The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, the Chair would like to make its ruling related to the point of privilege raised on March 19 by the Premier. This is done after extensive research and consultation with several of our federal and provincial counterparts.

The point of privilege raised by the hon. the Premier on March 19 related to questions asked by the hon. the Member for Humber East with respect to the carrying out of a police investigation. The hon. the Member for Humber East said, and I quote from Hansard, March 19, page 279: "Mr. Speaker, given a choice between gross incompetence and political interference to stall the police investigation, the woman has concluded that there has been political tampering to delay the investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi qualifies for his severance pay and departs this House and the present Minister of Justice can run for his seat."

The allegation or charge being made by the hon. the Member for Humber East falls, in the Chair's opinion, into the category of unparliamentary language rather than privilege. The hon. the Member for Humber East has levelled a charge or an allegation of interference in the administration of justice against another member, albeit in the words of the complainant in the matter.

As Erskine May points out in the twenty-first edition, page 382: 'A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth.' Also I would like to quote Beauchesne in the matter with respect to Questions on page 121, paragraph 409, section 7: "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it." Also, in the words of Sir Erskine May, on page 380 of the twenty-first edition: 'Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his or her opponents in debate.'

In circumstances in which unparliamentary expression has been used, it is customary for a member to withdraw, and I now invite the hon. the Member for Humber East to withdraw any allegations or imputation of bad motives or personal charge against the Premier, Attorneys General or any other member which may have been perceived in her line of questioning.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am most puzzled by Your Honour's ruling. As I understand it, Your Honour is saying that the questions I asked on Thursday, in particular, the phrase Your Honour quoted, constitute unparliamentary language. I don't understand Your Honour's rationale. The statement I made, I stand by, and I cannot see how that phrase or the entire line of questioning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a procedure for this matter that the hon. member is into now. What the Chair is saying, I will do it. You are not supposed to question the Speaker in this respect, but what the Chair has said is not that the process, the topic of questioning was out of order, but that the expressions, the allegations and charges made by the hon. member were unparliamentary. Specifically, I quoted Beauchesne, that one is not to make a charge against another member, and the portions that I used of accusing the members of political interference, these, and tampering with the system of justice, is tantamount to unparliamentary expression in the House of Assembly.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps Your Honour misunderstood. I did not cast aspersions on the Premier or members of this House, in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member would take her place. I have read the particular quotation. I shall read it again: "Mr. Speaker, given a choice between gross incompetence and political interference to stall the police investigation, the woman has concluded that there has been" -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know when the Speaker is giving a ruling that there is supposed to be silence.

- "the woman has concluded that there has been political tampering to delay the investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi qualifies for his severance pay and departs this House and the present Minister of Justice can run for his seat."

I also quoted Erskine May, in this regard, which says: 'A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth.'

Another way we put this is that a member cannot say indirectly what a member cannot say directly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Your Honour, I chose my words very carefully, and I am not willing to retract one single word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: What I said did not cast aspersions on any particular member of this House of Assembly. I put my questions to the Premier, who is the head of the government and who has to take responsibility for everything done by his administration, including the Department of Justice, including the whole Cabinet and including the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I stand by what I said and I am unwilling to comply with Your Honour's ruling by retracting one word of what Your Honour quoted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member is not willing to acquiesce to the request of the Chair in this regard, the hon. member knows what the procedure is, and the Chair simply asks the hon. member to withdraw any perception of imputation or allegations within her line of questioning, and if the hon. member is not prepared to do that, then, of course, the Chair has no choice but to do what the Chair is supposed to do.

I ask the hon. member again, is the hon. member not going acquiesce to the request of the Chair?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I believe Your Honour has misconstrued or misunderstood what I said, which Your Honour just quoted from Hansard. I stand by what I said.

MR. SIMMS: She is right.

MS. VERGE: As I explained, I was very deliberate about the words I used, and I will say to Your Honour and to this Assembly again today, the woman who went to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary nineteen months ago, with a complaint that the present Member for Naskaupi, then a Cabinet Minister, sexually assaulted her, now, given a choice between believing that the police accidentally bungled the investigation, and that there was deliberate interference, political tampering, has chosen to believe the latter. The complainant believes now, that there has been improper, deliberate interference with the RNC investigation and that is the explanation for the fact that after nineteen months, the Constabulary still has not resolved the investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair understands and the Chair has again explained to the hon. member, the long-standing rules with respect to our House in that matter and again I will quote for the hon. member, it is unparliamentary to say indirectly what one cannot say directly. One cannot say, as Beauchesne's says, the - well, that is precisely what the Chair is saying, one cannot use another person to make an allegation. The Chair is not going to entertain any more explanations unless the Member wants to withdraw that perception.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help what impressions people form. I believe I have been very clear in what I have said and I stand by every word of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to take a brief recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to make sure, for the hon. Member again, that the hon. Member understands the ruling of the Chair. The hon. Member has said that she has not directly made the accusation. The Chair understands that, and the Chair's ruling is not that the hon. Member has made the accusation herself but that she has used a third party through which to make the allegations that were made. I have quoted for the hon. Member that according to our parliamentary procedures an hon. member is not permitted to say indirectly what she would not say directly. Again I have quoted the very often used quotation by Sir Erskine May: a member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody elses mouth. So the Chair, as I say, has acknowledged that, that it was not the hon. Member but that the hon. Member was doing indirectly what a member is not permitted to do directly. I just simply want to do that, to make sure that the hon. Member is aware of what the decision is and if the Member can explain whether or not she made a direct charge against an hon. member, and if the hon. Member did not make a direct charge against any hon. member of the House, then that settles the matter.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there are two points, number one, I am not trying to hide behind a third party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I would say any objective onlooker would agree that there are two possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is gross incompetence on the part of the police or, to say it another way, accidental bungling. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that there has been deliberate political interference. That there has been conscious stalling.

Now, any number of people could be responsible for improper deliberate interference. But the Premier, as the head of the Government, has to answer for that. Now I said that the woman directly involved who made the complaint of sexual assault herself cannot believe that this is a case of accidental bungling by the police. She now thinks that there is a deliberate interference calculated to stall this investigation. I believe any objective onlooker would say that there are two possibilities, and deliberate interference is a definite possibility. It is a reasonable conclusion for the woman or anyone else to draw.

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

The Chair is willing to accept the hon. Member's explanation in terms of political interference, but the Chair again cannot accept it if it is against an hon. Member. But if it against the Government as an administration, then that is quite in order. But the Chair cannot take it as a charge against a specific hon. Member. So if the hon. Member is saying that she is charging the administration, well then, the Chair will accept the withdrawal.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in the beginning I wanted to make two points. The second point I will concentrate on now is that what I said is that the woman has concluded that there has been political interference or political tampering.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that.

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, in saying that - and I will say it directly, as one of the two obvious explanations, I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would stop there, that is fine, the Chair would accept the withdrawal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No withdrawal! No withdrawal!

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not withdrawing one word of what I said last Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is in an awkward position because the hon. Member is saying that she is not making an accusation against one hon. member. That is all the Chair is looking for, because that is what the rules are. That one cannot make an allegation

against an hon. member or an imputation. If that is what the hon. Member for Humber East is saying, that is satisfactory to the Chair. But one minute the hon. Member says that, then she goes on to say that she is not doing that. So, if the hon. Member would clearly tell me, and tell the House, that she is not making an allegation or an imputation against an hon. member, then that satisfies the Chair. So, I ask the hon. Member to indicate whether that is the case.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be any more clear. I said on Thursday, and I will say again today -

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want the hon. Member to say what she said on Thursday. I want the hon. Member to say what she now has to say.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, what I said on Thursday in the House and outside the House, what I will say to Your Honour now, is that there are two possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is incompetence. One is accidental bungling or negligence on the part of the police. The other possibility is deliberate interference or political tampering. I said on Thursday, and I will say again, the complainant, the women most directly involved, by now after nineteen months has come to the conclusion that there has been political interference. Any objective onlooker, I believe, would have grounds for having that suspicion. Certainly, I have mentioned the two obvious possible explanations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in saying there is reason to believe that there has been political interference, there is not an accusation against any hon. member of this House in particular. Any one of them could be responsible, but I was not making an allegation at the Premier personally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is responsible for everything that he personally does and everything that the Cabinet does and everything that all the civil servants do and everything that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary does. Any one of the members of the Government, from the Premier down, could be at fault, I do not know. I asked the Premier to have an independent judicial enquiry -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to recess for another brief period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In view of the explanations given by the hon. the Member for Humber East, where the member states that in her statement she was not accusing any one single member, that, I think, meets the requirement that she was not accusing any one particular member and the Chair will accept that explanation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 21, I attended a celebration with the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to honour Canada's 125th Anniversary. This is the first province of Canada to hold the celebration and, indeed, it is a first for Newfoundland. It was a successful event, attended by 800 people of a multicultural background, who were adamant in their desire for a united and strong Canada.

