December

7, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 71

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to take

this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the Deputy Ombudsman from

the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Brent Parfitt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery,

fourteen, Grades VII, VIII and IX students from Fatima Academy in St. Bride's

accompanied by their Principal, Mr. Hubert McGrath and teachers, Gordon Pike and

Bridget Power and bus driver, Rodney Morrissey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to remind hon. members, as

part of the Christmas Lights Across Canada Program, there will be a tree

lighting ceremony this evening at the steps of the Confederation Building, and

the festivities begin at 6:45 with the Salvation Army Citadel Band and the

lights will be switched on by the hon. Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation at 7:15 p.m. and refreshments will be served and everyone is

welcome to come out and help kick off the Christmas season.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have more questions about the Chretin Government's

proposed reforms to UI, the conversion of UI to EI; I would like to be able to

put the questions to the Premier, but the Premier is still over in Europe. Mr.

Speaker, instead, I will put the questions to the Minister of Education and

Training who seems to have taken over the job of the superfluous Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education and Training to

confirm that the Chretin Government, in its EI proposal, has begun a savage

abandonment of disabled people. Will the minister confirm that under the EI

proposal most disabled people who now qualify for unemployment insurance

benefits will be abandoned, that there will be no more so-called special

benefits?

MR. TOBIN: Get up Murphy, come on, answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on boy stand up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I probably would not couch the

situation in the same -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - in the same language that the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition used, but I will say this -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to give the minister an opportunity to

answer the question that has been asked.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have noticed over the past little while, the Opposition

seems to be more interested in asking questions than they are to listen to the

answers.

I will tell the hon. member that she full-well knows that the

federal government has introduced legislation which will have a negative impact

on parts of this Province, there is no doubt about that. Now, we have to look at

step two and see how we can salvage that. We have to see where the legislation

goes. At this stage it is legislation which has been introduced into the House.

It will no doubt go through the Committee stage and some day there will be

legislation proclaimed. But the details of that, Mr. Speaker, we will have to

wait and see what they are.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Minister

of Education and Training, the details are already available. The bill has been

made public and the provisions gut the disabled. Will the minister answer my

question and indicate that the EI proposal abandons people and leaves out in the

cold just about all the disabled people who now qualify for unemployment

insurance? What is he going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member answered her own

question. She said that the bill has been made public. I assume she can read,

and she can read it just as well as anybody else.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I can read, and

I've read that there will be no more special benefits and that disabled people

are virtually left out. A supplementary for the minister. Will the minister

confirm that the federal government will be slashing funding for higher

education and training for disabled people, that there will be a significant

reduction in federal funding for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled

Persons program, known as the VRDP program? What is the minister going to do

about that?

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

Training.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the member from

the Burin Peninsula doesn't take those questions as seriously as his Leader

does.

As a result of the legislation which was introduced into the

House of Commons a few days ago there will be drastic changes made to many of

the programs we now have. There is no doubt about that. It is not my duty or

responsibility to stand up and defend what the federal government is doing. It

can defend its own actions. What we will have to do is try to get the full

knowledge of those changes, determine what impact they will have on the

Province, and hopefully find a way that we could deal with them, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of

Education and Training, isn't it your job to fight for the thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians including the disabled people in this Province

who are going to be badly hurt or abandoned by the federal government through

the UI-EI conversion? Why aren't you speaking up on behalf of your Province the

way Frank McKenna is fighting for New Brunswick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: What the hon. member should know is that

there is a difference between fighting and posturing. It is quite easy and

simple to get up and posture and wave your arms and do all these things, Mr.

Speaker. The hon. member can be assured, as the people of this Province can be

assured, that the government of this Province will do all that can be done to

protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, but that

does not mean political posturing which simply serves to make a fool of her and

a fool of the rest of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask a question

to the government about a matter over which they have full control. Let me ask

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about facilities for

community organizations who provide programs and services for disabled people.

Let me ask the minister in particular about the Longside Club here in St.

John's, will the minister put a halt to his decision to callously and

heartlessly put the Longside Club out in the cold by tearing down the building

they now occupy and will the minister alter his plans for Philip Place which is

now being fitted up for government offices? Will the minister now dedicate part

of Philip Place for community organizations including the Longside Club since

there are now 390 fewer public servants to house in offices?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I thought I was listening to myself back in

1984-85 that time. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is starting to learn. She must

be reading Hansard from back in '85 to '89. I wrote a number of questions like

that.

The last part of the question of hers is about Philip Place,

absolutely not. I am wondering why she got to underline a reason for one of her

Tory buddies who is getting revenues from rental accommodations. We will be

taking them out of there, putting them into Philip Place and saving the Province

$20 million. That may be one of the reasons why you are asking the question.

As far as the Longside Club is concerned, we are working with

the Longside Club. We are very interested in making sure that they get suitable

accommodations. Number one, I have already extended the date of the demolition

of that particular building to the end of this year. The reason why we have to

demolish that building is because it is not now safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: This was quite some time ago, some several

months ago we extended this, when we had already given a date.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Do you want the question answered or not? If

you want the question answered, I will answer it, if not, I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to his answer.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we have already told them that we will help

them find alternate accommodations. The building they are in is not fit for

occupation. We have told them that in lieu of finding a suitable place quickly,

we will store their equipment and whatever things they have that they would

ordinarily move. Until they find a building, we will store for them. So I am not

going to put them on the street in the dead of winter as the hon. member is

saying.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation that you might think she was concerned about

the Ashley rental properties around the Province. That is probably what he is

concerned about.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations and I sincerely hope that the Government House Leader will allow him

to answer this question. The minister has introduced a piece of legislation in

this House that will legalize Sunday shopping, and many people in this Province

have been expressing concern regarding this issue for various reasons.

The minister stated that he made the decision in response to

representation made by businesses. I would like to ask the minister: Would he

would name the businesses that asked him to have shops open on Sundays?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Perhaps I should answer the last question first. If I were to

name all the businesses who have asked me and colleagues to open, perhaps

Question Period would go on until 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock tonight.

MS VERGE: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to let

the minister answer his question.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and he was

a previous minister of Cabinet, when a bill comes before the House and goes on

the Order Paper it is only second reading, and the Government House Leader may

never call the bill. If it is called, the hon. member, as all hon. members, will

have appropriate time to debate the bill. Now, if the member wants to quote from

one

article in the paper, perhaps he needs to quote from the editorial.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, `Newfoundland businesses will be

undermined; the national change will take will every penny out of this Province

if government permits Sunday shopping' - the Independent Business Association.

Peter O'Brien -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - from the Atlantic region called it

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary. In

any event, he should not be quoting from a newspaper.

MR. SULLIVAN: We will table the paper.

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

The Federation of Labour is opposed to this as well as the

business community. I want to ask the minister: Does he have any concern, any

concern whatsoever, about the people in this Province who will be forced to work

probably seven days a week, in some cases, for the minimum wage - $4.75 an hour?

Is the minister concerned about that?

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

Labour Relations.

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

First of all, let me say to the hon. member, that is the same

individual he quotes from who had 7,000 jobs available for Newfoundlanders and

they couldn't find appropriate Newfoundlanders to take the jobs. If that member

wants to quote Mr. O'Brien, sobeit.

Secondly, let me say to the hon. member, number one, I have a

meeting scheduled tonight at 7:30 with the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. I

will discuss the issue with them and hear their concerns.

Thirdly, let me say to the hon. minister that this government

has brought in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Member.

MR. MURPHY: Hon. member, that is right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It won't be long before he will be a

minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that the Labour Standards Act that this

government has modified and changed to protect employees in this Province is

still in place, and employees will be protected.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I quoted one word that Peter

O'Brien said; the rest was by a different group altogether.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations on CBC Radio who referred to him as: `my good friend, Peter, whom I

know personally,' in a conversation, so don't get on with that old

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations: Will he name the top three businesses in

this Province that asked him to go ahead with Sunday shopping? Will he tell us

if they are national chains or if they are Newfoundland companies? That is what

I ask the minister. And I will ask the minister, in my final supplementary: Will

the minister put in place a system where he will withdraw this from the Order

Paper for at least three months to let the people of this Province have input

into it, and if he is not prepared to do that, will he refer it to a committee

of the House?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: First of all, let me say the hon. member is

correct. I did refer in an interview the other morning to my friend Peter

O'Brien. The reason I did that was I don't want to fault with my mother, because

Mr. O'Brien happens to be my first cousin, so I was very cognizant of that. I

didn't want to start any family problems. Not that I agree with anything Mr.

O'Brien had to say, I can assure the hon. member. Secondly, let me say to the

hon. member that if he wants to quote from the paper it was only the other day

that the last survey that was done indicated nearly 70 per cent of the

population of the Province were in favour of Sunday shopping.

Let me remind the hon. member that this government has not

put a bill forward saying that Sunday shopping is a must. What we are saying is

- and people know, and we've told people. The House Leader has told people,

questions have been asked by the hon. Member for Kilbride - time and time again,

that there are too many regulations. Business and the public have said: Get the

regulations off our back. That is what this government intends to do. We intend

to let business go on.

The member also knows that there are many abuses of the

Shops' Closing Act going on Sunday after Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Well, let me say to the hon. member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to finish his answer.

MR. MURPHY: - that it is extremely difficult to get out

there and monitor every store and every issue. He also knows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that there are many stores out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to finish his answer quickly,

please.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could go

on and on, of course.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. On April 1 the Department of Health took over the

Enriched Needs program from the Department of Social Services. The minister

stated in this House that his legal advice indicates that appeals under this

program cannot be heard by the Department of Social Services appeal board. Yet,

as minister you did not put in place an appeals mechanism to deal with the

ever-increasing number of people who want to appeal their assessment.

