Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 8 December 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 44)
2005-12-08
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 8, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV
No. 44
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
The Chair wishes to rule on a point of privilege raised by the Member for
Port de Grave following Question Period yesterday, December 7. The point of
privilege relates to comments made by the Premier in response to a question
posed by the member.
As noted in Marleau and Montpetit, page 52, "Privilege essentially
belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members can only claim privilege
insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the
functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege
or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House."
Maingot, Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 14,
gives some clarity. "To constitute privilege' generally there must be
some improper obstruction to the Member in performing his parliamentary work in
either a direct or constructive way, as opposed to mere expression of public
opinion or of criticisms of the activities of the Members...".
Thus, the Speaker rules that the comments made by the Premier do not
constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
The Chair would also like to make a further ruling today on a point of order
raised on Wednesday, December 7, by the Member for Bellevue with regard to
comments allegedly made by the Premier, including the words, "batten down
the hatches".
At the time when the comments were said to have occurred, the Speaker had
recognized the Minister of Health and Community Services who was tabling a
report. As noted yesterday, the Speaker did not hear the comments; nor did he
see any gestures that may have occurred.
This morning, the Speaker and the Table officers reviewed the videotape, as
well as consulted with Hansard. Neither the House video nor Hansard give help to
the Speaker in this matter.
There are long-standing precedents in this House and others that the Speaker
cannot rule on matters which he did not see or did not hear. Thus, the Speaker
rules that there was no point of order.
Statements by Members.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the
Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the
hon. the Member for Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour
Grace; the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl; and, the hon. the Member for Gander.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rebecca
Russell, a native of Lethbridge, Bonavista South, who recently received carded
athlete status. Rebecca is currently playing her first season of professional
hockey with the Calgary Oval Xtreme in the Western Women's Hockey League.
Becoming a carded athlete means that she is now eligible for funding from the
Athlete Assistance Program offered by Sports Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is a unique achievement as there are very few carded
athletes. This designation is reserved for a limited number of individuals
deemed to be at the top of their sport, and presently include members of the
Women's Olympic Hockey Team and just six others right across this country,
with Rebecca Russell being one.
Mr. Speaker, Rebecca is indeed at the top of her sport since she leads her
team and the whole hockey league that she is playing in, in scoring, with her
personal goal to participate in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
Becoming a carded athlete provides a tremendous boost towards this goal, as
the provision of financial assistance through the Athlete Assistance Program
will allow Rebecca to completely focus on hockey.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Rebecca
Russell, who has joined an elite group of Canadian athletes, and in wishing her
all the best as she pursues her hockey career.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Grand Falls on their one hundred and fiftieth anniversary in this
Province. Journey of Faith is the theme which officially starts the year-long
celebrations with a special mass tonight, December 8, at the original seat of
the Diocese, Harbour Grace.
The Diocese was originally known as the Diocese of Harbour Grace, and was
created in 1856 by Bishop John Dalton, an Irish Franciscan priest from Ireland,
to better serve the people of the Province's increasing Catholic population.
Bishop Dalton initially resided in Carbonear, but he moved the episcopal
residence to Harbour Grace in 1860, a town second in political and economic
significance only to St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, due to the rapid economic and population growth in Central
Newfoundland, Bishop John Michael O'Neill transferred the headquarters to
Grand Falls in 1953. The new diocese was called Harbour Grace-Grand Falls and
was later changed to Grand Falls in 1965.
The present Diocese of Grand Falls extends from Shale Point, White Bay South
to Grey River along the South Coast to St. Alban's and eastward to Conception
Bay and all points in between, encompassing thirty parishes. Priests from these
parishes will all gather tonight in Harbour Grace for Mass, when Bishop Currie
who will issue a proclamation celebrating the one-hundred and fiftieth
anniversary.
Mr. Speaker, the celebration culminates with two major events next year. The
bishops from Atlantic Canada's ten dioceses, along with retired bishops, will
assemble in Grand Falls-Windsor on September 8 and December 8, 2006, to mark the
official end of the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Falls on their one-hundredth
and fiftieth anniversary in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Nolan Young, who
recently received the 2004 Public Service Award of Excellence. Mr. Young is a
heavy equipment technician with the Department of Transportation and Works in
Deer Lake and has worked with the department for twenty-nine years.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the department acquired a computerized spreader
control system to enhance its snow clearing equipment. Mr. Young was one of the
technicians responsible for the installation of this system, and displayed a
keen interest and ability in this work. Due to his extensive knowledge and
enthusiastic attitude, Mr. Young was approached by the department to deliver an
in-house training program on this new system to the western region. Mr. Young
excelled at this task, too, and demonstrated a great level of creativity in the
development and delivery of the training program. In fact, it was so successful
that the program was offered province-wide, and feedback from the participants
was extremely positive.
Mr. Young's expertise of the computerized spreader control system, along
with his interest and initiative, were above and beyond that required of his
job.
I ask all hon. members to join me in commending Mr. Nolan Young on being
presented with the Public Service Award of Excellence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this past summer the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade
celebrated its one-hundred-seventy-fifth anniversary, providing fire protection
to our historic Conception Bay town since the 1830s.
A capacity crowd turned out for the civic reception, including volunteer
firefighters from neighbouring communities to help the Harbour Grace Brigade to
mark its milestone.
Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to attend and witness the unveiling of
a commemorative print by artist Charlene Godden-Garland. This was the highlight
of the evening. Ms Charlene Garland was commissioned to do this magnificent
piece of art depicting 175 years of firefighting in Harbour Grace.
Executive members of the fire brigade include: Fire Chief Paul Snow;
Assistant Fire Chief, Brian Dwyer; Treasurer, Philip Peddle, and Club Manager,
Lee Rogers. Also in attendance were Crew Chiefs: Ray Verge, George Crocker,
Sonia Williams, Shawn Baker, David Earle, Rick Davis, and Doug Taylor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to congratulate
the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade on their one-hundred-and-seventy-fifth
anniversary.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a very distinguished
veteran of Mount Pearl, Mr. G. Fred G. Bannister.
Mr. Bannister is a Royal Naval Veteran of the Second World War and a member
of the Royal Canadian Legion for more than fifty-eight years. He is a Life
Member of the Royal Canadian Legion and he has been presented with the
Meritorious Service Medal and Palm Leaf.
He is an active founding member of Branch 36 in 1957, and has served the
branch in all capacities.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bannister was a service officer for many years, assisting
veterans in acquiring benefits and entitlements and assisting with their pension
appeals. He continues to visit and speak to students during Veterans Week and
participates in many church services. He was responsible for securing $750,000
in funding for the construction of a twelve apartment senior's complex in
Mount Pearl.
He is an active member of many organizations relating to the care and
well-being of seniors and veterans. He was also the longest serving member of
the Mount Pearl City Council.
Mr. Bannister is the recipient of numerous awards recognizing his outstanding
volunteer work, including: the one-hundred-and-twenty-fifth Year Commemorative
Medal; Citizen of the Quarter Century in Mount Pearl; Boy Scouts Certificate of
Merit; Kinsmen Club Citizen of the Year, and in 2001, the Lieutenant-Governor of
Newfoundland and Labrador presented him with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medal
for his volunteer work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to recognize
this gentleman for his dedication and service to his community and country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand to
recognize the bravery of members of 9 Wing Gander Search and Rescue Unit. These
pilots and technicians risk their lives every day to save those of other people
who have found themselves in danger. Most recently, a Cormorant Crew was
recognized for their bravery and dedication during their rescue work after the
sinking of the Ryan's Commander in 2004.
During his recent visit to his home Province, General Rick Hillier presented
Cormorant pilots, Captain Mike Mondry, Captain Scott Tromp and SAR Technician
Master Corporal Absalom Pearce with "Chief of Staff Commendations".
Also, this past Friday, Master Corporal Norm Penney and Sergeant Derek Rogers
were awarded the Star of Courage medal from Governor General Michaelle Jean.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating these brave men, and recognize their valiant efforts to save
lives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to inform you of three
impressive local companies that, with assistance from the Department of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund,
are helping to create employment opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's future depends on our ability to
grow and diversify our economy in all regions. We know that small and
medium-sized businesses play a critical role in helping us do that, which is why
the government created the SME Fund. This fund helps businesses to create
employment and to build our economy by providing loans and investments to small
businesses in strategic growth sectors, and to businesses that have export
potential and need assistance to enter or expand in external markets.
Through the SME Fund, government has allocated almost $45,000 to Labrador
Envirotech Incorporated of Happy Valley-Goose Bay to implement a process to
purify industrial waste water coming from the operations of the military base,
the Voisey's Bay mining site, and other sites in the region. With this funding
Labrador Envirotech will have the means to provide a service that is currently
only available outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing this, the company
will also introduce a new component to our Province's environmental industry,
further diversifying this industry and creating excellent potential for future
developments.
Versatile Stones Incorporated of Centreville has been allocated $87,000 from
the SME Fund to establish a manufacturing operation for cultured stone and brick
products in the area. Manufacturing has been identified as the strategic growth
centre for the Gander- New-Wes- Valley region through the Comprehensive Regional
Diversification Strategy. This endeavour will create up to seven new jobs in the
region, and will also diversify the local economy.
Norseman Crafts of St. Anthony has received $100,000 from the SME Fund and
$3,700 from the Business and Market Development Program to construct an
interpretation centre at a popular tourist site focused on iceberg and whale
watching. The building will house a craft shop and provide Internet access to
visitors. The Fishing Point site in St. Anthony is a popular tourist area, and
the addition of this centre will strengthen the area and provide focus on
icebergs and whales as the main attractions for visitors. This project will lead
to the creation of three new seasonal positions.
Mr. Speaker, by supporting enterprises such as these, this Administration is
continuing to demonstrate its commitment to growing and diversifying our economy
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish Labrador Envirotech, Versatile Stones
and Norseman Crafts success with these new ventures.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.