Because of what is happening in our country, I believe this hon. House should go on record and show our gratitude by sending a letter of congratulations to the sponsoring organization, Newfoundland and Labrador Multicultural and Folk Arts Council.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with my hon. friend from St. John's East Extern in extending best wishes and congratulations to the multicultural group who initiated the first celebration of the 125th Anniversary of Canada, on Saturday past. We enjoyed each other's company at that particular festivity, and it was, indeed, a pleasure to see our fellow Canadians of very many ethnic and cultural groups recognize their new country and celebrate with all of us what a great nation this is. I would gladly join with my friend and issue those sentiments to the organization.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving into Ministerial Statements, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the galleries today, the Mayor of Burin, His Worship Jerry Appleby, and the Deputy Mayor of Burin and President of the Federation of Municipalities, Ms. Kathy Dunderdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's galleries, the 1991 Youth of the Year finalists in the persons of Mary Ellen Armstrong, the Youth of the Year from Grand Falls - Windsor -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - Linsey Hollett from Burin Bay Arm; Michelle MacWhirter from Stephenville; Tonya North from Bay de Verde; Justyna Nowak from Paradise - St. Thomas; and Gerald Ralph from Grand Falls - Windsor, along with their guests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the galleries, twenty students from the Newfoundland Career Academy here in St. John's, along with their instructors, Ms. Gloria Dawe and Linda Janes-Dupass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today, it was my pleasure to announce the name of the 1991 Newfoundland and Labrador Youth of the Year, and for the information of members, the individual was already welcomed to the House by the hon. the Speaker. The program is administered by the Youth Services Division of my department, and the award is granted to publicly recognize the significant and exceptional contributions that young people between fifteen and twenty-four make to other individuals, their schools, their communities or their Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Youth of the Year was chosen from six finalists selected by an independent committee comprised of representatives of youth-serving organizations and institutions throughout the Province. These individuals also have been welcomed and introduced to the House by the hon. the Speaker.

All six finalists, in my opinion, were winners. They are bright, intelligent, energetic, aggressive people with self-confidence and talent and they possess all kinds of skills and abilities.

The Youth of the Year is but one of many programs in place in this department, the main objective of which is to bring into prominence and to develop the full potential of the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All finalists were granted $2000 scholarships and the Youth of the Year received an additional $3000 scholarship. The scholarships are to help defray expenses associated with post-secondary education.

The idea for the Youth of the Year Awards Program came about in 1985, during the United Nations' International Year of the Youth and it provides an opportunity for government to publicly recognize these young people for their unselfish commitment to others. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these six people exemplify the highest ideals and qualities of citizenship.

This is the first year that scholarships were awarded and the program will involve more changes into the future. We are having discussions with the Federation of Municipalities and it is our hope that more municipalities will become involved in this program to honour and recognize outstanding young men and women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a short response to the minister's statement and a thank-you to him in the House, publicly, for inviting the MHAs concerned to attend the luncheon. I happen to have the opportunity of attending a number of them, as a matter of fact, I am proud to say, as a number of finalists have come from my own constituency. I am much too modest to point out to the minster that the planning, preparation, and organization for this program went on during the year that I was Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth, back in 1984. So, since I am too modest to mention it, I won't mention it.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to pass along, most importantly, congratulations on behalf of members of the House of Assembly to the provincial Youth of the year, Mary Ellen Armstrong, who was a tremendous finalist. Having said that, of course, it is very important that we recognize the other five nominees. I happened to sit in at the luncheon today and I heard the summation made by Mr. Wilson, the Director in the department, and I tell you, it was an extremely impressive list of achievements put forth by Mr. Wilson on behalf of each of those six finalists, so they are all to be commended.

I also want to commend the department, if I may, and the minister. This year, I think, for the first time, the six finalists were each awarded a $2000 scholarship and the winner got an additional $3000 scholarship. I think this is the first time that was done and I understand the recommendation to do that came from members involved, in the youth themselves; they made the suggestion, rather than spend a lot of money on a big dinner, or whatever, at a hotel, which might cost you a lot of money, have something like we had today and take that money and put it into education. I commend whoever was responsible in the department for undertaking that initiative.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget the contribution made by the parents of these young people. Most of the parents, I see, are also here today in the gallery and, no doubt, their teachers and the people they have been involved with in the community and in their municipalities have also helped them considerably to get to where they are going. I want to wish them very, very much success in their future endeavours, whatever they may be, and if you need help don't forget to call on your members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on behalf of hon. members we would also like to welcome to the House, Mr. Terry Fahey, Chairman of the Local Service District of Bellevue, with his delegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Some time ago, just a few weeks ago - as a matter of fact, this month, hundreds of residents of the municipality of Grand Falls - Windsor, particularly those living in the Grand Falls ward, were in a state of shock when they opened up their property assessments, because they found that in many, many cases, hose assessments had, n fact, increased by upwards and above 100 per cent. Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to accept 30 per cent or 40 per cent over four or five years - six years, I think it was in this case, that would have been quite reasonable; but people are absolutely unwilling to accept increases in the area of, or in excess of 100 per cent. In fact, there were demonstrations, he might be aware, a couple of weeks ago, that made the National News headlines. So I ask the minister, Would he would take the opportunity now to provide an explanation to the people of the Grand Falls Ward primarily, and to this House, for the extraordinary rise in these property assessments?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has been made aware of extraordinary increases in the assessed properties of some of the municipalities, and through the media I, personally, learned of the incidence in Grand Falls.

Officials of the department have been in consultation with various councils in this regard, and the assessment department has been asked for a thorough research as to why the assessments have come out the way they have in some instances. As the hon. member has pointed out, they are fluctuating. One neighbour could go up 30 per cent and another could go up 100 per cent. I, personally, have questioned a couple of individuals on this, and have found that they are following all the normal criteria. I want a broader sample or analysis of what is happening, and I would be delighted to report back to the hon. member.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary I want to ask. It is a bit sensitive, but I must ask, because people out in the community have asked me to ask the question.

The minister, if he has checked into it as he says, probably would also be aware that the property assessment increases are having a disproportionately large effect and impact on those people who live in the Grand Falls ward, rather than in the Windsor ward. In fact, in the Windsor ward, the Windsor residents actually had a decrease in their tax rate. Now, he may not be aware of it, but that is the case. Most of the increases are taking place in the Grand Falls ward.

Now, as the minister can well imagine, this is a source for some bitterness or animosity between the residents of the two former communities, and the question that they have asked me to bring to the House and to ask the minister, which I do now, is this: Does the minister believe that amalgamation between the Towns of Grand Falls and Windsor, has any responsibility for the huge increases that we have talked about?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think amalgamation is any contributing factor, although it could have been, but not to my knowledge in my background and experience. I have always wondered about how assessments get to where they are. A variety of explanations are given. I would rather not dwell on any of them, but for the life of me, I can't attribute it to amalgamation, and the anomaly that the hon. member mentions of it being more drastic in Grand Falls than it is in Windsor, I will certainly have that examined, too. That is another curve that is thrown at us, and I will certainly be delighted to have it examined and get back to him.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his commitment to look into it a bit further. I want to give him one thing further, if I may, to consider. The town, itself, wouldn't be in the financial position, as no town in this Province would be, I suppose, to decrease the property tax on its own and not have anything to fall back on, and the Minister should be aware that nearly a third of the home owners in the Grand Falls ward, 813 out of the 3,000 householders have filed appeals. They have formed a committee called The Citizens For Fairer Tax, and they are lobbying to somehow find some way to bring the increases down to a reasonable level.

My question to the Minister is this: is there anything his department can do to provide some assistance to the Town to enable them to undertake this particular initiative? And secondly, can I ask him directly, would he be prepared to direct his director of assessments - if there is such a person, I think there is - to meet with the representatives of that committee for Citizens For Fairer Tax to go out to the Grand Falls - Windsor area to sit down and have a discussion to try and find ways to adjust this ridiculous increase in many cases? Would he be prepared to do that?

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

MR. HOGAN: I think I would, Mr. Speaker. I will not give a definite yes at this time, but if he would be patient and let us finish our examination not only of the Grand Falls - Windsor situation but the broader base, because it is coming in from other newly assessed areas, and I would certainly undertake - if time permits I would certainly be delighted to have some person from the administrative side of the department have discussions with any group that has those kinds of concerns.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice is un-elected and does not have a seat in this House, I will direct my questions to the acting Minister of Justice if there is an acting Minister of Justice present.

Would the acting Minister tell the House whether the Premier now realizes that statements he made last week about details of the RNC investigation of the Member for Naskaupi were misleading? In any case wouldn't the acting Minister agree that the Premier should not have attempted to comment on the details of the case and instead should have confined himself to the issue of the apparent malfunctioning of the administration of justice?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unless the hon. Member misleads people again in the way she asks her questions, the hon. the Premier read in the House a chronology that was given to him of the events surrounding the particular case. Mr. Speaker, it is simply a chronology of events, and the Premier quite correctly, openly and honestly read that list to the House. So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong. That is the list that was given from the RNC, and that is exactly what happened as far as we are concerned.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the acting Minister of Justice, the acting many things in this Administration, that I did not mislead anybody. The Premier's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, will the acting Minister now deal with the real issue I raised last Thursday, namely, the administration of justice in this Province? Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will have a judicial inquiry into the response, or more accurately the lack of response, of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to the complaint by a woman 19 months ago that the Member for Naskaupi, then a Cabinet Minister, sexually assaulted her? Will the Government have a judicial inquiry?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again I think the hon. Member has her facts incorrect. I would say to the hon. Member that the matter is now under investigation. When that investigation is complete whatever steps that need to be taken will be taken by the people concerned.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the acting Minister now see that his Government hurt the criminal justice system in this Province by disbanding the ombudsman's office and failing to establish in its place any independent agency with the role of dealing with complaints about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the hon. Member's main concern. I would suggest to her that whether or not the ombudsman was in existence the same circumstance would apply as applies today - that there is a police investigation under way. Until that police investigation is completed, nothing will be done, until we see the results of that particular police investigation. We, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, do not believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions is simply another civil servant to be ordered around.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister, the same as the Premier, is just using diversionary tactics. I ask the acting Minister: in view of this latest evidence that the administration of justice is not functioning properly, doesn't the acting Minister think it is inexcusable or, to use one of the Premier's favourite words, unconscionable, that the Government still has not released to the public the recommendation of the Hughes Inquiry Report dealing with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the relationship between the police and the Department of Justice? Will the acting Minister tell us: when will the Government release the Hughes Commission report?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Hughes Commission has taken quite a bit of time to finish its work. The report is now being considered and the announcement has already been made that it will be made public. It will be made public in due course -

