April

29, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the

hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East, the hon. the Member for the District of Port au

Port, the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Amalgamated Academy

on winning the best play award in the junior division of the 2008-2009 Regional

Drama Festival.

Eastern School District organized the festival in partnership with the

College of the North Atlantic and the Northern Avalon Tourism Association.

Students from twelve schools took to the stage at the Princess Sheila NaGeira

Theatre in Carbonear.

In addition to the Best Play award, Amalgamated Academy also earned the best

use of light award and the best ensemble in a theatrical production award for

their performance in the play, Floating on a Don't Care Cloud .

Alex Oates took home the award for best actor in a supporting role.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the

organizers, the students and the coaches for their efforts, and in particular,

the Amalgamated Drama Troupe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this

hon. House today to extend congratulations to the Association for New Canadians

on sponsoring their first diversity workshop.

This symposium, focused on diversity in the workplace, and is a very timely

topic not only for Canada but for Newfoundland, as we see the need for

immigration as we plan for our long-term economic expansion.

Topics for the symposium included: Creating Respectful and Inclusive

Workplaces and also Workplace Discrimination and Accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, these sessions were merely samplers of the full day workshops

that are available and are offered by the Association for New Canadians.

I would encourage any employers who find themselves in the position of having

employees, or are considering having employees from other countries work with

them to contact the ANC to learn more about their Diversity in the Workplace

Training.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating Bridget Foster, Executive Director for the Association for New

Canadians and Natasha Lawlor, their organizational change training officer, to

contact them to find out more about these programs.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the winners and

nominees at the recently held Stephen Awards Banquet in Stephenville on April 25

as part of Volunteer Week.

The Citizen of the Year Award went to William, Bill, Dunne of Stephenville,

who devotes extraordinary time and effort to building and maintaining the

community. Bill Dunne is involved with the Lion's Club, locally, provincially,

nationally and internationally, but he was specifically recognized for his

tremendous work with the Bay St. George Sick Children's Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, other Stephen Awards presented that night were: William Forsey,

who was named Male Athlete of the Year; Katarina Roxon won the Female Athlete of

the Year Award; and Parinita Verma was honoured with the Youth of the Year Award

for her outstanding voluntary work in the community. She is also quite involved

in her school and is achieving remarkably well academically. It was quite

fascinating to listen to the long list of accomplishments of each individual.

Also that evening, twenty-three outstanding volunteer work certificates of

merit were also presented to individuals for their outstanding volunteer work in

the community. Congratulations to: Leon Benoit, Pastor Shawn Bowers, Cecilia

Burke, June Burton, Emily Cooper, Everett Davis, John Hanratty, Christina Hawco,

Rick Hawco, Cathy Hurley, David Johnston, Deborah Jones, Linda Lucas, Marion

Menchenton, Robert Miller, Gerry Murphy, Aldonna O'Keefe, Elizabeth Porter,

Rochelle Reid, Greg Reid, Yvonne Rose, Cavell Russell and Sam Shea for their

hard work and dedication and their contribution, Mr. Speaker, in making our area

a better place to live and work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join

with me today in congratulating all the award winners and nominees of the

Stephen Awards on their invaluable contributions they make to their community,

indeed the region, and throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St.

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three municipal

volunteers in my district: Mayor Anthony Healey, Town of St. Joseph's, Mayor

Eugene Manning, Town of St. Bride's, and Councillor Allan Nash, Town of Point

Lance.

In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, these individuals were presented with Long

Service Awards by our government, through the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Mayor Healey received an award for twenty-five years of service. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, he has served a total of twenty-seven years on council, the last five

as Mayor of the Town of St. Joseph's. Mayor Manning, the current Mayor of St.

Bride's, has volunteered with the St. Bride's council for twenty years.

Allan Nash has been a councillor in Point Lance for twenty years.

Mayor Healey, Mayor Manning and Councillor Nash represent that group of

community-oriented citizens who are not only involved on the municipal level,

but who have served on numerous other community organizations as well.

These citizens, Mr. Speaker, are the backbone of our communities, and

contribute greatly to the quality of life in our towns. In most cases, Mr.

Speaker, they receive no remuneration for their services. As our rural

communities shrink, Mr. Speaker, their work becomes more difficult, and we owe

them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Mayor Healey, Mayor

Manning and Councillor Nash, and thank them for their tremendous dedication and

contribution to the communities they serve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of a new campaign soon to be

launched to support our continued efforts to raise awareness of the

responsibility of everyone to prevent violence against those most at risk in our

society.

Through funding under our Violence Prevention Initiative, we fund a number of

social marketing activities to encourage all residents to take action against

violence in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Violence Prevention Initiative is our six-year action plan

to combat this serious social issue. We are halfway into the plan and we

continue to act on its 150 action items.

Mr. Speaker, public awareness and education campaigns play a large role

toward changing actions and attitudes about violence. In Budget 2009 we are

investing an additional $100,000 towards violence prevention social marketing

activities, bringing the total investment in these important campaigns to

$240,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this year's investment supports the launch

of our biggest social marketing campaign to date. This campaign targets men, and

encourages them to take responsibility in preventing violence against women. The

campaign is in the final stages of development and will be launched this spring

in the form of print and television ads, as well as posters and a Web site.

Mr. Speaker, working with a wide range of government and community partners,

we have developed an intergenerational approach with this campaign that will

deliver positive messaging, targeted to men and boys around showing respect,

fairness and equality towards women.

Our government fully understands that violence is rooted in inequality. This

campaign is one more tool to raise awareness of the links between violence and

inequality, and to remind men and boys that violence against women in any form

is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the government departments and community partners involved in

our social marketing activities are doing a tremendous job to get this message

out. We are pleased that this additional investment will help spread the message

even further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for

providing an advance copy of her statement.

Any initiative, of course, which reduces, deals with, eliminates

hopefully eliminates - or certainly prevents any increase, and eradicates

violence, is certainly a positive initiative and we would be most supportive of

it.

I notice the information provided today indicates that it is targeted towards

men. Given the statistics that we are aware of, and have been confirmed, that is

a good target, because 80 percent of the violence is with men against women, so

that certainly is a good target.

I would point out as well that apparently a lot of the violence exhibited

today by younger men, particularly boys, comes about as a result of abused boys,

so maybe we also need some targeting in that regard to younger males as well as

to men.

This is, of course, one in a number of initiatives that the government has

alluded to in the past couple of weeks. I believe last week the Minister of

Justice alluded to the creation of the Family Violence Court, which is chaired

and headed up by Judge Greg Brown, and that is certainly another worthy

initiative so we are certainly supportive of it. I understand this is in the

finalization stages, and we look forward to seeing the final product when it is,

in fact, revealed.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I am glad to stand today and speak to this statement, and I thank the

minister for the advance copy.

I am very glad to see that the government is turning its attention to the

need to change the behaviour of men and young boys, and encouraging men to take

responsibility for preventing violence against women and children.

I appreciate the work that ads, Web sites, and posters will do. They are a

first step, but we also have to put resources into facilitating men working

together in their communities in groups in dealing with this issue, helping them

get at an understanding of what the root causes are for the violence against

women and children. Men working together in groups, joining with the women's

voice in the communities will get the message out even more strongly.

So I really do encourage the ministry to continue looking at the issue of,

how do we get at the root causes? We know inequality is a root cause, but there

are so many faces to what that inequality is and why men think that it is all

right to violate women and children. What is it in our culture that has created

that?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to provide this hon. House with an update on the Northern

Strategic Plan for Labrador. This five year, dynamic, cross-departmental plan

provides a clear focus of the Williams Government's pledge to provide a better

future for all Labradorians.

The Northern Strategic Plan was released on April 20, 2007 and is now in its

third year. This plan is considered a living document that will evolve with the

changing needs of Labradorians and as new ideas take shape.

Mr. Speaker, the plan originally started with 145 commitments and a total

expected investment of some $300 million. I am pleased to report to my hon.

colleagues here today that as work begins in the plan's third year, the

commitments have steadily grown to 191, resulting in some expected $430 million

in spending in Labrador over the life of the plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Since the introduction of the Northern Strategic Plan, we

have seen unprecedented spending throughout Labrador. In Budget 2009, with a

record investment of $135 million to improve infrastructure, program and

services, this government clearly recognizes that Labrador priorities are

provincial priorities. Some major examples include: $19 million for a new

francophone school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a new K-12 school in Port Hope

Simpson, which has gone to tender for site development; and a new K-12 school in

L'Anse-au-Loup, where tenders have closed and bids are being assessed; $9.5

million dollars for construction of the new College of the North Atlantic campus

in Labrador West, which has been clearly called to tender; $4.7 million for the

continued funding for the new health care facility in Labrador West; and, $2

million for the construction of a new pre-trial detention centre for women and

youth in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we continue to make every effort to improve

infrastructure and program and service delivery in our remote coastal

communities. This includes enhancements to winter trail systems through the

Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy and ongoing monitoring of our Air

Foodlift Subsidy to ensure people have access to nutritious foods at reasonable

prices.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan is growing and changing to meet the

needs of the people of Labrador and their communities. To monitor progress, my

department has developed an exhaustive process to gauge results. As well, in

support of accountability and transparency, department officials will produce a

detailed mid-term report that will be followed with stakeholder visitations

throughout Labrador to illustrate what is being accomplished through the plan.

Mr. Speaker, this Administration is working diligently to achieve the

long-term vision of the Northern Strategic Plan to advance the social and

economic agenda of Labrador. Through consultation and strategic investments we

will continue to improve the lives for all Labradorians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today in response to the statement by

the hon. minister with regards to the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador.

