when they've got sixty less acute care beds there as a

result of this government. I want to ask the minister: would the minister

consider meeting with representatives of the town and the health care board? I

understand there are requests on the way or already at the minister's office.

Would he make an undertaking to the House that he will meet with representatives

to discuss this very serious situation?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm in constant contact with

the members of boards of health care. I don't mind meeting with councils, but

the town councils don't have a direct responsibility for health care. I would

prefer that the people who would meet would be health care boards who have

responsibility in the local area. That's the right way to handle it. Town

councils don't really have any responsibility for health care, not when there's

a health care board in place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

a question to the Minister of Social Services. The minister announced in the

House that his department is actually forcing handicapped students seeking

post-secondary education to apply for Canada student loans rather than receiving

funding from his department through the VRDP. Will these handicapped individuals

and their parents be subjected to the same qualifying guidelines as other

individuals under the Canada Student Loan program?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the same

question about a week ago, my answer was that the students that we're speaking

of, some 300 students, would be required to go through similar procedures as

other students who are not handicapped. If they apply for a student loan and are

successful in obtaining the loan that's available, depending on their means, the

next procedure would be to follow on through with application for VRDP as in a

normal instance. But yes, to answer your question specifically, they would be

required to follow similar procedures to other students.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The parents of

handicapped students incur extraordinary costs. Is it fair to have these same

parental contributions apply to those parents as to parents of students who do

not have these needs?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all the extraordinary costs the

member speaks of are covered, we have not impacted on those at all. If there is

a need for transportation or any other additional needs, tuition and so on, all

these additional needs that are out of the norm as compared to other students

who are not handicapped, these additional needs are taken care of, it is not

considered at all, that is not the impact we are having at this time, that has

nothing to do with the tuition fees per se, and we are not discontinuing any of

those extra additions and help that we have been providing in the past.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is rare that post-secondary education students with

handicaps are able to complete their education in the same time frame so, is not

the minister really forcing these students into the same category with other

students in having to compete, and try to complete their education within the

same time limits?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We are simply

asking that students go through the procedure of applying for student loans, we

are confident that some of the students have means either themselves or through

their parents to look after their tuition at the university, if not, of course,

they can go through the loan procedure. We are not trying to impact on every

student who has access through VRDP right now, but we do want to apply the

procedure that we are putting in place, a means test if you like, and include

the application for student loans in that process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Traditionally the department has run into December hearing

appeals so before these students can get an opportunity to avail of VRDP

funding, they have to adhere to the appeal process from the department

initially, and students with disabilities also have great problems getting

summer jobs compared to other students, also one important thing, it takes

longer for a handicapped person to seek employment after they are finished than

a normal person; often it takes two years, so, is not the minister throwing

these handicapped people to the wolves at a crucial time in their lives?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not feel we are. We

feel that we are being very fair, considering that they are students and if they

have means to cover their tuition, then we think that they should go through

that procedure. The loan procedure is available to them as well. We of course

look at their total income, look at the income of the family and at the end of

the day if they need assistance, the assistance will be provided and as I have

already mentioned, all the additional assistance we provide to them because they

are handicapped. All those additional aids, whether it be tutoring or

transportation or whatever it happens to be, we cover those needs anyway, so we

do give extraordinary help compared to the average student in any case and that

will continue. We are simply looking at these students by way of a means test,

insisting that if they have the means through their families or themselves, that

they should contribute to their education.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier.

In the debate about the government's termination of funding

for Daybreak in St. John's, the Premier talked about unmet needs in other parts

of the Province, areas outside St. John's, and referred particularly to the

Child Parent Resource Centre at Dunfield Park in Corner Brook. As the Premier

knows, the Dunfield Park Centre is located in provincial government premises and

was established through the co-operative efforts of both the provincial and

federal governments, operated for its first year with a federal government grant

which expired two days ago on March 31, requiring the Centre's staff to be

terminated.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy the government announced yesterday a

decision to reinstate funding for Daybreak in St. John's. I would like to ask

the Premier now, if he will also take action to reinstate the preventative

programs for young children and their families at Dunfield Park in Corner Brook,

by providing a small amount of provincial bridging funding or provincial interim

funding, which the Province will be able to recoup shortly when the new federal

program called Brighter Futures comes on stream, a program which will provide

100 per cent federal dollars, over a million dollars a year for the next five

years to be administered jointly by the two governments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Between the preliminaries and the after

comments and the hon. member's questions, it takes quite a while to correct the

misrepresentations and distortions, so I ask the Speaker's understanding in a

little lengthier answer than might normally be required. To begin with, to the

best of my knowledge, there is at this moment no formal request for any

consideration.

MS. VERGE: The Member for Humber West (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge there is no

formal request. I am not saying anything about the Member for Humber West. The

Member for Humber West does not run the establishment. He is only the Member for

Humber West as the member is only the Member for Humber East. Now, to the best

of my knowledge there is no formal request for consideration at this moment but

in any event, Mr. Speaker, one has to remember what the situation is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, ho!

PREMIER WELLS: I would like the babbling to stop for a

moment because I think this information ought to be gotten out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this unit was established by

the federal government. It is another classic example of the federal government

moving in, establishing a thing, establishing a program, spending money and then

backing away from it. They cut the funding as of March 31. They cut it totally.

They did nothing. They cut it totally. The hon. member says they established it

a year ago but I thought it was about a year and a half or two years ago. They

did it for one year and then walked away from it, and now you Province take it

over, and they are worried about deficits in this country? Let them think about

what they are doing. Now this they do in a variety of other areas. The

government cannot allow officials in Ottawa or politicians in Ottawa, whoever do

those kind of things, to create these burdens for the provinces in this way.

That is the second point. The first is there has been no request. The third

thing is, I understand that what is done in Corner Brook is significantly

different and not at all the same thing. The minister is better equipped to

handle this than I am but on the basis of the information that we have available

at the moment, and I have looked at the thing, what is done in Corner Brook is

not at all akin to what is done at Daybreak here in St. John's. So, Mr. Speaker,

for those reasons the matter has not yet been dealt with by government.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier if it is not true that two wrongs do not

make a right? Is it not true that because there are cracks in federal government

programming there is no excuse for the Province to turn a blind eye to families

in need? Is it not true that there will shortly be a new federal government

program for young children at risk and their families for the type of

programming at Dunfield Park in Corner Brook that will provide 100 per cent

federal funding to be administered jointly by the provincial and federal

governments? And is it not true that all the provincial government has to do to

reinstate the fine programs at Dunfield Park is to provide a small amount of

bridging funding which the Province can then recoup from the new federal

funding?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is not as simple as the

member describes. The Brighter Futures Program, we are told by the federal

government, does not apply to existing programs. You cannot take an existing

program that is in place, or one that is being discontinued by themselves in

this case, and place it into the Brighter Futures agreement. It cannot be done.

What we are told though, Mr. Speaker, is that after the Brighter Futures

agreement is signed and in place that consideration can be given to programs

that are in place, or certainly components of those programs, especially if we

see an expansion of a program that has a component that is different from the

way they were operating, so we have to await the signing of that agreement in

any case. Maybe afterwards we can do something.

As far as the Dunfield application is concerned, Mr. Speaker,

we have not as yet received the application. I understand that the application

is being put together. It has not been received, and as the Premier said, when

it is received by my department we will make sure that it is processed in the

normal way, looked at, and determined whether or not in fact, in speaking to the

comparison to Daybreak, whether or not it fits in the same category, whether it

has a similar mandate to Daybreak, and those points will be clarified and looked

at at the time of the receipt of the application.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Premier. Is it not true, as indicated by the Minister of Social Services, that

the government has neglected the Dunfield Park situation; the Member for Humber

West hasn't gone to Cabinet with a request, as he told the news media in Corner

Brook; the minister hasn't done an evaluation of the program; and what is going

on here is the kind of neglect that led the government to abandon Daybreak?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is pure nonsense. As a

matter of fact, we only found out about a week ago that the Federal Government,

with very little notice, was cutting off the funding to Dunfield Park effective

March 31st - very little notice even to these people, let alone to us.

Mr. Speaker, since that time, we have acted as quickly, I

think, as possible. My staff have put together as much -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - as has the Member for Humber West. As a

matter of fact, I believe he was the first one to tell us about it.