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Hughes Commission took quite some time to complete its work. The report is now being examined and will be released to the public once the examination is complete. That has been made quite clear in this House and to the people of the Province, that the results of the Hughes Commission will be released to the public when the examination is completed.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in case the acting Minister did not realize, the Hughes Commission finished its work a year ago and gave its report to the Government ten months ago. Now I ask the Minister, why is the Government covering up the report and who is examining the report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the results of the Hughes Commission will be released to the public shortly. I understand that the new Minister of Justice is in the process of having a look at it himself and he already has announced publicly, to the press, that very shortly the results will be released to the public. I would like to once again stress that whereas Members opposite like to interpret these things as coverup, I know that there used to be coverups but there are none any more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Social Services. The Department of Social Services statistics, up to last October, showed an increase of 25 per cent over the previous year in the number of youths in open and secure custody in the Province. Would the Minister tell us the reason for this alarming increase in the number of youths being brought before the courts? It's not normal. Could the Minister comment on that please?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, our numbers, caseloads are up in every category, every division of the Department. It is not unique to the youth component. It is very alarming, to say the least, to see increases like this, but it is also very difficult to pinpoint what the reasons are. We are in difficult economic times, as we all know, and we can only guess that those times and the difficulties that youths find themselves in lead to this increase in figures. We are attempting, of course, to do the research necessary to get at the root of the problem. But it is very difficult to pinpoint why we have the increases we do in this division and other divisions of my Department that show increases in the caseload right across the board.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that these people are being incarcerated. I would ask the Minister if this is a pattern, if there is a pattern to these kinds of incidents that are taking place, and is there any evidence that this tragedy is related to increased family breakup and stress in families? Would the Minister admit that the problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is inadequate funding by his Department and also staff shortages?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not related to inadequate support services and staff. Although I have to say that in times when we have an increase in our caseload of some 30 per cent since a year ago, that that puts extra demands on staff. We are responding as best we can given the resources available to us. Our field people in particular are overworked, and that is a fact, because when you add a 30 per cent increase in caseload it certainly is going to lead to extra work and a greater effort on the part of our staff. They have been responding well given the increase in caseload.

It is a situation, Mr. Speaker, I might add, that is not going to diminish. We can see, with the difficult economic times that we have and no improvement on the horizon, that the demands on our staff are going to be ever increasing. I do not attribute the problem to that. The problem is one that is deep-rooted and one that we continue to monitor and research and attempt to deal with. Certainly we have an increase in that particular component, as the hon. Member suggests, and we are doing all we can to deal with it, both on a correction basis and, of course, trying to get at the root of the problem itself and address the problem from that end. So, it is a very difficult situation, Mr. Speaker, that we are constantly monitoring.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the judges, the lawyers, and social workers are saying that they have lost the war. Would the Minister admit, if it is up by 25 per cent - and that is a figure that is several months old, things have worsened since that. One person suggested as high as 200 per cent in the last few months. Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister will agree -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is on a supplementary, his third. Could he get to the question please?

MR. HODDER: Wouldn't the Minister agree, Mr. Speaker, that he should increase the number of people who handle these young people? Mr. Speaker, is law and custody the only resource that the Department has to deal with this problem, and does the Department have no capacity whatsoever to help youths and their families through counselling and other professional services?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly, of course, providing the necessary support services that these youths require. They receive help from various specialties, medical specialties, psychiatrists, psychologists and workers in my own Department who are involved in this particular division. So, the support is there, Mr. Speaker, and that support has great demands upon it.

We find from time to time that the numbers of psychiatrists and psychologists that are available are not as we would like to see them, and that creates difficulty because we have difficulties in this Province in the health care area and the social area in attracting the numbers of specialists that are needed to support our health and social programs.

Mr. Speaker, as to the caseload itself, it is difficult to say why it is increasing as it has been increasing over the last few months. I can only say that we are constantly working with this problem and attempting to deal with it.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. A year or so ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health initiated talks -

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Would the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs please keep quiet when I am asking a question? Every time I stand to ask a question he is talking, Mr. Speaker.

Now, to begin again, I have a question for the Minister of Health. A year or so ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health initiated talks with respect to the consolidation of the St. John's hospital service. Are these discussions continuing and what can he report on them today?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member quite rightly points out, last year we decided around Budget time that we would amalgamate some services in the St. John's area. The ones which spring to mind are the obstetrics divisions. At this time we have the capability of doing about 4,000 deliveries in the City. Either hospital, either St. Clare's or the Grace, could provide the services for all the St. John's area. We have been working on that over the past number of months, and hopefully before much longer we should have that service together. Already some of the services have come together, but the delay up until now has been in bringing the obstetrics together. It is sort of a domino effect, once that one goes in place then the others will follow, Mr. Speaker. We should have it all in place within - I do not want to say a specific time frame, but in the not too distant future we should have it all in place.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, when the exercise started, I believe the Minister said that the province was considering about ten options. Could he tell us what the options are now specifically narrowed down to? What are the hang ups and what options are holding the whole thing up now?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. Member is confusing two issues. There were nine options -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Okay, it is the option thing. Just after the people of this Province opened their eyes and elected a Liberal Government, we were presented with a study which had been put in place by the previous administration which was asked to determine how to deal with health care delivery, acute care delivery in this City. This group came forward with nine options. The St. John's Hospital Council sponsored the study. They came forward with nine options. The one that was recommended, the preferred option was option seven which would have seen a cost of $250 million in 1988, last quarter dollars plus interest. I would suggest that todays dollars, Mr. Speaker, including interest probably would be close in the order of $500 million or $600 million. Government felt that we could not accept this option. It was not a reasonable option, so we asked the St. John's Hospital Council to go back to the drawing board and study what came to be called option ten which would have seen an extra 100 beds added to the general hospital, and an extra 85 or 90 beds added to St. Clare's and eventually we would end up with two adult acute care hospitals in this city. That option is still being studied by the St. John's Hospital Council. At the same time they asked for permission to review option seven to see if they could tone it down to more realistic figures.

So that is ongoing, Mr. Speaker, and I understand we were supposed to have a report from the St. John's Hospital Council sometime last fall. They have asked for several extensions, and now I understand it is going to be July before they have their recommendation into whether we should go with option ten or option seven. But we still maintained the right, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the situation in the most cost effective way we can as a Government.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, has the Government considered the potential effect of consolidating hospital space and services and what effect that will have on specialty services given the fact that one of the big problems that we have always had here in Newfoundland in attracting and keeping specialists is that they always have the problem of operating room space, which is vital for a doctor if he is going to practice his specialty on a full-time basis. Can the Government guarantee then that should this consolidation take place that there will be no reduction in facilities such as operating rooms required for the practice of specialty services?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has gone ahead of himself to quite a certain extent. We have not yet made a decision to consolidate these hospitals to any great extent. Mr. Speaker, common sense would suggest that an amalgamated system would be much more efficient and would pick up enough savings that we could indeed put in extra operating rooms and extra intensive care units and what have you. That is the common sense approach to it.

However, this Government recognises that we are not experts in all things. That is why we have asked for an experts' study into whether or not there would be additional savings, into whether or not there would be a possibility of delivering a better health care system. This is all about delivering a better health care system to the people of St. John's and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are not satisfied to make a rash judgement on that, and that is why it takes some time for us to study all the pros and cons of having more consolidations in St. John's.

That is a departure from the way things were done in this Province for seventeen years, and I am proud to be a part of the Government which is taking that reasonable, rational approach to delivering health care.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Lands, who is also responsible for Wildlife. Is the Minister aware that during the past few days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognised the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains and I have not recognised anybody else.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Wildlife. Could the Minister advise if her Department has been made aware of a number of rabid foxes that have been found in the Hopedale - Postville area?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not quite sure if he said had we been made aware or did we know how many. If he could just repeat the question, I'm sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both!

MS. COWAN: Both? I have not been briefed on it, but as you may be aware I was in Vancouver last week at the Ministers' meetings on environment. I will certainly look into the matter for you as soon as the Question Period is over.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Minister, if she is responsible for Wildlife, she should make sure that she is kept abreast of what is going on in her Department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister. I would ask the Minister: would she consider doing what the former Minister of Environment and Lands did a couple of years ago, when there were a number of foxes found in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which had been in contact, or had rabies, and subsequently the Government of the day instituted a bounty? Would the Minister consider now instituting a bounty on foxes that could be harvested and that are also dangerous because they could be carrying rabies?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to commit myself to any particular form of action until I was familiar with all the details surrounding the case that he brings to our attention.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of weeks ago the hon. Minister responsible for Mines indicated that there was a window of opportunity available for the re-opening of the Hope Brook gold mine. I asked the hon. Minister a few days ago if there was anything new to report and he indicated that there was not. I ask the Minister now: is that window of opportunity closing and are we any closer to re-opening that mine and saving the 300 jobs of the miners whose UI runs out next week?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I agree with the Member that the window of opportunity is closing. The company that is negotiating to buy the Hope Brook mine, if they finalize the agreement, want to be able to open this summer. There is not much more time left if they would expect to get people in the field this Spring and have it routinely operating this Summer. So I would like to see that agreement finalized in short order. I know there has been a lot of progress made, quite a lot of progress made, but there are still a couple of outstanding issues and I would hope that in the next few days they get resolved.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do believe at the time that the mine closed that the governing party in this House indicated to the workers there that if the mine could not be re-opened some remedial action, by way of training, would be undertaken after or during the period that these people were on unemployment insurance. The UI is about to run out next month. If the window of opportunity closes does the Government have any plans for these 300 workers who will be without a source of income?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to speculate on that at this time. I am hoping that there will be a positive resolution of this and that 240 people will be back to work within the next few weeks.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question too for the Minister responsible for Environment and Lands who, in her department, administers Wildlife. Last year in this House a petition containing thousands of names was presented calling on the Government to implement Sunday hunting. Has the Minister given any consideration to having a hunt on Sundays this year?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am reviewing the whole area of Sunday hunting.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 1988" carried. (Bill No. 13).