I have to say, all the announcements that he made there are very important to

the people of Labrador and deserve nothing less, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to

make a comment, I guess, and I do not want to be too negative but all the

announcements that were made here today, the College of the North Atlantic, five

times, Francophone school, seven, Port Hope Simpson school, eight, L'Anse-au-Loup,

eight, Labrador hospital, seven. It is good to know, Mr. Speaker, that some of

them are finally going to tender and I am sure the people of Labrador are very

pleased about that. I cannot help but repeat a quote that the hon. Premier made

when former Minister Hearn came down from Ottawa. He said, but to come and to

double and triple announcements today, to announce money, that is giving the

appearance of being new money, this is misleading the Premier said.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we are proud of the work that is being done

in Labrador. My hon. colleague mentioned yesterday that money from the Voisey's

Bay mine should go to the people of Labrador. They deserve nothing less. But I

believe the statement, as good as the contents are today, is overkill. We have

heard it many times, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I guess our friends across the way are not going to be happy with me either,

because what I want to say is that the people in Labrador have been really happy

over the past few years to keep hearing these announcements over and over and

over again. At least some of them are actually going to happen this year, and I

am glad to see that. It is not lost on the people of Labrador, the frequent

announcements. I hope, before I retire from this wonderful House, that I see a

hospital in Labrador West, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, we have over $4 million in the Budget this year, but

nothing specific about what it is going to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, we all have to recognize, and we do, that this money is owed to

Labrador because for many years it was ignored by both parties in this House who

have been in government. We know that. So, it is good to see it happening, but

let's speed up some of this, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in this hon. House to highlight a successful example of

the provincial government and community-based organizations working

collectively.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Co-operatives share the goal of promoting and enhancing business

developments that lead to vibrant and diverse economies.

Recognizing our shared vision, the provincial government and the NLFC entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding in June of 2007 to formalize our working

relationship. At that time, Newfoundland and Labrador joined the ranks of Quebec

and Nova Scotia as the only provinces to forge such a relationship with a

provincial co-operative business association.

Together we have developed a long-term strategy and introduced initiatives

that have helped local enterprises benefit from pursuing the co-operative

business option. Another outcome has been the implementation of a micro-lending

project.

As part of the provincial government's Poverty Reduction Strategy, the

Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the NLFC have launched

micro-lending projects in St. John's and the Exploits region. In St. John's,

we have partnered with the Community Centre Alliance, and in the Exploits Region

the delivery agent is the Exploits Valley Economic Development Corporation.

Through these pilot projects participants can avail of skill development

workshops, in addition to the establishment of peer support groups that provide

access to business loans ranging from $2,500 to $10,000. These are valuable

resources that help with the start-up or the expansion of home-based businesses

and micro-enterprises. Loans may also be used for investment in co-operative

enterprises or to access co-op services.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this pilot project not only enables us to support

self-employment using a micro-lending process but also to expand opportunities

for co-operative development.

Globally, there are many examples that highlight micro-lending as a key form

of financing used to eradicate poverty by fostering the development of

successful businesses. Micro-lending is applicable to individuals of any age or

gender and it has proven to play a significant role in self-empowerment.

Micro-lending builds viable businesses, increases incomes, sparks confidence,

encourages the establishment of regional networks, and it enables people to

become economic agents of change.

Mr. Speaker, INTRD, NLFC and our regional partners believe that micro-lending

is an essential tool in the development of strong regions, diverse economies and

the entrepreneurial spirit. As minister responsible for co-leading these

initiatives, I am proud of our collective accomplishments and look forward to

continued success and utilization.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It is always nice to respond to a statement from a minister who is rarely

repetitive and generally enlightening. Thank you.

Anything, of course, that goes to the creation of new business in this

Province and creates new opportunities for business is certainly welcome. Of

course, not everyone in our Province is fortunate enough to be a skilled

tradesperson or to have attended college or a university. Notwithstanding that,

regardless of the level of your skills or the level of your educational

training, every person in this Province deserves to have the opportunity to

receive government support, assistance and encouragement for any idea that is

certainly worthy.

Sometimes, of course, the smallest of ideas and the most creative of ideas

start off very small but they end up being huge and certainly significant at the

end, so it is good to see that we do have such programs to encourage these

micro-lending type projects.

We notice that it is being spread out across the Province. There is one pilot

project here on the Avalon, another one in Central. It is good to see. We wish

the participants of both of these pilot projects congratulations and best

wishes, and hopefully we look forward to seeing the results from the minister in

the future when the projects have concluded.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I am always pleased when I see the government working together with

community-based organizations, especially with a co-operative movement, because

the co-operative movement in this Province, as well as in Canada, has played a

major role in the growth of the economy. We do not often see the benefits that

come from the co-operative businesses that exist, but it is a major contribution

to the economy.

I, too, am glad to see the micro-lending program. The one concern I have

I do know a fair bit about micro-lending, especially where it originated, and

that was in the developed countries. It started in India, actually and it has

been very successful. I just hope that the amount we are allowing fits the

economy that we are in here, that the amount is not too micro. I understand what

the purpose of it is, but I think that would be one of the evaluations that is

going to have to be done, if we actually have not gone too micro, but the goal I

certainly applaud.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 31 I asked a number of questions regarding the Inland Fish and

Wildlife program of government. We certainly saw through our Access to

Information Request that there were significant problems with the program and

the morale amongst officers.

Since hearing the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources in the

Legislature, we have received even more calls from workers who believe the

minister is out of touch with what is happening on the ground.

I ask the Premier: Can he tell us which department at the present time is

actually in charge of the Inland Fish and Wildlife program, whether it is the

Department of Justice or it is the Department of Natural Resources?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, inland fishery enforcement is part of the

Department of Justice, and has been for the past number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the clarification, because we have been some months now checking

through the Access to Information requesting information on the program. I have

correspondence here, which I am certainly prepared to table, from both the

Department of Justice and the Department of Natural Resources, saying they do

not know anything about the Marshall report which was dealing with inland

inquiries. Anyway, now we have some clarification that it is over in the Justice

shop.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bill Marshall was supposed to submit a report on this

program three years ago. We know the Premier received a 100 page preliminary

report with recommendations three years ago from Mr. Marshall. We have tried to

pry details out of government through access laws, but even contrary to the

advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, this government refuses to

give the full details of Mr. Marshall's preliminary report.

I ask the Premier, we have been three years waiting for a final report: Can

the Premier tells us why this report is still outstanding after three years,

when he expects to receive the report, and will it be released when it is

received?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Opposition House

Leader is still fully aware of what is happening here.

There is the wildlife enforcement, that is number one; there is inland fish

enforcement, and that is number two. Inland fish enforcement is with the

Department of Justice, wildlife enforcement is with Natural Resources.

Retired Justice Marshall has been asked to do a report and to make

recommendations to the government on the future of those programs. He will take

what time he needs in order to do his work, and we look forward to the receipt

of his report and his recommendations, which will help guide and inform

government's direction in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the officers involved were promised that

Mr. Marshall would complete his report some three years ago. They are

continuously asking for the report so they will have some stability and

direction in their employment, but are being stymied and told it is not ready. A

private sector company would certainly not get these lax timelines.

I ask the Premier: Why have you not demanded action from Mr. Marshall to

provide the final report that is three years overdue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the hon. member's

question.

We have asked Mr. Justice Marshall to provide us with his guidance in this

area, and he will take whatever time he needs to do the report. It is not a

question of how quickly you do it; it is a question of taking the necessary

time, doing the necessary work, and providing us with his advice and his

recommendations as we go forward.

Mr. Justice Marshall's report is for the benefit of the government in order

to structure the programs. The employees of the department will be managed by

the officers of the department.

What is important here is that we have the benefit of Justice Marshall's

recommendations as we move forward with how we are handling these two aspects,

these very important parts of government policy which involves the enforcement

of those who breach our wildlife and our fisheries laws in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether the minister knows it or not, these officers are being shuffled from

the Department of Justice for six months of the year to the Department of

Natural Resources for six months of the year and have been waiting for three

years to try to get some stability. They are good public servants who deserve

some kind of answer rather than being shuffled back and forth.

Mr. Speaker, in documents obtained through access to information, Mr.

Marshall advised the Premier in a 2006 personal letter that he had, and I quote:

troubling image; a troubling image of an area of the public service with the

potential of imploding on itself, his words. From speaking with officers, they

are totally frustrated with government's lack of leadership in resolving this

matter.

If the Premier is not prepared to deal with Mr. Marshall's tardiness, can

he give us an undertaking today that he will give some direction to the

Department of Justice, or the Department of Natural Resources, to step up to the

plate and do some work on this file?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is quite incredible that the Government

House Leader is not aware of the great success that Inland Fish Enforcement has

had in this Province. It is certainly an excellent program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, they have won awards. I think the East

Coast salmonoid committee provided with one award. They won the Ches Loughlin

award from the spawn preservation society in Western Newfoundland. This

association has done tremendous work, but again, you have to distinguish between

Inland Fish Enforcement and inland wildlife enforcement. As far as the fish is

concerned, this has been a tremendous program that has done very well in

protecting the resources when the federal government would not provide the

resources to protect the fish in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know quite well the distinction between the programs and the nature of who

is supposed to enforce them and who undertook to enforce them. The question is

that the officers are being left hanging in the balance, that is the question

here, and when are you going to let them get some stability?

Mr. Speaker, we also learned this week that the same Mr. Marshall was

contracted three years ago to conduct another report, this time a review of the

Province's Crown prosecutors' office as a result of a recommendation from

the Lamer Inquiry. Again, it has been three years, yet no report.

I ask the Minister of Justice: What is the status of this report on the Crown

prosecutors' office, which was initiated three years ago, and why have we been

waiting three years to get it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recommendation from the Lamer report was that the government have an

independent review done to ensure that steps have been taken or will be taken to

eliminate the Crown culture that contributed to the wrongful conviction of

Gregory Parsons and was also evident in the prosecution of Randy Druken.