Since that time, we have done all possible to gather

information from the Federal Government and from the centre,itself, and now we

are at the point where I understand, as of this morning, speaking to my staff,

an application is being put together from the group that runs the Dunfield Park

Centre.

I can only repeat that when that application is received, we

will look at it and consider it, as we would do anyway. Irrespective of whether

it compares to Daybreak, we would consider it, anyway, as a request from a

centre that is in great difficulty because of the Federal Government, as the

Premier has already stated, cutting off their funding - with literally no notice

at all. So we will react to that request as we would react to any request from

any group in the Province asking for assistance after having the Federal

Government literally cut off their funding.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

The Daybreak workers, families and supporters were able to

fight back against government cutbacks because they knew what the government was

doing. They knew that the government was trying to close them down. How many

organizations - so-called third party organizations - are going to be affected

by the government's taking away of funding, which is mentioned in this Budget of

so-called truth and hope, without any details, without any information, who

cannot fight back because they haven't been told? Is the Premier and the

government afraid to unleash the same kind of protest as we have had from

Daybreak by not telling them, by not coming forward and saying what they are

going to do? Is that what the government's plan is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board has that information. I don't have the

details. I don't even know that the people have not been told - as far as I

know, they have been. I don't know, but I will ask the Minister of Finance to

provide the information.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These organizations deserve to know what the government is

going to do to them. They deserve to know what is going to happen to them. Those

who are having the rug pulled out from under them for financing and support for

rental accommodations deserve to know what the government's plans are. Are the

government going to reveal that now, or are they going to sit on it for another

few weeks?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, as usual, is fearmongering and they are

having a great bit of fun fearmongering, trying to say to all the organizations

around this Province, the funding has been cut, and all that kind of thing. Mr.

Speaker, the organizations know that the funding has not been cut, and I will

say to the hon. member that if he will give me a few minutes - I thought I had

it here - I will go down to the office and get the full list, and I will table

the full list, which includes the total funding that is being provided, the

organizations, the funding they got last year, what was requested for this year,

and the amount they are getting this year, all organizations that are receiving

the funding and those that are not receiving the funding. No problem. The hon.

member does not have to get on with his fearmongering, although he loves to do

that, because one thing the hon. the Member for St. John's East loves to do is

get on with fearmongering.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that it has taken several weeks for the minister to

be able to put together a list of the people who are going to be affected is

obviously some indication of this government's approach to the Budget. Will the

minister not admit that just as in the Daybreak experience, what the government

did and what Treasury Board did was look at the Budget, look at the bottom line,

and put a minus figure at the bottom, the same as they did for public sector

workers, and try to figure out the damage afterwards? Is that not what really

happened?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Finance and I am

having great difficulty hearing the minister. I do not know if the minister is

having great difficulty answering in terms of competing with the noise. I ask

hon. members on both sides, please, to observe the rules of the House.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated to the Member for Humber East, who first

raised this question - and I apologize to her for not getting back to her sooner

- as I indicated to her in the House, I was attempting to put the list together,

but the point is that we, in the Department of Finance or in Treasury Board,

don't necessarily make all the final decisions, and in terms of grants to third

party organizations, in some instances, block funding was provided. Then, the

departments had to go and make decisions and I had to wait until these decisions

were made to get my information together. I have had it for the last couple of

days and I apologize to the House for not tabling it. I will now go down to the

office and get it, and table it as soon as I get back, that is, after I table

another item I have to table.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. In response to a question from my colleague

from Fogo, a couple of days ago in this House he suggested that the unemployment

problem in this Province is going to be answered by the private sector. I am

sure he is very well aware of the plight of the hundreds of miners in Western

Labrador over the past two years who have lost their jobs because of the

downturn in the mining industry. These people are facing the very bleak prospect

of their UIC benefits expiring. They are in a Northern isolated single industry

community and, of course, the private service sector in the area is also facing

bleak prospects because of the grinding down of the mining industry itself, so

the private sector cannot respond to all the needs of these people.

I know the minister is aware of the problem but I wonder if

he can tell me what he and his department plan to do to help alleviate this

problem that the miners are facing because of these prospects?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. It is about

two-and-a-half weeks ago now that I met with a delegation representing the

council in Labrador West and Lab City. They had written pointing out these

concerns. I also have been in touch with the leaders of the unions representing

the miners and steelworkers, union representatives in the area.

The same groups have made representation, as well, to the

federal minister responsible, hoping that because of the circumstances in

Labrador West as described accurately by the hon. member, there might be a case,

in this instance, for some short-term intervention by the government because of

the extenuating circumstances in Lab West at the time. I was a little surprised

that the council representatives did not invite the member along to that

meeting, because that happens in many cases.

I am surprised that the first time I heard from the member on

the matter, would be in the House, rather than writing me or coming and bringing

the case forward like other representatives truly interested in the welfare of

the workers in the area have done. I would not want to cast any aspersions, Mr.

Speaker, as to why the member would now ask the question. Maybe he needs

something to put in the newspaper in Lab West.

Normally, the people who are truly concerned have done

exactly what the council members and the union leaders have done. They have

written to me. They have come and met. We are considering serious proposals they

have put forward to us and to the Federal Government. It is probably an

opportunity, too, Mr. Speaker, to point out that this is not a new circumstance

in Labrador West, as the hon. member would know. There has been a downturn over

the last couple of years. There have been repeated layoffs in Labrador West and

this is a continuation of that circumstance because of the worldwide situation

with the iron ore industry.

Last year we did respond in a couple of manners by

participation in the Industrial Adjustment Services Committee and also, by

targeting some special amount of student summer employment funding to Labrador

West to meet the needs of the students in the area who normally would have

gotten their summer employment in the mining industry but didn't have that

opportunity because of the shutdowns of the summer. We are considering those

kinds of options again and I am a little surprised that it comes as a question

in the House instead of representation in the office or to letters previously.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't see why the minister would be surprised that he would

be questioned in the House, Mr. Speaker. He shouldn't be too embarrassed about

answering questions just because he was publicly chastised by the Premier of

this Province for incorrectly answering questions to other people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Speaker, instead of casting

aspersions on my doing my job, what he should be doing is working on his

particular job which is responding to the needs of the miners who are laid off

in Western Labrador, and while I was meeting with the teachers who are

discouraged, disappointed and disgusted with his response to their needs, Mr.

Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know that Oral Questions is not a period for

debate. Sometimes the Chair uses a little flexibility, but when it allows one

side to carry on a little, it has to allow the other side to carry on, too - it

is what is known as 'tit for tat', but having allowed that 'tit for tat',

Question Period is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies

of a Special Warrant that was recently issued.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in response to a

question from the Member for Humber East, to table the grants allowances and

assistance review. It has taken some time to put it together, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: I have included, for the sake of clarity, Mr.

Speaker, the 1992-1993 Budget figure, the request for 1993-1994 and the actual

amount approved for 1993-1994. I would like to caution members to one point, and

that is that,

whereas there are some instances in here where assistance through

the grant process has been removed but that assistance is being provided through

the Strategic Economic Plan initiatives - this applies particularly to areas of

aquaculture, group crops and that kind of thing. So, with the proviso that

anything you see here in terms of aquaculture that has been stopped, has been

taken over through the Strategic Economic Plan initiatives and that would not

show up here. With that exception, these are the lists of grants and so on that

have been approved. As far as I know at this point in time, it is the most

up-to-date list, but again departments were given block funds in some instances

and decisions have been made, and I am assuming these are the final decisions

that have been made.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker,

yesterday, the Member for Kilbride asked questions concerning carpeting on the

9th and 10th floors of this building. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the carpeting

on those two floors, the carpeting is carpet tiles. These are tiles which are

not permanently affixed to the floor but can easily be removed for maintenance

purposes. Instead of having to re-carpet a whole room, you can replace carpeting

tile by tile.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the 9th and 10th floors there were two

cases. In one case, the contractor laid the wrong colour carpet tiles in an

office on the 9th floor. These were removed and reinstalled in the correct

office on the 10th floor. Since this was a contractor's mistake, Mr. Speaker, it

occurred at absolutely no cost to the government.

Mr. Speaker, there was a second case, a request to change

carpet tiles to match the originally-agreed-upon colour scheme. Tiles were

interchanged with existing stock from the same area and took approximately

thirty minutes to perform, at no charge, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have long since passed Question Period. We are now into

Answers to Questions. Are there further answers?