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

MR. BAKER: Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973" carried. (Bill No. 9).

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

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

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

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act". (Bill No. 11).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973". (Bill No. 7).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation Act, 1963". (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland Association of Social Workers". (Bill No. 12).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry (Collective Bargaining) Act, 1971". (Bill No. 8).

MR. BAKER: Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. House that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance: "I, The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit supplementary estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1992 by way of further supplementary supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:________________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to the Committee on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, the sum of $4,300,000."

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

Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and beginning the debate on Bill 6, I would like to rule on a couple of points that were raised in Committee.

First, the point raised by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West: I reviewed the transcript of Hansard and conclude, of course, that the comments made by the hon. the Member for Pleasantville were said in jest, were of a humorous nature, and certainly do not constitute any point of order.

Secondly, the point raised by the hon. the Member for St. John's South: He raised an interesting question, I think, one that brings into play the conduct of members and visitors in the gallery, in particular, visitors in the Speaker's gallery. While, from time to time, of course, members may have quick exchanges with visitors there and express greetings if it is done very quickly and very discreetly, then it may be permissible, but clearly, the Chair has ruled in the past that it is not in order for members to engage in any lengthy discussions or exchanges, or any prolonged conversations with visitors in the gallery. I ask that if there is, in the future, any need for a discussion with visitors to the gallery, that it be done outside the Chamber. Remember that there is a code of conduct that must be followed by visitors, as well as members, and I ask all hon. members to adhere to that conduct.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 6 refers to a loan that we wish to make and, as stated in the bill, we hope to make from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the sum of $4.3 million. This is a loan that we plan to make to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to assist them in the modernization of their mill. Members may remember that the modernization program of $220 million has been ongoing for some time and that the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland agreed to make available to the company an amount of money, the lesser of 20 per cent, or $33 million, that during the course of events, a ten-year unsecured loan was made to help finance the balance of what was needed and then another grant came forward, which meant that the total amount wasn't required.

Now, what is required is an amount of $4,331,400. Mr. Chairman, I could answer further questions on this. What is proposed is that the loan is at a preferred rate. It is calculated in a fairly complicated way, but basically, we start with the rate of yield on ten-year Government of Canada bonds which, of today, are 8.5 per cent. We cut that in two and we make it 4.25 and then 1.25 is added to make it 5.5, so the effective rate of interest, then, is 5.5 per cent. Now, government's cost of borrowing is 9.8, at the moment, and if we lend it at 5.5 it will cost the government 4.3 per cent. The idea is that government picks up the interest for the first five years and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper carries the interest for the next five years. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, this is the proposal, and if there are further questions we will be glad to answer them.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chair, I rise to ask some questions about this bill. As the Member for Humber East, I represent the district in which the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill is located. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper operates one of the largest and most important industries in the Province, employing people, not only in Corner Brook where the mill is located, but people throughout Western and Central Newfoundland. I would like the minister to confirm what I believe to be the case, which is that the low-interest loan provided for in this supplementary supply bill flows out of the agreement signed between the Peckford administration and Kruger for Kruger's takeover of the Corner Brook mill back around the end of 1984. I wonder if the minister would confirm that this low- interest loan is required by that takeover agreement signed by the Peckford administration with Kruger.

Next, to put this low-interest loan into perspective, I wonder if the minister would table for all members and for the public, a summary of the provincial government's assistance, both in the form of outright grants and subsidized loans, since Kruger took over the operation of the Corner Brook mill.

The modernization program that has been carried out by Kruger as the minister implied has cost quite a bit more than the company obligated itself to do in the take-over agreement. The fact that Kruger has spent more on modernizing the Corner Brook mill and improved it in a more significant way that originally indicated, of course,has been a very positive development. The Corner Brook mill was built in the early 1920s and in today's newsprint industry, the Corner Brook mill has to compete against mills that were built much more recently and that have more modern equipment and systems. If the Corner Brook mill and all the jobs associated with its operation are to be maintained into our future for the benefit of the present generation and future generations, then it is imperative that the necessary investment be made to improve and modernize the mill. It is necessary that the Corner Brook mill have appropriate alterations and get new equipment to stay competitive.

So, with those two questions, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat; just to help the minister, the two questions are: Is the low-interest loan provided for in this supplementary supply bill, indeed, part of the provincial government's obligation contained in the take-over agreement signed by the Peckford administration with Kruger, back around the end of 1984? And, number two, Will the minister table a summary of all the provincial government's contributions to Kruger and/or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, since Kruger took over the Corner Brook mill from Bowater?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will undertake to get the information that you require - I don't have it before me at the moment, all the grants and loans and so on that were available, because I don't really know the answer to that question myself. Now, as to the requirement, whether this fitted in with the original agreement, there is a technicality here. Actually, there was a term in which a time limit applied, for this loan to be activated, and, inadvertently, I think, on behalf of Kruger, they let it slip, and we looked at it and said: well, even though technically the agreement has slipped, has lapsed, we will still give them the term because of the importance of it. So, technically, the answer to your question is, no, but in spirit, it is yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Generous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the question?

A bill, " An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", (Bill 6).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill No. 6).

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections and Election Financing." (Bill No. 1).

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

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

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I did take the opportunity to review this Bill, and my concern naturally is on page 126 and 127. I apologize that maybe I do not fully understand the technical terms that are expressed in this particular Bill, but I think there is a question that needs to be asked, a very serious question. The Premier came into power in 1989 -

AN HON. MEMBER: By fluke.

MR. WARREN: By fluke, I guess, by fluke, but at the same time on an issue of fairness and balance. The hon. House Leader spoke on Friday and every second word was 'it is a great Liberal Bill'. Time and time again the hon. House Leader said 'a great Liberal Bill'.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are long overdue with such a Bill as this, and I want to express my concern coming from the largest geographical district in our Province with the smallest number of voters.

Looking at the section in this where it says $3 per head. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take -

AN HON. MEMBER: The minimum.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minimum, that is what I am getting at. Let's take the districts of Conception Bay South and Torngat Mountains. You're talking about something in the ratio of roughly 2 to 10 voters-wise, 2 to 10.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, and I am sure the House Leader when he closes debate on this particular Bill, would like to explain to this House how it is fair for the Member of Harbour Main and the Member for Torngat Mountains to contest an election on an equal, level playing field. Now I may be missing something, but I do not see how a candidate in Eagle River and a candidate in Conception Bay South can be given an equal playing field to start off with. With this Bill.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is by leave and I am just responding. The hon. Member is raising a point that obviously is of concern, and that is the districts that are large in area, small in population, the difficulty of travel, all that kind of thing. It is an important issue. I think it is an issue the Committee is also dealing with and will give a report during the Committee stage in the House. But he is right, it is a very important issue.

I do not know if there is any way to bring total equality if you compare district by district. I think allowance has to be made in this case for a greater expenditure limit because of the method of travel and all this kind of thing. But whatever is done surely would be fair between the candidates in Torngat Mountains. The Liberal, PC and NDP candidates in Torngat Mountains would have the same conditions attached to them as everywhere else. All three would have the same conditions attached to them even though there might be some difference in spending amounts between districts.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to continue. In Section 312 actually, and we continue on. Take for example - and I will just give you an example in my district alone now. As of the last census there was something like 1,565 voters. Multiply that by three, you will get less than your $8,000 minimum. But you are allowed to go up to your $8,000. So that is fine and dandy.

But take the Member for Carbonear, which probably has 3,000 voters or probably 4,000. So you multiply that by three, you are up to $12,000 or $13,000. Eight thousand dollars, so you multiply that, you are up to your maximum of $20,000. So you are up to your maximum of $20,000 whereas I can only go to $8,000 because of the population or the number of voters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Member for Torngat Mountains that the candidate himself in his travel expenses and so on would not be included in that limit. Which means that the total expenditure - candidate's travel and all that kind of thing - would be covered outside that limit. So still, you know, there are allowances made for that situation.

MR. WARREN: Yes, I have no problem with that. That is understandable. But, Mr. Speaker, you have the same kind of expenses whether you have 100 people or 2,000 people in a hall. You have the same expenses if you are going to go knocking on ten doors or if you are going to knock on twenty doors, because the only difference is you are going to wear out your shoes quicker. That is the only difference.

So what I am saying is that you cannot have equality in the districts if you are going to use these kinds of figures. If you are going to use these kinds of figures you are going to discriminate. Unfortunately not only in my district. Eagle River district is going to be in the same situation. I would say probably the Strait of Belle Isle district. It might probably be the third smallest, but I do not know for sure now. But there are some smaller districts.

Take Naskaupi district. There are only 3,200 voters in Naskaupi district and you are again going to be down in this bracket. So, Mr. Speaker, unless there is going to be a level playing field, it is going to discourage - I tell you what it is not going to do, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to discourage me from running again, I know it is not going to do that - but, Mr. Speaker, it is going to discourage good candidates, it is going to discourage good people, good men and women, from contesting a district with a small population. This is why I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on this particular clause.