The government also did its own independent review and as a result of that,

government has put many additional resources into the Crown prosecutors'

office. We have also developed and published the guidebook of policies and

procedures for the conduct of criminal prosecution. All of this has been to

develop a better working model for a modern and efficient Crown attorney's

office.

There have been new prosecutors hired in Corner Brook and in Labrador and in

St. John's. Paralegals have been hired to assist, and we brought back

article

clerks which had been eliminated. Justice Marshall will take the time he needs

to do his report to ensure that that culture no longer exists and we look

forward to his report when it is ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know full well about what the Lamer Inquiry was. This individual initiated

the Lamer Inquiry. The concern now is seeing the follow up on some of its

recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, a review of the Crown prosecutors' office was cited as a

priority by this very minister and this government in 2006. The word immediate

was used back then when it was talked about, yet here we are three years later

with no action having been done vis--vis the report.

I ask the minister again: How long do we expect, and is it reasonable to have

someone out doing a report that was considered a priority and was considered to

be immediately needed back then, three years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there was immediate action. There was

immediate action taken by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as I

said, there was a major injection of funds. There was new support staff hired.

There was additional money put in for training for prosecutors. We hired

article

clerks, which had been something that had been put off for many years. We have

hired additional paralegal assistants. The work has been done. What Minister

Marshall has been asked to do is to come in and to ensure that the culture that

existed, the Crown culture was no longer there. Now, if you came in right away

there would not have been time to make sure that that culture no longer existed.

When he comes in now he will give us the insurances that the steps that we have

taken have in fact accomplished what Commissioner Lamer wanted accomplished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media that the provincial government gave

$182,000 to GB Seafood International to do some work on a waste water treatment

system for the Gaultois fish plant and that the money has now gone missing.

Can the Minister of Fisheries tell us who the shareholders, directors and

operators are behind GBS Seafoods International, and when these public funds

were advanced by your department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the funds that we are talking about are part

of a program with regard to the aquaculture. We made a commitment to make sure

that the waste water coming out of plants in the proximity of aquaculture sites

would be treated as to ensure the biosecurity that we need.

In this particular case there is an active file open with regard to the

Gaultois plant, that we have made provision to the operators of that plant to

carry out the necessary work to get that done. A consultant was hired. Money was

advanced to pay that consultant to get the equipment. Up to this point in time,

Mr. Speaker, the work has not been done. As a result, we are obviously pushing

to make sure that the work is done so that plant can be opened and that business

as usual can be carried out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the minister did not answer it, or perhaps he did not hear me, can you

advise us who the shareholders, directors and operators are of GBS Seafoods, and

what was the date when your department advanced the $182,000? Do you have that

information available?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the names of directors, and

that sort of thing, I would assume it is in the registry somewhere but I do not

carry that information around. I certainly would look it up, as anyone can do,

and I would advise you probably to do the same thing. I do not have that

information right out of my back pocket.

All I am saying is that we are dealing with the operators of that plant,

which is the company which has been mentioned here, and we are doing due

diligence to make sure that the contract that company made with this government

is carried out. That is the point of it all, that we did enter into a contract

with this company, we did advance them funds

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. HEDDERSON: - and we fully expect that the work that we contracted

will be carried out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I see this minister is up on his files and his briefing notes as much as the

Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us, then, when he

first became aware that this $172,000 of provincial money, $182,000 of taxpayers'

money, went missing? Can you tell us when you first became aware that it went

missing, and what you and your department have done since that time to recover

these funds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate, we entered into a contact

with this company to carry out the work that is required, as we did with other

plants. It is standard procedure, of course, when you ask a company to do it,

that you advance the funds. The funds have been advanced, and they have been

giving us assurances that the work will be carried out. It has not been carried

out up to this point in time. We continue to press and to make sure.

Of course, we do have some options. One of the options is to make sure that

their licence is revoked, which we have done, and indicating to them that we

will go further, if necessary, to ensure that this work is done and that the

people of Gaultois can be assured that there will be a plant there operational

when the need arises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the minister is not up on the details and the specifics of

this file.

I ask will ask the minister a more generic question, then. Can the minister

tell us what guidelines are in place in your department to protect public funds,

to ensure that companies such as this are held accountable for the funds that

they receive? That is pretty generic stuff you ought to be aware of, I would

think.

I also ask the minister: What due diligence have you done throughout this

process to verify whether this money was being appropriately used, and can you

tell us who has the money now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit difficult getting up

and telling a former lawyer that a legal contract is a legal contract, but I am

telling you right now a legal contract is a legal contract. If that is not due

diligence, what is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that is all the minister knows, that he has a contract, because it

is obviously evident that he does not have a clue what was in it.

Mr. Speaker, on another issue for the minister: Minister, yesterday,

regarding the Fish Processing Licensing Board, it was made quite clear that Mr.

Richard Cashin no longer feels the board is independent, and government no

longer feels he is fit to be chair because they did not renew his appointment.

Mr. Cashin has stated in today's paper, and I quote: the minister "

is a nice man and has undoubtedly got as much knowledge about the fishery as I

do about life on the moon." Mr. Cashin also stated that the deputy

minister, Mr. O'Reilly, ran the department.

Given Mr. Cashin's comments, was it you or Mr. O'Reilly who made the

decision regarding the shrimp licence for Valleyfield?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Let me be absolutely clear, unequivocal, and any other

adjective that you want to put, I made the decision there with regard to that,

and as the minister of that department I take exception to your indication here

that I am not making the decisions.

I tell you, I have a responsibility given to me by the Premier of this

Province, representing the people of this Province, and I take that seriously, I

say to the member!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say the minister need take no exception to anything I have said. These lips

did not utter it. It was done by one Richard Cashin who said it, not myself. It

is Mr. Cashin that he has the problem with.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked a number of questions regarding former PC

Party Leader Ed Byrne's illegal use of public funds for party activities. I

inquired as to whether the party would reimburse these funds, and the Deputy

Premier responded on Monday

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: and I quote, "we were more than prepared

to pay back the funds from Party resources but we understand that the courts

have ordered Mr. Byrne to repay these funds."

I ask the Deputy Premier: Can you tell us who you were referring to when you

used the word we in that statement, and if you still stand by that statement

today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government and the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

have been told that Mr. Byrne it is our understanding that Mr. Byrne has

been ordered by the courts to repay these monies.

If that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, I can

tell you right here today, that the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador will

repay those funds in full.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A minister who gives definitive answers, that is just great stuff to see.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the belief of the Deputy Premier that the courts

have ordered Mr. Byrne to repay these funds, Crown Prosecutor Frances Knickle,

who we checked with, says that the restitution order made against Mr. Byrne for

$117,000 does not include the monies that were referenced in the statement of

facts.

Given that piece of information, I am wondering if the Deputy Premier or the

Premier would confirm, if that is the fact, that it is not included, that the

party would repay the funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly obvious that the Opposition House Leader is going to stay to

script. Whatever questions he was given before he came down, those are the ones

he is going to ask.

I am glad that you are referring to me as the minister of social services,

and not echo because that is what we have to do over here, echo our answers

over and over again. Definitively, we have just said in this House that if Mr.

Byrne has not been ordered by the courts to repay the $3,000, then the PC Party

of Newfoundland and Labrador will repay that amount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in February 2008 the Minister of Environment

announced a five-year caribou strategy to address the declining woodland caribou

populations on the Island of Newfoundland and the role of predators in that

decline. Very little information has been released about this monitoring study

thus far, and our office has been contacted for more information since the plan

was announced, not only by outfitters and environmentalists but also by

employees of the wildlife division.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: When will you release

information on the first year of the action plan to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to have public documents regarding

this strategy out in the next couple of months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, from estimate peaks of over 90,000 caribou in

1996, the current population is estimated at 3,700 representing a decrease of 60

per cent. For this reason the hunting license quota has been reduced from 7,700

in 2001 to 880 in 2009. This has a devastating financial impact on the

outfitters in our Province.

I ask the minister: What consultation has your department had with the

Outfitters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on the caribou action plan,

and do you intend to do anything to assist them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations with the

outfitters and different stakeholders who have shown interest in the woodland

caribou herd here on the Island portion of the Province. This is the reason why

we did this five-year initiative to study the herd and invested $15 million into

the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Back in February 2008, Mr. Speaker, when information on the

caribou action plan was first released, the department said it would be

primarily focusing on the role of the black bear in addressing the caribou

decline.

I ask the minister: How do you respond to the claim of hunters, trappers and

wildlife enthusiasts that your department is making a black sheep out of the

black beer while paying less attention to their observations of the destructive

impact of the coyote on the caribou herds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please !

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, this five-year caribou strategy, with an

investment of $15 million, is used to gather scientific information which we as

a government feel is very important in making informed decisions. That is what

we know we will gather from this, is the scientific information we need to make

those decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess finally the public of Newfoundland and Labrador found out we have

lots of sheep on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, every province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member ask the question and

the answers that are coming from the hon. minister. I ask for your co-operation.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pull the wool over when (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I say we will pull the wool over when they get the sheep

sheared.

Every province, Mr. Speaker, in the country has a caribou action plan of

sorts due to the caribou's threatened designation under the Canadian Species

at Risk Act.

We know that in 1996 a habitat study on Woodland Caribou in Jasper National

Park said that radio collars weaken the animal and caused mortality rates. Has

your department looked at these studies and considered the effects of collar

use?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a very thorough strategy that

is ongoing, and I must tell you, all this talk about caribou is making me

hungry. Being an Inuit woman, it is the main part of my diet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, we learned in our office this morning that AbitibiBowater has

begun sending registered letters to the widows of former AbitibiBowater workers,

as well as to pensioned workers, informing them that the unfunded portion of

their pensions are at present and indefinitely suspended.

Mr. Speaker, the letter which I have with me today is an absolute disgrace.