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Green Bay, if he would just allow a moment, I have a note here which says that

we have in the galleries the Deputy Mayor of Wabush, Mr. Mike Cole. I hope he is

still here, if not we will welcome, anyway, the Deputy Mayor of Wabush.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the citizens

of the community of Beachside in my district, signed by 133 citizens, 134 with

my signature attached. Members will recall that last week I presented a short

petition signed only by the councillors, that I received after a brief meeting

with them on the weekend. Members will also recall that I was brought to order

on bringing into this Chamber a bottled sample of the water that the people of

Beachside have to live with - water that is not fit to wash in, water that is

not fit to wash clothes, water that is not fit to cook in, and water that

basically is fit only to flush a toilet.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this is the water that the people

of Beachside have to live with. Basically the entire citizenry has signed this

petition asking the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to give them

some relief, to provide some additional money for their system to see if they

can clean up the discolouration and the silt in the water.

The minister's department claims that money is allocated on

the basis of need. In this particular case, the need is very real. You look at

any ice cube in any fridge in Beachside and it is clear on the top and brown on

the bottom, because the water is full of dirt and sediment and it sinks to the

bottom. So the water in Beachside is not really fit for human consumption. I

would ask that the minister do for Beachside what he has so generously done over

the last few years for the community of Brighton.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of 859 Roman Catholic parishioners from the communities of

Harbour Round, Brent's Cove, Baie Verte, La Scie, Coachman's Cove and Fleur de

Lys.

This petition, I guess, is the same as we have seen presented

a number of times in the House in these last couple of weeks to demonstrate

support for the denominational system in communities around our Province. This

petition was circulated, I guess, before our Premier made his statement

regarding agreement that he had between the denominational system and our

government. I am sure everything possible will be done to preserve our

denominational education system in our Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know - I

am going to ask for a little quiet down in the corner to my left now. If they

want to speak, they have to speak in a whisper.

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, members have over the

past few weeks been presenting the petitions generated, generally speaking, by

the Roman Catholic church with respect to the schools issue. The prayer of the

petition is the same in all of them. They are coming in from all over the

Province, so I don't need to take the time of the House to elaborate on it. The

position of the government on it is very well known.

I rise today to present a petition, not on behalf of a member

on this side of the House, but to honour a well-established and time-honoured

tradition of presenting a petition that had been given to Your Honour by people

in your district to have presented to the House. As all hon. members are aware,

His Honour has no right to speak on any public debate in this House, and speaks

only to maintain order and provide for the conduct of the House's business.

Therefore, in order to overcome that limitation and ensure

that people in the district that His Honour represents are not deprived of the

ability to have their petitions presented in the House, by tradition, the

Premier or the Government House Leader will present such petitions on behalf of

His Honour.

I am hesitant to put words in His Honour's mouth, but I would

say, if I were to take a guess, that His Honour would present this petition with

somewhat similar comments to those that I made when I presented a petition on

behalf of residents of my own district. That the position expressed by

government is that they have no desire to specifically seek an amendment to the

constitutional provisions providing for denominational education in the

Province, but rather the purpose and focus of the government is to seek to

achieve change by consensus. If the development of a consensus results in a

desire or a general agreement that there should be such changes, then we could

of course seek them.

The government is equally confident that through its work

with the leaders of the church we can provide for an acceptable level of changes

in the educational system without the necessity of seeking constitutional

changes.

Your Honour, I'm happy to ask to have tabled in this House

the petition of a large number of people from Your Honour's district, and

pleased to do so on Your Honour's behalf.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, seeing that this is a bit

unusual that a petition has been presented by the Premier - since I've been in

the House it's the first time that a petition has been presented by the Premier

on behalf of the Speaker. I would like to stand in my place and support the

Premier and our illustrious Speaker.

The prayer of the petition that both of them submitted,

particularly on behalf of the Speaker of our House, I know that the Premier did

not wish to put words in our Speaker's mouth, certainly I would not do that

either. The Premier did suggest what he thought the Speaker might say in support

of the petition, and he said he might use certain words. I know that if our

Speaker was presenting the petition he would do it with quite a bit of flair,

much more flair than the Premier did. He has always been a good speaker. I too,

and I'm sure all members on this side of the House, will support the petition as

presented by the Premier on behalf of the Speaker.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I too rise today

to present a petition from the Stephenville area, from St. Stephen's parish.

Again, the prayer of the petition in support of high-quality education for the

Province, in support of Roman Catholic schools, in support of shared services,

in support of cooperation between churches, in cooperation in the education

system.

A lot of concern and interest has been generated in the

Province. The government is committed to reforming the education system, to

getting the best education system that this Province can have. The Province is

working with the churches to make sure that a cooperative agreement is reached

and we can get the best system that we require. I remember the former Minister

of Education, the Member for St. John's North, used to say: the most scholar for

the dollar. I think that's what we're aiming to do. To use our resources in that

way to ensure that we get the highest quality of education for our young people.

On behalf of the residents of the area of Stephenville and of

St. Stephen's parish, of which I'm a member, I present this petition in support

of those efforts on behalf of government and the churches.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to rise in my place and present the rest of a petition which was sent in to

me on the tail end of one I already presented, these petitioners, some fifteen

of them. This petition arrived a bit late in my office from when I presented one

on behalf of the parishioners of Corpus Christi parish in Kilbride, or the

Kilbride - Waterford - Kenmount area.

The prayer of the petition is exactly the same as the rest of

them that we've presented in this House of Assembly. They are a few more names

to the thousands of names that have gone through this House of Assembly

recently. People who are worried about what the government is planning to do

with the educational system in our Province. People who are very concerned about

the statements of our present Minister of Education, when he suggests that he

wants to be remembered by his grandchildren - which really emphasizes it to me -

as the person who did away with the denominational education system.

I would say the previous Minister of Education, the one who

resigned there a little while ago, would probably like his grandchildren to

remember him for that very same reason but he will not have the opportunity now

to be the one who put the death nail to the denominational educational system.

So, the present Minister of Education and the Member for the Strait of Belle

Isle will properly get the opportunity, if in the next month or so they happen

to be re-elected. Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that that will happen, I doubt

that it will. Also these people are not only concerned about the statements made

by the hon. present Minister of Education and we are also concerned about the

former Minister of Education who - it was well known over the years that he had

many problems with the denominational education system. He was one of the group

at Memorial University in the Education Department who were gunning for the

denominational education system to be abolished and as they were doing their

teacher training you could see it coming through the NTA.

Eventually, it evolved through the NTA as the Department of

Education used their brainwashing techniques on the people they were training.

The NTA then started to attack the denominational educational system, Mr.

Speaker, but the root of it all was based in the Education Department at

Memorial University. The former minister, nice fellow that he is, believed very

strongly that we should do away with the denominational educational system. I

would say that he probably still does but politically now the polls have swung

the other way, so it is not politically acceptable for people to say they

disagree with the denominational educational system.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to present the rest of this petition

on behalf of those few people and just to say once more that these people are

still nervous about the agreement that the churches have with the Premier. They

are nervous that the Premier has stated in his letter that he is not presently

looking for a change to the Constitution. They would have more comfort, Mr.

Speaker, if he said he would not, during his term of office, look for a change

in the Constitution. It would give them more comfort to know that he would not

try to change the Constitution to do away with it.

Now, he suggested that these people are suggesting that these

petitions were started before the statement by the Premier and the members of

the churches but if he follows what the Pentecostal Association are doing, the

Pentecostal churches, they are presently today, having public meetings

concerning the future of the denominational educational system in parts of our

Province. So, Mr. Speaker, there is still some concern out there in the

religious groups, they still do have concerns about what the Premier has agreed

to do. They are happy that the pressure is taken off right now but they are

nervous of what may happen if the Premier is ever elected in this Province

again. I guess too, because of the history of what he has done, signing

agreements and then taking them away again when it is convenient, they are still

nervous that he might take away or scrap the agreement that he presently has.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Speaker, I will ask Your

Honour, first of all to call Order 12 which is Bill 21, the Elections Act, so

that hon. members can arrange their day accordingly, assuming we dispose of the

Election Act. In due course we will then ask the House to consider Order 10

which is Bill 17, that is the Salary Reduction Bill. Notwithstanding all the

nice things we said about Your Honour a moment or so ago, we will be asking the

House to reduce Your Honour's salary along with everybody else's. I hope Your

Honour will not take it personally. It is only my friend for Bellevue who did

take it personally. Finally, if we dispose of the other bill, we will be asking

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, getting heckled by your own

backbenchers is really something. I have to say though, it is better heckling

than I am used to from the other side. Then we will be going on to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - we will be going on to the - I am quite

prepared to have whatever they say behind my back to be said to me, unlike the

hon. gentleman from Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back, when we finish, assuming we do

finish at some point this morning, Order 10, Bill 17, I will then ask that we

consider, The Taxation of Utilities Bill and the government has decided that the

need to have this bill adopted is so compelling that if we do not finish it

today than the House will be asked to sit again on Monday until we deal with it.