In fact, on October 23 in this House you said and I quote:

"...the mechanism is being put in place as we speak, to ensure that appeals can

be dealt with if they come forward and that they can be heard in a timely and in

a reasonable fashion." I ask the minister, after almost nine months of your

administration of this Enriched Needs program - will the minister inform this

House if that independent appeals mechanism is now in place similar to the one

that operated under social services and could he tell us when that committee was

appointed?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Enriched Needs program did come over to health about nine

months ago. Originally we had thought it was possible to use the same appeals

mechanism that social services had in place to hear appeals on Enriched Needs.

Through the process of consultation by that appeals board to their independent

legal advice, they were advised that that could not happen so we set about to

put in an appropriate new appeals mechanism. As a result of going about that, we

have now determined that in fact we can, I believe, use the appeals mechanism

that is in place by virtue of Cabinet directive and that is in essence where we

are with the issue at the moment. So the bottom line is that there is an appeals

mechanism in place for people who want to appeal any assessment that they

dispute under the Enriched Needs program at the moment. Nobody is, nobody will,

nobody can be denied the avenue of appeal as is sort of suggested in the

question.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that is the case, I say minister, why did a community

health board of St. John's send out recently, last week and the week before and

continue to send out letters with this exact wording; `Community health, St.

John's region, currently awaits direction from the director of continuing care,

Department of Health, regarding a second level appeal mechanism.' That is a

quote, I say to the minister.

Now, I have received numerous calls from families who have

been unable to get an appeal. An eighty-two year old woman, who lives alone,

receives five hours of care per day under Enriched Needs, has fallen three

times, she has diabetes that is not controlled

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and there should be no

preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am saying this lady was

found by an Enriched Needs worker in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Does the minister think it is fair that a

woman receiving five hours of care, found by an Enriched Needs worker in a

comatose position, had to be brought to a hospital, in emergency for two weeks,

is appropriate use of this Enriched Needs Program and who cannot even appeal

those five hours when she is in a severe medical condition and had to be

hospitalized?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated

to the hon. member, there is an appropriate, easily available method of appeal

in place, as we speak, to address any level of appeal that a person wishes to

bring forward. If there is somebody who feels that they are denied the appeals

process by virtue of not knowing how to go about it, I would be happy, through

my officials or even on a direct basis, to lend them assistance. I know, Mr.

Speaker, of no individual in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to my

knowledge, who has been denied an appeals process under the Enriched Needs

Program. I don't know of one. If there is one that is one too many and I would

ask the member to make me aware of it so that I can ensure that it is dealt with

expeditiously.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I received three

calls alone today and I will give the minister and the media the names of

families of these people. People are living alone, five hours a day with

diabetes, nurses have to go in twice to give needles and she was found in a

comatose position and lying on the floor. Now I say to the minister, that is not

acceptable and his own community health board sent letters to those families

telling them there is no second level of appeal in place, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, how can the minister

justify spending $7.5 million to keep fifty medically discharged people in

hospitals here in the city on a daily basis when he could care for these same

people in their homes at a cost of $2.5 million?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member,

as he usually does when he gets to the third supplementary, usually gets into

using information that is grossly inaccurate, frivolous, completely distorted to

say the least, totally false to say the worst, and today in him indicating that

$7.5 million is being spent on an ongoing basis to care for fifty people in a

situation where they could probably be cared for with a few hours help out in

their home is totally a false proposition.

People who are in medically discharged beds in hospitals

awaiting placement are not people who can go back to their home to receive

Enriched Needs. They have already been assessed as having been people in need of

long-term care, not community based services and Enriched Needs programs, so the

proposition that he puts forward is falsely based, inappropriately premised, and

has no validity in fact.

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

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

for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I think on Friday last there was an announcement

that the Bell Island and Long Island ferry services were getting a rate

reduction, the most notable being the car and driver rate, down from $9 round

trip to $5. Would the minister care to indicate: What is the commuter rate -

either a commuter worker or a commuter student - for the Bell Island service?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: If I remember correctly, and I don't have the

exact numbers here in front of me, the commuter rate now has gone from fifty

cents to $1 for a commuter, including the car; that is either a student or a

worker going to and from Bell Island for work.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am told it is

a $2 round trip charge.

I have had great difficulty getting detailed written

information from the minister's Grand Falls regional office as to what is the

rate card for Long Island. Can the minister explain why, when the people from

Bell Island were doing the round trip commuter thing for $2, the people on Long

Island, at least up until yesterday, were paying $4.50 for the same service,

with two islands in the same rate category?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. When we

applied the rates to Bell Island, the commuter rate was applied to Bell Island

because of the large numbers of people working from Bell Island in St. John's

and surrounding areas. We were never approached from people living on the other

islands about a special commuter rate, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, there is not, but if there are people

working on Long Island, Fogo Island, Change Islands, or any other isolated

community, travelling to and from work, they can also get the commuter rate.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased with

the minister's explanation, and somewhat less than pleased with the difficulty I

have had to get this information. Will he please instruct his officials to carry

out government policy as enunciated? Trying to get information on an actual rate

card for Long Island has been difficult, if not impossible, and one has to

wonder if something else involving politics is going on.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Far be it for me to carry out something with

politics involved, but I must say I learned very, very well, from 1985-1989, to

what extent the hon. members opposite could carry out political decisions.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and concerns also the Sunday

Shops' Closing Act introduced.

This has been opposed by almost all retailers in the Province

who have spoken on the issue. It will be more expensive to meet the competition,

with no advantage. It is opposed by workers because of the requirements to work

on Sunday, and it disrupts their work schedules. The question is, and the people

of Newfoundland want to know: Whose tune is the government dancing to on this?

Was it the request of the Price Club, whose grand opening the Premier

participated in? Is this a favour by the Premier and this government to them,

that will have the effect of increasing their competitive advantage over other

smaller retailers? Is that whose tune he is dancing to?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. members, as I said to the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, this particular bill has not gone into third reading,

has not gone to committee. It is on the Order Paper; it has not been called.

Let me say to the hon. member, if he looks at the bill, he

knows and understands that if the retail trade does not want to open it does not

have to open; it is as simple as that. This government is not telling the retail

trade out there to open. And the other question that the member asked is quite

simple; the Labour Standards Act, a good Labour Standards Act, I might add,

protects all the employees out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and the government well know that this

legislation will serve the interests of a few very large retailers who have a

particular marketing strategy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister willing to acknowledge that

this serves very few big retailers at the expense of all the rest, and will

force the rest of them to get involved. Aside from his comments about the bill

being only at second reading, will the minister say that he is prepared to

withdraw the bill and not have it debated in this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to

withdraw the bill. This is a bill that has been put forward by my colleagues and

myself, and I have no - but let me say to the member that tonight at 7:30, I am

meeting with the Federation and the retail workers' president, to listen to

their concerns. I am sure the hon. member knows - it has been said time and time

why this piece of legislation is here. We will do everything to accommodate and

listen to people in a conciliatory way, and if and when the time comes that we

pass the bill, then fine, the member can make his comments then.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me have another question at

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, based on

what has been said today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, and I ask hon. members to my left, to let him ask his question.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in relation to what has happened

in the past couple of days, particularly with the Federation of Labour, and with

various business people who have been calling our offices this morning, people

who have been involved in this Shop Opening Act in Ontario and Nova Scotia for a

three-month period -

MS VERGE: And employees.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I said that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - will the minister agree to meet with any

groups who are concerned and will he agree to meet with the Chamber of Commerce

and business people in this city who request a meeting with him, to discuss this

before he has it debated in the House?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member, I

don't need to apologize to any group out there who have asked to have a meeting

with me. I have always been accessible.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) see what happens.

MR. MURPHY: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed, I would like to welcome to the gallery on

behalf of all members, the town councillors from Nain, Mayor Richard Pamak,

Councillor Gary Baikie, and Town Manager, Vicki Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 405 residents

of Trepassey, Biscay Bay, Portugal Cove South, and St. Shotts in my district,

Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the petition is as follows: We, the people of

Trepassey and surrounding communities, who use the Cappahayden and Peter's River

barrens as a lifeline to hospitals, petition you and your department, Mr.

Efford, to reconsider your decision to cut the heavy-duty diesel mechanic's

position from the Trepassey depot for the 1995-'96 winter season. Last winter,

the employee in this position worked extensive overtime hours, along with his

regular hours, to repair and maintain the snow clearing equipment so that we,

the people of this area, would not be isolated from essential services.

Mr. Speaker, part of the petition reads: it takes one minute

to write a safety rule, it takes one hour to hold a safety meeting, it takes one

week to plan a safety program, it takes one month to put one in place, it takes

one year to win a safety award, it takes one lifetime to be a safe worker, and

it takes one second to destroy it all with an accident. Please do not let this

happen to one of our residents this winter while waiting for the services of a

mechanic either from St. Joseph's or Renews to repair the equipment necessary to

maintain our highways for the safe use of our ambulances, school buses, fire

trucks, and other motorists.

Mr. Speaker, this issue came forward when I asked questions

in the House a couple of weeks ago concerning the taking away of a mechanic at

the Trepassey depot. It is a very important issue, not only for my district, but

indeed, for districts right across the Province who have seen massive cutbacks,

massive cutbacks by this government and massive cutbacks by this minister and

his department as he takes away people from these jobs. Safety is the largest

concern being put forward by people.

I am sure the minister is fully aware that we have to put up

with many harsh winters here, and down on the Trepassey barrens it is no

different. We have schoolchildren who are travelling back and forth, we have

fire trucks, ambulances, and even the general public travel these roads on a

continuous basis. My understanding now is, from information I received over the

past couple of days, that there will be a mechanic in Trepassey working from

Renews. I would like the minister to confirm that, if he could, when he stands

up to answer to my petition, if he so does, but that still does not relay the

concern of the people in Trepassey, that the mechanic is from the community, is

close by, is there on a minute's notice and they do not have to wait for hours

for a mechanic to arrive to fix a piece of equipment.