AbitibiBowater is sending very brief letters with little explanation and without

sensitivity for the recipients, especially for widows, some of whom are in their

late seventies and in their eighties. My staff has been in contact with

AbitibiBowater officials in Montreal who have confirmed that the cessation of

payment is part of the court ordered bankruptcy process because they asked for

creditor protection.

Mr. Speaker, does the government have an answer for the widows and the

pensioned workers who received these awful letters today, some of them are

oncoming, and as to what part of their pension they are losing because the

letter is not clear? It says unfunded portion. They do not know how much of

their pension is the unfunded, and when is this going to take place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater has in fact sent out a letter to

people who are receiving retirement allowances and people who are receiving

pensions indicating that they will stop sending the cheques to these

individuals, based upon the fact that they have entered into creditor

protection.

I would like to assure, first of all, Mr. Speaker, anybody who is into a

pension and a registered pension, that their pension payments will not be

affected. The people who are receiving retirement allowances and the people who

are in the pension plan - two different sets of people. For the people who are

affected, Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with AbitibiBowater officials. We

have a number of questions that we have asked and we are trying to get answers

to.

The final thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the decision that

has been made by Abitibi will be challenged in court tomorrow by the Quebec

regulator where the pension plans are registered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another letter that went out it is not really a letter, it

is a four-page document regarding a meeting of creditors that is taking place in

Delaware on May 14, and there is a deadline for filing a proof of claim.

One of the widows that we spoke to today called the number that is on her

letter. They referred her to the no, she called the number that was on this

document about the meeting. They referred her to the number on the letter.

Nobody could give her any answers and her question she is seventy-nine years

old, and her question that she wants me to ask of government is: Who is going to

be there to file a claim for her when she has been told that she is not going to

get her unfunded pension? Is this government going to be there for her and for

the other widows?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the legal standing that would be accorded under

the creditor protection program, as I understand it, the employees or the

spouses, widows of former employees, will be handled by the unions who will have

legal standing, as I understand it, in that creditor protection program.

We have been working with and have been in discussions with union officials

in terms of these matters as they have been unfolding over the last number of

weeks. It will be our expectation that the unions will certainly be representing

their current members as well as their former members when this issue finally

gets to the legal stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I will be watching closely what is happening both with the government and

with the union on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, a question with regard the Janeway remediation. The Department

of Government Services sent in an Occupational Health and Safety inspector

yesterday to the old Janeway work site, a site that is in my District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, to investigate the presence of hazardous materials due to a

report that workers were feeling sick on site.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister provide the House today with the update on this

work site report from the OHS inspector?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the demolition at the Janeway site, Occupational

Health and Safety officials have been very frequently and regularly visiting the

site to monitor the demolition, to ensure that the contractor was in compliance

with Occupational Health and Safety guidelines.

The member is right; there were some suggestions the day before yesterday of

possible hydrocarbons in a couple of tanks that were on site. My understanding

is the testing that was done yesterday showed up negative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to table the Report of the Public

Tender Act Exceptions for November and December of 2008, and January, February

and March of 2009.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act,

I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans that were raised under

section 48 of the act since the last report to the House on March 11, 2008.

Also, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55.(3) of the Financial Administration

Act, I wish to report that there were no guaranteed loans paid out by the

Province since the last annual report, also on March 11, 2008. While there are

none to be tabled, it is necessary to indicate that in a report to the House.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55.(2) of the act, I wish to

report there has been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency

assumed by the Province since the March 11, 2008 report.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act,

2005, I wish to table the attached list of loan guarantees provided to local

governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects.

The total of these guarantees is $15.5 million, and the projects financed

include: water and sewer, $8 million; recreation facilities, $1.8 million;

street paving, $.8 million; and municipal buildings, $4.9 million.

Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 7, 2008 and

included guarantees issued up to and including March 7, 2008. The current

listing covers the period from March 8, 2008 to March 31, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 26.(5) of the Financial Administration Act,

I am tabling five Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2009-2010 to 2018-2019 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond to a question from the Member for Port de Grave yesterday

respecting asbestos testing in schools. My colleague, the Minister of Business,

reported that we would get back to the House. I want to report, for the

information of the member opposite, that as of March 31, 2009, all but ten of

the schools identified for testing have been completed, and the other ten will

be completed by this spring.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader to keep in mind that this is

Private Members' Day. At 3:00 o'clock, normally we go into Orders of the

Day. It is the hon. member's private resolution so if he wants, by leave of

the House, to take some time from that then the Chair will certainly recognize

that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not belabour the

point.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave if so needed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I had a petition on the dialysis in Port

aux Basques but I will wait. We will have a lot more time for that. I can

certainly move on to the issue that is on the private member's paper today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. This is Private

Members' Day.

I call on the hon. the Opposition House Leader to continue with his

resolution.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is what we know as Private Members' Day. That is where

private members, privately, as opposed to being a government member or an

opposition or a third party, get to put forward certain resolutions.

The resolution that was put forward by this member on Monday deals with the

issue of the Chief Electoral Officer's failure or refusal to do an

investigation involving the matter of certain funds that were identified in a

recent court case involving Mr. Byrne, who was the Member for Kilbride, and what

happened to those funds.

The resolution calls upon the House - in

summary it says:

BE IT RESOLVED that

this House of Assembly calls for an independent, third-party investigation to

determine the extent and nature of transfers of public funds into partisan

political operations and campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, some of the members opposite got quite upset when I raised a few

questions in the House this week about this issue. There is a very good reason

for raising the issue. It is not as important, in my view at least, as to which

party is involved here. It is not as important as to the quantity, even, of

monies used there. The important part here is: Has the Chief Electoral Officer

done his job? That is the sole crux of this issue: Has the Chief Electoral

Officer done his job? The bottom line is, here: He has not done his job.

Just to put this into context and I only have thirteen minutes Mr.

Reynolds, who is the Chief Electoral Officer, at the time of his initial

appointment, for example, there were questions raised as to whether he was

biased or unbiased.

There were people over on this side of the House who voted against him. I

believe the Member for Port de Grave voted against him. The Leader of the

Opposition at that time voted against him. I think the current Leader of the

Opposition voted against him. This member happened to vote for him, and said

publicly to the man who was sat in the gallery: Look, I do not know you; I have

no reason to judge you. How should I? I take you at your face value. People tell

me you are an honourable man of integrity, and I accept and respect that.

Guess what? I have not changed my opinion on that, as to his reputation. I do

believe that Mr. Reynolds is still a man of integrity. I am not questioning that

at all. The question is: Has he done his job and exercised his responsibility as

he is required to do under the Elections Act? That is the only issue here. That

is the only thing that is being put forward, and hopefully, once I have an

opportunity to explain this, it will be made clear why I think he has not done

his job and why I think the job needs to be done.

Now, we had certain revelations in the Byrne case. We did not reveal them,

nobody did. It was done as a result of consultations between the Crown

prosecutor in the case and his defence counsel in the case. They prepared a

statement of facts and they said this is what we agreed to. Nobody else came up

with it. That was signed and put before a judge who was dealing with the case.

There were certain amounts referred to. It did not all deal with whether they

were used for political purposes or in the campaign or against a certain party.

They dealt with a number of events and circumstances that Mr. Byrne allegedly or

not allegedly anymore, he agreed, that he had used the funds for and that was

stated in the agreed statement of facts.

Some of the circumstances related to money that was paid in respect to a

by-election that was held up in St. Barbe back in 2001. Some money referred to

money that was paid to workers in an election in 1999. Some was used from his

constituency fund, it says, to pay for money that was done by certain lawyers

for the party. That is not unusual that lawyers do work for political parties

and give opinions. We have had them done in the Liberal office. I am sure the

NDP has had them done, governments get them done, PC parties get them done.

Nothing is unusual about that, but that is the facts. It does not just relate to

the by-election and whether or not the Elections Act was contravened vis--vis

that by-election. It relates to other matters because whether it is a

by-election or whether it is any other activity, parties have obligations to

report.

Now some people have the assumption here that there is an allegation being

made that the party did not report. How could a party report if they did not

know anything about it? Nobody is suggesting here that any party knew anything

about it and failed to report it or did not comply, intentionally, deliberately.

That is not the issue here. The question here is when it came up it referred to

Mr. Reynolds and said: Don't you think this requires an investigation? Check

it out; see what it is all about. Now he summarily dismissed it. You can use

whatever word you want to say how Mr. Reynolds dealt with this issue but the

bottom line was it was dealt with suddenly. He dealt with it abruptly. He dealt

with it swiftly, rapidly. The bottom line was he exercised a judgment and a

conclusion very quickly and he said there is no need for an investigation.

The only thing that I could find reported in the media as to what allowed him

to come to that conclusion was he said he made a few phone calls. Now, we do not

know in the public who he made the phone calls to, we do not know the results of

those phone calls. That has never been elaborated upon. Nobody has ever been

informed as to what the results of that were. So, he has just said he did not

want to go study the issue. By the way, do not get hung up on the word

investigation. I do not care if you want to call it a study, a review, an

examination, whatever you want to call it, an analysis of it.

We are just looking for some governance and proper, informed commentary from

the Chief Electoral Officer about what he thinks about this issue. He just

summarily said: No, I am not going to deal with the issue. Now I think that is

inappropriate. He has an obligation under the act to get into the details and

find out what was going on. He might decide, for example, once he gets into them

that he wants certain things kept confidential. That is his prerogative, nobody

is denying that. Nobody thinks for a minute that his findings are going to

overturn the by-election in 2001. Nobody is foolish enough to think that. The

very gentleman in question who was involved in the by-election won it back then,

won it twice since. What it the point? The issue is: Were the rules complied

with? If they were not complied with, what can we do to strengthen the rules? It

is not a case of punishing anybody for not complying with the rules. But, he

concluded that there was no need for even he just did a cursor review of it.

That is the only information we have.