I do not want to debate the bill, it is not in order, but there are no new

principles in it. It is a matter of correcting some errors that were in the

matter we dealt with before Christmas.

So with that

preamble, Sir, I would ask if you would be good

enough to ask the Clerk to call Order 12.

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

Election Act And The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill No. 21).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak for very long at all

in dealing with this Bill. As I mentioned in the House the other day, it has

come out of consultations which were held among the leaders of the three parties

represented in the House - the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, and the

gentleman for St. John's East. I have also spoken with the single Independent

member of the House, the gentleman from St. George's, not to ask his views one

way or the other but simply to tell him what was coming in the Bill and to

receive whatever comments he cared to make.

Before I discuss the two or three principles or sections

embodied in the Bill, let me make the preliminary observation, Sir, that the

sections in this Bill - the points that this Bill would make into law if the

House is minded to adopt it - all come from the new Elections Act, the 1991

Elections Act which was passed in 1992 to add to the confusion, but the new

Elections Act has in it a number of new provisions which the consultations

disclosed have the support of all three of the political parties in which it is

felt it should be brought into play in time for the next election.

We do not know when the election will be. The Premier may or

may not know but if so he certainly has not told me, and he has not told my

friend, the Minister of Finance, and if he has not told the gentleman from Mount

Pearl, then nobody in the House knows except the Premier.

Be that as it may, it is quite possible that the new Election

Act, which cannot be brought into force, as I explained earlier, until some time

much later this year, perhaps the fall, it is quite possible that the new

Election Act will not be the rules that govern the conduct of the next general

election in this Province. So if we want to import into the next general

election some of the principles and features embodied in the new act, we have to

adopt this legislation with or without amendment as we wish. That is what leads

the government to bring it forward, because the consultations among the party

leaders, to which I referred, disclose that there was agreement that there were

two or three features of the new act which ought to be brought into play.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, let me very briefly discuss what

these are. They are set out in the explanatory note. There are essentially

three. One is the name of the party will be placed on the ballot, and there is a

provision that the leader of each party will designate - will sign a list - as

to who are the men and the women seeking election as the candidates representing

the leader's party. When that designation is made, the ballot will have on it

the name of John Doe, Progressive Conservative, or Pete Smith, New Democrat, or

Gillian James, Liberal - whatever may be the case.

The parties do not exist officially in law, so what we have

done is by reference incorporated the deeming provision that is found in what I

will call the new act. That, if one wants to look it up, is a combination of

Sections 278.(1) and 281.(1) of the new act, but essentially what it does, and

hon. members I know are familiar with this, would provide that the three parties

now represented in the House of Assembly namely, in alphabetical order, the

Liberals, the New Democrats, and the Progressive Conservatives, would all be

recognized as parties and so the leaders of these three parties would all have

the right to designate candidates whose names would be adorned by their party

name on the ballot. That is one thing that the new Bill will achieve if adopted.

I do not need, I assume, to speak at length on the reasons

behind that. It is in the new act. I understand it had ready support. I think it

is correct to say that throughout Canada now, universally, party names appear on

the ballots, and that is simply a recognition of the way in which modern

elections are held.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill makes special provision for

candidates who are not affiliated with a major party. There will certainly be

some in this election, we understand - it would be very surprising if there were

not. They have a choice. They will be able to have themselves described on the

ballot as non-affiliated, not a term that warms the cockles of my heart.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I say to my friend from St. John's

East, that for whatever reason, and I wasn't in the House so I don't know the

reason, I cannot speculate on it, the new act uses the term 'non-affiliated' -

which always struck me as a sort of clumsy one, but the fact remains, it is

there - as opposed to 'independent'. Now, I don't know why, and rather than

change it without being certain of why it was there, I would be reluctant to

change it, so I suggest to the House we go ahead and use the term that is in the

new act, which is 'non-affiliated'. However, a non-affiliated or Independent

candidate, if she or he so wishes, may file with the returning officer a form

which will have the effect of allowing the candidate's name to go on the ballot

without any adornment. It will just be simply: Thomas Jones, nothing more than

that. So, that is the second thing this bill achieves.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the bill will enact into the present

law, two sections that are found in the new act, and these sections 176 and 177

of the present act will, in the new act, become, I think, sections 305 and 306.

These direct the advertising that parties or candidates may do during an

election. There are two requirements that will be made law: One is that there

may be no media advertising - no broadcast advertising, I am sorry. I have to

get this right.

It is

section 4 of the bill - no media advertising, both

broadcast and print before the twenty-first day before the election. Now, in the

campaigns in this Province, this administration has adopted the practise of

using at least twenty-eight days notice; that would mean, for the first week the

election would be spared television and radio ads and would be spared print ads.

There is, however, a course in exception that allows advertising in public

meetings and districts, announcing districts headquarters and these kinds of

things.

Now these sections are taken word for word I understand from

the new act that was approved by the House a year or so ago. Secondly, and again

this was approved by the new act, the act will prohibit a practise that has

occurred, to my knowledge, from time to time in this Province, and which I find

most reprehensible, and that is the practise of some media outlets of jacking up

their rates when an election comes and they know that parties must have access

to broadcast and print media, saying: Well, we have a special deal for you. It

is twice the normal rate or one-and-a-half times or whatever. That will be

prohibited. They are allowed to charge the same rate to sell the virtues of my

friend from Harbour Main, who, unfortunately, will not be a candidate, as to

sell the virtues of a brand of soup or nuts. The same rate will apply, and that

is put in here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also a provision with

section 5 of

the bill, that the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act will be amended by -

when I say it is adding, the bill will add a

section to that act; the effect of

that, if one tracks it through, Sir, is to delete from the bargaining unit, the

people described and, in this case, a person who is employed in the office of

the Chief Electoral Officer. It is my understanding that this provision will

affect one individual, the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, who, at present,

is a member of the bargaining unit. It is the government's belief - and we have

put it in the bill - that that is inappropriate to that person. The person

holding that office is a management level position and should be excluded from

the bargaining unit, and this would achieve it if the House is minded to adopt

it.

One other point, Mr. Speaker: The present act, as we all

know, provides that a candidate's name on the ballot shall include his or her

name and occupation. The new act removes the name and occupation requirement. If

the House is minded, if members wish, we are prepared at Committee stage to move

an amendment that would have the effect of providing, the name on the ballot in

an election conducted under the present act - if one is still with me - will not

have the occupation and address requirement. In other words, it would just

appear: Ed Roberts, Liberal, or Neil Windsor, Progressive Conservative, or

whatever.

Now, I am in the hands of the House on that. I have asked the

Law Clerk to prepare the necessary amendments should one wish to do it. If there

is no unanimity on the point, we won't do it. But it always struck me as a

little strange that one's address and occupation are on the ballot. I have never

had anybody say to me: I am voting for you or against you because of where you

live, or because of what you do or what you don't do.

MR. HARRIS: If you are a carpetbagger -

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. HARRIS: What if you are a carpetbagger?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I was called a carpetbagger in

Naskaupi, but the voters of Naskaupi made quite a conclusive answer to that. I

went down to White Bay North twenty-seven years ago as a very young man seeking

election, and I don't think anybody had the least concern where I was born, or

where I lived, or what church I went to. They were concerned whether I was Mr.

Smallwood's representative or not. That was the determining factor in the

election.