I believe that the Minister, before he closes, has to look at this and at least explain it to us a little more clearly. Unfortunately, I am not reading it, perhaps, the way it should be read, but there is definitely a little bit of imbalance in this particular section of this particular Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say with respect to this piece of legislation, other than, in a district where there are two or three official languages, in a district such as Torngat where there are three official languages - it is okay for me because I have spent the last twenty-five or twenty-seven years working in this area. But, Mr. Speaker, for new candidates coming into this particular area, I think the Government should look at some other kind of clause, whether you are going to call it extraordinary expenses or not. I think the language barrier, in areas of our Province where there are people who cannot read or write the English Language, should be taken into consideration. I think we have to do everything in our power to make sure that they are accommodated as well as the rest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let someone else make a few comments.

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, just to take up where the previous speaker left off, he has a concern about the differences between districts with small populations and districts with large populations. One thing to keep in mind in that regard is that the personal expenses of the candidate are not included in the limits. So, if you have extra expenses to travel around your district and board and lodging and that sort of thing, they would not be confined to the $20,000 spending limit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are different kinds of expenses in different districts. If you look at an urban district like St. John's, in order to run advertisements to get to your own constituents you have to buy the whole media market in the St. John's area, whereas in some smaller communities you can communicate more cheaply with your particular constituents.

MR. WARREN: Not necessarily.

MR. NOEL: Not necessarily, but these are just some other -

MR. WARREN: Ask Mel Woodward how much he spent up there in 1982?

MR. NOEL: Well, there are all sorts of ways to spend money if you choose to do so.

MR. PARSONS: I believe there is too much money being (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: That is a pretty relevant point, in my view, from the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

I just wanted to say that in commencing. Also, of course, in addition to the $20,000 limit on an individual candidate or an individual district association, the party can also spend up to that amount. So, it can put extra money into districts where they have more difficulty with in that sort of way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of this new Elections Act. I think it is something that is badly needed in the Province, and it has been needed for some time. As previous speakers have said, it is something that had been promised by the previous administration practically during the whole course of their term and was never brought in, conveniently enough, because as we all know, the existing system gives preferential opportunities to the governing party, and the reform that is being proposed here would minimize a lot of this preference and it would also control the role of money in politics in our Province, and I think that is something that we have to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We are going to deal with food prices in the course of the sitting of this Legislature too, I hope. It is interesting, I had a trip out to Deer Lake on Saturday last and I had an opportunity to acquire more insights into the food industry in this Province and to learn about the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - dire straits of some of these farmers in our Province who operate under marketing boards. Some of them, it seems, can only afford to own four farms. I understand there is one farmer out in the Deer Lake area who owns two poultry farms, two dairy farms, drives an airplane and whose son drives an airplane, whose wife drives a Cadillac, and he drives a four-wheel drive himself. It is very interesting the kind of information I am beginning to accumulate about the agricultural industry in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: I do not want to interfere too much, Mr. Speaker, in case I might raise the level of debate above a level that can be comprehended by the members on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying: I think we have to do all that we can to limit the influence of money in politics in this Province. The bill before us does a fair amount in that direction, I believe, but we have to do more and we should not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - see this Bill as the end of electoral reform in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: What is the mouthpiece for marketing boards saying over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: One wonders why the PCs are against trying to lower food prices in our Province these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they are selling the food somewhere.

MR. NOEL: They probably have some close relationships with some people involved in that industry, I suppose, but the mouthpiece from Kilbride should remember that he has far more constituents who are consumers than he has who are farmers or people employed in the agricultural industry, and he should realize that his responsibility is to represent the interests of all of his constituents. But of course we know the attitude of the Member for Kilbride about his constituents because in the Meech Lake debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you are not going to bring that up now.

MR. NOEL: - he came into this House and he said he did polls of his constituents and talked to his constituents and was convinced that some 70 per cent of his constituents were against the Meech Lake Accord, but he was going to come into this House and vote for it anyway. So we know just what he thinks about the views of his constituents. Eighty-nine per cent were against the Meech Lake Accord. So people who are judging whether they should vote for him in the next election should realize that if they elect him they cannot count on him promoting their thoughts in the years to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I was speaking to some former iron working friends of the hon. Member for Harbour Main during the weekend too. A great place Deer Lake proved to be for the accumulation of information. I might say that the particular gentleman I was speaking to was a fine man. He is working out on the Bull Arm site now and he is one of the real salt of the earth type Newfoundlanders. He was telling me how his views have evolved over the years. Told me what a strong supporter he used to be of the PC Party in this Province. But he happens to live in Premier Wells' district, he does not live in Coxes Cove but he lives in the Premier's district. He is now a committed Liberal, a committed Clyde Wells supporter, and intends to do everything that he can in the future to ensure the PCs are never returned to power again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: I must say, it is really helpful in making speeches like this to have some coaching from the other side to remind us of some of the information that we pick up as we go about this Province.

Getting back to the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. NOEL: Getting back to the Bill respecting elections, I think it does a good job of controlling the raising and expenditure of funds in elections and by political parties and political candidates. But one thing it fails to deal with is the problem of controlling the role of money in nominating meetings and in leadership conventions. Now I do not criticise the Bill for not dealing with that, because it is a very difficult area to deal with. There are very few jurisdictions in the country which have done so to any extent, as far as I know. I believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognised the hon. Member for Pleasantville and I would like for the other Members to restrain themselves and let the hon. Member speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I believe Ontario has some legislation controlling the role of money in leadership campaigns. But it is easy to have money controlling expenditures when you do not have anybody who wants to run for your leadership. Unfortunately, we cannot anticipate that is always going to be the situation of all parties in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: I see the hon. House Leader is being seduced by his confreres into the misbehaviour that is taking place in this House today. After railing against it some minutes ago.

MR. TOBIN: I thought you were in trouble in your district (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much. Glad to have that vote of confidence from the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Grand Bank tried to get rid of him by supporting the motion that Harris brought in.

MR. NOEL: Did he really? Is that right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I believe that after this Bill passes we have to look more intently at ways to control the role of money in nomination meetings and leadership campaigns. Because what you do by controlling the role of money in the way that we are doing it in this Bill might well be that you merely move its influence back another level. There is not much point in controlling how much people can spend in election campaigns if there is no control over how much they can spend to get the nomination, because people who want to buy politicians can do it at that earlier stage still. Now, I realize it is very difficult to deal with that kind of problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is very difficult to deal with this problem but all of us should do all we can to look at possible solutions over the next few years so that the next Government of the Province can take this electoral reform further during its term. Another thing, I think, we have to look at is what money is permitted to be spent for. It is difficult to control how much money people can spend on politics. You can control it at one level but then it will be brought a step back and a step back beyond that. One way, I think, we can effectively control politics so that people will have the opportunity to make the most objective assessments they can is to decrease the extent to which advertising and brainwashing techniques are used in political campaigns.

I do not know how much we benefit by having television commercials, very slickly produced television commercials, very expensive television commercials to promote the election of political candidates, to brainwash people into voting one way or the other, to give an advantage to people who have the most money to spend on that kind of campaigning. I think we should perhaps give some consideration to the possibility of controlling the kind of advertising that would be permitted in a campaign. Why do we not consider telling people that if you are going to use television spots all you can do is speak into the camera and make your case? Give the substance of the case for your election and let people make their judgement on that basis rather than on the basis of some fancy film production, commercial productions. I think we should look at that.

I think we should make sure that various media - I know from my experience there are some media in this Province who charge more for political candidates than they charge for other advertisers, and we should look at the possibility of ensuring that they charge their minimum rates for political purposes in order to ensure that everybody, even people who are not well financed, have an opportunity to get their message across. There are lots of things we can do to improve even on this Bill but it is going to be very difficult to reach agreement on it. As we have seen with this Bill that has been well thought out, the Conservatives have complained that they were not enough involved in the genesis of this Bill, in the development of the principles in it, but as I believe the Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House when he was last speaking the Conservatives have been working on a bill of this nature for the past ten years, at least ten years. While trying to put off the implementation of it they ensured that some work was done on it by themselves and I presume by Government employees.

So they had their opportunity for input into the Bill and I would say that all of the reforms they may have thought about, that there was a consensus about adopting or probably included in this Bill, in addition to the extra reform that the Liberal Party has brought into it, so I do not think that the Bill represents just the thoughts of one party or one set of bureaucrats, but I believe that some of the more enlightened aspects of it do.

I believe the fact that we will now have thirty days to prepare for elections is a great advantage for the nongovernment parties over the existing situation. We all saw how the previous administration took advantage of whipping up the populous for a short time before calling snap elections, in order to, they thought, serve their own interests best, in order to ensure their re-election, but we saw what happened as a result of that. They demoralized their own party and they allowed themselves to disintegrate to the state where they lost an election last time, mostly because of the attractive alternative the Liberal Party had to offer, but also because of their own mishandling of how and when to call elections.

So we have that thirty day provision, we have the provision to ensure that there will be control over how much money is raised and spent; we have the provision that allows for tax deductions for financial contributions and for the reimbursement of political expenses. I am somewhat apprehensive about that provision, because I do not know to what extent the public want to contribute to the cost of politics in this Province. We have to realize that if you spent $20,000 in each district, in fifty districts in this Province you are talking about, what is that, about $2 million or something? and the parties -

AN HON. MEMBER: $1 million.