He also stated that he thought it was dealt with downtown because the court

case was dealt with. That is not true, not so, Mr. Speaker. The court case

downtown dealt with a criminal matter involving Mr. Byrne and the Province, and

the country. It had nothing to do with whether or not the Elections Act was

complied with or whether any provisions of the Elections Act were not complied

with. That was not the case. It is also the case - he thought for example, that

the money referenced was already dealt with and ordered to be paid back and so

on. That is not the case, according to the prosecutor in the case.

Mr. Reynolds also came to the conclusion that: well, it would not matter

anyway because it was only $3,000 being talked about, therefore they would not

have been over the legal limit. Therefore it was not an issue, it was

irrelevant. But, how do we know if he does not do an investigation, or a study,

or an analysis to find out what was the total amounts involved here? There is

more than $3,000 here. That was in St. Barbe. What about the other issues? What

about the other monies that it is agreed - it is now a fact, it is not

supposition anymore. It is a fact before the courts of this Province that monies

that came from the provincial till, vis--vis the constituency allowance, got

used for party purposes. That has not been examined by him. He has not commented

on those issues. We are talking in a range of about $30,000 mentioned in the

statement of facts. We are not talking about just $3,000 in the by-election. I

think that, in and of itself, shows that his commentary about why it was not

necessary is incomplete, it is faulty. He used faulty reasoning to come to that

conclusion, so how could his conclusion be acceptable?

Now, talk about what the CEO would historically do as the Chief Electoral

Officer. We have had some examples recently that the Chief Electoral Officer, no

matter who he was, no matter what the issue was, they went out and checked it

out. It could be the foolishest things in the world. For example, we all

remember the case of the Premier supposedly gave a donation to a charitable

group during a campaign. Somebody twisted it and said he was trying to buy

votes. Now somebody actually reported that to the Chief Electoral Officer and

the Chief Electoral Officer of the day, I do believe it was a Mr. Green,

rightfully said: foolishness, foolishness.

We also had a report, I do believe, from someone complaining, who said the PC

Party were using a Winnebago type vehicle and was the use of that vehicle a

contribution under the Elections Act, and if it was, should it have a value

attached to it? The Chief Electoral Officer of the day reviewed it, came back

with a written report and said: no, I looked at it; not a problem. That is fine.

Everybody lived with that. Everybody moved on, but at least the CEO took the

issue, reviewed the issue, investigated the issue, took the time to write up his

report, got all the facts and said, not a problem.

We also had the case of the trustees, and I am sure some people are going to

talk about: oh, partisanship, it is only because Mr. Reynolds was partisan.

Well, the last one we had the issue of somebody made a complaint to the CEO

about the Premier would not tell who his trustee was on his blind trust. That

went to the Chief Electoral Officer as a commissioner for members' interests.

He looked at it, he investigated, a Mr. Furey, I do believe. He came back and

said: foolishness, rubbish, not a case. The Premier does not have to say who it

is. Guess what happened? It was done, it was heard, it was investigated, the

ruling was made and life went on, folks. Life went on, but the job was done.

Nobody just said, well I am not even going to look at it. It does not warrant

it. I will make a few phone calls and that is the end of it. That is not how the

past records of CEOs have dealt with things, and that is not how it should be

dealt with here.

By the way, it is not only the Opposition, and this is coming forward through

the House of Assembly by way of a private members' motion. It is not only the

Opposition who have raised these questions. Anybody who has lived in this

Province in the last three weeks, it is not only the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile, who actually formulated it into a private members' motion and brought

it here, who has raised this question. The Leader of the NDP has raised the

question. The Leader of the Official Opposition has raised the question. Every

blogger who exists in Newfoundland and Labrador has raised the question. There

have been literally dozens of callers to the Open Line shows who have raised the

question. One of the individuals who runs the open line shows raised the

question; Mr. Simms. The editor of the local newspaper, the Telegram,

raised the issue. This is not coming from the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

This has been raised by dozens and dozens of people in the public domain.

I have a copy here of the

article from Mr. Wangersky, the editor of the Telegram .

He said, Poisoning the well, and he went through his reasons as to why he

thought the CEO had made a mistake and why the CEO should have investigated the

matter.

Guess what, folks? This is only the first step. This is only the first

indication. This was a case involving Mr. Byrne. What happens if, in the other

outstanding cases, it raises its head again? Nobody, who has ever been a member

of the House of Assembly, no party that has ever been involved in politics in

this Province, is immune from what has happened here. This only happens to be

Mr. Byrne's case. What if next month it becomes a case of one of the other

individuals who was a member of the Liberal Party, and the allegation comes up

again? Are we all going to close our eyes to it and say, nah, we didn't do it

when it was Mr. Byrne, but because it is Mr. Anderson or somebody we are going

to raise it now. If it happens to be Mr. Collins who was a member of the NDP, do

we say, okay, we are going to jump back now and do that one? These cases haven't

concluded. It is not a case about parties. It is an obligation that we have, as

members of the House. We voted the man in. We have an obligation to see that he

does his job.

It so happens, those are the facts we deal with today. Next month it may be a

member of the governing party who is up on a private member's motion saying,

this was revealed in a court case downtown last week involving Mr. Anderson or

another gentleman of the Liberal Party, and say, we want an investigation. I

think we would be foolhardy to look up and say, no, we shouldn't do that,

close your eyes to it. The public have had enough, when it came to the Auditor

General and when it came to Justice Green, with what is happening with MHAs.

I am putting this forward because we have to insist that the CEO properly

does his job, that he enforces the requirements of the Elections Act. That is

all this is being put forward for. We could very well, next month, be facing the

same situation again.

In conclusion, I am disappointed with the fact of what Mr. Reynolds didn't

do. I think he ought to have done it. I think he misstepped. I think it was a

misjudgment on his part. I think he should do a thorough complete investigation,

and once it is done he should report upon it.

People are misinterpreting this to be a witch hunt versus an investigation.

Call it what you want, but it is going to come back to haunt every member of the

House of Assembly if the man is kept from doing his job and doesn't do his

job. I submit he didn't do it properly, so we, as members of the House, have

an obligation to say that it is done. I don't think he is the right person to

do it now. I think he has given the perception of bias now in his actions; no

question. I do not think he would be the right person to do it. That is why I

suggest that it should be done by someone independent.

This is the purpose of this motion. As I said, you can start flinging mud if

you want, you can start saying it is all wrong, you can start getting personal,

we can delve into clauses if we want to, but at the end of the day, folks, it

comes back to one question here: Did Mr. Reynolds fail to do his job, and if so

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, ten seconds just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just to clue up here, Mr. Speaker, the submission is

that I think this cries out for investigation. I think Mr. Reynolds has

prejudiced himself now to the point where he should not do it, but we, as

members of the House, should insist that it be done by some third party.

I call it a third party, but I do not care, really, if the government

appoints who the third party is, personally. I really do not care, but I do

think it ought to be done.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution that we have before us today is a very serious one and it is

one that has implications for all of us. It is one that has elements of a very

painful history for members who are currently sitting in this House and who have

sat here in the past. We are talking about the integrity of former MHAs and

current MHAs, we are talking about the integrity of people who play a

part in

the political process, and we are talking about the integrity of our Chief

Electoral Office. All of these things are very serious issues. They are issues

that some of us would like to move on from and go forward in a very positive

way.

Politicians, as a whole, have not been kind to the general public in some

instances and have not been kind to themselves, especially in terms of

constituency allowance scandals and what took place in this House of Assembly

during the years that the Auditor General did not have access.

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution, and in the remarks that are being put forward

by the Opposition House Leader, there are tremendous assumptions that have no

basis in fact.

I stated publicly this week, as our government has stated publicly and as the

Premier has said, that we have great confidence in the ability of the Chief

Electoral Officer to do his job. Mr. Speaker, despite what the Opposition House

Leader has had to say, there is no evidence to support that he has not done a

serious and thorough investigation of this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: He has not taken enough time, as far as the Opposition

House Leader is concerned, but, you know, I am sure and I am confident that the

Chief Electoral Officer has given this due consideration, that he has sought

other opinions other than his own, and based on the information that he has, he

has made a judgement that there is no need for any further investigation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Chief Electoral Officer

has used his judgement when rules have not been followed. I can give you a

recent example, Mr. Speaker. After an election is held, we are given a deadline

as to when all of us must file our election expenses, and for the 2007 campaign

all four parties involved in that campaign were required to report by April 1 of

that year. There was only one party in compliance with that part of the Election

Act, and that was this party. The other three parties had not filed, and they

could have been subject to fines and censure by the Chief Electoral Officer

because they did not do what the act required them to do.

What did the Chief Electoral Officer do, Mr. Speaker? He granted extensions

after his office reviewed reasons and determined that they did not involve

wilful neglect or intent on the part of the chief financial officers of these

parties. He used his judgement, Mr. Speaker, and that was alright with the crowd

opposite when it worked for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: But they are calling into question now, and they are

trying to dress it up as something other than it is.

It is like the old saying goes, Mr. Speaker, you can put lipstick on a pig

but a pig is still a pig. In this case, this is not about the ethics or the

independence of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is about the misspending of

constituency funds by members of the House of Assembly. That is what this whole

bill is about, this whole resolution is about, Mr. Speaker, and it is as

partisan as it can get from the first

Whereas down to the last word in the

motion itself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader talks about the Chief Electoral

Officer not doing his job. Well, I am going to submit that if the people

opposite had done their job we would have never been in this position in the

first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we got into this mess because the Auditor

General was kicked out of this House of Assembly.