In fact, I say to my friend from St. John's East, I got about

85 per cent of the votes in that election. When I came back to St. John's,

somebody asked me how I had done, and I, perhaps with a little pride, said: '85

per cent.' The answer was: 'Gee, Roberts, you only had a chance to meet 15 per

cent of the voters, did you?' So I say that to my friend. Think about that.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, should the House wish us to take

that requirement out, we are quite prepared to do it. With that said, Sir, I

simply move that the bill be read a second time, and if there are any particular

questions from members I will try to deal with them either when I close the

debate or at Committee stage.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to have a few words on this. First of all, I find it strange to see how far

this government will go to try to get Bud Hulan elected. That is the only reason

I can see for having this piece of legislation before this House. Because poor

old 'Larry' there is going to be left out in the cold. He won't even be able to

be an Independent Liberal any more, Plus the other two or three Independent

Liberals who are running out in that district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six or seven now, I think.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is that right? Mr. Speaker, we spent

$800,000 trying to get Bud Hulan recognized around the Province on an

agricultural task force that we threw in the garbage. Now we are passing a

special bill in this House of Assembly so that he is the only one in that

district who can appear on the ballot as a Liberal.

I would say this change also might have some consequences for

other Liberals, other members on that side of the House, if they decide to run

as other than a member of the recognised party. Some of them will probably lose

their nomination in the near future.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) can't call himself Minister of

the Crown as his occupation either.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. Some of them, maybe

three, but two, I think, are going to have a tough battle. One of them is going

to win, by the way. One of them is working pretty hard at it and he will win his

nomination. But if he doesn't and he still wants to be a part of the elected

House of Assembly of this Province, and they still want to put their name on the

ballot, that person, or those people, will not be allowed to be called

independent Liberals or NDPs or Progressive Conservatives any more.

I must admit, I sat on the Committee that dealt with this

legislation, by the way. Has the Minister of Justice just said, he doesn't know

why 'non-affiliated' is left in there and, as a Committee member, I don't know

either, I really don't. The only reason I can give for that is because everyone

on that Committee, I would expect, and everyone in the House of Assembly at the

time it was being discussed, had all planned to be members of affiliated

parties. There were no independent people here to give a different perspective.

I think, at the time, I was planning to give it up, so it didn't matter to me

one way or another what that designation was, but now that the point is raised -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I really can't remember. I hope our

Chairman gets up. Maybe, in Committee I would like to give that option - unless

someone can give me that idea. Whatever the thought was, I missed it when we

were in Committee, if it was brought up. I might, in committee, wish to make an

amendment to Clause 2. Not only does the candidate have the option to not have

'non-affiliated' on the ballot but might also change 'non-affiliated' to

'independent'. What is the difference? That is fairer, I think.

If a person is a Progressive Conservative candidate, a

Liberal candidate, or a New Democratic Party candidate that is all on the

ballot, and the other person is an Independent candidate. Well, that is not bad.

I can see you wouldn't want to have Independent Liberal or Independent

Conservative, because it does cause some confusion amongst the electorate, but

'Independent', period - well, that should be a recognized designation in our

political field. Some people would like not to be affiliated, would like to be

considered as independent and would not like to be toeing party lines when they

vote on certain issues.

So, Mr. Speaker, maybe I will consider an amendment, too, in

Committee, to see if members agree with that. There will probably be two or

three in the House who may agree with me. Maybe I will get a forth one, so we

are building, and if I talk for a little while longer we may get a few more

because, if not in this election, maybe at some other time in the future -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I might lose the (inaudible) if I keep

going. I am serious. I do not know why 'non-affiliated' was there. I can't

remember, even though I served on the Committee - and the Minister of Justice

can't remember. It was probably taken from some other act and put in there, I

would suggest, but if we had to have some person sitting in the House at the

time who was an independent member and planned to run as an Independent again

the next time, we certainly would have a different perspective on that. I agree

with the Minister of Justice, that 'non-affiliated' seems like some kind of

disease. You would not want that on the ballot. I wouldn't want it behind my

name. It is a negative term, right off the bat. I might try that in second

reading. I will check with my own colleagues here because I didn't mention it to

them before. I guess it was my responsibility, as a Committee member, to have

raised this before in our caucus but I did not. I must admit that it just

slipped by me completely.

Clause 4: The change in Clause 4 is that there can be no

advertising until twenty-one days before election day. The Minister of Justice

didn't give me any good reason why that should be. Someone could start today,

advertising for their campaign, I think, if they wanted to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once an election is called they cannot

campaign.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Why? That is what I mean. They could be

doing it now for three months and then when the election is called they have to

stop. We should get an explanation for that one. It is in the new act again. It

is something else I missed. I very lax when I was on that Committee, I must say.

I don't understand the reason for only having advertising twenty-one days before

the election. There could be a very valid reason, and if there is a valid reason

I wouldn't have any problem supporting it - but I would like to know that there

is a valid reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know - I didn't talk to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Maybe he did.

Then clause 4 suggests that government is expecting a strike

in the public service, no doubt. They want to have an election now and they know

they are going to have a strike in the middle of it so they have to take that

person out. I don't know if that person was always a member of the bargaining

unit or if he was put in just recently. We ran elections with threats of strike

before and didn't see any reason why this person should be in or out of the

bargaining unit. If the government is nervous of a strike coming I can see that

they would want to have this person out of the bargaining unit because it

certainly would put a big strain on the electoral office to have the number two

person over there not participating in the organization of the mechanics of the

election if that person happened to be on strike. I don't know if that person

was always in the bargaining unit. It certainly is an admission by government

that they expect a strike to come fairly soon. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I

cannot remember, now maybe the Minister of Justice would address it when he gets

up but I do not have a copy of our old act, is the definition of a new Party. I

know it says here that the definition is the same as in Elections Act 1991 will

come into force and so on and so forth. I cannot remember the definition but is

it possible that a person could start up the Liberal Party 1991 and put that on

the ballot?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, by leave.

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

MR. ROBERTS: The answer would be, no. To become a Party

one must meet certain requirements which are set out in the Act. The easiest way

to do it would be to run candidates, I think in thirteen constituencies in the

last general election, but secondly there is a general prohibition against names

that are confusing. The idea is to give the electorate a fair choice. One can

start a Party easily but you cannot call it the New Progressive Conservatives or

something like that. No, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is simply,

that would not be possible.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I thought that was the answer but yes,

that is fair enough. I have no problem with that as long as people cannot - the

less confusion the better. There is enough confusion in that twenty-one days or

that twenty-eight days without adding to it. With those few comments, Mr.

Speaker, and my proviso on this non-affiliate designation, maybe we should

consider putting Independent on the ballot along with non-affiliated if you want

it or nothing if you want it or Independent but not Independent Liberal or PC or

NDP but just plain Independent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise

to speak in support of the legislation in principle on Bill 21, to amend the

Elections Act and The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. I do think it is

important that in the upcoming election we adopt the procedure followed by the

Federal Elections Act and by a number of other Provinces. I am not sure if they

all follow this procedure or not, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice said,

perhaps he has had someone research it but having the political party's name on

the ballot paper I think is important, particularly where you have so much party

identification going on through advertising and through the vote of the people.

People who are coming to vote ought to know, not only what individual they are

voting for, but what political party they are supporting as well.

I know that the committee and the House in discussions about

the legislation did not really come to grips with the issue of what do you do

with people who are not members of parties. I do not think that aspect of it was

really considered until we have in fact come to the point where an election is

imminent. We do have some individual circumstances to reflect upon, particularly

the Member for St. George's who is now seeking to be returned to this House but

does not have the endorsement of the Party. It is only sometimes when we are

faced with individual facts and circumstances do we actually come to grips with

thinking about what the consequences of certain designations on a ballot paper

might or might not be. In thinking about it and in thinking about an individual

who might want to run as an independent as opposed to one affiliated with a

party, why would you want to have a negative word after your name and not

something else, a non-affiliated as opposed to independent?

One reason which made me think of it, Mr. Speaker, was a

novel which I recently read and it was written in the 1920's or 30's in the

United Kingdom. The novel was actually a murder mystery but the whole plot

revolved around this individual who was a professor at Oxford or something, who

was running in an election, a by-election in England and he ran as an

Independent candidate. As part of his campaign he was extolling what he called

the virtues of independency that by not being associated with a political party

he would be able to deal with the issues of the day as they arose and would not

be entrapped by party politics and by the requirements of having to meet the

discipline of party politics, that he was prepared to offer to his constituents

or prospective constituents the virtues of independence. The fact that he was in

fact running as an independent was a positive thing. It was not the fact that he

could not get the endorsement of a political party, that was not his problem.