MR. NOEL: - $1 million, and the parties can spend an equivalent amount, so you are talking about $2 million there, and then you have three parties, who may spend $1 million each, so you have three parties who can spend a million dollars and then you are talking about reimbursing the parties out of public funds, so you are talking about a lot of public funds going into political parties, and you are talking about the amount of money that the public purse will have to forgo because of the tax contributions that are being provided for, so I think that we should also start looking at other ways to aid political parties in raising their own money independently, and as we all know, that is very difficult to do today.

We see so many charitable organizations with whom we have to compete for the raising of funds, through the sale of turkey dinners and that sort of thing, but we also see that political parties are deprived of the opportunity to use games of chance and things of that nature to raise political funds, and I do not know why we should have that provision. I do not see why we cannot allow political parties to run card games and even to have flea markets. Now you say, you are subject to the Retail Sales Act, and one of the things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I know they are allowed to have free flea markets but you are subject to the retail sales tax and you have to gear up for that, and that is one of the problems with this piece of legislation, that it is going to create an awful lot more work for political activists in the Province, an awful lot more responsibility and potential legal liability, where, one of the things that could happen as a result of this would be you know to bureaucratize the political process in the Province, so that you might get a couple of parties who would become well financed and develop their own bureaucracy and their own sources of fund raising, who would be very hard for an ordinary person to challenge, or a non-affiliated candidate in particular to challenge and then there is another disadvantage for non-affiliated candidates in this Act. The Act provides for the expenditure by individual candidates of a maximum of $20,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: But political parties are also allowed to spend the same equivalent within districts, so that if you have a nonaffiliated candidate, his total limit - that person's total limit - would be the $20,000 whereas a candidate for a party would have a lot more going for him. The Act has tried to deal with that kind of situation in relation to by-elections by allowing for a larger expenditure in by-elections. You will be able to spend $30,000. So the Act apparently understands that it is more expensive for an individual candidate in an individual campaign in an individual district. If it accepts that principle then we should look at the reasonableness of increasing the amount a nonaffiliated candidate would be allowed to spend in a district in general elections.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to be on the committee that is holding hearings on this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Oh, it is a tremendous committee, I must say - a very interested and interesting group of people who are hearing some very interesting presentations.

The first one we had was from the Chartered Accountants Association of the Province who are concerned about the provision in the Act for auditing to be done by non-certified accountants. I guess they have a real case to be made there, but there are many people who are concerned about the cost of auditing and the cost of accounting provided for in this Act.

The Act provides that the chief electoral officer will subsidize the individual district associations to the extent of $300 for this purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: The member raises an interesting point. That is going to be an extra cost of politics in this Province.

While it provides for a subsidy from the chief electoral officer to the extent of $300, I have yet to come across anybody who really believes we are going to get an audit done for that amount of money. Most people believe the kind of audit that will have to be done will cost more in the area of $1,200 or $1,500. That is a substantial expense for most district associations in this Province.

The accountants also raise a point about controlling expenditures in leadership campaigns and nomination campaigns. They went on with a fairly detailed presentation to the committee, which we are trying to deal with now. I think we all have to realize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I say to the Member for Torngat that if he has concerns about the Bill, he should recommend some changes; because I think there is general agreement that there are going to have to be some minor changes to this Bill before it meets the approval of the House. A number of the things - and this is testimony to the effectiveness of our legislation review process - a number of things are coming to light that are going to have to be dealt with before the Bill, I think, will be acceptable to a majority of the members. So everybody who has a view on this matter should make a point of seeing that it is brought to our attention.

We had a presentation from the Federation of Students, and they are concerned with the provision in the Bill for proxy votes. This is something which the members of our committee also have a concern with. We agree with the effort to try and do away with special polls because they are costly, and because as the previous chief electoral officer indicated to the committee, they are the most open to abuse in our whole electoral process. So what the committee has started focusing on, I believe is the possibility of using mail-in-ballots or write-in-ballots that would be available in all the polls throughout the Province on election day. This seems to be a way to maintain the confidentiality of the ballot, but also to ensure that everybody who is not living in their place of residence at the time of the vote will have the opportunity to vote where they wish. I think that is something the committee is likely to recommend.

We have also had presentation from the Federation of Labour who raised the problem of third party financing. That is obviously a serious problem that we have to deal with, and is going to be even more of a problem in campaigns to come if it is not dealt with properly. It is a very difficult one to deal with because you do not want to control opportunities for free speech in the Province. You do not want to stop anybody from making any points they wish to make during an election campaign, but you cannot have third parties -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We will deal with marketing boards in an appropriate fashion I am sure before very long. Once people realize that marketing boards and subsidies to agriculture are costing this Province $219 million a year every year - $219 million - I am sure the people of this Province are going to want to deal with marketing boards in a more effective way than they have been dealt with to date. But the Member should deal with what is at hand before we turn our hand to marketing boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I do not have any farmers in my district that I know of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. NOEL: I would be quite happy to continue if I might have leave, Mr. Speaker, to continue with my presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a lot of agricultural jobs in my district, I guess, a number of agricultural jobs, but we could have more if we bring the cost of living in this Province down to the extent it can be brought down. By reducing food prices we would have a lot more jobs in this Province, and food prices can be brought down if the mouthpiece for marketing boards would stop defending them and start defending the interests of all of his constituents, stop defending the rich farmers in this Province, stop defending the cost-plus system of food pricing we have in this Province and look at this problem objectively.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: We are going to do a far more effective job on all the marketing boards. We are not going to be limited to the milk marketing board that seemed to have captured the interests of some potential politician some years ago.

Now another point that has been raised before our committee on this Elections Act is the possibility of having Government provide funds for political parties between election campaigns so that political parties can operate effectively. This has been done in some provinces, I believe - in New Brunswick I think it has been done - where government provides a certain amount of money to each party on the basis of its share of the vote in the previous election to ensure that the parties that are not in office can keep functioning and provide the maximum possible opposition to the party in power. I believe this suggestion was raised by the Member for St. John's East during the debate last week. But I have a concern about that, too. I don't know to what extent the people of the Province want to subsidize political parties, want to see their tax monies go to political parties which would be free to use it as they see fit, which may use it in ways that are not in keeping with the wishes of the electorate. But that is another issue we will have to deal with in the course of this debate.

We also had presentations from people on behalf of the disabled in our society. Civic #4, an organization in my district, led one group of disabled people who are particularly concerned, to ensure that in any televising of the proceedings of this House, and if we ever get around to bringing in the television coverage that our Committee looked into last year -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Humber Valley Liberal Association agree with your stand on marketing boards?

MR. NOEL: I do not know about the Humber Valley Liberal Association but I know that a lot of my friends out in the Deer Lake area with whom I was talking over the weekend, indicate a great deal of support for what I am talking about. That might well be because they live close to a lot of these producers, a lot of these very successful businessmen who would have us believe that they are poor farmers, a lot of these businessmen who are not even subject to the labour standards in our Province that other businesses are subjected to. People in the agricultural industry are not required to pay overtime rates to their employees, whereas other businesses in the Province are.

So, people who are close to the industry know a great deal about what is wrong with the industry and the way it operates. I am sure we will have an opportunity to expose this scandal of unnecessarily high food prices in this Province in the weeks to come in this House.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Liberal Party of Newfoundland agree with your stand?

MR. NOEL: The Liberal Party of Newfoundland, I am sure, is in favour of ensuring that our people have access to the best food prices available in this Province. I am sure the Liberal Party is committed to that, unlike the Conservative Party. We have the Member for Humber Valley, who last week - I mean, this is the kind of inane criticism you get of people -

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

I remind the hon. member that he is straying from the topic at hand here and ask him to get back to the debate.

MR. NOEL: I didn't mean to stray, Mr. Speaker, but when you are talking about the financing of politics in this Province you can't help thinking about marketing boards at the same time, for some reason. You can't help thinking about marketing boards at the same time.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What about the Liberal District Association in Kilbride, do they agree with your stand?

MR. NOEL: If the member would like to ask me a question, perhaps I could answer it directly, with the Speaker's approval?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does the Liberal district in Kilbride agree with your stand against marketing boards?

MR. NOEL: The soon-to-be Liberal District of Kilbride will be agreeing, I am quite sure. They will be quite happy to campaign against all of the farmers who will be part of the Conservative member's campaign in the district.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) tried that the last time (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: But, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the kind of nonsense you hear from proponents of marketing boards, such as the Member for Humber Valley, that we are going to lose thousands of jobs, thousands of jobs are at risk if we do anything about marketing boards - well, according to Statistics Canada, there are only 1,100 people employed in farming in this Province, so I would like to know why he is concerned about thousands of jobs. He talks about the wasteful dumping of goods that may ensue, but he should be more concerned about the wasteful deprivation of nutritional food to the people of our Province, because supply is being controlled, prices are being unnecessarily inflated, and food is not being made available to people who need it. But that is the kind of debate we will get into when our resolution to that effect comes before the House, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to return to the presenters before our Committee on the Elections bill. Another presenter was the Canadian Paraplegic Association which raised the question of barrier-free access to voting booths. That is obviously something that is not easy to provide for in some communities in the Province. We don't have facilities available for holding elections, Mr. Speaker, that are barrier free, but we have to do what we can in that regard, and I am sure the Committee will be making some recommendations.

They also made representation on behalf of potential disabled candidates who require extra help with their expenses in the campaign, who have extra expenses in an election campaign and who, thus, should not be limited to the campaign expenditures that would apply to other people. So that is something that we should look at and that members of this House should give some attention to before we conclude dealing with this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just say that I am very happy to endorse and support the bill in question. I think it will do a great deal to improve the operation of politics in our Province. I would encourage anybody who has any additional ideas to present them to our Legislation Committee and I would encourage all members to think of ways that we can improve political life in this Province and make it more fair and more equitable in the years to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I wonder if the hon. the Member for Pleasantville could name some of the people whom he was talking to, say out in Deer Lake, who were against the farmers in the Humber Valley area? I wonder could he give some of the names of those who are against them, as he said earlier, for the record?