I am going to read to you from the Auditor General's Report in the year

2005-2006 when he talked about the IEC Committee. The members at that time were

Lloyd Snow, Beaton Tulk, Paul Dicks, Kevin Alyward, Gerald Smith, Loyola

Sullivan and Tom Rideout. He talks about the fact that there were two very

significant actions taken by the IEC which paved the way for the elimination of

controls. Those two very significant actions were: In 2002 the IEC directed that

the Auditor General's Office cease performing audit work. This decision was

made after, Mr. Speaker, the IEC was informed by the Auditor General that there

appeared to be questionable constituency allowance items being claimed by a

member who was also a Minister of the Crown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: A Minister of the Liberal Government.

In 2000, the Internal Economy Commission Act was amended, amended here in

this House of Assembly by a majority Liberal government, so that the officials

at the House of Assembly establishment were not required to send supporting

documentation to the Office of the Comptroller General. As a result, all

documentation was retained at the House of Assembly establishment and therefore

not subject to any meaningful review, scrutiny, or challenge by either the

Office of the Comptroller General or the Office of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General went on to say that these two actions effectively

eliminated any possibility that questionable payments would be detected by

officials outside the House of Assembly establishment.

What an indictment, Mr. Speaker! What an indictment of the people who sat in

this House of Assembly at that time and who has the face of a robber's horse,

as my former colleague used to say, to come in and bring this kind of motion

before us today.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is charged with the responsibility

to ensure that all monies associated with a campaign - any campaign, a

by-election or a full general election - are spent appropriately. Mr. Speaker,

the Chief Electoral Officer is not responsible for funds that are used in any

other circumstance for a party. He or she is not responsible for legal opinions

that have been acquired by the party or where those funds came from.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer, in our opinion, in his

investigation, has clearly established that the party was not aware of where Mr.

Byrne got the funds. The candidate was not aware of where Mr. Byrne got the

funds, and the campaign was not aware. The money did not supersede the amount of

funding that was allowed to be spent in the by-election, and there is no

evidence anywhere to support that the outcome of the election would have been

any different had those monies not been spent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the fact or challenging the fact that

those monies were used inappropriately. It was not the right thing to do. Those

monies were not spent properly, and there is a price being paid today, Mr.

Speaker. There is a price being paid by the person who made that decision, made

that very bad decision. He has rightly been taken to account for that in this

Province and he has paid a very heavy price for the mistakes that he made; but,

Mr. Speaker, we became aware of the inappropriate contribution to Mr. Clarke, or

the inappropriate fund from which the funds were used to give to Mr. Clarke, and

I just want to read the last statement in the agreed statement of facts in which

the Auditor General, John Noseworthy, stated that the excess spending would not

have been discovered but for the government's request in 2004 to do a review

of the House of Assembly's finances. It was only when the Auditor General

reconciled each cheque issued by the government to MHA claims that the excess

spending of constituency allowances was discovered.

Mr. Speaker, that is the bottom line here. This government came in, and they

did not agree with what was happening here in the House of Assembly. They had

promised transparency and accountability as they laid down the planks of their

platform in the 2003 campaign. When we got here, the Premier of the day - the

former Leader of the Opposition, who was not the Leader of the Opposition, I

might say, in 2001 when this by-election took place, the new leader who was

representing and leading his party in the 2003 campaign, stated quite clearly

that we will be transparent and accountable.

The crowd opposite make light of that, and have a great deal of fun poking

around with that sometimes. Sometimes words are important, but actions are even

more important, Mr. Speaker. Not only did our Premier talk the talk; he walked

the walk. As a result, there was a great deal of embarrassment for people in

this Province. There was a great deal of hurt, not only for the people here in

the House of Assembly, not only for the families of people who were engaged in

wrongdoing, but for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,

because their trust had been betrayed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have been let down, and that is a burden every one of us carries in this House.

I cannot do anything about what happened before, other than to make a promise

that my own behaviour will be ethical, that I will keep my promises to the

people who have elected me here and supported me here. That is all any of us can

do, is to be accountable, to be open and to be transparent on a go-forward

basis.

Mr. Speaker, for somebody to rise in this House and accuse the people who

undid their wrongful actions that allowed these kinds of events to take place is

almost too much to bear.

Mr. Speaker, you know, it was not ethical either for Mr. Byrne to do the

things he did in that campaign. If the crowd opposite, if my colleagues

opposite, want to engage in a debate on ethics on that campaign, where we had

the Liberal candidate who was not a member of government handing out cheques,

government cheques, all over the place, if we want to have a discussion of

ethics, that is something we are more than prepared to engage in, on this side

of the House, but to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Chief Electoral

Officer of this Province when there is not a bit of evidence to support it is

offensive and ludicrous, and it is why members on this side of the House will

not be voting for this resolution.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. We are dealing with

a very serious bill today, a very serious issue, and I have to say I thought

when we dealt with all of the issues and the fall-out of things that happened in

this House back in 2006 that there was nothing else that would really disturb

me. I guess I thought I had seen it all and heard it all. I knew that once the

court cases happened, where the people actually were in trial or whether a court

case took place in the way in which Mr. Byrne's did, that there definitely

would be information in the statement of claim that might surprise us, but I was

absolutely shocked when I saw the news that the statement of claim included

fraud with regard to elections, because elections are so important.

Elections are the place where the people in this Province finally get to tell

us, the people that they have voted for, whether or not they think we are doing

a good job. That is the place where democracy comes to a very important fine

point, the time when people can go into ballot box and vote. We know it is

extremely important because we have an Elections Act that governs elections,

governs every single aspect of elections, not only money. It governs every

single aspect of elections, and all kinds of attempts are made and everything is

done to make sure that the elections are carried on well.

We all know how important elections are on an international level. We have,

for example, in countries where sometimes they have not experienced elections,

or where their experience of elections has been very, very negative, and

elections are not carried on in a good way. They are not transparent, they are

not legally well, they are criminal sometimes; you get all kinds of fraud

going on. In countries where they recognize that and start to move forward with

elections, you get observers who come in from outside, international observers.

When South Africa, finally, apartheid ended and they were going to have their

free election for everybody who lived in that country, you had people in there

from all over the world, monitoring. When Mexico was dealing with the fact that

they had elections that were fraud-ridden, back in the 1990s in particular,

there were elections there where people came in from all over the world to

observe the elections. I was privileged enough, actually, to be part of that

team that went into Mexico, a part of the team from Canada. Teams went in from

all over the world. So it is worldwide, it is international, our desire to have

elections that are free and that are clean. I think they are the two words that

we would want to put to elections: free and clean.

So, when we get word that a former member of this House not only defrauded

people of their money, of the public money, but used that action to also insult

our elections system, it is very, very disturbing, and I think this House, and

the Chief Electoral Officer who does the work of this House in monitoring

elections and that is the fact: the Chief Electoral Officer does the work of

this House, takes on our responsibility to monitor elections, and is mandated to

make sure that the Elections Act is not broken, and that if there is a break of

the Elections Act that he or she will investigate that break, that breach of the

act. It is an extremely serious mandate that the Chief Electoral Officer has,

and the Chief Electoral Officer is accountable to this House, so if we, in this

House, accept

an act of that Chief Electoral Officer then we ourselves have done

the act as well.

Now, I want to take that point and I want to talk about it in terms of the

motion that we have in front of us today. Maybe some people are wondering why

the resolution is looking at just one party. Well, the thing is that what we are

dealing with, the action of Mr. Byrne, was an action as a member of the one

party that is named in the resolution.

In doing the study that I thought was necessary in preparation - not for

today, I did it before today - for the meeting of the executive of the New

Democratic Party last week, I read carefully the Elections Act. Something that

is very clear in the Elections Act - and I do not know if my colleagues have

done some of that research that I did. If they go to paragraph

section 327 of

the Elections Act there is an extremely important piece there that I am sure

that my friends on the government side of the House would be very concerned

about, and maybe they are not aware of it.

The main point of paragraph 327 of the Elections Act is that a party, any

party, has a vicarious responsibility for anything done or omitted by an

officer, official or agent of a political party or a trade union.

Now that is a fact; that is in the Elections Act. That means that all of us,

if one member commits a criminal act - and it also covers if an officer does not

do something that you are supposed to do - that if one of us does that, the

party that we are part of is responsible as well. For me, that was very

important when I read it. I said, holy cow! That is what I said when I read it.

I really ask the members on the other side of the House, the members of

government who make up the party that Mr. Byrne was part of, to look at their

responsibility under the Elections Act. Now, it is the party that has the

responsibility so it is not the caucus. That was why, last week, when we had a

discussion in the executive of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador, we decided that we wanted to put our concerns as a party to the Chief

Electoral Officer, and a letter was sent to the Chief Electoral Officer signed

by the president of the party, and the president sent that letter to the other

presidents of the parties in the Province and sent it also to the leaders of the

parties.

So it is the party responsibility, but the caucus in this House is the caucus

that comes from that party and it is the caucus that appointed Mr. Reynolds. I

would hope that the caucus members from the Progressive Conservative Party would

see that in this House they too have a responsibility for the actions of Mr.

Byrne.

I have to tell you, that if this were my party, if I find out, as leader of

the party that I represent that a member of my party and let's face it, we

all still have trials or court cases coming up. So we are all in this together.

I certainly hope I am not going to find it out, but if I found out that a member

of my party did the kind of thing Mr. Byrne did, in relationship to an election,

then I would be the first one out there begging the Chief Electoral Officer to

do a full review, because I would want to know how deeply that action went.

We do know, from the statement of claim, that Mr. Byrne's actions involved

more than just that by-election, that there were other elections implied as

well.

I cannot see why the members on the government side of the House are not

begging Mr. Reynolds to get a third party, because I agree with the mover of the

motion that is on the floor. Mr. Reynolds has become so compromised now that he,

himself, cannot do a review anyway, and there is nobody else in his office who

could do it.

So, it is obvious that if a review is done, and I really plead with you to

realize a review needs to be done, because the party that you are part of

and I am speaking to the government members now the party that you are part

of has a vicarious responsibility for what Mr. Ed Byrne did. You should also be

doing what I said I would do, and that is saying you have to have a review.