I think it is good, it is a good initiative, and certainly I applaud the
minister and the department for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. I
think we all recognize that it is small and medium-sized enterprises that are
indeed the backbone of the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. Megaprojects
come and go, and we all appreciate the benefits of them, but I think it is the
staying power of those small and medium-sized enterprises that help to sustain
our economy.
I would say to the minister, one way that she could help small and
medium-sized enterprises is to have the Premier live up to the commitment given
in the Blue Book to reduce ferry rates by 25 per cent over three years. I know
of a small business on Fogo Island, a transport company, he has eight trucks and
it costs him $152.50 every time he has to leave the Island.
Live up to the commitment that you gave in the Blue Book and that will be one
way of ensuring that company can survive, because they are having a difficult
time trying to even keep up with increased ferry rates, something that they did
not expect when this government got elected.
Then, of course, there is the infamous Department of Business that we are
still trying to find out what it is all about. We know that people have been
hired, but nobody can point to any results. Of course, when the minister
responsible, who happens to be the Premier, was asked to appear before the
Estimates Committee of this House, he refused to do so. So, we still do not know
what is happening with the infamous Department of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: It is another way, if this government wants to be up front and
really deliver for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they might want to tell us
what is going on.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also wish to congratulate the initiative of Labrador Envirotech and
Versatile Stones, as well as Norseman Crafts, for their initiative and new
projects. I am glad to see the government helping them out in their efforts, but
I do want to say, though, we are talking here about seven new jobs in one case,
three seasonal positions in another case. When you weight that in the balance of
the loss of jobs in Stephenville, the loss of jobs in Harbour Breton, the loss
of jobs with fish plant closures, it is not much to show for a rural
diversification strategy, I say to the minister.
I congratulate these people. I think the Labrador case is one which is needed
to be done to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador firms are active - in
this case, a Labrador firm active - with the Voisey's Bay project instead of a
mainland firm. That should have been part of the strategy -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has lapsed.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Has leave been granted?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. HARRIS: That should have been part of the strategy when Voisey's
Bay was developed, that there should have been a development fund available for
small business enterprise so that they could be sure to participate fully in the
operations long before the project started.
I hope that in the development of the next major project that is being
anticipated in Labrador, that this kind of money is being spent up front by the
developers of the Lower Churchill to make sure that there is maximum
participation by Newfoundland and Labrador companies in that kind of
development.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, Abitibi officials have stated that, tomorrow, severance cheques
will be sent out to their employees in Stephenville; and, once that occurs, the
mill will not reopen. I understand that the Premier, or his minister, have
scheduled a conference call with the union and the company for tomorrow.
I ask the Premier: Will you be looking for solutions, an extension to the
deadline, or is this just a post-mortem phone call?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, the conference is already over with. It happened this
morning. It is not tomorrow. It happened this morning with the union and their
negotiators. In terms of - there are a couple of things I want to lay out.
One, they have another proposal going to Abitibi today, they informed us.
Secondly, with respect to mediation services, which we talked to them about, we
were informed this morning by the union that is something that they certainly
would be looking for, but the company does not want anything to do with any
mediation services.
I guess, in response to the question, the conference call occurred this
morning. The union has another proposal going back to the company, and we will
wait and hear what that brings this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, when Abitibi announced it was closing the
Stephenville mill in July, I think it was, the only issue on the table at the
time was that of energy. After the Premier announced he was willing to put in up
to $175 million of taxpayers' money into that operation, the company came
back, almost the very next day, I think, looking for concessions from the union.
I ask the Premier: Why did Abitibi put concessions on the table on the
eleventh hour when they were not mentioned into the lead up to the closure of
the mill?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to be able to control what the company
does. The company is doing what it is doing and, quite frankly, a lot of it we
disagree with.
We have a reached an agreement with them in good faith. We put a very
reasonable offer on the table, to the best of our ability. We stretched our
ability in order to try and salvage the best interests of the people in
Stephenville and the Bay St. George region generally, and we worked in good
faith with them.
With regard to the union itself, we also indicated to the union that they had
our complete support, that we would not support any stripping of their agreement
in any manner whatsoever, and indicated to them that we had reached an agreement
with the company and it was now up to them to try and reach an agreement with
the company themselves, which was what they wanted.
We did not act until this morning, until the minister - and the Minister of
Education, as well, also had a discussion with the union this morning.
Immediately after that, because I wanted to wait until that happened, I made an
immediate call to John Weaver, because that was the appropriate time to do it,
and indicated to him the importance of this, where the government stood, that we
have put our offer forward, that, in fact, the union now had another offer that
had gone to them and we expected them to act in good faith and complete the deal
today and put the people of the Bay St. George region out of their misery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when in discussions with Abitibi regarding the $175 million that
the Province is willing to put up to keep the mill open, the issue of
concessions must have come up somewhere along the line when you or the minister
were in discussions with Abitibi.
Can the minister or the Premier tell us what he or the minister said in
response to the company's demand for concessions when they were raised at the
negotiating table, which I obviously believe they were at the time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The premise for the Leader of the Opposition's questioning, Mr. Speaker, is
not correct. It has no foundation in fact, has no foundation in truth, and it is
borne out by the fact that he was not at the negotiating table.
For eighteen months, this government negotiated with Abitibi in good faith
along the lines of trying to provide a solution on rising energy costs because
of the increase in the cost per barrel of oil. For eighteen months, when we
negotiated with Abitibi with respect to Stephenville and Stephenville only, it
was about energy and energy only. We believed, and we believe today, that we met
the objectives of what that mill needed to stay alive, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Not once did Abitibi talk about concessions. As a matter of
fact, throughout the course of those discussions they had nothing but praise for
their workforce and that the workforce in Stephenville was a model for the rest
of their mills in their empire.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I thank the minister for his answer.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources are on record
as saying they would not allow Abitibi to strip union contracts. Today, in
Stephenville, workers are pitted against workers, community groups against the
union, a friend against friend, in an effort by the company to force the union
to take concessions. Premier, you sat idly by for the last couple of months and
watched this psychological warfare unfold.
I ask the Premier: What are you now planning to do at this very late stage -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: - in finding a resolution to the mill's problems that we
have?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sitting idly by. This is the member who said, in late July or early August,
after he met with Abitibi, they were not asking for too much. When we reached an
arrangement with Abitibi, he said we gave them too much. Now, which is it?
Mr. Speaker, the union themselves voted overwhelming to reject the offer by
Abitibi and the raiding of their contract. We will not stand with a corporate
giant against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. It will not happen!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, finally, that the arrangements that we have put
forward - and the Leader of the Opposition and his crew on the opposite side of
the Legislature need to decide for themselves what side they are on - strongly
supported the arrangement that we put forward by the community, by the town, by
the union, and by the rank and file in the Bay St. George area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, a short time ago there was an incident at Western Memorial
Hospital in Corner Brook, in which there were calls to 911 for ambulatory
emergency care but there was no ambulance at the Health Care Corporation to
respond. I ask the minister if this is a regular occurrence at Western Memorial,
and has it occurred at other hospitals in that region?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am fully aware of the incident that the hon. member refers to. We have had
discussions with officials at Western Health. There is presently a review being
undertaken, and I encourage that review. It is important that a review of this
particular incident be undertaken. I am certainly a strong believer in that once
that review is completed, that not only it be shared amongst stakeholders in
health but that if be made public, and I look forward to the results upon
completion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that there was a private ambulance available to
respond, but there was no call made by the Health Care Corporation. I do not
think I have to tell the minister how serious an issue this is. It is always a
life-and-death situation, and I am pleased to hear that there is an
investigation.
So, I guess I have to ask: What other measures are being taken right now to
restore confidence in the ambulatory and the 911 service in that area? And, also
to ask: Has the Western Health Care Corporation been instructed to use private
ambulatory care when their ambulances are not available?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Western Health has put in an arrangement, along with its
partners, namely: the fire department, the RCMP, the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary, reliable ambulance service, which is the private operator that the
hon. member refers to. There is a regime in place to respond to situations when
they occur, but, again, with respect to the incident, Mr. Speaker, it is
obviously being taken seriously. A family has made some relatively serious
allegations, as you are aware, and I look forward to the review. Again, Mr.
Speaker, it is important that this review be shared with the public of the
Province upon its completion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier this week we asked some questions about the Eastern School District
School's Organization Plan. Today the board released an explosive report,
which recommends a closure of twenty or more schools and cuts to another
fourteen. These cuts will adversely impact on the thousands of students in the
district if these recommendations are followed.
I ask the minister: Does she agree with the recommendations contained in this
report or will she take them off the table the way she did with health care
recommendations that affected her own district?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a report was released to the school board last
night and released publicly today. That report was an independent report. It was
done by an independent consultant by the former school board, and requested by
the former Director of Education, who is no longer there to accept the report.
Mr. Speaker, the report is there. There are some very inflammatory
recommendations in that report. That report has not been accepted by the board.
Some recommendations may be accepted. Some may be reasonable. I think some are
probably ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I didn't request the report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I did not commission the report or put the
parameters to that report and I am certainly not going to stand up and publicly
defend it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Very interesting, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I understand where the minister is coming from
but I can assure you -
MR. SULLIVAN: What number is that?
MR. BUTLER: It is number two, I say to the Minister of Finance.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, if these recommendations are carried out it will
be another kick in the teeth to rural communities in this Province by an
uncaring government. Mr. Speaker, schools are a critical part of this Province.
A quick review of the report indicates closures of schools in Heart's Delight,
Winterton, Green's Harbour, Holyrood area, Harbour Grace, Upper Island Cove,
Lamaline and Placentia.
I ask the minister: Is she and her government willing to stand idly by and
see that those closures take place?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it again, in case the hon. member
did not understand the first time around.