I understand the restraints government is under. I understand

the dollars they are trying to save, but we must put the safety of people first.

We must put the safety of our children first, and definitely put the safety of

the people who work on those trucks, and on those machines, first also. This

situation is not unique to the Trepassey barrens and the Trepassey area. From

calls and stories in the media over the past couple of weeks we have seen this

situation and the problems that are arising throughout this Province because of

the cutbacks by this department.

The minister keeps sitting in his seat and standing in his

place and saying there are no cutbacks, but I beg to differ with no cutbacks. We

have seen cutbacks, a couple of hundred people laid off who were wingmen, and we

have seen other people that are being passed down the line. Mr. Speaker, those

are cutbacks. If a person loses a job, it is a cutback. The minister may want to

call it something different but it is definitely a cutback. The minister has

lashed out on the workers of this Province in taking away the wingmen. He has

taken away other jobs such as the mechanics job in Trepassey. Even though the

minister doesn't want to agree with it, we are seeing cutbacks that are

affecting the safety of the people who are driving on the roads in this Province

and that are affecting the safety of not only children, but every man, woman,

and child who is on the road.

I bring this petition forward today on behalf of over 400

residents. I believe it is one of the largest petitions that has come forward

from my district over the last three years. These 400 residents are sending a

note of concern to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today

asking him to address this situation that they find themselves in in Trepassey,

and to try to find an answer that will be satisfactory to the people of the

Trepassey area.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not to be taken lightly. I ask the

minister to consider how sincere the people of Trepassey are, in their concern.

They are very sincere. I say to the minister, all that is not sincere are the

efforts of the minister. The minister can laugh and joke about the concerns that

are being raised in this Province now by people in relation to safety on the

highways, but I say it is about time the minister started taking these issues

very seriously. I say that the issues are very, very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, he said something that I wouldn't repeat

in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I'm too honourable for that.

I bring this issue forward on behalf of the people of

Trepassey and the other communities, and I ask that the minister take it very

seriously -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - and put back in Trepassey a mechanic who

will serve the people of that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

to the petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support this petition. I am very familiar with the

area that is being served here and by the request in the petition.

The area of Trepassey and Portugal Cove South - it is a long

distance to the next community. From the depot in Renews, there are fifty-some

kilometres of road that is very treacherous road, that is difficult to navigate

in the wintertime, one is not able to drive on that road - not, say, move a

piece of heavy equipment that needs mechanical repairs, by a flatbed out to the

White Hills or Renews or St. Joseph's, wherever they are going to move it.

The sole mechanic - it is important - and with much of the

equipment, in spite of what the minister states, about how modern the equipment

is, and it doesn't break down. I can tell you, if you are using -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You said the reason we don't need these

people is because we bought modern equipment, warranties are covered on this

equipment, and it doesn't cost us. Now, we have seventeen-year old ploughs and

twenty-some that these mechanics have worked on for a number of years. They know

the machine, they know what is wrong with the machine, and they know how to deal

with it. We are going to have, if it is a tough winter, the worst road

conditions ever in history.

While the minister is on the topic, I will say to him that

last year we had one of the heaviest snowfalls in some time. You look at your

departmental budget. You spent less last winter on Snow and Ice Control than you

did in the previous year.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, I am

going by this document here called Estimates 1995 that is filed by the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board on behalf of the departments here. Those

are the figures I am using. It is under Snow and Ice Control under Works,

Services and Transportation,. The minister can open it up and find it. Maybe I

will tell him the page it is on, then he might find it.

I say to the minister, they are ignoring and putting at risk

people who travel that area. Last year, I will say to the minister, they spent

$22,347,000. This year, they are budgeting for $21.2 million. Three years ago, I

say, they spent more on Snow and Ice Control - because I went back and

researched the figures - than they spent last year in one of the worst winters.

No wonder we are having accidents on our highways. No wonder we are shutting

down highways and telling people not to navigate on highways, because we are not

putting the machinery on those roads. There are more lost days of productivity,

more days schools are closed due to weather, more days businesses are closed due

to weather, because this minister is cutting back on winter spending and laying

off people who are going to keep the communication lines open for businesses.

Now, to come in from Trepassey, it is about 100 miles. We are

looking at about 160 kilometres to come in from Trepassey by ambulance. There is

only one doctor in the area. There are no hospitals or clinics like we have had

in the past. There are a single doctor and two nurses, I believe. I'm not sure

but that it is down to one in Trepassey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It clears the road for an ambulance to get

through, I say to the minister. If he doesn't know, we've had enough serious

accidents on highways without the minister making light of the role that those

mechanics play in helping to keep the machinery up to safety standards and out

on the highways so we can clear those highways to get ambulances, school buses,

and other people commuting to work and to other functions. That is important, I

say to the minister.

There is a price that will be paid by cutbacks. We can only

go so far in the law of diminishing returns, and we have gone beyond it. Mr.

Speaker, when we are spending less today than we did three years ago on Snow and

Ice Control - and last winter when we had one of the worst winters we spent less

money. I tell the minister to go back to your department, I have the figures for

the last three years. I say to the minister, go back to the Department of

Finance and tell them they are the wrong estimates. They are tabling the wrong

information here in the House of Assembly. It is about time the minister took it

seriously, getting on with his laughing and his mockery of people out in rural

Newfoundland who need this service and making light of it. They need these

mechanics to keep the equipment running.

What they are going to do now, Mr. Speaker, if a machine

breaks down up in that area they are going to load it on a flatbed, they are

going to drive it for hours, if the weather conditions are suitable because we

only want the machinery when the weather is bad. We don't need it when the

weather is good, when the weather is bad we need it and that is when we are

going to have the problems. It does not break down if it does not get used and

the weather is good. I say to the minister, we are going to have a severe

problem. I am confident, I am sure people in his department have second thoughts

about the cost efficiency of this decision. It is a very ill though out process.

It is going to cost more dollars in lost productivity conveying machinery all

around the Avalon Peninsula, the mechanics at the White Hills and mechanics in

Renews and it is not going to be cost effective and I bet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - in the future that decision will be

reversed in another year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to do with the hon. members

opposite, how to get them to understand there are no, no, cutbacks in our winter

operations, none, absolutely none. We are providing the same level of service

this year as we did last year and previous years depending on the weather

conditions. If the weather conditions cause us to spend $20 million, $30

million, $40 million or whatever the amount of money they request us to spend,

we will spend, depending on the climatic conditions.

I thought, when I came in the House of Assembly today, with

the sun shining all the morning, rain last night, there would be no petitions

and no questions about winter maintenance but I can see the hon. member ran out

of questions today in Question Period because there was no snow last night and

then they resorted to Question Period again. Now, that is the only reason.

Now, let me say this to the hon. members - probably it is my

Port de Grave accent, they don't understand it but let me say it slowly, let me

try to keep the H's in place and let me try to say it slowly - and the hon.

member has a bit of an accent himself - but here are the statistics, Mr.

Speaker, in 1983, Peckford administration, masses amount of people - in fact,

more people then you could see snowflakes most of the time, working in the

government system. Ploughs everywhere, equipment everywhere, friends of the

government working on their own private equipment but nevertheless lots of

equipment; 230,000 vehicles on the highway for this Province, all vehicles, 103

fatalities, 1983; 1994, 415,579 vehicles on the highway, with all the cutbacks

that they are talking about, and thirty-five fatalities. If I can get my

mathematics correct, that is sixty-eight less fatalities last year then this

year. Now where is all the neglect of our maintaining our highways? Now they are

telling me the only way we can keep safe highways from Trepassey to St. Joseph's

is hire on a mechanic. Now just imagine, Mr. Speaker, hiring on a mechanic will

solve all the climatic conditions on that stretch of highway coming down there.

Now that is the thinking of the Tories opposite. Make no wonder this Province is

$7 billion in debt after seventeen years of thinking like that. It is just

pointless to talk to them and explain to them, they just don't understand,

thick, thick, thick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is Late Show Day and I assume there will

be the usual dissatisfied members opposite, if not, we have not been doing our

job over here. The order of business for today, Sir, will be to address two

pieces of legislation. The first is to ask the House to deal with the committee

stage on Bill 32 which is Order 22 but before Your Honour calls that let me also

go on to advise the House that once we dispose of the committee stage on that

bill, we are going to go into the debate on the election's act which is Order 26

on the Order Paper. If it will help things to move on, I can say to my friends

opposite, we cannot have the general election until we get this through. So the

quicker we get it through the quicker we will get on with it.

With that said Your Honour would you please resolve the House

into Committee of the Whole?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 32, clause 1; the hon. the Government House -

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, not quite yet.

As soon as we get the Elections Act passed now, and the electoral boundaries in

place, it won't be long after that, and I doubt if it will be you, Mr. Chairman,

calling me the Government House Leader. I don't really think it will be. There

will be someone else in the Chair, of course, so don't be too -

MR. ROBERTS: It won't be the hon. lady from Humber East

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In the Chair, you mean? No, she won't be

in the Chair; she will be in the Premier's chair. She won't be in Europe, I say

to the Government House Leader. She won't be in Europe on a Christmas shopping

spree. She will be here administering the business of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be as Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, as Premier.

Speaking of the Act Respecting The Executive Council, and the

creation of government departments, assignment of the powers and

responsibilities of ministers - assignment of the powers and responsibilities of

ministers, including the First Minister - powers and responsibilities of the

First Minister, the Premier, certainly one of the responsibilities of the

Premier is not every year in December, at this time, to go overseas Christmas

shopping, on a jaunt. That will be eliminated when the Leader of the Opposition

becomes the Premier of the Province, the First Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Member for LaPoile,

he talks about the King heir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will call them Queen heir then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it will be the Queen heir. It will

be the First Minister. I was going to say it would be the First Lady, but it

would be the first lady to be First Minister in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't tell me you were over there with

Doug Moores.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) and her consort is called Lady

Mayoress.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Lady Mayoress.