There has to be a third party, and we are going to make it happen.

The people of this Province have been through enough. I mean, we are going to

have no - as people who stand in this House, we are going to have no credibility

left. We will have no credibility left if we do not take action on this. If you

vote against this motion today, I say to my brothers and sisters on the

government side of the House, if you vote against this resolution today you are

telling the people in this Province that you do not care. It is their money. The

thing is, it is not the money, it is not the issue, because somebody can say it

was not very much money. No, it was not, that is not the point. It was a

criminal act, and Mr. Byrne implied his own party in his criminal act.

The thing that I want the Chief Electoral Officer to look at is: What is

wrong with our system that made this possible? Because we all know, we have all

been part of elections; we all know how they run. We have been doing them for

years, whether we did it as people who were elected ourselves or we did it as

people who worked in campaigns. We all know the role of the official agent. We

know what the official agent is responsible for. We all know the role of the

Chief Financial Officer of the party. We all know that both the campaign and the

party have the right to spend money in equal amounts. So if the campaign spent

$27,000 the party can spend $27,000.

We also know, and I am asking us to search ourselves around this, we know

this is true. That if a party, and we all can do it, brings in somebody from

outside. I had people brought in from outside for my own campaign, but when we

do it we all know, all people involved in the campaign and in the party on that

level, Chief Financial Officer, the official agent, we all know whether or not

the person is being paid in cash. We all know whether or not the person is being

paid in kind, because that has to be accounted for.

I cannot imagine, in the elections I have been involved in, and I have run

myself, as we all have, but I also have chaired election planning committees for

campaigns and the election planning committees meet regularly, we all know that,

unless the Progressive Conservative Party does it differently. We all know when

the time comes for the report, even though the official agent is responsible, we

all look at it, we all talk about it on an election planning committee, and one

of the questions that gets asked is: oh, that person got paid. If it is in kind,

are we sure we have the in-kind contribution noted there? If the person is

getting paid, well who is paying the person? Is it where the person is coming

from? Sometimes, for example, in our case we may get somebody from a union that

is an in-kind contribution. Is the party paying for the person? Is the campaign

paying for the person? That is all part of the election planning committee.

So I want to find out how you could have this thing happen in an election

where neither the official agent nor the Chief Financial Officer or anybody

seems to be taking responsibility for the fact that there was no reporting done

on the payment that was made to Mr. Clarke. Number two, that nobody tried to

figure out: well if he was paid, who paid him? I cannot believe that. We should

all want to find out how that could happen. This is so basic to our democratic

process that I am really shocked that we are going to be voting on this around

party lines here because this is such a moral and ethical issue. It is a moral

and ethical issue, and I am very serious about this.

I really invite the members of the government, if you do not have it in front

of you, take the Elections Act out, read

section 327 of the Elections Act and

ask yourself in all conscience if you really can vote against this motion today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the NDP that I have no problem voting

against this resolution because it smacks of pure partisanship. It smacks of

partisanship, and for her to stand in this House this afternoon and suggest that

the members of this party and this government do not care about the expenses

that were incurred in an election in 2001, or that we do not care about the

misappropriate and inappropriate use of government funds, Mr. Speaker, she need

look no further than the actions that we took in the spring of 2004, in the very

early days of us coming into government to allow the Auditor General, insist

that the Auditor General come back into this place and investigate the expenses

of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, uncovered the unsightly

mess that was here as a result of the actions of the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

in the days of 2000 when the IEC Commission, which, as my colleague as already

said, was comprised of Mr. Lloyd Snow, Mr. Beaton Tulk, Mr. Paul Dicks, Mr.

Kevin Aylward and Mr. Gerald Smith who made the decision because one of their

colleagues, maybe one of the ones who are on the list, I kind of believe that it

was actually, but in any event, because the Auditor General's office had come

in and had a look at the books in the place in 2000, realized that there was a

possibility of some inappropriate expenses and some inappropriate claims, as I

think the report said on artwork and wine. So we might not have to think very

long to figure out where the problem was.

The decision of the government at the time, Mr. Speaker, was to tell the

Auditor General: Here is the door, find your way out through it, and do not look

back. Then they turned around and amended the legislation to ensure that the

Comptroller General's office, who would have had some oversight and had some

ability to detect some of this inappropriate spending, they amended that so

there was no supporting documentation required to go to the Comptroller General's

office. As a result of that, we have a $4.5 million mess on our hands, Mr.

Speaker; five MHAs who are out the door, either charged or convicted right now,

and a serious stain on the political face of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what this hon. crowd opposite, and the hon. Liberal Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, did in 2000, Mr. Speaker, and tainted us.

Mr. Speaker, the three members who are sitting in the Liberal Opposition

right now were involved with that government at that time, in one way or

another, and they have the audacity, the face, Mr. Speaker, to come in here

yesterday and put this private member's resolution on the table, and to ask

for an investigation into the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador on our election expenses. It is almost too much to be able to swallow.

To know the kind of actions that they undertook in the election of 2001, in

January of 2001, and what happened back there, Mr. Speaker, is revolting.

I was in that by-election. My colleague ran in St. Barbe, and I ran in the

Straits & White Bay North. I can tell you, what Mr. Ed Byrne did with $3,000

of constituency allowance money, we all acknowledge, was inappropriate and was

illegal, and he has been taken to task for that. As my colleague said, and

everybody knows, he is paying a very heavy price for it. My understanding is

that he has been ordered by the court to repay it; but, as the Deputy Premier

has already pointed out, if he is not to repay it, the Progressive Conservative

Party of Newfoundland and Labrador accepts responsibility for it and will pay

it. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the issue here? Mr. Paul Reynolds, the Chief

Electoral Officer, the Opposition House Leader is calling into question the

integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Well, as my colleague said, they did not have any problem with Mr. Reynolds'

integrity back in the spring of 2008, April 2008, when they were supposed to

have their election expenses filed, and they were supposed to have their

declaration in to indicate to everybody and to the public and to the Chief

Electoral Officer where they got their money, how much they spent, and what they

spent it on. They had no problem with Mr. Reynolds' decision at that time,

upon reviewing the facts and granting them an extension so they could get their

files in order and get their report filed. They had no problem with his

independence back then, Mr. Speaker. They accepted his decision then.

Maybe he should not have made that decision. Maybe we could have called into

question his integrity and his independence at that time, because we had filed.

We were on time, we were in compliance with the act, but the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador was not in compliance with the act

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor the NDP.

MR. TAYLOR: - and the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

were not in compliance with the act. I do not know who the other party was

the Labrador Party, I guess were not in compliance with the act, but we were

in compliance with the act, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, don't go coming in here and standing up on a soapbox and

getting up on your high horse and being holier than thou. Like my father used to

say, they are more holy than righteous; that is what their problem is.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party talking

about how this needed to be investigated, and what have you. The investigation

has been done.

I listened to the Opposition House Leader talking about how the investigation

is not done. Mr. Reynolds may or may not, he suggests, have looked at the $3,000

contribution that came from his constituency allowance. The question there for

Mr. Paul Reynolds to answer is not where the money came from. That is a question

for the Auditor General and the court and the RNC, and they have delved into

that. That is who has responsibility for that, and they have exercised their

responsibility appropriately and the actions have been taken and a person is in

jail right now.

Mr. Reynolds has to look at, was it declared? If it was not declared, in this

case, would it have exceeded the amount of money that Mr. Young, or the Member

for St. Barbe right now, would have been allowed to spend on the campaign at

that time? Clearly, that $3,000 would not have exceeded the election expense

allowance on that campaign in that district at that time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the people who was involved with the campaign at the time

- I am just reading this from the VOCM Web site - apparently was on VOCM last

night. "One of the candidates in the 2001 St. Barbe by-election feels the

Chief Electoral Officer has made the right decision not to open an investigation

into an expense controversy. Both Opposition parties are calling for an

independent review." Blah, blah, blah. "However, the NDP candidate

back then, Steve Carey, told VOCM Backtalk with Ryan Cleary, an investigation

would not change anything. Carey, who finished a distant third, says one cannot

call into question the integrity of Wally Young, the man elected then, and MHA

ever since."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That statement, Mr. Speaker, is from a person who was a lot

closer to it than anybody else in this House at that time, other than the

sitting member. I think that speak volumes, because Mr. Carey has stepped above

the partisan politics that we see demonstrated by the four Opposition members

here in this House today. He stepped above that. He recognizes that what was

done was inappropriate, was illegal, but the price has been paid for that. The

person who did it has been called to task and has been sentenced as a result of

it.

The PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador have said that, if required, the

party will repay the funds. So, Mr. Speaker, you really have to ask, what is the

question here? What is it that the Opposition House Leader is trying to get at?

In this day and age - since we came to government, we have tried to ensure the

openness, accountability, transparency and what have you of all the expenditures

of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, in this introduction of this

resolution, questioned the Chief Electoral Officer. As I said, his words, I do

not know exactly what they were, it will be in Hansard tomorrow, but basically

what he said is that Mr. Reynolds exercised a very swift judgement, that he

acted quickly, that he acted decisively and did not want to study the situation.

Mr. Speaker, it was a $3,000 contribution that was inappropriately sourced.

It would not have materially changed the outcome of the election and, even if it

was declared, it was compliant with the amount of money that was allowed to be

spent on that election. So, what was Mr. Reynolds supposed to do?

I heard the Opposition House Leader again talking about how there are other

funds, somewhere in the order of $30,000, that were sourced from constituency

allowance by Mr. Byrne and used for party operations, supposedly. The only piece

that is within the purview of the Chief Electoral Officer, as far as I know, is

the $3,000 that was spent on the St. Barbe campaign in the by-election of 2001.