That report was done by an independent consultant. It did not receive
parameters from this government or from me, as the minister, as to how we want
to see the schools shaped in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, they are
recommendations. The board may go with some recommendations. They may question
more, but, quite frankly, there are a number of those recommendations that will
probably never be implemented. If you think for one minute that this government
is uncaring or going to sit idly by, all I can do is say: stay tuned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say those were very fine comments from a minister who slashed twenty HRLE
offices in rural communities and caused more hardship on the people of this
Province. To say the least, I am a bit skeptical about hearing her defending
rural communities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this explosive report also recommends cuts at
other schools in other rural communities: Western Bay, Victoria, Little Heart's
Ease, Random Island, Swift Current, King's Cove, Catalina, Bonavista, and
Lawn.
Does the minister understand the implications these recommended closures
would have on rural areas, and which ones does she consider that should not be
considered from here on in, what she just mentioned, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want the hon. member to know
that I was born and raised in rural Newfoundland. I continue to live in rural
Newfoundland, and I raise my family in rural Newfoundland. I happen to work in
St. John's, and come here when I am needed to be here for work.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bishop's Falls is not a rural (inaudible).
MS BURKE: No, Bishop's Falls is not rural Newfoundland. That is a city,
that is, out there.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is, that was an independent report. The board
will make decisions -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked, and the minister has been given time to respond.
I recognize the minister and ask her to conclude her comments.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is out past the Overpass.
What I want to say, and I do not know how often I am going to have to say it
for the hon. member to understand, it was an independent report. It is not a
report of this government. It is not recommendations that we are bringing to the
board or bringing to the people.
What is also important about that report is, that was done without
consultation. The report has been written before the parents or the stakeholders
have had a chance to look at it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: I question the logic, getting the report out there before you
go out and talk to the people who have a vested interested in it. I have lots of
questions on that report and, as I said, I am not publicly defending it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: I say to the minister, I hope she continues on better with
this report than she did with the Hay Report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I really encourage parents to read this report
and get vocal about these changes, because this minister and government
obviously will not stand up for the community schools in rural Newfoundland. It
goes beyond rural Newfoundland, that schools are being threatened in this
report. It is also neighbourhood schools right here in St. John's: St. Mary's,
Virginia Park, St. John Bosco, I. J. Samson.
I ask the minister: Is she willing to allow this board to abandon such sound
educational principles and allow the accountants to control what is happening to
our education system, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show, when you come in with
prescripted questions, you do not know what you are responding to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: You have to respond to the same question over and over, because
the answer is there but you have to stand up with your script.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Opposition finally realize that
government does sometimes have to make decisions and have to work with boards,
and we do not arbitrarily let the boards sometimes come out with consultative
reports -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BURKE: - that is how it stands. A prime example of that was in the Hay
Report. There was stuff in the Hay Report that did not make any sense at all and
it was pulled off the table!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the minister's arrogance, but
I say to her: I hope she gets involved, like the Premier did, in the Exploits
by-election.
Mr. Speaker, this whole process is mired in politics. How can parents expect
to get a fair hearing from this school board when the director is a defeated PC
candidate who was hired through a flawed process involving an appointed board
stacked with PC hacks?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education..
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: One thing I want to make perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, is, when
that new Director of Education was hired, he was not given the questions to the
interview.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, that particular situation she is talking about,
the questions, there was no process to go through. There were no positions
filled, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave District.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say that Mr. King did not need any questions.
Mr. Speaker, the defeated PC candidate -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is going to be impossible to continue if we do not have the co-operation
of members. I am asking members on both sides for their co-operation. Time is
passing.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave, who is putting a question.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The defeated PC candidate in the District of Grand Bank, Darin King, was
hired by an appointed board which included former political staff people from
the PC Party.
Given that Mr. King is now about to make decisions about cuts to the school
system impacting on thousands of students, will the Premier admit that this is
one of the many political friends he has put in place to carry out his plan?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to defend Dr. Darin King.
He is well qualified for the position, and he just happens to have been a former
candidate. He happens to be a person, I guess, who ran in an election but is
well qualified for the position.
What I need to make perfectly clear here is the fact that Dr. Darin King is
the Director of Education and there is an elected school board that represents
the people that will make the decisions and that will review the recommendations
and that will consult with the stakeholders out there as they move forward with
their plans for the education (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are also for the Minister of Education, concerning the school
organization plan.
Mr. Speaker, this consultant's report, that is called a consultant's
report only by the minister, has quickly turned into a plan to close nineteen
schools, to downgrade ten others, and take programs away, close part of them,
and to remove programs from some other schools. This board is determined to make
a decision on this in the first week or early March, they say in their comments,
and the only consultation they are planning is allowing people to make written
submissions between now and the end of January, during the Christmas season and
the federal election and all of that.
Is the minister satisfied that there has been adequate consultation and this
plan is going to allow people to adequately assess what is going on and make the
proper kind of representation to ensure that whatever changes are made, are made
with full, whole consultation with everybody having an opportunity to
participate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a very important point
in this process. There will need to be consultation on any recommendations that
the board feels is reasonable and may be implemented. I really do not feel it is
necessary to consult on stuff that will never happen. But, Mr. Speaker, there
are a lot of dynamics going on right now. Christmas is coming up. There is a
federal election on the go, but I do feel that if we are going to move forward
and make any fundamental decisions or anything that is reasonable, that the
stakeholders and the parents who have some say in this process, have to have
access to an appropriate consultation process, and I will ensure that that
happens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In this report there is no reference whatsoever to school -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The report makes no reference to school attendance zones, which is very
important for the survival of particular schools and the closure of others.
There is no adequate consultation, as the minister, I think, now agrees, but I
am very interested - maybe she should tell the people of the Eastern School
District what stuff will never happen because that will, perhaps, alleviate some
of the concerns.
I know there is a proposed new school for Torbay, which was predicted in this
House by me a couple of weeks ago, but what stuff will never happen, so that
some of the people can stop worrying and not have to worry over Christmas about
whether a school will be closed or downgraded or treated in the matter that this
report recommends?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the board that received the
report last night, the report was tabled to them last night. They have to review
the report. They have to meet as a board and they have to make some decisions. I
will work with the board; they will have to work with the people they represent;
they will have to work with the communities. I cannot give a date as to when
they are going to come back and remove some issues that will not need
consultation because they are not going to be implemented, but I will work with
the board. I will speak to the board and I will see what kind of time lines they
will establish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we all know by now of the political patronage
appointments by this Premier. We hear of people being appointed with no
qualifications for their positions. Mr. Speaker, the height of political
patronage reached its limit when the Premier got his Chief Financial Officer
from the last election, who happens to be the Vice-President of the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and appointed her to the Transition Committee on the
school board and now she is seconded, taken from her job at the College of the
North Atlantic - doing what, we are not sure - and she is working now for the
Department of Education.
I ask the minster: What is the official title that Nada Borden has? What are
her duties and where is her office located?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the person whom the hon. member is referencing
right now is Nada Borden. Nada Borden has been working in the field of education
for quite some time. I am not sure, right now, what her title is. I will take
the questions under advisement and I will provide the information to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just to show the political patronage of this
position, under the Freedom of Information this person is a consultant for the
White Paper, on the $96 million White Paper, and the minister does not even
know, and does not even know where her office is? She is getting paid -
AN HON. MEMBER: Where is her office?
MR. JOYCE: Where is her office? We do not know. I have a good idea. Here
we are shipping seniors out because we do not have the money. Shame, minister!
Shame on you, you do not know where she is and how she is getting paid.
Mr. Speaker, this is the height of political patronage. Her old position is
being filled by another instructor. The competition was advertised, interviews
held, and the selection made for her old position. She is retired or soon to be
retired. She is retired. The position is filled. It states any information
obtained by the Freedom of Information request that the Department of Education
is reimbursing the College of the North Atlantic.
I ask the minister: How much will this blatant political appointment cost the
taxpayers of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will report back on the details of
the secondment, but that was an issue that was resolved between the Department
of Education and the College of the North Atlantic and was not made at the
political level.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, here we have the minister for Humber East saying
they never had the money to keep the seniors and here is the minister, she does
not know how much it is costing her department? You don't know how much it is
costing your department to have her seconded? You don't know?
Under the Freedom of Information, your department is reimbursing -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the information we received under the Freedom
of Information -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: - had a request for Ms Borden to be given a position from her
job for the 2005-2006 school year, with renewal on a school year basis. If you
want the information, I will give it to you. The actual letter requested that
she be at this position from August to December, 2005.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: Now that we know Ms Borden has retired, or soon will be
retired, will this position be filled by a permanent employee? Will the minister
tell the House -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocation of sixty seconds has expired. I would ask if there is a
response from the government side?
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if the secondment in which this person has gone
into is a permanent position, it will be filled on a permanent basis. If it was
a contract position for a time limited period, it will be fulfilled as the
person retires. If it becomes a permanent position of the department, we will
fill it on a permanent basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for one more question.
The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, people in my district cannot get fair treatment
in getting the roads they live on cleared during this winter.
I have a question for the Premier. I want to know: How much did it cost the
taxpayers of this Province to pave the road to your golf course in Southlands?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there was land that was developed in the
Southlands area that was owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and there
was going to be a second development going in that area as well. There were
complaints by the residents of that area, who have some very expensive homes in
that area, who have made representation to the City of St. John's about the
fact that the roads were not paved into the subdivision. The paving would have
happened as the second phase of the development went ahead. But, Mr. Speaker,
the city approached Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to have the road that was
put in by the previous government -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table for hon. members the
Department of Government Services Annual Report. This report also includes the
following: the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Committee; the Boiler
Pressure Vessel Appeals Board; the Boiler Pressure Vessel Advisory Board; the
Advisory Board.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table Activity Letters for the Occupational
Health and Safety Advisory Board and the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers
Appeal Board.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports by standing and select
committees?