Were you are the residence, I ask the Government House

Leader, at the Mayoress residence?

MR. ROBERTS: Downstairs only.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course. Well, I was upstairs, I say

to the Government House Leader. I was upstairs in the very house that the

Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: The Lord Mayor was downstairs while the hon.

member was upstairs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, no. That is quite interesting, I

say to the Government House Leader. I was there, actually, and met with the

Merchant Venturers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, at that very house.

MR. ROBERTS: The Merchant Venturers are the same

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know about them; I met them. I met

them at the Mayor's residence, actually, the Lord and the Lady Mayoress of

Bristol. I was there.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All I am saying is that I was there - it

was quite interesting - when I was Minister of Culture, to try to start this

process. Now that will tell you something about how long it takes, but I

remember that very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have jumped over that bridge

there. Did you see that big bridge?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have a picture of it on my living room

wall, I say; they gave me a picture of the bridge, a very nice picture, very

nice.

You talk about things being different, and mayors, and how

people are treated. When I went there, as a matter of fact, the mayor sent his

chauffeur out to pick me up, big, big chauffeur, big car, and a big chauffeur

with the white gloves and the hat. I was really taken aback.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am serious. There is one thing it

did, though; it showed me the comparison in how they treat their elected

officials, mayors and whoever else and how different it was, seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree, (inaudible) John Murphy

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he is almost as bad now but, can

you imagine if he were allowed, or the taxpayers, but I won't get into that. But

it was quite a comparison, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: It really was.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It really was, to sit there and to see

them. When I was there, there were three or four servants, I think there were

four workers there, and in the morning they were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They were all dressed alike in the

daytime, and in the night they changed to another dress, and when the Mayor and

the Mayoress went to bed - went to the top of the stairs, they would all be -

this is true. By the way, I was totally amazed by it. The servants we call them,

the workers would stand at the bottom of the stairs - and they would go to the

top of the stairs, the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress - and they would say

goodnight and bow. That's true.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) for them?

MR. MURPHY: It is a good question, I say to the

Government House Leader. Perhaps we should have a day a week for the government

to ask the Opposition questions.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would say there are (inaudible) up

there but they are not bowing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. The Member for Eagle River

thinks that we are like they are in his caucus. No, no, the problem is with your

caucus, not with ours. There is so much division and so much animosity, Mr.

Chairman, and so many over there trying to get into the Premier's seat. I saw

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board there again today with a - it must be

the leadership hairdo. When I saw the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

come through the door today, I said: Well, there is the leadership hairdo, it

has to be the leadership hairdo, he can't change it any more.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) Monday night (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Monday night when he (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the poll? What poll? The only poll I

hear you talk about was Market Quest, done a couple days after we had the big

storm, and you allowed the stores to open on Sunday. The Market Quest poll, that

you are referring to, by the way, was done a couple of days after the storm.

People were left in the cold for the best part of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, no. The memories of the storm

were still in their minds, minister, you can squirm all you like, that's what he

is quoting now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Tell us about that meeting you had on

Monday night.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I had four meetings on

Monday night, I tell the Member for Eagle River, and a couple of those meetings

I am not going to share with the member. But, Mr. Chairman, talking about the

Executive Council bill, Bill 32.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Eagle River

is just drowning me out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many do you have now?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How many - Mr. Chairman, I don't know

what he is talking about, I don't know what he refers to. He asked me how many

do I have? I mean, you have to be careful what you are asking me, because you

don't know what answer you will get.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many do you have now that -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For what?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: None.

MR. DUMARESQUE: None.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: None. You are confused. It is your

caucus that that is happening (inaudible).

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the Executive

Council bill.

It is a good debate, Mr. Chairman, going on between the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Member for Ferryland, they

are having a very good debate and I am enjoying it immensely. I just wish, if

only they could be recognized so we could pick them up in Hansard, then we would

all read it tomorrow and be privy to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, maybe not two but at least one of

them. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is having difficulty being

recognized these days because he is not permitted to stand very often. He is

talking about ministers and powers and responsibilities of ministers that we are

talking about in this bill, but the poor, old Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, has had his power taken away from him. The power to get to his feet

has been taken away from him, and I pity him really, it is not fair. But the

Minister of Education and Training, for whatever reason, is the Chairman of the

Social Policy Committee, I don't know what's going on here and it is really - I

don't know why the Premier doesn't make him minister for all those departments

that the Social Policy Committee encompasses.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can have Justice whenever he wants.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can have Justice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Does that fall under it, Justice, in

social policy, does it, really?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Employment falls under it I guess,

health, social services, education, of course, which he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Health, yes, I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, Education. Works, Services

and Transportation falls under -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Resource. Speaking of resources, if

only, Mr. Chairman, we could give the minister some resources, like salt. I had

a couple of calls from (inaudible) in the Province the last couple of days. They

have been watching the news and watching the group down in Baie Verte concerned

about the bus, and the other things that are going on about the Province with

safety on our highways and snow clearing and salting and sanding. They said they

watched the minister - John Efford they called him - watched John Efford. They

don't call him the hon. the minister or Minister or Mr. Minister. John Efford.

On -

AN HON. MEMBER: No respect.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, in the House we call each other hon.

members and minister, but you know how people are when they are frustrated, they

don't have a lot of respect for anyone. But they said: He is talking about all

the salt he is putting on the highways. They said: It must be Sifto table salt

that the minister is using this winter and he must have a salt-shaker. He must

be going around with a salt-shaker, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The holes are blocked.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is saying there are tons of

salt -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is plugged up. The salt must

have got damp and plugged up the holes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Chairman, but we don't have any

great -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is the Leader of the Opposition going to

Boston this March, do you know?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, again the Member for Eagle

River talks about his own party. The Leader who went to Boston was from the

Liberal Party. They gave him a donation out of the caucus fund to go to the

Boston seafood show.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He wasn't leader, that's right. He went

away Leader and came back leader-less, or less-leader, or whatever word it is.

MR. DUMARESQUE: We showed you how to do it, now you do

it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No one wants to take a page out of that

book, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He wasn't part of it. The Member of

Eagle River wasn't part of that.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I was, I was on the board at the time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Board of what?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The executive board of the party.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't brag about it, if you were ever on

that. Don't brag that you were ever on the executive board of the Liberal Party.

But he is talking about the wrong party.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had to remove the Leader of the Party,

so (inaudible) came back here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Poor old Justice Barry, he is now, went

off to Boston to the Boston seafood show, and while he was gone there was big

coup, a palace coup. How well I remember it.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a tea party back in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: A turr party.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A turr party, yes, they had turr. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation brought in the turrs and they

cooked them up down at the Member for Twillingate's house. That is where the big

turr supper took place. While he was in Boston eating seafood and they were in

Mr. Carter's house having turrs and all kinds of vegetables, the thing that got

the biggest carving was the then-Leader of the Opposition. He got carved while

he was in Boston.

MR. ROBERTS: I can tell (inaudible) Leader of the

Opposition (inaudible) occupational hazard, as his Leader is finding out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say that of those in the House

at present, sitting now, I mean now that is present here, not members, that the

person who has the most experience in that is the Government House Leader. He

knows the perils and the dangers and the trials and tribulations of being - I

mean, he went to more leadership contests than - well, almost as many as Mr.

Smallwood, I suppose.

MR. ROBERTS: No, more.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: More?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Really?

AN HON. MEMBER: He only ran twice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So how many times did you run, then?

MR. ROBERTS: I ran three times - won twice and lost once.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is the one that you lose that you

remember. Is that the one with Bill Rowe and Neary and those, the one you lost?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To Bill Rowe.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Neary did the number on you.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe, I don't know. Sometimes I wonder

about Mr. Rowe's position, though. He seems to enjoy what he is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope he is (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He mustn't enjoy it too much, he ran in

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What I'm saying is, you know, he does a

good job in what he does out there, I must say that for him, and he has a big

listening audience. It seems like a fair situation, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Neary, well, I see him on the panel

and see him at the demonstration for Bell Island with his cowboy hat and his

dark glasses and his turtlenecks. He must be doing alright, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For who?

MR. ROBERTS: Roger (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No we don't. We never know where he is,

I say to the Government House Leader. Even when we think we know where Mr.

Simmons is we are really not sure. Having said that I talked to the hon.

gentleman a couple of days ago on a problem we are having with Revenue Canada

with small business. I do not know if any other members opposite are having it.

I know I am not being relevant, Mr. Chairman, and I accept your indulgence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I do not mean it that way. You took

it wrong. What I said was that I have had several enquiries from the district,

and the Member for Burin - Placentia West has had more, so in the Burin -

Placentia region, that office there, I would venture to guess there are fifty to

seventy-five that I know of now, small businesses, that are under review by

Revenue Canada. They are on hold being reviewed, and it is causing a lot of

hardship. That is why I called Mr. Simmons because I wondered if there was

something he could do with the federal minister to enquire.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year there were 5507 cases in this

Province and I say there were 3 per cent (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So it is going to be more than that this

year? It has turned into a real problem, and people who for years have done

exactly the same as they have done in the last twelve months are being reviewed,

interrogated, and whatever else. Very legitimate businesses who have worked hard

all their life, and seasonal employment, carpentry and other things, and very

good people at their work who have great reputations where they live, are now

under review and cannot get benefits. My worst fear is that it will not be

resolved to their satisfaction, and I say that quite sincerely. I know we joke

across the House lots of times but this is very serious.