What he wanted to do was to run as an independent because he believed, and he

believed that the constituents believed, that to have a member who was not going

to be swayed by the discipline of party politics was a positive and good thing.

So to use the word independent and to have it in that way I

think is probably a good thing, and if individuals want to choose non-affiliated

as part of their appellation on a ballot paper then so be it, but I think that

the more common term throughout the political history of this Province and other

parts of the British parliamentary tradition have been to call yourselves, at

least, an independent as opposed to a non-affiliate, and I think that would be

appropriate and I would certainly welcome and support an amendment by the Member

for Kilbride to the legislation.

I think it is probably appropriate, coming from a member who

is, in fact, retiring and resigning from the House to come up with this

amendment, because it shows it is not coming from someone who has some partisan

motive or personal motive but rather wants to improve the legislation so that

the legislation better reflects the traditions of electoral politics.

I think I, as he, sat in on committee meetings. I was not a

member of the committee, but I do not think that issue was even discussed - why

the term 'non-affiliated' or 'non-affiliate' was used. I think it was just

something that was passed over because it was not an issue before the House.

With respect to party endorsement, as I say, I am happy to

see that there. I would agree with the Minister of Justice that it is time -

that it is not necessary to have a person's occupation or a person's address on

a ballot paper. The address should be of no political significance. I think the

real purpose of having an occupation and an address would be to identify who the

person is. If there were twenty-four Art Reid's in Carbonear, for example, it

might be necessary to identify the Art Reid who happens to be running in the

election. I do not think that is really of any practical significance because a

modern election campaign would make it very clear through the advertising

brochures and literature that is available during election campaigns of quite

clearly identifying who the person is who is in fact seeking the election on

behalf of a political party or as an independent. I think that is really not

something that needs to be left to the ballot paper. It is something that really

can be looked after in the campaign itself, so I would support an amendment by

the government to delete the requirements of putting in an occupation and an

address on the ballot paper. I think we are happy to see that removed.

Occupation, of course, is something that is very subjective.

Some person might want to call themselves a member of the House of Assembly.

Some people might want to call themselves unemployed, and to be honest about it,

if they do not have a job. Their occupation may be some occupation that they

have training for but do not have work in. It can be subjective and people can

be more scrupulous than others and use it, perhaps, to their advantage or

disadvantage.

I think, from the elector's point of view, having the name of

the individual, the party affiliation, if any, and/or independents if we accept

that change, would be quite sufficient and in keeping with the new legislation,

so I would be happy to see that amendment from the Minister of Justice, or from

the government caucus, and I would support it. I believe there is also support

from the official Opposition for an amendment of that nature.

With respect to campaign advertising, the Member for Kilbride

was unclear as to what the purpose of it was. In general the purpose is to

restrict the extent of advertising to try and level the playing field as much as

possible rather than to give an advantage, for example, to the government. If

the government were to - such as the previous administration used to do -

Premier Peckford would, as I was informed yesterday, get up some morning and

tell the rest of the world that there was going to be an election that day. Well

he could have spent the previous three weeks preparing campaign advertising and

being ready to go so that the day he calls the election there is a media barrage

starting that night and continuing until election day, Mr. Speaker. That would

have been unfair to have that kind of advantage.

It would give the government in power, which determines when

an election is, the advantage in having not only prepared and done all the

pre-production of an advertising campaign, but also to acquire space and to buy

up the space and take over the whole field prior to an election being called, so

that as soon as the election is on they can hit the media with a barrage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: But at least now, Mr. Speaker, they have to

wait seven days before they can start it. I think this provision is not strong

enough, frankly. I think twenty-one days of a twenty-eight day campaign is more

than enough to have a barrage of media campaign. I'd like to see it restricted

even further. Fourteen days would seem to be more appropriate to me. It would

certainly level the playing field a little more for our Party with our very

limited resources as opposed to the resources of the other two parties. So I

would see it as being appropriate to shorten that. That's the rationale for it,

for the benefit of the Member for Kilbride.

The other element, the rates for advertising, I would agree.

In addition to charging higher rates for political parties during elections I

understand it's been a media practice to give different rates to different

parties, depending on the kind of support that they might or might not have, or

wish to support a particular political party. So I think that's another activity

that can in fact level the playing field for all political parties. So that some

are not getting special deals, and some are not getting over-charged, as the

Minister of Justice has spoken about.

As to the change in the Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act, I don't know what consultation there was made with the bargaining unit. I

think that should be a pre-condition to all-party agreement in the House on

this. I understand the rationale for it. I understand that the one position that

we're talking about is in fact a bargaining unit position, but is really in a

supervisory category. Although there are many supervisory categories within the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act bargaining units, this is somewhat

unique, in that there's only one position and there may only be one other person

in that office who's above that position. I think there are perhaps one or two

positions there. I think it's probably appropriate that these positions not be

in a position where services can be withdrawn during a strike, because one ought

not to be able to interfere with the process of elections. That's one of the

more fundamental aspects of our democratic society.

I'm inclined to think that in principle that could be

supported. I think it's something that ought to have been discussed though with

the bargaining agent involved before it was brought it. I don't think it has

been and I think it should be. I would ask the Minister of Justice to have

someone consult with the bargaining agent involved to advise as to what they're

doing and to get their views. There may be some protections needed in the office

of the chief electoral officer to ensure that those people who are being

deprived of the representation by a union are protected in other ways. That may

be something that we could be advised of by the bargaining agent involved. I

think that consultation should take place, if it hasn't already. Perhaps the

Minister of Justice can advise the House whether it has.

In principle we support the changes set forth in the

legislation. I have some quarrel with the twenty-one days. I think fourteen

would be more appropriate. I think that we could go further in adopting the

provisions of the new Act by removing the requirement of occupation and address

from the ballot paper, and also to allow a candidate who is truly independent,

who wants to be designated as an independent, to use that word and that word

only.

I know that this notion of being an independent candidate who

is truly independent who wants to be designated as independent to use that word

and that word only. I know that this notion of being an independent candidate

sometimes is by people's choice and sometimes it is by the problems that

politicians sometimes encounter in trying to get the support of a party for

which they wish to run, in fact sometimes it is a problem of the nomination

process itself. Some parties do not take the care to ensure that their

nomination processes are really conducted in a proper and appropriate way, and

sometimes sitting members or others find themselves on the wrong side of a

nomination process because they have not been prepared to play the game, so

called, that others are prepared to play and do the kind of things that other

candidates are prepared to do to get themselves a nomination.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say to hon. members that there may

well be some, as a result of these rules, who will not be back here again. The

Member for Kilbride talked about certain Cabinet Ministers who may have trouble

getting their nominations and that could lead to certain difficulties. They will

not be able to now, if this legislation is passed with the changes made, they

will not be able to call themselves Minister of the Crown on the ballot paper to

try and convince the people that despite the fact that they do not have the

Liberal nomination, does not mean that they do not still have some power and

influence, they will not be able to do that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some members opposite,

some Cabinet Ministers say that they were not really worried about the

legislation to roll back the wages. I know the Member for Kilbride would be

interested in this. I have heard Cabinet Ministers say on the other side that

they are not really worried about the roll back of wages because it is not going

to affect them, that it would not affect them, the roll back of the wages is not

going to affect them and my only response to that was, well, does this mean you

do not think you are going to get re-elected, and all that produced was a

chuckle and a laugh, but I will not embarrass the hon. member involved by

indicating to the House who it was, but it may well be one of those members who

is having trouble getting his nomination, Mr. Speaker, so I think that may speak

for itself, but it is not really necessary to -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) your nomination.

MR. HARRIS: No, I say to the Member for St. John's South,

no, I had no trouble getting my nomination and there is a very good reason why,

Mr. Speaker, a very good reason why I had no trouble getting my nomination -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is right, not only do those in my party

have the kind of respect for their sitting member that they will not seek the

nomination against me but people in other parties seem to be shying away as

well, so I am very pleased to say -

MR. MURPHY: I think young Sean (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, we will see, Mr. Speaker. I understand

that young Sean was very active in your party not too long ago and in fact on

the executive of one of your sitting members a very short time ago, and he was

President of the Young Liberals, so I guess there are probably two Liberals

running in St. John's East, and I suppose one of them has the Liberal banner,

the other one is going to have the PC banner, so, Mr. Speaker, I have no

difficulty with the nomination process for St. John's East, I am very pleased

with the way it worked out and I am not surprised at all that we were so

successful.