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I am pleased to table the following documents today: the
Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
In the routine proceedings, we are doing Tabling of Documents.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, today I table documents from: the Newfoundland
and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation; the Newfoundland Liquor
Corporation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation;
and, the Lottery Corporation.
Also, pursuant to
Section 26.5(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the
2006-2007, 2007-2008 fiscal year.
Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee
Act, 2005, I wish to table the attached list of guarantees that are provided to
local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital
projects.
The first report that was prepared under
Section 5 of the act includes those
guarantees issued between January 14, 2004 and June 8, 2004 under the authority
of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, and the guarantees provided under
the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, from June 9, 2004.
Further, pursuant to
section 26.5(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I
am tabling twenty Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the
2006-2007 to the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
Further, I would like to table before this hon. House the 2004 Annual Report
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled Pension Fund. This report
includes all of the financial statements for the fund for the year ended
December 31, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, that will conclude the reports for today at least.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development, tabling a report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the minister.
MS DUNDERDALE: Pursuant to
section 7.(4) of the Economic Diversification
and Growth Enterprises Act, I wish to table the attached list of companies that
have entered into EDGE contracts with the Province since the last report to the
House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, and
myself, I am pleased to table today the Annual Report of the Department of
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
Also, I am pleased to table today the Annual Report for the Department of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we all realize that things can get
raucous sometimes during Question Period, depending on the type of questions
being asked, and responses, but I would just like to make a point that the
Speaker brought the Member for Bay of Islands to an abrupt halt during Question
Period and said he had exceeded his sixty seconds to ask a question.
I have been here in this position for a little while, and I do not know at
what time I have ever been told or advised - I know we have thirty minutes for
Question Period, and I know we are told to keep the questions short and keep the
answers short, and we do not always follow those rules, but I certainly was
never aware that we were limited to sixty seconds to ask a question or sixty
seconds to give an answer in that case.
I think, if we are going to be bound by certain rules from the Chair in that
regard, rather than abruptly sit a member down in that case, I think we ought to
know the rules that we are playing by here in the first instance.
The other part of the point is, we have a stopwatch over here, too, and it
was not sixty seconds in the case of the third question by the Member for Bay of
Islands.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is normally wide latitude. I do not think the member has a
point of order, personally, and I will explain why. There is normally wide
latitude given in terms of - particularly with different issues, the Speaker,
sort of, judges the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to the member opposite, I say to the Leader of
the Opposition. I don't expect the same courtesy, if you would be okay with
that. Thank you very much.
The fact of the matter is, that when you are on -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I only asked. I only asked.
I say to the Member for Bellevue, again, I sit and listen to every member as
respectfully as I can. Even you, I do that to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I mean that. I do it to everybody. No, no, I did not mean -
hold on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, please -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am trying to speak to the point of order. I did not mean
that to come out like it sounded and I apologize to the member because I was
just trying to reference when everybody speaks. No, I apologize for that. It did
not mean to come out that way.
To the point of order that the member raised. Normally when members ask a
question, you have wide latitude on your first question and then supplementary
questions are supposed to be more to the point and not an opportunity to give a
speech. Now, the member has been sat down. The Premier was sat down yesterday
because he was going on too long. I have been sat down. The Minister of Health
has been sat down. So, I think that, on balance, the Speaker has done,
generally, a very good job of trying to provide fairness to everybody in the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to belabour the point. I
have no disagreement with the comments of the Government House Leader as to how
we have done it. My concern was the comment by the Speaker about the sixty
seconds. I realize, and I agree with what the Government House Leader just said
but, all of a sudden, when we are told in the middle of Question Period that you
have sixty seconds. I am not aware of such a rule that we are bound by here or
we are ever expected to be bound by. I have no problem with people getting sat
down. I just want to know, as a point of order in this House, is there such a
rule? And, if so, we will live by the rules as well. I just was not aware of it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair attempts to be fair to all members in this House everyday. Members
of the House will recall that, on several occasions, I have mentioned that we
would try to keep our questions and keep our answers within the general sixty
seconds.
Some Houses have adopted very strict rules. In Ottawa, it is thirty-five
seconds for questions. It is thirty-five seconds for answers. Some Houses have
forty-five seconds for questions and forty-five seconds for answers. In fact,
the Canadian average now is moving towards forty-five seconds for questions and
forty-five seconds for answers. In some places, like in Nova Scotia, you have a
little longer time. In New Brunswick, it is sixty seconds for a question,
maximum, and sixty seconds for the answer. My tendency, and I said to the House
two weeks ago, that I would try to keep questions and answers to a maximum of
sixty seconds. That was said by the Speaker. The general rule - members can look
at the record in Hansard, it is there. If the House leadership has difficulty
with that, I suggest they would consult with the Speaker and perhaps take it up
in the appropriate forum.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My petition today is surrounding a resolution that was forwarded to me by the
Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union Local 63 in Grand Falls-Windsor and
it came out of their regular meeting on November 23. They wanted me to present
this petition and ask government to support their resolution. It goes on to talk
about the importance of the forestry industry to our Province and to our
country. It calls upon this government, along with our federal government, to
put into place a National Forest Strategy; investments in forest land base;
assistance to the industry; action to provide stable and affordable energy for
the forestry sector; a strong stand to defend Canadian workers, communities and
companies affected by the Softwood Lumber dispute; government's fiscal policy
to ensure the value of the Canadian dollar maintains in competitiveness of our
forestry industry; labour involvement in the forestry industry sector council to
be involved in forest industry policy, worker training and adjustment programs.
What they are saying in this resolution is that - when I relay it to the
situation in Grand Falls-Windsor - on April 27 of this year the axe came down
for Grand Falls-Windsor when our mill was faced with closure of number seven
paper machine, and here we are now, almost eight months later, and we really do
not have a clear outlook on what is going to happen to our mill in Grand
Falls-Windsor. We have asked the government to stand to Bill 27. They said they
will. However, even at this date, we still do not know what is going to happen.
I spoke to John Weaver, CEO and President of Abitibi, last week. I made a
telephone call to John Weaver, and he told me that their ultimate goal was to
actually take out the number seven paper machine. He did not define any time
line. He did not define any amount of money that would be used for upgrades to
number three machine and he also had no interest in upgrading number seven paper
machine.
Mr. Speaker, these are the issues that are out there. They have been out
there for eight months. It has affected our economy in Grand Falls-Windsor and
all of Central Newfoundland. There has been a cloud of uncertainty hovering
around Grand Falls-Windsor and, in fact, you can see it. We don't have the
construction this year that we have had other years in the past, our commercial
construction is down, a lot of people who have had business expansion plans have
put them on hold, and people who have been wanting to purchase big ticket items
have no idea what the future will hold for them in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Even though the government are saying they are going to stand to Bill 27,
they have not secured from the company their plans about reinvestment in number
seven paper machine, nor have they secured from the company the plans to upgrade
number three machine, nor where the money will come from. There has been
disagreement, really, with regard to the investment in number three paper
machine. When I spoke to John Weaver myself, he indicated that it would take
about $20 million to upgrade number three paper machine, but the reports I have
heard out of Grand Falls-Windsor from the company, from the union and from other
people, and indeed from government itself, is they are talking in the area of
$40 million to $60 million. Who is right in this regard, and when can we expect
to get a clear answer for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor? We are almost
approaching a new year now -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS THISTLE: May I have a moment just to conclude?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS THISTLE: We will soon be leaving this hon. House for the Christmas
recess, and it is on the minds and in the hearts of everybody in Grand
Falls-Windsor and in Central Newfoundland, that we have to get these issues
cleared up. We have to start off our new year knowing that we have two paper
machines in our mill. We have to start off in the new year knowing that we have
a company that is going to upgrade our number three and our number seven, so
people can get on with their lives.
I would ask the government to go and talk to the company and get those clear
answers for the people of Central Newfoundland
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of my
district, concerning Sunday hunting.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province take
part in hunting activities
throughout the year and, indeed, they spend a lot of money in the economy
pursuing this activity. It is past time that the laws of this Province were
changed, that the regulations were changed, that will allow hunting to take part
on Sundays.
Mr. Speaker, some of the outfitters in this Province have expressed concern
as well. For example, some of the outfitters who conduct activities in Northern
Labrador, on the Quebec border, are facing competition from their Quebec
counterparts; because, in the Province of Quebec, Sunday hunting is allowed in
that area. Therefore, they find it more difficult to attract customers. They are
at an unfair advantage, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to attracting customers
because of the fact that camps next to them, a couple of kilometres away,
hunters are allowed to come in there and hunt on Sundays.
Also, Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province work Monday to Friday,
leaving very little time to pursue hunting activities. You finish up on a Friday
night, you finish work, you drive a long distance in many cases to get where you
are going to hunt, and if you have an unsuccessful day on Saturday then you have
to turn around and drive home Sunday morning. You may pass a moose or caribou,
or whatever it is that you happen to be hunting, on your way home; but, because
of the fact that it is Sunday, you are not allowed to hunt. That is unfair, Mr.
Speaker, in the opinion of the people who signed this petition, and myself. We
think it is high time that this rule is changed, and allow people to hunt on
Sundays.
Again, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, for example, during the caribou hunt, many
times we travel 200 or 300 miles to where the caribou herds may be. If you do
not happen to see any animals on your way Saturday, and you are coming back home
on Sunday and you run into 400 or 500 animals on a lake, you are 100 miles from
the closest person but, because again of the fact it is Sunday, you are not
allowed to harvest the animals that you have a licence for.
We are calling on the minister to initiate the change in the regulation that
will allow Sunday hunting to take place, and we ask the minister to do this
immediately so that the caribou hunt in Labrador can be conducted on Sundays in
the upcoming year, and that, for next year, in the entire Province, the people
who hunt big game will be able to do it during the season.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a statement,
please?