Maybe we could talk to that minister about his powers and

responsibilities. Maybe the Member for Eagle River could go up to Ottawa. He

loves to go to Ottawa. He delights in going to Ottawa. The Premier set him up a

little while ago to work on the TAGS problems so maybe he could go up. I am sure

you have a trip or two left. I do not know though, when I come to think about

it, no, he would not have a trip left.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may go up fulltime.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he is not going fulltime. He is

finished. That is settled. It depends on whether Mr. Cashin says, yes. If Cashin

says, no, well then the hon. member might have a chance of going up fulltime,

but I sort of sense now that Mr. Cashin is not quite as enthused, but if wants

to go up he is going up, Mr. Cashin, but if he says, yes, he is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I do not think so. He will go over

big up there, big time, especially with all the overwhelming support from Eagle

River. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will soon be going up

now. I expect to hear any day now it is part of his responsibilities, covered

under this Bill 32, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council," so I am relevant,

Mr. Speaker, will be going off to Labrador, to Goose Bay to talk about the Trans

Labrador Highway, after that great pronouncement last night in the House of

Commons by the Reform Party. The Reform Party are going to complete the Trans

Labrador Highway I advise the minister. A great, great statement in the House of

Commons last night, I watched it myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said there are more roads in Africa

than we have in Newfoundland.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The point is the Prime Minister went

down and opened a road in Africa built with Canadian money. The Prime Minister

of this country, the very same Prime Minister who is taking money out of the

pockets of our poor fisherpersons and seasonal workers, by the way, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who pulled money out off our

pockets, was down in Africa opening up a road built with Canadian money, and our

people down in Labrador do not have a highway to drive over.

I expect you and Mr. Cashin will be going up soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the minister can go on all

he wants but when the phone rings and says, John, come up I want to see you,

then up he goes. Floor number eight, up he goes, I am here to see the Premier.

One minute Mr. Efford: John, as part of your responsibility as minister I want

you to accompany Mr. Cashin to Labrador. We have to say something about the

Trans Labrador Highway. Now you will be going up as part of your responsibility

covered under this bill, Executive Council, Bill No. 32.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, Danny will carry you (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he won't be allowed. There is one

thing about it, the Member for Eagle River will want to support Mr. Cashin and

he will pretend publicly to support Mr. Cashin but Mr. Cashin won't let him get

too close to him. He won't allow him to get to close to him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He better not either.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I don't know what the member means

by that. I am not sure what he means by that. You can take that a number of

ways. I think I understand what the member means.

MR. MURPHY: No you don't.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations telling me about the Member for Eagle River when he says I

don't understand what he meant? Is he insinuating something?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can understand you being sensitive to

it because one time before in this House you almost got yourself in trouble

about the same subject.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) carries a one iron.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the hon. member, I have to ask you

where you got it by the way? I have to ask you where you got that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Because I did not know what it looked

like before I seen it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are a lot of things you did not

know what it looked like before.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did not even know it existed before

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but someone told me about it, about

you using it and that made me curious. I went out and about looking around but I

could not find one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a short one iron.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But are they all short? I realize why

his would be short. I would need a long one iron.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. No, but I hear it is pretty

good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another fellow over here uses one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, the Premier. Yes I heard the Premier

does as well, use a one iron, yes I heard that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dogs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is what he has been training

the Premier's dog with is the one iron, I say. Someone says since the Premier is

gone the dog has gotten quite obedient. When you hit him with the one iron the

dog really curls up in the corner.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the dog is training Danny, all he

is doing is barking since.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say if he could have found the

Premier's one iron when he was down to the party, I say the Premier's dog would

be gone. That is an awful thing for the man to say. What a thing to say about

the first minister's dog, seriously. What a threat.

MS COWAN: It is a lovely dog and I have two of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But because you got two does not mean

the Premier's dog is a lovely dog. Perhaps the Premier's dog will chew the leg

off you, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South. I mean there are lovely

dogs and there are vicious dogs. Your two dogs are cuddly and of good

temperament. I would say, knowing Harry, I would be surprised if Harry is a

cuddly dog or has good temperament. I would be very surprised. I would say Harry

has a great temper, he yaps at your heels. I would say knowing Harry, he is very

authoritative when anyone goes near the Premier's residence. He stands right up

on the back paws, the hind legs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is he? Well maybe I will get the

opportunity to meet him this Christmas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I will take the dog. I will look

out for the Premier's dog. I will look out to it just as well as the Member for

Eagle River or at least I would not threaten the dog.

MR. ROBERTS: The dog might threaten the hon. gentleman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is what I am thinking. Well

you are agreeing with what I am saying about the temperament of the dog.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Nice dogs in Goose Bay.

MR. ROBERTS: There cannot be a home in Happy Valley -

Goose Bay without (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well I can understand that but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I am thinking. That is why

you are agreeing with what I am saying about the temperament of the dog.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A lot of nice dogs in Goose Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: There can't be a home in Happy Valley -

Goose Bay without dogs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I can understand that, but you

know something, the place I saw the most dogs in was Garnish. Every home had two

or three.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but knocking on doors during the

last election I could not believe there could be so many dogs in one small

community, and they were all out chasing me away, every one of them.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, I dare say.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they all chased me away.

MR. DUMARESQUE: If they had any sense they would.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They did, I say to the Member for Eagle

River.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with Bill 32, "An Act

Respecting The Executive Council". We think what the government is proposing to

do in the bill is fine, and a Premier should be able to reorganize the

government the way he or she so sees fit, as she will and looks forward to,

without having to come here for authorization to make the departments legit, or

the powers and responsibilities of the minister.

I think we all agree that this is a good piece of legislation

and we should not tie up the business of the House after the next election when

the Member for Humber East structures her new Cabinet and the departments of

government. We should not have to come here in five or six months after, or

three months, dealing with

an act to amend this department or that department

and other departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in your long-term future?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is whose long-term future?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in your long-term future?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's in it? To sit where the

Government House Leader is sitting, within the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, for sure, definitely in the long

term, but in the next twelve to eighteen months it will be to sit where the

Government House Leader sits, and then I will be looking at someone over here

like he looks at me, and say: Will he ever sit down and pass this bill?

Having an understanding for what the Government House Leader

needs, I think I am a logical choice for the job. It is too bad the hon. lady is

not here, but I am sure she is listening to me upstairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: She doesn't listen to you as much as she

watches you, Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: She doesn't listen to you as closely as she

watches you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know about that, now. The

Government House Leader is trying to get me into a trap here.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is very astute (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he is very astute. He has been

very astute all of his life.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader was there; what are you

worrying about?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader was here. (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, that is over and done with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is over and done with. The Member

for Humber East is the legitimate leader of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Listen, no person has worked

more diligently and been more supportive than the Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I will tell you one thing; if there

is a page out of anyone's book that all members should take, it is out of this

gentleman's book. I am serious. For someone who went through the process, and

people who have gone through it personally and been on the ballot can identify

with it, and those who have supported people who have been close to them can

identify some, but not like the candidates, as the Government House Leader would

know, and I have to take my hat off to the man. He got over it very quickly.

MR. TOBIN: Over what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The loss. He got over it very quickly,

and he has gone on about business and been very supportive, and worked very hard

for his district and for the caucus, and it shows here in the House. He has the

Minister of Health tied in knots day in and day out. He comes into the House

trembling. He is frightened to death. When he sees the Member for Ferryland

stand in his place, he shivers; you can see him. He just about goes to pieces

over there.

With that, Mr. Chairman, that is all we will have to say

about Bill 32.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council." (Bill No.

32)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Would you rise the Committee, please, Sir?

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

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

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

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has

considered the matters to it referred and has passed Bill No. 32 without

amendment, and requests leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a

third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the

amendments to the Elections Act, Bill 23, Order 26 on today's Order Paper.

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

Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you, Sir. The bill, while

it is a fairly extensive piece of the printer's art, twenty-five pages of text,

essentially consists of a series of relatively minor amendments to the Elections

Act, 1991. That is the official title of what most of us in our day-to-day work

call the new elections act. That is the very modern and updated elections act

that was adopted by the House. In fact, to confuse things further, the Elections

Act, 1991 I think was adopted in 1992, and is partially in force, and in due

course will be just about entirely in force.

The elections act doesn't require any exposition to members

of the House. Very simply it is the statute which governs the conduct of

elections of members to this House of Assembly, whether that be in a general

election or in a by-election. It also governs the holding of a referendum, such

as the one which we held in September with respect to Term 17.

The bill itself has been before the House for some

considerable time. In fact, I notice it is in my name and I notice that I'm

described as the Government House Leader, which was accurate, but that reflects

the fact the bill was, I believe, printed and tabled before I returned to

Justice in August. So it has been around -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) justice was returned.

MR. ROBERTS: Or before justice was returned to me, I say

to my friend for Eagle River. In any event, it has been in the House I believe

since June, so members have had ample opportunity I'm sure to go through it and

pay what attention they wish to the various clauses and references in it.

The amendments, Sir, fall into three distinct groupings. The

first is a series - and I'm not necessarily referring to it chronologically, but

the amendments are set out chronologically with respect to the bill itself. That

is the drafting style and it is a proper one. The first group of amendments are

those which have been made at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer

following a very comprehensive review which he has made, in taking advice from

solicitors and from other officials as need be, of the new, the 1991, act.

The CEO, Mr. Mitchell, who is well known to members of the

House, and members will agree is a master of thorough detail, and a master of

doing things properly and according to the rules -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia

West, I'm speaking of the Chief Electoral Office, Mr. Mitchell, who is a master

of detail, members will acknowledge, including my friends for Grand Bank and

Burin - Placentia West. Because we often see him in our dealings on the Internal

Economy Committee. The Speaker is above this kind of thing, I say to my friend

for Grand Bank.