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks on the Bill and I would

like to see that we can move forward with the legislation and hopefully make

those two amendments and perhaps a third by changing the twenty-one days to

fourteen days instead for the advertising.

Thanks very much.

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

MR. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, maybe my hon. friend

from Kilbride can agree with me on this one, but I believe the question was

asked in our committee, questioning the word non-affiliate, and we did discuss

non-affiliate and independent, but we thought at the time, Bob, if you remember,

we thought that it had to be either one or the other, it could not be both, and

the reason we said that was, just picture the ballot with NDP, Progressive

Conservative, Liberal, Non-affiliate, Independent, Non-affiliate, Independent,

Non-affiliate, Independent. It would be too confusing. I think the argument was

that the Committee thought that the word "independent" was better than

"non-affiliate." "Non-affiliate" just showed up in the Act. We asked the Justice

people, if I remember, to explain to us why "independent" had been taken out and

"non-affiliate" had been put in.

I'm almost sure that the answer that they gave - I don't know

if they gave it to the Committee or not - but I'm almost sure that the answer

they gave was that a candidate can campaign in a district and call himself or

herself an independent. That candidate then in the campaign is labelled as an

independent.

Now if he or she is calling himself or herself an independent

Liberal or an independent Progressive Conservative, if he I suppose or she can

convince the electorate that he or she is an independent Liberal, than

automatically when you go and cast your vote, if you vote for that person -

you're almost in some cases confusing the electorate to the point where there

isn't a distinction between the true PC or NDP candidate and the independent

candidate. I think that was the answer.

Now I don't know if you're following me or not, but I think

that's the reason why the answer to the question of why the word "non-affiliate"

was there. If you think about the upcoming campaign, and in some previous

campaigns, somebody out saying they're independent Progressive Conservative.

Every sign and every poster shows independent Progressive Conservative, then it

causes confusion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or independent Liberal.

MR. REID: Or independent Liberal. It causes confusion for

some of the electorate. Okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: They can still do that.

MR. REID: But on the ballot they can't do it. When the

ballot comes out then the word "independent," if we put "independent" there,

then the word "independent" would be on the ballot, then people would

automatically turn around and possibly some people would vote, thinking they

were voting for Progressive Conservative or NDP or Liberal.

I remember us asking Justice to check that for us,. Because

that was one of our - and I confirmed that with Elizabeth at the Table. She said

that in her notes that was one of the negative things that we asked about. We

didn't think that the word "non-affiliate" should be there. But I'll say this.

That if your changes are taken into consideration I believe personally that it

has to be either "independent" and nothing else, or "non-affiliate" and nothing

else. I don't really think that you should be allowed to use "independent" or

"non-affiliate". Because just imagine what you're going to have on a ballot. If

you get more than, say, four or five or six people running, it's going to be

confusing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The other question I have to, and maybe when

the minister speaks to end debate on this, is

Section 176(1), which says: "A

political party or candidate, or a person, corporation or trade union acting

with it's or his or her knowledge...." Another question came up that I think

maybe should be explained. Maybe the minister can explain this.

We talk about trade unions but we have a number of

organizations in the Province which sometimes don't consider themselves trade

unions. Example: Newfoundland Nursing Association. Is the Newfoundland Nursing

Association a trade union?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. REID: It's not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes it is.

MR. REID: It's not!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not trade.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nurses union (Inaudible).

MR. REID: It's not. The nurses union is a trade union,

but the Newfoundland Nurses Association is not a trade union.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, RNA.

MR. REID: Yes, okay. They're not political.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) professional organization.

MR. REID: Okay, here's another one. Has anyone yet

determined whether the Newfoundland Teachers - legally, under jurisdiction,

Newfoundland Teachers Association - is it a trade union?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes it is.

MR. REID: It is. It's written somewhere that it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay. Well, with that said, I still don't

believe that an association like the Association of Registered Nurses should be

exempt from this piece of legislation. Or any association like that. So under

the definition of trade unions -

MR. HARRIS: You're getting into the whole third-party

advertising (inaudible).

MR. REID: Third-party advertising or not, Jack, why would

you restrict NAPE, CUPE, the Fishermen's Union and the NTA, and then with other

organizations out there, why should they be allowed to turn around and advertise

and not fall under the restrictions? When others are allowed to do it and trade

unions are restricted? I think when you stop to think about it, what it really -

I know there's a difference. My wife is in the association but not in the union.

Because she's a supervisor. You are probably in the same situation, I do not

know, but really what is the difference when you look at a trade union and you

think about the Association of Registered Nurses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: It is a good question. I do not know. Are there

any other groups in the Province like that, the Newfoundland Nurses Association?

What about the Newfoundland Chiropractic Association? Would they be able to do

it? Would the law society be able to do it? I do not know. I am just wondering

so maybe he could answer that. The last comment I want to make is on the

broadcasting time and rate. If there is a twenty-eight day election, well,

twenty-one days is sufficient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Sure it has. Think back to the Liberal reform

when Mr. Smallwood ran.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a registered party.

MR. REID: At that time was it even considered a

registered party? I do not know. I do not know the answer to that. My hon.

colleague here to my right wants me to sit down but I am going to make one final

comment. He is up on a daily basis, every time somebody on the other side asks a

question of the hon. Minister of Education, but I do not get a chance very often

to stand in the House, not as often as he does anyway.

Broadcasting time, twenty-one days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your last chance, Art.

MR. REID: It could be my last chance.

I find that in my area, in Carbonear, the rates for

advertising for politicians for political ads vary from day to day. It is

unbelievable sometimes what a person has to pay. I remember in 1989 a full page

ad in the local Compass out there was $1200. My financial administrator at the

time owned a business in Carbonear and he was getting a full page ad in the

Compass for $639. The monies those people have made off politicians and off

political parties over the years must be staggering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let us make the Legislation retroactive.

MR. REID: That is right. That would be a good idea, to

make the Legislature retroactive from 1989. I think it is a good piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, with no problems. I sat on the committee with Danny

Dumaresque and a number of other members and we spent hours and hours going

through this clause by clause. There were a few little things we could probably

adjust in it but it will certainly make for one of the best elections acts we

have in the country. I commend and congratulate the minister and his staff for

doing such a wonderful job on it.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few words

on the legislation in principle, just to confirm what I understand the

Government House Leader has indicated to the House, that we did have some

discussions with respect to this, the party leaders, and the House Leaders, at

least the Government and Opposition House Leaders, and the NDP House Leader who

also serves in a dual capacity, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is also their whip.

MR. SIMMS: And he is also their whip, and caucus

chairman, yes. I just want to confirm that. We are all very disappointed, of

course, with the obvious fact that the legislation, the much touted elections

legislation, is unfortunately not going to be able to be proclaimed for some

technical reasons and because of some difficulties. I guess that government

would claim it is beyond it's control and the only thing we would argue about

that, of course, is if it had been done earlier maybe it would have been in

their control.

AN HON. MEMBER: After fair criticism.

MR. SIMMS: After fair criticism. Of course if the

election does not come until maybe in the fall or beyond that time there is a

very good understanding that it may very well be in place for

that time so we will just have to wait and see with respect to that. I think it

is disappointing that if the election is held in the next little while, as most

people anticipate, it is disappointing that legislation is not ready because it

is good legislation and we supported it right from the beginning. With respect

to these particular amendments to the existing law we really had no great

difficulties. It is no big deal. I think they are important points but it is

hardly enough to spend an hour on in debate in second reading. The party label's

issue is not a big issue for us at all. Whatever candidates are running should

be able to win the seat if they want to win the seat based on themselves and

their own records and everything else.

I am not quite sure if what appears on the ballot in terms of

party label really makes much of a difference for most people. If the candidate

has done a good job in the campaign then people should know who that person is.