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

MR. NOEL: I never came across anybody who was against farmers, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the misconceptions that the Opposition has here. It seems like they are afraid to look at this issue. They are afraid to see if we can find ways to reduce food prices in this Province. Anybody who talks about that they condemn as being against farmers, they condemn as trying to do away with jobs in the Province. Well, we are not trying to do away with jobs in the Province. We are trying to create jobs in the Province by lowering the cost of living and making us more competitive in this Province. So, nobody is against farmers. What people are trying to do is lower food prices.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good Liberal bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good Liberal bill!

MR. RAMSAY: So this is why you are boycotting it, is it? You speak on it occasionally, but very, very occasionally, or less than occasionally.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing," is, of course, as was brought forward by the President of Treasury Board, a bill that was a Liberal initiative, brought out in the election campaign the last time. The hon. members of the Opposition seem to feel that it is not worthy of speaking about. They operated under the guise of an elections act in the past that allowed them to deal with it in such a way that the Premier could delay the calling of the elections. Brian Peckford was a tool user. He used the elections act in the past as the ultimate tool for election manipulation. He was always speaking highly of operating in such a manner that would allow the public to be given the right to choose the people whom they wanted to act on their behalf in the House of Assembly, but he very often was able - I think you can hoist the representation for six months and effectively prevent representation of a given district for crass political purposes.

It is not what he did, I suppose, that I disagreed with at that time, it was the fact that the law of the land allowed that kind of situation to happen. It allowed an effective manipulation of the process. Now, since this government has taken power, we have had to wait very short periods of time for by-elections, whether or not those by-elections were to be to the advantage of the governing party. As hon. members opposite know, some of those by-elections constituted the election of an hon. member from the Opposition side, some of them constituted the election of an hon. member from the governing side.

So, effectively, democracy has played its part in the whole process, and by virtue of calling the election at the given time, it allowed all of us to let the chips fall where they may, so to speak.

Some of the variety of matters that are spoken of in the bill, one, of course, has to do with the financing of elections. The whole institution of politics, the institute of government, is often called to task in the media and, with regard to the public image that politicians hold, is very low on the public opinion scale, exceeded only by lawyers, I think, who are also near the bottom of the scale. The profession held in the highest esteem is pharmacist. So, we have one pharmacist on this side of the House, anyway, who possibly, with regard to the low esteem in which politicians are held, can make up for some of that low esteem through the fact of his being a pharmacist. But, in general, the kinds of negatives, I suppose, that are associated with politicians could be as a result of the kind of manipulation that was effected in the past, by the previous government.

Now, we have decided to do something about it, Mr. Speaker. It is a very large document we have here. It is a document which addresses the problems associated with election financing, putting spending limits in there for the individual contributor, so that no candidate, regardless of his party in the future, will be able to be bought by an interest group, a union, or a business person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: These candidates will get there through their grass roots -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier was bought! (Inaudible)!

MR. RAMSAY: - participation with the public in their given district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the way of the future. That is the way that this government has decided they want to have this party run the Province while we are in government, and hopefully, these will be changed some time in the future to effect the new realities of financing, but not -

The general focus and thrust of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is one that will allow the public of this Province to feel that no hon. member elected to this House will be able to be bought by special interest groups throughout the Province.

Now, there are some other features of this bill. One, of course, is election financing. The other feature is the method of voting, the method by which individuals who are unable to vote because of the location they are in, has been changed somewhat. This, at times in the past, has been a sore point for members of all political stripes who had to deal with a situation where complaints would come. Of course, there were thoughts of manipulation. But at the time it was decided, I guess, by all concerned, that it was just a poor act, a poor piece of legislation, that allowed these situations to come forward as they were.

Now, possibly, the solution that has been offered here is not the best possible solution. Hopefully the hon. the Member for Kilbride and other members of his Committee can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: You're happy with it as it stands - well, if there is a complaint, that they would bring this forward in their report, but if they are content that this is the best possible method, then this is the best possible way to go.

Now, another key point. I noted in reading the London Sunday Times, a British newspaper, the other day, that they allow for mail-in ballots, as well in their elections, mail in or proxy voting and there is an advertisement placed in all newspapers at the time of this election going on over there, that allows them this situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the difference between mail in and proxy?

MR. RAMSAY: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the difference between mail in and proxy?

MR. RAMSAY: Well in this particular case, they have not - well they use the same form for both. In Britain, right now, under this current election, although it is two separate issues but it is dealt with on the same application.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) proxy.

MR. RAMSAY: Well I understand the meaning of the word proxy. The hon. Member is -

AN HON. MEMBER: You know the difference?

MR. RAMSAY: Oh I understand that fully, the hon. Member need not lecture me on the meaning of the word proxy.

The other point in the Bill of course, is a dressing down of some of the problems associated with it over the years and also placing in there the new realities I guess of the situation as we see it with regards to the contesting of elections today. Now, there are a number of points and I will just go through the Bill.

Of course, the first part, part one, deals with the election itself, the explanations of the various parts of the Act. Then the organization that will of course run the Province's elections, the chief electoral officer and the variety of people that he would have to hire throughout the Province to put off the election at that time, and the various things that constituted breach of the situation during the election. As well then we get into the preparation of the voters list, this of course being very important because as in the past, with regards to provincial elections I understand, the voters list was prepared and if you were not on the voters list you could stand and swear that you were such and such a person from such and such an area. This of course, as I understand it, has been now changed to make sure that you have to be on a voters list, you have to have the proper identification as opposed to just being able to swear.

Now this could possibly change some of the future election results if some of those individuals, who in the past were in favour I suppose, of dealing with the process in such a way so that they can contest a close election by virtue of the amount of illegal or alleged illegal activity that took place, they would make sure, rumour has it, that there were enough votes that were questionable in a close case, to make sure that they could contest a given election, and this has been in Newfoundland political history, spoken about in the back rooms but not always acknowledged I suppose in places like here in the House of Assembly.

Now to be able to rid the system of this kind of thing, will only do good to bring up the level of understanding and, I suppose, the overall level of support for politics of an institution. Now the rules of residency of course are expounded on then and we go through then the various parts, the duties and the responsibilities and the activities that will have to be undertaken by the various people throughout the whole process, and then we get into an area as far as the preparation of the poll -

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is quite a lengthy Act and it does allow hon. Members to go into some considerable detail in the evaluation of it, and just seeing how good a job the Liberal group that helped put this thing together have done, and the overall future benefit that it will show for the Province. I do not doubt that within the three to four elections time when another party from another time in the future may possibly form a new government, they may make their blue or orange spin on this, but currently it is a red document and it deserves to be read in its entirety by all hon. Members, in order to see just how much hard work has gone into this, to make sure that no stone was left unturned in putting forward an Act that will stand the test of the courts, an Act that will stand the test of any contest in a future election that may be a close election. The Act will have to stand for these people and as well to put in place, I suppose, a regime of the Act that would allow elections to go off without any great degree of fear that the loopholes that exist in the given Act would prevent the contest from being held fairly - would prevent the contest from being contested in a fair manner, and to and in the best interest of the voters and the electors in a given district.

From there you move on through the Act. As far as the physically disabled are noticed in there, the point is noted that the physically disabled do have the right to access, and that this has to be made and/or accommodated if the only available and suitable location is unable to account for the physically disabled. This in turn would certainly see to it that the chief electoral officer is responsible to the people of the Province to ensure that these physically disabled individuals are accommodated through the voting process.

Another point has to do with the counting, reporting and security of votes. We often remember the ballot burnings of the past - the dark days of the past elections where certain hon. Members whose future ended up being in the civil service were involved in contests, and this of course does not rest its soul on only one side of the House. It is matters like this that have really brought forward the kind of security and the kind of counting and reporting that is required to assure the public of the integrity of the process.

Every day when we speak about the democratic process, we hear of other countries; we hear of voting irregularities in other not so democratic countries and places and jurisdictions. The last thing in the Province's future that is required; that is needed; that is wanted in any way, shape or form, is any ill to fall on the democratic process. It is through the security measures that are enhanced and elaborated on in some detail in Division E of the Bill, Counting, Reporting and Security of the Votes, that will make sure and ascertain for the benefit of all of the people of the Province, that their Government is elected through a process that has, as a cornerstone, the integrity of this kind of piece of legislation that has a certain element of solidity to it; that is a stable piece of legislation that would allow hon. Members and the people of the Province to feel that yes, this was done correctly. There was no playing with the process through political means. The politics was accomplished on the battlefield of the election itself, and not through the manipulation of legislation as it sometimes has in the past.

From there - and you notice in this part - the security deposits, the recount provisions, the rejected ballot provisions, what constitutes that - and in the past a lot of problems associated with any recount concern the definitions of what constituted a rejected ballot and what constituted an allowance was, of course, a matter to be decided by courts and precedence of the courts. Now we have created, within the confines of the legislation, some guidelines that can be used in the future to better guide the justices of the court in how they should proceed and approach the matter.

As well, I might note that in the past I think it required two judges to be appointed - two or three - and now the number has effectively been lowered so that a single judge, I think, can look after this.

Now, Preservation of Order at Elections. Of course, the preservation of this order has always been a part of the Elections Act and it has just been updated to allow for the provisions that the future will hold and the current situation as it now stands.