The Chief Electoral Officer - who is a master, as I've said

two or three times, of detail and accuracy and precision, and does things

according to the rule book, and makes sure that all of us act according to the

rule book, and that is his job and he does it extraordinarily well - has made a

very thorough review of the act. A substantial number of these amendments are

the result of points which he has brought forward. They've then been vetted by

the appropriate officials and they are now before the House in the form of this

bill.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of changes here that

were made, or are being made, as the result of a request - and I'm told in each

case a unanimous request - of a group known as the Advisory Committee. That

Committee consists of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of

each of the three registered political parties in this Province. The New

Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party each

have two representatives on this, named I believe by the leader of the party.

I'm not sure of that, but my friend for St. John's East, who is of course the

Leader of the NDP, confirms that it is in fact the leader who names them. These

six people sit with the CEO in a committee which by statute has the right and

the obligation to advise on matters relating to the elections act.

In the course of their discussions a number of issues - as

we've been working with the new act, a number of issues have come forward and

solutions have been identified, and these are now incorporated in this bill.

Again I won't list them in detail, but at the appropriate time, if members wish,

I can take each - the speaking notes provided me -

section and identify where it

came from and which of the three groups it falls into, as well as addressing the

merits or the issues related to the specific amendment.

The third group of amendments, Sir, are the changes necessary

to implement the recommendations of the House's Standing Committee on Privileges

and Elections, made in a report which they filed on November 3, 1992 as their

second report, and that committee was chaired by my friend, the Member for Eagle

River and consisted of the present Member for Pleasantville and the present

Member for Carbonear, and the former Member for Port au Port, Mr. James Hodder

and the former Member for Kilbride, Mr. Robert Alyward neither of whom sought

re-election if memory serves me in the last general election, but the committee

unanimously, I assume, made their report and they recommended a solution to one

of the most vexing problems in electoral matters and that is: How one enables

people to vote in their constituency when they are not able to vote there on

election day.

Now the basic rule in this Province and throughout North

America, as far as I know, and throughout England where our system comes from,

is that one votes on the election day in the place where one lives, and that's a

pretty good rule. It stood the test of about 150 years of elections and it is a

pretty good rule but, there are two sorts of exceptions that have grown up and

are generally accepted and both are reflected in our statute, one is: where one

is going to be away from one's regular home on election day and he voted a day

or two early in the advanced poll and that's accepted and we have had advanced

polls, they are provided and they will continue.

Then there is the case of somebody who is away from home on a

longer-term basis, perhaps a student at the university or somebody who is

working or somebody who is incarcerated. Now that prisoners have been given the

right to vote, as they are guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, or somebody in a hospital away from home. I once, as I recollect, lost

- let's see. I lost the Waterford by two votes to one but I won the prison by

two votes to one so I squared the prison and hospital vote, which says something

about something, but the solution we followed in this Province hitherto has been

a so-called special poll and any member will speak, I suspect, with a degree of

horror and lack of affection about the so-called special polls.

MR. HARRIS: Even the Waterford -

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's East says the

people of the Waterford who voted against me were wiser than the people in the

prison who voted for me perhaps, but the people in the Waterford acknowledged

that society has acknowledged they have psychiatric problems and is attending to

those I would say to my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Placentia has a point.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would agree with that. The people who have

mental difficulty, mental problems are sick. I would agree with that and I have

long felt that one of the problems of our society is that, you know, mental

disabilities are considered somehow less proper, less appropriate or less right,

less normal than physical disability and that they are just as real and require

treatment. I agree completely with my friend and as Minister of Health, when I

was there many years ago and I was Chairman of the Board at the Waterford for a

while and then in my present role, I like to count myself as a supporter of

psychiatric - In fact, my uncle, as my friend may know, had a long history with

psychiatric institutions in this Province and was superintendent of the

Waterford for many years.

Now, let me come back, Mr. Chairman, to the bill itself. The

solution we have hitherto adopted to the situation of these people who are away

from home for extended periods of time, but who are still resident in Eagle

River or in Exploits or wherever and want to have their vote count there on

polling day has been special polls and these were first used in 1971 in the

general election in this Province. Members are very familiar with them. What it

means is that in every identified polling location we set up with fifty-two

districts, fifty-two special booths, fifty-two boxes. In many cases fifty-two

DROs, fifty-two booths in each of twenty or thirty special polling places. We

have traditionally used them in vocational schools or the colleges, the

university, hospitals, the prisons, institutions around the Province. There are

as many as twenty or thirty. Hope Brook you know, which is an isolated, fly-in

mining development and other places.

Now, quite simply, two comments on the resulting experience

we have had in twenty-five years and I think I speak for all political parties

and certainly, this was the conclusion as I recall it of the Standing Committee

when they addressed this issue. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the system of

special polls is extraordinarily expensive. It costs as much to put a DRO and a

box in the Happy Valley Labrador campus of the Labrador College with a booth

there for Mount Scio or for LaPoile district as it does to put a box in Mount

Scio or LaPoile, even though two or three people may vote in Naskaupi, cast

their ballots in Mount Scio district, and in the normal poll in a regular

district 100 or 200 people, so it doesn't double the cost of a general election

to have these special polls, but it just about doubles it. It is a very, very,

very expensive solution. Secondly, we end up with a situation whereby we have

poll after poll where next to no votes are cast.

Your Honour, after the election, will recall receiving I

think it is form 51, but it is a form headed `Statement of the Poll', and each

DRO is obliged by the act to fill this out and send a copy of it to each of the

candidates on the ballot in that constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) yellow envelopes.

MR. ROBERTS: They come in yellow envelopes, my friend

from Eagle River reminds me. They come in and they list the results in each

poll, and the special polls what you see is: number of ballots provided, 250;

number of ballots cast, zero; number of ballots spoiled; number of ballots for

so-and-so, zero, so-and-so zero, and so-and-so, zero; total ballots unused, 250,

square it off, a complete waste of time and effort. But we are still left with

the situation, with the need, to enable a person who is away from home

involuntarily and for an extended period of time on election day, to cast his or

her ballot in the constituency in which he or she is resident. Now that is an

essential part of our system, so the whole group of amendments - they are found

section 21 of the bill, as I recollected - that address this recommendation

and carry into effect a new system of special ballots, simply put, you will

apply to the Chief Electoral Officer; you will get a special ballot. You will

then seal it in a special envelope which goes in another envelope, and the

double envelope system preserves the secrecy of the ballot.

This system appears complicated. It is less complicated than

the ones we now use, and it has worked, we understand, in Ontario, and I believe

the federal act is being changed to allow the same thing, so we believe it will

work here and we put it forward on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I would make is that when these

amendments are adopted, as I believe and hope will be the case, it is our

intention to proclaim the full Election Act, the new Election Act, with one

exception.

Members will recall there is a new part of the act, a whole

section of the new act, that deals with election finances, and we believe that

is a great step forward because it prohibits donations except to the parties,

and requires disclosure and requires reporting, and limits expenditure during

elections. We believe that is a great reform, and we brought it in, and it seems

to have worked very well during the time it has been in force.

The act also provides that each individual district may

become a reporting/receiving centre for donations. I think the view of all three

parties is that it is not necessary to implement that part of it now. We would

then go from three reporting and receiving centres, namely, alphabetically, the

Liberal, NDP, and PC Parties, to a total of 159 reporting centres, namely

fifty-two times three districts, three parties in each of the fifty-two

districts, for 156, and then the three parties themselves, so we don't intend to

proclaim that. It will stay on the books until we are ready, until government is

ready, the party is ready, to move forward. It will be a fair administrative

load for the individual districts, for the parties, and for the Chief Electoral

Officer in his capacity as chief administrator of that part of the act as well,

so we will be proclaiming the act except for those sections, and I believe that

all three parties are of the view that the present system is adequate and we

will go ahead on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, the only other comment I will make is that there

are very full explanatory notes to the bill, three-and-a-half pages of small

print. They deal at some length and in some detail with the amendments

themselves. I will simply refer members to them rather than repeat them, and

will say that I shall do my best to answer any comments or questions members may

wish to make either when I speak to close second reading of the bill, or

alternately when the bill gets to committee stage.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to the House

and ask it be read a second time.

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

MR. HARRIS: I will try my best to use up all the time

allotted to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I remember circumstances in which people had

unlimited time and tried to use it all up in this House.

I would like to have a few words to say on Bill 23. It

relates to a most important piece of legislation, the Elections Act, which

determines how people are elected to this House. There is quite a bit of detail

in these amendments, as the Government House Leader has said, going on for some

three and a half pages, providing for certain policy changes, certain

corrections to matters that have been pointed out as difficulties or potential

difficulties by the Chief Electoral Officer, and certain other matters that went

through the hands of the committee, the advisory committee appointed pursuant to

the act wherein all registered parties are entitled to nominate, through their

leader in writing, two people to this advisory committee.

That advisory committee has done a lot of work in preparing

and promoting some of the changes here, and I have to say that my information is

that this committee has worked rather well together. Even though the parties

represented, and the individuals represented different partisan interests, there

was an interest by all in having an electoral process that was as free from

undue influence and problems as possible. I guess as an example here there is

one provision that provides you cannot have a campaign office closer than 100

meters to a polling station, so you could not try and influence voters by

setting up next to the polling station with your campaign office and all your

signs and posters.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did it (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Now, there are exceptions. There is an

exception here, unless you cannot find another place. There may be some

circumstances where you are so close to a polling station and there is not

another suitable place there, so it cannot be an absolute rule. If there are

circumstances where it is impossible in a particular community to find space

outside of the 100 meter rule then it would be a problem. It would not be a

problem because it could be done, but where it can be avoided physically then it

ought to be avoided, and it is obvious, I guess, to hon. members here why such a

rule would be important.