MR. SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to make a statement to the House.
Has leave been granted?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In May, 1993, I walked through the doors of the House of Assembly for the
first time. It was indeed an awesome feeling. Today, I stand to make what may be
my final few comments in this hon. Chamber as the Member of the House for the
great District of Placentia & St. Mary's.
I would like to thank some people who have been involved in my political
career thus far. As always, may I begin by thanking my wife, Sandra, and our
three children, Fabian Jr., Mark and Heather. Without their constant support,
encouragement and love, this dream of mine would never have become a reality.
All of our families play an important role in our political lives and create
a solid foundation so we can continue to do the work we were all elected to do.
Many things may change us, but we start and end with family. To my parents,
Walter and Julia Manning, who have always stood with me through the challenges
of public life, thank you for your support and encouragement throughout the
years.
To my loyal and trusted personal assistant, Ekie O'Reilly, who has gone
above and beyond to ensure my office and my constituents were always well taken
care of. To the people of the former District of St. Mary's-The Capes, and the
present District of Placentia & St. Mary's, I want to thank them for
allowing me the honour and the privilege of being their voice in the House of
Assembly. I have strived each and every day to give it my best and, all the
while, have created magnificent memories that will, indeed, last a lifetime.
To all the people who are a part of the operation of the House of Assembly,
from our Table officers to the many Pages throughout the years, to the people
who produce Hansard each day. I remember many notes being sent my way from the
Hansard office, wondering about what exactly it was that I had said. Many times
I could not even remember myself. I thank them for their patience.
To our Sergeant-at-Arms, thank you, and may you enjoy good health in the
years ahead. Thank you to all our security personnel and Commissionaires who
play an important role here each and every day. I have enjoyed some wonderful
conversations with these people over the years.
To our Broadcast Centre personnel, the Legislative Library, who work behind
the scenes, thank you for your assistance and co-operation. Thank you to the
members of the media, who have treated me very well over the last
twelve-and-a-half years.
I would like to thank all the Members of the House of Assembly, both past and
present, for the opportunity to work side by side with them through our
different roles here in the House of Assembly as we worked together for the
betterment of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Politics for all of us is a temporary trust, and it will come to an end. All
that is left at the end of the day is a sense of satisfaction of what we were
able to achieve, and about our family and friends.
Colleagues, today I leave what has become a second home, a place where I have
made friends and, as I have said before, created many, many memories that will
last a lifetime.
May I take this opportunity to once again say thank you, and may the spirit
of Christmas fill your hearts and homes throughout the coming days.
Until we meet again, may God hold each and every one of you in the palm of
his hand.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
By leave, in keeping with the traditions of this House on past occasions when
members have indicated their leave-taking from this House, I would like to say a
couple of words recognizing the importance of the occasion when a member, having
served this House for eight years, has decided to move on.
It is indeed, as the member said, a great privilege and honour to serve in
the House of Assembly, and the member has done so on two separate occasions,
with a small break in between, and has earned the respect of people on all sides
of the House for his work in the Assembly.
In the past we have - I remember, in 1997, when the former Member for St.
John's West, Rex Gibbons, left this House to seek a seat in the House of
Commons, comments were made about the importance of the role of a person in our
Legislature, and acknowledgment that, in leaving in the way that he is, an hon.
resignation to seek a seat in the House of Commons, that, too, is an honour and
a privilege which I have had. I have had the occasion to serve in the House of
Commons.
I think, as was said on that occasion from other parties, we wish him well
but not too well in the immediate future, seeing as how members of other parties
support other candidates.
I do wish to acknowledge the service of the hon. member in the House. I
think, regardless of political parties and regardless of political differences,
we all share the privilege and honour of sitting in this House of Assembly,
speaking on behalf of our constituents, and doing the best job we can in the
circumstances that are presented to us.
I would like to acknowledge the member for his service to this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 2, dealing with the resolution before the House with respect to the
future of the Citizens' Representative.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 has been called.
Motion 2, the motion moved by the hon. the Government House Leader.
The last day, I do believe, we had an amendment put forward and the Chair had
ruled that the amendment was in order. Therefore, we are now debating the
amendment put forward by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
I believe we were having speakers to that amendment and that is where we are
in the proceedings right now.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: If there is no one else speaking that is fine, but I
understood that the debate stopped when I raised the point of order during the
speech of the Government House Leader. I do not know if he wishes to continue
his speech or is going to pass it on, but since Your Honour went to the Member
for the Bay of Islands, I just want to remind the House that it was during the
speech to the amendment of the Government House Leader that the proceedings were
adjourned. If the Government House Leader is finished his speech, then that is
fine with me.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was merely indicating where we were in the
proceedings and then the Chair looks around the Chamber to see who is standing
in their place. The Chair recognized the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands who
was the member standing at that particular time. I assume that is the person who
was standing, unless there is some agreement otherwise.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I began the other day, and I think it is important that we
all understand and recognize that - I guess in the twelve years that I have been
in the House of Assembly, this is the first time that the House has been asked
to deal with one of the independent officers in the House through a resolution.
I think it is important that we take as much time as necessary, all of us, to do
exactly that, to debate and discuss. I think some of the points made by members
the last day about the information that members had, but certainly wanted to be
made public, was important. The Internal Economy Commission met. I know myself,
the Member for Bellevue, temporarily the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and
other members met, and we released the report through the Speaker - or gave
direction to the Chair of IEC, which is you, Mr. Speaker, to release that
report.
This has been a very difficult situation since the tabling of the Auditor
General's report last year. I have said very little publicly, as members of
the IEC, or the Commission, directed the Speaker to be the person speaking on
this matter until we could bring some resolve to it.
Now, for the record, I think it is important for us to understand how this
transpired in the last year. Last December the Auditor General tabled a report.
For the record, the Auditor General is also an independent Officer of this
House, and I want to take some exception right upfront to the remarks that I
have heard publicly from Mr. March, who I have known for some time, a likeable
gentleman, but I do take exception to the remarks that he has made publicly
about the bureaucracy being after him and somebody else being after him. I can
say with absolute honestly - and I think all members who sit on the IEC can say
with absolute honestly - that we tried to deal with this issue in the most
professional, upfront and respectful way to Mr. March. To the best of my
knowledge, there was no interference by the bureaucracy. The situation that the
Citizens' Representative finds himself in is because of a situation by another
independent Officer of this House when he made some judgements on - the Auditor
General goes into every department. So, let me say that up front.
After the Auditor General's report was tabled there were significant
concerns registered, and that is part of the public record. I am not going to
rehash that today, but what was of paramount importance to the members of the
IEC, what was of critical importance, was that this is a situation that we had
an obligation and a duty to deal with the serious allegations made in the
Auditor General's report. Your Honour, I repeat that for everybody who is
listening. That we had an obligation and a duty to deal with the allegations
that were made by one independent Officer of the House on another independent
Officer of the House, because that is exactly the situation that we, as members
of this Legislature and your representatives on the Internal Economy Commission,
found ourselves in.
One of the decisions we took immediately - there was lots of correspondence
that was transferred back and forth, and that is all matter of the public
record. I know that the Citizens' Representative has said on occasion: I've
got all the transcripts. I can support what I am saying today with absolute
factual information. I know he has said publicly that he has never been given -
I think back last May, that he wanted to meet with the IEC - or last March, I
think some time - but that opportunity was never provided. I want to say right
upfront today, that is an absolute fallacy. The Citizens' Representative was
provided, last spring, with three separate opportunities to come to meet with
the Internal Economy Commission. I do not accept the notion that he should come
before the House and speak to members.
Members need to ask themselves this question: Has the Citizens'
Representative phoned you individually, to come and meet with you about the
concerns that he had? I would certainly be willing to meet with him. I state
that for the record today. I would be willing to meet with him prior to when we
vote upon this, but that call has never come. I want to be absolutely crystal
clear, that in terms of process, the Internal Economy Commission provided the
Citizens' Representative, on three separate occasions, for him to come meet
with us, and he refused each one of them. We even provided him the opportunity
to say that we would meet in the House. The commission, on behalf of all of us,
would provide him the opportunity for paying for any legal costs that he felt
that he should have joining him at that meeting, and he said: No. It goes
against the statements that were made publicly, as if we, as a Commission, had
some deep, dark, undermining reason that we wanted to get rid of the current
Citizens' Representative. I take offence to those statements. I take offence
to them on behalf of the Commission. I take offence to them as a member of this
Legislature because what we were concerned about, and were only concerned about,
was that due process would be served, and I believe it was.
The Commission, in a unanimous way, decided that in order to bring more
clarity to this issue - there were questions raised about what the Auditor
General had said. There were other questions raised with respect to the Citizens'
Representative's view of that. We made a unanimous decision to hire an
independent legal council.
Now, the question that we need to ask and the question that begs to be
answered is: Why did we hire an independent legal council, because this House
has jurisdiction over itself? This House is the sole arbitrator of decisions
within its domain. We did not wish to involve any department of government, nor
did we. We did not ask the Department of Justice to provide us an opinion, nor
would we. So we hired a very reputable, independent legal council to provide for
us an assessment of the issues that were contained in that report. A very
in-depth analysis was tabled here yesterday for all members of this House and
for every person in the general public to look at.
This is not a partisan issue. I have listened to the Citizens'
Representative publicly talk about the partisanship potentially of this. I take
exception to that, because this is not a partisanship issue. The current
Citizens' Representative finds himself in a situation of his own doing, not of
the doing of members of this House, irrespective of our political affiliation.