The election offenses have been much better defined and certain component parts have been eliminated in order to allow the situations that arise to be dealt with in a more expedient manner, and also to give some gravity to the situation in so far as the advertising of candidates by uninterested parties, other than the fact that certain parties are voters and electors in a given district. No longer will a person who is wearing a Bill Ramsay badge walking through the shopping mall on the day prior to the election, face the possibility of being prosecuted for doing so, just because he happens to have had one handed to him through the election campaign.

MR. TOBIN: You won't need many badges next election.

MR. RAMSAY: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West may very well need a lot more than badges the next election, I would think.

The other is the miscellaneous section. Insofar as what is an allowance required for employees of all of the employers in the Province; the amount of time that is required for employers to give to their employees; a matter as far as the oaths that have to be taken by deputy returning officers; and the fees that are required insofar as the situation regarding fees.

Then we get into the idea of plebiscites, that is also noted in there. Then controverted elections, as to what constitutes a controverted election. Now there is a mouthful, Mr. Speaker. The constitution of a controverted election is elaborated on quite substantially in here. The consolidation of the various acts that constituted the former situation have now been brought together in a single act which can be acted upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, it is a good picture, isn't it? Now, Mr. Speaker, other things of course as to what is allowed on the part of the police in question, if they have to search and enter. The chief electoral officer can of course inspect the books of account of all political parties. It is an opening of the process to make all people involved in the political process accountable to the public. In general, it is part of our commitment to make the overall political process fully accountable to the people of the Province through the publishing of lists of donators of a high amount, higher than a specific dollar figure, and also through the opening of the brown bag issue to a point where brown bags may not be used in the future without the fact that the brown bag will have to be receipted. In the future all of the brown bagging in the past will have to be receipted.

Who will benefit? All hon. Members will benefit, all the people of the Province will benefit. Effectively, anyone who is involved with the political process will benefit from receipting of all contributions. Should any hon. Member take any amount of money through the running of an election campaign, any hon. Member who does that and does not account for it, deserves the full weight and measure of the law to bear down on their shoulders. Deserves to be banished from the political process and deserves to be dealt with in the full and effective manner that the law can deal with him through the provisions of this piece of legislation.

This is the way to improve the political process. It is a way that we can effectively deal with the low esteem with which the political arena has been held by the public, and hopefully part of the puzzle that will help bring the level of politics back up to the level that it should be amongst those who are at the -

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

For the last five or ten minutes there have been a lot of private conversations going on in the Chamber. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for LaPoile. I suggest that if hon. Members want to conduct their meetings that they go outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: But anyway, I do not intend to judge

MR. RAMSAY: I could probably get into some good quotations if I could get going.

MR. NOEL: Pastor Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Well I am not religiously inclined I suppose, Mr. Speaker. I am a good Christian man, but I am not religiously inclined to preach to others here in the House insofar as the deity of all as mentioned up there: Quaerite Prime Regnum Dei meaning the Kingdom of God. I will not get into deity at all. I will leave that for another day, no pun intended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God.

MR. RAMSAY: Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God.

Also in the Act, Mr. Speaker, we note, getting down to the last part of it, the repealing of the existing Act as it stands now and the consequential amendments are also noted in this document. I have done whatever I could to develop a case for dealing with the piece of legislation in and of its entirety as written, because often times hon. members of the Opposition who regularly stray from the matter at hand, regularly get themselves away from the topic that they are discussing, fail to use the simple tool of a bit of preparation in looking at something like this and using it to their advantage in delivering their remarks here in the House.

Now the upcoming election - I will not use the terminology used by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for fear of possible future consequences and the fact that it will be published. But the thing about elections, Mr. Speaker, if we think of the election process, it should be a process open to all, it should be a process whereby a person, regardless of their ability or their social status, or what have you, whatever a community dictates as where a person stands should have the ample and same opportunity as any other. Someone who can come in and garner all kinds of financial support should not be able to exceed the efforts of those who cannot gain that same financial support.

This being the reason for the limits, Mr. Speaker, limits which are long overdue, consideration of the amounts of monies that have put political parties in the past and individuals to the point of bankruptcy through the fighting of election campaigns. Now, Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at the election expense statements of certain hon. members who in contesting the last election spent huge sums of money, Mr. Speaker, and if only the requirement and the onus was on certain hon. members who contested various party positions, be it the position of leader or the variety of different positions that were contested over the years, if those expense reports that were possibly made up for the party had to be published we would be fearful to recognize the amounts that were spent. I speak of party contests in the past, possibly on both sides of the House, although I would think there was a bigger and more expensive contest for the party in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: At the Radisson.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes. It was a huge expense at the time and something that the public of the Province might like to know where those huge sums of money were coming from, where those monies that were being spent were originating from, and if there was any kind of tie that could be demonstrated between any of those monies and past support of those business people, interest groups, or whatever. I speak specifically with regards to the hon. Members opposite but in general to the kind of damage that that kind of activity does to the political process. It is that kind of albatross that we all wear, Mr. Speaker, because of that situation where politicians in general are certainly wearing the yoke of the past about their neck they will certainly suffer and we as an institution now are suffering and being at times, I suppose, having the moral authority to do what has to be done questioned because of the ill repute that the political process has been brought into many times throughout the last number of years. Certain statements by elected politicians as well as this kind of process has done much harm to an institution and it is through the kind of legislation brought forward like this that we can work to ensure that the future for politics as an institution, the future for the people of this Province, to believe in their institutions, the future for our children, mine and yours, Mr. Speaker, to believe that hopefully in the future this institution will be held in high esteem and it will be a better place for the people of the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to compliment the Member for LaPoile. What a tremendous speech.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is no trouble or no problem in understanding and realising when you have in front of this hon. House a good sound, solid piece of Liberal legislation. Because the Opposition, they're like a chicken over there. They do not want to come, they do not want to roost, they do not want to stand up and say something. The reason they do not want to stand and say anything is because they know that this piece of legislation, right from start to finish, is a piece of legislation that gives all those who are interested in running for this hon. House, and those who would vote for people running for this hon. House, an opportunity to do so. Everybody is on a level playing field.

Now right from the start, as soon as you open this Act - and I hope to have enough time to go through it page by page. I would like to have time to go through it clause by clause, but however I don't. But we can see for a start that this piece of legislation - and I know some hon. Members opposite agree, I agree, that the chief electoral officer will be picked, administrated, and be responsible to this hon. House.

MS. VERGE: Who is that?

MR. MURPHY: The chief electoral officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it?

MR. MURPHY: Well, we do not know who it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That's right, we don't know who that person will be. It may very well be a prominent or a non-prominent woman. It might be a prominent or a non-prominent man. Whoever it is, that person will be responsible to Members in this House of Assembly.

What this legislation has done, Mr. Speaker, it has done away with the political patronage that we have seen over the years with some defeated candidate appointed to look after his colleagues and make sure that everything was looked after for the benefit of the sitting members. So we know now, every time you look around and you see a new piece of legislation here in this hon. House it is loaded with fairness and balance, as this particular piece of legislation is loaded, and it starts off in the right direction by making sure -

MR. TOBIN: Gordon Seabright (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, when he was up last day I never interfered with him, never said a word. I let him speak. Now if I was the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, Mr. Speaker, I would have nothing to say because his colleague, the Opposition House Leader, got up the other day and tried to get rid of him. He got up the other day and supported the motion from the Member for St. John's East, twenty-six, twenty-six, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Grand Bank, the hon. Opposition House Leader, got up and scuttled his friend from Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: He volunteered that his friend would go.

MR. MURPHY: When he found out over the weekend, it is my understanding, now I stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding that the Member for Burin - Placentia West was irate. The word went out on the peninsula that he was irate with the Member for Grand Bank for supporting such a resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: There you go. The hon. Member scuttled on both sides of him.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was never truer words spoken in this House.

MR. MURPHY: Actually my understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I know you want to stick with the relevancy, but my understanding is that the Member for Burin - Placentia West has asked the Opposition House Leader to move. Now I do not know whether that is fact or fiction, but he has asked to be moved.

So, Mr. Speaker, back to this tremendous Liberal document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No. Another year from now and he will be removed, but for the time being he is alright where he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should retire.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it is parliamentary to mislead the House. The fact of the matter when you are talking about somebody moving or wanting to move, probably the Member should be honest and let everyone in his caucus know who he has discussed moving with. Then he would not be talking (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there it is. It just goes to show you. Let me assure the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West that if the Christian Democrats or somebody else were around here you might even scratch your head for a second, but looking over there from over here there has never been a thought. Trust me. There has never been a thought that this hon. Member would - certainly my friend down in the corner, I would not want to sit behind him.

As much as I respect the hon. member, I am afraid there is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member asked me the other day - he suggested - he said, you are afraid of the NDP, and he is right. He is right. I am afraid of the NDP. I am afraid of the NDP, and so we should all be afraid of the NDP, if you look at what they have done across the country. They don't have a piece of legislation like this. I can assure you of that.

This piece of legislation is opening the door across this dominion. It will open the door across this country - this piece of legislation - and bring fairness and balance to elections right across the country. This election precedes running of Liberal red - that is what this election precedes.

I am only warming up but I see that the clock - I am only warming up, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn debate.

MR. MURPHY: I am being pressured by my House Leader to adjourn debate, so I will, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislative plans for the next few days; tomorrow we intend to continue the rather enlightening debate on the Elections Bill. We all look forward to the Member for St. John's South continuing, and we will anticipate - we will dream about it tonight, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that he will be in full flight tomorrow.

The Private Members resolution on Wednesday will be the resolution on the Order Paper by the Member for Trinity North. Thursday, of course, is Budget day. On Friday there will be no House and we will resume then the Monday after the Budget. Mr. Speaker, these are the legislative plans.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.