There are some general principles though that are present in

this act. The Government House Leader referred to the individual voting on the

elections and brought here for the last 150 years. I find it kind of interesting

actually. I have just been reading a book on the history of Newfoundland

politics in the period between 1832 and 1860 which was the period of what was

called the Representative Government in Newfoundland where there were two Houses

of Parliament, two legislative bodies, the House of Assembly and a Legislative

Council. The Legislative Council was appointed by the governor under the control

of the Colonial Office in England and the House of Assembly was elected by a

popular franchise.

In fact the franchise in Newfoundland was far broader than it

was in England. Even under the Reform Act of 1832 there was no property

qualification in Newfoundland when Representative Government was introduced in

1832 and you were allowed to vote as long as you were a resident of

Newfoundland. Now the upper classes were not always excited about that, and

neither was the Colonial Office, and neither were the merchant class in many

cases pleased that there was such a wide franchise. One of the interesting

aspects of that particular period was there was a big fight between the

Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, in fighting over appointing

officers, appointing clerks, appointing and nominating officers and officials of

the House. These were in the control of the appointed council, not in the

control of the House of Assembly.

We had a similar situation to what we have now in the

Parliament of Canada, where in order for legislation to be passed, there had to

be the same bills passed by both the House of Assembly and, in this case, the

Legislative Council. And if the Legislative Council amended the legislation and

amended the bills, they were sent back to the House of Assembly, and if the

House of Assembly refused to pass them, the bills did not become law.

That is similar to what we have with our un-elected,

unrepresentative Senate in Ottawa which has the constitutional power to refuse

legislation and to not pass bills that come from the House of Assembly. Now,

those rules have been amended over the years to the point where constitutional

convention has really prevented the Senate from preventing legislation from

being passed by the House of Commons. Ultimately, the House of Commons cannot

have its way politically or may, in fact, be forced to call an election. But

back in those days there did not appear to be the same kind of polling by secret

ballot as occurred here in our elections act. In fact, the poll was taken over a

number of days, in some cases, a number of weeks, and it leads to a lot of

problems, I say to the Minister of Education, a lot of problems, particularly in

the Harbour Grace - Carbonear area where there was, in fact, the need to call in

troops from time to time to quell the disturbances that occurred at elections.

So it is very important -

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about calling in troops?

MR. HARRIS: Called in troops to quell disturbances at

election time over your way.

MR. EFFORD: You are off your head.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, it was a long time ago. It is not in

recent memory, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, but it was over in Harbour

Grace and Carbonear that there were difficulties with elections because of

disturbances at elections having to do with sectarianism. The Member for Harbour

Grace knows about it. There was a requirement on a number of occasions. Later on

there were, in fact, people killed during election riots. So I say that merely

to underline the importance of having election rules that are regarded as fair

and not open to corrupt practices so that individuals know that they can have a

secret ballot and not be subject to the undue influence of one candidate or

another.

The one issue that is referred to here - and I think it was a

consensus of the committee that there ought to be some changes made in it with

respect to election finance and the contributions by resident or non-resident

individuals, corporations or trade unions. That clause provides that now you

would not have to be resident in the Province in order to make a contribution to

a political party. I don't disagree with that. I think there are lots of

Newfoundlanders who are living away who might want to contribute to the Member

for Harbour Grace's campaign, if it were his brother or his cousin or if he had

several fans in Ontario who wanted to support his campaign. If these were the

only contributions he could get, then why shouldn't his brother in Mississauga

be able to send him $50 or $100 to help him out with his campaign, to buy a few

signs so he wouldn't disgrace the family? I can understand why members would

want to be able to have a contribution from individuals from other provinces,

and that has been extended to trade unions and corporations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: This whole business of election financing

does bring about something that I have been thinking about for some time. I

think it deserves some discussion. Because there are elements in the New

Democratic Party, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but also in other

provinces, who think that maybe the elections act should change so that no

corporations and no trade unions can contribute to elections, that the only

contributions to parties should be from individuals. If an individual wants to

put his or her money where his or her mouth is and support the Member for

Harbour Grace or support his political party, then that should be so.

There is a bias. If corporations become the major contributor

to political parties, then they expect laws and responses like - I don't know

why, we don't seem to know where the Shops' Closing Act comes from. Maybe there

are some powerful financial contributors to the Liberal Party who have an

interest in this legislation, or at least there is a perception that people,

particularly corporations -

MR. ROBERTS: That is why we brought in a bill, for the

first time in the Province's history, which forces disclosure.

MR. HARRIS: Disclosure isn't the answer to everything, I

say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) disclosure (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If the minister had listened to the beginning

of my speech -

MR. ROBERTS: No, I heard it too many times (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - he would have realized that what I was

talking about was perhaps we might be willing to consider having only

individuals contribute to political parties, no unions and no corporations, only

individuals. Perhaps we should consider that, Mr. Chairman, because we have a

concern, and it has been expressed across this country, that the control of the

political agenda is based on what has come to be known as the corporate agenda.

When you look at the contributions of major political parties

in Canada it is the banks, the big corporations, that provide the majority of

funding for the political parties in this country of the Conservative and

Liberal brand. Whether they be the Reform Party or the - the Reform Party

actually may have more individual contributions than corporate, I don't know for

sure.

I know, when one examines the contributions of the major

banks, one can see that they support the Conservative and Liberal parties. In

turn, the Conservative and Liberal parties over the years have made sure, on the

national level, that there were policies in place that supported the efforts of

the banks, in particular, to make substantial, and many may say, obscene, profit

at the expense of ordinary folks who keep their money in the banks, small

businesses which pay high interest rates when they can get access to (inaudible)

at all, and favourable tax treatment for foreign debt of banks, favourable tax

treatment that allows them to write off, in some cases fast write-offs, for

large foreign debts, and at the same time return a very outrageous profit to

their shareholders.

The latest figures show the banks so far are giving - each of

them seems to make over $1 billion in profit. And their contributions to

political parties have resulted in policies of governments, both Liberal and

Conservative, who are the only ones who have had power in Ottawa in recent

times. In fact, going back to the turn of the century, I don't think there are

any other parties that had power in this country other than the Liberals and the

Conservatives. But the banks have certainly done well by these governments and

by their political contributions. So I think the time may come, and it is worth

considering, whether or not we should make only individuals permitted to

contribute to political parties, because there isn't necessarily an equation

between a corporation and a particular union and to assume an equality where

none exists, is not a reasonable assumption.

There is an amendment to apply to non-resident corporations,

non-resident individuals and non-resident trade unions, and I don't disagree

with that. There are obviously, as I said, individuals in other provinces who

would wish to contribute to a political party here, people who ordinarily lived

in Newfoundland and have moved away and still wish to support a provincial

political party of their choice, and I don't see a problem with that. There are

some technical reasons within unions why the political contributions might

reside in another jurisdiction and, in fact, the contributions themselves may

come from outside of the Province; and with corporations, if people want to give

money to the various parties, then I think we have to treat them all the same at

this stage, unless there is a general rule which says you are not going to

accept contributions from any corporations or anyone other than individuals. I

think that is a circumstance that hasn't really been adopted by any political

party in this Province to date but is one that may be worth considering for the

future.

There are quite a few other changes here that can be debated

at third reading or in Committee and at this stage I am not proposing any

amendments. I think there is a need to implement many of the changes here that

have been identified as a result of having an election or two and a few

by-elections under the existing legislation. It was a new and complex act and

attempted to modernize some of the proceedings, and I think for the first time,

people who are active in the running of elections and in the problems that

arise, have had a say in influencing changes that would make the procedure

itself more sensible, get rid of problems and avoid unnecessary difficulties,

particularly ones that arise on election day when people are running around

fighting over

interpretations to acts and what can and cannot go on in a polling

booth.

For example, there is a provision here that would allow a

scrutineer to pass on information to another person with respect to who has

voted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty fundamental, isn't it?

MR. HARRIS: Fairly fundamental, it has been going on for

years. Obviously, somebody raised it as a problem, and I am sure somewhere

across this Province, some deputy returning officer tried to stop a scrutineer

from telling a runner who had voted in the particular election, and forced them

to have separate agents to do this or do that. I mean, there are always problems

on election day that arise and I think that it is wise that we have had party

representatives who know how elections are actually conducted from the party's

point of view having an influence and a say on what happens here. Perhaps the

modern era will have a scrutineer sitting there with a cellular telephone. The

next thing we will have, I suppose, is a scrutineer sitting there with a

cellular telephone and having an open line saying: oh, Mrs. So-and-So just came

in and voted, you can cross her off your list. And we will probably have to

change the Election Act to provide for that, if someone objects to a scrutineer

sitting at the table with a cellular telephone or a computer terminal hooked up

to a modem, or something like that, a lap-top computer with a modem hooked up to

a cellular telephone, punching in the numbers of people who have voted. That is

the kind of change that takes place in electioneering and campaigning that

sometimes needs to be reflected in the laws that we have.

I see this bill as representing a large number of

modifications, and in some cases, simplifications, in some cases, corrections of

problems that have come up, and having reviewed these matters, and knowing that

they come from a committee that has had representation by all parties, I want to

indicate my support for this bill at second reading.

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

Ferryland, it being Thursday, and close to 4:00 p.m., I would like to read the

questions for the Late Show.

Question number one, from the hon. the Member for Baie Verte

- White Bay to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: I am

dissatisfied with the answer re my question concerning the school bus accident.

Question number two, from the hon. the Member for Ferryland:

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health re my

question on Enriched Needs.

Question number three, from the hon. the Member for St.

John's East: I am not satisfied with the answer of the Minister of Labour on the

shops' closing rules.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments pertaining to some of the amendments

here, and some of the clauses. I see it as something positive.

There is one there requiring a party leader's endorsement of

candidates to be done on sort of a blanket approval now rather than having each

candidate running around trying to get a signature of the leader of that party.