That is the only thing that he has authority to look at. He has no authority to

go and look at how some funds may or may not have been sourced from constituency

allowance and then utilized to conduct research for the PC Party of Newfoundland

and Labrador. That is where the RNC came in. That is where the courts came in.

That is where the Auditor General came in. That is who has responsibility for

that.

Mr. Speaker, none of this I say again, none of this - would have

happened, number one, if the members opposite, in their infinite wisdom in 2000,

had not kicked the Auditor General out of the House, and none of this would have

been done uncovered, identified and none of the prosecutions would have

taken place, none of the charges would have been laid, none of this would have

uncovered and laid bare before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, had it

not been for the election of 2003 when Premier Williams and this government were

installed in this place as the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Because, Mr. Speaker, if if, and I know this was a remote

possibility, very remote, but if we had lost the election back then, can you

imagine the kind of shemozzle that would have continued to happen here in this

House of Assembly? Can you imagine what would have happened over the course of

the past five-and-a-half years, given what happened in the three or four years

prior to that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, for them to get in here and question whether - the $3,000 and

the inappropriate spending, nobody on this side questions it, but to stand up.

As I said, I went through that election. Mr. Beaton Tulk was the Premier at the

time, and Mr. Beaton Tulk was also, if I remember correctly, the Minister of

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Now, if you want to talk about

inappropriate spending, let's just look at the Community Economic Development

Program. The INTRD slush fund, that is what it was unofficially known as,

internally. The political slush fund of the minister is essentially what it was,

somewhere in the order of $500,000 if my memory serves me correctly, no

application requirements, no criteria, basically, for how it was spent. In the

fiscal year 1999-2000 there was $4,400 spent in the Straits & White Bay

North out of that fund.

MS DUNDERDALE: How much?

MR. TAYLOR: There was $4,400. There was no election on the go, you see;

but in fiscal 2000-2001, $1.23 million; $1,232,452. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you

how that was spent. I can tell you how that was spent. That is where the

chequebook was sitting on the table in a room in St. Anthony Motel in the lead

up to the election and during the by-election of January, 2001. I know that for

a fact.

There were broomball teams that had $10,000 contributions made to them. There

was garage doors bought for fire halls. There was all kinds of stuff done. I

cannot remember all of it now but I tell you there was - but when you go down to

2001-2002, it drops back to $309,200. Now I suspect the vast majority of that,

in my recollection, was carryover from projects that they funded in 2000-2001

during the election. The election took place on January 30.

Look at this now, in 2002-2003 I was the member. I can guarantee you now

there was not very much money coming my way in 2001-2002 or 2002-2003 or

2003-2004, I can guarantee you that while they were the government. I am going

to guarantee you that the roadwork that is going to be put in Port de Grave

district this year by me, as minister, to the current Liberal member, that

Liberal district, is going to far exceed what I got in three years in total,

while I was sitting in the Opposition and they were sitting in the government.

So I can guarantee you, we do not stoop as a government to the levels that they

stooped to and the treatment that they inflicted on the people of The Straits

& White Bay North and St. Barbe district in the couple of years immediately

following their by-election loss in 2001.

In 2002-2003, $50,000; 2003-2004, $50,000. The same thing was borne out in

St. Barbe district. In 2000-2001, $633,486, an election was on the go;

2001-2002, $294,000, spill over from the projects that were funded in the

by-election; 2002-2003, $41,650; 2003-2004, $40, 543. So, if there is anything

that needs to be investigated was how the public purse was utilized to try and

buy votes in the by-elections and the general election - in the by-elections of

2001 and the general election of 2003. Mr. Speaker, if that was investigated and

how that money was spent in a variety of districts around the Province, I think

it would be a real eye opener for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, my time is just about up. I can go into a whole lot of stuff

where inappropriate spending has taken place on the public purse. I am not going

to get into it too much today because it takes away from the issue at hand. The

issue at hand is how election expenses were sought and how they were spent in

the by-election of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General looked into it. The Auditor General rendered

his judgment. It was turned over to the police. The police did their

investigation. They turned it over to the courts. The courts did their work. Mr.

Speaker, the charges were laid, the prosecution took place and the man is in

jail, and the money is being repaid one way or another. So I would like to ask

the Opposition House Leader, what is his point? Why is he calling into question

the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador? He

did not call it into question when he ruled in their favour back in 2008. I do

not call this ruling in anybody's favour. It is irrelevant. The $3,000 is

going to be repaid. The $3,000 was inappropriately sourced and a person is in

jail as a result of it, that is it. If they had done their job back in 2000 and

let the Auditor General uncover the dirt and the filth that was going on in this

place we would not be here talking about this today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments with

regard to the private member's motion that was put forward by my colleague

from Burgeo & LaPoile.

I can assure you, the comments that I had prepared for today, I am going to

go a little off track. I had no intentions to be even considering any partisan

comments, but I cannot help it because I have heard it a couple of times from

across the way. I do respect every individual in this hon. House. I think the

group on this side of the House are more than the crowd opposite, even if you

are only considering the four of us, there are nine other of your colleagues

over here as well.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about what we are dealing with here, we have better

names than being called the crowd opposite. I want to say that each and every

one of us, when we get involved in an election we have an Election Act to

follow. I do not care who was on the IEC back at that time. God love each and

every one of them, they are from both political stripes, I do not care.

I agree with how the Auditor General came in and did what had to be done here

in this House, but those issues, in my comments that I have to make, I do not

think have anything to do with what we are dealing with here today, not from my

perspective. I honestly believe

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleagues opposite and I

hope I get the same respect from them.

I want to take us to the Election Act. We have heard very little about the

Election Act. Each and every one of us, we appoint a Chief Financial Officer.

The candidate for every district and the Chief Financial Officer are responsible

for whatever goes on in that district. Regardless of where the money comes from,

it has to be recorded.

I know it has been said here that the candidate and I have the greatest

respect for the gentleman. As a matter of fact, I was on the Northern Peninsula

when that by-election took place. I do not say I made a very big difference in

the outcome, but I was there. Mr. Speaker, he is an honourable gentleman. I

stand here today and I do not think for a minute that he knew what was going on

here. I do not think the Chief Financial Officer that he had in place knew what

was going on and I do not think the party, the Progressive Conservative Party

knew what was going on, but there was one individual, and probably others, who

definitely knew what was going on. They knew what the Election Act states and

how it has to be recorded.

I heard a comment, I do not know who it was now, said that the CEO is not

responsible for where the money comes from. I have to say, I beg to differ. Each

and every one of us, we know what we can do in our districts, we know who we

have to report to and we know what money we can accept, and it has to go into

the Chief Electoral Office. I am sure if they saw something that was not in

place we would be notified before long. Regardless of how it happened, whether

this might never have happened, if the Auditor General was allowed into the

House is one thing, and I agree with that, but we have to go by the Election Act

regardless of where it came from and how we solicit contributions.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to go into the cheques that were made out, I was on

the Northern Peninsula. I know issues that happened up there. I am not going to

bring that up. I do not think it has anything to do with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I was not there for that reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Regardless of what I was there for, and I do not have to go

very far

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I do not have to go very far. I do not have to go very far,

Mr. Speaker. All I have to do is go back to the last election. All I have to do

is go back to the election of 2007. If I want to stand here and bring up what

was done, all I have to do is go to Port de Grave district in the election of

2007, but I will not do that; 2007, our last election. No, no, I will not go

there because I do not want to bring politics into this. This goes beyond

politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: And I say some of the hon. members opposite

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I must have struck a chord with some of them. They know what

I am referring to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the political end of

this because this is too important. I want to go to why this was brought forward

and just go into some of the comments our Chief Electoral Officer has mentioned

since this has surfaced. He went on to say there is no evidence that anyone

other than Mr. Byrne was involved. I would venture to say, being a candidate

myself, and we have forty-eight of us here, don't tell me none of us knows

what goes on within our districts to some degree, someone on a campaign team.

They have to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: To some degree we do. (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: That is right, to some degree.

I can assure you that if I was paid $3,000 I would want to know where it came

from, who gave it to me, and is it reported. Because, if you are a good

campaigner and involved in an election, you would know and want to know where it

comes from because it has to be reported.

Mr. Speaker, he also went on to say there is no evidence available to support

a contention that the outcome of the by-election was affected by the actions. He

said there was no evidence available. All the more reason that maybe a more

thorough investigation should have taken place. I can assure you, maybe some

evidence would become available. To say that someone of the calibre of the

individual who was called to that district to take

part in a by-election did not

make a difference.

I want to go to another by-election that I was involved in one time, and this

has nothing to do with exchanging hands of money, but just to say how an

individual can help to effect an outcome of not only a by-election but a general

election.

I go to Bonavista North. As popular as my hon. colleague is there, I have

known him for years, a very honourable gentleman in his by-election, I was down

there. Do you know the biggest comments that were made by all parties that were

there? It was the hon. member that was there helping him to organize the

campaign, to know what was being done. My hon. colleague from Conception Bay

South, that was the big issue. To say that someone comes into a by-election and

does not play a

part in an election, we all must have our heads in the sand.

Because, for the Chief Electoral Officer to say that anyone who went to any

district did not have an effect on it, I do not think is proper.

Mr. Speaker, the other comment that has been made, and maybe I am out to

school on this one

AN HON. MEMBER: Out to lunch.

MR. BUTLER: Out to lunch, whatever, school lunch.

He stated that the cost of the by-election was approximately $17,000. This

came from the Chief Electoral Officer. He said they could have spent twenty

some-odd thousand dollars. So, he said, even if the $3,000 was a part of it, it

did not affect anything.

Mr. Speaker, is that saying if we do not overspend we can do what we like

with any money that comes in? I beg to differ. The $3,000 has to be recorded. It

should have been recorded. People involved in that by-election knew that it

should have been recorded.

Back when it came to the floor when this gentleman was hired as Chief

Electoral Officer, I think my hon. colleague stated very clearly that I di