The independent legal report that we commissioned came as a result of actions
initiated by the Citizens' Representative himself, and the allegations and
commentary that was provided by another independent officer of this House, the
Auditor General. That caused the IEC and the Internal Economy Commission to take
the action that it deemed was appropriate, maintaining this: what was paramount
was, the credibility of the Citizens' Representative Office was at stake; and,
more importantly, or at least of equal importance, but in my view more
importantly, the credibility of the House of Assembly was at stake, the
credibility of each and every individual member in our ability, or our
inability, which will be judged over time, to deal with this issue effectively.
I want to say for the record that I take exception to any commentary by
anybody, the Citizens' Representative, the current one, or anybody else, who
says that this is a personality-driven issue. It is not, and I am willing to say
that here or anywhere else.
The fact of the matter is this - again, I want to come back to the point that
I made earlier - that we have a duty and an obligation, as individual members in
this House, to decide for ourselves, as individual members, on how we are going
to vote on this issue. How I wish to vote, or how the Member for the Bay of
Islands wishes to vote, that is a matter between me and my own conscience on the
merit, or demerit, of the argument that has been put before us. We need not
judge each other on how we vote because that is an individual decision that we,
as members, have been asked to make, and one we must, like it or not.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the issues - I am not going to go into all of
the issues that are here; they are a matter of the public record - the process,
in my view, has been well served. We have struggled with this as an Internal
Economy Commission because of what I just outlined; because, not only is the
reputation of an individual who has played a critical role and an important role
in the development of Newfoundland and Labrador's society, particularly in the
trade union movement, at stake - that is one thing that we need to balance and
weigh - but, again, what is important for us to understand, and from my point of
view as an individual member, is that really what is at stake is the credibility
of that office. We have been asked today to make a judgement on whether the
conduct of the Citizens' Representative is such that it has warranted his
absolute dismissal from the position that he is in.
I want to just take a moment, if I could, to belabour again, this House, as
an institution, its credibility is at stake. For us to ignore, out of hand, the
allegations made by another independent officer of this House would not do - if
we ignored that all together, and forgot about those allegations, and did not
deal with them in the way that we are expected to deal with them, then what are
we saying about ourselves or what do we say then about another independent
officer of our House? That his opinion is not worth the paper it is written on?
That the role that the Auditor General of this Province plays as an independent
officer of the House of Assembly, independent, arm's-length from government,
that his opinion does not matter? Are we saying that, if we say it there, does
it mean that what he says about any other government department, that does not
matter either?
We were in a situation where we had the institution itself, the House of
Assembly, two independent officers; in terms of what was discovered, and the
responses, where did we go? Here is where we went. We went directly to
independent legal counsel to investigate the matters in a more diligent and
in-depth way. Now, I am not going to go through the three issues that the
independent legal counsel identified, because one of them is enough for me to
cast my vote.
I was a member of the IEC when Mr. March was hired as Citizens'
Representative, so I have been part of the history of the creation of this
office. I did not come to it lately. I was part of the Official Opposition at
the time.
The independent legal review, in my estimation, if you look at it, has
uncovered what I think presents us with what I believe is no other choice. It
certainly has provided me and has directed me, as an individual member of this
House, with why I will be voting in the affirmative for this very, very
important resolution. The issue is the contravention of the act by the Citizens'
Representative.
When Mr. March was hired, everybody understood that the Citizens'
Representative can only work for the citizens of the Province. As a matter of
fact, the legislative framework that we operate under, that he operates under,
or any future Citizens' Representative operates under, means that he can only
work for the citizens and the Citizens' Representative. No Citizens'
Representative, irrespective of who they are, is allowed to do work for anybody
else - is not allowed to get paid for doing work for anybody else.
Now, while it is clear that Mr. March was under the impression, apparently
provided by a former premier, Premier Grimes, that he had some things that he
had to clear up with respect to another involvement with the trade union he used
to be part of, it is very clear that in the analysis from the legal opinion that
much more work occurred while he was Citizens' Representative. That work
continued to be contracted with NAPE. Now, it could be NAPE, it could be Fortis
Properties, it could be Aliant, it could be DF Barnes, it could be a corner
grocery store, the law of this Province is clear, that as Citizens'
Representative you can only work for the citizens, and to do otherwise you
contravene the Act, you contravene the legislation. As individual members in
this House, one of our obligations and duties is to live within and uphold the
legislation of the Province. Our other duty is that if we don't like it we
have an obligation to move or change it, which we do all the time in this House.
For me, the analyses provided by the independent legal opinion with respect
to Mr. March's extracurricular work activities are sufficient on the face of
it, and in my view demonstrate clearly, and without question, the fact that Mr.
March knowingly - because his own public statements which are laid out there,
both in a very public and an open line way for example, demonstrate that while
he was conducting such work and while he was doing such work, he was also saying
publicly to citizens, I am not allowed to do anything other than be the Citizens'
Representative. My opinion is based upon the legal opinion that was provided to
the IEC, it is based upon a process that we went through, that we believe was
due process, that served the interests of everybody involved well.
With that, Mr. Speaker, and having laid that out, because I think it is
important to lay the process out, to recap I will say this: Opportunity was
provided for Mr. March to meet with the IEC on three separate occasions, he
refused. Opportunity was provided for Mr. March that the IEC, meaning the House
of Assembly, would pay for his legal counsel for those meeting, he refused. I
reference that again just to drive home the point, because the Citizens'
Representative has been saying that, that opportunity was not provided to him.
It was. He has had a full year to meet with individual members in this House, if
he so sought to or if he wished to. If he had called me I would have called him
back. If he wanted to meet with me, I would have met him. I doubt that there is
a member in this House who would not have afforded him that courtesy. I am
convinced of that, but I do not know if he did. I can only speak for myself. I
know that he did not call me and ask to meet with me. Whether he did with other
members on the other side of the House, I would be interested in hearing that. I
would be very interested in hearing if Mr. March, who has asked to meet with
MHAs, and we provided him to meet with the committee of the House, known as the
IEC, but I would be very interested in hearing if Mr. March himself, in saying
publicly that he wanted to meet with MHAs, I would interested in hearing if he
phoned and asked for such a meeting. Or, the converse of that, if any member had
phoned and asked him, because I think that is very, very important. I will say,
for myself again, that if Mr. March wants to meet with me, all he has to do is
phone and I will provide him that courtesy, because I think it would be
important to do so. But, to date, since last year's tabling or filing of the
Auditor General's report, I have never received such a call.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the amendment put forward by the
member, and when we get back to the main resolution, I will be voting for the
dismissal of the Citizens' Representative; not because of any personal
differences that I have, because I know of none that I have with the man, but
because of the absolute contravention of the act itself, which we, as
Legislators in this Legislature, have the duty and the obligation to uphold.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the Government House Leader, definitely, I understand the position that
you are in. I can assure all members here, and the IEC, that I am not here to
criticize or attack the IEC or the Auditor General. I am just not here to do it
and there is no suggestion that anybody said I would be, but I will be
supporting the amendment put forth by the Member for Grand Bank that we afford
Mr. Fraser March the opportunity to speak here in front of all of us.
I do not want to get into the details of the report that was done because
that speaks for itself and, you know, with legal opinions sometimes you can get
one from one law firm and another one from another law firm. I am not saying it
is right or wrong. I am just saying sometimes - and that is why we have a court.
Sometimes in a court they decide which legal opinion that they are going to
agree.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go back to my own personal situation - and
if you want to talk about a chance to plead your case and a chance to stand up
and say what was the real truth of it and to be heard. I just want to go back to
last year - well, 2003 when I won the election in the Bay of Islands. I know the
Speaker and the IEC are well aware of all of this, but two months after, the day
before - they had sixty days, I think it was, for the election to be contested.
I received notice on, I think it was December 19, at my Christmas party;
Christmas Bay of Islands party. That is when the notice was timed to be served
to me from the respondent. At that time it was Mike Monaghan. It was the
Christmas party, the last day. It was not 10:00 a.m. in the day when it was
given to the media. It was late in the evening at my Christmas party. It was
given to me, that I was named as a respondent to overturn the election of the
Bay of Islands. All that day it was in the media, the whole domain, about how
Eddie Joyce, the Member for the Bay of Islands - my name was mentioned. It wasn't
the member, because Eddie Joyce was named as the respondent for all the
allegations that were made in the District of the Bay of Islands.
To accompany all of these allegations, there were some thirty affidavits that
were signed by people, sworn to and delivered to the court, to bring this case
to court. I think there were twenty-eight or thirty, somewhere in that range.
Everybody here is aware that an affidavit is a legal document, and that when you
sign it you swear it to be true. There were some twenty-eight or thirty
affidavits that accompanied this petition to court saying that this election
should be overturned, and I was named as the respondent. The whole day, in the
whole public domain, I had to defend these affidavits that were made by Mr.
Monaghan in the courts about me. I make no bones about it, I have said it, there
is no doubt in my mind that this was politically motivated. Absolutely, no doubt
in my mind.
I will just give you an example. Mike Monaghan, who happened to be the person
who ran against me - sure, he is a good friend of the Premier, that is fine - he
is now Vice-Chair of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. John Sweetland, one of
the lawyers who helped with this case for Mike Monaghan, he is now Vice-Chair of
the Labour Relations Board. Kimberly Burridge, another lawyer who represented
Mike Monaghan, or was the lead lawyer, she is appointed to the Workers'
Compensation Appeal Board. I guess that is all by coincidence, I guess it is.
This is why it puts me in bad taste with this whole incident with Fraser March,
how people can go out and get affidavits signed, take the affidavits, put them
in court, and have me dragged through it.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, and anybody who read the affidavits, there were
some thirty affidavits written, put in the court with the petition by Mike
Monaghan to have this election overturned. Out of the say thirty affidavits,
there was not one mention of my name. There was not one mention of a Liberal
worker. There was not one mention of a Liberal person who was connected to my
campaign in one of those affidavits, and I had to go out and defend the Chief
Electoral Officer and his staff because they were not named in this as a
co-respondent, or as a respondent or as a first respondent. They were not
mentioned. Every accusation that was made in those affidavits dealt with the DRO
or the poll clerks under the Chief Electoral Office staff. Every one, but yet my
name was in the domain about how my election was challenged for irregularities,
and I was the defendant.