It facilitates the process, and it is a lot easier for the elected candidates,

or the people who have been running for nomination. The last thing they want to

be doing is trying to think on a technicality now, or running around trying to

get a signature of a person who would be moving around the Province in the

campaign. I see that as being positive.

I see as being a little positive, too, and certainly as the

Government House Leader referred to, he is doing his best to assist people like

the NDP in obtaining funds outside the Province in assisting in their campaign.

If somebody wants to contribute to a campaign, it should not be limited to this

Province. If someone from outside the Province wants to contribute to a

campaign, whether it be British Columbia, Ontario or elsewhere, they should have

the right to be able to do so, whether they are doing business in this Province

or not, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they will.

MR. SULLIVAN: And they will, and it is only proper. We

have a free democratic society. The Premier is out talking about tearing down

barriers among provinces here now, and in the Atlantic Provinces and in Canada.

They talked initially about sticking up barriers, so we have to cut off

communication there. We are living in a global marketplace now, and we have to

think `global', not very turned-in and very self-centred in our thoughts.

I guess the authority now to make regulations is going to be

taken away from Cabinet, basically, in certain areas, and placed under the Chief

Electoral Office, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the amendment in clause 50 - would

transfer authority to make regulations that are contained in

section 223 of the

act to the Chief Electoral Officer from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have it, so -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `Tom', if he went to law school he would

be up there a couple of days and they would have him teaching.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: They would probably have me kicked out,

boy. For interrupting the class, I would probably be kicked out, I say to the

minister. I probably wouldn't last two days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One thing about it, you have the `gift

of gab' to be a lawyer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I tell you, that is probably the only

thing keeping me from wanting to go to law school now, for being called a

`learned friend' of the Government House Leader, I say to the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you can, and I tell the Government

House Leader that the reason I asked for that recommendation was because I

wanted to make sure I would never get accepted. That is why I asked for it.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) with respect to law schools the

difference between him and me is I have been accepted. 223 (2) of the act, and

that is the

section that is amended by 50 (2). 223 (2) now reads, the Chief

Electoral Officer may by regulation prescribe forms for use under this act, and

it will now say the Chief Electoral Officer may establish forms for use under

this act, so it just simplifies the paperwork somewhat. It does not give the CEO

any authority that he does not already possess, but it simply enables him to

discharge the authority more effectively.

I say to my friend for Grand Bank that I am proud of the fact

that the law school when I was here, little to do with me, but the teachers

included people like Bora Laskin and Caesar Wright. It was quite an experience

to go to law school when every textbook we used, which were the standard

textbooks in the country, were written by professors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. ROBERTS: The University of Toronto, 1961.

AN HON. MEMBER: It must have been pretty easy to get

through then.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, the minister is indicating that, I

guess, to facilitate the process, where you do not have to go back to Cabinet

and for Cabinet to outline the layout of a form, now the Chief Electoral Officer

can do that, and it would expedite the process and cut out some of the red tape

and bureaucracy that is in the system, I would assume.

In Clause 21 here in his bill, Bill 23, it states that an

application to vote by special ballot may be made to the office of the Chief

Electoral Officer at any time between the issue of the writ and 6:00 p.m. on a

day prior to polling day to be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon. The day before. One other day

prior.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, it is not the day, it is a day.

Fine, I accept that, because I read a subsequent

section indicating that ballots

must have been completed by 4:00 o'clock the previous day I thought here might

be -

MR. ROBERTS: (inaudible) time possible, but we are

leaving him the freedom to determine what that is.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is fine. That makes sense I say

to the Government House Leader. That is why you bring in amendments on bills,

because they make sense when you put them out the first time. That is why we had

an amendment on a bill there a few days ago, because it made so much sense. That

is why the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation brings a bill to this

House that makes sense and they are not even going to call it. That is what I

call making sense, making effective use of debate in this House, to float

something out, to test public opinion out in the marketplace. This is the right

to be able to exercise your opinion to elect people to this House that are going

to do responsible things, like dealing with shop closing and like dealing with

everything else. That is very relevant I say to the minister, very relevant, a

lot more relevant than the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are smarter than I thought you were.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, and when you do some more thinking

you might think I am even smarter than you though I was. I say to the minister

it would be nice to know the list of all those companies that told him -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It would be nice to know the minister

could think.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot say that because I did hear that

once there three years ago he did think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I agree with all kinds of shopping but

Sunday shopping you can do on Saturday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you can. We go to Sunday mass on

Saturday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you close them all?

MR. SULLIVAN: Give me the power and I will tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I would not close them all, of course I

would not. I know what the minister is getting at. I will give very strict

definitions of all types of business. I would have very specific

definitions. It

is the responsibility of government to do it, and once they do that, then we

have identified specific types of businesses then you make decisions on what

constitutes a type of business, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say that. I did not say that at

all. Oh, minister, I did not say that. I can tell the minister, when it comes to

this House. I will stand up and you will know where I stand on every bill that

comes to this House. When that comes here to this floor of this House you will

find out where I stand on it, I tell the minister, if you have guts enough to

bring it in. I will tell you where I am on it, nice and clear and unequivocal.

You will know where I am on it.

MR. REID: Tell him that he does not have the guts to

bring it in, tell him, tell him.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, you tell him. I cannot speak for you. If you want to tell

him, you tell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will be wherever your leader is.

MR. SULLIVAN: I must say, I thank you for your confidence

in seeing me as a very loyal individual. I think the minister is correct in

knowing that I am a loyal individual. That is far more then I can about many of

the members over on that side of the House I can tell you. You should hear some

of the stories that we hear on an ongoing basis, I say to the minister and some

involving him.

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe you should do (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will try not to, I say to the Government

House Leader, I will try not to. I would not want to throw anything out there

now that might throw a monkeywrench into their thinking. I say to the minister

too, there is also provision here - it is my understanding too that one of the

provisions of the special ballot will enable people to be able to prepare and

submit that ballot in, I guess, lieu of having advanced polls all over the

Province at a fair cost.

MR. ROBERTS: Advanced poll is if you are going to be away

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, that is the point that I am getting

to, yes. Instead of having the cost of having somebody in Carbonear, Grand Falls

or Labrador City voting for a member in Ferryland district now, that option

won't be there anymore. Anybody who is there working and is coming back can now

do a special ballot and get it sent in. They will have an opportunity to get in

their district and vote. So that should be a reasonable cost savings I would

think because to set up separate polling stations in all these areas is a -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure, that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what do you do, mail in your ballot?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you apply -

AN HON. MEMBER: No one else can use it can they?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and once you mail your ballot, once you

register and get a ballot you cannot vote then in the district any more

naturally. That prevents the opportunity to vote twice like some people do in

close elections, that makes it tough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I had it close my first time, I say to

the minister. This is a general election now. This is not -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the Government House Leader,

this bill is not dealing with leadership elections. He is confused. This is

dealing with general elections, to my knowledge, or by-elections. Yes, I had a

fairly close one my first time around, I say to the minister, it was reasonably

close. I know what the Member for St. John's South is going to attribute to my

success. I don't buy into that theory but it is debatable, lots of reasons.

There were 125 people more who voted for me then for my nearest opponent. That

is why I attribute to why I would, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a good thing you brought the Premier

up to my district, I say. He had three people in Renews, he had five in

Fermeuse, he had seven in Ferryland and he had a few others down the shore. If

he had not come up to my district you might have won. I tell you, you might have

won.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, 280 people in Tors Cove. Two hundred

and eighty people did not attend a meeting in Tors Cove. There were 104 people

in Tors Cove and sixty-five of them were mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. When the meeting was

ended whoever went in there against me, a majority came out. So the more

meetings we could have with the Premier up in the district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why? Why?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know but the minister said that to

me on a couple of occasions before, I was not aware of that. Maybe when he

stands up to speak he could certainly tie in that because that is very relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will tell the member why, one on one.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he told me because they played

political games that I don't play and by -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, yes, played political

games to get elected. I don't say anything to get elected that I don't believe

in and I deal with my own issues and not with anybody elses. That costs in

elections, I can tell you. I would sooner lose and be happy about it than win by

a method that I'm not happy about, I say to the member. That is what I advocate

and that is what I will continue to follow, whatever happens.

There is a change in terminology also in clause 58. Maybe the

Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice.... It says "auditing

standards" as opposed to "accounting principles." So I would assume there would

be - that is in clause 58, the amendment. You substitute the phrase "auditing

standards," I guess to bring in more acceptable procedures for auditing rather

than some general accounting principles that are more general in terms. Would

that be the reason in that specific clause?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I'm just wondering why the change in

the term.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, that will be fine. I might be able to

pick something out of that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. This is the

note given me by the officials who prepared it.

This clause concerns an amendment to subsection 308(6)

dealing with the duties of auditors by changing the words "generally accepted

accounting principles" to "generally accepted auditing standards," which is

apparently the more accurate professional term. That is what I'm told. I can get

more, but it appears that somebody with some knowledge of accounting or of

auditing said: Look, generally accepted accounting principles, which is a term I

knew as a lawyer years ago, now the politically correct term is generally

accepted auditing standards. It is no more than that. That is my understanding

of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the hon. member. Basically, does

that include that we could have to provide probably certain audit provisions as

opposed to sort of unaudited procedures? Would there be a distinction? Just to

take a normal financial statement, as an example. The unaudited statement

obviously is quite different from an audited statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is one of the big differences,

yes. There are certain other principles and standards at stake in an audited one

as opposed to an unaudited one.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) we require audited statements.

Remember, the only people from who they are required now are the three parties,

and then candidates in elections.

MR. SULLIVAN: Still there is a stronger - it seems to me

more incumbent upon the supplier of information in an unaudited one as to

accuracy as oppos