It is not a big issue with us but I do know that the Government House Leader

feels fairly strongly about it and that is fine with us. We have no difficulty

with it. We support it. The restrictions on advertising basically is at least

part of the legislation in the new act. The new elections act is basically taken

straight from that legislation, basically, the prohibitions or restrictions on

advertising. We like that idea and we suggested it to the government and it is

included here. That is for obvious reasons, I guess. I think it is wise to have

some restrictions up front to give everybody the first few days at least to

plan, prepare, and put everything in place. That takes a few days and it does

not give one party an advantage over the other.

The restriction at the end of the day, the restriction on the

advertising, specifically twenty-one days immediately preceding the day before

polling day which would mean that if polling day was on a Tuesday the

advertising cutoff restriction would end, say midnight on Sunday. That is the

way I read it and I hope that the clerk at the table can nod and say, oh, yes,

that is exactly what it means. I presume that is what it means. There is some

restriction there, like a day or so before, to give the public a day to sit back

without being harassed by all the television and radio ads, and everything else,

to give people a chance to clear their minds and come to a conclusion so that

the next day they will be happy to go to the polling booth and support the

candidate of their choice, whatever party that candidate might represent.

We support that and we also support the prohibitions that are

here about increases in advertising rates, and that businesses that are in that

business should not be able to, just because an election is called, shoot up the

rates all of a sudden. We really do not have too much difficulty with that.

There is only one question that maybe the Government House Leader can address

when he closes the debate on second reading. There is some confusion, I guess,

with respect to

Section 4 176(b), up on the top of Page 5 which talks about (

b) procure for publication, publish, etc., etc., and the last bit, in magazine,

newspaper or other periodical publications or through the use of outdoor

advertising facilities.

Now, if the restrictions would apply, does that mean, for

example, some of my colleagues on this side have asked me, does that mean, for

example, that you would not be able to put up, you know, the 4X8 billboards that

candidates have, or 4X4 billboards that you put up in various locations around

the Province. Does that apply to that specific point?

Say your posters, for example, your campaign posters, I

certainly would not want to see any restriction on that. If candidates have

their billboards and their posters ready to put up on day one of the election

they should be able to proceed with that if they want to. I am not sure if this

prevents that from occurring and that is the question I ask the Government House

Leader to ponder and maybe deal with, and if it requires an amendment or just an

agreement or understanding. I do not know precisely what outdoor advertising

facilities might be. I am not quite sure what that means so maybe he could

address that when he closes the debate. On the final point, Mr. Speaker, the

issue of the removal of the individual at the Chief Electoral Office from the

bargaining unit, I think, it really makes sense to do that, because you cannot

have the electoral process and the election itself being jeopardized by a

strike. I really don't think that would be fair to the people of the Province,

to the public of the Province. So I think that's a sensible amendment to remove

the individual from the - is that in this Bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. To remove the individual from the

bargaining unit. It makes a lot of sense. They need all the help they can get

down there, I guess, because it is an enormous undertaking. They don't have a

large number of staff, as I understand. I'm not sure how many are down there,

but not very many,

Mr. Speaker, with those few words I just want to confirm that

yes, indeed, we support the legislation. We were party to the consultation. I

think it's an example of how the consultative process can work. If the

Government House Leader was able to be that approachable, friendly and serious

on more legislation and so on, who knows? Might have the same kind of

cooperation in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't see anybody else rising

so I'll make a few remarks. I would first of all thank my friend, the Leader of

the opposition, for his closing remarks. I hear what he says. We shall see what

happens. I would simply say to him that cooperation is a two-way street, but

certainly this Bill is an example of what can be achieved when there's a common

purpose among the parties in the House, among the members in the House. That's a

good thing and I acknowledge that quite gladly.

Just a few very brief comments to respond to questions that

members have made. I thank them for their approach and for the support for the

legislation. Let me deal first with the non-affiliated question. I can offer no

wisdom or answer on this point. I've heard what my friends for Carbonear and

Kilbride said, both of whom sat on the select committee, I guess it was, that

dealt with - or the Committee on Privileges and Elections - whatever committee

dealt with the Bill.

What I must say though - and I've heard what my friends for

Kilbride and St. John's East have said - is that I cannot ask my colleagues to

support an amendment at this stage, simply because I've learned - and we're

going to be dealing with a bill very shortly that confirms what I'm about to say

- that amending matters without having thought them through is inevitably a

prescription for getting oneself into further trouble.

I don't know why the term "non-affiliated" was used. I really

don't. I can only tell the House, as I said before, that the term was used in

the new Act. I can only assume that those who drafted it in the first instance,

and those who pondered it on the Committee in the second instance, and those who

adopted it here in the House in the third instance, had some reason for doing

so. Now whether that reason was good or bad I can offer no judgement. I can

offer no view. But I'm reluctant to accept an amendment on the point, and so I

will have to ask my colleagues to vote against it. I'm not saying we can't

review the question another time, but this is not the way or the time to do

these things, in my judgement.

My friend for Carbonear asked about trade unions. I would

simply say to him - he's not in the Chamber, but I've no doubt he'll be

listening to my every word and he'll take Hansard home and sit up at nights

reading it to see what I've said - the term trade union as it's used in the

section before us is defined. It's defined in the new Act, which doesn't apply

to the old Act, but is still the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My learned friend for St. John's East is

right. The trade union act, means a trade union as defined by the Labour

Relations Act or the Canada Labour Code, that holds bargaining rights for

employees in the Province. I have no doubt that a court that looked at the new

Section 176 where it appears would simply adopt the definition in law. I don't

think there's any question about that but I can assure anybody who's concerned

that the matter would stand on that point.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition made some comments

about the desirability of having a new act in place for an election. I can only

agree with him. If we'd gotten an earlier start on it we might very well have

been able to do it. I accept whatever share of the responsibility is mine. Last

year perhaps I should have spent more time on that and less time on trying to

save the country, but the first six or eight months I was in office, Mr.

Speaker, I think I probably spent more time out -

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't have any success with either of

them.

MR. ROBERTS: That is true. I spent more time outside the

Province than I did in. It was awfully good for Air Canada and for a number of

hotels and for a bunch of consultants and what have you, but be that as it may,

we believe that we should take our share of the effort led so well by Mr.

Clarke, whom my hon. friend from Grand Falls has supported so consistently over

the years and who did such a splendid job. So, be that as it may, it is not

possible as I know my hon. friend will accept to run an immediate election under

that act, who knows, maybe his wish will be granted and the election will not

come until later this year. But Mr. Mitchell is under instructions and has been

from the start to move ahead with all speed on this, we have provided him with

whatever he has requested by way of facilities and support, and we can only say

we will get the new act up and running as quickly as we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I dealt with enumeration -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - I dealt with enumeration in the House a

week or so ago but the instructions to CEO are to get on with it and yesterday

at the Cabinet we appointed - there were some procedural things to be done, we

had to appoint revising Justices who are the returning officers. I think there

was one case where the returning officer is not available to act as a revising

Justice, and the chief electoral officer has been appointed, whatever the

official title is in the present act, the chief supervisor anyway, so all the

machinery has been put in place. The enumeration is going ahead even as we speak

I assume. Should the Premier decide this is the day, then the enumeration will

be put on hold obviously, but we are going ahead full steam.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), door to door enumeration.

MR. ROBERTS: The chief electoral officer tells me that

you know - I have used the figure four to eight weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten days?

MR. ROBERTS: That would be perhaps reasonable, but then

you have to post the list and revise them and all that - Part of the problem,

Mr. Speaker, and I will take just a minute, part of the problem the CEO tells me

and I accept his advice on this, is that we do not have a permanent group of

people in this Province who do these things. In the federal system they have a

more or less permanent one. Now I know the winning and the second candidate in

each federal constituency get to name the enumerators who take up the voters

lists but even so, parties generally use the same people, once polls captains

are brought into play and get a few dollars to make this bit of work, but they

have a permanent returning officer staff federally and all of the mechanisms in

place, we have never had that here, in fact until Mr. Mitchell came along and he

and I began to get into this, I think it is fair to say the chief electoral

officer's office was a very much catch as catch can, and I do not say that in

criticism of anybody who was there, but it was never run on a permanent basis

and I never figured out what the CEO did between elections but the answer is,

not a great deal that I could ever determine, but be that as it may, Mr.

Mitchell is a thorough going professional and I have said in the House earlier,

he really has cracked on with this and is doing a splendid job.

The question on billboards or outdoor advertising, I cannot

answer definitively, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that my judgement looking at

it, there is no definition in the act, I checked. Looking