AN HON. MEMBER: It had nothing to do with you.
MR. JOYCE: It had not one thing to do with me. Absolutely, not one! Not
one person they dealt with was mentioned in one of the affidavits. And you
wonder why we think people should be able to come and appear and explain their
case.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go through a few affidavits that were put in. As
we all know, an affidavit is somebody swears that what they are saying is
supposed to be true, or to the best of their knowledge it is supposed to be
true. Just to give you one of the affidavits that was put in, Mr. Speaker. It
was put in by a guy from Curling. It was about a polling station over in the
town of Irishtown and Summerside, in a Summerside poll. The affidavit was that
the DRO, who was not from the area, she, that day - when fifty-three people came
in - he left, I think, 2:20 that afternoon. Fifty-three people came in and she
never asked for one ID from one person coming in. She never asked one person to
swear on the Bible; not one person out of the fifty-three. She did not, at any
time, ask anybody for an ID; she was not from the area. That was put in the
affidavit in the court that I had to go and try to defend this DRO and poll
clerk.
When the truth came out, the person who was named in that affidavit for that
day, never worked for the Clerk Electoral Officer - was never working that day
and not even from the area. She was living over on the other side of the bay.
Never, ever worked that day for the Chief Electoral Officer, but her name was
put in an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and she
may have to go defend herself, why she never asked people for IDs. She never
worked that day - never worked that day - so, you wonder, from my first-hand
experience, why we think we should give people and afford people to come in and
state their case.
Now, we have to remember here, Mike Monaghan is a lawyer, John Sweetland is a
lawyer, Kimberly Burridge is a lawyer; so, when they hand in an affidavit that
they assume is going to be true, you say: Well, boy, that has to be right
because three lawyers are agreeing with that.
Here is this person who, when she saw a copy of this here, she nearly
fainted. She could not believe that her name was put in a Supreme Court document
and she was not even working that day. The Chief Electoral Officer, at a later
date, confirmed that person did not work for the Chief Electoral Officer that
day - and you wonder why we need an opportunity to go and defend ourselves.
Another affidavit was put in, Mr. Speaker, and this was part - as we all
know, at election time, at 8:00 p.m. the doors have to be closed. There was an
affidavit put in, which again we all assumed was true. It was signed by the
people or sworn by the people. Mike Monaghan put it in with his case. The
affidavit said that the door at the church, which holds, I think, six or eight
polling booths, was not locked at 8:00 p.m. An affidavit - a very serious
allegation.
You get the affidavits and, in between that, I, someone who had absolutely
nothing to do with it, someone who was not involved whatsoever, because I was
named as a respondent, which I had absolutely nothing to do with, and because I
had to defend the people I knew, because the Chief Electoral Officer never got
involved with it, because he was not named as a respondent, I had to go hire a
lawyer, which I did.
In between, the gist of all of this, when the truth came out about the door
not being locked, the building manager that day who was controlling the whole
building, at 8:00 p.m. when he locked the door, he noticed that the lock was not
working properly. What he did, he stood at the door and, as people left, he let
them out. In between that, he called the maintenance manager of that place, of
that church, to come and fix the lock. The maintenance manager happens to be an
RCMP officer.
When the truth came out, the door was not locked because the guy was fixing
the lock. There was not one person that went in or out. The people who were in
there voted, left, but anybody who was not in there at 8:00 p.m. was not allowed
back in.
We have two people who are saying, here is what happened. Yet, the person who
was supposed to oversee the building, or the election that day at those polling
stations, had to defend himself to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador for an affidavit that you say, well, it has to be true because three
lawyers did this so they have to know what they are talking about. When this man
sat down and pleaded his case and said, here is what happened, they said,
(inaudible) affidavit, okay, that one does not count. That one was thrown out.
This is why we need an opportunity for Mr. March. I do not even know Mr.
March. I do not know if I ever spoke to the man in my life. I may have said hi
to him in passing. I do not even know the guy. I have no malice towards him, if
he should stay or go. I have no malice whatsoever towards Mr. March, but I just
know my personal experience.
Then we talk about other things coming through, Mr. Speaker. Here is another
affidavit, again signed by two different people: the DRO poll clerk left the
area, left the whole area at that time, leaving the polling booth unattended. It
is a very serious allegation. These two people were elderly people and they
were, at the time, given a copy of what was said about them, that they may have
to appear in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador because
both of them left the polling station at the same time.
Once again there was an affidavit signed to that effect, delivered to the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, delivered - it was put in there
again by the lawyer of Mr. Monaghan. Mr. Monaghan was a part of it, and I am
sure John Sweetland was a part of it. They were going around getting affidavits,
getting everybody together, signing the affidavits, right happy, and, when the
truth came out, that never happened. When the actual truth came out, there were
about six or eight polls in that area that day and that polling station could
never be left alone all day; it just could not be left alone. When that truth
came out, those people were saying: What are you talking about?
Here is another situation where these two individuals were named in a Supreme
Court document with no foundation. The people who did it, the lawyers, Mike
Monaghan, Kim Burridge and John Sweetland, are officers of the court. I am not
saying that they did know, but I am sure they did do due diligence because they
had to go to the DROs or poll clerks. They would have found out that it never
happened, I am sure of that, absolutely sure of that. People wonder why, then,
we have to let Mr. March appear here to speak in front of us.
The other big thing, Mr. Speaker, in the affidavits, with my personal
experience, IDs, visual IDs. Was that acceptable? That was trained by the Chief
Electoral Officer, if you know somebody you are all right to do it. If you can
verify that yes, you know this person, that is part of the training process. If
you can guarantee the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador accepts it, why
can't the Chief Electoral Officer?
Mr. Speaker, there are people with affidavits signed against them who had to
go and rebut this information. Get this now - and you want to know why we think
Fraser March should come in and give us the itty-bitty details - do you know who
they had to rebut and refute the information about IDs? Do you know who they had
to do it, some of them, about seven or eight of them? Do you know who it was?
Their sons. The affidavit said that the people who they let go through, they did
not know it was their son. When they were interviewed, and they went through the
list, their son was on the list because they did not ask their son - and I think
in three cases it was their daughter - and they did not ask them for an ID, that
ballot was no good.
Those people were named in Supreme Court documents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, had to defend themselves, and were told that they had to go to court
now to testify that yes, that was my son. I know him. I mean, how ridiculous,
absolutely ridiculous.
Then, when all this information was put forth, the case never made it to
court. It just did not make it to court. Yet, although there were three lawyers
who were there, the three lawyers were there who got all these affidavits, went
around the district, got all these affidavits signed, got all this information
signed, stapled it all up, made it look good, passed it into the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador, it cost me what? Twelve thousand dollars to defend
people who I should not have had to defend. It cost me $12,000 - that is fine,
that is still going on - but that cost me $12,000 for me to defend DROs and poll
clerks and whatever, and when the information came out it had nothing to do with
me. The information was thrown out. It did not even make it to court. It did not
even make it to court. The judge, himself, in a preliminary ruling, said that
visual IDs are accepted because it is the training part of the Chief Electoral
Officer. It did not even make it to court.
Here we have some thirty poll clerks and DROs with possibly having to appear
in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador with no recourse,
only to have someone like myself defend them. Later on, the Chief Electoral
Officer, after petitioning the court, did get involved . Had no involvement
whatsoever, absolutely no involvement, in any wrongdoing; absolutely none. When
the case in the Bay of Islands was complete, Mr. Speaker, with the thirty or so
affidavits, not one charge laid; not one charge. Absolutely not one charge laid!
I think it was the 19 th of December or the 20 th or 21th ,
people got these affidavits filed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador telling them - over the Christmas holidays it was on their mind - that
they may have to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and
justify something they had no part of. When the truth came out, when they sat
down face to face, got to the nitty-gritty, got to the facts of it, absolutely
no foundation.
If I gave everybody in the House those Supreme Court documents, those things
that Mike Monaghan, John Sweetland and Kim Burridge put in, you would say: My
God, what a legal document. How can these three lawyers be wrong? How can they
be wrong? There is no way in the world they can be wrong because they are
officers of the court. Mr. Speaker, I contend to you here today, not one charge,
never even made it to court, and you wonder why I am going to vote for the
Member for Grand Bank's motion to have him appear. A prime example is how I
was named in Supreme Court documents without any foundation, all for pure
political gain, absolutely no foundation. My name was not mentioned once, not a
Liberal worker mentioned once, not a Liberal person who was involved with my
campaign mentioned. It cost me $12,000. It cost thirty DROs and poll clerks
tension all over Christmas because they had to appear in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and not one of them had to appear because it was
thrown out of court. Then you wonder why I think we should have someone face to
face.
Given him the opportunity, right or wrong. I don't know what Fraser March
is going to say. I have no idea what Fraser March is going to say. I have no
idea if Fraser March is going to come in here and give us the information and we
are going to say, well, boy, you are wrong on that, we may have to get rid of
you, or you may be right, we can keep you. I don't know. I honesty don't
know. I can tell the members of this House, from my own experience, my own
personal experience, that until you give the person the chance to stand up in
front of you and state the information, good, bad or indifferent, as I had to do
in the Bay of Islands on behalf of the DROs and poll clerks, you will never get
to the bottom of it.
When a person is accused of not accepting someone's ID, when someone is not
accepting someone's ID, and then, when you get the person down face to face
and she signs an affidavit - the person who I never asked for an ID was my son.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the people and the DROs and poll clerks of Bay of
Islands were faced with. That is why I feel very strongly, from personal
experience, that Fraser March should be given the experience of coming into this
House and stating his case. Because I know, from personal experience, however
you want to take it - my personal experience is, when you sit down face to face
and get to the nitty-gritty, it is not always what it is on the paper.
I had three lawyers who were standing up with the affidavits, and they were
that thick, Mr. Speaker.
MS FOOTE: Who were they again?
MR. JOYCE: They were Mike Monaghan, who was the person who ran against
me; John Sweetland and Kimberly Burridge. They had affidavits that thick -
affidavits, Supreme Court documents. It was so thick, the affidavit, that I wasn't
delivered a copy. I wasn't given the courtesy of a copy being delivered to me.
Over at the court, it was too thick for the person to even photocopy for me.
They had to wait for them to bring a note. That is how thick it was. Everybody
said: Oh, my God, what a nice document. Thrown right out, right out of the
court, not one charge, not one charge, never made it to court. It cost me
$12,000 - I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up - it cost me
$12,000, caused tension and stress to DROs and poll clerks, with no foundation
whatsoever.
That is why I am going to vote for the Member for Grand Bank, for her motion,
from my personal experience, that a person should have the opportunity to speak
here in this House, speak to the people who are going to make the decision.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say a few words and speak to the main motion to dismiss the
Citizens' Representative. I would like to make some general comments, Mr.
Speaker, and then I will be more specific.
There are five Officers to this House of Assembly, and all of the Officers of
the House of Assembly are required to be independent. All of the Officers of the
House of Assembly have their own legislation, and that own legislation sets the
roles of the Officers of the House of Assembly. It indicates what their
responsibilities are, and also what their parameters are, and each Officer of
the House of Assembly must abide by his or her own legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, being an Officer of the House, since
there are only five, that it is a very privileged position. As I indicated,
every position has its own legislation, and the legislation is very specific as
to what each Officer can do. I would like to indicate, also, that each
legislation for each Officer of the House of Assembly, while it outlines the
roles and responsibilities, it also outlines the process which must be followed
in order to remove that Officer of the House of Assembly from his or her
position.
Mr. Speaker, when you are an Officer of the House of Assembly, you report
directly to the House of Assembly. You do not report to a minister or a deputy
minister. You have access directly to the House of Assembly through the Speaker.
As I indicated, this is a very privileged and honourable position.
When you are an Officer of a House of Assembly, because your roles and
responsibilities are outlined in your own legislation, most Officers of the
House of Assembly refer daily to their legislation. They know exactly what they
are allowed to do, they know what they are not allowed to do, and most take the
requirements of their legislation very seriously. Most of the Officers of the
House of Assembly that I have known, Mr. Speaker, refer to their legislation on
a daily basis. They take very seriously their role, and they ensure that they do
not deviate from what is in the requirements of their act.
I would also like to make the point that, Mr. Speaker, since the Officers of
the House of Assembly hold very honourary and special positions, the public
needs to have confidence in them, and also we, as Members of the House of
Assembly. Because the Officers of the House of Assembly report to us directly,
we also need to have confidence in them.
Having said that, because the Officers of the House of Assembly report
directly to the House of Assembly, governments are often quite leery of what an
Officer of the House of Assembly may say. So, of course, there has to be
protection so that the government of the day does not inflict harm or damage on
the Officers of the House of Assembly. We do not want the Citizens'
Representative or the Auditor General or the Chief Electoral Office to be in
fear of being just plucked from their position because they have said something
that the government does not agree with.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, each officer has his or her own
legislation, and they must follow it. They must preserve their credibility, they
must preserve their independence and, in the case of the Citizens'
Representative, the independence requirement is clearly outlined in
section
4.(2) of his legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in looking at this matter, I started with the Auditor General's
report. Now we, as Members of the House of Assembly, are fully familiar with the
role of the Auditor General. First off, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General brings
to the House of Assembly only matters that he or she deems of significance.
There is quite a lot of work that is done by the Auditor General that never
comes into the House of Assembly. In this case, the Auditor General felt that
the findings of his report were so significant that he wanted to bring it to the
attention of the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in reporting to this House, is very
conscious of what he or she says. Every phrase in the report is examined to
ensure that it conveys the right information and the right impression. Every
word, every phrase, is clearly examined to make sure that it does not provide
any misrepresentation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when we received the Auditor General's
report we reviewed it very carefully. One of the issues there was non-compliance
with the Citizens' Representative Act. There was also a lot of information
regarding expenses of the Citizens' Representative Act. Mr. Speaker, the most
important
section of that report was the failure of the Citizens'
Representative not to comply with
section subsection 2 of his act.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Auditor General's report, we have the
information in that report. The IEC has also considered the matter, we have an
independent legal opinion, but I think it is incumbent upon all of us to read
the information that has been provided; but, at the end of the day, we have to
make up our own mind.
Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the information that has been provided, it is
very clear to me that the Citizens' Representative has not complied with
section subsection 2 of his act and, as a result, Mr. Speaker, I will be
supporting the main motion to dismiss the Citizens' Representative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find myself in an awkward position here today, discussing whether or not
the Citizens' Representative should be hired or fired. I guess he is hired. I
guess we are deciding the ultimate decision for him, his future; however, my
colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, has made an amendment to the motion. She
is basically saying that she would be in favour of having the Citizens'
Representative request honoured by asking to come before this hon. House, stand
before the forty-eight Members of this House of Assembly and state his case. I
think that is a very reasonable request, because what we have before us in this
document is really, first an opinion of the Auditor General, which we value as
being an officer of this House, and also several opinions from lawyers. As we
know, everyone who stands in this House or sits in this House - we have
forty-eight members here and I would venture to guess that we all have a
different opinion on this matter or we probably should have if we want
impartiality here today.
Mr. Speaker, this is all about integrity. For one member, myself who stands
in this House and represents the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, I came here with
my integrity intact, in February, 1996, and whatever year that I determine I
want to leave or the people of Grand Falls-Buchans do not want me any longer to
represent them, I hope that I will leave with my integrity intact as I came to
this hon. House. That is the basis of all who stand and represent their
constituents in this House. Reputation is key. Reputation is everything, in my
opinion, and it should be in the opinion of everybody here in this House.
I want to talk about democracy. It was just a couple of days ago that the
Minister of Justice, the Attorney General for our Province, stood with a
minister's statement and talked about democracy and this being the Year of the
Veteran. All ears were listening to the Minister of Justice. We all agreed that
what he was saying was so very important, that those who had sacrificed, even
the freedom that we enjoy today, had sacrificed life and limb so we would have
the opportunity and have full access to democracy. A representative from our
side, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, stood and responded, and also one
of the members from the New Democratic Party. We all agreed that democracy was
the foundation to our civilization, and democracy gives us the chance to stand
here today and utter what we feel is the decision that is going to be made here
today.
I want to talk about some of the things that came out of this particular
report that the Internal Economy Commission agreed upon yesterday to present to
this House. The situation that we find ourselves in here today is that we are
almost requested to be judge and jury of the Citizen's Representative, whether
or not he will be allowed to continue his work or he will be dismissed. However,
what we have not had so far was the opportunity to hear the accused point of
view. We have not heard the accused point of view. I know that there was an
opportunity or a couple of opportunities afforded to the Citizens'
Representative, Fraser March, by the Internal Economy Committee. However, he did
not want to avail of that particular forum. He felt that in order to get his
message in perspective he would like the opportunity to come into this House of
Assembly and stand before each and every member, the forty-eight of us.
Actually, we are his employers, as are the people of this Province, the
taxpayers who pay the salaries and agree with having a Citizens'
Representative.
We are in a bit of a dilemma here now as to where we should go. There are
many questions that I would like to ask Fraser March if he were here in this
House today, because there are three issues that are basically being brought
forward by the Auditor General. Did Mr. March carry on a business while engaged
as a Citizens' Representative? Did Mr. March submit and receive payment for
private vehicle travel usage which was not eligible for reimbursement or
improperly claimed? Did Mr. March lack impartiality? Now, Mr. March is saying
that he is innocent on all three counts. Is he? That is the kind of thing we
could determine if we had him here in front of us and we were able to pose that
question face-to-face.
I would also like to ask Fraser March, if he were here in this House of
Assembly: Was his quality of work ever questioned? Does he have any document on
file talking about his quality of work? Was that ever questioned, or his
performance as a Citizens' Representative? Was he ever advised by the Internal
Economy Commission that he stop performing outside union activities? Was he ever
advised by the Internal Economy Commission that he should cease union
activities? Was there ever a letter written? Is that in his file?
Unfortunately, the way this is set up today, it appears - from what I have
heard the Government House Leader say - that he will be voting to fire Mr. March
at the end of this exercise. Unfortunately, he does not share the ideal that we
should have the so-called accused person in our midst so we could have a clear
answer from Mr. March on a lot of questions that are not contained in this
particular book of information.
You really cannot say that an individual is guilty. He is really innocent
until he is proven guilty. When I look back to his term of office, the
appointment is for six years. The way that this particular representative can be
removed, the Lieutenant Governor in Council - for people who may be viewing
today, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is Cabinet. The Cabinet can, on a
resolution of the House of Assembly, carried by a majority vote - now, let's
talk about majority vote. The Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party,
we are in the minority here to begin with. The vote will be a majority vote. We
know that the government side has the numbers. So, they can determine how this
outcome is going to be before this was ever brought to the House of Assembly.
It says that the Cabinet, on a resolution of the House of Assembly, carried
by a majority vote of the Members of the House of Assembly - actually voting. We
can actually stand, each one of us, and say how we are going to vote - may, for
cause - and according to this motion there is a cause - remove the Citizens'
Representative from the office or suspend him or her. Now, that is the term of
office. We know how this can actually come about. The Citizens' Representative
does not have an opportunity, as I am hearing today, to actually come in and
state his case.
I think back to yesterday during Question Period, when the three female
mem